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.

Vaktathi wrote:Are we talking 6 units of 4 jokaero or 4 units of jokaero? Either way, it's around 1200pts or less. 4 units of 5 jokaero in a 5 chimeraa +coteaz is just barely over 1000pts.

oh that's right, I was using units of ten..... HOLY gak that's 40 lascannons not 20! Still all irrelevant, the codex isn't real.

The only thing that annoys me about this is the henchman option, which is obviously already pointed out, and also the warp quake thing, thank you gw for making deepstriking armies obsolete
However, I don't want to seem like a TFG, but from the wording of the PDF, if a greyknight squad fails a leadership score with the crucible of malediction (DE) the whole squad is removed as they are all pskyers That would he very mean indeed if they don't clarify that

=I= White-Wolf wrote:The only thing that annoys me about this is the henchman option, which is obviously already pointed out, and also the warp quake thing, thank you gw for making deepstriking armies obsolete
However, I don't want to seem like a TFG, but from the wording of the PDF, if a greyknight squad fails a leadership score with the crucible of malediction (DE) the whole squad is removed as they are all pskyers That would he very mean indeed if they don't clarify that

Re read the second paragraph under the brother of psykers, I think they're already safe from it since it states that (approx. to not cause trouble) if something targets the unit as a psyker you resolve against the justi/knight or a random model if they're dead.

ph34r wrote:Here are how your arguments fail:
RAI argument: They are troops because they enable you to fulfill your basic requirements with only henchmen. They also become troops for deployment. This is not the same as sternguard.
RAW argument: This is completely nonsensical and if you ever attempt to use it you will be laughed out of the store along with the people that claim wraithlords can't shoot because they have no eyes and thus cannot draw line of sight.

Give it up. Coteaz = as many henchmen squads as you want, troops, and no slots used.

You wanna bet who will get laughed/kicked out of a store faster? The guy who says Henchmen take Elite slots, or the guy who insists he can have unlimited 12-pt scoring units?

lord_blackfang wrote:

Neconilis wrote:Why is it mistaken given the wording that we have?

RAI version: Because they're Troop choices, and Troop choices are 2-6. If GW wanted them to be scoring and stay unlimited, they'd just make them scoring, not move them to Troops (see Sternguard.)

RAW version: The "do not take up a slot" text is in itself ineffectual, because "slot" is not a defined game term and is to my knowledge not used anywhere else ever. The proper term used in the rulebook and all codices for the little boxes on the FOC is "choice" or "selection." So by RAW, even without Coteaz all Henchmen count towards your Elites allowance.

Alright, though I still do not agree with you. I really want to, as I view the 'Barrel O'Monkeys' as utterly ridiculous. It's incredibly unbalanced, and the game is Cash-hammer enough already. I simply don't see warbands being limited by anything save points cost with the RAW that we currently have. Sure, we can play the semantics game and go, 'what's a force organisation slot', but that doesn't truly get us anywhere. Because, as you pointed out, even if they're selected as Elites, then they'd still count towards the FOC with such logic. Also, even if we are playing that game, what if the FOC in the GK codex also calls them slots? What then?

Additionally, for your RAI, if all of the rules were written by the same group of people each time then I might agree with you. However, they're not. Each author chooses to accomplish things in different ways. Point being, who knows with absolute certainty what the intent is?

Y'know anyone else here thinking that regardless of whatever rumors or purportedly authentic codices we have in our possession that all material we have at this point is either a dead end, rat hole, misleading, outright lies, or outdated dev material that will change and evolve prior to the true codex release?

I think as written the barrel of monkeys issue could be interpreted either way by a rules lawyer, but I believe that the intent was to have a single digit limit on henchmen squads.

I'm not one to doubt this codex due to any fluff or ridiculous rules in it, I'm simply doubting it because first, this happens every release. I've seen well done fakes before and I used to live with an art school nut who says this could have been faked anyways. Second if this is a real codex there's enough proof that this is a dev copy and subject to a million forms of change.

All that aside I'm still psyched about what amounts to a squad of nobs in terminator armour with a painboy wandering around an apocalypse board with a 2++ for a the cost of a pair of baneblades.

From what I can tell with the codex we have now it's simply not going to be a tier one book, it's going to take some serious skill to wrangle victory against skilled alpha strike IG players or tactical DE players. Not to mention as it seems like it's even more elite than the last one like always daemon hunters is going to need a whole different level of skill compared to any other form of marines to manage properly.

But on the apocalypse side I think this book is going to be one of the funnest right up there with IG to play with. Whereas the fun with IG on battles around 3-6k is fielding whole regiments, when you hit that kind of points with this codex you can actually manage a decent setup with covering fire from dreadnoughts and land raiders while still fully enjoying the Grey Knight feel.

I don't know how happy inquisition players are going to be with the final work but then again I never saw many dedicated inquisition players back in 3rd and 4th edition. I think those that want to actually play inquisition will simply wait for the witch hunters codex.

Vaktathi wrote:I just realized something, with this book we will have a character existing in two different books with two different sets of rules and statlines, but supposedly representing the same guy at the same point in the games timeline, at the same time.

Carab Culln. 3 different books, 3 different sets of rules and profiles. All legal.

The rest of this thread is nonsensical internet whining.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:I just realized something, with this book we will have a character existing in two different books with two different sets of rules and statlines, but supposedly representing the same guy at the same point in the games timeline, at the same time.

Carab Culln. 3 different books, 3 different sets of rules and profiles. All legal.

The rest of this thread is nonsensical internet whining.

3? I know he's in imperial armour 4 as the 1st company captain and Imperial armour 9 as the chapter master but did he have a profile as a vanguard sergeant or something?

DarknessEternal wrote:
Carab Culln. 3 different books, 3 different sets of rules and profiles. All legal.

All at different points in the timeline and his progression up the chain of command however, and all basically as an addendum to C:SM.

But can you play them all in the same army?

Fafnir wrote:But can you play them all in the same army?

No imperial armour 9 explicitly states that you cannot field both Captain and Commander Culin in the same force. Again I don't know where the 3rd rule set is from. And as we all know little rules like this go out the window in apocalypse.

carabine wrote:Y'know anyone else here thinking that regardless of whatever rumors or purportedly authentic codices we have in our possession that all material we have at this point is either a dead end, rat hole, misleading, outright lies, or outdated dev material that will change and evolve prior to the true codex release?

Given that the PDF was dated January, and White Dwarfs are made 3 months in advance (hence, for the April WD),

they might use a mock-up of the codex for the bat rep. This is the "final" one (missing mainly pictures), and the full codex gets printed between Jan and April.

it might not be the final codex, and was released only on January but has been around for some time (I wonder if this is where all the information came, from the various sources).
In this case, I find it odd that whomever leaked it left the wargear pages out (they weren't done yet?), perhaps indicating that this is from long ago.

In any case, why go to such trouble and do a full page layout if it isn't the final product? It could be that they only have to change the point costs later, but I seriously doubt it. I'd be willing to bet that this is either someone having fun with us (if so, hats off, but very unlikely) or it is indeed the final product, missing a few entries and going for a last revision to finally go to the big printers.

Bottom line, I doubt outdated material would be in such a polished layout.

Destrado wrote:

carabine wrote:Y'know anyone else here thinking that regardless of whatever rumors or purportedly authentic codices we have in our possession that all material we have at this point is either a dead end, rat hole, misleading, outright lies, or outdated dev material that will change and evolve prior to the true codex release?

Given that the PDF was dated January, and White Dwarfs are made 3 months in advance (hence, for the April WD),

they might use a mock-up of the codex for the bat rep. This is the "final" one (missing mainly pictures), and the full codex gets printed between Jan and April.

it might not be the final codex, and was released only on January but has been around for some time (I wonder if this is where all the information came, from the various sources).
In this case, I find it odd that whomever leaked it left the wargear pages out (they weren't done yet?), perhaps indicating that this is from long ago.

In any case, why go to such trouble and do a full page layout if it isn't the final product? It could be that they only have to change the point costs later, but I seriously doubt it. I'd be willing to bet that this is either someone having fun with us (if so, hats off, but very unlikely) or it is indeed the final product, missing a few entries and going for a last revision to finally go to the big printers.

Bottom line, I doubt outdated material would be in such a polished layout.

Fair assessment, there are several parts which come into question with this polished layout there are still massive errors in page numbering, rule descriptions, etc. This no matter what is not the final product with several sections saying "page (XX)" I doubt the finality of this book. Most of the "polished" look of this codex could simply be a template that one of the writers has on hand to simply make setup easier to look at, I know that someone with a small bit of skill could set up a photoshop template so that they could create a blank unit box and simply put in whatever wargear/points cost/ ruleset that they wanted both for the fluff page and for the unit entries.

Personally I do believe that in some part it IS a dev codex, I think it was a mockup and printed out to get passed around the office and someone got ahold of a printed copy and got away with it before this round of it was trashed. Just because we got this copy this late doesn't mean it's this new, the copy could be much older as in fall - winter 2010.

I think we can trust the unit entries (yes even the jokero), wargear (though not their effects or stats), and fluff pages (for the most part, I'll bet 20 bucks says atleast one of those is getting rewritten).

But as you said it comes down to a bottom line. I can make a setup like that with my sister's (art student) help, that can allow me to reproduce a codex again and again and edit it without losing any of the polish.

ph34r wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cerebrium wrote:I'm going to continue to play my Inquisition. I'm treating Henchmen as troop choices who do take up FOC slots with Coteaz. So when the FAQ does inevitably say they do count as taking a troop slot, I won't need to change my list.

Anyone who does want to field them as not taking up a slot is welcome to do it, but just know that I will refuse to play you. I am but a single man, but if I know that I'm following the rules as they were intended, I will feel a little better about myself.

There is nothing to suggest that they intended it. If they wanted them to take slots they would have said "they take slots". Heck, they could have said that he enables you to take 6 squads instead of say not limited.

I still don't care. I'm going to field 6 henchmen units with Coteaz, tops. As I said, I don't care if I can field infinite amounts, I would feel like I was being unfair.

And for all the "is the codex real" debate. The "created" date was when the PDF was made. It gives no indication of when the actual print codex was made (it was obviously scanned in). Unless you had the images produced by the scan and could look at the EXIF data, we have no way of knowing. That codex could be from 6 months ago for all we know.

Imperial Transformers?
Inquisitional Xenos?
Special characters that make Chuck Norris look weak?
Braying Daemons?

Oh dear! Is there the slightest chance that all leaks are fakes?

Destrado wrote:Given that the PDF was dated January, and White Dwarfs are made 3 months in advance (hence, for the April WD),

they might use a mock-up of the codex for the bat rep. This is the "final" one (missing mainly pictures), and the full codex gets printed between Jan and April.

it might not be the final codex, and was released only on January but has been around for some time (I wonder if this is where all the information came, from the various sources).
In this case, I find it odd that whomever leaked it left the wargear pages out (they weren't done yet?), perhaps indicating that this is from long ago.

In any case, why go to such trouble and do a full page layout if it isn't the final product? It could be that they only have to change the point costs later, but I seriously doubt it. I'd be willing to bet that this is either someone having fun with us (if so, hats off, but very unlikely) or it is indeed the final product, missing a few entries and going for a last revision to finally go to the big printers.

Bottom line, I doubt outdated material would be in such a polished layout.

It's not polished at all. The layout process has one or more master-pages that you just add text in. Codicies follow a pretty standard 2-column layout with no quirky layout. Given templates and a plain text file I bet it wouldn't take me more than an afternoon doing the first layout for a codex together with placeholders for filler pictures and stuff. Like the one we see in the PDF.

Then again, GW products aren't really polished at all, not even when they are final. So it might just be that this is it. -.-

Coteaz henchmen are basically worded the same as Lesser demons from chaos.. the only difference is lesser demons arent very good and cant be abused

So really its an argument over the *power* of a unit due to a huge oversight in GWs logic.. But the rules are pretty much the same from a non-power perspective

I think GW will errata it tho as they have with many RAI things lately. Cause it seems like hes there to let you play a 0% GK army, but fails horribly due to unlimited henchmen being a bad idea

If anyone is still numb enough to be wondering exactly how trustworthy this codex is:

The vibe I get is that it is the pre-alpha codex, more of the GW play test, and is subject to small and medium changes. Most of the stuff will be exactly the same, but stuff like everyone taking warding staves will be changed due to GW finding the obvious overpoweredness of them. When the codex is released, only one person will be able to take them per squad I believe, for example.

Yeah, this codex reeks of playtest copy. So the majority is as-is, but it's still subject to tweaking, like points costs and the bloody WORDING OF COTEAZ'S RULE.

So, has anyone done a comprehensive analysis of the handwritten margin notes? I mostly ignored them when I was skimming through the PDF, because I found them hard to read. Maybe there's some additional information to be had, like corrections the author wanted to make?

Grundz wrote:

Chad Warden wrote:

filbert wrote:I fear someone may well be losing their job over this...

hopefully Matt Ward

Actually hopefully whatever marketing director who keeps thinking that scaling back and raising prices 3 times a year is a business plan that can last another decade.

Just think in 10 years, you will be able to purchase a land raider kit for the low low price of 219.99!!! preorder now for free shipping omg!

Cerebrium wrote:Yeah, this codex reeks of playtest copy. So the majority is as-is, but it's still subject to tweaking, like points costs and the bloody WORDING OF COTEAZ'S RULE.

wheres the confusion coming from, it says they are troop choices, not "they count as troops" or they counts as scoring, and he simply removes the limit based on number of inquisitors, basically he moves them to the troops slot and takes out that one limiting sentance.

I will be mildly amused if this was deliberate on GW's part, in order to get everyone to come up with the most broken stuff they can, so GW can fix it before release.

Ketara wrote:I will be mildly amused if this was deliberate on GW's part, in order to get everyone to come up with the most broken stuff they can, so GW can fix it before release.

We can dream, can't we?

If that were the case, they'd do it publicly. You know, kind of like what Privateer Press did with their game (say what you will about Warmahordes, the way they interact with their community is leagues above GW).

Assuming this isn't a fake, at best, it's an early draft that will go through a lot of changes. The terrible fluff is likely set in stone, but hopefully someone at GW HQ will have the sense to actually read the thing and ask Ward what the feth he's been smoking. Hell, I don't think up gak that dumb when I'm high.

Worst case scenario, it's a near release copy and the entire metagame is going to have to shift to accomodate Grey Knights. And not a minor shift either. Daemons will become unplayable at best, and everything else won't fair too much better. The entire metagame will focus around 'how well you can do against Grey Knights.' Of course, it's doubtful that most armies, especially the older ones, will have much of a chance with that challenge.

I am willing to bet my entire Dark Elf army that the book will not change between now and release, and that Cotaez's poor wording on his special rule will make it into print, because no one at GW noticed.

Even with proof that GW playtests things, I still can't believe they have any skill in the matter. Or that they listen to their players.

I know as a fact that they keep watch on forums like these. If the codex hasn't already started printing, I'll wager such a big issue(the henchmen) would have a quick amendment before they sent it off for production.

Sooo....if you're wrong, how do I get your Dark Elf army?

Nagashek wrote:I am willing to bet my entire Dark Elf army that the book will not change between now and release, and that Cotaez's poor wording on his special rule will make it into print, because no one at GW noticed.

Do you HAVE a Dark Elf army? I would be willing to bet my Chaos Dwarf army on something like that.. in general... if I had a Chaos Dwarf army..

but seriously.. if you got an army.. wanna make a bet?

You guys seriously think that it's been addressed? After so many arguments about RAI v RAW and what "whole" models mean or "turn" and "round" used interchangeably, along with countless others? Honestly?

If they haven't started the production run yet, I don't think such a big flaw will make it through. Give them some credit.

Soooo.....about that Dark Elf army.....