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.

 kodos wrote:

we don't really know if they test or not, but from the simple errors we get with their books it is likely that there is not more than one revise (if any at all)

We don't have official confirmation from GW, but we do at least have those who claim to be. TTT and TTT (Titans and Tactics) each have at least one member of their teams as GW testers. Titans' tester (Brian) states that there are various teams for each book, but his explicit role is to look at the proposed rules and identify/test broken combos from them. If I remember right, one of them claimed that their last interaction with WIP rules was 7-8 months ago and that was in Aug/Sep.

Then, of course, GW only takes their feedback into account, rather than a direct course of action. That doesn't mean it's good...or even remotely adequate, but these external testers exist. I have nothing on GW's internal testing, though I assume they at least put a half-hearted effort into it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It would make zero sense, from my understanding.

I could see it finally being the Ynnari codex though. There's long been talk of something for it.

God I hope not..
3 character models should not have a codex.. And I say this as somebody who uses occasional ynnari character in my CWE army.

A WD ruleset done well would be perfectly sufficient like assasins.

 Argive wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It would make zero sense, from my understanding.

I could see it finally being the Ynnari codex though. There's long been talk of something for it.

God I hope not..
3 character models should not have a codex.. And I say this as somebody who uses occasional ynnari character in my CWE army.

A WD ruleset done well would be perfectly sufficient like assasins.

In reality Ynarri characters, named or generic, should've been treated like Inquisitors.

Voss wrote:Books are done in China,

I picked up the new Space Marines Codex today and according to the back cover it was printed in the UK. I too thought all the print material was done in China now.

Horla wrote:

Voss wrote:Books are done in China,

I picked up the new Space Marines Codex today and according to the back cover it was printed in the UK. I too thought all the print material was done in China now.

Huh. That's a big shift. I knew Warcry and a couple minor books were, but that's new for mainline books (both the main rules and mission packs are printed by in China, either by C&C or Artron).
Sadly, that helps account for the increased price tag on the SM and Necron books.

I think their hardbacks are done by a UK firm and their softbacks and card stock are done in china. Cardprinting machines would be great for GW considering that GW seems to only like making one order for card related products from overseas

 Overread wrote:
I think their hardbacks are done by a UK firm and their softbacks and card stock are done in china. Cardprinting machines would be great for GW considering that GW seems to only like making one order for card related products from overseas

That hasn't been true for years- hardbacks have been done in China (most of the 8th ed codex line, of AoS I can only account for Gloomspite, but that's also China). CA 2018 was China as well, as were the Indexes as the start of 8th, so was Know No Fear from the 8th starter.
Its only been the occasional softback like the Warcry rules that comes from the UK.

 Overread wrote:
I think their hardbacks are done by a UK firm and their softbacks and card stock are done in china. Cardprinting machines would be great for GW considering that GW seems to only like making one order for card related products from overseas

Rumour is they're trying to bring cards (and transfers) in-house, but keep hitting problems (such as the neighbouring rail system taking up all the high-voltage power infrastructure).

 vipoid wrote:
I realise that this aspect isn't news, but could someone explain to me the logic of consolidating the SM factions into a single book . . . only to then release separate codices/supplements for each of them anyway?

Doesn't that just make the whole consolidation entirely pointless? Surely if you're hellbent on releasing separate books for each colour of SM, then you might as well just keep them in separate books?

Well if you're cynical, the guy who plays DA and UM now has to buy three books instead of two books, and download three FAQ's isntead of two etc.

Flip side, all the shared units are in the one book, all the uniques will be in the other so I don't have to worry if Terminators in the this book at different than the terminators in the that book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:


Still, it's odd that after saying that, that they don't just tell us in the new update that DA is the one coming out in January.

Its almost as if they think their customers might be just a little stupid? So they make 6 different Captain datasheets not trusting the player to turn MV6 into Mv5 or Mv 14 etc based on their wargear?

I don't think that is the case but if they want to troll us they can always make the first release of 2021 to be 2 chaos codex and this assertion might be still true

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It would make zero sense, from my understanding.

I could see it finally being the Ynnari codex though. There's long been talk of something for it.

God I hope not..
3 character models should not have a codex.. And I say this as somebody who uses occasional ynnari character in my CWE army.

A WD ruleset done well would be perfectly sufficient like assasins.

In reality Ynarri characters, named or generic, should've been treated like Inquisitors.

First of all, there are no generic Ynarri charcters (yet). Also, in reality, they were treated almost exactly like Inquisitors:

- both started as WD dexes in 8th
- both became dexes in PA which were almost reprints of the WD versions
- both have mechanics where single models can be attached to existing armies without impacting those armies' abilities OR added as separate detachments

The only difference is that Ynarri detachment rules create a "reborn" mechanic in order to add other unit types so that a pure Ynarri force CAN use any detachment type. If anything, a similar rule should have been added to the Inquisition, allowing Sisters to function as Ordo Hereticus, DW to function as Ordo Xenos and GK to function as Ordo Malleus when fielded as Inquisition detachments.

I've said this many, many times: if they expand Ynarri, they should do it by adding Exodites and Corsairs reborn units. To do it right, there should be a named/ generic HQ dual build, an elite dual build, a fast attack dual build, a heavy dual build, and a troop dual build for EACH of Corsairs and Exodites. All data sheets in the Ynarri dex. That way, including the original 3 Ynarri characters, the Ynarri dex would have 23 data sheets, but GW only needs to release 10 boxes to make it happen. They could then release WD dexes for stand alone Corsair and stand alone Exodite armies, each of which would have 10 units to choose from, but only five boxes.

This way, GW a) makes Ynarri a real faction b) doesn't do so by stealing units from CWE and DE c) hedges their bet that people will like Ynarri enough to buy this stuff by making it playable as stand alone Exodite or stand alone Corsairs. If the stand alone armies are more popular than Ynarri, then GW can release full Codexes for each (or whichever sells best) in 10th ed.

The idea is literally SO GOOD that GW should hire me on the spot. I'm really surprised I've never seen anyone else suggest this.

PenitentJake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It would make zero sense, from my understanding.

I could see it finally being the Ynnari codex though. There's long been talk of something for it.

God I hope not..
3 character models should not have a codex.. And I say this as somebody who uses occasional ynnari character in my CWE army.

A WD ruleset done well would be perfectly sufficient like assasins.

In reality Ynarri characters, named or generic, should've been treated like Inquisitors.

First of all, there are no generic Ynarri charcters (yet). Also, in reality, they were treated almost exactly like Inquisitors:

- both started as WD dexes in 8th
- both became dexes in PA which were almost reprints of the WD versions
- both have mechanics where single models can be attached to existing armies without impacting those armies' abilities OR added as separate detachments

The only difference is that Ynarri detachment rules create a "reborn" mechanic in order to add other unit types so that a pure Ynarri force CAN use any detachment type. If anything, a similar rule should have been added to the Inquisition, allowing Sisters to function as Ordo Hereticus, DW to function as Ordo Xenos and GK to function as Ordo Malleus when fielded as Inquisition detachments.

I've said this many, many times: if they expand Ynarri, they should do it by adding Exodites and Corsairs reborn units. To do it right, there should be a named/ generic HQ dual build, an elite dual build, a fast attack dual build, a heavy dual build, and a troop dual build for EACH of Corsairs and Exodites. All data sheets in the Ynarri dex. That way, including the original 3 Ynarri characters, the Ynarri dex would have 23 data sheets, but GW only needs to release 10 boxes to make it happen. They could then release WD dexes for stand alone Corsair and stand alone Exodite armies, each of which would have 10 units to choose from, but only five boxes.

This way, GW a) makes Ynarri a real faction b) doesn't do so by stealing units from CWE and DE c) hedges their bet that people will like Ynarri enough to buy this stuff by making it playable as stand alone Exodite or stand alone Corsairs. If the stand alone armies are more popular than Ynarri, then GW can release full Codexes for each (or whichever sells best) in 10th ed.

The idea is literally SO GOOD that GW should hire me on the spot. I'm really surprised I've never seen anyone else suggest this.

You realsie you are pitching making brand new boxes of modesl/dual kits that are not space marines??

You realize you are pitching making brand new boxes of models/dual kits that are not space marines??

LOL!

Spikey bits said they had recieved hints of an entirely new faction dropping in January. These Fungus people. What ever happened to that?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Spikey bits said they had recieved hints of an entirely new faction dropping in January. These Fungus people. What ever happened to that?

Spikybits rarely has anything that isn't just recycled rumour off forums/reddit/facebook.
The symbol on the GW website that shows the slot uses artwork from the "generic xenos" page in the Big Rule Book where they show a selection of different minor xenos faction artworks. However because its a generic icon it could just mean one of the existing armies that we already have for Xenos. GW has given no hint of a brand new army for 40K.


I also dread to think of the Eldar Rage if GW gave out an entirely new army before updating aspect warriors and a lot of the older Eldar line

 Overread wrote:

I also dread to think of the Eldar Rage if GW gave out an entirely new army before updating aspect warriors and a lot of the older Eldar line

*Grumbles incessantly in Aspect Warrior*

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Spikey bits said they had recieved hints of an entirely new faction dropping in January. These Fungus people. What ever happened to that?

Spikybits rarely has anything that isn't just recycled rumour off forums/reddit/facebook.
The symbol on the GW website that shows the slot uses artwork from the "generic xenos" page in the Big Rule Book where they show a selection of different minor xenos faction artworks. However because its a generic icon it could just mean one of the existing armies that we already have for Xenos. GW has given no hint of a brand new army for 40K.


I also dread to think of the Eldar Rage if GW gave out an entirely new army before updating aspect warriors and a lot of the older Eldar line

It wasn't just SB, the Long War ran with it.

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/367070-vague-rumours-of-a-new-race-coming-to-40k/

Sterling191 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

I also dread to think of the Eldar Rage if GW gave out an entirely new army before updating aspect warriors and a lot of the older Eldar line

*Grumbles incessantly in Aspect Warrior*

Well, since eldars last noteworthy refresh we had admech, stealer cults, deathwatch, custodes, death guard, thousand sons as new factions, massive rework for sisters and all the primaris in the world.

I think they're past the point a new faction brings rage, a totally new xenos is probably better than if they invent another imperial faction at this point.

It still seems very unlikely to me because historically GW have (wisely) waited until at least the middle, if not the tail end, of an edition to bring new factions in. The only two exceptions I'm aware of are Death Guard, and Dark Eldar aaaaall the way back in 3rd - and in both cases, they were part of the starter box.
I could be wrong with a few factions that I wasn't around for, but for the most part the existing factions have gotten at least a new Codex before the new ones get trotted out.

 Super Ready wrote:
It still seems very unlikely to me because historically GW have (wisely) waited until at least the middle, if not the tail end, of an edition to bring new factions in. The only two exceptions I'm aware of are Death Guard, and Dark Eldar aaaaall the way back in 3rd - and in both cases, they were part of the starter box.
I could be wrong with a few factions that I wasn't around for, but for the most part the existing factions have gotten their updates before the new ones get trotted out.

Harlequins were right at the beginning of 7th, and both admech codexes were in the middle.

GSC, Deathwatch and Thousand Sons were...maybe toward the end? I believe Tsons didn't get a decurion until later, which was kind of the start of what people called "7.5"?

My reason for dismissing it is two-fold. 1 it would require a massive investment on the part of GW for new production molds and lore writers. 2. The entire GW lineup is currently begging for rules. They would seriously piss off the user base by dropping a new faction at the start of a brand new edition, when your currently released faction is currently breaking the game.

At the same time new armies in AoS seem to be doing well and people like it and are receptive to it. 40K, for its age, actually has very few armies once you step outside of the marine range.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
My reason for dismissing it is two-fold. 1 it would require a massive investment on the part of GW for new production molds and lore writers. 2. The entire GW lineup is currently begging for rules. They would seriously piss off the user base by dropping a new faction at the start of a brand new edition, when your currently released faction is currently breaking the game.

Yet it is easier to make a new faction than update something like Edlar with a new model line

I wonder what sort of return on investment GW would need to see to consider the cost of a new faction "justified".

the same like for every other release

the investment need to be paid off on the opening weekend, if it does not it is considered a failed release

Lol an entirely new faction before Eldar get an update for their ancient models.

Its gonna happen isn't it?

 dan2026 wrote:
Lol an entirely new faction before Eldar get an update for their ancient models.

Its gonna happen isn't it?

Did you forget about the other new armies that happened before?

 Overread wrote:
At the same time new armies in AoS seem to be doing well and people like it and are receptive to it. 40K, for its age, actually has very few armies once you step outside of the marine range.

Ignoring the really small ones like knights, and subfactions like DG and TS (and Harlies), and non entities such as various imperial agents, and no loyalist marines at all, I count 13 armies. That's more armies than most wargames have... ever.

I count 16-18 in total if you ignore Subfactions (depends if you count GSC and Inquisition as Subfactions or not)

 kodos wrote:
I count 16-18 in total if you ignore Subfactions (depends if you count GSC and Inquisition as Subfactions or not)

Cults are their own thing with their actually own unique play style compared to Loyalist Marine Chapter #5.