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.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Because the rules for what I play are huge.
Plus you need a basic level of understanding about what your opponent is going to be doing, as you will wander blissfully unaware into a strategem wombo-combo and lose.

We have gone quite far down this rabbit hole already with the massive indulgance of all the Marine supplements plus now Chaos Marines all have to have their own Codexes as well.

Having a few supplements that actually look at the background and even a few units of the far far more diverse Guard Regiments etc seems logical.

Daedalus81 wrote:Ynnari

That's it. Not even WE or EC would really be deserving even if I wouldn't mind it, because they don't have a lot of structure outside normal CSM.

To me a supplement is that spot where they're too small for their own full book like DG, but too distinct to play like their source.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
By that same meassure neither TS nor DG deserved a dex aswell if we are here to debate honestly.

CSM won't have access to Morty, Blightlords, Deathshrouds, the 8 or so characters, drones, PBCs, or Pox. Likewise Exalted Sorcs, Tzaangors of all varieties, and mutalith. TS will also never use MoE, Exalted Champs, Lords, any marine that is not dust or not a sorcerer and so on.

Thousand Sons needs a bit of expansion to be a functional stand alone army like DG. They can do a lot of that through psychic abilities and de-blandifying exalted sorcerers.

oh really now:

Morty: named charachter, so like WE with angron. so does not qualify
Deathshrouds: a bunch of terminators of nurgle. So would red butchers which do not qualify for some reasons.
PBC are a normal heresy bombard but nurgle, so does not qualify.
Poxwalkers--> cultists. So does not qualify.

So no, again there's no reason as to why WC and EC shouldn't be their own dex comapred to TS or DG.

can you not argue in bad faith?

Morty has rules in 40k, angron doesnt.
Regular terminators don't have plague spitters/bubotic axes/flails and t5. Nor do they have the ability to act as bodyguards
Normal heresy era bombards don't have rules in 40k and arent demonically possessed.
Poxwalkers are very different than cultists....

And nobody said that WE/EC shouldnt have their own codexes....

Stop taking me out of context, there's far more precedent for WE or EC beeing just as worthy if not more then DG TS, which he stated they were not, so by that logic no they are not worthy to be a separate dex.

And yes he did. See marked text. Not only that but especially the WE statement is nonsense considering Khorne daemonkin.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Because the rules for what I play are huge.
Plus you need a basic level of understanding about what your opponent is going to be doing, as you will wander blissfully unaware into a strategem wombo-combo and lose.

Cite a source then.

What army are you playing that you're needing huge amounts of stuff?
And why do you "need" to know what your opponent will be doing to the point that you have to own their books too?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

And nobody said that WE/EC shouldnt have their own codexes....

Well, I kinda did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Not only that but especially the WE statement is nonsense considering Khorne daemonkin.

Daemonkin was a rando book that is mostly fulfilled by just taking a daemon detachment. Whether or not GW forces us mono and we lose summoning is unknown.

 addnid wrote:
None, please GW hear us out and stop with f...ing codex supplements. Rules are everywhere, too many sources exist already. Go digital or put everything inside a codex.

This.

I could excuse an Inquisition supplement to Grey Knights/Deathwatch/Sisters if they can't 'justify' a full codex for them.

One of the difficulties I have with the concept of supplements for other factions is that the other factions as they are can't quite make the switch.

So if you look at Aeldari- sure it's easy to see Ynarri and Harlequins as supplements; it's easy to envision adding Corsairs and Exodites as supplements.

But what do you do with CWE and DE?

Armies need to grow their range to the point where there are enough subfaction units to justify a dex + supplement system. I could see it working with Tau... There's enough Kroot units for a Kroot supplement, but there aren't enough Vespids yet.

Not Online!!! wrote:
...there's far more precedent for WE or EC beeing just as worthy if not more then DG TS, which he stated they were not, so by that logic no they are not worthy to be a separate dex.

Sorry - last I checked, WE and EC were effectively shattered Legions, broken down into much smaller warbands than DG, TS or a number of the "unaligned" Legions operate in. Why would WE or EC be more worthy than DG or TS, in that case?

Do't get me wrong, I'd certainly be interested in seeing what GW did with a WE or EC book, but I'm not following how you might think them more worthy than the two that have had books (even if TS could do with a proper second wave to expand it.)

PenitentJake wrote:
One of the difficulties I have with the concept of supplements for other factions is that the other factions as they are can't quite make the switch.

So if you look at Aeldari- sure it's easy to see Ynarri and Harlequins as supplements; it's easy to envision adding Corsairs and Exodites as supplements.

But what do you do with CWE and DE?

Armies need to grow their range to the point where there are enough subfaction units to justify a dex + supplement system. I could see it working with Tau... There's enough Kroot units for a Kroot supplement, but there aren't enough Vespids yet.

They did it with Marines - they made up new background and models to justify them having codexes / supplements. Most armies have sub factions that are far more different than the Marines were/are.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Stop taking me out of context, there's far more precedent for WE or EC beeing just as worthy if not more then DG TS, which he stated they were not, so by that logic no they are not worthy to be a separate dex.

And yes he did. See marked text. Not only that but especially the WE statement is nonsense considering Khorne daemonkin.

No, were talking about supplements, not codexes.

If DG/TS have full-on codexes with enough changes to the main CSM lists, EC/WE deserve a full codex too, not a supplement which is the topic of this thread.

Ynnari as they are could (and actually are) a supplement instead of a full-on codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

And nobody said that WE/EC shouldnt have their own codexes....

Well, I kinda did.

To me your original comments reads "EC/WE dont deserve a supplement" and you don't mention codexes. If your intent was to say they don't deserve any sort of rules material that differentiates them from regular CSM, then i'd have to agree with NotOnline!.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

To me your original comments reads "EC/WE dont deserve a supplement" and you don't mention codexes. If your intent was to say they don't deserve any sort of rules material that differentiates them from regular CSM, then i'd have to agree with NotOnline!.

Oh they definitely are deserving of rules - I would put them similar in design to Necrons and their dynasties.

PenitentJake wrote:

So if you look at Aeldari- sure it's easy to see Ynarri and Harlequins as supplements; it's easy to envision adding Corsairs and Exodites as supplements.

But what do you do with CWE and DE?

As a Drukhari player, all I want is a properly fleshed out and well designed codex. That is all.

I categorically don't want supplements for Kabal/Cult/Coven, most of our problems have come from the artificial segregation of an already small range of models and options.

I would like a Codex to start. The fact we have to wait months if not almost a year or two just to play the updated rules for a faction is fething terrible. We can have supplements and optional rules once all codexs are out. Then again, by the time that happens, Marines will have two different updated versions of a supplement before another faction gets a book at all.

Honestly I'd like to see the current subfactions (and especially favouritism given form supplements) go away.

I'd prefer a build your own faction system with suggestions for famous subfactions in the background.

Chaos Marines especially with their mostly warband sized groupings make more sense to be individualistic than one size fits all rules.

 addnid wrote:
None, please GW hear us out and stop with f...ing codex supplements. Rules are everywhere, too many sources exist already. Go digital or put everything inside a codex.

This +1 million

 Arbitrator wrote:
[ I could excuse an Inquisition supplement to Grey Knights/Deathwatch/Sisters if they can't 'justify' a full codex for them.

I've wanted an =][=nquisitor codex since 3rd edition. Just a book for decent options (and kits) for an Inquisitor and Retinue that would count as an HQ choice for any Imperial army. No weirdly forced vehicle kits or sloppily written choices just to fill up a force org chart. Just give me an Inquisitor and henchmen that can be tacked on where needed. That's all I really want.

That would give me an excuse to play again. Is that really asking too much?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:
As a Drukhari player, all I want is a properly fleshed out and well designed codex. That is all.I categorically don't want supplements for Kabal/Cult/Coven, most of our problems have come from the artificial segregation of an already small range of models and options.

Exalted +1 +infinity!

PenitentJake wrote:
One of the difficulties I have with the concept of supplements for other factions is that the other factions as they are can't quite make the switch.

So if you look at Aeldari- sure it's easy to see Ynarri and Harlequins as supplements; it's easy to envision adding Corsairs and Exodites as supplements.

But what do you do with CWE and DE?

Armies need to grow their range to the point where there are enough subfaction units to justify a dex + supplement system. I could see it working with Tau... There's enough Kroot units for a Kroot supplement, but there aren't enough Vespids yet.

I don't see harlequins as a supplement, as they don't share any units with anything from craftworlds or Drukhari. A harlequins supplement is already a stand alone codex as it is.

Can definitely see ynnari as a supplement though, as they borrow extensively from the three other Aeldari factions.

 jaredb wrote:
...I don't see harlequins as a supplement, as they don't share any units with anything from craftworlds or Drukhari...

Venoms. Lots of the equipment. The vast majority of the uniqueness of the HQs is in stratagems/faction abilities/relics, the datasheets are pretty standard across Eldar factions. There's also GW's usual thing where they use the uniqueness of the special army to constrain the general army; we're never going to get Craftworld Venoms no matter how much sense they make because a Venom with shuriken weapons is a Harlequin thing now.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
...I don't see harlequins as a supplement, as they don't share any units with anything from craftworlds or Drukhari...

Venoms. Lots of the equipment. The vast majority of the uniqueness of the HQs is in stratagems/faction abilities/relics, the datasheets are pretty standard across Eldar factions. There's also GW's usual thing where they use the uniqueness of the special army to constrain the general army; we're never going to get Craftworld Venoms no matter how much sense they make because a Venom with shuriken weapons is a Harlequin thing now.

Harlequins don't have venoms, and have almost all unique equipment from the other factions. Only sharing shuriken cannons, power sword, and pistols. Everything else is unique.

Also, a supplement would have unique warlord traits, powers, and relics. So, a harlequins supplement would be all unique, but refrence codex craftworlds for the rules for three weapons.

Its not like space wolves, where they share 99% of their datasheets and wargear with space marines.

 jaredb wrote:
...Harlequins don't have venoms...

Fine. "Starweavers". Looks like a Venom, quacks like a Venom, has the statline/game role/functions of a Venom...

...Its not like space wolves, where they share 99% of their datasheets and wargear with space marines.

Space Wolves are also an example where the special Codex has leeched options from the primary Codex. SM Tacticals can't have two special weapons or chainswords anymore, they lost them because that'd have made Space Wolves less unique.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
...Harlequins don't have venoms...

Fine. "Starweavers". Looks like a Venom, quacks like a Venom, has the statline/game role/functions of a Venom...

Different Stats, diffrent weapons, Different rules. Sure, they look similar. Vipers have a similar look too, but they are not venoms either.

Similarities are on face value, but harlequins are unique compared to the other two main Aeldari factions, and stand alone. They won't be a supplement, nor deserve to be.

Depends what you consider a supplement to cover.

The marine supplements are basically 'the same army but slightly different'.

A coven or cabal supplement is effectively a different army altogether, rather than 'the same' with uniqueness.

More likely it would by supplements around specific alliances (generally around an archon and their cabal), that has unique units and skills.

The closest for craftworlds is:

Iyanden
Alaitoc
Ulthwe
Saim Hann
Biel Tann

Where they'd probably have one or two unique units for that craftworld (unique wraith constrcuts, pathfinders, veteran black guardians, cheiftans and their jetbike bodyguards, exarch council squads etc)

plus the special characters for each (eldrad, illic, Arienal, that 3rd jetbike chief, a badass exarch from biel tann etc).

That's as much a unique supplement as the imperial fists or salamanders are.

Each with their own unique psychic list specific to the peculiarities of that craftworld (ie biel tann with plenty of war augmentation, ulthwe with prognosticating etc).

And of course their unique doctrine list.


Hardly a stretch for those to be supplements, iyanden and ulthwe have already had their own in the past (ulthwe strike forces from the eye of terror codex and the iyanden supplement form 6th was it?).

 jaredb wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
...Harlequins don't have venoms...

Fine. "Starweavers". Looks like a Venom, quacks like a Venom, has the statline/game role/functions of a Venom...

Different Stats, diffrent weapons, Different rules. Sure, they look similar. Vipers have a similar look too, but they are not venoms either.

Similarities are on face value, but harlequins are unique compared to the other two main Aeldari factions, and stand alone. They won't be a supplement, nor deserve to be.

I don't think they will be; GW has a long pattern of taking groups of minis way too small to be factions and trying to make them function as complete factions. Whether they deserve to be is a philosophical question beyond my pay grade. What I am trying to say is that making Harlequins function well as a supplement would be completely possible for a competent designer if they chose to extend the Craftworld arsenal minutely.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 jaredb wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
...Harlequins don't have venoms...

Fine. "Starweavers". Looks like a Venom, quacks like a Venom, has the statline/game role/functions of a Venom...

Different Stats, diffrent weapons, Different rules. Sure, they look similar. Vipers have a similar look too, but they are not venoms either.

Similarities are on face value, but harlequins are unique compared to the other two main Aeldari factions, and stand alone. They won't be a supplement, nor deserve to be.

I don't think they will be; GW has a long pattern of taking groups of minis way too small to be factions and trying to make them function as complete factions. Whether they deserve to be is a philosophical question beyond my pay grade. What I am trying to say is that making Harlequins function well as a supplement would be completely possible for a competent designer if they chose to extend the Craftworld arsenal minutely.

Technically the custodes are more similar to marines than Harlequins are to other Eldar armies, they actually have 2 data sheets in common with marines (land raiders and the comtemptor dreadnought) so they would sit in the marine codex and get the custodes rules applied.

Harlequins share no data sheets

The only Codex Supplement we need is Black Templars. The rest of the armies need a Codex before we can even think about a supplement to the codex.

 Gnarlly wrote:

 addnid wrote:
None, please GW hear us out and stop with f...ing codex supplements. Rules are everywhere, too many sources exist already. Go digital or put everything inside a codex.

This +1 million

Yes, no more fething supplements please. No one needs that gak, and even marines wouldn't need it if their codex wasn't bloated so much that a GUO looks like an athlete in comparison.

Give R&H, EC and WE codices not supplements. Either do those armies properly like DG or TS were done, or not at all.
No one needs supplements with a single character and a pair of renamed datasheets.

Salamanders with the depth of the likes of Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Dark Angels and a dozen new models to boot.

I wouldn't be adverse to a Siam Hann supplement either.

Maybe a Tau Geu'vesa or Kroot supplement.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Because the rules for what I play are huge.
Plus you need a basic level of understanding about what your opponent is going to be doing, as you will wander blissfully unaware into a strategem wombo-combo and lose.

Cite a source then.

What army are you playing that you're needing huge amounts of stuff?
And why do you "need" to know what your opponent will be doing to the point that you have to own their books too?

I honestly didn't think this would be so in question.
I play Blood Angels.
I need to know the stratagems from three different books (core, codex, supplement).
The stratagems in particular are a lot to know and you sort of do need to learn them all otherwise you won't know to use them when the situation arises.
I need to know the units from two different books (codex, supplement). Each of those units has rules that draws from about 4 different places across those two books.
I need to know relics and SIW from those two books.
I need to know warlord traits from those two books.
Plus secondary objectives from all three books.

Granted, I may not need to know all of them at all times. For example relics and warlord traits I can just know what my chosen ones do during the game, but I still need to be aware of them for when I'm building a list.

If I don't know what my enemy's stratagems or unit abilities (including traits/relics) are, I can easily get screwed by not seeing a particular ability or combo coming and getting caught out by it. I have lost several games to exactly this sort of thing (or at least suffered terribly in games I then went on to lose).
Although I never did say you needed to own your opponent's book. I just said you need a basic understanding of what they have.

I love unique subfaction rules, but I hate supplements and hope they go away.

I don't want to pay for an extra book that makes a given playstyle suboptimal unless you use said book. You know how UM and Salamander bikers suddenly look really bad at their jobs compared to WS and Raven WIng bikers? I don't want that for my eldar. I like being able to occassionally field a wraith-themed army out of my main codex (and Psychic Awakening I guess). I don't want to have to pay for the Iyanden supplement that makes Iyanden wraiths twice as good as Ulthwe wraith units. I don't want to feel like my guardian units only have half their rules until I buy the Ulthwe book. And I certainly don't want to see the release schedule bogged down with craftworld stuff for half a year while the orks, tau, etc. get nothing.

All that said, I really feel like our codices could be packing a lot more content than they currently are. The main rulebooks for D&D and Pathfinder cost about as much as a codex. Looking at the chapters of those books that cover spells, there are dozens of spells in each of those books, and each spell has about as much rules text as a chapter tactic (if not more). Imagine paying $60 and getting something like 50 chapter tactics for your money.

D&D and Pathfinder books have about 10 base classes, and each of those classes takes up about 4 pages of the book. Imagine getting 40 pages of datasheetes to go with those chapter tactics. And then there are chapters for magic items, basic rules, combat, etc. Imagine those pages going towards the special units and gimmicks that GW would normally put in a subfaction. This could be used to hold your ynnari rules or your Death Guard variant rules or your guavessa/brood brother/renegades & heretics.

And in the Pathfinder book (if not also the D&D book), there's still room for a pretty solid chapter that covers fluff for the default setting.

TLDR; I don't want to pay extra money to create problems for my armies and spread the rules content even more thinly. I want to pay less money to have more content in one place.

I want an EC codex badly enough to consider giving GW money for it - and that's not a low bar to hurdle considering how I've increasingly come to feel about 9th - but I'd happily forgo the pleasure if the entire supplement system were dismantled entirely. The game would just be better for it.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
What codex supplements would people like to see GW introduce, and for which books?

Personally, I'd love to see the Imperial Guard expanded.
Not necessarily just for the current regiments. But I'd like to see supplement: Guevesa, supplement: Renegades & Heretics, and supplement: Brood Brothers.
I think it would be a great way to expand on the xenos/chaos armies and bring these things to the fore-front.

None. No more supplements, and I'd like to see the SM ones go away. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I'd like to see chapter tactics and regimental doctrines go away.

This is getting out of hand. First off, not everything needs special rules. If you want a chapter that uses tanks, or bikes, or whatever, include tanks or bikes in your list. Use your imagination and creativity for your narrative; this whole thing where competitive play should be narrative is like terrible for everything.
Second off, units don't need cost free bonus rules packages to flip around. That's what broke 7th. You pay 5 points for a guardsman, it's the same guardsman with the same rules support that anyone else has in their list.
Finally, is it not enough that I bought 5 $45 codecies? I feel like I spend more on rules than I do on minis, which isn't true but feels entirely reasonable to assert given both how much I spend on books and the fact that the armies I really want to be buying models for right now haven't seen a new unit since 2014.