What codex supplements would people like to see GW introduce, and for which books?

Personally, I'd love to see the Imperial Guard expanded.
Not necessarily just for the current regiments. But I'd like to see supplement: Guevesa, supplement: Renegades & Heretics, and supplement: Brood Brothers.
I think it would be a great way to expand on the xenos/chaos armies and bring these things to the fore-front.

None, please GW hear us out and stop with f...ing codex supplements. Rules are everywhere, too many sources exist already. Go digital or put everything inside a codex.

TBH, I agree.
But the cat's out of the bag and I'm wondering what people want it to do now it's out.

if you believe the Supplement would cover either gue'vesa formations or R&H effectively that's fine.
I however remain sceptical...

Also yeah GW should finally realise that supplements and rules sources everywere are bad, the recent free pts doccument showcased that they know that, now we only need to get rid of supplements, or tie access to them to the core dex for FREE, since this "consolidation" that SM had now was in essence nothing more then a attempt at double monetising the SM playerbase by shoveling down 2 rules sources for money reasons down their throat.

Can't think of any more but I'd second the vote for Renegades and Heretics, they should be seen far more on the tabletop if we go by the fluff.

Ork dex.

Grot revolution.
Speedfreaks.
Freebootas.

CSM dex:

Atleast the cult legions should be supplemental.
So that the remaining space could be used within dex CSM to represent the special renegades and other legions better.

AM:
Beyond potentially carrying Gue' vesa and R&H, should also probably have a PDF supplement.

Craftworlders:
Saim han and black guardian spam come to mind as potential candidates?

GSC:
honestly i think a better custom creed generation would've been good enough

Tyranids:
As above, custom trait system that actually works..

Darkeldar:
There's an argument to be made to setlle corsairs down here, and to make a nutjob homunculi one.
Other than that, i'd assume a better custom traits table would help aswell.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
TBH, I agree.
But the cat's out of the bag and I'm wondering what people want it to do now it's out.

I want GW to treat it like a Squat & make it go away.
Or at least stop & not be expanded to any non-marine forces. I do not appreciate having to reference TWO books just to run my Space Wolves.

No supplement necessarily, but I want them to make a huge guard Codex with decent rules and option for all the unique guard regiments as well as new kits for them.

Though in the long run I have to agree with addnid on the fact that GW has to switch to digital rules at some point. The only thing I don't like about that is the fact that I always greatly enjoyed the lore and unit descriptions in the army codices, though it has to be said that GW dialed down the lore in the 9th ed codices significantly anyway, which is a shame imo...

ccs wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
TBH, I agree.
But the cat's out of the bag and I'm wondering what people want it to do now it's out.

stop & not be expanded to any non-marine forces.

Yeah, we know.

Corsairs b.c I love them and they are gone now.
Abhumans aka Beastmen Guard/chaos

 addnid wrote:
None, please GW hear us out and stop with f...ing codex supplements. Rules are everywhere, too many sources exist already. Go digital or put everything inside a codex.

This

Custodes! I mean, the thread asked for our personal preference, sooo...

If I'm just picking who could use one and make decent use of it probably Tau or Craftworld.

Orks: Grot Revolushunary Kommittee
Tau: Kroot Mercenaries, Gue'vesa (maybe this is an Astra Militarum Supplement instead?)
Chaos Space Marines: Alpha Legion, Word Bearers, Black Legion, Night Lords, Iron Warriors
Astra Militarum: Militarum Tempestus

 Huron black heart wrote:
Can't think of any more but I'd second the vote for Renegades and Heretics, they should be seen far more on the tabletop if we go by the fluff.

Renegades and Heretics should not be a supplement. That was the whole issue that existed with them to start with--they pulled from IG but lost chunks of rules.

Tau obviously with a Farsight Enclaves supplement.
Tyranids with a triple set of supplemental books detailing the 'stages' of an invasion. So a Vanguard book, Invasion book, 'Victory' book.
Orks with the different Ork Clans getting some love. Alternatively, it could be Meks, Kults of Speed, and Savage Orks.
Guard are a tough one, IMO, as the initial concept would likely be people suggesting "Do one for each of the Regiments!"...but that's not really how I think it should work. A book for Deathworld Regiments, a book for Bastion World Regiments, and a book for Feral World Regiments would be ideal.
AdMech could stand to get a Xenarites supplement, allowing for Stygies to get some extra loving beyond just the "-1 to be hit" bit.
Chaos Marines: Alpha Legion, Night Lords, Iron Warriors, Black Legion, and Renegades+Red Corsairs.
I didn't add World Eaters or Children of the Emperor as I feel those two are likely to get their own full codices.
Genestealer Cult don't need a supplement book. They just need to have the 'Brood Brothers' items that they should be allowed to take rolled into their book proper so you don't need to reference the IG codex.
Necrons could use a Destroyer Cult and Flayed One setup.

If they were a supplement you wouldn't have the problem with them losing rules, as they'd keep all the rules but gain new ones.

Thinking more, Imperial Guard supplements for stuff like Krieg and Elysian regiments would also be very cool.
Not that Elysians are much of a thing anymore...

You would not necessarily keep all the rules while gaining new ones...and it defeats the whole literal purpose of "Renegades and Heretics", which was a Chaos force built up using Planetary Defence Forces and 'scum' ...not Guardsmen.

I expect Ynnari to be a Supplement to all three Aeldari factions.

I expect Ynnari, if they follow the outlined concepts they initially talked about, to be their own book.

Ynnari

That's it. Not even WE or EC would really be deserving even if I wouldn't mind it, because they don't have a lot of structure outside normal CSM.

To me a supplement is that spot where they're too small for their own full book like DG, but too distinct to play like their source.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You would not necessarily keep all the rules while gaining new ones...and it defeats the whole literal purpose of "Renegades and Heretics", which was a Chaos force built up using Planetary Defence Forces and 'scum' ...not Guardsmen.

Except that is and was not true and you should know better.

Or was the "bloody handed reaver" not preciscly that, a traitor regiment enabler?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ynnari

That's it. Not even WE or EC would really be deserving even if I wouldn't mind it, because they don't have a lot of structure outside normal CSM.

To me a supplement is that spot where they're too small for their own full book like DG, but too distinct to play like their source.

^
By that same meassure neither TS nor DG deserved a dex aswell if we are here to debate honestly.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
What codex supplements would people like to see GW introduce, and for which books?

Codex: Witch Hunters, to fold the Inquisition into an active line before they take their last lap around the drain.

Codex: Talons of the Emperor. No point hold off on it until a more complete SoS release if there isn't one on the horizon.

There is loads of scope for this and would enjoy more background material which is the main reason for them IMO

For me the obvious one is Tau: Alien Auxiliaries - expand options for Kroot etc and introduce the ones from the lore.

book for Deathworld Regiments, a book for Bastion World Regiments, and a book for Feral World Regiments would be ideal.

I like this idea alot.

Imperial Knight: Household. Rules for all the cool stuff in the lore - especially the Andy Clark novels.

Adeptus Asartes: Renegades: Rules for the many renegade Chapters and groups using the base Codex as a starting point.

Dark Eldar - one for each element - Kabal, Kult and Coven.

I think you all THINK you want 400 pg codexes that cost $120 each because it hasn't happened.

I think if it had happened, you'd be complaining about carrying a 400 page book when you're using 50 pages, or paying for subfactions you never intend to play.

As for rules bloat; since the model of 40k is "buy rules for what you play," not "buy rules for every army that exists," I'm not sure how rules bloat is the problem it's made out to be.

Because the rules for what I play are huge.
Plus you need a basic level of understanding about what your opponent is going to be doing, as you will wander blissfully unaware into a strategem wombo-combo and lose.

Not sure i follow, Penitent, considering that there still seems to be rather lackluster overall vision for an edition or the dexes the more the higher the chances are that we get IH level nonsense.

Not Online!!! wrote:
By that same meassure neither TS nor DG deserved a dex aswell if we are here to debate honestly.

CSM won't have access to Morty, Blightlords, Deathshrouds, the 8 or so characters, drones, PBCs, or Pox. Likewise Exalted Sorcs, Tzaangors of all varieties, and mutalith. TS will also never use MoE, Exalted Champs, Lords, any marine that is not dust or not a sorcerer and so on.

Thousand Sons needs a bit of expansion to be a functional stand alone army like DG. They can do a lot of that through psychic abilities and de-blandifying exalted sorcerers.

Codex Snakebites, with feral Orks, plastic Squiggoths and gargantuan Squiggoths, Squig Squads, Boar riders and proper Grot troops. It's also an easy one for GW because all the models are already available (aside from the plastic Squiggoths).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
By that same meassure neither TS nor DG deserved a dex aswell if we are here to debate honestly.

CSM won't have access to Morty, Blightlords, Deathshrouds, the 8 or so characters, drones, PBCs, or Pox. Likewise Exalted Sorcs, Tzaangors of all varieties, and mutalith. TS will also never use MoE, Exalted Champs, Lords, any marine that is not dust or not a sorcerer and so on.

Thousand Sons needs a bit of expansion to be a functional stand alone army like DG. They can do a lot of that through psychic abilities and de-blandifying exalted sorcerers.

oh really now:

Morty: named charachter, so like WE with angron. so does not qualify
Deathshrouds: a bunch of terminators of nurgle. So would red butchers which do not qualify for some reasons.
PBC are a normal heresy bombard but nurgle, so does not qualify.
Poxwalkers--> cultists. So does not qualify.

So no, again there's no reason as to why WC and EC shouldn't be their own dex comapred to TS or DG.

Not Online!!! wrote:


oh really now:

Morty: named charachter, so like WE with angron. so does not qualify
Deathshrouds: a bunch of terminators of nurgle. So would red butchers which do not qualify for some reasons.
PBC are a normal heresy bombard but nurgle, so does not qualify.
Poxwalkers--> cultists. So does not qualify.

So no, again there's no reason as to why WC and EC shouldn't be their own dex comapred to TS or DG.

But EC and WE would not use Pox. They would use cultists, which is the point. PBCs may be heresy bombards, but that's not equipment those chapters decided fit their "thing".

Deathshrouds are bodyguards for characters that do not exist in any other chapter. It would make no sense to have them in CSM.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
By that same meassure neither TS nor DG deserved a dex aswell if we are here to debate honestly.

CSM won't have access to Morty, Blightlords, Deathshrouds, the 8 or so characters, drones, PBCs, or Pox. Likewise Exalted Sorcs, Tzaangors of all varieties, and mutalith. TS will also never use MoE, Exalted Champs, Lords, any marine that is not dust or not a sorcerer and so on.

Thousand Sons needs a bit of expansion to be a functional stand alone army like DG. They can do a lot of that through psychic abilities and de-blandifying exalted sorcerers.

oh really now:

Morty: named charachter, so like WE with angron. so does not qualify
Deathshrouds: a bunch of terminators of nurgle. So would red butchers which do not qualify for some reasons.
PBC are a normal heresy bombard but nurgle, so does not qualify.
Poxwalkers--> cultists. So does not qualify.

So no, again there's no reason as to why WC and EC shouldn't be their own dex comapred to TS or DG.

can you not argue in bad faith?

Morty has rules in 40k, angron doesnt.
Regular terminators don't have plague spitters/bubotic axes/flails and t5. Nor do they have the ability to act as bodyguards
Normal heresy era bombards don't have rules in 40k and arent demonically possessed.
Poxwalkers are very different than cultists....

And nobody said that WE/EC shouldnt have their own codexes....

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Because the rules for what I play are huge.
Plus you need a basic level of understanding about what your opponent is going to be doing, as you will wander blissfully unaware into a strategem wombo-combo and lose.

We have gone quite far down this rabbit hole already with the massive indulgance of all the Marine supplements plus now Chaos Marines all have to have their own Codexes as well.

Having a few supplements that actually look at the background and even a few units of the far far more diverse Guard Regiments etc seems logical.

Daedalus81 wrote:Ynnari

That's it. Not even WE or EC would really be deserving even if I wouldn't mind it, because they don't have a lot of structure outside normal CSM.

To me a supplement is that spot where they're too small for their own full book like DG, but too distinct to play like their source.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
By that same meassure neither TS nor DG deserved a dex aswell if we are here to debate honestly.

CSM won't have access to Morty, Blightlords, Deathshrouds, the 8 or so characters, drones, PBCs, or Pox. Likewise Exalted Sorcs, Tzaangors of all varieties, and mutalith. TS will also never use MoE, Exalted Champs, Lords, any marine that is not dust or not a sorcerer and so on.

Thousand Sons needs a bit of expansion to be a functional stand alone army like DG. They can do a lot of that through psychic abilities and de-blandifying exalted sorcerers.

oh really now:

Morty: named charachter, so like WE with angron. so does not qualify
Deathshrouds: a bunch of terminators of nurgle. So would red butchers which do not qualify for some reasons.
PBC are a normal heresy bombard but nurgle, so does not qualify.
Poxwalkers--> cultists. So does not qualify.

So no, again there's no reason as to why WC and EC shouldn't be their own dex comapred to TS or DG.

can you not argue in bad faith?

Morty has rules in 40k, angron doesnt.
Regular terminators don't have plague spitters/bubotic axes/flails and t5. Nor do they have the ability to act as bodyguards
Normal heresy era bombards don't have rules in 40k and arent demonically possessed.
Poxwalkers are very different than cultists....

And nobody said that WE/EC shouldnt have their own codexes....

Stop taking me out of context, there's far more precedent for WE or EC beeing just as worthy if not more then DG TS, which he stated they were not, so by that logic no they are not worthy to be a separate dex.

And yes he did. See marked text. Not only that but especially the WE statement is nonsense considering Khorne daemonkin.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Because the rules for what I play are huge.
Plus you need a basic level of understanding about what your opponent is going to be doing, as you will wander blissfully unaware into a strategem wombo-combo and lose.

Cite a source then.

What army are you playing that you're needing huge amounts of stuff?
And why do you "need" to know what your opponent will be doing to the point that you have to own their books too?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

And nobody said that WE/EC shouldnt have their own codexes....

Well, I kinda did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Not only that but especially the WE statement is nonsense considering Khorne daemonkin.

Daemonkin was a rando book that is mostly fulfilled by just taking a daemon detachment. Whether or not GW forces us mono and we lose summoning is unknown.

 addnid wrote:
None, please GW hear us out and stop with f...ing codex supplements. Rules are everywhere, too many sources exist already. Go digital or put everything inside a codex.

This.

I could excuse an Inquisition supplement to Grey Knights/Deathwatch/Sisters if they can't 'justify' a full codex for them.

One of the difficulties I have with the concept of supplements for other factions is that the other factions as they are can't quite make the switch.

So if you look at Aeldari- sure it's easy to see Ynarri and Harlequins as supplements; it's easy to envision adding Corsairs and Exodites as supplements.

But what do you do with CWE and DE?

Armies need to grow their range to the point where there are enough subfaction units to justify a dex + supplement system. I could see it working with Tau... There's enough Kroot units for a Kroot supplement, but there aren't enough Vespids yet.

Not Online!!! wrote:
...there's far more precedent for WE or EC beeing just as worthy if not more then DG TS, which he stated they were not, so by that logic no they are not worthy to be a separate dex.

Sorry - last I checked, WE and EC were effectively shattered Legions, broken down into much smaller warbands than DG, TS or a number of the "unaligned" Legions operate in. Why would WE or EC be more worthy than DG or TS, in that case?

Do't get me wrong, I'd certainly be interested in seeing what GW did with a WE or EC book, but I'm not following how you might think them more worthy than the two that have had books (even if TS could do with a proper second wave to expand it.)

PenitentJake wrote:
One of the difficulties I have with the concept of supplements for other factions is that the other factions as they are can't quite make the switch.

So if you look at Aeldari- sure it's easy to see Ynarri and Harlequins as supplements; it's easy to envision adding Corsairs and Exodites as supplements.

But what do you do with CWE and DE?

Armies need to grow their range to the point where there are enough subfaction units to justify a dex + supplement system. I could see it working with Tau... There's enough Kroot units for a Kroot supplement, but there aren't enough Vespids yet.

They did it with Marines - they made up new background and models to justify them having codexes / supplements. Most armies have sub factions that are far more different than the Marines were/are.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Stop taking me out of context, there's far more precedent for WE or EC beeing just as worthy if not more then DG TS, which he stated they were not, so by that logic no they are not worthy to be a separate dex.

And yes he did. See marked text. Not only that but especially the WE statement is nonsense considering Khorne daemonkin.

No, were talking about supplements, not codexes.

If DG/TS have full-on codexes with enough changes to the main CSM lists, EC/WE deserve a full codex too, not a supplement which is the topic of this thread.

Ynnari as they are could (and actually are) a supplement instead of a full-on codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

And nobody said that WE/EC shouldnt have their own codexes....

Well, I kinda did.

To me your original comments reads "EC/WE dont deserve a supplement" and you don't mention codexes. If your intent was to say they don't deserve any sort of rules material that differentiates them from regular CSM, then i'd have to agree with NotOnline!.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

To me your original comments reads "EC/WE dont deserve a supplement" and you don't mention codexes. If your intent was to say they don't deserve any sort of rules material that differentiates them from regular CSM, then i'd have to agree with NotOnline!.

Oh they definitely are deserving of rules - I would put them similar in design to Necrons and their dynasties.

PenitentJake wrote:

So if you look at Aeldari- sure it's easy to see Ynarri and Harlequins as supplements; it's easy to envision adding Corsairs and Exodites as supplements.

But what do you do with CWE and DE?

As a Drukhari player, all I want is a properly fleshed out and well designed codex. That is all.

I categorically don't want supplements for Kabal/Cult/Coven, most of our problems have come from the artificial segregation of an already small range of models and options.

I would like a Codex to start. The fact we have to wait months if not almost a year or two just to play the updated rules for a faction is fething terrible. We can have supplements and optional rules once all codexs are out. Then again, by the time that happens, Marines will have two different updated versions of a supplement before another faction gets a book at all.

Honestly I'd like to see the current subfactions (and especially favouritism given form supplements) go away.

I'd prefer a build your own faction system with suggestions for famous subfactions in the background.

Chaos Marines especially with their mostly warband sized groupings make more sense to be individualistic than one size fits all rules.

 addnid wrote:
None, please GW hear us out and stop with f...ing codex supplements. Rules are everywhere, too many sources exist already. Go digital or put everything inside a codex.

This +1 million

 Arbitrator wrote:
[ I could excuse an Inquisition supplement to Grey Knights/Deathwatch/Sisters if they can't 'justify' a full codex for them.

I've wanted an =][=nquisitor codex since 3rd edition. Just a book for decent options (and kits) for an Inquisitor and Retinue that would count as an HQ choice for any Imperial army. No weirdly forced vehicle kits or sloppily written choices just to fill up a force org chart. Just give me an Inquisitor and henchmen that can be tacked on where needed. That's all I really want.

That would give me an excuse to play again. Is that really asking too much?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:
As a Drukhari player, all I want is a properly fleshed out and well designed codex. That is all.I categorically don't want supplements for Kabal/Cult/Coven, most of our problems have come from the artificial segregation of an already small range of models and options.

Exalted +1 +infinity!

PenitentJake wrote:
One of the difficulties I have with the concept of supplements for other factions is that the other factions as they are can't quite make the switch.

So if you look at Aeldari- sure it's easy to see Ynarri and Harlequins as supplements; it's easy to envision adding Corsairs and Exodites as supplements.

But what do you do with CWE and DE?

Armies need to grow their range to the point where there are enough subfaction units to justify a dex + supplement system. I could see it working with Tau... There's enough Kroot units for a Kroot supplement, but there aren't enough Vespids yet.

I don't see harlequins as a supplement, as they don't share any units with anything from craftworlds or Drukhari. A harlequins supplement is already a stand alone codex as it is.

Can definitely see ynnari as a supplement though, as they borrow extensively from the three other Aeldari factions.

 jaredb wrote:
...I don't see harlequins as a supplement, as they don't share any units with anything from craftworlds or Drukhari...

Venoms. Lots of the equipment. The vast majority of the uniqueness of the HQs is in stratagems/faction abilities/relics, the datasheets are pretty standard across Eldar factions. There's also GW's usual thing where they use the uniqueness of the special army to constrain the general army; we're never going to get Craftworld Venoms no matter how much sense they make because a Venom with shuriken weapons is a Harlequin thing now.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
...I don't see harlequins as a supplement, as they don't share any units with anything from craftworlds or Drukhari...

Venoms. Lots of the equipment. The vast majority of the uniqueness of the HQs is in stratagems/faction abilities/relics, the datasheets are pretty standard across Eldar factions. There's also GW's usual thing where they use the uniqueness of the special army to constrain the general army; we're never going to get Craftworld Venoms no matter how much sense they make because a Venom with shuriken weapons is a Harlequin thing now.

Harlequins don't have venoms, and have almost all unique equipment from the other factions. Only sharing shuriken cannons, power sword, and pistols. Everything else is unique.

Also, a supplement would have unique warlord traits, powers, and relics. So, a harlequins supplement would be all unique, but refrence codex craftworlds for the rules for three weapons.

Its not like space wolves, where they share 99% of their datasheets and wargear with space marines.

 jaredb wrote:
...Harlequins don't have venoms...

Fine. "Starweavers". Looks like a Venom, quacks like a Venom, has the statline/game role/functions of a Venom...

...Its not like space wolves, where they share 99% of their datasheets and wargear with space marines.

Space Wolves are also an example where the special Codex has leeched options from the primary Codex. SM Tacticals can't have two special weapons or chainswords anymore, they lost them because that'd have made Space Wolves less unique.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
...Harlequins don't have venoms...

Fine. "Starweavers". Looks like a Venom, quacks like a Venom, has the statline/game role/functions of a Venom...

Different Stats, diffrent weapons, Different rules. Sure, they look similar. Vipers have a similar look too, but they are not venoms either.

Similarities are on face value, but harlequins are unique compared to the other two main Aeldari factions, and stand alone. They won't be a supplement, nor deserve to be.

Depends what you consider a supplement to cover.

The marine supplements are basically 'the same army but slightly different'.

A coven or cabal supplement is effectively a different army altogether, rather than 'the same' with uniqueness.

More likely it would by supplements around specific alliances (generally around an archon and their cabal), that has unique units and skills.

The closest for craftworlds is:

Iyanden
Alaitoc
Ulthwe
Saim Hann
Biel Tann

Where they'd probably have one or two unique units for that craftworld (unique wraith constrcuts, pathfinders, veteran black guardians, cheiftans and their jetbike bodyguards, exarch council squads etc)

plus the special characters for each (eldrad, illic, Arienal, that 3rd jetbike chief, a badass exarch from biel tann etc).

That's as much a unique supplement as the imperial fists or salamanders are.

Each with their own unique psychic list specific to the peculiarities of that craftworld (ie biel tann with plenty of war augmentation, ulthwe with prognosticating etc).

And of course their unique doctrine list.


Hardly a stretch for those to be supplements, iyanden and ulthwe have already had their own in the past (ulthwe strike forces from the eye of terror codex and the iyanden supplement form 6th was it?).

 jaredb wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
...Harlequins don't have venoms...

Fine. "Starweavers". Looks like a Venom, quacks like a Venom, has the statline/game role/functions of a Venom...

Different Stats, diffrent weapons, Different rules. Sure, they look similar. Vipers have a similar look too, but they are not venoms either.

Similarities are on face value, but harlequins are unique compared to the other two main Aeldari factions, and stand alone. They won't be a supplement, nor deserve to be.

I don't think they will be; GW has a long pattern of taking groups of minis way too small to be factions and trying to make them function as complete factions. Whether they deserve to be is a philosophical question beyond my pay grade. What I am trying to say is that making Harlequins function well as a supplement would be completely possible for a competent designer if they chose to extend the Craftworld arsenal minutely.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 jaredb wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
...Harlequins don't have venoms...

Fine. "Starweavers". Looks like a Venom, quacks like a Venom, has the statline/game role/functions of a Venom...

Different Stats, diffrent weapons, Different rules. Sure, they look similar. Vipers have a similar look too, but they are not venoms either.

Similarities are on face value, but harlequins are unique compared to the other two main Aeldari factions, and stand alone. They won't be a supplement, nor deserve to be.

I don't think they will be; GW has a long pattern of taking groups of minis way too small to be factions and trying to make them function as complete factions. Whether they deserve to be is a philosophical question beyond my pay grade. What I am trying to say is that making Harlequins function well as a supplement would be completely possible for a competent designer if they chose to extend the Craftworld arsenal minutely.

Technically the custodes are more similar to marines than Harlequins are to other Eldar armies, they actually have 2 data sheets in common with marines (land raiders and the comtemptor dreadnought) so they would sit in the marine codex and get the custodes rules applied.

Harlequins share no data sheets

The only Codex Supplement we need is Black Templars. The rest of the armies need a Codex before we can even think about a supplement to the codex.

 Gnarlly wrote:

 addnid wrote:
None, please GW hear us out and stop with f...ing codex supplements. Rules are everywhere, too many sources exist already. Go digital or put everything inside a codex.

This +1 million

Yes, no more fething supplements please. No one needs that gak, and even marines wouldn't need it if their codex wasn't bloated so much that a GUO looks like an athlete in comparison.

Give R&H, EC and WE codices not supplements. Either do those armies properly like DG or TS were done, or not at all.
No one needs supplements with a single character and a pair of renamed datasheets.

Salamanders with the depth of the likes of Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Dark Angels and a dozen new models to boot.

I wouldn't be adverse to a Siam Hann supplement either.

Maybe a Tau Geu'vesa or Kroot supplement.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Because the rules for what I play are huge.
Plus you need a basic level of understanding about what your opponent is going to be doing, as you will wander blissfully unaware into a strategem wombo-combo and lose.

Cite a source then.

What army are you playing that you're needing huge amounts of stuff?
And why do you "need" to know what your opponent will be doing to the point that you have to own their books too?

I honestly didn't think this would be so in question.
I play Blood Angels.
I need to know the stratagems from three different books (core, codex, supplement).
The stratagems in particular are a lot to know and you sort of do need to learn them all otherwise you won't know to use them when the situation arises.
I need to know the units from two different books (codex, supplement). Each of those units has rules that draws from about 4 different places across those two books.
I need to know relics and SIW from those two books.
I need to know warlord traits from those two books.
Plus secondary objectives from all three books.

Granted, I may not need to know all of them at all times. For example relics and warlord traits I can just know what my chosen ones do during the game, but I still need to be aware of them for when I'm building a list.

If I don't know what my enemy's stratagems or unit abilities (including traits/relics) are, I can easily get screwed by not seeing a particular ability or combo coming and getting caught out by it. I have lost several games to exactly this sort of thing (or at least suffered terribly in games I then went on to lose).
Although I never did say you needed to own your opponent's book. I just said you need a basic understanding of what they have.

I love unique subfaction rules, but I hate supplements and hope they go away.

I don't want to pay for an extra book that makes a given playstyle suboptimal unless you use said book. You know how UM and Salamander bikers suddenly look really bad at their jobs compared to WS and Raven WIng bikers? I don't want that for my eldar. I like being able to occassionally field a wraith-themed army out of my main codex (and Psychic Awakening I guess). I don't want to have to pay for the Iyanden supplement that makes Iyanden wraiths twice as good as Ulthwe wraith units. I don't want to feel like my guardian units only have half their rules until I buy the Ulthwe book. And I certainly don't want to see the release schedule bogged down with craftworld stuff for half a year while the orks, tau, etc. get nothing.

All that said, I really feel like our codices could be packing a lot more content than they currently are. The main rulebooks for D&D and Pathfinder cost about as much as a codex. Looking at the chapters of those books that cover spells, there are dozens of spells in each of those books, and each spell has about as much rules text as a chapter tactic (if not more). Imagine paying $60 and getting something like 50 chapter tactics for your money.

D&D and Pathfinder books have about 10 base classes, and each of those classes takes up about 4 pages of the book. Imagine getting 40 pages of datasheetes to go with those chapter tactics. And then there are chapters for magic items, basic rules, combat, etc. Imagine those pages going towards the special units and gimmicks that GW would normally put in a subfaction. This could be used to hold your ynnari rules or your Death Guard variant rules or your guavessa/brood brother/renegades & heretics.

And in the Pathfinder book (if not also the D&D book), there's still room for a pretty solid chapter that covers fluff for the default setting.

TLDR; I don't want to pay extra money to create problems for my armies and spread the rules content even more thinly. I want to pay less money to have more content in one place.

I want an EC codex badly enough to consider giving GW money for it - and that's not a low bar to hurdle considering how I've increasingly come to feel about 9th - but I'd happily forgo the pleasure if the entire supplement system were dismantled entirely. The game would just be better for it.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
What codex supplements would people like to see GW introduce, and for which books?

Personally, I'd love to see the Imperial Guard expanded.
Not necessarily just for the current regiments. But I'd like to see supplement: Guevesa, supplement: Renegades & Heretics, and supplement: Brood Brothers.
I think it would be a great way to expand on the xenos/chaos armies and bring these things to the fore-front.

None. No more supplements, and I'd like to see the SM ones go away. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I'd like to see chapter tactics and regimental doctrines go away.

This is getting out of hand. First off, not everything needs special rules. If you want a chapter that uses tanks, or bikes, or whatever, include tanks or bikes in your list. Use your imagination and creativity for your narrative; this whole thing where competitive play should be narrative is like terrible for everything.
Second off, units don't need cost free bonus rules packages to flip around. That's what broke 7th. You pay 5 points for a guardsman, it's the same guardsman with the same rules support that anyone else has in their list.
Finally, is it not enough that I bought 5 $45 codecies? I feel like I spend more on rules than I do on minis, which isn't true but feels entirely reasonable to assert given both how much I spend on books and the fact that the armies I really want to be buying models for right now haven't seen a new unit since 2014.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

This is getting out of hand. First off, not everything needs special rules. If you want a chapter that uses tanks, or bikes, or whatever, include tanks or bikes in your list. Use your imagination and creativity for your narrative; this whole thing where competitive play should be narrative is like terrible for everything.
Second off, units don't need cost free bonus rules packages to flip around. That's what broke 7th. You pay 5 points for a guardsman, it's the same guardsman with the same rules support that anyone else has in their list.

I agree, I dislike that we need special unique rules to make Green Space Marines different to blue ones.
But I made this thread under the reluctant acceptance that this is 40k now.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


None. No more supplements, and I'd like to see the SM ones go away. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I'd like to see chapter tactics and regimental doctrines go away.

This is getting out of hand. First off, not everything needs special rules. If you want a chapter that uses tanks, or bikes, or whatever, include tanks or bikes in your list. Use your imagination and creativity for your narrative; this whole thing where competitive play should be narrative is like terrible for everything.
Second off, units don't need cost free bonus rules packages to flip around. That's what broke 7th. You pay 5 points for a guardsman, it's the same guardsman with the same rules support that anyone else has in their list.
Finally, is it not enough that I bought 5 $45 codecies? I feel like I spend more on rules than I do on minis, which isn't true but feels entirely reasonable to assert given both how much I spend on books and the fact that the armies I really want to be buying models for right now haven't seen a new unit since 2014.

The problem is that this is not how it works in w40k. First of all there are decades of different rules and unique units. Telling them that they just should play different coloured ultramarines is not going to find much acceptance. Second thing is how GW write their rules. If marines are always the first book to come out, and would come out stock naked, with few or no special rules, then all the xeno books coming out after them with their special rules would be just rolling over them. Heck even now harlis do that, becuause +4inv ,melta on every dude in a unit and basic model being often a vehicle works really well, in an edition where 5" tall means you are invisible behind stuff.

And third is GW rules writing. If there was one marine codex for all marines, then there would be one way to play it, the way GW writes their rules, specialy if there were no special rules for different units. And then people would be rolling dice to check, if this edition they are allowed to have fun. GW wrote bikes and mounted characters to be good, you can rejoice, but if you like termintors or tanks this 3 years you will not have much enjoyment playing your army. And this gets even worse, if you actualy like specific unit from a specific chapter. Good bikes aren't going to give you much, if what you want to play is termintors and dreadnoughts.

Karol wrote:
The problem is that this is not how it works in w40k. First of all there are decades of different rules and unique units. Telling them that they just should play different coloured ultramarines is not going to find much acceptance. Second thing is how GW write their rules. If marines are always the first book to come out, and would come out stock naked, with few or no special rules, then all the xeno books coming out after them with their special rules would be just rolling over them. Heck even now harlis do that, becuause +4inv ,melta on every dude in a unit and basic model being often a vehicle works really well, in an edition where 5" tall means you are invisible behind stuff.

I disagree. I played Blood Angels back in 5th edition where the biggest differences was that they had some unique units, and all their vehicles had fast.
As far as infantry was concerned, we had a 1/6th chance to gain Furious Charge at the start of the game on each unit (which imo was just a waste of time rolling).
And before that I played Ultramarines, which had no special rules what-so-ever to distinguish them from White Scars or Salamanders or anyone else other than their named characters.

And yet I didn't feel hard done by. If anything, I felt like I was more free and in control because what my Ultramarines were or did wasn't being pigeon-holed by GW's assignment of an arbitrary buff and the consequent winner/loser units.

Karol wrote:
And third is GW rules writing. If there was one marine codex for all marines, then there would be one way to play it, the way GW writes their rules, specialy if there were no special rules for different units. And then people would be rolling dice to check, if this edition they are allowed to have fun. GW wrote bikes and mounted characters to be good, you can rejoice, but if you like termintors or tanks this 3 years you will not have much enjoyment playing your army. And this gets even worse, if you actualy like specific unit from a specific chapter. Good bikes aren't going to give you much, if what you want to play is termintors and dreadnoughts.

I don't like the idea that "GW can't do it properly so there's no point doing it".
The only reason GW doesn't do it properly is because they don't need to. This attitude and others like it allow GW to pass off just about anything and it's accepted by the playerbase. Other games like Star Wars Legion are far better balanced because, unlike GW, they have to be to attract and retain players. I've never heard anyone say "come play 40k, the balance is so great!".

If internal balance of the codex was better I could choose what I want and make the army my own.
If I wanted to play a Salamanders army I could just run more Land Raider Redeemers or whatever. If I wanted to run White Scars I could just run more bikes. If I wanted to run the Salamanders 1st Company I could do so without being constantly reminded I've hobbled myself for not playing Dark Angels rules or whatever.
*I'm talking about internal balance amongst Space Marines here, but the same arguments apply to any factions just the same.

In short, I want players to be able to make their own uniqueness rather than have it dictated by GW.

What I would like from supplements is to add special units but do away completely with these sorts of small snow flake rules, and focus on introducing new stuff which doesn't fit into the main codex, but isn't enough to justify a new codex.
For example with my initial Gue'vesa supplement to Astra Militarum. It could introduce loads of fluff about the Gue'Vesa. It could perhaps add infantry squads with some Tau gear, to represent Gue'Vesa regiments more closely integrated into the Tau military, leaving players to use the standard AM units to represent Gue'Vesa regiments who aren't so closely integrated.

Only ex GW employes already said that the books and rules are not writen with balance in mind. So asking for a balance book, is like asking for an army to be nerfed, because you can bet that within a codex or two, some GW designer is going to write and unbalanced one.

I don't like the idea of xeno armies getting imperial rules set of imperial costed chaff. It would make them too good. If tau got fixed suits, and could buy IG troopers with tau guns, for 5-6pts it would be crazy. And while I would enjoy looking IG players go full banans over it, I don't want to play tau which are good. Good tau and eldar armies, mean bad times for elite marine lists. The game is already hard enough for me, I don't need it to go back to how it was in 8th ed.

Again, GW don't make balanced rules because they don't need to.
GW is not fundamentally incapable of writing balanced rules and playtesting to confirm, they just choose not to because they don't need to and doing so takes effort/money they can therefore skimp on.
Plus they're very good at cultivating discontent. "my army rules are so bad, we *need* a codex to rebalance it" is perfect as people are begging GW to sell them something new with more fancy stuff, instead of wanting OP stuff toned down.

I personally don't like the idea of having supplements bloating the game but if they wanted to keep it then I would say there should be a supplement for major subfashions. For example the non-marked traitor legions, one for renegades, Ork klans, craftworlds and so on. The subgroups where there is a marked difference in how those armies should play.

 Hellebore wrote:
Depends what you consider a supplement to cover.
The marine supplements are basically 'the same army but slightly different'.

A coven or cabal supplement is effectively a different army altogether, rather than 'the same' with uniqueness.
More likely it would by supplements around specific alliances (generally around an archon and their cabal), that has unique units and skills.
...
Hardly a stretch for those to be supplements, iyanden and ulthwe have already had their own in the past (ulthwe strike forces from the eye of terror codex and the iyanden supplement form 6th was it?).

I trimmed your post down a bit to reply, but something I've given thought to with regards to Craftworlds is not 1:1 supplements for the named Craftworlds(aside from Ulthwe and Alaitoc, I could not think of many unique units off the top of my head for the others) but rather archetypal setups:

-A book for those closely associated with the Aspect Warriors; basically a Biel-Tan book and rules for a Make Your Own Craftworld that follows a similar setup.
-A book closely associated with the Seers. This would be where we could see Ulthwe and Iyanden style hosts.
-A book closely associated with 'The Outcasts'. Alaitoc style.

The third one could 100% be pared down and rolled into the Aspect Warriors book.

It's a similar approach to what I'd do for Guard, Orks, AdMech, and Drukhari.

Speaking of the last one, I've always felt like it was a misstep that they did not do a Wych Cult and Kabal book when they dropped the Haemonculi Covens book.

Controversial opinion:
With the way GW currently works, I would like Chaos Space Marines to be a supplement for Space Marines.

At least then their wouldn't be a huge power gulf for no reason between the armies. Would represent legions worse than renegades but eh, sacrifices.

I would love to see a codex supplement for something not wearing power armor. Its grating at this point the constant deluge of space marine releases...

Karol wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


None. No more supplements, and I'd like to see the SM ones go away. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I'd like to see chapter tactics and regimental doctrines go away.

This is getting out of hand. First off, not everything needs special rules. If you want a chapter that uses tanks, or bikes, or whatever, include tanks or bikes in your list. Use your imagination and creativity for your narrative; this whole thing where competitive play should be narrative is like terrible for everything.
Second off, units don't need cost free bonus rules packages to flip around. That's what broke 7th. You pay 5 points for a guardsman, it's the same guardsman with the same rules support that anyone else has in their list.
Finally, is it not enough that I bought 5 $45 codecies? I feel like I spend more on rules than I do on minis, which isn't true but feels entirely reasonable to assert given both how much I spend on books and the fact that the armies I really want to be buying models for right now haven't seen a new unit since 2014.

The problem is that this is not how it works in w40k. First of all there are decades of different rules and unique units. Telling them that they just should play different coloured ultramarines is not going to find much acceptance. Second thing is how GW write their rules. If marines are always the first book to come out, and would come out stock naked, with few or no special rules, then all the xeno books coming out after them with their special rules would be just rolling over them. Heck even now harlis do that, becuause +4inv ,melta on every dude in a unit and basic model being often a vehicle works really well, in an edition where 5" tall means you are invisible behind stuff.

And third is GW rules writing. If there was one marine codex for all marines, then there would be one way to play it, the way GW writes their rules, specialy if there were no special rules for different units. And then people would be rolling dice to check, if this edition they are allowed to have fun. GW wrote bikes and mounted characters to be good, you can rejoice, but if you like termintors or tanks this 3 years you will not have much enjoyment playing your army. And this gets even worse, if you actualy like specific unit from a specific chapter. Good bikes aren't going to give you much, if what you want to play is termintors and dreadnoughts.

What?

First off, until recently there weren't supplements. There were DA, BA, and SW, and codex Space Marines.
Second, Black Templars had a codex at one time with unique units and then were rolled into the Space Marines codex, so like that can be done too. There aren't actually that many noncharacter special units.
BA have what, 4 [Death Company, Sanguinary Guard, Furioso Dreadnought, Baal Predator]?
DA have Deathwing Knights, Nephilim Jetfighter, and the big Land Speeder
SW have "more", but really most of our unique units are just the regular unit with a different name and the ability to add a unique squad sergeant.
Now, this might be enough to maintain these three codecies as supplements or separate codecies, but whole thing with free special rules needs to stop. That's what gave us 7th.



Then, I'm not sure what the second paragraph is saying. Like, A: everybody else has one codex and is just fine. B: most of what unit type is good is based on the way the core rules and meta interact with that unit, C: if you like bikes, put bikes in your list. You don't need any extra special rules or anything to make your bikes faster while mine are stabbier or whatever.

Necrons could really use a Destroyer Cult supplement. They really didn't give enough design space in the WLT/Relics and Mechanics for lots of destroyer cults IMO.

Has anyone made a supplement of a supplement joke yet?

I'll take a Void tridents supplement, see its a supplement of the Ultramarines supplement

 fraser1191 wrote:
Has anyone made a supplement of a supplement joke yet?

I'll take a Void tridents supplement, see its a supplement of the Ultramarines supplement

You mean Emperor's Spears that just came out? Funny though I actually really like it and will be playing them lol.

I’d like to see an agents of bile supplement. The full CSM codex doesn’t suit him totally plus in the recent stories there are some great characters that can make the army noticeably different from other CSM whilst still being similar enough

His demon daughter
Fabius clones
Gland hounds
The new men

His conclave of apothecaries from other legions. I know these were disbanded largely but they could be brought back in the fluff easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I’d like to see a fallen supplement but I don’t know if that would need to be based on the DA codex

mrFickle wrote:
I’d like to see an agents of bile supplement. The full CSM codex doesn’t suit him totally plus in the recent stories there are some great characters that can make the army noticeably different from other CSM whilst still being similar enough

His demon daughter
Fabius clones
Gland hounds
The new men

His conclave of apothecaries from other legions. I know these were disbanded largely but they could be brought back in the fluff easily.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I’d like to see a fallen supplement but I don’t know if that would need to be based on the DA codex

Could be a really interesting book and model range but likely not enough Marines for a supplement :(

 Mr Morden wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
I’d like to see an agents of bile supplement. The full CSM codex doesn’t suit him totally plus in the recent stories there are some great characters that can make the army noticeably different from other CSM whilst still being similar enough

His demon daughter
Fabius clones
Gland hounds
The new men

His conclave of apothecaries from other legions. I know these were disbanded largely but they could be brought back in the fluff easily.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I’d like to see a fallen supplement but I don’t know if that would need to be based on the DA codex

Could be a really interesting book and model range but likely not enough Marines for a supplement :(

How do you mean? Fabius still works with warbands of CSM etc when he’s not screwing them over. So all you could still have plenty of marines. There are some codexes/supplements that have a very small number of units in anyway (aren’t there)

One for anybody else showing it isn't just excessive Loyalist favouritism.

ould be a really interesting book and model range but likely not enough Marines for a supplement :(

Apologies if my sarcasmometer is broken here, but it's more than the handful of named characters the Ultramarines got. Mind you I actually like the Ultras 8th ed supplement but yeah, it's pretty flimsy in terms of justification for it actually being its own thing.

I think Agents of Bile has a lot more going for it. I could see a new run of the Dark Vengeance Marines for example as they would fit the role well (assuming they're as big as I remember - scratch that if they're silly small next to new marines), and man the things you could do with cultists and chaos spawn in that army would be so cool!

Im still waiting for Emperor's Children and World Eaters. How you going to ignore half the cult legions GW?

DudleyGrim wrote:
Im still waiting for Emperor's Children and World Eaters. How you going to ignore half the cult legions GW?

You are looking for a codex, not a supplement.

At this point....take anything we can get

Well, if it's a supplement akin to salamanders or imperial fists, you wouldn't really gain a lot compared to codex CSM+PA. It would be a few more relics and stratagems, maybe a psychic discipline for ES and some prayers for WE, but that's about it. Not a great trade-off for having to buy a second book.

WE and EC should get the DG/TS treatment (new minis, plastic primarch, separate codex), not just a supplement.

As for supplements:
Tau - 1) Farsight Enclaves; 2) Auxiliaries (Kroot, Vespid, Gue'vesa, ...)
Eldar - 1) Ynnari
Imperium - 1) Agents of the Imperium (Assassins, Inquisitors, ...) -> able to supplement all imperium codices, collecting the rules in one place without the need for campaign books

 Aenar wrote:
WE and EC should get the DG/TS treatment (new minis, plastic primarch, separate codex), not just a supplement.

This.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
WE and EC should get the DG/TS treatment (new minis, plastic primarch, separate codex), not just a supplement.

This.

Double this.

Aenar wrote:Eldar - 1) Ynnari

Realistically, it should be the other way around with Codex: Ynnari with Supplements: Craftworlds, Drukhari, and Exodites.

mrFickle wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
WE and EC should get the DG/TS treatment (new minis, plastic primarch, separate codex), not just a supplement.

This.

Double this.

Very much so. If Thousand Sons and Death Guard have their own codex, then World Eaters and Emperor's Children should have one.

Honestly, I think they are too wrapped up in the main names and should have been more genericly named on the codex level, ala Age of Sigmar, that way one could then supplement the Death Guard and Thousand Sons and add other warbands to them that have been mentioned in previous codices, but that's just me. If anything, it would have provided a larger opportunity for that supplement income.

As I want to start a Word Bearers army as my second force, I'd like to see the Word Bearers get their own codex complete with rules/model for Lorgar.

I demand a Thunder Warriors Supplement.

Awww thats cute. Some people actually seem think plebian faction that are not SM will get extra rules. <3

Only the chosen ones shall know no unfavorable rules..

That is an interesting claim considering most marines don't even make it in to the top 5 best armies in the game, and a lot don't even reach the 50% win rate.

Seems to me like the sub faction of chaos marines and CWE eldar are doing just fine and have great rules this editiion. Why shouldn't people playing other factions want or expect something similar?

 Charistoph wrote:

Aenar wrote:Eldar - 1) Ynnari

Realistically, it should be the other way around with Codex: Ynnari with Supplements: Craftworlds, Drukhari, and Exodites.

Neither really works. The supplement system GW has done only functions if the vast majority of the units are common to everyone that gets a supplement to the main codex.
Obviously exodites are largely undefined, but Craftworlds and Drukhari don't share much at all, if anything, since Harlies were shuffled back off into their own thing.

SM works because (BT exceptions aside) every snowflake using it can take everything from the main book, plus their own stuff in their specific supplement.

Chaos Marines don't work because TS and DG have been defined by their differences, stuff they get instead of common chaos marine stuff.

Similarly, neither Codex: Eldar or Codex: Ynnari would work that way. Craftworlds and Drukhari stuff is exclusive, and there's basically nothing (modelwise) in common. The main codex would be wafer thin, while the supplements would each be packed full of everything they've already got, which defeats the point of doing a Codex with supplements.

I think the supplements should only exist if they are going to encourage a very hard but alternate skew on a roster of units.

So whether its a Supplement or a Codex - a Ynnari book which leans very hard into taking assault-focused infantry and bikes from across the Aeldari range could be *interesting*. An Army of Incubi and Howling Banshee's isn't that interesting to me - but if someone else is into it, why not?

In the same way an Iyanden Supplement could be interesting if say Wraith Guard are troops - and your severely restricted on non-Ghost units, so it feels like a distinct thing beyond just "you play Eldar, but with a slightly different chapter tactic, psychic discipline, stratagems, warlord traits, relics and secondaries".

Because if it is just going to be that, just put it in the codex. Really isn't using up all that much space.

I agree on the Chaos side, if not a supplement for any Legion at least the other missing two.

Good idea on the Imperial Guard expanded to PDF, Blood Brother, Traitor Guard, Guevara etc. Probably it's the book that would be more interesting
But I would add also the Feudal Guard to go with the imperial knight to improve the army, and maybe some newcromunda inspired stuff.
A lot of conversion space.

Also, some other xeno races more detailed than Vespid to be included in the Tau codex.

Orks freebooters and Grots are another thing I'd like.

But, we should have bigger basic Codex, and supplements should have almost exclusively additional doctrines and such... Very very few specific miniatures.

Voss wrote:
SM works because (BT exceptions aside) every snowflake using it can take everything from the main book, plus their own stuff in their specific supplement.

Point of order - of the four armies that should still have a Codex but ended up with a Supplement, only the Blood Angels are able to access everything in the core SM 'dex. DA, DW & SW (as well as BT, who don't currently have a Supplement, but probably should in 2022) all have selection restrictions of varying degrees on page 124.

 Dysartes wrote:

Voss wrote:
SM works because (BT exceptions aside) every snowflake using it can take everything from the main book, plus their own stuff in their specific supplement.

Point of order - of the four armies that should still have a Codex but ended up with a Supplement, only the Blood Angels are able to access everything in the core SM 'dex. DA, DW & SW (as well as BT, who don't currently have a Supplement, but probably should in 2022) all have selection restrictions of varying degrees on page 124.

Mostly everything, then. Whatever. They can still use the vast, overwhelming majority of the book, and have their snowflake versions for the rest.

DW has some interesting organization alternatives instead, but still manage to largely reference the main codex. What you deem they 'should have' works perfectly well with this system.
But that isn't going to work for eldar.

I almost forgot that I would love to get Expedite... May be the only thing that could make me start an Eldar army...

Farsight Enclaves for sure. I am dying for a reason to buy Tau models but I just can't stand the way the army currently plays.

I'd quite like to see a full Codex release for WE and EC, though I'm less keen on more Daemon Primarchs turning up.

Having said that, seeing someone rock up with the four of them in one HERETIC ASTARTES Super-Heavy Detachment would be hilarious - no idea if it'd be any good, or what size game you'd be looking at (probably 2k or thereabouts), but it'd make for an impressive visual.

As Mortarion needs to be your warlord to be worth his points, and I expect Magnus as well as any further primarchs to follow suit, the army probably wouldn't be great.

Fun and awesome looking? Without doubt. After seeing the AoS slanesh releases, I defnitely want to them to do a 40k Fulgrim.

 Jidmah wrote:
As Mortarion needs to be your warlord to be worth his points, and I expect Magnus as well as any further primarchs to follow suit, the army probably wouldn't be great.

Fun and awesome looking? Without doubt. After seeing the AoS slanesh releases, I defnitely want to them to do a 40k Fulgrim.

the only thing i'd see is an Avatar meme...
With failbadon as Aang...

Sorry, but I'd like to see no codex supplements which all over the place in 7th and 8th ed.
Especially at the end of the 7th ed, nobody was able to gain an overview about all the changes made in all the supp. books.

Just pure codices for all factions and eventually some campaign supplements.
I'm a purist here.
The alternative would be starting another ed. This is what GW is doing anyway.

Voss wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Aenar wrote:Eldar - 1) Ynnari

Realistically, it should be the other way around with Codex: Ynnari with Supplements: Craftworlds, Drukhari, and Exodites.

Neither really works. The supplement system GW has done only functions if the vast majority of the units are common to everyone that gets a supplement to the main codex.
Obviously exodites are largely undefined, but Craftworlds and Drukhari don't share much at all, if anything, since Harlies were shuffled back off into their own thing.

SM works because (BT exceptions aside) every snowflake using it can take everything from the main book, plus their own stuff in their specific supplement.

Chaos Marines don't work because TS and DG have been defined by their differences, stuff they get instead of common chaos marine stuff.

Similarly, neither Codex: Eldar or Codex: Ynnari would work that way. Craftworlds and Drukhari stuff is exclusive, and there's basically nothing (modelwise) in common. The main codex would be wafer thin, while the supplements would each be packed full of everything they've already got, which defeats the point of doing a Codex with supplements.

It would not be Codex All Eldar plus supplements - it would be Craftworld Eldar plus Specific Craftworld/s Supplements same as you easily do Codex Drukhari and supplements for the various Covens, Kabals etc.

After all Marines don't pull from Codex: Imperium but have supplements for the sub-sub factions of the main human Faction.

Karol wrote:
That is an interesting claim considering most marines don't even make it in to the top 5 best armies in the game, and a lot don't even reach the 50% win rate.

Seems to me like the sub faction of chaos marines and CWE eldar are doing just fine and have great rules this editiion. Why shouldn't people playing other factions want or expect something similar?

You have to be trolling, tell me which CWE is doing "just fine" in 9th....

When I mentioned a possible Ynnari supplement I was thinking something like this: a supplement that works on top of the other existing aeldari codices that gives some extra rules (traits, strats, relics, ...), some limitations and the datasheets for the triumvirate of Ynnari characters.
As with the possible Agents of the Imperium supplement, something that collects stuff currently in campaign books.

While I'm generally against supplements for most armies; I feel an Imperial Agents Supplement, that would work with any Imperium army would be a decent thing. Inquisition, Assassins, PDF, Arbites, Rogue Trader/Mercenaries and any other minor imperial faction that's not really a whole army, but could show up to assist any other Imperial force in a campaign. Allowing them to be taken and not break any normal army rules, as a separate detachment.

Voss wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Aenar wrote:Eldar - 1) Ynnari

Realistically, it should be the other way around with Codex: Ynnari with Supplements: Craftworlds, Drukhari, and Exodites.

Neither really works. The supplement system GW has done only functions if the vast majority of the units are common to everyone that gets a supplement to the main codex.
Obviously exodites are largely undefined, but Craftworlds and Drukhari don't share much at all, if anything, since Harlies were shuffled back off into their own thing.

It could work, but it would be more unique among the current generation in that it both limits and expands at the same time. While other supplements are not working in this manner, it doesn't mean it cannot here. If you review the 3rd Ed DA codex, it was pretty much a supplement that added a few characters on top of "Please see Codex: Space Marines". Meanwhile SW codex of the same generation has only the Vehicles from Codex: Space Marines and provides modified units of literally everything else.

Voss wrote:Chaos Marines don't work because TS and DG have been defined by their differences, stuff they get instead of common chaos marine stuff.

It doesn't help that there is no unified Chaos codex, either, having split the Marines and Daemons apart. TS and DG focus on their God-focused armies fo both Marines and Daemons, and I advocated in the same post you quoted that Khorne and Slaanesh receive the same treatment, and for the same reasons.

What also is a problem in the same sphere where you have Word Bearers who ally with Daemons on a regular basis, while Black Legion just uses them as fodder, and Iron Warriors as weapons and fuel, and Night Lords generally don't bother, unless the warband's leader strikes up a deal..

Voss wrote:Similarly, neither Codex: Eldar or Codex: Ynnari would work that way. Craftworlds and Drukhari stuff is exclusive, and there's basically nothing (modelwise) in common. The main codex would be wafer thin, while the supplements would each be packed full of everything they've already got, which defeats the point of doing a Codex with supplements.

Oh, I disagree. Ynnari would carry the bulk, while the CW, DE, and EE all focus on what else they bring to the table, while excluding their cousin's options. They would then be smaller than their normal codex, but larger than the Ynnari book would be as a supplement..

Aenar wrote:When I mentioned a possible Ynnari supplement I was thinking something like this: a supplement that works on top of the other existing aeldari codices that gives some extra rules (traits, strats, relics, ...), some limitations and the datasheets for the triumvirate of Ynnari characters.
As with the possible Agents of the Imperium supplement, something that collects stuff currently in campaign books.

Either way, it would run in to a problem of one book being too small. Politically speaking Ynnari is Eldar united, which is why if there is a united book, it should provide the bulk of the options, and then separate from there. From a writing perspective, it would also allow for the books to be more balanced in size, instead of several decent codices and one tiny book that doesn't seem worth the effort to print.

 Charistoph wrote:

Oh, I disagree. Ynnari would carry the bulk, while the CW, DE, and EE all focus on what else they bring to the table, while excluding their cousin's options. They would then be smaller than their normal codex, but larger than the Ynnari book would be as a supplement..

I don't understand what you mean. Ynnari have 3 units. None of the eldar codexes share any unit whatsoever.
Asking for Ynnari to be the main book and then having supplements for Craftworlds/Drukhari/clowns is the same as if i was asking for Codex:Inquisition to become the main Imperium codex and then have : Admech, Astra militarum, sisters, bananas, etc as supplements.

Ynnari would work best as a supplement that can be tacked onto any of the three eldar codexes instead of being bound to a single one. Unless they decide to do a massive rework of the aeldari codexes (which we know theyre not since were getting a drukhari codex)

I'd love a leviathan supplement for tyranids...

Bring out the dominatrix!

 Xenomancers wrote:
Bring out the dominatrix!

Sure, but what about the Tyranids?

I'm still holding out hope for a plastic Dominatrix/Hierodule dual-kit as a plastic LoW. What are you thinking would be a in a leviathan supplement?

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Oh, I disagree. Ynnari would carry the bulk, while the CW, DE, and EE all focus on what else they bring to the table, while excluding their cousin's options. They would then be smaller than their normal codex, but larger than the Ynnari book would be as a supplement..

I don't understand what you mean. Ynnari have 3 units. None of the eldar codexes share any unit whatsoever.
Asking for Ynnari to be the main book and then having supplements for Craftworlds/Drukhari/clowns is the same as if i was asking for Codex:Inquisition to become the main Imperium codex and then have : Admech, Astra militarum, sisters, bananas, etc as supplements.

Ynnari would work best as a supplement that can be tacked onto any of the three eldar codexes instead of being bound to a single one. Unless they decide to do a massive rework of the aeldari codexes (which we know theyre not since were getting a drukhari codex)

Ynnari have 3 exclusive units. Go to Games Workshop's 40K page, expand Xenos Armies, and then select Ynnari. This is a little more than what I would use for them, but it sets the example of what I am speaking of.

And no, it would be more like having an Agents of the Imperium codex, then having Sisters of Silence, Custodes, Inquisition, and Assassins to supplement from.

 Charistoph wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Oh, I disagree. Ynnari would carry the bulk, while the CW, DE, and EE all focus on what else they bring to the table, while excluding their cousin's options. They would then be smaller than their normal codex, but larger than the Ynnari book would be as a supplement..

I don't understand what you mean. Ynnari have 3 units. None of the eldar codexes share any unit whatsoever.
Asking for Ynnari to be the main book and then having supplements for Craftworlds/Drukhari/clowns is the same as if i was asking for Codex:Inquisition to become the main Imperium codex and then have : Admech, Astra militarum, sisters, bananas, etc as supplements.

Ynnari would work best as a supplement that can be tacked onto any of the three eldar codexes instead of being bound to a single one. Unless they decide to do a massive rework of the aeldari codexes (which we know theyre not since were getting a drukhari codex)

Ynnari have 3 exclusive units. Go to Games Workshop's 40K page, expand Xenos Armies, and then select Ynnari. This is a little more than what I would use for them, but it sets the example of what I am speaking of.

And no, it would be more like having an Agents of the Imperium codex, then having Sisters of Silence, Custodes, Inquisition, and Assassins to supplement from.

I know ynnari has 3 units, thats what i said.

I feel like one of us isnt understanding the other...

 catbarf wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Bring out the dominatrix!

Sure, but what about the Tyranids?

I'm still holding out hope for a plastic Dominatrix/Hierodule dual-kit as a plastic LoW. What are you thinking would be a in a leviathan supplement?

Just being greedy here because it is my hive fleet. Certainly a plastic dominatrix would really get me excited though...probably more than any other new unit they could release - that or The Doom of Malan'tai...which I know isn't levi just would be cool as well.

For levi a special character swarmlord would be cool. Plus much improved and unique psychic tree. Levi got dumped on in PA so hard. Our new psychic power was so utterly pathetic - I literally have not played nids at all since I bought and played with that absolutely uninspired PA update.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Ynnari have 3 exclusive units. Go to Games Workshop's 40K page, expand Xenos Armies, and then select Ynnari. This is a little more than what I would use for them, but it sets the example of what I am speaking of.

And no, it would be more like having an Agents of the Imperium codex, then having Sisters of Silence, Custodes, Inquisition, and Assassins to supplement from.

I know ynnari has 3 units, thats what i said.

I feel like one of us isnt understanding the other...

Well, when you ignore a key word and some suggestions for figuring it out, it's easy to understand who isn't understanding the other.