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.

It's only a game of toy soldiers.
So what's all the fuss?

 Da Boss wrote:
Are Orks still being left out in the cold in 40K then? I mean, at least GW are consistent. I remember that bloody 3rd edition codex lasting me nearly 2 editions.

Someone's codex had to be last. Space Wolves are also delayed and no one has ever claimed GW "doesn't like/ignores" them. space wolves and Orks are going to be the first codexes of this financial year for GW. an optimistic apprasial is they deliberatly held off on them so they could ensure their 40k fisical year is good. So less them holding back cause they don't like it, as holding back so as not to concentrate all the good stuff too early.

Yep, someone was always going to be last. The bonus is that power creep has been a legitimate thing thus far with codices, so it's very likely that Orks will be very strong, and Space Wolves may end up being the best Space Marines.

Look at the poor Space Marine players - saddled with arguably the most mediocre codex.

The GSC codex will be even later than Orks.

ValentineGames wrote:
It's only a game of toy soldiers.
So what's all the fuss?

Good point, we might as well just shut this forum down then

BrianDavion wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Are Orks still being left out in the cold in 40K then? I mean, at least GW are consistent. I remember that bloody 3rd edition codex lasting me nearly 2 editions.

Someone's codex had to be last. Space Wolves are also delayed and no one has ever claimed GW "doesn't like/ignores" them. space wolves and Orks are going to be the first codexes of this financial year for GW. an optimistic apprasial is they deliberatly held off on them so they could ensure their 40k fisical year is good. So less them holding back cause they don't like it, as holding back so as not to concentrate all the good stuff too early.

Neither Wolves nor Orks are going to be last. I would hope that Orks gets some new models and although inevitably there will have to be Wolves Primaris hopefully nothing more to further bloat out that army and clog the schedule.

We will still be waiting (as always) for Sisters of Battle and Inquisition / Agents of the Imperium/ Genestealer Cults or donlt they count?

They "say" that SOB are getting a new Codex but we shall have to see, one single picture ages ago does not make a range or a codex.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Neither Wolves nor Orks are going to be last. I would hope that Orks gets some new models and although inevitably there will have to be Wolves Primaris hopefully nothing more to further bloat out that army and clog the schedule.

We will still be waiting (as always) for Sisters of Battle and Inquisition / Agents of the Imperium/ Genestealer Cults or donlt they count?

They "say" that SOB are getting a new Codex but we shall have to see, one single picture ages ago does not make a range or a codex.

Well... A lot of people are expecting Russ, so that would somewhat clog up the release schedule if so! Could even get a campaign book along with it to hype the whole thing more.

Genestealer cults definitely count, but I don't think Agents of the Imperium is by any means a sure thing. They may well stay in Index. That said, GW likes to make money so a codex for them wouldn't be massively suprising, but they may well decide they have better ways of doing that before this book becomes a thing.

I'm no SoB fanatic, but I think it's safe to say they are coming at this point. Confirming the book and kits officially and then not doing it would be a PR disaster I can't see them allowing to happen.

 Mr Morden wrote:

We will still be waiting (as always) for Sisters of Battle and Inquisition / Agents of the Imperium/ Genestealer Cults or donlt they count?

They kinda don't. Those are boutique armies, like Harlequins and Deathwatch. And Wolves are another marine sub. Orks are the second most iconic 40K army.

I don't believe that GW doesn't "like" Orks and they have something against them and the people who play them. That's ridiculous. I think they have a harder time balancing them on the table as compared to the fluff and people's expectations - created by GW - than with other armies. Ultimately, they can do what they want with Tyranids, Necrons, Tau, all the other Xenos, because they can always just retcon and say, I don't know, "NewHiveFleet!" And IG/AM is too easy. But orks are very well fleshed out, and what they are on the table is way off from what they are in the fluff. Marines have the same problem, which is why they seem weak. They really aren't, but in our minds we've come to expect 1 marine to be able kill about a million foes before dying with honor.

Anyway, I hope they do a good job with the Ork codex. It's really the only non-Imperium army I remotely care about.

What’s up with dismissing armies you don’t like as “boutique armies” and saying they don’t count? SoB and GSC are full ranges, and GSC is confirmed to be expanding.

I can't wait for GSC!
I didn't know they were even a thing until last week when I was given Index Xenos 2, buy another player.
I'm planning on making a counts as Chaos force using the GCS rules.

meleti wrote:
What’s up with dismissing armies you don’t like as “boutique armies” and saying they don’t count? SoB and GSC are full ranges, and GSC is confirmed to be expanding.

You have a point for GSC, but SoB are definitely a boutique army in my mind. At least until next year. Just because the kits are almost entirely metal only, not available in normal stores, and simply not something that is presented as a proper option to a new player.

All will change with a codex and plastic kits though!

Come on. Start listing armies in the game, based on how long they've been around, how deep they are in the story, etc. When do you get to Orks? 2nd? When do you get to GSC. Then think about how many people play an army. GW creates these classifications, not me. Maybe boutique is the wrong word, but you know what I mean.

 beerbeard wrote:
Come on. Start listing armies in the game, based on how long they've been around, how deep they are in the story, etc. When do you get to Orks? 2nd? When do you get to GSC. Then think about how many people play an army. GW creates these classifications, not me. Maybe boutique is the wrong word, but you know what I mean.

I have no idea what you mean. Are you saying that codex releases for GSC, SW, and SoB don’t matter because you think Orks are more important?

 beerbeard wrote:
Come on. Start listing armies in the game, based on how long they've been around, how deep they are in the story, etc. When do you get to Orks? 2nd? When do you get to GSC. Then think about how many people play an army. GW creates these classifications, not me. Maybe boutique is the wrong word, but you know what I mean.

GSC's have been around since second edition man. they have a history as deep as the Orks within the setting easily. stop dismissing other factions as somehow "unimportant" it's just a little insulting to people who play that faction.

 beerbeard wrote:
Come on. Start listing armies in the game, based on how long they've been around, how deep they are in the story, etc. When do you get to Orks? 2nd? When do you get to GSC. Then think about how many people play an army. GW creates these classifications, not me. Maybe boutique is the wrong word, but you know what I mean.

Orks and Sisters of Battle are both in Rogue Trader - did you not know?

 beerbeard wrote:
Come on. Start listing armies in the game, based on how long they've been around, how deep they are in the story, etc. When do you get to Orks? 2nd? When do you get to GSC.

Orks - most 'space ork-style' models from ~1987-88 onwards. Ongoing support in all editions and spin-offs and one of the most prominent earlier armies alongside marines, chaos, and eldar.
Inquisition - rules in the 87 rogue trader book, models 88-89 onwards. Even had their own psychic card set in 2nd. Big push from 2001-2004 with the 54mm game and ordo books and then pretty much dropped.
Harlies - around 35 models in 1988. Faded away with 2nd ed, chapter approved rules in 3rd, down to a single unit in 4th
Genestealer cult - hybrids were in the 1989 catalog. Plastic stealers and hybrids featured in the 1989-90 space hulk game. Mostly died with 2nd ed.
Sororitas - introduced in the 1987 rogue trader book as a joke about the French. First rules in 1993, first models in 1997. Half hearted release in 3rd, mostly died with the inquisition.

And the odd one out - Deathwatch - introduced in 3rd edition as a pack of metal upgrade bits and a chapter approved squad, possibly in anticipation of a xenos hunters book. Obsolete by 5th ed where they were rebranded as the sternguard squad. Later spun off into another marine codex/model line.

OK, sorry for causing unrest. IMHO there are major and minor armies. I guess many of you feel that they are all equal. I'm not sure GW agrees with you, which led to my point that Orks should be coming with a big release while armies like Inquisiiton or GSC probably won't.

But I could be wrong. So, sorry for taking the thread to an unhappy place.

marcman wrote:
Noticed that the Index appears to be just multiple codex's in one, is this true? Can the index function as a codex without the fluff? Or are the index's out of data/ missing information.

Some units had significant rules changes in the codex and many units had significant points changes.

The indexes are also missing a lot of new rules.

 Elbows wrote:
Yep, someone was always going to be last. The bonus is that power creep has been a legitimate thing thus far with codices, so it's very likely that Orks will be very strong, and Space Wolves may end up being the best Space Marines.

Look at the poor Space Marine players - saddled with arguably the most mediocre codex.

The pessimist in me thinks we could be strong initally....but since we are last we will soon get outclassed by a new edition/second round of codexes and wont get updated again for a very long time since we were last, essentially repeating whats happening now

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Index = weak, stripped-down set of rules that were used for the first few games of 8th while you waited for a codex.

Codex = your full rules, faction bonuses, stratagems, etc. Codex rules are much more powerful than index rules and you have to buy them if you want to keep playing.

You don't have to buy a codex to keep playing.
You can play with the indexes just fine.
I'm planning on grabbing them once people start getting rid of theirs, then I'll have Rules of all the armies, and I can always get the card sets if I want the Stratagems.

That's only viable if your group is ok with it. Which they might be, and if they are then ace! But random pick up games or tournaments probably won't be keen on you using outdated rules.

Sure, you are shooting yourself in the foot power wise anyway, so maybe people won't care. But maybe they will.

I don get it, it's not like I'm trying to play from a different edition, the indexes should still be valid, and from what GW has said, they ARE still valid considering the whole flowchart thing. What's the issue with running, say, Necrons, or Tyranids from the index? Why are pick up games different?

I'd play you if you were using an index army, rather than the codex version. You wounldn't get stratagems though, besides the three in the main book, and whatever CA gave the index version of your army. Stratagems are a perk of using the codex version.

Uh, no they are not, since you can buy the Stratagem cards separately from the codex.

I play my games as index & cards only. The only codex I have for my 11 armies is Custodes, and that only because it was a birthday gift.

(Wait - I also have Knights, but only because my old copy was the original one back when there was one model with no upgrade sprue)

Nobody should care about someone using Index Datasheets. On the whole they are weaker than the codex versions, so by chosing to use the Index when you have a codex available you are essentially playing a weaker army by choice. Its a big handicap that you are giving yourself.

Let me give you a reference point. I built up my mechanized Eldar under the index and put together a 2000 point list. I built a codex army and those same units only came to about 1600 points, and I had 400 points more worth of stuff to add to get back to 2000 points! This is BEFORE all of the army traits and stratagems even come into play! Index armies are on the whole, weaker and more expensive than their codex cousins. There are some very small exceptions, such as commissars and conscripts which could be abused in the Index, however those were patched by FAQs which you would still be required to follow.

Stux wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
It's only a game of toy soldiers.
So what's all the fuss?

Good point, we might as well just shut this forum down then

I genuinely don't think anyone would mind that.
Dakka has not got a good reputation.

 akaean wrote:
Nobody should care about someone using Index Datasheets. On the whole they are weaker than the codex versions, so by chosing to use the Index when you have a codex available you are essentially playing a weaker army by choice. Its a big handicap that you are giving yourself.

Let me give you a reference point. I built up my mechanized Eldar under the index and put together a 2000 point list. I built a codex army and those same units only came to about 1600 points, and I had 400 points more worth of stuff to add to get back to 2000 points! This is BEFORE all of the army traits and stratagems even come into play! Index armies are on the whole, weaker and more expensive than their codex cousins. There are some very small exceptions, such as commissars and conscripts which could be abused in the Index, however those were patched by FAQs which you would still be required to follow.

That depends - are they using the index rules and points or taking the points from Battlescribe?

For some armies there were significant boosts (rules and/or points) in the move to codex or after, some have had nerfs.

There have been lots of rules and points changes and someone playing an index creates a bunch of uncertainty about what they're playing.

Are they using index rules?
Are they using the codex faq? Some of which will be applicable, some of which won't)
Are they using index points?
Are they using stratagems? (some people are combining strats with the index, some aren't)

I wouldn't play a stranger who was using the index where the codex was available.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 akaean wrote:
Nobody should care about someone using Index Datasheets. On the whole they are weaker than the codex versions, so by chosing to use the Index when you have a codex available you are essentially playing a weaker army by choice. Its a big handicap that you are giving yourself.

Let me give you a reference point. I built up my mechanized Eldar under the index and put together a 2000 point list. I built a codex army and those same units only came to about 1600 points, and I had 400 points more worth of stuff to add to get back to 2000 points! This is BEFORE all of the army traits and stratagems even come into play! Index armies are on the whole, weaker and more expensive than their codex cousins. There are some very small exceptions, such as commissars and conscripts which could be abused in the Index, however those were patched by FAQs which you would still be required to follow.

That depends - are they using the index rules and points or taking the points from Battlescribe?

For some armies there were significant boosts (rules and/or points) in the move to codex or after, some have had nerfs.

There have been lots of rules and points changes and someone playing an index creates a bunch of uncertainty about what they're playing.

Are they using index rules?
Are they using the codex faq? Some of which will be applicable, some of which won't)
Are they using index points?
Are they using stratagems? (some people are combining strats with the index, some aren't)

I wouldn't play a stranger who was using the index where the codex was available.

If I'm using the Index, then I'm using the Index FAQ, CA when needed, and stratagems (via datacard pack.

Why would I use codex points or FAQ when I'm using the index?

 Blndmage wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 akaean wrote:
Nobody should care about someone using Index Datasheets. On the whole they are weaker than the codex versions, so by chosing to use the Index when you have a codex available you are essentially playing a weaker army by choice. Its a big handicap that you are giving yourself.

Let me give you a reference point. I built up my mechanized Eldar under the index and put together a 2000 point list. I built a codex army and those same units only came to about 1600 points, and I had 400 points more worth of stuff to add to get back to 2000 points! This is BEFORE all of the army traits and stratagems even come into play! Index armies are on the whole, weaker and more expensive than their codex cousins. There are some very small exceptions, such as commissars and conscripts which could be abused in the Index, however those were patched by FAQs which you would still be required to follow.

That depends - are they using the index rules and points or taking the points from Battlescribe?

For some armies there were significant boosts (rules and/or points) in the move to codex or after, some have had nerfs.

There have been lots of rules and points changes and someone playing an index creates a bunch of uncertainty about what they're playing.

Are they using index rules?
Are they using the codex faq? Some of which will be applicable, some of which won't)
Are they using index points?
Are they using stratagems? (some people are combining strats with the index, some aren't)

I wouldn't play a stranger who was using the index where the codex was available.

If I'm using the Index, then I'm using the Index FAQ, CA when needed, and stratagems (via datacard pack.

Why would I use codex points or FAQ when I'm using the index?

Because Battlescribe has them and costs nothing?

You might still use the index datasheets (as I do), but get your points off battlescribe so you keep up with the latest point costs.

What's BattleScribe?

 beerbeard wrote:
OK, sorry for causing unrest. IMHO there are major and minor armies. I guess many of you feel that they are all equal. I'm not sure GW agrees with you, which led to my point that Orks should be coming with a big release while armies like Inquisiiton or GSC probably won't.

But I could be wrong. So, sorry for taking the thread to an unhappy place.

the importance of the codex won't tie to the release size of their minis. the problem with your logic is it's proven flawed. in fact given the history of 8th edition codex releases thus far, we have a pretty discernable pattern.

So far every space Marine release has just been "Primaris and a Lt" beyond that the armies getting new kits have all been newer armies, with an "obviously incomplete" range. as such I think it's MORE likely GSCs will see a sizable range release then Orks will.

GW confirmed at a press release that every codex released from this point on would come with new models of some kind (we know that the GSC codex is getting a new Aberrant kit with an additional weapon option and a pistol-slinging character, for example).

 Stormonu wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Index = weak, stripped-down set of rules that were used for the first few games of 8th while you waited for a codex.

Codex = your full rules, faction bonuses, stratagems, etc. Codex rules are much more powerful than index rules and you have to buy them if you want to keep playing.

You don't have to buy a codex to keep playing.
You can play with the indexes just fine.
I'm planning on grabbing them once people start getting rid of theirs, then I'll have Rules of all the armies, and I can always get the card sets if I want the Stratagems.

That's only viable if your group is ok with it. Which they might be, and if they are then ace! But random pick up games or tournaments probably won't be keen on you using outdated rules.

Sure, you are shooting yourself in the foot power wise anyway, so maybe people won't care. But maybe they will.

I don get it, it's not like I'm trying to play from a different edition, the indexes should still be valid, and from what GW has said, they ARE still valid considering the whole flowchart thing. What's the issue with running, say, Necrons, or Tyranids from the index? Why are pick up games different?

I'd play you if you were using an index army, rather than the codex version. You wounldn't get stratagems though, besides the three in the main book, and whatever CA gave the index version of your army. Stratagems are a perk of using the codex version.

Uh, no they are not, since you can buy the Stratagem cards separately from the codex.

I play my games as index & cards only. The only codex I have for my 11 armies is Custodes, and that only because it was a birthday gift.

(Wait - I also have Knights, but only because my old copy was the original one back when there was one model with no upgrade sprue)

Where in the index does it list your stratagems? Yes they sell stratagem cards, but that's to go with the codex, not the index.

You can't really use the Stratagems without the codex because the codex is what tells you how to use the stratagems for the armies in that codex. They are not designed to be used with the index.