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.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Spikey bits said they had recieved hints of an entirely new faction dropping in January. These Fungus people. What ever happened to that?

Spikybits rarely has anything that isn't just recycled rumour off forums/reddit/facebook.
The symbol on the GW website that shows the slot uses artwork from the "generic xenos" page in the Big Rule Book where they show a selection of different minor xenos faction artworks. However because its a generic icon it could just mean one of the existing armies that we already have for Xenos. GW has given no hint of a brand new army for 40K.


I also dread to think of the Eldar Rage if GW gave out an entirely new army before updating aspect warriors and a lot of the older Eldar line

It wasn't just SB, the Long War ran with it.

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/367070-vague-rumours-of-a-new-race-coming-to-40k/

Spikey Bits and the Long War are pretty closely intertwined on a personal level.

 kodos wrote:
the same like for every other release

the investment need to be paid off on the opening weekend, if it does not it is considered a failed release

Wait a minute. No, it isn't. Why have you stated this like it is some kind of absolute truth? A faction release isn't a Hollywood Movie. It's ROI is not judged in that manner. At all. GW does very few actual splash releases. They create something, put it out there, and support it for years and years.

Voss wrote:

 Overread wrote:
At the same time new armies in AoS seem to be doing well and people like it and are receptive to it. 40K, for its age, actually has very few armies once you step outside of the marine range.

Ignoring the really small ones like knights, and subfactions like DG and TS (and Harlies), and non entities such as various imperial agents, and no loyalist marines at all, I count 13 armies. That's more armies than most wargames have... ever.

I don't mean to be contrarian, but Priveteer press does have a pretty healthy 14 different factions across Hordes and Warmachine. With each of those having roughly 3 subfactions within them. Each started out pretty streamlined but have gotten a little bloated over time. Much like GW. I wonder how long till we see Codex Legion of the damned with a slightly fleshed (unholy flamed?) out line of models ala Harlies.

 Hollow wrote:

 kodos wrote:
the same like for every other release
the investment need to be paid off on the opening weekend, if it does not it is considered a failed release

Wait a minute. No, it isn't. Why have you stated this like it is some kind of absolute truth? A faction release isn't a Hollywood Movie. It's ROI is not judged in that manner. At all. GW does very few actual splash releases. They create something, put it out there, and support it for years and years.

this is what we got some time ago as offical statemant from GW how their release works and why they do things in a specific way

it does not matter if it is a new faction, redone old faction or just a new kit for an existing faction
and it has nothing to do if GW supports it for years or not, as if GW does not want to support it they use cheap molds that are done after the initial production run and not the more epxensive one that last longer

and what support means, you can ask SoB players who waited a year to play (without access to the old stuff), or the old GSC players

if GW release something it must make the money back on release
and if they want to get rid of stuff that does not sell, they release it again (and add low afford new things to justify it for the people, may it a character or "boardgame" aids)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
I count 16-18 in total if you ignore Subfactions (depends if you count GSC and Inquisition as Subfactions or not)

Cults are their own thing with their actually own unique play style compared to Loyalist Marine Chapter #5.

if we go into "what plays really different" it gets tricky, as MEQ overall play very similar, they are just on a different level reagarding options and balance that make them appear different, same as Knights would be 1 faction and not 2.
there are not many different playstyles present in 40k

but make it a total of 18 factions for 40k excluding Subfactions and Mini-factions (were we don't know yet what will happen to them).

Honestly, I wonder if GW will ever start releasing microtransactions in Warhammer form.

Have a model, say, Space Wolf Captain w/Power fist and Bolter 19.99 only available December XXXX. Thus creating a whole economy based around unique models, in order to play off the zoomers propensity for supporting said business practice through the Electronic Gaming industry?

 Togusa wrote:
Honestly, I wonder if GW will ever start releasing microtransactions in Warhammer form.

Have a model, say, Space Wolf Captain w/Power fist and Bolter 19.99 only available December XXXX. Thus creating a whole economy based around unique models, in order to play off the zoomers propensity for supporting said business practice through the Electronic Gaming industry?

Why release microtransaction when you allready can sell balance patches in macro transaction form?

 Togusa wrote:
Honestly, I wonder if GW will ever start releasing microtransactions in Warhammer form.

Have a model, say, Space Wolf Captain w/Power fist and Bolter 19.99 only available December XXXX. Thus creating a whole economy based around unique models, in order to play off the zoomers propensity for supporting said business practice through the Electronic Gaming industry?

this is the current model?
there is a reason why there are so many different Primaris Characters around and many of them were limited

 kodos wrote:
I count 16-18 in total if you ignore Subfactions (depends if you count GSC and Inquisition as Subfactions or not)

It is odd to me that you'd equate a faction with like 20 recent plastic kits (more than the number of unique kits than any marine subfaction book, that's for dang sure) with a faction that is currently like a dozen 3rd ed era finecrap miniatures.

the_scotsman wrote:

 kodos wrote:
I count 16-18 in total if you ignore Subfactions (depends if you count GSC and Inquisition as Subfactions or not)

It is odd to me that you'd equate a faction with like 20 recent plastic kits (more than the number of unique kits than any marine subfaction book, that's for dang sure) with a faction that is currently like a dozen 3rd ed era finecrap miniatures.

everything that got new models recently as a faction on their own, while those that did not must be part of something else makes no sense for me

Inquisition includes DeathWatch, GK, SoB and recruited Imperial Guard and its theme is therefore similar to GSC which include parts of Tyranids and IG as well

with the latest changes Sisters are on their own and DW is a Marine Supplement while we got SoS and Custodes as Talons of the Emperor with GK being the only thing left
So just add Inquisition to the Talons and make it a Faction, or keep it as a Subfaction of the others

and no, a Subfaction does not mean that it plays the same with different models but that it is a specific theme within the faction that can be very different
(same as Thounsand Sons are still Chaos Space Marines and new models and a book on their own does not make them something else)

Fleshing out the Inquisition in an Imperial Agent Dex is way better than squishing them in with Talons, though in the Apocalypse rules, SoS were bundled with Agents rather than Custodes, and Inquisition were mentioned in the SoS WD Dex.

A rule in the Agents dex that reflects the concept of Orders Militant- ie. Chambers Militant receive the benefits of quarry when fielded with Agents of the Ordo they serve- would be all it would take. Another good one would be allowing all Chamber Militant transports to be included in the detachments of the Ordos they serve. This is actually how the text of Imperial Authority should have been written.

Being able to ride someone's transport =/= including that transport as part of your army list. This is why building Inquisition detachments is hard.

Both of these rules tweeks should have been in PA: Pariah. A measly 5 lines of text is all it would take to "Fix" the Inquisition; GW have dropped the ball twice.

Don't get me wrong- I liked the WD Inquisition dex- It was very flavourful- loved the strats, WL traits, powers and the interactions between these rules. And the PA dex was a slight improvement on it. But why GW doesn't just introduce these two tweeks, I'll never know.

PenitentJake wrote:
Fleshing out the Inquisition in an Imperial Agent Dex is way better than squishing them in with Talons, though in the Apocalypse rules, SoS were bundled with Agents rather than Custodes, and Inquisition were mentioned in the SoS WD Dex.

A rule in the Agents dex that reflects the concept of Orders Militant- ie. Chambers Militant receive the benefits of quarry when fielded with Agents of the Ordo they serve- would be all it would take. Another good one would be allowing all Chamber Militant transports to be included in the detachments of the Ordos they serve. This is actually how the text of Imperial Authority should have been written.

Being able to ride someone's transport =/= including that transport as part of your army list. This is why building Inquisition detachments is hard.

Both of these rules tweeks should have been in PA: Pariah. A measly 5 lines of text is all it would take to "Fix" the Inquisition; GW have dropped the ball twice.

Don't get me wrong- I liked the WD Inquisition dex- It was very flavourful- loved the strats, WL traits, powers and the interactions between these rules. And the PA dex was a slight improvement on it. But why GW doesn't just introduce these two tweeks, I'll never know.

yeah it is basically impossible to actually play with inquisition in 9th ed. I'm using mine in Crusade since it's narrative play, just bringing IMPERIUM detachments with Inquisitors, Assassins, Rogue Trader/BSF models, Acolytes, Daemonhosts, Crusaders, Arcoflags....it's been good times great oldies so far.