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.

Imperial Deceit wrote:
Lets not forget that the BA can also take the LR and it's varients and DTs. But they won't be getting rolled into the the new SM codex. I think the fact that one of the LE covers for the new 'dex is a BT cover pretty much sums up the future for the BT as an independant codex. Will they get a supplement? Maybe, but the onlt SM sup. I have even heard rumors about is Ultramarines. Which is kind of like doing a Black Legion sup. for chaos. (Oh wait...)

It's been all but confirmed 100% that there will be more than one supplement for certain codices.

There's been White Scars and Ultramarines rumors for Codex: Space Marines, as well as Black Templar.

MajorWesJanson wrote:

Osiris154 wrote:
Some concerns.

- Going from a full codex to being rolled into C:SM
- GW releasing new Sternguard Kits, BT dont use sternguard. Could the roll in and the more "available" unit options be just more cash flow $$, I would hate to think they got rolled into C:SM to sell kits they don't use and could this affect the fluff.
- All the chapters being listed are all 1st founding, where as BT are not I just hope they get as much attention as the other chapters.
- It would piss me off do buy the C:SM to play this new army to find the BT entry very limited and then have to buy a supplement for BT in a few months time.

Sword Brethren were just a rename of the veteran squads in 4th. Only change was no sergeant and a built in 1 pt crusader seal. Now you may just have "shooty" sword brethren and "assaulty" sword brethren.
From the sounds of it, there are 7 "main" chapters in the book- 6 first founding and the BT. And Templars are in better shape than many of the first founding chapters- UM have 6 SCs, BT have 3, IF, CF, RG, WS, Sallies all have 1 each, Iron Hands have none.

Wait, are you talking about the new codex or the current one with regards to SC numbers?

White scars would be cool, then I would finally have a reason to build the rest of my bikes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wasn't the old BT codex really small compaired to other codex anyway? Think of it this way, C:SM is really just a huge BT codex with a bunch of shiny new toys.

Crazyterran wrote:

Imperial Deceit wrote:
Lets not forget that the BA can also take the LR and it's varients and DTs. But they won't be getting rolled into the the new SM codex. I think the fact that one of the LE covers for the new 'dex is a BT cover pretty much sums up the future for the BT as an independant codex. Will they get a supplement? Maybe, but the onlt SM sup. I have even heard rumors about is Ultramarines. Which is kind of like doing a Black Legion sup. for chaos. (Oh wait...)

It's been all but confirmed 100% that there will be more than one supplement for certain codices.

There's been White Scars and Ultramarines rumors for Codex: Space Marines, as well as Black Templar.

100% confirmed??
I doubt this.


Black Legion. 100% yes. Cause GW says so.

Codex Space Marine supplements?
We don't have a codex Space marine leak, but a WD... ( GW ? )

You see, a list of upcoming digital products, would show supplements . Is there one beyond 7th Sept. ?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Imperial Deceit wrote:




Wasn't the old BT codex really small compaired to other codex anyway? Think of it this way, C:SM is really just a huge BT codex with a bunch of shiny new toys.

Tyranids dex : 64 pages
BT dex : 64 pages

The codices got bigger from 3rd ed onwards. 3rd and some 4th ed are 64 pages. Increased to 90 pages, than 104.

I must be thinking of something else, I just remember picking one up and thinking "This is a really thin codex"

 1hadhq wrote:


100% confirmed??
I doubt this.

Well, the Tau supplement says something like "you can only use 1 supplement at a time," implying there will be multiples for the same Codex eventually.

 1hadhq wrote:

The codices got bigger from 3rd ed onwards. 3rd and some 4th ed are 64 pages. Increased to 90 pages, than 104.

Well, they shrank immensely from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition. Early 3rd Ed Codexes were 24 pages. They eventually fixed that later in 3rd.

In the 2nd, they were all nice and big.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
BTW, at this point it seems pretty clear to me that it is GW intentionally leaking these photos. There is no way genuine random leaks would produce this result. We are seeing cropped pictures of individual models dropping one by one. With a genuine leak we would get blurry pics snapped hastily if the leaker didn't have unlimited access to a copy of WD, or just complete pictures of everything if they had.

But why wouldn't they do it on their own site? Hell, I remember Forge World did some image "teasing" some time ago, when they were releasing "puzzle-parts" to build hype for one of their new models.

Because leaked images garner more attention than legitimately posted previews.

The fact that they are "leaked" makes them all the more interesting to people. It is becoming standard fare in the video game world for companies to leak images, etc before an actual reveal.

Viral marketing has proven to be extreamly cost effective. Why spend x amount of money to run a full advertising campaign when you can just "leak" rumors and images and let people spread it around for you? The same people who also happen to be the target audiance. What's amazing is that GW may have jumped on this bandwagon, they always seemed a little behind the curve from a business perspective.

 dienekes96 wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

The codices got bigger from 3rd ed onwards. 3rd and some 4th ed are 64 pages. Increased to 90 pages, than 104.

Well, they shrank immensely from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition. Early 3rd Ed Codexes were 24 pages. They eventually fixed that later in 3rd.

In the 2nd, they were all nice and big.

Joined the realm of 40k in 3rd.
But I own an Angels of death dex ( 110+ pages ).
Early 3d codex space marine is 64 pages, the supplement to specialize towards SW or DA or BA is the small 24 pager youre thinking of?

I think the fact we have images of everything now is testament to GW leaking them. They were right to start on the hardest to accept models and the backlash meant they didn't leave us hanging on that potential sour note for too long.

Sternguard and Vanguard make up for anything

 Davylove21 wrote:
I think the fact we have images of everything now is testament to GW leaking them. They were right to start on the hardest to accept models and the backlash meant they didn't leave us hanging on that potential sour note for too long.

Sternguard and Vanguard make up for anything

It's a conspiracy! Quick someone phone Jason Bourne.

Agreed, the Vet squads look fantastic. Now it may just be the picture but does the Sternguard Sgt. have a combi-pistol or is that supposed to be a new plasma pistol?

Imperial Deceit wrote:
Viral marketing has proven to be extreamly cost effective. Why spend x amount of money to run a full advertising campaign when you can just "leak" rumors and images and let people spread it around for you? The same people who also happen to be the target audiance. What's amazing is that GW may have jumped on this bandwagon, they always seemed a little behind the curve from a business perspective.

I always love how WotC leaks their stuff.
They send cards to magazines, big websites/communities and blogs so they can write columns about them.
It's basically free advertising and the community sees this as a big "thank you for supporting us!".

Imperial Deceit wrote:
Viral marketing has proven to be extreamly cost effective. Why spend x amount of money to run a full advertising campaign when you can just "leak" rumors and images and let people spread it around for you? The same people who also happen to be the target audiance. What's amazing is that GW may have jumped on this bandwagon, they always seemed a little behind the curve from a business perspective.

If I remember correctly GW hired an ad company that specializes in viral marketing a couple of years ago...maybe this is their work?

 Davylove21 wrote:


Sternguard and Vanguard make up for anything

They ease the pain of the tubbies

And Tacticals redone is also a plus.

 1hadhq wrote:

 Davylove21 wrote:


Sternguard and Vanguard make up for anything

They ease the pain of the tubbies

And Tacticals redone is also a plus.

Centurions cause me no pain, but then again I actually like them.

I think more people will eventually warm up to them once they get a chance to see more details about them than just that static front shot.

I like the Centurions, I was thinking about converting some to Mega Nobz... but then I saw the rear picture of them and now I think with the crouched legs that the Orks have, it would be too hard to create..

I wish that C:SM was getting a real MC instead of the Centurions. Now don’t get me wrong, I like them as a concept, however I don’t see them being MCs (especially sense they are in squads), and there are some great options in the fluff for MCs that haven’t been seen yet. Although a lot of it is Mechanicus, which may suit IG better. Or write a Codex: Mechanicus. You could have Dan Abbnet write the fluff. There are so many options that already exist that did not warrant a history rewrite. However it remains to be seen what really does change in C:SM.

 VoidAngel wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The thing I think a lot of people overlook is that the 40k background is a setting, not an ongoing story. Sometimes the 'current' point advances slightly, and sometimes the focus moves back a little.

But what this means for new units is that they have to be inserted somewhere. Without an advancing story line, anything you want to add has to be retrospectively inserted into existing background.

Each new codex release is not an advance in the story line. It is a revision of the previous version. And in that context, it is perfectly acceptable for a new unit to have 'always' been there.

No, it's perfectly acceptable for well-sculpted units with good rules to have always been there.

If we seem biased against fugly models with terrible rules (terrible in the sense of balance or utility, not uber-Wardesque-killiness) - we are. Give me something that LOOKS like it could have always been there (Contemptor). Give me something that was referenced on page 67 of the Second Edition rulebook, once. "What, those heretical little monkeys on Mars finally adapted the Hrud fusil into a blessed instrument of the Emprah's divine will? I'll take 10,000."

Something like that. Not, "Hey - the studio vomited again - pay up!"

The Helturkey got much grief prior to the CSM codex release, probably more than the Centurions are getting now. Rules come out, people see how powerful it is, and then all of a sudden, virtually every listed CSM army on Dakka has at least one. Had GW put one more point of AV and one more point of WS and BS on both of the new walker daemon engines, Dinobots would be there alongside the turkey.

Sadly, for the majority of US gamers (of which I am one), rules (especially broken OP rules, as long as they are in favor of the army) will always trump model quality. It just doesn't matter how fugly or out of place a model is, if its has powerful game rules, it'll be a hit. If an ugly model has good rules, we will find small things about the model that we like (oh, that icon is cool, I like that helmet), and suddenly, the model has "grown on us", and before you know it, we have 3 boxes waiting to be put together. And those beautiful models with the lackluster rules, they will sit on the store shelves.

Case in point, I hate the look of the assault version of the centurions, but I've already justified their possible use in my head because, heck, if I get the models, I'm magnetizing the under slung weapon mounts anyway, so I might as well hold on to those Norelco shavers. Now I will say this, if the devastator option is useless, I likely won't buy the models so I'll never be enticed to use the Norelco Bandits. As nice as the new Vanguard models are (and its not like the old ones were bad), if they still have to pay 15+ points for power weapons, I won't buy them, especially if the rumor about being moved to Elites is true. I don't consider myself to be a WAAC or even an overly competitive player, but I do have limited time and budget, so I can't see myself dropping a ton of money and more importantly, time and effort, on models that will rarely see the battlefield, no matter how pretty.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 VoidAngel wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The thing I think a lot of people overlook is that the 40k background is a setting, not an ongoing story. Sometimes the 'current' point advances slightly, and sometimes the focus moves back a little.

But what this means for new units is that they have to be inserted somewhere. Without an advancing story line, anything you want to add has to be retrospectively inserted into existing background.

Each new codex release is not an advance in the story line. It is a revision of the previous version. And in that context, it is perfectly acceptable for a new unit to have 'always' been there.

No, it's perfectly acceptable for well-sculpted units with good rules to have always been there.

If we seem biased against fugly models with terrible rules (terrible in the sense of balance or utility, not uber-Wardesque-killiness) - we are. Give me something that LOOKS like it could have always been there (Contemptor). Give me something that was referenced on page 67 of the Second Edition rulebook, once. "What, those heretical little monkeys on Mars finally adapted the Hrud fusil into a blessed instrument of the Emprah's divine will? I'll take 10,000."

Something like that. Not, "Hey - the studio vomited again - pay up!"

The Helturkey got much grief prior to the CSM codex release, probably more than the Centurions are getting now. Rules come out, people see how powerful it is, and then all of a sudden, virtually every listed CSM army on Dakka has at least one. Had GW put one more point of AV and one more point of WS and BS on both of the new walker daemon engines, Dinobots would be there alongside the turkey.

Sadly, for the majority of US gamers (of which I am one), rules (especially broken OP rules, as long as they are in favor of the army) will always trump model quality. It just doesn't matter how fugly or out of place a model is, if its has powerful game rules, it'll be a hit. If an ugly model has good rules, we will find small things about the model that we like (oh, that icon is cool, I like that helmet), and suddenly, the model has "grown on us", and before you know it, we have 3 boxes waiting to be put together. And those beautiful models with the lackluster rules, they will sit on the store shelves.

Case in point, I hate the look of the assault version of the centurions, but I've already justified their possible use in my head because, heck, if I get the models, I'm magnetizing the under slung weapon mounts anyway, so I might as well hold on to those Norelco shavers. Now I will say this, if the devastator option is useless, I likely won't buy the models so I'll never be enticed to use the Norelco Bandits. As nice as the new Vanguard models are (and its not like the old ones were bad), if they still have to pay 15+ points for power weapons, I won't buy them, especially if the rumor about being moved to Elites is true. I don't consider myself to be a WAAC or even an overly competitive player, but I do have limited time and budget, so I can't see myself dropping a ton of money and more importantly, time and effort, on models that will rarely see the battlefield, no matter how pretty.

Had to exalt this, because I 100% agree. I think the Drake is a poor model, but the rules have still made it massively popular. If the Centurions have good enough rules, then every time someone posts a SM list it'll be "good list, but if I were you I'd drop that Tactical Squad and get 3 Centurions in there."

The two veteran kits do have something in their favour, though: even if their rules were ruined, the kits can at least be used to convert fancier versions of other infantry.

As far as the Heldrake goes, I think its a solid execution of a flawed concept.

I wasn't a huge fan based on the early pics or official ones, but once I saw one in the flesh, painted in a more muted scheme, I actually really like the model in isolation.

The fact remains there is no logical reason why CSM should have a flying dinobot in their army, and that's the thing that still rankles.

I have a vague plan to add one as part of an allied contingent to my daemons one day, and I can more easily intellectually justify that to myself, as it blurs the line between the two parts of the army, visually speaking.

The centurions just aren't good in my opinion, and while I'm not throwing my arms up and asking the Gods why, I certainly don't expect to buy any.

I doubt GW is going to go to all the trouble of making new vet kits just to screw them on the rules. I don't think GW is going to break it's trend of the news models being the best, although it would be a hell of a time for them to decide to write a balanced codex.

Imperial Deceit wrote:
I doubt GW is going to go to all the trouble of making new vet kits just to screw them on the rules. I don't think GW is going to break it's trend of the news models being the best, although it would be a hell of a time for them to decide to write a balanced codex.

I'm optimistic that they'll have at least made the points costs for Vanguard and their gear more reasonable.

As for Sternguard, I think it's a case of "if it ain't broke..."

Imperial Deceit wrote:
I doubt GW is going to go to all the trouble of making new vet kits just to screw them on the rules. I don't think GW is going to break it's trend of the news models being the best, although it would be a hell of a time for them to decide to write a balanced codex.

The CSM Warp Talons and Mutilators would like a word with you ...

I think the current Sternguard is perfectly balanced against a standard marine, however sense the standard marine is overpriced then so is the Sternguard. I don't think it would take much, like maybe 2-3 point drop on across the board for PA marines. Vanguards are way overpriced, especially if you want to run them as actual vanguard. The Jump Pack needs to ether by included in the points of the model or brought severely down, maybe 5 pts per model like assault marines.

Imperial Deceit wrote:
I doubt GW is going to go to all the trouble of making new vet kits just to screw them on the rules. I don't think GW is going to break it's trend of the news models being the best, although it would be a hell of a time for them to decide to write a balanced codex.

haha and again we will drop the .... my warptalons, forgefiends etc would love a quiet chat.
new models are not always the BEST....

They are for the golden boys of GW.

Imperial Deceit wrote:
I doubt GW is going to go to all the trouble of making new vet kits just to screw them on the rules. I don't think GW is going to break it's trend of the news models being the best, although it would be a hell of a time for them to decide to write a balanced codex.

The "trend" is closer to the opposite. Riptide aside, a lot of the new shiny toys have subpar rules.

I am looking forward to picking up the LE Templar cover, a box of the new tacticals and maybe a sternguard squad in the event that GW decides to give BT some special rules. Not really sure about centurions tbh, I have an image of a few marines in big suits with a PS3 controller operating the arms is a tad strange.