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.

I had a quick look through it. Personally I think it sucks that they removed the allies as now a daemonhunters army is even worse than it was before to the point of being barely playable, as they can no longer take inducted guard to supply much needed troops choices and cheap effective transports.

I understand that some players were including daemonhunters as allies in other armies, especially mystics with guard, but any tournament I've been to hasn't allowed this so really its of no concern to me.

I guess it all depends on how tournaments in your area are run.

Mookie.

daedalus wrote:Sure, there's no slots to fill, but by the section concerning the FoC in the BRB, every Codex has a FoC in it, so if this one doesn't, then by the rules, it's not a codex, and the old printed one still applies.

Or you could just use the standard FOC chart with it. As is intended. Or do you really need every little detail spelt out to you?

But I'm sure you know that, and are just trying to create drama where none exists.

Pretty sad they still haven't updated the stats of stormshields, assault cannons, or land raiders.

Oh well, I guess I will continue to use updated rules from other locations.

Kroothawk wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Cool, thanks! My gf is starting a ssters army, she'll be psyched to see this without having to spend 25 bucks on it.

Do your GF a favor and buy her the hard copies of Codex Witch Hunters (3rd) and Codex Adepta Sororitas (2nd edition). She will absolutely need the painting section of the 3rd ed Codex, the background of the 3rd and, as a plus the more extended background of the 2nd ed. Codex.

The pdfs are just the rules, not enough to actually play the army and know what the army is about. The modelling part of the 3rd includes the organisation and painting schemes (incl symbols) of all military and civil orders. The Grey Knight Codex pdf has some essential pages missing, e.g. the one page with allies, Grey Knight and Daemon definition. That's what the confusion about the right Codex in this thread is about.

I'll see what I can do about finding those for her, Kroothawk. That's the most useful suggestion ot come out of this train wreck of a thread. Of course, in defense of the internet community, if GW hadnt screwed the pooch quite so hard we might not be looking at this fething abortion here today now would we.

I think the fact that they went through the effort of renumbering the pages, pulling out the allies section and then covering it with some pictures is pretty telling. I guess we'll have to wait 3.5 years for them to officially make a statement.

Wait a minute. I thought this thread said that the FOC had been removed from the book? The copy I downloaded has an FOC, right on page 14 (as it is numbered in the document) bottom left.

Mn, that's what I read as well.

grizgrin wrote:Wait a minute. I thought this thread said that the FOC had been removed from the book? The copy I downloaded has an FOC, right on page 14 (as it is numbered in the document) bottom left.

And it has been removed from Daemonhunters. On page 14 of the Witch Hunter dex its there

"Within this PDF you'll find all the rules you need,
along with points values and force organisation information
to field them in your games."

Whoops, DH has no FoC, how can I believe anything GW ever writes again? Oh, a major typo too. Are GKs still Psykers? We lose the definition of what is a GK unit also.

The page numbering was most likely done automatically by whatever file they used to create this from, I like how the pages with the covered over inducted rules for DH are now "quote box purple".

Ah, ok. Thanks, anderwm9.

With these "new" free codex's I will be starting a new Gray Knights or SOB army.

Absolutionis wrote:They edited the books to their respective erratas. .

No, they didn't. Check out the inducted IG available on the online pdf and then check out the inducted IG available in the FAQ...................


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dave47 wrote:Remember when Codex: Demonhunters was first published, and suddenly people weren't sure whether Codex: Assassins was still legal?

Apparently Games Workshop doesn't.

And GW actually put out an FAQ on that........

GW must be completely slowed. They really managed to make an already bad codex, the one which had to grapple with the Necron dex for the crown of suck, even worse.

UltraPrime wrote:

daedalus wrote:Sure, there's no slots to fill, but by the section concerning the FoC in the BRB, every Codex has a FoC in it, so if this one doesn't, then by the rules, it's not a codex, and the old printed one still applies.

Or you could just use the standard FOC chart with it. As is intended. Or do you really need every little detail spelt out to you?

But I'm sure you know that, and are just trying to create drama where none exists.

I believe the point is that one creates a double standard by saying that the removal of the Allies rules was intended, but the removal of a FOC (which is necessary to correctly play the game) was a mistake.

I could just as easily argue that GW is going to give DH a special FOC allowing for free-form armies with no compulsory choices, and that the removal of the allies rule was an accident.

So until GW issues a statement one way or the other, we cannot make a determination about whether its is still acceptable to use Allies.

* Looks at page count ( five ).*
* Looks at arguments. *
* Shakes head and wanders off to open a new bottle of beer.*

Just to add some fuel to the fire.

Page two, (first page after the cover)

Under Bold title " Why collect a Daemonhunters army? "

Paragraph 2.

"Another strength of the Daemonhunters army list is the ease with
which it can be integrated with existing armies. If you already
have an Imperial army such as the Space Marines or Imperial
Guard, it can easily be incorporated into the Daemonhunters list.
For instance, a Space Marine player may choose to lead his force
into battle with a Grey Knight Grand Master and his Terminator
bodyguard, or an Imperial Guard player may choose to add a
couple of platoons of infantry to his Daemonhunters force. "

Still think allies are gone? There it is in your new .PDF. It looks like there is more research to be done. Until then I would assume since the codex states you can and doesn't provide rules and and F.A.Q.'s say you can then you would just refer to the hard copy for the actuall allies rules.

I wouldn't put too much importance into the pdf-release. They are just a minor gap filler quickly done (with obvious short comings).
They are not a full Codex, as modelling and background sections are missing. The armies stay mostly mail order only. So this obviously is not the big launch of these neglected army that some people thought or hoped.

Grey Knights are rumoured to come around January, Sororitas within 18 months. Grey Knights will get a completely new range of models including new units and plastic standards, less inquisition and new priorities. Sororitas will probably get many new models as well, a new emphasis on Ecclesiarchy, at least the Codex is in the works for some time as well. These are the big (and late) revival of these armies, even when both armies are currently able to win games if played well.

This is terrible. Right before the ard boyz finals also?

Do the guys that make these decisions even game? No FOC? etc.

Talk about leap before you look...

hyperviper6 wrote:Just to add some fuel to the fire.

Page two, (first page after the cover)

Under Bold title " Why collect a Daemonhunters army? "

Paragraph 2.

"Another strength of the Daemonhunters army list is the ease with
which it can be integrated with existing armies. If you already
have an Imperial army such as the Space Marines or Imperial
Guard, it can easily be incorporated into the Daemonhunters list.
For instance, a Space Marine player may choose to lead his force
into battle with a Grey Knight Grand Master and his Terminator
bodyguard, or an Imperial Guard player may choose to add a
couple of platoons of infantry to his Daemonhunters force. "

Still think allies are gone? There it is in your new .PDF. It looks like there is more research to be done. Until then I would assume since the codex states you can and doesn't provide rules and and F.A.Q.'s say you can then you would just refer to the hard copy for the actuall allies rules.

You could literally make the same argument about Sustained Assault or any other anachronisms in the book and you'd have the same result.

i really dislike this posting of the codexes as if it is any kind of solution or even something that the gaming community really asked for. both codexes i am sure still refer to adversaries rules which last i check are not allowed and not even included in the respective codexes. the rules didn't change they just edited out certain parts. Just eliminate the armies until you decide to bring out a new updated codex please GW.

tiny bit strange that it was so sloppily done but lets hold back on that until we see what they have to say tomorrow.

I just wish if they were going to stapgap the fact that the books are OOP, they had just posted the whole dang thing exactly as it was. Least everyone knew where the problem areas were with the print copies. Eh, well; if wishes were fishes.

My fishies are stronger than your fishies.

Your need to prove fishie strength is a sad, sad statement all on it's own.

grizgrin wrote:Your need to prove fishie strength is a sad, sad statement all on it's own.

Hey, my jokes are lame, but they are not sad. Because at least I'm laughing

Touche, I will give you that. So 18 months or tomorrow and wee find out WTF wih this new codex, huh? I'm voting for tomorrow.

I'm voting for eighteen months. I bet we'll get what effectively amounts to (pardon my Texan) jack diddly squat.

They're also spam. Police yourselves, people.

OT: isn't the standard FOC already in the BRB? I know that in my LGS at least you'd get laughed out of the store for trying some of these outlandish rules-lawyering travesties. Accuse GW of incompetence all you want, but if I were them I'd do the same thing; throw the PDF out there and let a bunch of basement dwelling neckbeards with nothing better to do edit it for me. XD

Hey, a guy can dream, eh? But 18 months is probably more realistic, I admit.

Ninja'd