Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Only GW's efforts in gauging the public's interest in them has been less then useful recently.

TakeABow wrote:Speaking of WH and DH, I want a Deathwatch update. Some Ordos Xenos rules would be sweet.

A nice, big forces of the imperium codex would be pretty nice.. I mean, there has to be a reason they listed DH and WH under that label in the 5th ed rulebook?

I have to admit I'm a little surprised the whole Deathwatch concept hasn't made it into the game Cool piece of fluff I think.

You can have Death Watch Kill Teams but beyond that nothing.

Which is sad really. The idea of a Deathwatch army is quite cool... so cool in fact that I already have one, but that's neither here nor there.

H.B.M.C. wrote:They're not combining DH and WH into a single Codex and, in fact, the next DH and WH Codices won't even be DH or WH Codices, they'll be Grey Knight and Sisters of Battle Codices, because the Inquisitorial side of things will be shrunk and genericised to the point of pointlessness (pun intended).

And the people out there who play Inquisitorial armies w/o GKs or SoBs (such as myself) can put their armies on the shelves next to their Lost & The Damned armies.

H.B.M.C. wrote:They're not combining DH and WH into a single Codex and, in fact, the next DH and WH Codices won't even be DH or WH Codices, they'll be Grey Knight and Sisters of Battle Codices, because the Inquisitorial side of things will be shrunk and genericised to the point of pointlessness (pun intended).

And the people out there who play Inquisitorial armies w/o GKs or SoBs (such as myself) can put their armies on the shelves next to their Lost & The Damned armies.

Hyperbole much?

Unlike LatD =][= have the distinct advantage of having actual model kits out.

There is no way GW is going to drop the rules for units that actually have a model. They haven't done that since 2nd to 3rd. Every example of a dropped unit since then has been a unit that GW never produced a model for and which players were meant to convert (skarboyz, the entirety of lost and the damned).

And the inquisitorial side of things is already quite small so there isn't really that much GW could get rid of.

Daemonhunters - 3 units, Inquisitors, Stormtroopers and Daemonhosts. Daemonhosts have a model so aren't going anywhere. Inquisitors have a model so aren't going anywhere although feasibly they may simplify the rules for retinues and stormtroopers are the only unit that may be dropped as they have no model/are just an Imperial Guard unit really.

Witchunters - 4 units, Inquisitors, Stormtroopers, Archo-flagellants and Penitent Engines. The same reasoning applies for the Inquisitors and Stormtroopers and the archo-flagellants and Penitent Engines both have models so they aren't going anywhere.


You are probably correct that GW will fiddle with the rules for inquisitorial henchmen and genericise them a bit and its all a bit up in the air regarding storm troopers but I think everything else is likely safe.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:Hyperbole much?

When you feel the need to quote me twice, I can see it being hyperbole. But if we ignore that, no, it's not. Jervis (or the one that writes half-way decent Codices who's name escapes me) has said that they got a little 'carried away' with the Inquisitorial Codices and would be reducing them to be more about SoBs and GKs. That bodes ill for WH and DH players who don't use SoBs or GKs.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:Unlike LatD =][= have the distinct advantage of having actual model kits out.

Mmm... because GW's never invalidated a model line before. Nope. Nu-uh. Never.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:There is no way GW is going to drop the rules for units that actually have a model.

How long have you been playing 40K, or been involved in the illustrious GW hobby experience?

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:They haven't done that since 2nd to 3rd. Every example of a dropped unit since then has been a unit that GW never produced a model for and which players were meant to convert (skarboyz, the entirety of lost and the damned).

[Removed my own snarkiness]

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:And the inquisitorial side of things is already quite small so there isn't really that much GW could get rid of.

That's what you think. Say goodbye to all the various Henchmen, and replace them with "Henchman". Single statline. Single list of options. No different types. Familiar becomes Wargear. Daemonhosts, Archo-Flegellants... all genericised - and no dobut made worse... if you can even imagine it - because the drive will be new GK and SoB kits and they'll want to sell them, so they'll buff the rules and ignore the old models.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:Daemonhunters - 3 units, Inquisitors, Stormtroopers and Daemonhosts. Daemonhosts have a model so aren't going anywhere. Inquisitors have a model so aren't going anywhere although feasibly they may simplify the rules for retinues and stormtroopers are the only unit that may be dropped as they have no model/are just an Imperial Guard unit really.

Witchunters - 4 units, Inquisitors, Stormtroopers, Archo-flagellants and Penitent Engines. The same reasoning applies for the Inquisitors and Stormtroopers and the archo-flagellants and Penitent Engines both have models so they aren't going anywhere.

So... what then? Screw the people who like fielding armies like that, like my Inquisitorial army with 60 Storm Troopers, each in a Valk, led by several different types of Inquisitors, backed up by Daemonhosts, Archo's and Priests? They haven't got many units, so just forget about them then.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:You are probably correct that GW will fiddle with the rules for inquisitorial henchmen and genericise them a bit and its all a bit up in the air regarding storm troopers but I think everything else is likely safe.

Well that's what I'm getting at - - but I don't want it to be genericised. Why does "revision" for GW mean "make everything as fething boring as humanly possible". Why do they make books like the Ork Codex, which took Orks from the horrid Generic Goff nightmare of third and turned them into an interesting and vibrant force, and then they go and make a Codex like the Guard Codex, where evrything changed for no redily apparent reason and things just got more... standard... for no real gain.

I want another lightning-bolt Codex, like Orks, something that changes the game and gives players a vibrant force (Nob Bikers notwithstanding), not another fizzle flash-in-the-pan like 'Chaos' and Guard.

FlammingGaunt wrote: WH i haven't even seen the codex, so i guess we should be seeing them soon or they're going to be the next dark eldar.

I wouldn't wish that even on the armies that I hate and think redundant...

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:Witchunters - 4 units, Inquisitors, Stormtroopers, Archo-flagellants and Penitent Engines. The same reasoning applies for the Inquisitors and Stormtroopers and the archo-flagellants and Penitent Engines both have models so they aren't going anywhere.

Two units: Arco-Flagellants and Penitent Engines are Ecclesiarchal, not Inquisitorial. They are effectively a part of the Sisters (Codex: Sisters of Battle also included Ecclesiarchal units).

@HBMC

I have been involved in GW games since the early days of 3rd edition 40k. I am well aware that GW has previously invalidated entire model lines or models from armies but I can't think of any examples since 3rd ed.

Actually that isn't quite true, I can think of some examples but there are usually special circumstances regarding them i.e.

Leman Russ Exterminators and Griffons disappeared but they are now back.

Some special characters have gone. Off the top of my head Lord Solar Marcharius, Captain Cortez, Gaunt's Ghosts and The Last Chancers are the only ones I can think of. Generally though special characters just become generic commanders in that instance like Njal Stormcaller becoming the standard rune priest model.

Wulfen are kind of in limbo at the moment but they do have an apoc data sheet and it is a strong likelihood that they will feature in the new space wolf book.

Every other time GW has changed the rules the models they invalidated are ones that required conversion i.e. removing weapon options for dreadnoughts that they didn't produce, removing skarboyz from the current ork codex, ceasing support for lost and the damned.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this practise. It is a dick move for GW to invalidate anybody's models. If they make rules that encourage conversions, offer options and units that reward conversions then they should continue to support those rules otherwise it is just pissing on the hard work of players. Dropping latd is one of the worst things GW ever did in my perspective and I am not fond of the trend for genericising as seen in the chaos codex and daemon codecii (athough I do think the ork, marine and to a lesser extent guard codecii are excellent)

I'm only pointing out this practise to suggest that if GW makes a kit for a unit then that unit is not likely to disappear completely.

So yes, you are probably correct that if the design team has stated that they want to downplay the influence of the =][= then Inquisitors will probably have simplified rules with simplified henchmen (although I sincerely doubt we will just get one "henchmen" entry. The Chaos codex may have stupidity like that but Guard advisors and Marine Honour Guard/Command Squad specialists made it intact).

But I disagree with you that archo-flagellants/daemonhosts/penitent engines are likely to disappear. Will their rules change? Almost certainly but they aren't going anywhere You stated in another thread that GW is going to take away an Inquisitorial unit for every SOB or GK unit it adds. I don't see the basis for this reasoning because I don't see a recent history of GW removing units from codecii.

It sucks for you that the allies rules and the fate of storm troopers, both of which you clearly need in order for your army to work, are up in the air regarding rumours and I sympathise. Nobody should have their army invalidated in such a manner.

I also agree with your desire for more revisions to be like the ork codex, adding flavour and options rather than reducing them. Again I am not defending any trend by Gw to the opposite.

I just want to put some perspective on your chicken little routine. Past practise says most of the =][= stuff isn't going anywhere.

Besides as I understand it you use your own rules for 40k anyway. Pure inquisition was never going to be top tier force so you were clearly using it in casual play and between friends willing to let you use your own rules and apoc you will still probabyl be able to use your pure inquisition force. Again, not defending GW here, it would clearly be better if your army is legal I just want to put some perspective on this.

And I have no idea what the quoting twice thing is all about. Something to do with the network being down briefly at work when I tried to reply I feel.

@Elric I'm well aware that archo-flagellants, priests and penitent engines are part of the Ecclesiarchy but they are widely lumped together with the Inquisitorial units as the "freakshow" (along with repentia) so I think it is fair to lump them together here for this discussion.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Which is sad really. The idea of a Deathwatch army is quite cool... so cool in fact that I already have one, but that's neither here nor there.

That explains why they never did a Codex for them... It's part of a plot by GW to see how many unsupported armies one man can own.

Get your wolves, paint them utras and move on. The wolves went to visit the squats in the warp and got lost. I would rather see a new chapter and fluff then bring back an old crusty marine codex. I would like to see the Dark Elves get an update though.

rodfarruguia wrote:Get your wolves, paint them utras and move on. The wolves went to visit the squats in the warp and got lost. I would rather see a new chapter and fluff then bring back an old crusty marine codex. I would like to see the Dark Elves get an update though.

They got their army book update not all that long ago.

To be fair, the DE update was essentially the 3E one with a new cover.

People are getting Dark Elves and Dark Eldar mixed up.

TakeABow wrote:To be fair, the DE update was essentially the 3E one with a new cover.

Calling what DE got an 'update' is very generous. It was an errata compilation. With the treatment they're finally getting now, they will be a completely different army in all but name.

I want to agree with rodfarruguia because I think SMs deserve only one codex like everybody else, with slightly different rules to distinguish chapters, like Eldar do with craftworlds. Plus I personally don't care about SWs, but SWs is what we're getting with their very own codex. To be fair, they are a very unique and stylized chapter, far too deeply rooted in the 40k history. The thought of any SM chapter being squatted is laughable. Not gonna happen. In playing this game, we all accept that our nemeses will be given goodies too... Unless your nemesis has been DE. But they've been promised redemption.

I played DE from back when the starter box came with DE and SM. Me and a friend both got one, and we traded models.

That was 9? years ago.

Archonate wrote:with slightly different rules to distinguish chapters, like Eldar do with craftworlds.

Uhh... Eldar don't any more. GW took that away.

Really now? Wow GW is stripping versatility from armies. Tyranids, Chaos, now Eldar. If I were a SW player I'd be worried.
I guess it shows that I'm behind on the changes brought by 5th Ed codices. Such things happen when your investment is neglected for 9 years. I've played DE since the dawn of 3rd ed. Lucky for us, the versatility of the army can only go up.

Archonate wrote:Really now? Wow GW is stripping versatility from armies. Tyranids, Chaos, now Eldar. If I were a SW player I'd be worried.
I guess it shows that I'm behind on the changes brought by 5th Ed codices. Such things happen when your investment is neglected for 9 years. I've played DE since the dawn of 3rd ed. Lucky for us, the versatility of the army can only go up.

The stripping of varient lists for Tyranids, Chaos, and Eldar, actually occured with 4rth edition. Though the Tyranids was only a Chapter Approved Article (Seeding Swarms I think) towards the end of 3rd.

Archonate wrote:GW is stripping versatility from armies. Tyranids, Chaos, now Eldar.

GW is approaching versatility differently. The basic lists are more flexible, but GW removes the variant lists.

By analogy, GW is making each Codex more like a more broadly-configurable Tactical squad, rather than a group of narrowly-defined Aspects / Cult Marines.

Well what I think GW should do (which they're probably not going to) is just cram all those things into one codex, all SM chapters in one codex but have nothing lost. Also add GS cult to tyranid codex, and chaos cults to CSM codex. and so forth

GW is approaching versatility differently. The basic lists are more flexible, but GW removes the variant lists.

By analogy, GW is making each Codex more like a more broadly-configurable Tactical squad, rather than a group of narrowly-defined Aspects / Cult Marines.

Oh I agree with the changes. I think that's how armies should be, it's creates better, more manageable balance between armies. But we used to hear a lot of complaining from Chaos players about their latest codex. And I knew a lot of people personally who quit playing Tyranids when that 4th ed codex emerged because no matter how they sliced their army list, they couldn't beat SMs anymore. The problem is that while all these armies are being pruned, SMs seem to be growing in all directions. But I'd need to read all the latest codices to really get an accurate sense of how balance is shaping up between SM and non-SM armies.

Those who have read them, what do you think?

I tend to agree with FlammingGaunt. To dedicate separate codices to subdivisions of the same army is going a little overboard. That practice has lead to the neglect of many far more deserving armies. GW has proven it's inability to keep up with itself. They don't really need fewer armies to do so, just fewer codices.

@Archonate: Yeah, I agree with you. It's mildly irritating that there is one set of rules for SMs and another set of rules for everybody else.

But I guess, when you're the 900-lb gorilla who drives the bulk of GW sales and are larger than any other game line, I guess you get to break a few rules.

While I'm not happy to have lost my Codex: Craftworlds, if it got Orks fixed 3 months earlier, I think that's a fair sacrifice on my part. OTOH, if I lost C: CWE for GW to cram in C: DoW BR SM, that's pretty weaksauce.

From a pure playability standpoint, the newer Codices are more idiot-proof, but they do have some real issues with backwards-compatibility. Personally, I'm not entirely happy with my current Eldar, SM, and now IG Codices but I do suspect that they're pretty well-balanced against one another. CSM is kind of the only army list that I'm really happy with at the moment, and it still needs to be re-built! But I said I'd work on IG this year, and I really ought to push on that over the coming months...

Personally, I just wish GW would be a bit more transparent about the Codex update schedule. It's the not knowing that's most irritating.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Personally, I just wish GW would be a bit more transparent about the Codex update schedule. It's the not knowing that's most irritating.

No question there. If they just said outright `Sisters are being done somewhere around 20xx to 20xx+1' I would feel much happier. It would be good if they were a little more open with all releases. I know I am currently holding off on buying more Dark Elves because I do not know what will be done in the second wave later this year, and I have all I will ever need of the first wave. If they just said `we are going to do X, Y, Z' I would go out and buy A, B and C knowing they are not going to be redone for another decade.

Funny thing is, even SM players are one by one starting to say "Meh, SMs are cool and all, but what about the rest of the universe???"

As far as their release schedule secrecy, yeah, it has become obnoxious. I'm not sure why they think they have to be so ridiculously hush-hush about a release that is 2 months away, but knowing GW I'd bet it's because they think it will somehow earn them a buck or two... Maybe they want people to keep buying old models for a longer period? I dunno. Whatever it is, it's petty.

Yeah, I am seeing that here too. The Space Marine players are growing sick of facing other Space Marines, and even the hardcore ones are getting sick of the pandering their army receives.

Although I really, really like variant army lists, to be fair I remember that the practice led to some lists with stupidly over or underpowered aspects to them, like the flipping Alaitoc Ranger list that could just about beat you before the game even started.

I don't like the current codex formats, and how they tend to make new things very, very powerful to sell them when they would already sell plenty because the dang thing is a great new kit (Valkyries, Carnifexes, etc.) They sacrifice balance to the bean counters like that.

Part of their approach that causes me to just feel things are blander is that the variants we are used to and are still capable of fielding some sort of fascimile of is that they aren't elaborated upon. We loved the characterful stuff about the variant lists, keep that fluff around and really sell all that crazyness. It's great that you can fit all that stuff into one list, sure, but don't let all the unique stuff and themes and ideas all fall to the wayside once you do that. I don't think there is any reference at all to a mono-god force in the current Chaos Codex, when even Pete Haines himself admitted that due to the overwhelming response to the old Index Astartes Articles and what armies people were playing, that single legion or mono god forces were preferred by the vast majority of players.

Does anyone else think it's interesting that, despite SM having an 'uber' new codex, all the players at GT's etc are playing Khorne demons and dual lash CSM with few exceptions?

I really hope the next couple of codexes are xeno/non-imperium. Although, i would not complain if they sneaked a new Sisters' book in between them!

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
I'm only pointing out this practise to suggest that if GW makes a kit for a unit then that unit is not likely to disappear completely.

And if you were talking about plastic models, I'd agree with you. Metal models, and their molds are dirt-cheap, wear out, and are harder to replace. As a result, I could absolutely believe that GW would 'get rid of' large swathes of metal models.

Remember, GW only said they would continue to support "armies" that currently have codexes (codicies), they didn't say anything about models. So I'm with HBMC on this one (as another DH player with no GKs, and all Stormies).

Now onto other items:

GW likely doesn't say much about their release schedule because it constantly changes. They apparently can't pick a direction and stick with it (codex power level, format, wargear, whatever). I'm sure that in another 6 months or so, we'll see another sea-change in how things are done. The 3 month window allows them to actually know for sure that a particular product is coming out. They'd constantly be pushing things around, delaying them, etc. and everyone would complain more if we knew the longer-out schedule.

Take for instance the current: IG, Planetstrike, then maybe SW launches. Dark Eldar had been rumored in here, but then disappeared to be replaced by SW. Probably as a way to continue to drive sales (cause everyone buys marines!). In a stinky economy, go with your bread and butter: terrain buildings, marines, and a codex that is largely Mech with lots of tanks (IG). That'll keep things afloat.

Everyone is playing CSM with dual lash in tournies because that's the one build that doesn't have a solid counter, although, guess who - new IG - with their tank squadrons, psychic choir, and all Mech potential makes them the best bet to break the lash problem, much as it has minimized the biker Nob problem. We've seen one pretty rough/bad/powerful build in each of the last couple dexes, which unfortunately seems to be something GW just can't shake.

I though they were on a good direction when Eldar, then Dark Angels hit the scene. They were both (at the time) pretty solid, nothing splashy, but a comparable level. Since then, they've been relegated to the 3rd string, DA more than Eldar.

Frankly, as a long-time player (from 2nd through 5th), I'm losing interest in it all. I haven't bought the Marine Dex, Ork Dex, Daemon Dex for 5th. Its just not that interesting anymore, which is a shame, because I used to buy everything because it was a good read if nothing else.

If they made just one book Inquisition or Armies of Imperium or whatever and put the Greyknights in that it would be cool. I think everyone here wants to see a Mechanis er Admec Whatever the mars people are called army.


That would be badass.