AlexiusAxouchos wrote:
Mentioned on Mordian Glory's latest stream:

'lol ogryn get +1T, +1W, steel legion is gone, codex is 146 pages, HW being sold as singles and groups of 3'

If heavy weapons really were being removed from basic infantry, why would GW release a box with a single one inside?

Andykp wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
I’d also point out that this isn’t even “no models, no rules” (apart from veterans), there are official models for all of the options for SWS and heavy weapons in squads, it’s just that you have to buy multiple boxes.

It doesn't matter whether you have official models, it just matters whether GW remembers that you do.

Orks have been losing options and units for years despite their being official models for them, so anything that is not obvious to a space marine player seeing your model range in the GW online store is fair game for getting the axe.

Genuine question and snarky ness intended, what stuff have ORKS lost?

*grabs list*

Oh yeah, I forgot about 'ard boyz . Yeah that was a pity. Back in 4th I used to use them in trukks to act as mechanized shock troops.
I don't use crusade, so for me it doesn't really count either.

Didn’t realise we were going back that many editions with the ORKS. Thought yiu meant with the most recent codex.

 Grimskul wrote:
The rumours for guard rules ain't looking so hot

I think the two specials in Infantry Squads are pretty spicy.

Andykp wrote:
Didn’t realise we were going back that many editions with the ORKS. Thought yiu meant with the most recent codex.

Orks have experienced something very similar to Guard in this- each new codex snips away a few characterful options, and adds some shiny toy no-one asked for (looking at you, Wyverns...). For a given edition, it isn't a lot, but then you compare your 8th or 9th ed codex to your 2nd or 3rd ed codex and realise that there are more unit entries, but the units have lost all their options and flavour :(

I have quite a few models with completely invalidated loadouts, like the old metal Stormtrooper sergeant with boltgun and plasma pistol- can't take boltguns full stop now, let alone both weapons! It is a shame, because it is a really cool model.

Taking two combat weapons or two ranged weapons is out in general for Guard :( The number of weapon options is also drastically limited, with Guard losing access to combi-weapons, stormbolters, shotguns, and lasguns on sergeants and characters. This is clearly due to what comes in the box (except lasguns, that one is just silly).

Andykp wrote:
Didn’t realise we were going back that many editions with the ORKS. Thought yiu meant with the most recent codex.

It's not going back that far at all - 7th, 8th and 9th edition were sufficient to kill all of those options. But don't worry, plenty of tha was done my the most recent codex. Even if you ignore the massacre of kustom jobs, the only book that killed more ork options than the current codex was Index:Xenos2.

Next time orks complain about losing stuff, guard and CSM players should probably think twice before defending GW as they usually do.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
The rumours for guard rules ain't looking so hot

I think the two specials in Infantry Squads are pretty spicy.

Hopefully it isn't like the Chaos book, where they need to be different weapons.

If GW was smart they would allow two special weapons, and as the kit contains two flamers and two grenade launchers I see no issue on taking two of the same.
Then allow the Sergeant to take a lasgun. As the kit contains two chainswords, add the option from kill Team to take a ... I don't know the name anymore, a guy who is the second in command after the Sergeant, and allow him to take any option of CCW as well. Would allow some more interesting builds and all within the scope of what's in the box. But i can see that this may get confusing quickly for any opponent on the opposite side of 10 squads all build up differently

Brickfix wrote:
If GW was smart they would allow two special weapons, and as the kit contains two flamers and two grenade launchers I see no issue on taking two of the same.
Then allow the Sergeant to take a lasgun. As the kit contains two chainswords, add the option from kill Team to take a ... I don't know the name anymore, a guy who is the second in command after the Sergeant, and allow him to take any option of CCW as well. Would allow some more interesting builds and all within the scope of what's in the box. But i can see that this may get confusing quickly for any opponent on the opposite side of 10 squads all build up differently

The chainsword arm for the Cadians has a sergeant's stripes on it. That's the whole reason why the sergeant can't take a lasgun, as there's no 'sergeant' lasgun arm.

Yeeah...I wouldn't be worrying about what's in the current Cadian kit.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeeah...I wouldn't be worrying about what's in the current Cadian kit.

Exactly. The Cadian upgrade sprue, the Krieg kit, and the Traitor kit all included one of each special weapon. I strongly suspect that is going to be the norm moving forward.

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeeah...I wouldn't be worrying about what's in the current Cadian kit.

Exactly. The Cadian upgrade sprue, the Krieg kit, and the Traitor kit all included one of each special weapon. I strongly suspect that is going to be the norm moving forward.

So of course duplicate special weapons will be banned, because WAAC TFG tournament players can't cope with having to do conversion work to get the best possible netlist.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeeah...I wouldn't be worrying about what's in the current Cadian kit.

Exactly. The Cadian upgrade sprue, the Krieg kit, and the Traitor kit all included one of each special weapon. I strongly suspect that is going to be the norm moving forward.

So of course duplicate special weapons will be banned, because WAAC TFG tournament players can't cope with having to do conversion work to get the best possible netlist.

Why in the world would a so-called WAAC tournament player play a faction that had a solid 20% winrate for months.

You sound unreasonably salty at IG players for some reason

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Why in the world would a so-called WAAC tournament player play a faction that had a solid 20% winrate for months.

You sound unreasonably salty at IG players for some reason

They aren't playing it now (though the win rate is considerably better after GW gave out a ton of buffs), they'll be playing guard when GW inevitably makes the new codex the latest overpowered 70% win rate nonsense.

And let's not pretend that NMNR doesn't have a substantial connection to the e-sport mentality where modeling and painting are stupid wastes of time that take away valuable training reps. Those people want a box to contain exactly what is necessary for the optimal build and hate the idea of having to convert additional models to do plasma spam or whatever. They want it for guard, they want it for CSM, they want it for every faction in the game. And for some bizarre reason GW is trying to pander to that group with 9th.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
And let's not pretend that NMNR doesn't have a substantial connection to the e-sport mentality...

Is there anything to support the idea of a connection?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Why in the world would a so-called WAAC tournament player play a faction that had a solid 20% winrate for months.

You sound unreasonably salty at IG players for some reason

They aren't playing it now (though the win rate is considerably better after GW gave out a ton of buffs), they'll be playing guard when GW inevitably makes the new codex the latest overpowered 70% win rate nonsense.

And let's not pretend that NMNR doesn't have a substantial connection to the e-sport mentality where modeling and painting are stupid wastes of time that take away valuable training reps. Those people want a box to contain exactly what is necessary for the optimal build and hate the idea of having to convert additional models to do plasma spam or whatever. They want it for guard, they want it for CSM, they want it for every faction in the game. And for some bizarre reason GW is trying to pander to that group with 9th.

For most of competitive life of this edition, AM has been hovering between low 30% winrate on a good weekend, and around the mid-20% on a bad one.

And I sure doubt that the people who ran 9 half assembled Voidweavers they bought over one weekend only to toss them out when the meta changes are too concerned about spending a bit more money to get the most optimal loadout available for they headless grey tide.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure the NMNR policy stems in the absolute vast majority from GW trying to cripple 3rd party bit market as much as they can, the Chapterhouse fallout, and the complaints from the more average players that GW isn't putting half the options you have in the rules into the box (like come on, the CSM kit doesn't even allow you to run an all Chainsword or an all Bolter squad) - to which GW responds time and time again by killing demand, least some third party company dares to fulfill it, potentially cutting into their own profit margin.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
And let's not pretend that NMNR doesn't have a substantial connection to the e-sport mentality...

Is there anything to support the idea of a connection?

I, for one, am not nearly drunk enough to follow along with whatever conspiracy board accompanies that train of thought.
It doesn't even start to make sense, since the CSM 'optimal builds' were blown out of existence and just can't be done anymore.
Certainly not old style plasma spam that existed before 'e-sports' were even a concept.

Posting when drunk is dangerous. You might hit a tree!

Like Wha-Mu said, no model no rule (a term of which I am certain I coined...) came about as a direct result of the "CHS Debacle". It has nothing to do with competitive players.

Man, looking at some older Guard books, there are soo much more characters and character. Feth, one book had more than just one TC Character.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Like Wha-Mu said, no model no rule (a term of which I am certain I coined...) came about as a direct result of the "CHS Debacle". It has nothing to do with competitive players.

You're confusing two different things:

"No model, no rules" in the sense that GW no longer makes rules which do not have models at all was a result of the CHS case. GW lost on their claim that describing a unit in the rules gave them copyright ownership of any models representing that unit, and could in fact have been in the position where when they did eventually release a model they'd be in violation of the third-party sculptor's copyright on the design. Rather than deal with that issue they removed those units from the rules and set a new policy that rules would not be released until the models were ready. But that never applied to things like weapon upgrades, jump pack HQs, etc, because all of those things had models. GW might not sell a jump pack and the HQ in the same box but they still made both pieces and had copyright safely secured.

"No model, no rules" in the sense that a unit can't have two plasma guns unless the box with that specific unit's name on it has two plasma guns on the sprue is an entirely new thing, one that has only been introduced long after the change of policies related to the CHS case. I don't believe for a moment that it's purely a coincidence that this change is happening at the same time as GW is busy focusing the rest of the game on pandering to e-sport players. Those players want a tightly controlled theme park game where anything other than competition is pushed aside. They hate painting requirements, they hate having to convert models, they want to get the latest netlist on the table ASAP and win. And they sure as hell don't want to have to sacrifice 1% win probability by building their units out of a single box instead of doing the conversion work required for focused weapon choices. Those players are the only group that is getting any benefit from the current iteration of NMNR.

(And no, it isn't about concern for lost sales. GW makes the same profit whether you buy a Cadian box to build a mixed-weapon squad or a Cadian box and a third-party plasma gun for an all-plasma squad. Either way they sell you the exact same Cadian box. This isn't like the CHS models, where you'd buy a substitute for a GW product and not buy anything from GW.)

I don't see them as two things. The second is just the natural progression of the first.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't see them as two things. The second is just the natural progression of the first.

They're not the same at all. The first one has a primary purpose of securing GW's IP rights and that goal was accomplished years ago. There is no need to progress it to the second because the second has nothing to do with IP rights. Whether you can take one plasma gun in a squad or ten GW still makes and sells both the plasma gun and the model carrying it. The sole purpose of the second NMNR policy is to move from a sandbox design philosophy to a theme park philosophy, replacing open-ended conversion rules with a tightly controlled game where you buy a kit, build it exactly according to the instructions, and use the specific rules assigned to that kit. And who benefits from that theme park philosophy? Tournament players and their e-sport approach to the game.

the 2nd has to do with IP rights as it removes the market for 3rd party add-ons

if a unit can only take the upgrades that come with the box, there is no need to buy plasma guns from another company so can have the 2 per squad that the rules allow

No model no rules, removed the possibility for 3rd party companies to make models GW does not sell
No upgrades that are not in the box, removes the possibility for 3rd party companies to make upgrades GW does not sell (as the IP protection does not extend on generic SciFi weapons)

this has nothing to do with tournament players or how the rules work
this is there for the same reason, to remove the possibility for 3rd parties to sell their stuff based on GW IP

PS: if GW would care about tournaments or the playerbase in general they would invest the time into making a proper game and not reduce weapon options to "whats in the box"

But who cares if someone sells a third-party component that requires the purchase of a GW kit? If I buy a box of Cadians and built it with a plasma gun and a flamer GW sells one Cadian box. If I buy the same box and a third-party plasma gun to build the squad with two plasma guns GW still sells the exact same Cadian box. And of course if GW still sold the packs of special weapons they used to have I wouldn't even need to buy that third-party plasma gun, I'd buy the pack of GW plasma guns and GW would get an additional sale. The issue with CHS was that they were replacing GW sales, not adding to GW sales.

Also, the current NMNR policy doesn't stop third-party sellers. There are still plenty of them selling stuff as alternate aesthetic options and plenty of them selling not-Cadians, not-Krieg, etc, as entire squads to go with whatever rules GW publishes.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
But who cares if someone sells a third-party component that requires the purchase of a GW kit? If I buy a box of Cadians and built it with a plasma gun and a flamer GW sells one Cadian box. If I buy the same box and a third-party plasma gun to build the squad with two plasma guns GW still sells the exact same Cadian box. And of course if GW still sold the packs of special weapons they used to have I wouldn't even need to buy that third-party plasma gun, I'd buy the pack of GW plasma guns and GW would get an additional sale. The issue with CHS was that they were replacing GW sales, not adding to GW sales.

Also, the current NMNR policy doesn't stop third-party sellers. There are still plenty of them selling stuff as alternate aesthetic options and plenty of them selling not-Cadians, not-Krieg, etc, as entire squads to go with whatever rules GW publishes.

Well, let's be clear: This is all speculation. We have no definite indications on any of this. So don't feel like you have to convince anyone here one way or the other. We will never really know.

To answer your question about who cares: The answer is Games Workshop. While third parties are now focusing on alternative sculpts and aesthetics for things like Imperial Guard, pinning the weapon loadouts in a datasheet to the exact contents of a sprue removes a lot of the market for third party bits. For example, when Chaos Marine Terminators could be loaded out with all combi-meltas, there was a market for extra combi-meltas since the sprue only had two of them. By removing that option, they don't prevent third party companies from selling combi-melta bits, but they remove the incentive for players to buy them in the first place since buying the bits won't benefit them in any way.

It doesn't make GW more money, but it makes those bits sellers less money.

Always remember: Corporations don't just want lots of money. They want ALL the money. It's the reason they have to constantly increase market share, even when they are the size of Google or Amazon or Microsoft. They cannot bear the thought that you might spend your dollars elsewhere.

 Scottywan82 wrote:
It doesn't make GW more money, but it makes those bits sellers less money.

And this is why it's such an unconvincing explanation. GW gains nothing from NMNR, they earn themselves a lot of angry customers for the sole purpose of spite. GW has no financial incentive to hurt third-party sellers unless by doing so they generate additional revenue and, unlike in the CHS case, they don't here.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:
It doesn't make GW more money, but it makes those bits sellers less money.

And this is why it's such an unconvincing explanation. GW gains nothing from NMNR, they earn themselves a lot of angry customers for the sole purpose of spite. GW has no financial incentive to hurt third-party sellers unless by doing so they generate additional revenue and, unlike in the CHS case, they don't here.

Agree to disagree. This is pretty normal corporate behavior, even if it angers customers.

GW does not want you to leave the GW ecosystem

As soon as you need to go to 3rd parties for bits, you will discover how much more there i outside the GW world and they want to prevent this

And having weapon sets to upgrade is more expensive and complicated than just reducing options
(and HH is different as the upgrades can be sold to all factions in the game and don't need to match they style of 30 different factions)

Well people have limited hobby money, so money not spent on third party bits might be more money spend on GW products.

I'm not totally convinced it's about third party products though. It makes more sense in the context of the 8th and 9th edition rules design, where war gear options are folded into Strategems. It's moving the list building from actual gear and unit equipment to subfaction and Strategem choices. Not a design direction I'm happy with ...

 Scottywan82 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
But who cares if someone sells a third-party component that requires the purchase of a GW kit? If I buy a box of Cadians and built it with a plasma gun and a flamer GW sells one Cadian box. If I buy the same box and a third-party plasma gun to build the squad with two plasma guns GW still sells the exact same Cadian box. And of course if GW still sold the packs of special weapons they used to have I wouldn't even need to buy that third-party plasma gun, I'd buy the pack of GW plasma guns and GW would get an additional sale. The issue with CHS was that they were replacing GW sales, not adding to GW sales.

Also, the current NMNR policy doesn't stop third-party sellers. There are still plenty of them selling stuff as alternate aesthetic options and plenty of them selling not-Cadians, not-Krieg, etc, as entire squads to go with whatever rules GW publishes.

Well, let's be clear: This is all speculation. We have no definite indications on any of this. So don't feel like you have to convince anyone here one way or the other. We will never really know.

To answer your question about who cares: The answer is Games Workshop. While third parties are now focusing on alternative sculpts and aesthetics for things like Imperial Guard, pinning the weapon loadouts in a datasheet to the exact contents of a sprue removes a lot of the market for third party bits. For example, when Chaos Marine Terminators could be loaded out with all combi-meltas, there was a market for extra combi-meltas since the sprue only had two of them. By removing that option, they don't prevent third party companies from selling combi-melta bits, but they remove the incentive for players to buy them in the first place since buying the bits won't benefit them in any way.

It doesn't make GW more money, but it makes those bits sellers less money.

Always remember: Corporations don't just want lots of money. They want ALL the money. It's the reason they have to constantly increase market share, even when they are the size of Google or Amazon or Microsoft. They cannot bear the thought that you might spend your dollars elsewhere.

I agree with all of this, but I think there is also an element of “mainstreaming” going on; geek hobbies seem to be on the rise and GW seemed to get some decent coverage in the media during lockdown and I think they are trying to cater to new blood more. Having a box where you build it as per the instructions and get playing with the basic rules included in the box does lower the “intellectual” cost of entry.

 Jadenim wrote:
I agree with all of this, but I think there is also an element of “mainstreaming” going on; geek hobbies seem to be on the rise and GW seemed to get some decent coverage in the media during lockdown and I think they are trying to cater to new blood more. Having a box where you build it as per the instructions and get playing with the basic rules included in the box does lower the “intellectual” cost of entry.

Oh, definitely. It's very much the Apple model of ecosystem. Everything you need, all in one box, no don't look at that other stuff, just look at this box, it's got all the parts you need.

No Model No Rules has multiple reasons behind it, at least as I see it.

1) It's easier on players to not have to combine multiple boxes to build a single unit. The alternative of including an extra sprue would mean thicker boxes and that would only complicate logistics.

2) With the new monopose paradigm, it's much harder to make extra weapons and the like that actually fit on different models. So better not even try,

3) It makes game balance just that bit easier because the more options there are, the greater the chance that some combination becomes an outlier.

4) It hurts third party suppliers. That isn't particularly important, but it certainly is no reason not to do it.

5) For things greater than options, like whole units, it secures copyright as per Chapterhouse.

So there are plenty of reasons for it. And the counterarguments of creativity and the like clearly aren't that important to GW as it is today.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:
It doesn't make GW more money, but it makes those bits sellers less money.

And this is why it's such an unconvincing explanation. GW gains nothing from NMNR, they earn themselves a lot of angry customers for the sole purpose of spite. GW has no financial incentive to hurt third-party sellers unless by doing so they generate additional revenue and, unlike in the CHS case, they don't here.

A lot of the problems are caused by the shift from buying metal models ala carte in blisters, to buying plastic models on a sprue.

"Back in the day" if you wanted a squad of Chaos Terminators with combi meltas you could buy 5 individual models (assuming you could find a shop with 5 combi melta termis hanging on the wall) and be done. No reason not to include that option. But once you change to sprues you now either have to make a sprue with 5 of each option, limit the number allowed to what fits in the box, or have angry customers who can't build the unit they want out of the $50+ box they bought.

And I agree. Yeah, I have a big bitz box and I love converting, but I am annoyed when I pay a bloody fortune for a box that literally cannot make the unit described in the rule book. Not one marine box has the parts needed to cover even common options. No lascannon in the tactical marine set for example.

And GW only have themselves to blame. The ancient Catachan and Cadian boxes could have included all the special weapons, yeah we would have had a few less grenades and pouches but they were deliberately left out. One of the many, many price hikes could have been offset by adding a heavy weapon sprue but the choice was made not to do it.

So I think that boxed kits should be able to build legal units, but rather than making their kits better GW seems to be deciding to make their rules worse.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
A lot of the problems are caused by the shift from buying metal models ala carte in blisters, to buying plastic models on a sprue.

"Back in the day" if you wanted a squad of Chaos Terminators with combi meltas you could buy 5 individual models (assuming you could find a shop with 5 combi melta termis hanging on the wall) and be done. No reason not to include that option. But once you change to sprues you now either have to make a sprue with 5 of each option, limit the number allowed to what fits in the box, or have angry customers who can't build the unit they want out of the $50+ box they bought.

And I agree. Yeah, I have a big bitz box and I love converting, but I am annoyed when I pay a bloody fortune for a box that literally cannot make the unit described in the rule book. Not one marine box has the parts needed to cover even common options. No lascannon in the tactical marine set for example.

And GW only have themselves to blame. The ancient Catachan and Cadian boxes could have included all the special weapons, yeah we would have had a few less grenades and pouches but they were deliberately left out. One of the many, many price hikes could have been offset by adding a heavy weapon sprue but the choice was made not to do it.

So I think that boxed kits should be able to build legal units, but rather than making their kits better GW seems to be deciding to make their rules worse.

Of course they did. That option costs GW nothing. Corporations with an entrenched foothold on a market will always choose the option that is cheapest for them. Every time.

 Jadenim wrote:
I agree with all of this, but I think there is also an element of “mainstreaming” going on; geek hobbies seem to be on the rise and GW seemed to get some decent coverage in the media during lockdown and I think they are trying to cater to new blood more. Having a box where you build it as per the instructions and get playing with the basic rules included in the box does lower the “intellectual” cost of entry.

Was this ever a problem for normal players? I get that the e-sport players can't stand the thought of playing with anything other than the perfect netlist and can't get started until they build it but you could always build at least some configuration without conversions. And that was fine for getting started.

The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

Sure, if there are no rules for something then 3rd parties have little reason to make models for that, but the idea that they're removing things SPECIFICALLY to spite them just seems absurd.

If that was the case it would be prevalent throughout GWs approach yet we've just had Necromunda release vehicle design rules and several things there have rules but not models.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

Tell that to Chapterhouse Studios.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

Sure, if there are no rules for something then 3rd parties have little reason to make models for that, but the idea that they're removing things SPECIFICALLY to spite them just seems absurd.

If that was the case it would be prevalent throughout GWs approach yet we've just had Necromunda release vehicle design rules and several things there have rules but not models.

The newer 'boxed games' usually have the same No Models No Rules approach as 40k and AoS. They probably write off Necromunda, 30k etc as not worth trying to contain NMNR because most of the (usually older) people playing those games already know third party companies and games exist and if they they completely 'modernise' they're more likely to find other rulesets that do it similarly enough.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
I agree with all of this, but I think there is also an element of “mainstreaming” going on; geek hobbies seem to be on the rise and GW seemed to get some decent coverage in the media during lockdown and I think they are trying to cater to new blood more. Having a box where you build it as per the instructions and get playing with the basic rules included in the box does lower the “intellectual” cost of entry.

Was this ever a problem for normal players? I get that the e-sport players can't stand the thought of playing with anything other than the perfect netlist and can't get started until they build it but you could always build at least some configuration without conversions. And that was fine for getting started.

As a non competitive player, yep. Remember people like us think 'hey stick that gun on that model' (an approach epitomised by Rogue Trader). Not being able to mix my version kits for me is a disincentive. I have this pile of models, why can't I mix them up (zoids!). Building x models all with identical loadouts is more like historical wargaming oddly enough.

Though deep down I would love the options to be cut right down and somewhat abstracted. Then modelling can go a lot wilder and still be easily useable in games.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

the point is (and was with CHS), if there are rules in the Codex, with an Artowrk, but no model, everyone can make a model based on the artwork that fits the rules, and the one doing it first has the copyright

and GW simply overreacted, and made a 180° turn by removing everything that has no dedicated model, while at the same time made rules for models that are in the box (like odd compinations of weapons simply because a metal model in a box existed though everyone played it with standard equipment)

not much GW is doing makes any sense from costumer point of view, but most things they do are also based on not understanding the difference between Copyright and Trademarks, or what the community means by "less complicated rules"

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

Tell that to Chapterhouse Studios.

Didn't they win the lawsuit?

I though that's why GW is removing the need for 3rd party bits from their product - they can't do anything about them.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

Tell that to Chapterhouse Studios.

Didn't they win the lawsuit?

I though that's why GW is removing the need for 3rd party bits from their product - they can't do anything about them.

They won, but in the process went bankrupt. So in a way, GW got what they wanted in the end.

CHS won some (2/3) but lost others

they one on "compatible with 40k Space Marines" or "if there is no model you can make one"

while all claimes based on Trademarks were won by GW as well as models that were too close to the original

 kodos wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

the point is (and was with CHS), if there are rules in the Codex, with an Artowrk, but no model, everyone can make a model based on the artwork that fits the rules, and the one doing it first has the copyright

and GW simply overreacted, and made a 180° turn by removing everything that has no dedicated model, while at the same time made rules for models that are in the box (like odd compinations of weapons simply because a metal model in a box existed though everyone played it with standard equipment)

not much GW is doing makes any sense from costumer point of view, but most things they do are also based on not understanding the difference between Copyright and Trademarks, or what the community means by "less complicated rules"

If there's artwork but no rules and someone outright copies that artwork to make a miniature, then that could be infringement of the artwork. If you make something inspired bythat, but that isn't an actual copy, then that's a different matter. And that applies regardless of if there's a model or not, because you don't own the general ideas and themes - it would only be the specific depiction that's covered. and how similar they are and such matters too.

But to me the strangest thing about saying that this is the result of the chapterhouse situation is that happened closer to a decade ago, and there have been multiple opportunities to remove these units with the previous codex updates. Sp that's saying they somehow haven't realized there's a "problem" with these specific Imperial Guard units until now.

No, the CHS lawsuit was very clear about that

An Artwork is not enough to prevent from making a model
To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork
To infringe the Copyright of a model there need to be a model

Well, GW still keeps the name Space Marine while others were changed directly after

It must not be that they realise now that it is an issue but simply that they said 10 years ago that problematic stuff will be phased out with the next model update
And Guard did not get one till now

 kodos wrote:
No, the CHS lawsuit was very clear about that

An Artwork is not enough to prevent from making a model
To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork
To infringe the Copyright of a model there need to be a model

Well, GW still keeps the name Space Marine while others were changed directly after

It must not be that they realise now that it is an issue but simply that they said 10 years ago that problematic stuff will be phased out with the next model update
And Guard did not get one till now

I think GW is more than happy to keep the name Space Marine because they have a Trademark on the name (not the same as copyright despite many people insisting GW have copyrighted “space marine”).

 kodos wrote:
No, the CHS lawsuit was very clear about that

An Artwork is not enough to prevent from making a model
To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork
To infringe the Copyright of a model there need to be a model

Well, GW still keeps the name Space Marine while others were changed directly after

It must not be that they realise now that it is an issue but simply that they said 10 years ago that problematic stuff will be phased out with the next model update
And Guard did not get one till now

Please provide quotes from the case where these were "very clear", because reading some of it myself, that sounds like a misinterpretation unless I've completely missed something.

Especially can't find anything saying it's fine to copy the artwork as a miniature and that "To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork" - you can make a model inspired by that artwork and that's alright, but you can't copy it exactly.

They lost on multiple things because they were considered to be generic/common elements that GW didn't own themselves - because like i said, ideas and themes aren't copyrightable.

 kodos wrote:
No, the CHS lawsuit was very clear about that

An Artwork is not enough to prevent from making a model
To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork
To infringe the Copyright of a model there need to be a model

Well, GW still keeps the name Space Marine while others were changed directly after

It must not be that they realise now that it is an issue but simply that they said 10 years ago that problematic stuff will be phased out with the next model update
And Guard did not get one till now

And none of that matters unless you have at a minimum tens of thousands of dollars to defend your rights in court assuming you are in the right. Ultimately, that was the take home lesson of the Chapterhouse trial for me personally regardless of what the actual legal findings were.

yeah, non is big enough to fight GW over copyright without going out of business
yet some of GWs policy is still based on what they learned from the CHS lawsuit

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

They lost on multiple things because they were considered to be generic/common elements that GW didn't own themselves - because like i said, ideas and themes aren't copyrightable.

things CHS lost:
female version of existing models as those were seen too close to the original IP
using Trademarks to advertise the models/bits

the models that CHS won were the Tyranid Dropbod and Doom of Malantai, as GW did not have models by that time, therefore the court did not saw a copyright infringement (as just having the art in a Codex does not protect a possible future model, you can do it with a special claim, but that need to be done in advance, it does not happen by default)

I have to dig out the numbers as the names are not used in the available documents

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
No, the CHS lawsuit was very clear about that

An Artwork is not enough to prevent from making a model
To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork
To infringe the Copyright of a model there need to be a model

Well, GW still keeps the name Space Marine while others were changed directly after

It must not be that they realise now that it is an issue but simply that they said 10 years ago that problematic stuff will be phased out with the next model update
And Guard did not get one till now

Please provide quotes from the case where these were "very clear", because reading some of it myself, that sounds like a misinterpretation unless I've completely missed something.

Especially can't find anything saying it's fine to copy the artwork as a miniature and that "To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork" - you can make a model inspired by that artwork and that's alright, but you can't copy it exactly.

They lost on multiple things because they were considered to be generic/common elements that GW didn't own themselves - because like i said, ideas and themes aren't copyrightable.

Pretty much correct. I think kodos is getting a bit confused, as one of the takeaways of the lawsuit was some of the items chapterhouse was cleared of infringing were things that specifically *didn't* have artwork - the court found that they couldn't be infringing upon GWs IP by creating models of something that didn't actually exist in any visual medium, as there was nothing for Chapterhouse to "copy" from GW and producing a model or artwork based on what loose written descriptions may have existed was "transformative" because the written descriptions were subject to a lot of interpretation. Another takeaway/finding was that just because an item shared similarities with a work of art did not make it an infringement, unless it was specifically a direct 1:1 copy of the artwork itself.

 kodos wrote:
yeah, non is big enough to fight GW over copyright without going out of business
yet some of GWs policy is still based on what they learned from the CHS lawsuit

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

They lost on multiple things because they were considered to be generic/common elements that GW didn't own themselves - because like i said, ideas and themes aren't copyrightable.

things CHS lost:
female version of existing models as those were seen too close to the original IP
using Trademarks to advertise the models/bits

the models that CHS won were the Tyranid Dropbod and Doom of Malantai, as GW did not have models by that time, therefore the court did not saw a copyright infringement (as just having the art in a Codex does not protect a possible future model, you can do it with a special claim, but that need to be done in advance, it does not happen by default)

I have to dig out the numbers as the names are not used in the available documents

The art in the codex does not prevent someone making a model inspired by that art or general idea, but that's not the same thing as you're saying with "To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork" and "To infringe the Copyright of a model there need to be a model ".

kodos wrote:
the models that CHS won were the Tyranid Dropbod and Doom of Malantai, as GW did not have models by that time, therefore the court did not saw a copyright infringement (as just having the art in a Codex does not protect a possible future model, you can do it with a special claim, but that need to be done in advance, it does not happen by default)

Not quite. The court found that GW failed to establish prior use in commerce on the basis of artwork for the purposes of unregistered trademarks, which is why GW lost the claims - because GW was arguing that Chapterhouse infringed on GWs trademarkof these items because GW was selling these items in the form of artwork before chapterhouse did in the form of sculptures. The court evaluated these items on the basis of the claims GW was making (specifically with regards to prior use in commerce as a means to establish ownership of unregistered trademarks), rather than ruling broadly on whether or not they were truly infringements.

That is very different from claiming that there is no infringement because a sculpture cannot infringe on 2D artwork. Rogers v Koons has already set US legal precedent that sculpture can infringe on two-dimensional depictions (in this case a photograph rather than a piece of art/illustration). In fact, the court did find in several instances that Chapterhouse infringed on GWs artwork, one notable example from the ruling is that of Lightning Claws:

In its response to GW's motion for summary judgment, Chapterhouse concedes that GW owns the exclusive rights for all but one of the works at issue in the litigation: an illustration of a fictional "Lightning Claw" weapon. The illustration, created by Nick Coleman, was included in a 1991 GW book on Warhammer 40,000 (entries 132 and 133 on the new products claim chart). Chapterhouse contended in its motion that GW has never claimed Coleman as a current or former GW employee and had not produced a confirmatory assignment documenting a previous assignment of rights in the illustration. Chapterhouse appeared to agree, however, that a confirmatory assignment from Coleman would resolve the issue of GW's ownership of the "Lightning Claw" illustration in entries 132 and 133. In its reply, GW stated that it did not yet have a confirmatory assignment but expected to receive one within a matter of days. Pl.'s Reply, Stevenson Decl. at 2. On March 29, GW filed a confirmatory assignment by Coleman. See docket entry 330. This document confirms GW's prior and continuing ownership of the "Lightning Claw" illustration. GW is entitled to a finding in its favor on the issue of its ownership of Coleman's illustration as well as on the issue of its ownership of copyrights for all of its other products still at issue in this litigation.

Let's get back on topic please.

Is there a place that compiles all the rumors?

After looking at the new Kasrkin and some of the Guard like models...so besides being monopose they look taller and slimmer.

Are they actually going to do new Cadians? Or stick with the latest box with the upgrade sprue? I'm thinking new because they can include female guardsmen.

Just something Kid Kyoto said about Tactical Squads not having las cannons: When I worked for GW the idea was you'd buy a couple Tac Squads, a couple Devastator Squads and spread the parts and weapons out between the various boxes. So on one hand they would get the extra sale from a Dev Box, and also not have to pack the Tacticals with other parts.

Another aside....if GW rules design and box contents were being influenced by tournament players ( and GW traditionally hates competitive play) how come only official GW tournaments/events require 99% GW parts? I don't even know what the rules are...I was learning to sculpt digitally to make Kasrkin legs for my custom Stormtroopers and now have to worry if they would be legal....

If I have not misunderstood the rumours, there are only faction rules for Catachan, Krieg and Cadia in the codex?

Or does it refer to specific units with rules of these regiments?

And then what about the attilan rough riders?

And finally, is it confirmed that there are new catachans? (by rumors of course)

The_Real_Chris wrote:


Though deep down I would love the options to be cut right down and somewhat abstracted. Then modelling can go a lot wilder and still be easily useable in games.

Because that worked so well for Chosen squads.

zamerion wrote:
If I have not misunderstood the rumours, there are only faction rules for Catachan, Krieg and Cadia in the codex?

Or does it refer to specific units with rules of these regiments?

And then what about the attilan rough riders?

And finally, is it confirmed that there are new catachans? (by rumors of course)

As I understand it - "Cadian Shock Troops", "Death Korp of Krieg" and "Catachan Jungle Fighters" are not classed as regiments but as specific units (which are more or less an infantry squad). These units are the only units that have the Cadian/Krieg/Catachan regiment keyword which just unlocks strategems.

I don't think it's been confirmed but it seems plausible to me with how Command squads (and I think Heavy weapon teams) were discribed that there may still be an "Infantry squad" or Platoon. These and other units can be given one of three keywords that then represent the type of regiment they are from - Born Soldiers, Guerillas and something else that I've forgotten. These don't grant traits, but open up strategems and you can mix and match across your army.

More leaks less no models no rules discussion pls

Thinking about it (and I stress I have seen no rumors to directly support this), could the rumored removal of heavy weapons teams from the infantry squads mesh with the concept of a return to platoons (for which I don't think I've seen any rumors) where the heavy weapon teams would show up in a heavy weapon squad within the platoon rather than taking up a heavy slot?

zamerion wrote:
If I have not misunderstood the rumours, there are only faction rules for Catachan, Krieg and Cadia in the codex?

Or does it refer to specific units with rules of these regiments?

And then what about the attilan rough riders?

And finally, is it confirmed that there are new catachans? (by rumors of course)

Rough riders and Catachans are long-rumoured from multiple sources as getting new models, but unlike some of the other recent stuff there's no picture confirmation yet. There are a few rumour engine pics that work for both though.

Regarding sub-faction rules, from what OK_E said it sounds like individual units can have one of three options including "born soldiers" and "guerillas". That will unlock a stratagem for them to use. It's unclear right now if that's to replace regiment rules, or is just a new rules system to accommodate having mixed Cadian / Catachan / Kreig models as part of the same regiment.

This is speculation but personally I'd be surprised if they scrapped regiment rules completely. Most other 40k codexes have 5+ sub-factions to choose from, often in addition to the build-your-own rules. I think it's more likely that instead of "Tallarn" or "Valhallan" we'll instead see more generic regiment rules such as "desert fighters" and "ice warriors", and the book will just show Cadians painted in an appropriate camo scheme for fighting in desert or snow.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Thinking about it (and I stress I have seen no rumors to directly support this), could the rumored removal of heavy weapons teams from the infantry squads mesh with the concept of a return to platoons (for which I don't think I've seen any rumors) where the heavy weapon teams would show up in a heavy weapon squad within the platoon rather than taking up a heavy slot?

Maybe. Would need some short of look out sir for hws to be relevant though.

 xttz wrote:

zamerion wrote:
If I have not misunderstood the rumours, there are only faction rules for Catachan, Krieg and Cadia in the codex?

Or does it refer to specific units with rules of these regiments?

And then what about the attilan rough riders?

And finally, is it confirmed that there are new catachans? (by rumors of course)

Rough riders and Catachans are long-rumoured from multiple sources as getting new models, but unlike some of the other recent stuff there's no picture confirmation yet. There are a few rumour engine pics that work for both though.

Regarding sub-faction rules, from what OK_E said it sounds like individual units can have one of three options including "born soldiers" and "guerillas". That will unlock a stratagem for them to use. It's unclear right now if that's to replace regiment rules, or is just a new rules system to accommodate having mixed Cadian / Catachan / Kreig models as part of the same regiment.

This is speculation but personally I'd be surprised if they scrapped regiment rules completely. Most other 40k codexes have 5+ sub-factions to choose from, often in addition to the build-your-own rules. I think it's more likely that instead of "Tallarn" or "Valhallan" we'll instead see more generic regiment rules such as "desert fighters" and "ice warriors", and the book will just show Cadians painted in an appropriate camo scheme for fighting in desert or snow.

This has basically been my theory, though I was thinking more in terms of the "type" of regiment (i.e. Siege Regiment, Assault Regiment, Shock Regiment, Mechanized Regiment, etc.)

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Thinking about it (and I stress I have seen no rumors to directly support this), could the rumored removal of heavy weapons teams from the infantry squads mesh with the concept of a return to platoons (for which I don't think I've seen any rumors) where the heavy weapon teams would show up in a heavy weapon squad within the platoon rather than taking up a heavy slot?

I wish. Horde guard needs more boots on the ground other than conscripts. So either allow squads to balloon up to 20 men each, or bring back platoons.

M.

One more day until the ground hog sticks his head out of his hidey hole. Will he see his shadow and go back into hiding or will GW finally announce the Imperial Guard codex?

I'm Europe based and Groundhog is pretty well understood over here but I'm struggling to see how it relates in this context. I can't think of an annual event in relation to Guard you are referring to.

The Nova reveals on Thursday maybe?

Yes, they are referring to the NOVA reveals (which I thought were tomorrow (Wednesday)). The "annual event" bit might be an overly literal interpretation though, point is more that its a regular periodic occurrence that potentially portents the arrival of something we have been waiting for.

Yeah, the NOVA event. I thought it was Wednesday, but I've seen Thursday in some places. Whichever it is, here's to hoping that the ground hog doesn't see it's shadow

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Yeah, the NOVA event. I thought it was Wednesday, but I've seen Thursday in some places. Whichever it is, here's to hoping that the ground hog doesn't see it's shadow

Wednesday US time, Thursday U.K. time

I guess I figured it would be later in the day for whatever reason and would therefore be on the same day in US and UK time heh

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
I guess I figured it would be later in the day for whatever reason and would therefore be on the same day in US and UK time heh

It is later in day...in america 8pm in New York thus 1am in London.

oof, I would have thought theyd try to schedule something like that for a time where other timezones would be awake.

They schedule it for the event it's taking place at.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They schedule it for the event it's taking place at.

NOVA runs from 31 August through 4 September - they could have scheduled the preview for their usual timeslot of 8AM EST on Saturday.

chaos0xomega wrote:
oof, I would have thought theyd try to schedule something like that for a time where other timezones would be awake.

The thing with timezones is it's always night somewhere

tneva82 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
oof, I would have thought theyd try to schedule something like that for a time where other timezones would be awake.

The thing with timezones is it's always night somewhere

Yes, but when its night over an area thats mostly ocean and outside of your core market, that "problem" isn't much of a problem at all. Turns out 9AM EST is 6AM in LA, which is early but not so early that motivated individuals won't wake up for it, and 2PM in London, 3PM in Berlin, and 4PM in Kyiv which is normal people time, and 9PM in Singapore and Perth, 10PM in Tokyo, 10:30PM in Adelaide, 11PM in Sydney and Brisbane, which is late but not so late that motivated individuals won't stay up for it. Do it on a saturday EST when people are generally more flexible with their schedules because they don't have to go to work the next day etc. and everyone can reasonably enjoy the show at the same time, rather than having your your second largest market be asleep and it being the buttcrack of dawn in Australia/New Zealnd.

I don't mind personally. If I really wanted to see it, I could watch the twitch stream whenever. But the news will be in the Communtiy Page anyway. And frankly, I have not that high expectations to begin with. Likely they will show us the final model of the LoV range and the Codex Cover. Then maybe some more views on the other LoV models we have already seen. Maybe even the Patrol Box or whatever that will be their likely outing before the actual codex hits. And then they might show the new IG tank and let us know that there is more in store for IG in the near future (Rough Riders).

For comparison: This was the reveal of LVO: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/01/28/lvo-2022-the-reborn-avatar-of-khaine-leads-another-new-wave-of-aeldari-reinforcements/
The Avatar (that was leaked already), Maughan Ra and the Shining Spears. So 3 kits.

They might not even show IG stuff at all but instead showcase Angron again for all we know.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They schedule it for the event it's taking place at.

NOVA runs from 31 August through 4 September - they could have scheduled the preview for their usual timeslot of 8AM EST on Saturday.

8am on a Saturday in Northern VA (NoVA) traffic? Aint no one making it there on time.

Though realistically 8pm on a Wednesday isn't all that much better, at least the people who want to attend should already be there.

Almost everyone that needs or wants to be there will already be there (its at a hotel, after all) or the other hotel across the street.

If the preview show is intended to engage with the community and benefit from audience excitement, it makes sense to put it at a time when the audience will be engaged and excited. (8am before a 9-hour tournament day is not one of those times.)

For people not at the event, an evening's delay in finding out about models that won't be available to purchase for at least another month or two doesn't seem like the end of the world.

I mean afaik the rumors always said votann and world eaters are still before guard.. probably the next killteam box too… so while I expect at least a teaser I don’t expect a massive guard reveal.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Almost everyone that needs or wants to be there will already be there (its at a hotel, after all) or the other hotel across the street.

I'll go out on a limb and say that most people who attend are not staying at the hotel. Many? Yes. Most? Probably not. There were over 3000 people who attended in 2019, and I assume that number is bigger this year due to the multi-year hiatus. Even if every room in both hotels was dedicated just to this event (which they aren't), you'd still be well short.

gungo wrote:
I mean afaik the rumors always said votann and world eaters are still before guard.. probably the next killteam box too… so while I expect at least a teaser I don’t expect a massive guard reveal.

We've not seen the covers to Voltron or the Zerkers have we?

gungo wrote:
I mean afaik the rumors always said votann and world eaters are still before guard.. probably the next killteam box too… so while I expect at least a teaser I don’t expect a massive guard reveal.

I'd expect it. The pictures leaked from the World Eaters book had the new Cadians in them.

That means Guard is coming before World Eaters.

Additionally, no rumours actually said Votann and World Eaters were before Guard. Just Daemons and CSM.

KillerAngel wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Almost everyone that needs or wants to be there will already be there (its at a hotel, after all) or the other hotel across the street.

I'll go out on a limb and say that most people who attend are not staying at the hotel. Many? Yes. Most? Probably not. There were over 3000 people who attended in 2019, and I assume that number is bigger this year due to the multi-year hiatus. Even if every room in both hotels was dedicated just to this event (which they aren't), you'd still be well short.

Theres almost 1000 rooms between the two hotels alone. Given the tendency for most attendees to stay 2, 3, 4, even 5 or 6 people to a room, the hotels don't need to sell out in order for the majority of attendees to still be housed there. Having been to NOVA in the past, I also know that a substantial portion (I would say the majority) of attendees are not locals and travel far and wide to attend.

In any case, all those arguments are useless noise. The event seats 400, the lions share of attendees don't get to attend it anyway, and you can bet that most of the attendees on wednesday are going to be hotel guests, simply by virtue of the fact that as hotel guests they will have taken time off work and have nothing else to do (as opposed to locals who are more likely to be scheduling the event around their regular lives) and the schedule for wednesday is basically void of any activity whatsoever aside from check-in/registration and 3 or 4 small painting classes - not much point in locals or "locals" driving to the hotel for a 90 minute presentation and nothing else.

 Asmodai wrote:
If the preview show is intended to engage with the community and benefit from audience excitement, it makes sense to put it at a time when the audience will be engaged and excited. (8am before a 9-hour tournament day is not one of those times.)

For people not at the event, an evening's delay in finding out about models that won't be available to purchase for at least another month or two doesn't seem like the end of the world.

As is i go to sleep, wake, skim through whc. Done. More efficient than watching stream listening them go on

Rumours roudup by Mordian Glory on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXXNRZduTMU

Release date around february 2023, last codex of 9th edition.
And grim news ahead IMHO.

I feel depressed.

For future reference, you can save everyone having to listen to somebody ranting.

Summary of Rumours:
No OG Regiments
No Veterans, Conscripts, Special Weapons Squads
Overall more elite feel - "Last Sons of Cadia"
Officers + Command Squad Combined
New Unit - Field Ordinance Battery
Scions have a 24" Range and exploding 6s to hit
Guard Combat Patrol = Sentinel, Command Squad, Field Ordinance Battery, Cadian Shock Troops
You can mix and match regiment traits without loosing army wide bonus
Vicious Traps Strat improved
Infantry Squads can't take heavy weapons teams
Infantry Squads can take 2x special weapons
Rogal Dorn tank actually called the Praetorian Tank
Tanith will get a regiment trait
Votan coming out before Guard
Apparently the book has had to be rewritten 4 times and thats what has caused the delays.

Basically, it's all rumors we've already had.

Yeah, depressed now.

No mention of Kasrkin?

He just said he was not rehashing things we already know, that have been previewed by GW.

Well, that looks like gak. Guess I'm sticking to Killteam.

You forgot that he mentioned the current rumor is for 10th to drop 3-4 months later. If that holds, world eaters and votann are both before guard unless world eaters are waiting until 10th. Like mordian glory said though, this is all rumored and I'm not sure of the veracity of the original individual rumors that he's rounding up

Yikes. That's looking pretty dire tbh. Unfortunate since guard really need a glow up in terms of both model range and their ruleset, and I feel like they're getting neither.

 Grimskul wrote:
Yikes. That's looking pretty dire tbh. Unfortunate since guard really need a glow up in terms of both model range and their ruleset, and I feel like they're getting neither.

...they're getting new Cadians, new Ksarkin, new heavy weapons, new sentinels, a new heavy tank, and new characters - at least. They've also just had new plastic Death Korps added to the range. How on earth does that not qualify as a "glow up" of the model range?

 crumby_cataphract wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Yikes. That's looking pretty dire tbh. Unfortunate since guard really need a glow up in terms of both model range and their ruleset, and I feel like they're getting neither.

...they're getting new Cadians, new Ksarkin, new heavy weapons, new sentinels, a new heavy tank, and new characters - at least. They've also just had new plastic Death Korps added to the range. How on earth does that not qualify as a "glow up" of the model range?

Probably because there's still whole swathes of regiments that have been axed, and a large number of Finecast/resin items?

Just sayin'.

 Grimskul wrote:
Yikes. That's looking pretty dire tbh. Unfortunate since guard really need a glow up in terms of both model range and their ruleset, and I feel like they're getting neither.

How is getting a new/updated Kasrkin, Commissar, Heavy weapons, sentinel, special weapons, Guardsmen Squad, Command Squad and Creed and a new tank not a significant update for the model range?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 crumby_cataphract wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Yikes. That's looking pretty dire tbh. Unfortunate since guard really need a glow up in terms of both model range and their ruleset, and I feel like they're getting neither.

...they're getting new Cadians, new Ksarkin, new heavy weapons, new sentinels, a new heavy tank, and new characters - at least. They've also just had new plastic Death Korps added to the range. How on earth does that not qualify as a "glow up" of the model range?

Probably because there's still whole swathes of regiments that have been axed, and a large number of Finecast/resin items?

Just sayin'.

Yeah, that's fair. But still, even just considering the models that we've seen so far, this is shaping up to be a pretty large release. I don't know if it was ever really realistic to expect GW to update some of the old metal ranges from decades ago, to be honest.

 Kanluwen wrote:

gungo wrote:
I mean afaik the rumors always said votann and world eaters are still before guard.. probably the next killteam box too… so while I expect at least a teaser I don’t expect a massive guard reveal.

I'd expect it. The pictures leaked from the World Eaters book had the new Cadians in them.

That means Guard is coming before World Eaters.

Additionally, no rumours actually said Votann and World Eaters were before Guard. Just Daemons and CSM.

What makes you think the leak image was a picture of the zerkers and not a guard killteam box…
Regardless I don’t expect a massive guard reveal. Several rumors Already said worldeaters and votann first.

Regarding release and the new rumor of the book being pushed back because it needed to be redone.. I’m assuming this is because guard have been doing so poorly competitively that they realized they needed substantial changes and it’s will likely be made with 10th edition in mind… who knows what that means timing suck but if it was rewritten multiple times I expect a well thought out codex for the extra time placed into it.

The rewrites are supposedly because the codex was horridly overpowered

I think there was a rumor that guard were next after demons at one point...which would mesh with the rumor that the testing codex was sent back 4 times assuming the guard after demons rumor was prior to those delays becoming untenable.

The well thought out aspect might depend on how much of a rewrite it was. If they tossed the previous version completely and started from scratch there's no reason for the quality to be any different than previous codices (and actually there's reason for it to be worse as they'd probably be rushing it). If the changes have been iterative, then it seems to be like the extra time should produce a higher quality

New Cadians have a longer coat, so would work as Steel legion with Deathkorp heads or perhaps even Tallarn with a more specific head swap. And Krieg work pretty nicely as Valhallans with a head swap



We just need a head sprue and then only Mordian is a bit tricky, though parade ready cadians with capped heads and epaulet arms would perhaps do the trick.

It's right up Forgeworld's alley

Can you put that image inside a spoiler tag? It's mucking up the formatting

gungo wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

gungo wrote:
I mean afaik the rumors always said votann and world eaters are still before guard.. probably the next killteam box too… so while I expect at least a teaser I don’t expect a massive guard reveal.

I'd expect it. The pictures leaked from the World Eaters book had the new Cadians in them.

That means Guard is coming before World Eaters.

Additionally, no rumours actually said Votann and World Eaters were before Guard. Just Daemons and CSM.

What makes you think the leak image was a picture of the zerkers and not a guard killteam box…

Because it had Angron in it?

Regardless I don’t expect a massive guard reveal. Several rumors Already said worldeaters and votann first.

No, they didn't. Seriously. There was never order given for Votann and World Eaters.

The only CREDIBLE rumour was from OK_E and it had CSM+Daemons before Guard.

Regarding release and the new rumor of the book being pushed back because it needed to be redone.. I’m assuming this is because guard have been doing so poorly competitively that they realized they needed substantial changes and it’s will likely be made with 10th edition in mind… who knows what that means timing suck but if it was rewritten multiple times I expect a well thought out codex for the extra time placed into it.

Or it's just bunk, as usual.

No OG Regiments
No Veterans, Conscripts, Special Weapons Squads
Overall more elite feel - "Last Sons of Cadia"
Infantry Squads can't take heavy weapons teams

What a load of horse gak.

Infantry squads not being able to take heavy weapons teams would be insane.

 crumby_cataphract wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Yikes. That's looking pretty dire tbh. Unfortunate since guard really need a glow up in terms of both model range and their ruleset, and I feel like they're getting neither.

...they're getting new Cadians, new Ksarkin, new heavy weapons, new sentinels, a new heavy tank, and new characters - at least. They've also just had new plastic Death Korps added to the range. How on earth does that not qualify as a "glow up" of the model range?

New Cadians are long overdue, so that's to be expected as a baseline. Kasrkin are a nice surprise, but Heavy Weapons arguably didn't really needed to be updated assuming the new Cadian kit was modular enough to allow you to make one as well. The original plastic sentinel was fine and didn't really seem like it needed an update (especially since the new one seems oddly rotund) and the new heavy tank is something we haven't seen anything yet in terms of rules or models, and given the past track record of the Taurox, I'm not super enthused that GW will have a good design for it, especially when they could revisit old FW artillery tanks that are no longer in production. A new commissar is nice as is Fem-Creed, but IMO are kits that could have been shelved in return for other things in need of update. The baseline catachan infantry squad models are still stunningly old and desperately need a refresh, and there are other kits like Wyrdvane Psykers and Ratlings that could get the plastic treatment. Overall, it's really a missed opportunity to address the lack of diversity in the core units for the different types of regiments that you can build for guard, having revamped Catachans and maybe Steel Legion or Vostroyans to go along with new Cadians would be an amazing way for them to bounce back.

 Kanluwen wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

gungo wrote:
I mean afaik the rumors always said votann and world eaters are still before guard.. probably the next killteam box too… so while I expect at least a teaser I don’t expect a massive guard reveal.

I'd expect it. The pictures leaked from the World Eaters book had the new Cadians in them.

That means Guard is coming before World Eaters.

Additionally, no rumours actually said Votann and World Eaters were before Guard. Just Daemons and CSM.

What makes you think the leak image was a picture of the zerkers and not a guard killteam box…

Because it had Angron in it?

Regardless I don’t expect a massive guard reveal. Several rumors Already said worldeaters and votann first.

No, they didn't. Seriously. There was never order given for Votann and World Eaters.

The only CREDIBLE rumour was from OK_E and it had CSM+Daemons before Guard.

Regarding release and the new rumor of the book being pushed back because it needed to be redone.. I’m assuming this is because guard have been doing so poorly competitively that they realized they needed substantial changes and it’s will likely be made with 10th edition in mind… who knows what that means timing suck but if it was rewritten multiple times I expect a well thought out codex for the extra time placed into it.

Or it's just bunk, as usual.

I mean mordian glory literally just said again it will be the last codex… you keep jumping up and down saying there has been no credible rumors about the release and are clearly wrong. Heck votann models are already being released to GW stores next month. It looks like it’s probably going to be the next release.

 ph34r wrote:
Infantry squads not being able to take heavy weapons teams would be insane.

Insane, but completely in line with all the other stupidity GW has been printing. How people that bad at making games are still employed is baffling to me.

I hope infantry squads go up to 20 with a special weapon per 10 guardsmen if HWT go away, or somehow platoons make their way back. Otherwise IG is going to be the only non-elite army with a basic troop of just 10.

M.

gungo wrote:

I mean mordian glory literally just said again it will be the last codex… you keep jumping up and down saying there has been no credible rumors about the release and are clearly wrong.

Because Mordian Glory is just like Valrak: reposting things already said.

You get that, right? He's not GENERATING anything new. He's not the source of anything. He's just reposting things. Literally everything he posted today was posted elsewhere before. He's not checking the credibility of it, just repeating it.

Heck votann models are already being released to GW stores next month. It looks like it’s probably going to be the next release.

Sure, but some would have said that about Sisters of Battle back when they got their army box.

But oh wait, it wasn't the case now was it?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Sure, but some would have said that about Sisters of Battle back when they got their army box.

But oh wait, it wasn't the case now was it?

Ok, yes, you can bury your head in the sand and pretend squats aren't getting their codex first despite all signs pointing to that being the case. But why do you care so much about this? Why are you so desperate to deny the fact that squats are coming first?

PS: that SoB box set came with the codex.

Big deal if they get their codex first.

That doesn't mean they get their whole range released first necessarily. We'll find out tomorrow in any regards.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Big deal if they get their codex first.

That doesn't mean they get their whole range released first necessarily. We'll find out tomorrow in any regards.

So now you're moving the goal posts from "we don't know they're coming first" to "big deal if they are"? I really don't understand what your point here is, are you arguing just for the sake of being contrary?

Legit this is terrible news. Because GW doesn't understand how to play IG they were shafted by the mission design of 9th. Then the same happless stooges bumble the codex multiple times. Which leads to a 6yr wait between codex's which puts right at the end of 9th. The sentence 'written with 10th edition in mind' is bone chilling to me. I was around when the 5th ed codex was dropped 'with 6th edition in mind' and after the next 2 codex's which were for 6th came out (5-7months) the IG book was already getting squashed by anything already decent or new. What followed was 4+yrs of a terrible book ill designed with a fuzzy idea of what 6th was going to be. The same thing WILL happen here. Oh and the only things worth taking will be the new kits.

Once again:

The C R E D I B L E rumors have always been that CSM and Daemons were coming first.

There was literally zero mention of WE or Votann. Not in the Big Leak a few years back nor from OK_E's stuff.

The "World Eaters and Votann are first!" stuff started cropping up from the usual cesspit of 4channery and then started circulating in the rumormonger video stuff.

You can argue with me all you want. I don't give a feth. It'll come out when it comes out, and so far I'm pretty happy with the changes. Especially the no heavy weapon teams in infantry squads bit!

 Kanluwen wrote:
Once again:

The C R E D I B L E rumors have always been that CSM and Daemons were coming first.

There was literally zero mention of WE or Votann. Not in the Big Leak a few years back nor from OK_E's stuff.

The "World Eaters and Votann are first!" stuff started cropping up from the usual cesspit of 4channery and then started circulating in the rumormonger video stuff.

You can argue with me all you want. I don't give a feth. It'll come out when it comes out, and so far I'm pretty happy with the changes.

"The 'squats come first rumor' comes from sources with no credibility even though everything GW is showing us is confirming that those sources were correct."

Again, what is your point here, other than sheer stubborn contrariness? Why is it so important to dispute the credibility of a rumor at a point where GW has very clearly confirmed that squats are the next codex?

Especially the no heavy weapon teams in infantry squads bit!

Yes, we are well aware of your toxic "I've got mine, screw you" attitude towards invalidating other people's armies.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
Infantry squads not being able to take heavy weapons teams would be insane.

Insane, but completely in line with all the other stupidity GW has been printing. How people that bad at making games are still employed is baffling to me.

They follow the orders of the bosses aka marketing department.

Quality is not needed to get hired. Saying yes to marketing department is.

I'm gonna quote Anton on this one: "Ha, bloody ha".

I'm already not playing 40K anymore and these rumors do not sound like I will be getting back anytime soon. Good news is, more time to play Killteam and build/paint my way through my pile of shame I guess.

A more "Elite Feel"... Hmmm...

Wild speculation here, and something I personally do not agree with at all if it were to be correct, they are purposely trying to reduce the model requirement of guard, specifically the infantry as they find it is overwhelming for new players.

What I find weird though:
As imperial we have the (in my opinion) more or less elite AdMech, the elite, powerarmored SoB, the more elite, powerarmored SMs, the even more elite, powerarmored Grey Knights, the super plus elite, powerarmor+1ed Custodes and the "how elite can it get?" Knights.

Even Guard already had elite Scions. Why should Guard be pushed towards a more elite feel?

Don't get me wrong, I know there are players desperatly wanting to play elite Guard and I have no problem at all with that being made possible. But for something like the Imperium I find it really weird that there might be no army with the "common grunt" feel.

Then again, I might read too much into that...



One question: when writing "no OG regiments" does this refer to the models or to the removal of the regiment specific Warlord traits/orders/heirlooms/characters?

Why would I want my Guard to have an "Elite Feel". I guess this is the paradigm shift that started with Daemons.

Leaving aside rumors for a moment, GW previewed Squats with no mention of World Eaters or Guard. Then, while they kept previewing Squats, they added World Eaters to the lineup with no mention of Guard. Later on after a leak forced their hand, they added a quick Guard preview in acknowledgment.

Seems to me like GW wants to tell us something about the order in which they'd like to release those armies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why would I want my Guard to have an "Elite Feel". I guess this is the paradigm shift that started with Daemons.

"Who cares what you want?" - GW, 2022

I have similar thoughts to endlesswaltz123, provided it's true. Horde armies are stupidly expensive because the price break horde unit boxes get compared to elite units is paltry compared to the difference in points between horde and elite units. If you want or need 500 points of Guard infantry, you'll be paying so much more than you would for 500 points of Marines. I can well see that reflected in lower model sales for horde armies and consequently a mandate from accounting to fix Guard rules to get better sales out of those models. Since it's GW there won't be lowered prices, so the only way to not make customers feel like they're spending three times more on their army than other players is to increase performance of the individual models.

Price increases are a constant with GW, but they've been particularly egregious in the last three or so years. It feels like GW is getting to the point where they have to address that in some way. Not through lowered or at least frozen prices, obviously.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
A more "Elite Feel"... Hmmm...

Wild speculation here, and something I personally do not agree with at all if it were to be correct, they are purposely trying to reduce the model requirement of guard, specifically the infantry as they find it is overwhelming for new players.

Yeah that's basically it, same reasoning behind S5 Termagants and T5 Ork boyz. This edition has been all about handing out buffs rather than reduce point costs and increasing army size.

To be fair I'm not sure what the ideal solution is. Under previous editions new players were often expected to acquire scores of basic infantry for some factions, which would be a big turn off. Even if GW made the models cheaper (lol) a lot of folks just starting out with cheap ~5pt guardsmen would likely end up with demoralising piles of shame that never get painted. Easier to sell them on 50 guardsmen than 70+ guardsmen I guess.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geifer wrote:
Leaving aside rumors for a moment, GW previewed Squats with no mention of World Eaters or Guard. Then, while they kept previewing Squats, they added World Eaters to the lineup with no mention of Guard. Later on after a leak forced their hand, they added a quick Guard preview in acknowledgment.

Seems to me like GW wants to tell us something about the order in which they'd like to release those armies.

It's hard to read too much into that because their hand was forced with World Eaters too. It's possible that GW didn't intend to preview Berserkers that early, and I'd bet money that Angron wasn't meant to be shown at all. Their original plan was probably to save him as the final teaser at the end of NOVA, once all the new Squats stuff was revealed.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why would I want my Guard to have an "Elite Feel". I guess this is the paradigm shift that started with Daemons.

What, you don't want primaris guardsmen? How will you cope with all the rules bloat and finish a game within five hours if you have more than 30 models on the table? And how will you keep up when GW continues the eliteness creep and introduces a whole line of even-more-elite-than-primaris marines?

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
A more "Elite Feel"... Hmmm...

Wild speculation here, and something I personally do not agree with at all if it were to be correct, they are purposely trying to reduce the model requirement of guard, specifically the infantry as they find it is overwhelming for new players.

I can't remember the last time I saw an infantry-heavy Guard army. It's usually just bare-minimum infantry a butt-load of tanks.

 xttz wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
Leaving aside rumors for a moment, GW previewed Squats with no mention of World Eaters or Guard. Then, while they kept previewing Squats, they added World Eaters to the lineup with no mention of Guard. Later on after a leak forced their hand, they added a quick Guard preview in acknowledgment.

Seems to me like GW wants to tell us something about the order in which they'd like to release those armies.

It's hard to read too much into that because their hand was forced with World Eaters too. It's possible that GW didn't intend to preview Berserkers that early, and I'd bet money that Angron wasn't meant to be shown at all. Their original plan was probably to save him as the final teaser at the end of NOVA, once all the new Squats stuff was revealed.

The leak came later. I'm referring to the chainaxe render and accompanying statement at Warhammer Fest when GW presented the Chaos Marine codex and had to acknowledge World Eaters somehow, since they weren't going to be in the codex. That was scheduled.

 Gibblets wrote:
Legit this is terrible news. Because GW doesn't understand how to play IG they were shafted by the mission design of 9th. Then the same happless stooges bumble the codex multiple times. Which leads to a 6yr wait between codex's which puts right at the end of 9th. The sentence 'written with 10th edition in mind' is bone chilling to me. I was around when the 5th ed codex was dropped 'with 6th edition in mind' and after the next 2 codex's which were for 6th came out (5-7months) the IG book was already getting squashed by anything already decent or new. What followed was 4+yrs of a terrible book ill designed with a fuzzy idea of what 6th was going to be. The same thing WILL happen here. Oh and the only things worth taking will be the new kits.

Indeed. What is worse is it means no reset with 10th edition, since 9th has pretty much killed 40k play in the club, I see Heresy or 'other' being the options going forward for the majority of my fellow club go-ers.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
What, you don't want primaris guardsmen? How will you cope with all the rules bloat and finish a game within five hours if you have more than 30 models on the table? And how will you keep up when GW continues the eliteness creep and introduces a whole line of even-more-elite-than-primaris marines?

Clearly this "more elite" Guard army necessitates the removal of squad-borne heavy weapons, something Guard have only had since their original plastic kit...

I'm a big fan of Scions and Solar Auxilia, but that doesn't mean the rest of guard needs to follow suit. To remove the option to have "horde" guard, considering that they are known as the "Hammer of the Emperor" due to their sheer infantry numbers alongside mass vehicular support would really reduce them to just a bunch of carry ons to a vehicle based army, which sounds like a watered down non-melee, shooty only knight army with tangential infantry units. There's so few real horde armies now in 40k, so keeping that aspect would make guardsmen stand out and having 20 man infantry man squad boxes like they did in the past would make it more palatable for some people, I mean they can do it for Mortek Guard in AoS, I don't think it's that far fetched to do it for guard.

Guard as a horde army is a thing from the days past, where you could buy 20 Cadians for 15 pounds and not y'know, their current four times higher price.

If memory serves, vehicle heavy guard was an early rumor, and we've obviously heard elite guard at some point. I wonder if either (or both) of those were the essences of the rumored rejected test codices...

Also, elite guard seems at odds with dropping veterans. Back in 5th I used to take chimera mounted vets, which tended to keep my model count relatively low

I think the "more elite feel" is a necessity borne out of the current design paradigm of the game. Its hard to keep guard as a cheap horde of faceless mooks when you are compelled to stack 5+ layers of rules on top of their datasheet between strategems, army wide special rules (presumably the orders system), subfaction buffs, warlord traits, relics, and all the other gak they hand out to armies these days.

At that point, theres just too much going on and too much capability for a player to reasonably feel like their guardsmen are anything other than elite operators with a big tool kit of capabilities.

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the (assumed) fact that the IG codex was re-written four time directly contradict the strongly held Dakka belief that GW doesn't playtest their rules? Not a jibe, just unsure how to deconflict the two.

I'm honestly okay with no HW in the infantry squad, assuming they somehow increase the survivability of HWS. Having two SW in a squad would actually be nice in some situations (though I'm sure they'll have to be different, per the new "box content only" paradigm).

More elite is fine... in theory
But it won't feel elite if they're still t3, 5+. They'll just die.

But at the same time, i don't know what the game's baseline stat profile is anymore. It was always something of joke that it was supposed to be baseline humans (definitely was back in Rogue Trader), but was actually space marines.

Now? Fethed if I know. So many are all over the place now.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Guard as a horde army is a thing from the days past, where you could buy 20 Cadians for 15 pounds and not y'know, their current four times higher price.

Exactly, my old Guard army was a drop troop regiment and had 2 infantry platoons because they were reasonably affordable. Not only is it that absurd price now, but what is worse is that it's that price for the same old kit I bought the first time round. No thanks.

No wonder everyone makes their guard an armoured company.

 Olthannon wrote:
No wonder everyone makes their guard an armoured company.

Or buys 3rd party, or 3d prints, or purchases recasts...

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think the "more elite feel" is a necessity borne out of the current design paradigm of the game. Its hard to keep guard as a cheap horde of faceless mooks when you are compelled to stack 5+ layers of rules on top of their datasheet between strategems, army wide special rules (presumably the orders system), subfaction buffs, warlord traits, relics, and all the other gak they hand out to armies these days.

It's also hard to do that when the faction identity is supposed to be "the professional soldiery of the Imperium", where even the Conscripts are supposed to be moderately trained...and you somehow are outnumbering things like Cultists and being outmaneuvered by them at every turn.

At that point, theres just too much going on and too much capability for a player to reasonably feel like their guardsmen are anything other than elite operators with a big tool kit of capabilities.

It's not just that. The game itself has shifted. We have two factions(Chaos and Genestealer Cult) that are effectively supposed to be "peasant rabble rising up".

It's hard to square what are supposed to be trained soldiers/professional killers when they're just on par with Johnny from the block grabbing an autogun and running amok, and when Johnny has big friends in the form of CSM with him or is somehow behaving with more tactical acumen than your well-trained forces are.

Also true. GW struggles hard in establishing a "baseline" and then working around it.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Also true. GW struggles hard in establishing a "baseline" and then working around it.

It's especially hard when you just keep effectively copy/pasting the same book for decades.

KillerAngel wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
No wonder everyone makes their guard an armoured company.

Or buys 3rd party, or 3d prints, or purchases recasts...

I used to use paper circles and rectangles, now I use TTS. Admittedly, TTS fails to capture something about playing in person even when playing in person only involves paper circles

As to the Heavy Weapon Teams leaving the infantry squads, I'm hoping that GW has brought platoons back and will allow Heavy Weapon Squads to be taken within those platoons, thus freeing up the Heavy Support slots more. That said, I've always played mechanized guard, so I probably wouldn't take platoons due to the points sink it would involve (that was my experience back in 5th at least).

Here's the hoping we're all being horribly misled and GW announces at NOVA that Guard is the next codex

 Kanluwen wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Also true. GW struggles hard in establishing a "baseline" and then working around it.

It's especially hard when you just keep effectively copy/pasting the same book for decades.

It's a difficult line to walk I would say. Change nothing and people will whinge you haven't changed anything. Or change a lot and people will whinge you have changed too much. (How dare they remove HWTs etc)

KillerAngel wrote:
I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the (assumed) fact that the IG codex was re-written four time directly contradict the strongly held Dakka belief that GW doesn't playtest their rules? Not a jibe, just unsure how to deconflict the two.

You're assuming it was rewritten for balance rather than say, maximizing the sales potential.

Guard was always the easiest army to sub in 3rd party stuff from, easier now than ever between 3rd party stuff and 3d printing.

So devaluing all our existing armies and tying it more to Cadians and other name brand units makes sense.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

KillerAngel wrote:
I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the (assumed) fact that the IG codex was re-written four time directly contradict the strongly held Dakka belief that GW doesn't playtest their rules? Not a jibe, just unsure how to deconflict the two.

You're assuming it was rewritten for balance rather than say, maximizing the sales potential.

Guard was always the easiest army to sub in 3rd party stuff from, easier now than ever between 3rd party stuff and 3d printing.

So devaluing all our existing armies and tying it more to Cadians and other name brand units makes sense.

I don't completely disagree (sales trumps all), but what you stated isn't new by any stretch. So wouldn't they go into draft #1 with that intent in mind? Would they really need four revisions to solidify an IP favorable theme?

I wouldn’t take to much credence on what someone means by saying elite feel.. I mean they just might be sayin. That because of the new kaskrin, larger tank, roughriders etc model push.. I doubt basic troop guardsman are going away… and if the codex was rewritten multiple times all that really matters is how specific datasheets fit into the army and how specific regiment traits support those datasheets. So I don’t think the elite feel comment matters much.

I have(had) the disposable income to purchase 70 plastic DKoK one way or another for an average price of £28 per 10. This was my calculation to make 5x10 man squads, 1 command squad and 1 HW squad and bit to convert commanders etc. So £196 for a platoon, I'd like another also tbh, but then... £196 for roughly 400pts is really hard to swallow, not to mention it was an absolutely mammoth task to paint.

If that platoon cost was close to £120, I think I'd do it again, but yeah, it's pricy for a horde style army... However that is how I want my Krieg to be, I want 100+ men charging over no mans land.

My personal take on the "more elite" feel is that with the loss of Consripts (which would need to cost 2-3 pts to be remotely playable in the current meta) and with veterans and special weapon teams gone. It will be the Elite FOC Cadia/Catachan/Krieg/Tanith squads that will have an abundance of buffs on them. The regular Infantry Squad will take over the functional role of Conscripts (read: Operation Human Shield). I don't see vehicles getting more elite though tbh, if anything they will get cheaper, because even if they change all D6 to 3+D3 the damage output from everything, save the Manticore, is so little, they still would need a cost reduction of about 20% to just get their points back.

I have my doubts that the Codex went back 4 times because it was too strong though. I am way to cynical to believe this and find the idea that they have no fething clue what to make of them far more appealing. Save for removing options for Regiments of course, because feth you and your 30 years of background.

We're not losing Conscripts because they want Guard to be "more elite". We're losing Conscripts because they don't make specific Conscript miniatures. "More elite" is just an excuse.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
We're not losing Conscripts because they want Guard to be "more elite". We're losing Conscripts because they don't make specific Conscript miniatures. "More elite" is just an excuse.

Yeah, GW's "No model, no rules" policy strikes again! Anything that isn't remotely a distinct separate kit or option in a box must be purged in their fanatical eyes. At this point they might as well just rebrand conscripts as child soldiers to justify it as a separate kit, like Captain Brannigan in Futurama having his own "Children's Brigade"

So codex drops in 'winter' any time from December 2022 to March 2023.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
So codex drops in 'winter' any time from December 2022 to March 2023.

GW roadmaps are the best. It's like going on google maps and asking for directions from LA to New York and it returns a result of "drive east".

Did anyone snag the IG cover? I think I saw it on Facebook.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Did anyone snag the IG cover? I think I saw it on Facebook.

Don't know if this is going to be the cover / this is the image you're referring to, but if you scroll down to the roadmap bit, there's
an IG art piece partially visible behind the Guard and WE Codex mockups..

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/09/01/nova-open-reveals-the-new-khorne-berzerkers-in-all-their-savage-glory/

They may keep the old cadian box knocking around, or just have it bare bones, bumped back up to 20x and that could be the conscript box.

They should give the codex an option for militia anyway and allow the use of necromunda kits - with really limited weapon options.

That won't be the final artwork but I wonder if there's anything to be taken from that image. I guess the guns behind the regiment banners are just earthshaker cannons. Unless that's the new tank that is rumoured and it just has those 10 cannons attached

The regiment in question is the IVth which I don't recognise as significant. The red and blue on the first banner, is that typical of the Krieg?

Old-Four-Arms wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Did anyone snag the IG cover? I think I saw it on Facebook.

Don't know if this is going to be the cover / this is the image you're referring to, but if you scroll down to the roadmap bit, there's
an IG art piece partially visible behind the Guard and WE Codex mockups..

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/09/01/nova-open-reveals-the-new-khorne-berzerkers-in-all-their-savage-glory/

Good spot - does that guardsman at the top look like he's holding a hellgun/HS lasgun to anyone else?


Edit: False alarm - this is probably not from the new cover:

On the road map image - It just looks like two Hydra batteries and two Basilisk batteries. For some reason, the little lightning bolt campaign badge on the banner makes me think of Steel legion... I can dream

That is definitely a hot shot laser gun that the guardsman is holding though in the battle scene above. You can see the cables that plug it into the power pack. Imagine Cadians are now the vet choice and you can load them all out with hot shots.

Or hot shots as a cheap special weapon option for basic squads.

a las-volleygun would be a nice special weapon option for my rifle company

Are these place holder images or a sign that 10th ed codices will have emblems instead of battle scenes or hero portraits?

Placeholders.

Heck, they even say, "Image Redacted".

It's a placeholder. Every time GW does one of these long-term road map previews the later books always have generic placeholder images instead of the real cover art.

Just checking. Thanks for the confirmation, folks!

Okay, will they get a new squad instead or just lose the specialist option? As a Catachan player I am used to deploy my 3 snipers as a unit of their own anyway according to the Catachan codex. Adding 3 lasguns to that mix always felt weird.

But we still need a gung-ho squad armed with demolition charges running straight at the enemy with a manic grin on their faces as it was ALWAYS the highlight of any battle: Would they blow up the enemy or themselves? Ah, good old times.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Okay, will they get a new squad instead or just lose the specialist option? As a Catachan player I am used to deploy my 3 snipers as a unit of their own anyway according to the Catachan codex. Adding 3 lasguns to that mix always felt weird.

But we still need a gung-ho squad armed with demolition charges running straight at the enemy with a manic grin on their faces as it was ALWAYS the highlight of any battle: Would they blow up the enemy or themselves? Ah, good old times.

In 2009 when I was still working at GW a guy showed up at a major tournament...either the GT or the GamesDay tournament...with a Catachan army made from the old Catachan codex. This was in 5th edition days. I told him the book was no longer valid and he was shocked and upset and asked when was GW going to tell people it was no longer valid. I said when the 4th edition IG book came out. ( was there a 4th? lol. The book that let you take Last Chancers and deep strike them. Individually. With BS3 melta/plasmaguns. )

He tried to get the judges to allow the book but they said no, and he had to totally reconfigure his army. I am sure it was still legal.

Left out of the loop. It must have sucked to learn that for him.

General Hobbs wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Okay, will they get a new squad instead or just lose the specialist option? As a Catachan player I am used to deploy my 3 snipers as a unit of their own anyway according to the Catachan codex. Adding 3 lasguns to that mix always felt weird.

But we still need a gung-ho squad armed with demolition charges running straight at the enemy with a manic grin on their faces as it was ALWAYS the highlight of any battle: Would they blow up the enemy or themselves? Ah, good old times.

In 2009 when I was still working at GW a guy showed up at a major tournament...either the GT or the GamesDay tournament...with a Catachan army made from the old Catachan codex. This was in 5th edition days. I told him the book was no longer valid and he was shocked and upset and asked when was GW going to tell people it was no longer valid. I said when the 4th edition IG book came out. ( was there a 4th? lol. The book that let you take Last Chancers and deep strike them. Individually. With BS3 melta/plasmaguns. )

He tried to get the judges to allow the book but they said no, and he had to totally reconfigure his army. I am sure it was still legal.

Nah, I am not like that guy in your story. I also own the 4th and 5th Guard codex although the Catachan codex sold the faction to me in a way modern codexes never could. You had tips inside how to build a jungle board and do camo on your dudes. And don´t forget about the Traps. Those were glorious! 5th even stripped all regiment special rules from your dudes away and could only be regained by using special characters.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Placeholders.

Heck, they even say, "Image Redacted".

And yet sadly more interesting and better composition than any codex cover so far this edition.

 Strg Alt wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Okay, will they get a new squad instead or just lose the specialist option? As a Catachan player I am used to deploy my 3 snipers as a unit of their own anyway according to the Catachan codex. Adding 3 lasguns to that mix always felt weird.

But we still need a gung-ho squad armed with demolition charges running straight at the enemy with a manic grin on their faces as it was ALWAYS the highlight of any battle: Would they blow up the enemy or themselves? Ah, good old times.

In 2009 when I was still working at GW a guy showed up at a major tournament...either the GT or the GamesDay tournament...with a Catachan army made from the old Catachan codex. This was in 5th edition days. I told him the book was no longer valid and he was shocked and upset and asked when was GW going to tell people it was no longer valid. I said when the 4th edition IG book came out. ( was there a 4th? lol. The book that let you take Last Chancers and deep strike them. Individually. With BS3 melta/plasmaguns. )

He tried to get the judges to allow the book but they said no, and he had to totally reconfigure his army. I am sure it was still legal.

Nah, I am not like that guy in your story. I also own the 4th and 5th Guard codex although the Catachan codex sold the faction to me in a way modern codexes never could. You had tips inside how to build a jungle board and do camo on your dudes. And don´t forget about the Traps. Those were glorious! 5th even stripped all regiment special rules from your dudes away and could only be regained by using special characters.

I loved that Codex.

Sorry if that was already mentioned here and I missed it: my GW store dude told me the old Sentinel will be going out of stock when the new Codex hits.

Guess I personally will get 2 or 3 before that, lets see

I mean, yeah that was pretty easy to assume, when a new version of an old kit is released, the old one gets removed.

I hab hope a bit that they would make the new one the armored Sentinel and keep the old one as the scout variant.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I mean, yeah that was pretty easy to assume, when a new version of an old kit is released, the old one gets removed.

Except for ork boys the old kit is still being sold along with the new kit… which to be fair the new kit is atrocious has zero options and is all monopose snapfit models.

gungo wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I mean, yeah that was pretty easy to assume, when a new version of an old kit is released, the old one gets removed.

Except for ork boys the old kit is still being sold along with the new kit… which to be fair the new kit is atrocious has zero options and is all monopose snapfit models.

Calling the new Ork Boyz a "kit" is a travesty - and I don't think even GW would be dumb enough to make it the only available Boyz kit - because by their own logic of only builds in the kit being legal, then Boyz would have to be restricted to only 5 Choppas and 3 Shootas per ten.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Guess I personally will get 2 or 3 before that, lets see

I'm ordering another one next week.

gungo wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I mean, yeah that was pretty easy to assume, when a new version of an old kit is released, the old one gets removed.

Except for ork boys the old kit is still being sold along with the new kit… which to be fair the new kit is atrocious has zero options and is all monopose snapfit models.

It's also possible that they were afraid of the backlash which was already brewing when people were assuming that the old kit was going to be removed. GW has been burned by social media Waaagh!s a few times before (biker warboss, KFF mek, mandatory mek workshop), so they most likely didn't want to risk pissing off every single ork player again.

It's exceedingly rare for GW to offer two versions of the same kit at the same time. The only one I can readily think of is Ork Boyz, which may have even been a reaction to the bad reception the new Boyz received rather than being an instance of a multipart and a monopose kit being on offer alongside each other.

I have no idea what prompted GW to replace the Sentinel of all things, but the new kit would have to be pretty abysmal and omit options if there were to be any sense in keeping the old one around.

 Geifer wrote:
It's exceedingly rare for GW to offer two versions of the same kit at the same time. The only one I can readily think of is Ork Boyz, which may have even been a reaction to the bad reception the new Boyz received rather than being an instance of a multipart and a monopose kit being on offer alongside each other.

I have no idea what prompted GW to replace the Sentinel of all things, but the new kit would have to be pretty abysmal and omit options if there were to be any sense in keeping the old one around.

Chaos warriors are the same, except their new kit is stick in the start collecting box.

 Jidmah wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I mean, yeah that was pretty easy to assume, when a new version of an old kit is released, the old one gets removed.

Except for ork boys the old kit is still being sold along with the new kit… which to be fair the new kit is atrocious has zero options and is all monopose snapfit models.

It's also possible that they were afraid of the backlash which was already brewing when people were assuming that the old kit was going to be removed. GW has been burned by social media Waaagh!s a few times before (biker warboss, KFF mek, mandatory mek workshop), so they most likely didn't want to risk pissing off every single ork player again.

IF they replaced the Ork kit, by their own policy, the Ork Boyz datasheet would HAVE to be limited to only what's in the monopose kit, by GW's own policy.

I think even GW can figure out why that would be a bad idea

I was gonna say my big hope is for them to open up tons more regiments, custom regiments, pdf's. militias, renegades.... basically make a 'humans' rather than AM codex but can't see it happening. Cadian heavy is a good bet and we'll be lucky to get Kreig I think. Hope I'm wrong. Then again hope for anything for this codex is kinda pointless 'cos....

I've been playing Guard for most of 9th - admittedly that's not a lot of games for me, but one GT and one RTT - and I'm struggling to get excited. I may not even buy the book and if I do it will be for the art and stories, if they are any good. It's hard to find reviews for anything but the rules. The reason is that if 10th is next summer, with the amount I play, it won't be worth it and i'll play orks in the meantime cos dats da most fun, whatever happens - orks is always fun.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I mean, yeah that was pretty easy to assume, when a new version of an old kit is released, the old one gets removed.

Except for ork boys the old kit is still being sold along with the new kit… which to be fair the new kit is atrocious has zero options and is all monopose snapfit models.

It's also possible that they were afraid of the backlash which was already brewing when people were assuming that the old kit was going to be removed. GW has been burned by social media Waaagh!s a few times before (biker warboss, KFF mek, mandatory mek workshop), so they most likely didn't want to risk pissing off every single ork player again.

IF they replaced the Ork kit, by their own policy, the Ork Boyz datasheet would HAVE to be limited to only what's in the monopose kit, by GW's own policy.

I think even GW can figure out why that would be a bad idea

You aren't too familiar with ork boyz, are you?

Outside of the datasheet looking stupid for forcing a 3/6 split of shootas and choppa, nothing would change. That is, if they bother at all, we have other instances of GW not bothering for such things on new kits.

All other options have already been lost years ago, despite model support.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I mean, yeah that was pretty easy to assume, when a new version of an old kit is released, the old one gets removed.

Except for ork boys the old kit is still being sold along with the new kit… which to be fair the new kit is atrocious has zero options and is all monopose snapfit models.

It's also possible that they were afraid of the backlash which was already brewing when people were assuming that the old kit was going to be removed. GW has been burned by social media Waaagh!s a few times before (biker warboss, KFF mek, mandatory mek workshop), so they most likely didn't want to risk pissing off every single ork player again.

IF they replaced the Ork kit, by their own policy, the Ork Boyz datasheet would HAVE to be limited to only what's in the monopose kit, by GW's own policy.

I think even GW can figure out why that would be a bad idea

You aren't too familiar with ork boyz, are you?

Outside of the datasheet looking stupid for forcing a 3/6 split of shootas and choppa, nothing would change. That is, if they bother at all, we have other instances of GW not bothering for such things on new kits.

All other options have already been lost years ago, despite model support.

I am rather familiar with Ork Boyz, and if the new kit was the only one, the things that would change would be;

You'd HAVE to take a Rokkit Launcher/Big Shoota every ten models, since there's no option for that Boy to hold anything else.
You'd HAVE to take a mixed loadout of 5 Sluggas and 3 Shootas since that's all you can build.
You'd HAVE to make only ten Boy squads, since the box comes with 9 Boyz and 1 Nob, with NO option to turn the Nob into a regular Boy.

There’s an Instagram post from 40K right now, showing Chaos Knights (the focus) attacking Cadians.

And we again see that Mystery Sponson creeping in. But also…the existing Sentinel kit.

If I knew how to yoink photos from Instagram I would. But…interesting to see that new tank and the old Sentinel, given recent posts.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There’s an Instagram post from 40K right now, showing Chaos Knights (the focus) attacking Cadians.

And we again see that Mystery Sponson creeping in. But also…the existing Sentinel kit.

If I knew how to yoink photos from Instagram I would. But…interesting to see that new tank and the old Sentinel, given recent posts.

This Image:
I believe it is just an existing Leman Russ sponson, the one from the leaked image with Angron was more rounded, I think.

That’s the one.

Doesn’t seem high enough to be a Leman Russ?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That’s the one.

Doesn’t seem high enough to be a Leman Russ?

Seems high enough for me.

Also, it seems to literally be this very Leman Russ, judging by the paintjob

Fair enough

Doesn't the tank on the Knights pic have dual cannons? You can see another green thingy next to the green muzzle. The barrel is also noticeably thinner than the Leman Russ battle cannon and there are only two muzzle holes (the LR battle cannon has three).

 AtoMaki wrote:
Doesn't the tank on the Knights pic have dual cannons? You can see another green thingy next to the green muzzle. The barrel is also noticeably thinner than the Leman Russ battle cannon and there are only two muzzle holes (the LR battle cannon has three).

That's just a different option for the Leman Russ

 AtoMaki wrote:
Doesn't the tank on the Knights pic have dual cannons? You can see another green thingy next to the green muzzle. The barrel is also noticeably thinner than the Leman Russ battle cannon and there are only two muzzle holes (the LR battle cannon has three).

If those aren't standard LRBT gun barrels they're from a tank next to the visible one. If you look at the knight pic and compare it to the full LRBT picture you can clearly see that it's the exact same model. Look at how the lines on the paint scheme match and it's exactly the same. The lines between colors pass next to the same rivets, the number 17 is aligned exactly the same relative to the line between colors, etc.

It’s the exact same tank model posted above with the twin Autocannon turret weapon swapped in instead.

Yeah, I think you guys are reading into this shot too much, you'll probably have to wait until more gets leaked for the picture of the Rogal Dorn, or whatever it's supposed to be called now.

Also, to note, the Cadians used are still the old Cadians and not the ones that we know of that are supposed to be the potential new ones. Interesting.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

That's just a different option for the Leman Russ

Ah, yes, I forgot about the Exterminator .

You'd be forgiven for forgetting about the exterminator. It's a completely pointless option for the LMR.

In all my life playing 40k I have not seen a single Exterminator, GW doesn't even have a photo on it on their website.

It was nice for Space Wolves in 3rd or 4th ed as it offered something unique for being an actual heavy tank in a Marine army, giving it some appeal over Predators

If I recall it was also the cheapest Russ option for Guard and provided a solid option for anti-medium infantry fire power and therefore had a niche.

But of course the game has moved on since then. Dual autocannons aren't what they used to be and (oftentimes better) options have exploded across the board.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
In all my life playing 40k I have not seen a single Exterminator, GW doesn't even have a photo on it on their website.

There were quite a few knocking around in 3rd edition. I think they were mainly SW ones though, they were cool.

We had a IG player with one in 3rd/4th Edition because of all the guns on it. The Ork player in the group hated it

The kit was also the only non-mail order way to get the hull Heavy Bolter without converting in 3rd.

I have 3 Exterminators. They're fun. It doesn't make sense that they cost more than regular Leman Russes though.

 Platuan4th wrote:
The kit was also the only non-mail order way to get the hull Heavy Bolter without converting in 3rd.

Yep, bitz ordered a good number of those back in the day.

The Exterminator was actually quite good in 4th to reliably crack open light transports (and then blast it's passengers to pieces). But yes, ever since we have no more templates, it would need to be Heavy 4 twinlinked to be remotely as good as the good old Battle Cannon in that regard. It's pointless to discuss the points costs though, the people at GW think that the Vanquisher Cannon is better than the Battle Cannon and personally for me infuriatingly, think that the meagre 2 Lascannon shots of the Annihilator pattern are worth 25 additional points. I'm curious how they will fix this in the next codex. My money is on: They won't, so you need to buy the Pretorian if you want to have a functioning tank.

Not to derail this into discussion about previous uses of one specific LR variant, but I recall it also being suggested as a fill-in Hydra post 5e - not as good as dedicated AAA, perhaps, but more durable and less of a burden if your opponent didn't bring any flyers.

Not to get off track.....But back in the day, weren't there 2 LR kits, the regular and the Demolisher? You had to bitz order the Exterminator parts right?

Exterminator was sold in boxes.

 waefre_1 wrote:
Not to derail this into discussion about previous uses of one specific LR variant, but I recall it also being suggested as a fill-in Hydra post 5e - not as good as dedicated AAA, perhaps, but more durable and less of a burden if your opponent didn't bring any flyers.

I always forget the exact variant names but yeah, the autocannon was something like 4 attacks, twin linked, so you could roll up to 8 dice fishing for 6's. It was more in the era of hull points though, as s7 was strong enough to simply strip hull points off of fliers. Not ideal, but the Hyrda was fishing for 6's on anything on the ground if memory serves, which in general is more things than fly.

Its kind of funny that it actually lost firepower in the swap to 8th. It lost twin linked but maintained 4 shots, so it now depends on Grinding Advance to keep up with its old firepower.

General Hobbs wrote:


Not to get off track.....But back in the day, weren't there 2 LR kits, the regular and the Demolisher? You had to bitz order the Exterminator parts right?

No.

Oh! That's where that tank commander is from!

Thanks Platuan4th!

I was always cionfused by that kit back in the day.

To me, those barrels always shouted "LASCANNON" mainly due to their similarity to the infantry squad lascannon rather than the autocannon.

 alphaecho wrote:


I was always cionfused by that kit back in the day.

To me, those barrels always shouted "LASCANNON" mainly due to their similarity to the infantry squad lascannon rather than the autocannon.

I started just after this kit disappeared, so haven't seen it much. My first thought was it looks like an Annihilator! I doubt many people would notice if you ran this as an Annihilator instead these days.

Holy massive photo, Batman

Call me sentimental, but I love the old LR design. Especially the Demolisher with the metal barrel..

 Platuan4th wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:


Not to get off track.....But back in the day, weren't there 2 LR kits, the regular and the Demolisher? You had to bitz order the Exterminator parts right?

No.

So 3 kits? Or was the Demolisher packaged with the Exterminator?

Demolisher was separate, as it came out in a completely different edition to the Exterminator.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Demolisher was separate, as it came out in a completely different edition to the Exterminator.

For some reason I only remember 2 kits. The 99 catalog only has 2 of the variants.

General Hobbs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Demolisher was separate, as it came out in a completely different edition to the Exterminator.

For some reason I only remember 2 kits. The 99 catalog only has 2 of the variants.

The exterminator was listed under space wolves for a while iirc.

General Hobbs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Demolisher was separate, as it came out in a completely different edition to the Exterminator.

For some reason I only remember 2 kits. The 99 catalog only has 2 of the variants.

Leman Russ and Leman Russ Demolisher may well have been the only kits at that point, as carry over kits from 2nd Ed (well, along with the Chimera and Basilisk. Griffon is 2nd Ed as well, but that bugger has come and gone). Oh and the Hellhound.

3rd Ed landed 1998, and whilst I can’t be sure without research I can’t be bothered to do, by 1999 IG may well have been awaiting their 3rd Ed Codex, and thus the addition of the Leman Russ Exterminator

Wonky History, by Mad Doc Grotsnik. Because greater precision and accuracy is a pain.

General Hobbs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Demolisher was separate, as it came out in a completely different edition to the Exterminator.

For some reason I only remember 2 kits. The 99 catalog only has 2 of the variants.

The LR MBT and Demolisher came out during 2nd edition, the Exterminator during 3rd. Like the Demolisher it was metal bits added to the plastic kit until... 5th edition? When the plastic kits came out.

Here it is from the 2000 Annual (thanks to Stuff of Legends)



http://www.solegends.com/citcat2000/c2000p121-01.htm

Part of the confusion over 2nd or 3rd edition about the demolisher is that there were two metal demolisher kits

the second edition one


and the third edition one

I'm really trying to think back on the order of things in 3rd.

One I'm fairly certain of is the exterminator kit was not available when the guard codex was released.... It potentially was a resin kit by forgeworld though?

I remember the kit being available by the time the SW supplement was released though.

It was in the 3rd edition Codex, not sure when it was actually on shelves, I'd have to pick through 20 year old White Dwarves for that.

The Leman Russ Exterminator is advertised for sale as a kit (for $50 CAD or $32.99 US) in White Dwarf 239 from December 1999. The WD lists the Leman Russ Exterminator kit as an October/November 1999 release along with Codex Imperial Guard, Col Shaeffer's Last Chancers and the plastic Catachan Jungle Fighters box.

As an aside, its a glorious WD with lots of Guard (including a battle report with the Exterminator) and some Mordheim. Good days. There is even a Chapter Approved portion with some battle statistics: Dark Angels were on top with a 67% win rate, Tyranids were in 2nd with 55%, Sisters of Battle in 3rd with 55% and dead last were Space Marines with 44%. Anyhoo.

Aside from the Sentinel, what other IG kits currently offered from GW/FW are most likely to go OOP with this upcoming release?

 GrosseSax wrote:
Aside from the Sentinel, what other IG kits currently offered from GW/FW are most likely to go OOP with this upcoming release?

Creed Sr. ?

If I had to bet:
Ratling snipers,
Macharius and Malcador tanks and their variants (to not step on the toes of the new tank)
I'm also kind of suspecting/dreading they take away Crusaders and Priests from our Codex leaving them to SoB and replacing them with an Astra Militarum only "battlepreacher"

Macharius & malcador aren't part of codex so new codex coming changes nothing

 Pyroalchi wrote:
If I had to bet:
Ratling snipers,
Macharius and Malcador tanks and their variants (to not step on the toes of the new tank)
I'm also kind of suspecting/dreading they take away Crusaders and Priests from our Codex leaving them to SoB and replacing them with an Astra Militarum only "battlepreacher"

You mean the Propagandum Warpreachmongerer?

About OOP, my 2 cents:
Creed and Kell (obviously)
Servitors (are already gone, but now no longer even in Codex)
Crusaders
Psyker Rabble Squad
Astropath
Advisors
Yarrick (out of spite to remove the last traces of ASL)
All Commissars that are not in plastic
Priests
Stracken
Harker
Marbo

Sort of in that Order. If they really go with Regiments are only squad's, then 10th edition will expunge Catachans likely. Much to my chargrin.

Well that's a good part of my Arbites army...

Time to start converting them Sisters I think.

I'd like to see the Crusaders and Priests go as they are currently so they can be done in plastic. Considering they work across two armies, despite being fairly niche, I think they could sell well for adding some flavour to each. Not something I expect to seewith this Codex but the sort of thing I can see GW doing for a filler relase at some point.

The Psykers really need to be excised from the army. They exist just to add a psyker element and do it in such a half hearted way. Thing is from the fluff psykers are propagandised to the Guard to be witches and not to be trusted. There are other armies without any psyker elment and I don't think the Guard benefits from having any.

It would be nice to see a new Commisar kit with some variation in load out. The current kit is useless in that you end up with a bunch of them from various boxes but you only need one due to how static the kit is and how limited in options. Plus it's just a plain ugly sculpt.

We're absolutely getting a new Comissar, there was one in the background of the leaked picture

Missed that one, thats good news

Tallonian4th wrote:
Thing is from the fluff psykers are propagandised to the Guard to be witches and not to be trusted.

Only unsanctioned Psykers. Primaris Psykers have been part of Guard fluff for decades.

I disagree that Psykers need to be expunged from the Codex. They just need to be done right.

The Primaris Psyker, while the name is a bit confusing now with a certain other army of plot devices, not only date back to 2nd it seems, but they also are noted in several fluff pieces as the template of the powerful sanctioned psyker. Of course many armies would react negative towards the psyker. This used to be implemented with the "it's for your own good" special rule.

Astropaths are usually only part of a world goes Apocalypse scenario or if an Inquisitor is involved. I would really like to have "Agents of the Inquisition" as a subcodex that can be taken as part of an individual detachment with Codex IG and would not mind to have it inside Codex IG if that is the only place it can exist. But the Astropath should really be sloted that way.

The Psyker Rabble squad is fluff wise not only supported, example and spoiler alert: . But these really emphasise the way that Sanctioned Psykers are treated in the fluff. The only thing is that they need fitting models of chained filthy wretches, tormented by the powers that they channel and accompanied by rules that are not such a load of feth that you can't even use the squad apart for Secondary Mission actions.

They’ve been around since the start. No reason at all to get rid, the guard has never been puritanical about psykers, the grunts might not like being around one but they don’t get a say. That’s life in the guard.

Andykp wrote:
They’ve been around since the start. No reason at all to get rid, the guard has never been puritanical about psykers, the grunts might not like being around one but they don’t get a say. That’s life in the guard.

And judging by that unit entry, they could all be walking around with Chaos mutations! Bring that back!

Why are people so adamant about removing options?

Stop trying to take stuff away.

The premise was what we believe/think might be phased out. I personally would love to keep all options, get some back that were removed before as well as some new ones, but I accept that this would not make sense economically for GW

 Shakalooloo wrote:

Andykp wrote:
They’ve been around since the start. No reason at all to get rid, the guard has never been puritanical about psykers, the grunts might not like being around one but they don’t get a say. That’s life in the guard.

And judging by that unit entry, they could all be walking around with Chaos mutations! Bring that back!

It was a more fun time.

Andykp wrote:

 Shakalooloo wrote:

Andykp wrote:
They’ve been around since the start. No reason at all to get rid, the guard has never been puritanical about psykers, the grunts might not like being around one but they don’t get a say. That’s life in the guard.

And judging by that unit entry, they could all be walking around with Chaos mutations! Bring that back!

It was a more fun time.

It's definitely what I hoped the Crusade rules would bring back. The wild stuff like this.

There is a weird fascination with removing options from Guard for some reason.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
The premise was what we believe/think might be phased out. I personally would love to keep all options, get some back that were removed before as well as some new ones, but I accept that this would not make sense economically for GW

Indeed. I simply want to order soon to be retired IG kits before they vanish from circulation.

I just ordered 3 of the old Sentinels yesterday...

 BlackoCatto wrote:
There is a weird fascination with removing options from Guard for some reason.

I think expectations of different regiments etc with the expanse of the current range isn't something they can ever hope to match, a more condensed range however might stand a chance.

 BlackoCatto wrote:
There is a weird fascination with removing options from Guard for some reason.

Gw has this no model no rule Syndrome. That's why gw has fascination.

Guard can have all the options they want in terms of characters/support. However I am of the opinion absolutely every one should be attached to a squad, bar a commissar perhaps, who should have the autonomy to stroll across the lines.

Everything else should be wrapped up in commands squads, or embedded within units. It would also bring the amount of data sheets down in the codex. Guard have something like 10x 25-45pts(ish) characters across HQ and Elites (without special characters and tank commanders)

Have command squads, allow unto 2 advisors to be attached to each company/regiment command squad and 0-1 per platoon command squad, allow priests to be attached directly to squads, same with crusaders etc.

Ditch plenty of the unit specific auras they grant for the advisors in favour of granting abilities to one unit in line of sight to the command squad etc.

Just yeah, no need for so many individual characters knocking about in terms of data sheets and independently in a guard force.

God, I wish there was a fascination with removing options from Marines. We do not need an entire page entirely dedicated to different versions of a Bolter.

It's more a morbid fascination on my side. GW has hacked away at IG ever since 5th edition. The only real additions were the Scions in 6th and some units that were leftover models that they had to have somewhere to sell them and the odd marketing stunt. It's only been a beating besides that and I don't think that GW is done by now. On the contrary, my cynic nature tells me, that the worst is still to come.

The only good news is, that it will be hard for GW to top my negative expectations. It would need a tremendous screw up to surprise me in a bad way by now.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
God, I wish there was a fascination with removing options from Marines. We do not need an entire page entirely dedicated to different versions of a Bolter.

Just so long as they leave my 4 different versions of captains and 6 different versions of chaplains alone. It would be unforgivable if a quarter of the Marine HQ section had fewer units than the entire LoV codex...

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
God, I wish there was a fascination with removing options from Marines. We do not need an entire page entirely dedicated to different versions of a Bolter.

There is but it'll make the manlets start crying again.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
God, I wish there was a fascination with removing options from Marines. We do not need an entire page entirely dedicated to different versions of a Bolter.

Yeah, why do we need 10 tank guns for Leman Russes? Generic 'tank gun' will do just fine. Or all these aspect warriors, pointless bloat, just make 'aspect warrior sword' and 'aspect warrior gun', there, done. Or Tau battlesuits, why do we need 20 weapons, again? Just 'bro'khen g'hun' would be enough. Giving units different roles based on loadout, what's that?

This is literally as stupid take as the above, and I like how repeating this 4chan gak always conveniently 'forget' about the state of SM melee weapons, because it doesn't suit the narrative, eh?

Edited for Rule 1 - ingtær.

Time to get back to the News and Rumors.

Valrak over on B&C:

Did a video on rumour of the guard release this November from my source, apparently new boxset is coming in November with:



New Command Squad
New Squads of Cadians
New Sentinel
New Ordinance Battery (Super Heavy Weapon team)
Cards, Codex, Etc
Again, just because I trust the source doesn't mean you have too, anyway, have a good day

Mordian Glory shared some rumors he was sent. He stresses that he is relaying these so buyer beware. As such, huge grains of salt, but I figured I'd share the link anyway:
https://youtu.be/-aUF855Xxt0

Guess I'll take stenographer duties tonight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aUF855Xxt0

Source is a play test codex
First Rank Fire = lasguns are heavy 3
Sgts (maybe Cadian sgts only) can get an autogun with 3 shots
You can take either Hammer of the Emperor (auto wound on 6) or regiment traits
DKK, Catachans and Cadians each get a new vet squad, this might replace the current vet squad.
+++ Catachans get Cat Devils
+++ Cadians get a multiple special weapon squad
+++ DKK something involving a plasma gun
New Catachan models on the way
Ogryn and Bullgryn get -1 damage (I assume to minimum of 1?)
Tanks get turret rule, +1 to hit and can shoot out of combat.
No more grinding advance
Battlecannons and Demolishers get d6+3 shots
He really, really needs to add more images to his slide show
New Macharius type super heavy, maybe the Rogal Dorn/Praetorian, with the 'oblivion cannon', no further info
Shadowsword gets a flat damage of 14
And that's all folks!

Sorry i'm just catching up, but was there any truth to those Attilan rough riders rumours in the end?

 Kroem wrote:
Sorry i'm just catching up, but was there any truth to those Attilan rough riders rumours in the end?

Still unconfirmed, but at least one previously reliable source said they're coming and there's a rumour engine pic which fits them quite well.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
You can take either Hammer of the Emperor (auto wound on 6) or regiment traits

Really? That fething rule is making it to print?

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Guess I'll take stenographer duties tonight.

Thanks! One internet to you, good dakkanaut. I was in the middle of something but wanted to share the video at the very least.

Hmmmm, I guess we'll have to see but depending on how tuned things are with regards to strats and points, I could see the Hammer or the Emperor being similar to the Emperor's Chosen shieldhost for Custodes where everyone just goes with that since it's a pretty strong baseline ability.

Other than that, not sure if the new FRSRF order is great given that you get more shots at long range, but -1 to hit if you moved makes it a lot more restrictive for damage output.

I am glad to hear that Vets are still present, even if they seem to be regiment-locked.

-1D I guess can help Bullgryn out a bit in terms of tankiness, but their real problem is the anemic damage output they have alongside just being power creeped out on fighting for the objective game. Ogryn will still be irrelevant unless they price them obnoxiously cheap or if they can put out a silly amount of attacks.

The turret changes seem like a nerf at first glance, since +1 to hit is okay....but missing out on double the shots from Grinding Advance going away makes a big difference for variants like Punishers.

Could the new box of Cadians just be the Kasrkin?????

I'll roll with the changes to the codex, but having new models that are not going to match the old ones.....that is a kick to the jimmy. Especially with guard and the number of infantry many of us would have to replace.

The Krieg vets with plasma gun specifically is weird, I think that is just a lost in translation thing, or comes as standard with the squad that can be swapped out considering the special weapon options in the kit.

The Krieg Vet kit has plenty of other options, so I assume they will be represented in some capacity.

Not looking like we'll get Krieg Grenadiers though which makes me a little sad personally, though they could just have Karskin rules and a switch of keywords if they did come back about, hopefully the engineers are still an option.

He, so big news:
GW still has no idea how to fix guard. All these changes sound like worthless shifting of some numbers. The core issues are glaringly still there. Too little damage output, too squishy models, wiped off the board in turn 3-4.

Hammer of the emperor gets canonized? Ridiculous!

But this is the first mention that they won't kill of Regimental traits, that's the only "good news" I'm hearing here. Still, codex sounds dead on arrival so far.

 GiToRaZor wrote:
Still, codex sounds dead on arrival so far.

Well the good news is we'll only have it for 6 months or so before 10th edition drops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
The Krieg vets with plasma gun specifically is weird, I think that is just a lost in translation thing, or comes as standard with the squad that can be swapped out considering the special weapon options in the kit.

Maybe Krieg automatically die when using the plasma gun, thus lifting them up to the Emperor's side for all eternity?

That would be win right?