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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
If GW keep up there current pace of codex releases and these are just a partial list of the faction stratagems it will be interesting to see how quickly they are outdated. If its not a partial stratagem list then SW and Sisters are probably not due until the tail end of 2018 if not later.

What? That's a silly idea.
Sisters are not due at all. GW just thinks they make a great army to make jokes/troll people with that's all.

Celestine and the Twins sure seem to be popular inclusions in armies these days.

I am assuming there will be a Wolves and Agents of the Imperium Codex's sometime in 2018, if only so all the people who keep saying "everything is fine just wait for your own codex" can say they are "right" even if its a year after they have been received their own one.

Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...

Spartacus wrote:
Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...

Faeit literally posts everything it hears.

Which is why its useless garbage, that only gets somethings right by sheer numbers.

If these rumors are fake then they are the best thought out fake rumor I have ever seen. It seems to address almost every concern I have. I haven’t heard anyone really argue the “leaked” changes are bad.

Certainly an interesting list of changes, though I’m expecting a fair amount more. If these alone are true/close to true I’d be saving 70+ points on my list!

However, I hope that the terrain changes are done properly and effectively. These, right now, are more important that the majority of the points changes.

As an Imperial Fist player, I welcome any and all changes to terrain and cover rules

 von Hohenstein wrote:


Interceptor with Bolter: 45 (was 60)
Interceptor with Plasma 59 (was 86)
Aggressor with Bolter 33 (was 43)
Stormraven with TwinAssaultCannon, two HurricaneBolter, Twin HeavyBolter and StormstrikeMissileLauncher 315 (was 274)

Aggressors will be 37 once you factor in their fragstorm grenade launchers (which the original 43 does include). They are 6 points cheaper, not 10. Still a good change.

Weird that they don't seem to be doing anything with the flamer ones, which are worse.

Also, they are Inceptors, not Interceptors

Mandragola wrote:

 von Hohenstein wrote:


Interceptor with Bolter: 45 (was 60)
Interceptor with Plasma 59 (was 86)
Aggressor with Bolter 33 (was 43)
Stormraven with TwinAssaultCannon, two HurricaneBolter, Twin HeavyBolter and StormstrikeMissileLauncher 315 (was 274)

Aggressors will be 37 once you factor in their fragstorm grenade launchers (which the original 43 does include). They are 6 points cheaper, not 10. Still a good change.

Weird that they don't seem to be doing anything with the flamer ones, which are worse.

Also, they are Inceptors, not Interceptors

I have 9 aggressors waiting to be built. Cannot decide how to split them, but a points drop for both (especially the flamer) is definitely required.

Will this Chapter Approved be released for free, through the Warhammer Community site? Will it be released through White Dwarf?

Or is this going to be a physical book that you have to purchase?

Book you need to buy.

I'm curious to see if my enhanced edition codex updates, and if the new books coming out will have the new or old points values. I don't know whether we'll get the codices or the CA book first.

tneva82 wrote:
Book you need to buy.

Well thats stupid. Could they not have done this for free through a rules Errata/FAQ?

If you refuse to purchase this new book to update the book you've already purchased, does that make your Codex invalid?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Book you need to buy.

Well thats stupid. Could they not have done this for free through a rules Errata/FAQ?

If you refuse to purchase this new book to update the book you've already purchased, does that make your Codex invalid?

It makes the points values in your codex wrong, until you change them with information that will certainly be available all over the internet.

The CA book will have a lot more in it than points cost changes. But these changes are very welcome to make 40k a good game. I'm glad to see GW finally working to update their rules as they go. GW needs to pay for the work on keeping points up to date somehow, and if I have to buy a book for that then I will.

The AoS equivalent, the General's Handbook, has been very well received. If CA is as good as that then it'll be a great addition to the game.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Book you need to buy.

Well thats stupid. Could they not have done this for free through a rules Errata/FAQ?

If you refuse to purchase this new book to update the book you've already purchased, does that make your Codex invalid?

If it's like the General's Handbook, the points cost updates are a tiny bit of a book that also contains new scenarios, campaign systems, additional rules, and much more, all for $20.

Mandragola wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Book you need to buy.

Well thats stupid. Could they not have done this for free through a rules Errata/FAQ?

If you refuse to purchase this new book to update the book you've already purchased, does that make your Codex invalid?

It makes the points values in your codex wrong, until you change them with information that will certainly be available all over the internet.

The CA book will have a lot more in it than points cost changes. But these changes are very welcome to make 40k a good game. I'm glad to see GW finally working to update their rules as they go. GW needs to pay for the work on keeping points up to date somehow, and if I have to buy a book for that then I will.

The AoS equivalent, the General's Handbook, has been very well received. If CA is as good as that then it'll be a great addition to the game.

Well that reassures me somewhat. Thankyou.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Book you need to buy.

Well thats stupid. Could they not have done this for free through a rules Errata/FAQ?

If you refuse to purchase this new book to update the book you've already purchased, does that make your Codex invalid?

Yes they COULD. Would they earn more £££ that way is another thing though.

The constant FAQs and changes was one reason I was actually hoping for softback Codices. I would have preferred cheaper, and easier to mark up with pens, etc. Have one proper codex and then a beaten up "game version" with notes scribbled in it etc.

As it is I've translated both of my codices into two double-sided sheets I simply laminate and use for quick reference -- that's also where I put and update my points values, rules, and stats etc. It's a bit annoying, but easier than compiling a new points cost chart every couple of weeks.

Some of the rumours seem genuine whilst others are just odd. As a Death Guard fan the Plagueburst Crawler has always been worth its current points so I have no idea why in the rumours it is getting a 10 point reduction.

The Lord of Contagion and Deathshroud point reductions make sense though, as does the -2 pts on Plague Marines. I guess we shall see.

xerxeshavelock wrote:
I'm increasingly considering getting codexes on download now. Shame, because I like a book, but a book and sheets of paper updates coupled with the uncertainty of whether my or my opponent are using the latest rules isn't as desirable.

My personal ideal is to get a download code with the book, either for the full codex, or maybe just have points online and rules in the book. None of which is perfect really.

Does GW actually update their digital codexes with point and FAQ updates? I honestly assumed that they did not. If they do I'll likely buy purely digital in the future just to not have to print out FAQ's.

 vonjankmon wrote:

xerxeshavelock wrote:
I'm increasingly considering getting codexes on download now. Shame, because I like a book, but a book and sheets of paper updates coupled with the uncertainty of whether my or my opponent are using the latest rules isn't as desirable.

My personal ideal is to get a download code with the book, either for the full codex, or maybe just have points online and rules in the book. None of which is perfect really.

Does GW actually update their digital codexes with point and FAQ updates? I honestly assumed that they did not. If they do I'll likely buy purely digital in the future just to not have to print out FAQ's.

This kind of remains to be seen. I think in theory they are supposed to, but it isn't happening in practice.

I've switched to enhanced edition codexes now that I've got an ipad. They aren't as much use on a phone as the text is very small. On the whole it's massively more convenient than having to lug a bunch of books around.

A particular advantage is that you get the rules for all weapons on a datasheet, not just a selection of them. And you can bring up the points costs of units and upgrades from the datasheet too, without needing to go to the back of the book. Of course, all of those points costs will soon be out of date if there's no update!

GW have produced an army builder tool for AoS that does seem to have been updated for the 2017 GH points costs. Likewise the AoS app has updated costs. The same ought to be possible for 40k.

Spartacus wrote:Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...

They are clickbait central. That's why he posts everything he sees without any consideration of how legitimate it is.

broxus wrote:If these rumors are fake then they are the best thought out fake rumor I have ever seen. It seems to address almost every concern I have. I haven’t heard anyone really argue the “leaked” changes are bad.

Obviously, you never some of the intentionally complex ones.

That's like, a free squad of Hellblasters for every primaris army.

Balance updates should be free direct from the source, let's hope they release those parts for free. Doesn't matter if others post the info online, it definitely matters if the balance issues which were created by GW are fixed for free by GW.

Or whether we see new GW settle back into old GW.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Balance updates should be free direct from the source, let's hope they release those parts for free. Doesn't matter if others post the info online, it definitely matters if the balance issues which were created by GW are fixed for free by GW.

Or whether we see new GW settle back into old GW.

I don`t think anyone implied, that GW is going to charge for FAQs and erratas

ListenToMeWarriors wrote:
Some of the rumours seem genuine whilst others are just odd. As a Death Guard fan the Plagueburst Crawler has always been worth its current points so I have no idea why in the rumours it is getting a 10 point reduction.

The Lord of Contagion and Deathshroud point reductions make sense though, as does the -2 pts on Plague Marines. I guess we shall see.

I agree, the PBC point drop doesn't make sense.

 Mymearan wrote:
As an Imperial Fist player, I welcome any and all changes to terrain and cover rules

Likewise. Hopefully the newer rules make our CT more useful rather than the dumpster fire that they are.

Spartacus wrote:
Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...

Fakeit IS Clickbait Central.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spartacus wrote:
Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...

Fakeit IS Clickbait Central.

Possibly but it generates discussion and some clickvait rumours is more interest g to think on than nothing!

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spartacus wrote:
Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...

Fakeit IS Clickbait Central.

Possibly but it generates discussion and some clickvait rumours is more interest g to think on than nothing!

Posting crap because it generates discussion is just bad form. It is just as easy to post something good that will generate discussion without presenting it as rumors.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
As an Imperial Fist player, I welcome any and all changes to terrain and cover rules

Likewise. Hopefully the newer rules make our CT more useful rather than the dumpster fire that they are.

Even without much change to terrain, I think that Imperial/Crimson Fist players can be pretty happy with the changes to dakka inceptors. Those are now a far more viable unit and our CTs make them extremely good at bullying enemy infantry.