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.

Have the printed supplements been translated?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
BTW if you have a pdf-software to edit the digital Codex for print, can you also easily alter the stats and point costs of the units?

Not really? At least as far as I know.

A PDF is not like a Word document, where you can just highlight something and hit backspace to edit it out.

Not that it really, really matters, but if a person did want to, likely they could just edit the ePub directly - all they are is a compressed set of html files and some other stuff, meaning that you can open them with something like WinRAR or whatever and change things like that with notepad etc. Editing the PDF would (probably?) be more troublesome.

Eldercaveman wrote:
Have the printed supplements been translated?

Nope. Not lately.
Some time ago yes.

I guess I'm going to have to buy this to tell GW 'please make some more allies books'.

 pretre wrote:
From Natfka:

"via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Codex inquisition still uses your allies slot.

They were written as "battle brother allies" in witch hunters and grey knights before the allies rules were actually implemented an edition later. Now they'll play that way, requiring a troop etc

The difference now though is that the troop choice can be the retinue, full of fun stuff, or the retinue can be an HQ choice without taking a slot so that you can take storm troopers.

It's not a full codex in a sense, you'll find fast attack and heavy support a little light on options.

It's the first of what will be ally intended codexes which as I explained about a year ago can stand alone, but not with the same breadth as other armies.

Also, immediately afterward we'll be seeing the Forgeworld forces of the space marines and inquisition to update all those rules as well. "

Guess we'll have to see who is right. Random dude or the FW rules team. Only time will tell!

Oh, and I think most of us figured it wouldn't be a codex on par with IG, Nids, Orks or such. I expect it to be similar to sisters. 1-3 HQ (not counting Special IC's), 2-3 Elites, 1 Troop, 2-3 FA, and 2-3 Heavy Support. And I more expect 2 than 3 for the most part.

Yeah, I think that that Natfka rumor is really suspect. He REALLY needs to figure out which of his sources are pulling his leg.

Yeah, it's not like it's hard to have a special rule in the army that basically says "can also be this slot in an Imperial Army".

Either way, I'm still excited to see what comes out of it.

Oh look. pretre is once again being disingenuous about people complaining about GW and trolling Kroothawk. Goody.

 pretre wrote:
It's not a full codex in a sense, you'll find fast attack and heavy support a little light on options.

Just as I thought.

pretre wrote:Yeah, I think that that Natfka rumor is really suspect. He REALLY needs to figure out which of his sources are pulling his leg.

Hulksmash wrote:Yeah, it's not like it's hard to have a special rule in the army that basically says "can also be this slot in an Imperial Army".

Either way, I'm still excited to see what comes out of it.

Agreed on the excitement, will probably be the first purchase I make from GW since 2011. The Black Library news page says it's a "FULL CODEX" I don't think it can get any more explicitly stated than that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh look. pretre is once again being disingenuous about people complaining about GW and trolling Kroothawk. Goody.

 pretre wrote:
It's not a full codex in a sense, you'll find fast attack and heavy support a little light on options.

Just as I thought.

if you are going to quote Pretre quoting someone else... you should probably put the original in there/

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh look. pretre is once again being disingenuous about people complaining about GW and trolling Kroothawk. Goody.

If you ever feel that I am being inappropriate in a thread, feel free to use the little yellow triangle with an exclamation point in it. That's what it is for. Cheers!

 pretre wrote:
It's not a full codex in a sense, you'll find fast attack and heavy support a little light on options.

Just as I thought.

Umm, I didn't say that. Natfka said that when quoting an anonymous source.

I wonder if Deathwatch will be included?

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 wowsmash wrote:
Eh was cool tell I saw it was digital only. I don't own a tablet and I'm not buying one just for GW over priced idex. Since I csnt drag my pc along with me and all the local shops have a requirement of a physical codex. No copies allowed then it makes no since to buy it.

You're allowed to print a copy out for personal use. If you want it, it's just a matter of converting it to a PDF, maybe doing a bit of reformatting, and printing it. There, physical copy.

Or just accepting books are going that way. You can get a Kobo e-reader for £30.

Anyway, I am so excited about this. Hopefully this is a sign of the future. Perhaps a stealer cult one, maybe minor races or something else if this goes well. All the stuff we saw months ago as a supposed allies supplement.

Sorry, I think you meant to say "the smallest, cheapest model of Kobo with a teeny wee 5" screen", which is totally just as good as an A4-scale printed book

Listen, I'm the last person to denigrate technology and its advancement, hell if I could I'd end up looking like a tubby Adam Jensen, but I support technological advancement as a good in and of itself because it is supposed to provide a superior alternative. If you want a way to carry hundreds of mass-market paperbacks with you in less space than it would take to carry a single physical one, these wee pocket e-readers are great, but as a platform for large-format reference books they're atrocious - hell, even full-sized tablets are only really useful in such a role because of a combination of extremely tailored formatting and a search function.

Don't pretend this is a "Luddites versus THE FUTURE! and those intelligent enough to grasp it" thing.

 pretre wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Also the requirements of non-gaming technical devices and financial ressources grow exponentially.

You don't need an e-reader. You need a computer. How many gamers don't have a computer and/or a printer?

Erm, lots of people? My desktop doesn't even have an optical drive any more, I think I've printed off one thing in the last three years(at my previous workplace, since I don't have a printer), documents go via email and it's faster/easier to transfer digital media online or via USB thumbdrive. What you're essentially arguing here is that people should have to use an antiquated but still not awfully cheap technology(home printers) in order to make up for the shortcomings of a new but even more expensive technology, and that anyone who points out the inherent absurdity of this whole "everyone has a tablet/printer/Gutenberg Press in their back pocket these days" routine is being unreasonable.

Digital technology is not yet completely ubiquitous, nor is it fully capable of taking over from printed media. The technology to use digital media at anywhere near the same standard of quality as print media is expensive. It necessarily follows that digital-exclusive releases are exclusionary to some degree, that's not a judgement of whether digital-only is positive or negative, merely a fact. Personally, despite being able to consume digital media at-will myself, I still consider digital-only releases to be regressive bordering on unfair, because once you make something exclusively digital, you're no longer talking about limiting who buys you product based on who can afford that product, but on a much broader scale based on socio-economic class. It's all very well to talk about how "everyone" has a tablet or a smartphone these days, but I know plenty of solid working-class people who save carefully and go without other luxuries in order to spend some of their limited budget on their favourite hobby, and adding the completely unrelated requirements of a PC with internet and printer access or a tablet/e-reader is essentially pricing them out of the game. And for no good reason either, considering how monumentally easy it would be for GW to offer these digital-only products through a print-on-demand service(for barely more than GW charge for a normal codex, I might add), if they weren't so ludicrously insular as a company.

Still, setting that aside, and also setting aside that this used to be the sort of thing that GW would put out in the Dwarf or the Journal -both for under a fiver- or even free on their website; something is better than nothing, I suppose. It could prove very useful for counts-as AdMech especially if, as I suspect, they give the Marine treatment to the new Guard 'dex and limit special characters to certain regiments(and thus taking away Straken, the only truly combat-capable HQ they have). Plus it will be nice to be able to play even an approximation of my old WH/DH armies without being forced into taking GK's.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 pretre wrote:
You don't need an e-reader. You need a computer. How many gamers don't have a computer and/or a printer?

Erm, lots of people? My desktop doesn't even have an optical drive any more, I think I've printed off one thing in the last three years(at my previous workplace, since I don't have a printer), documents go via email and it's faster/easier to transfer digital media online or via USB thumbdrive. What you're essentially arguing here is that people should have to use an antiquated but still not awfully cheap technology(home printers) in order to make up for the shortcomings of a new but even more expensive technology, and that anyone who points out the inherent absurdity of this whole "everyone has a tablet/printer/Gutenberg Press in their back pocket these days" routine is being unreasonable.

You missed the and/or there. If you have a computer and a thumb drive, you can load it and walk into Kinkos/Office Max, wherever.

considering how monumentally easy it would be for GW to offer these digital-only products through a print-on-demand service(for barely more than GW charge for a normal codex, I might add), if they weren't so ludicrously insular as a company.

That's a really good idea and one that BL already uses so the infrastructure is already there.

Sorry, still new here so I don't know how to insert pictures, but on the Facebook page of my local GW is a picture of the codex cover:
https://en-gb.facebook.com/GWEdinburgh?filter=3

Yeah, it was posted a couple pages back, but thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Somebody get the OP updated...

Yeah, sorry. Didn't notice that!

So I'll just ask this here, since I don't think that it warrants its own thread. How do FW's Red Hunters work? Do they just let you use the entirety of the Marines codex? Do they have any special rules (chapter tactics aside)?

Its still C:SM, with the added stipulation that if they are red hunters they can ally (as battle brothers) with C:AS as long as they have an inquisitor present, making me think that the inquisitor doesn't actually take up a ally spot.

Edit:badgrammeredit

Thanks.

'Kay, so then the Sisters have probably just gotten vanilla Marines as battle brothers. Interesting.

xruslanx wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Pretty cringey text. File that alongside the "Why are you even reading this? Go buy it and come back!" gak from the main store page.

I think it's a tongue-in-cheek comment on 40k style - "Look how cool this guy is!
He could not be more Warhammer 40,000 if he tried: he’s got the sword, he’s got the boltgun, power armour, purity seals, bionics - the whole package. "

Shame he only has one skull really

Two, actually. There's one on the gun. I found it lighter on skulls than usual. And that's a good thing! Also, he looks just like the Inquisitor that comes with FFG's Relic. Yes, I realize GW let FFG make the game. But the similarities are very nice.

How does this make Inquisitors any easier to Ally in then the GKCodex?

 HisDivineShadow wrote:
How does this make Inquisitors any easier to Ally in then the GKCodex?

If the FW rules for Red Hunters are any indication, they're not allies at all, they just become HQ, or Troops, or whatever in your main Detachment, which means that people can now ally in Inquisitors and retinues without having to take either Coteaz or GK Troops choices. It also means you can combine Inquisition, Guard, and Marines say, in order to replicate the old(and superior IMO) system from C:WH and CH.

So hopefully the RH rules are an indication.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 HisDivineShadow wrote:
How does this make Inquisitors any easier to Ally in then the GKCodex?

If the FW rules for Red Hunters are any indication, they're not allies at all, they just become HQ, or Troops, or whatever in your main Detachment, which means that people can now ally in Inquisitors and retinues without having to take either Coteaz or GK Troops choices. It also means you can combine Inquisition, Guard, and Marines say, in order to replicate the old(and superior IMO) system from C:WH and CH.

So hopefully the RH rules are an indication.

Codex Laughing Ork Head?

I see what you (accidentally) did there...



-C6

 HisDivineShadow wrote:
How does this make Inquisitors any easier to Ally in then the GKCodex?

Because you don't need Grey Knights. You can actually have an Ordo Hereticus or Ordo Xenos inquisitor without a squad of Ordo Malleus' rare and secret supersoldiers tagging along.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Pretty cringey text. File that alongside the "Why are you even reading this? Go buy it and come back!" gak from the main store page.

I think it's a tongue-in-cheek comment on 40k style - "Look how cool this guy is!
He could not be more Warhammer 40,000 if he tried: he’s got the sword, he’s got the boltgun, power armour, purity seals, bionics - the whole package. "

Shame he only has one skull really

Two, actually. There's one on the gun. I found it lighter on skulls than usual. And that's a good thing! Also, he looks just like the Inquisitor that comes with FFG's Relic. Yes, I realize GW let FFG make the game. But the similarities are very nice.

You're right, he does look like the inquisitor from Relic. Who, in turn, looks like this guy: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1140003&prodId=prod1140025a

I love Relic.

I think I have that model.

Am I the only one that wants the Orbital Strike Relay as a heavy support option again?

After the last digi codex I bought (AS), I won't be buying this one. £20 is waaaaaay too expensive.

 Dinamarth wrote:
I wonder if Deathwatch will be included?

I imagine with the new emphasis on smaller "DLC" type expansions - and with the amount of additional background and such fleshed out in the FFG RPG books, that Deathwatch could be their own standalone supplement, with tacticals, devastators, techmarines, psykers - the lot.