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.

The last time stickmonkey saw anything (that he could talk about) was MONTHS ago. Again, pretty much calling someone a liar isnt really cool in my book, unless he's been proven to be a liar.

He's said that he works with GW early in the process, and then NDAs kick in, and he can no longer talk about what is upcoming.

I'll wait, and compare what he said with the early set of rumours back in November. He said that they would be pushed back from Q1(Where he originally put them)... Well... April is the beginning of Q2.

If we get the walker, along with really ornate GKTs, and nice looking PAGK.... I'll consider him pretty reliable at that point.

(Edit: For those who can't be bothered, this is the substance of what SM posted months ago, re-iterated recently)

1. Expect a new codex which expands the fluff greatly.
2. Expect plastic Terminator GKs, in scale and compatiable with current plastic Teminators
3. Expect plastic power armor sized GKs, whether this armor is actually aegis, annointer, artificer, etc is a mute point, they will be in scale and compatible with all other standard sized marines
4. Expect new sculpts of existing metal character minis
5. Expect a few "new" plastic kits and metal blisters (for the specific rumored kits see the numerous other threads, I'm not going to reveal anything specific here)
6. This will be a wave release, not all of the units of the codex will be represented by models in the release or current ranges
7. IMHO, the models are some of the best sculpts I've ever seen out of GW

The only problem is that I could have made that same list. It feels like a lot of pussyfooting around and vague enough that most of it will turn out to be right and he could claim vindication.

What about that list of Tyranid rumors from Stickmonkey that I linked to the on last page? It'd be one thing if maybe a quarter of those were wrong, or something got lost in translation, but not one of those has turned out to be true in the slightest. The only thing that might be true is the bit about a biomorph sprue being released in late January, and only because we're still in the middle of January.

EDIT: Actually, while Stickmonkey's rumors have influenced discussion of the upcoming GK codex and is somewhat on-topic, I feel like this deserves it's own thread. Question is whether it should go in Rumor discussion or General chat.

I'd say General, if you're talking about discussing the rumour feed.

EDIT: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/339348.page#2321112

RustyKnight wrote:Just rename the SC.

No.

I don't see why I should have to use a character I don't want to play the army I could play yesterday without him. If it is 'Inquisitors unlock XYZ' then fine, but 'Inquisitor Named McSpecialCharacter unlocks XYZ', then the book can go to hell.


As I said, would you say the same thing to a Blood Angel player if Blood Angel players had been told that they wouldn't be getting a Codex and they had to 'counts as' the Special Characters in the Marine Codex to make their army? No you wouldn't. Because that would be stupid. So don't tell those of us with Ordo Malleus armies that we can keep playing them if we play something different.

Kanluwen wrote:

Jaon wrote:

bhsman wrote:
EDIT: Quick change in topic, but what do you guys say about the metal vs. grey debate, ie, how to paint your GKs? I've been going back and forth on it.

ignoring the price for a second, I would like to say I hate metal miniatures, and would happily see every metal mini changed to plastic any day, there's no advantage.

Plastic is easier to glue and to paint IMO, YMMV. I welcome the change, since I plan to be termie heavy.

He was actually referring to the paint colors for Grey Knights...
I.E. "Do you paint your Grey Knights silvered metal or flat grey?"

....*headdesk*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:Just rename the SC.

No.

I don't see why I should have to use a character I don't want to play the army I could play yesterday without him. If it is 'Inquisitors unlock XYZ' then fine, but 'Inquisitor Named McSpecialCharacter unlocks XYZ', then the book can go to hell.


As I said, would you say the same thing to a Blood Angel player if Blood Angel players had been told that they wouldn't be getting a Codex and they had to 'counts as' the Special Characters in the Marine Codex to make their army? No you wouldn't. Because that would be stupid. So don't tell those of us with Ordo Malleus armies that we can keep playing them if we play something different.

You are getting up in arms about something that is inevitable and needed. Its impossible to make a competitive 5th edition army from a 3rd edition army without major change. I doubt it will take you long to look past its failures when the new codex comes out. GW cant please everyone.

I agree with HBMC. Even with counts-as, it is ridiculous if the only Inquisitors who ever operate without GK assistance are those that carry Daemonhammers, wear Terminator armour and know two specific psychic powers.

Jaon wrote:You are getting up in arms about something that is inevitable and needed. Its impossible to make a competitive 5th edition army from a 3rd edition army without major change. I doubt it will take you long to look past its failures when the new codex comes out. GW cant please everyone.

It is not needed. That's the problem. It is an arbitrary restriction that does not make for a better game.

AlexHolker wrote:It is not needed. That's the problem. It is an arbitrary restriction that does not make for a better game.

It's also an unconfirmed problem. Why worry about it now - it mmay never happen.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
No.

I don't see why I should have to use a character I don't want to play the army I could play yesterday without him. If it is 'Inquisitors unlock XYZ' then fine, but 'Inquisitor Named McSpecialCharacter unlocks XYZ', then the book can go to hell.

Why would you be so opposed to counts-as'ing the special character for one of your many inquisitors? There's a pretty damn good chance that the SC inquisitor would have a power weapon or a daemon hammer, and I'm sure at least one of your inq's has that. What's the harm in using the named SC's rules? Nothing changes except you get a more updated army.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
As I said, would you say the same thing to a Blood Angel player if Blood Angel players had been told that they wouldn't be getting a Codex and they had to 'counts as' the Special Characters in the Marine Codex to make their army? No you wouldn't. Because that would be stupid. So don't tell those of us with Ordo Malleus armies that we can keep playing them if we play something different.

They're moving all of one unit to a different force org slot (maybe). This is no way similar to removing an entire army. Does the new book look to have an even greater GK focus? Yes, but the non-GK offerings in the current codex are miniscule already. I listed them all in my last post (which you seemed to ignore), and the daemonhost is the only thing that might not make the transition.

warboss wrote: guess that's true if you only play 1000pt games or less but most people don't. Leman Russ tanks with sponsons only cost 170pts each so 340 there... most common platoon i've seen is with 4 squads and a heavy/special squad each = 410pts depending on the loadout (this is with flamers/grenadelaunchers/misslelaunchers). You can take 2 tanks and a decent sized platoon for 750pts which is half the size of the "standard" 1500pt game (most people around here play 1750-2000). In fact, you can fit in a GK grand master, a terminator squad, and two additional gk squads into 1500pts along side it. with the allies gone, this person now has a 750pt too-small-to-play separate IG army and GK army. if this change is true, it does affect people out there (not me personally) and denying that is foolhardy. is it a change for the better for the rest of us? who knows until the codex comes out.

The community has known the "Allies" rules were going for years now; it's the necessary and ineveitable change. A 750 point guard army could bloom into a full fledged 1500 point force with the addition of some transports and another battle tank or two.

AlexHolker wrote:I agree with HBMC. Even with counts-as, it is ridiculous if the only Inquisitors who ever operate without GK assistance are those that carry Daemonhammers, wear Terminator armour and know two specific psychic powers.

As long as you're taking multiple Inquisitors or your current inquisitor has that load-out, it won't be a problem. If you're taking only one inquisitor without the really unique Daemonhunter stuff, why not just play IG? That codex will give you more options than the current one.

I was unaware of a restriction, but I see what your saying. Yes, the restriction is entirely unnecessary.

Just give a HQ option that unlocks Inquisitorial Stormtroopers at the cost of maybe one or two units; yet still allows Grey Knights in a more elite, more rare role. Your army will still have to have Grey Knight units in it, while giving Inq Storms as an option; a real Demon Hunters army.

Would that solve things? For me, it would and I tend to lean more to the Inq side than Ordo Militant.

Jaon wrote:
I would like to say I hate metal miniatures, and would happily see every metal mini changed to plastic any day, t

I shall agree. I dont hate metal, but i prefer plastic by far. Most plastic cinversion work I can do with a hooby knife, sandpaper, and my hobby saw. Metal most times requires the use of my dremel...and cleaning thousands of tiny metal shavings is a pain. Theres also the lack of fine control.

RustyKnight wrote:As long as you're taking multiple Inquisitors or your current inquisitor has that load-out, it won't be a problem.

So if you were already planning on spending 150+ points on a Coteaz lookalike, spending 150+ points on a Coteaz lookalike isn't a problem? What if you aren't planning on spending that much on a Coteaz-lookalike?

If you're taking only one inquisitor without the really unique Daemonhunter stuff, why not just play IG? That codex will give you more options than the current one.

Because the codex has more than one set of unique Daemonhunter stuff. A Psycannon or Annoited Weapon is just as valid a choice as a Daemonhammer.

What?

BoyMac wrote:

Clad in baroque Terminator armour and wielding powerful weapons such as storm bolters and Nemesis force weapons, the Grey Knights tear through the enemy, unleashing an onslaught of psychic powers and sorcery to sunder the foe.

Sorcery?
WTF?
Since when did anyone loyal (besides pre heresy 1000 sons) use sorcery?

I call SHENANIGANS on this writer!!

Because there's zero difference between sorcery and psychic powers. They're both the same thing when you get past the Imperial bias.

bhsman wrote:but what do you guys say about the metal vs. grey debate, ie, how to paint your GKs? I've been going back and forth on it.

Dusty light grey for me to get a nice battle-worn look. Not a fan of the pure silver look, I find it boring.
Hopefully before the release GW will put up some painting/color scheme articles for the knights like they did with the Dark Eldar.

Since when did anyone loyal (besides pre heresy 1000 sons) use sorcery?

Even a casual reader of the 40K background material knows that the two things are the same thing in 40K. In that background lore, there are "unregistered" psykers and "registered, trained" psykers. The unregistered ones are labeled as witches, sorcerers, heretics, etc. and hunted down by Imperial officials.

Vhalyar wrote:
Hopefully before the release GW will put up some painting/color scheme articles for the knights like they did with the Dark Eldar.

Well if the release is in April, then Id say we should start getting teasers sometime in Feb, or early March at the latest. My guess would be teasers in Feb, full on previews in March. Basically look back at what they did leading up to the DE release, and transfer that to GK. You know GW...they like to keep the interest going and build up the "gotta have it, gotta have it" real good before a major release.

BrassScorpion wrote:

Since when did anyone loyal (besides pre heresy 1000 sons) use sorcery?

Even a casual reader of the 40K background material knows that the two things are the same thing in 40K.

Yeah thanks, it's not my first day...

That was my entire point, why would this writer refer to them as using "psychic powers AND SCORCERY " unless this writer was a complete tool.

NagothDaCleaver wrote:That was my entire point, why would this writer refer to them as using "psychic powers AND SCORCERY " unless this writer was a complete tool.

Because the recent rumors are indicating that the Grey Knights make massive use of psychic powers, down to their vehicle pilots using them. So the writer is putting a double focus on the psyker aspect of the army. I guess he's a tool for trying to describe the feel of the updated Grey Knights?

Vhalyar wrote:

NagothDaCleaver wrote:That was my entire point, why would this writer refer to them as using "psychic powers AND SCORCERY " unless this writer was a complete tool.

Because the recent rumors are indicating that the Grey Knights make massive use of psychic powers, down to their vehicle pilots using them. So the writer is putting a double focus on the psyker aspect of the army. I guess he's a tool for trying to describe the feel of the updated Grey Knights?

No, he's a tool because he worded it incorrectly if that was his intent. Sorcery has a tremendous negative connotation in the Imperium.

So do psychic powers. "Psychic powers and sorcery" may be a bit redundant, but I don't see how it makes the writer a tool.

I'm scared now, ANOTHER army that can beat orks into the ground in assault! I wish orks still had plasma cannons!

The Dreadnote wrote:So do psychic powers. "Psychic powers and sorcery" may be a bit redundant, but I don't see how it makes the writer a tool.

That's because your not a jerk like me. My point, which i have utterly failed to convey, is that GW never refers to the Psychers in the the Imperium as Sorcerers or as using sorcery.

That is a term they only use to describe the Psychers of the Xenos races and of the Chaos legions.

Wording often makes a big difference, and the word "sorcery" has indeed almost always been used in a negative sense in 40K background, so I agree it is at least rather odd to use this specific word for the Grey Knights.

I'm not sure why people feel the need to argue against this. So the writer screwed up here. Big fething deal.

NagothDaCleaver wrote:

Vhalyar wrote:

NagothDaCleaver wrote:That was my entire point, why would this writer refer to them as using "psychic powers AND SCORCERY " unless this writer was a complete tool.

Because the recent rumors are indicating that the Grey Knights make massive use of psychic powers, down to their vehicle pilots using them. So the writer is putting a double focus on the psyker aspect of the army. I guess he's a tool for trying to describe the feel of the updated Grey Knights?

No, he's a tool because he worded it incorrectly if that was his intent. Sorcery has a tremendous negative connotation in the Imperium.

I, at least, understand completely where you're coming from. Heck, the entire purpose of the Council of Nikaea was to ban sorcery, which was anything undertaken by an unsanctioned Imperial psyker.

zilegil wrote:I'm scared now, ANOTHER army that can beat orks into the ground in assault!

Nothing a liberal application of Ork Boyz can't solve.

Fafnir wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:Fail GW I'm sure many people could run that company better

I'm sure that a blindfolded monkey with a stapler jammed up his ass could run the company better, but what exactly are you getting at?

Fafnir, that is sig quotable. lol

Fafnir wrote:
I'm sure that a blindfolded monkey with a stapler jammed up his ass could run the company better, but what exactly are you getting at?

wait, you mean this isn't who's running GW?

There used to be a clear distinction between Sorcery and Psychic Power in 40K.

Apparently, that's no longer the case?

If so, that's too bad...

Other than how it's applied, I'd say that's no longer the case.

Sorcery is only ever used in regards to the baddies - typically Chaos Space Marines.

Psychic Power refers to any Psyker, including those who use Sorcery.

Maybe Sorcery is Psychic embrace of the Chaos gods? Whereas Psychic Power is just using the warp?

Alpharius wrote:There used to be a clear distinction between Sorcery and Psychic Power in 40K.

Apparently, that's no longer the case?

If so, that's too bad...

I completely agree, the trend has become that there is no difference between Psychers and Sorcerer's and i dislike that approach. I liked it better when Sorcerer's had a more ritualistic/demon-worshiper feel, instead of being just a psycher the Imperium doesn't like.

But it does fall right in line with the blatant hypocrisy that the Imperium was built upon.