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.

It was just an off-hand comment Jervis threw around to rationalise why the Squats as a faction have suddenly vanished from the galactic stage.
Not even Andy Hoare remembers it, as you can read on ADB's blog.

The Tau Ally you are referring to are the Demiurg. There's some fluff about them and their starships in this PDF hosted on GW's Battlefleet Gothic website.

It is of note that the current 6E 40k Rulebook names Squats as one of the existing Abhuman variants, similar to Ratlings.

[edit] Damn, assassintemple'd.

Dan has a character who claims to be a descendant of the Squats, but is, on the page, just a short, ugly, and not-terribly-bright character. Whether this guy is actually descended from Squats is anyone's guess.

As far as I recall reading, Squats aren't extinct in the fluff, but there's just so few of them that they don't matter in any shape or form.

Anyway, the SoB Codex availability is indeed a bit of a mystery. If they're not planning on releasing a new one any time soon, why didn't they at least put out a paid-for digital version as soon as they started making digital codices? Or even just the free PDF well before that? After all, both the WD issues had been all sold long ago, so it certainly wouldn't have hurt sales, and most certainly would've boosted SoB miniature sales.

I myself am in the strange position that I have the army list issue of WD around somewhere (though come to think of it, I dunno where the heck I put it), but not the first one with the fluff and special rules. Would've gotten it if the local SoB player hadn't lost 1-2 first ones he had and then had to take the third that available at the LGS. Heheh. Anyway, I can make lists with Army Builder, but I'm obviously a bit unclear on the Acts of Faith and all that due to not having the first issue. It's one part of why I still don't have Sisters.

I've never actually seen a physical copy of the WD codex.

Heh, come to think of it, neither have I, at least not in person. xD
I'll give you a present tvih.

Sisters are more likely to get revamped than say Steel Legion. Mostly because they're not in direct competition with any other force of a similar nature currently being produced (ie. DKoK). I would love to see them get some resculpts. I picked up Tau second-hand to have a second army next to my Eldar, but I'm not really a fan of the Battlesuits. I'm going to shelve them and repaint them in the future for sale. Battle sisters though are the only Power Armored army that looks good to me. Never was a fan of the SMurfs and lost my love of Chaos. Plus, I'd love to do a split Sisters/Inquisitor army like the old Witchhunters Codex.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I've never actually seen a physical copy of the WD codex.

got 2 extra sets lol.

mm, I'd still like a physical copy - but it always goes for crazy prices.

 Ovion wrote:
mm, I'd still like a physical copy - but it always goes for crazy prices.

Not always. I got mine for about four quid.

Protip: look for them by their issue numbers rather than as the SoB codex. They seem to sell cheaper if they're just being sold as regular White Dwarfs.

I have, and do, but I've not found them for less than £10 each so far, and it usually averages £30+ for the whole 'book'.

It's just a matter of getting lucky in some ways, and the longer time goes on, the rarer they become.
Would be nice to have a set though.

I had an electronic version of it, read about how hard it is to find and it being pricey. So I decided to buy it anyway. I always seem to buy something and then it gets a revamp overhaul. IE bought 5th edition rulebook. 1 month later 6th edition comes out. Figured I could take one for the team and make "fate" update the codex to spite me. Unfortunately it didn't work. Was hoping for a wash your car friday and have it rain a few hours later deal.

I think we'll see a good indicator of the fate of the sisters next month. I've heard rumors that Black Templar are included in the new SM Codex. If Black Templar are rolled into the new Space Marine Codex, sisters more than likely will not receive their own book. If anything, they'll get rolled int a 6th ed Grey Knight book, or an inquisition book.

Mhm, I don't think whatever happens to the Black Templars is or should be taken as any sort of indication regarding the eventual fate of the SoB. The BT are just one of many sub-factions of Vanilla Space Marines, whereas the SoB are and started out as an independent army.

It's one thing to throw a Marine Chapter back into the standard book and just attach 2-3 pages with fluff, special rules and maybe an SC, but quite another to force an entire army that once had its own full-blown Codex into another book. It didn't really work all that well with the WH Codex already (given the loss of fluff pages and the Frateris Militia), but seeing them forced into the same book with Grey Knights would really just reduce them to an unattractive footnote, similar to buying a GK Codex but then running an army that consists solely of an Inquisitor and Henchmen. I would hope that the massive reduction in wargear and other options in the 5E Minidex was not meant to be a testbed for such a move.

Plus, it makes no sense to merge them with the Grey Knights. Templars and Marines? Manes sense, Templars are a subset of Marines. Give them their own rules and units and you're good. Sisters, however, have nothing to do with the Grey Knights. They're completely distinct forces in fluff and crunch. As for an Inquisition book, that remains a terrible idea and I sure do wish that the internet would stop suggesting it while we have several different Marine codexes.

Lynata wrote:Mhm, I don't think whatever happens to the Black Templars is or should be taken as any sort of indication regarding the eventual fate of the SoB. The BT are just one of many sub-factions of Vanilla Space Marines, whereas the SoB are and started out as an independent army.

It's one thing to throw a Marine Chapter back into the standard book and just attach 2-3 pages with fluff, special rules and maybe an SC, but quite another to force an entire army that once had its own full-blown Codex into another book. It didn't really work all that well with the WH Codex already (given the loss of fluff pages and the Frateris Militia), but seeing them forced into the same book with Grey Knights would really just reduce them to an unattractive footnote, similar to buying a GK Codex but then running an army that consists solely of an Inquisitor and Henchmen. I would hope that the massive reduction in wargear and other options in the 5E Minidex was not meant to be a testbed for such a move.

Troike wrote:Plus, it makes no sense to merge them with the Grey Knights. Templars and Marines? Makes sense, Templars are a subset of Marines. Give them their own rules and units and you're good. Sisters, however, have nothing to do with the Grey Knights. They're completely distinct forces in fluff and crunch. As for an Inquisition book, that remains a terrible idea and I sure do wish that the internet would stop suggesting it while we have several different Marine codexes.

To have faith is fine, to ignore the possible reasons to merge or not to merge armies isn't going to protect your favorite army. What matters to GW? I'd guess $,€ etc... So if some beancounters think they can't justifiy books for marines who are probably always selling well, why should they take the risk of a SoB dex?
How many of the typical GW customer base remember there are SoB?
If one can merge non-compliant marines into a codex-lovers dex, if they can alter the necrons, give and take units
( last casualty maybe necron pariah ) , could those not "update" the SoB to fit into an =I= book?

Currently GW started to split their publications into:

- Rulebook
- Apoc
- Limited Editions of many products
- Codices
- supplements
- warzones
- fluff snippets ( DLC )

The have gone so far to 'serialize' a story which is part of a series of stories. ( HH . Scars ).

The course seems to be to split everything into as many pieces as possible. Based on that I consider to merge things is an exception IMHO.

Am sure the SoB are in trouble now. GW has orks and nids waiting, maybe IG too.
Any line of thinking one can imagine from recent releases does fit nicely with orks and nids ( IG is so "Galaxy-encompassing" there is always a way to "add" new toys ). Who is a candidate for problems?

2 Theories:

a) No one had an idea how to push some toyish models into a BT army but they had the toys already 'infiltrated' into codex Space Marines. Just kick the BT into the general SM bag and you don't have to justify the models because its C: SM now...

b) They changed horses . Instead of multiple codices and a few supplements the course is set towards some codices and multiple supplements and don't forget the 'limited' variant of everything too.
A codex SM provides tons of supplements.
A codex BT ? Is just a single theme. Codex DA provides maybe a supplement, codex BA too. Codex SW ??? Maybe wulfen... And the SoB? without an expansion in the dex, where do you take the supplements from?

This makes a few combos possible:
- codex GK is redone as codex =I= in lack of 'supplements' to tack on.
- SoB are put into that book again. 3 supplements: Malleus, Hereticus, Xenos. ( GK , SoB, henchmen/Deathwatch ).

Fair treatment? Are supplements fair when a warband like Abbys has one, a Craftworld like Iyanden too, some free Tau in case of Farsight also, and maybe the different colors of SM in form of supplement per Legio ? Are they?
If we add ork klans, nid fleets, IG recrutement worlds ( Cadia...) , necron dynasties,...
If we add BA ? DA ? SW ? DE ? GK ?

I really really like fluff. But a endless stream of supplements....
Info which made it into WD, filled CA and IA, is now sold piecemeal. I fear they are loving it.

So best luck to stay "alive" ( not go extinct ) or on "your own feet" ( out of the =I= ) .
The Emperor protects. Sometimes.

PS: where did SoB get a positive showing in a SM codex? Hint: its only one.

For the time being, I don't see a reason for the doom and gloom. If GW is out of ideas, they'll just "forget" about the SoB for a few years again like they did before the 5E minidex. Not ideal, but I suppose we're used to it by now.

I also don't see GW feeling a "need" to add supplements to every single 'dex... not with their history of keeping the Sisters up-to-date. That being said, if one would really have to come up with SoB supplements, there is some material to draw upon, from the Frateris Militia / Zealots (3E Chapter Approved WD addon) to Andy Hoare's drop-podding Anti-Astartes army list (CJ #49) or earlier Special Characters such as Canoness Praxedes or Helena the Virtuous (2E 'dex). GW would only have to draw upon the things they have released already, and they have certainly displayed the ability to come up with new things as well.
Supplements need not always be about sub-factions, after all.

PS: I actually like the concept of supplements.. They are a neat way of rerouting sensible/cool addons to basic codices into optional expansions. They would be the perfect way to bring the Inquisition (with ISTs and DW) back into the game as well - as a supplement available to all Imperial codices!

Also, even though this practice will likely transfer the material out from WD - I think it's actually better that way. White Dwarf, although it looked like it would recover for a while, very much looks like a lost cause to me. There's no need to buy a magazine filled 50% with ads, 35% with stuff from other games, and 10% with 40k that doesn't concern your army just for the 5% that are the article you're actually after. Plus, I would assume that supplements can always be purchased from GW directly or even from your LGS ... old issues of White Dwarf can be much trickier to hunt down, as SoB players currently looking for their tournament-legal Codex know all too well.

[edit] I empathise with the Black Templars (not in the least because they're one of my favourite Marine Chapters, and an obvious ally for my favourite army as a whole), but unlike Troike I do believe in the idea of putting any and all Chapters into supplements rather than copypasta-ing half their stuff into Codex after Codex. At the end of the day, and regardless of the insistence of their fans that they are "special", they are still sub-factions. A Black Templar, a Space Wolf, a Blood Angel will always be a Marine first, BT/SW/BA second. The same cannot be said for the SoB, so I just don't see the relationship between their cases.
And do you see IG players complaining? The difference between the regiments is way larger than between Astartes Chapters, yet with the exception of Codex Catachans or the Eye of Terror minilist, everything was always stuffed into C:IG. The most you could ask for was doctrines, and even such rules were not present in every edition.

Goresaw wrote:
If Black Templar are rolled into the new Space Marine Codex, sisters more than likely will not receive their own book.

That's a terrible argument.

You could easily have expanded Penitent stuff, with extra 'forsaken' units too, so that's a third supplement there.

 1hadhq wrote:
How many of the typical GW customer base remember there are SoB?

Assuming for the sake of argument (since I actually think this is incorrect) that the answer to your question is "few," this is still not a problem with the SoB design/fluff itself. Rather, this is a problem with GW.

Too many BT fans ITT sublimating hurt feelings onto SoB ...

Ugh, sorry if I came off a little hostile in my last post. Just woke up.

 1hadhq wrote:
So if some beancounters think they can't justifiy books for marines who are probably always selling well, why should they take the risk of a SoB dex?
How many of the typical GW customer base remember there are SoB?

To be fair, the same could have very much been said about the Dark Eldar at one point, and they came back fine. Additionally, the Sisters may not have been updated previously due to modelling issues. Hastings (or Harry, one of them) from Warseer mentioned that GW were actively trying to make plastic Sisters at one point, but had problems with it. This implies and active attempt to update them, and we could very well see the fruits of that sooner or later. Especially with the much quicker release schedule.

And in regards to the fanbase, quite a few from where I'm standing! A fair few people at my local GW have said they'd pick up plastic Sisters if they were to be released.

 Lynata wrote:
but unlike Troike I do believe in the idea of putting any and all Chapters into supplements rather than copypasta-ing half their stuff into Codex after Codex.

? I would support that idea too. I've said in the past that I feel there's too many Marine codexes. Supplements would be a good way to address this. I guess you misunderstood when I said "give them their own rules and units and you're good". I meant within the vanilla Marine codex or a supplement to it, in order to keep them distinct. Which seems to be what is happening with the Templars now.

Troike wrote:? I would support that idea too. I've said in the past that I feel there's too many Marine codexes. Supplements would be a good way to address this. I guess you misunderstood when I said "give them their own rules and units and you're good". I meant within the vanilla Marine codex or a supplement to it, in order to keep them distinct. Which seems to be what is happening with the Templars now.

Huh ... I was going by what you posted over in that other thread with the poll.

Although I have to say that I actually feel that right now BT should still get a proper Codex, too.
Putting Chapters into supplements should not happen until there actually is a proper "Codex: Generic Marines" that would support this relationship with its selection of content and the way it is organised. Plus, I feel it'd be somewhat unfair to give the Black Templars less than the Dark Angels just because the latter got their book before GW would make this decision.
It might be the ideal approach for 7th edition, perhaps ...

Oh, fair enough. I just sympathised a lot with the Templar fans, given that they've had a similar issue looming over them as us SoB fans. But now the rumours are indicating that it's been handled in a fairly acceptable way, I can't say I'm opposed to the outcome.

And like I said before, a Templar and SoB force is now feasible!

 Troike wrote:
given that they've had a similar issue looming over them as us SoB fans

What issue do you mean?

 Manchu wrote:

 Troike wrote:
given that they've had a similar issue looming over them as us SoB fans

What issue do you mean?

Both being largely ignored by GW, of course.

Sure, if we're only measuring by most recent release then I suppose SoB have gotten more attention than BT. But of course that's a ridiculous way to look at things. I'd call that "SM entitlement syndrome." BT, despite their many differences from codex standard SM, remain a SM subfaction. Every time any SM get a new model, BT -- with minimal conversion -- pretty much get a new model, as well. BT players can and do proxy out of other SM books all the time. And seriously, even before Fifth Edition, not even Deldar were in as bad of straights as SoB, much less BT. While I generally don't like playing "I have it the worst," it seems a reality check is in order when BT and SoB are said to have "similar issues."

I said similar, not identical. Both weren't really focused on as armies, and thus came to have concerns about their respective futures. And I can sympathise with that.

Yes, even apples and oranges have similarities. But they are still apples and oranges.

Lynata wrote:For the time being, I don't see a reason for the doom and gloom.

Maybe I wasn't positive enough.
I blame the crappy and cheaply made "wall of dead Cadians" pieces I am currently painting.
Very Sorry.

Lynata wrote:
Supplements need not always be about sub-factions, after all.

PS: I actually like the concept of supplements.. They are a neat way of rerouting sensible/cool addons to basic codices into optional expansions. They would be the perfect way to bring the Inquisition (with ISTs and DW) back into the game as well - as a supplement available to all Imperial codices!

We will see what happens if they add a supplement to DA. Thats the only current 6th dex who could have something called a "sub-faction" supplement.
But I don't believe we will see substantial supplements. Just a twist to units from their main dex plus characters and some rules and fluff.

Your take on supplements would be a return to 3rd ed. Like Codex SM plus DA / BA / SW / armageddon. Or BRB providing Inquisition as alllies. Or Deathwatch. GK strike teams. LotD.
Trails off.......
Yes I would hop on this train of thought.

Lynata wrote: I do believe in the idea of putting any and all Chapters into supplements rather than copypasta-ing half their stuff into Codex after Codex.

You realize there would be 18 (20) Legions of hundredthousands of Astartes with almost identical gear around if it wasn't for this heresy? Can't have no copy&paste or only a few things.

Lynata wrote:
A Black Templar, a Space Wolf, a Blood Angel will always be a Marine first, BT/SW/BA second. The same cannot be said for the SoB, so I just don't see the relationship between their cases.

The relationsship isn't : flavor of astartes - flavor of sisters. Its ignored by GW - ignored by GW.

Lynata wrote:And do you see IG players complaining?

You need a lot of will to be IG. Those who complain....I'd look for them under "CSM"....

Manchu wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:
How many of the typical GW customer base remember there are SoB?

Assuming for the sake of argument (since I actually think this is incorrect) that the answer to your question is "few," this is still not a problem with the SoB design/fluff itself. Rather, this is a problem with GW.

"Problem with GW" was the point I was going for. At least I thought my post would say that.

Manchu wrote:Too many BT fans ITT sublimating hurt feelings onto SoB ...

I had to look this up. Not sure if I got it right, but I don't see anyone of the "BT" fans doing this.

Troike wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:
So if some beancounters think they can't justifiy books for marines who are probably always selling well, why should they take the risk of a SoB dex?
How many of the typical GW customer base remember there are SoB?

To be fair, the same could have very much been said about the Dark Eldar at one point, and they came back fine. Additionally, the Sisters may not have been updated previously due to modelling issues. Hastings (or Harry, one of them) from Warseer mentioned that GW were actively trying to make plastic Sisters at one point, but had problems with it. This implies and active attempt to update them, and we could very well see the fruits of that sooner or later. Especially with the much quicker release schedule.

Have your fruits.

Am a bit wary of the companies course right now. It seems changed. Just a feeling.
To prevent derailment, let me point to the GD Germany thread if you want to see why.

Troike wrote:And in regards to the fanbase, quite a few from where I'm standing! A fair few people at my local GW have said they'd pick up plastic Sisters if they were to be released.

Good. there is hope.

I had to rely upon dakka. And no local GW.

Troike wrote: I meant within the vanilla Marine codex or a supplement to it, in order to keep them distinct. Which seems to be what is happening with the Templars now.

Still rumors.

Troike wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Troike wrote:
given that they've had a similar issue looming over them as us SoB fans

What issue do you mean?

Both being largely ignored by GW, of course.

To be ignored,yes.
Can't say I like what there may be because an army of mine did show up on their radar before I have seen what is in this codex myself.



Codex SM covers 2013. 2014 is more xenos and IG? sisters are 2015? 2016? 7th ed?

@1hadhq: I mean, BT fans (or at least those claiming to learn from what's happening with BT, regardless of whether they are fans) are taking their disappointment with GW folding BT into the next Sm dex and channeling that into the gloomy opinion that SoB will be ignored/squatted. It's definitely happening ITT.

 Lynata wrote:
Although I have to say that I actually feel that right now BT should still get a proper Codex, too.
Putting Chapters into supplements should not happen until there actually is a proper "Codex: Generic Marines" that would support this relationship with its selection of content and the way it is organised. Plus, I feel it'd be somewhat unfair to give the Black Templars less than the Dark Angels just because the latter got their book before GW would make this decision.
It might be the ideal approach for 7th edition, perhaps ...

If GW had been smart about it and they seldom are, they would have released a brand new Space Marine codex in the slot they released Dark Angels into with Dark Angels being a quick followup supplemental. Perfect time to reign in the different chapter codex insanities. After all the real differences between the chapters are minimal, unless they have to come up with a full codex of new goodies to validate writing a full codex in the first place. When you read the fluff for so many years it is clear that the chapters have their esoteric differences, but generally use the same equipment and the same roles and units in their forces even if the chapter calls them something else (Devastators/Long Fangs, Tacticals/Grey Hunters, Assaults/Blood Claws). Make all the different vehicle variants available to any chapter as well.

Of course this doesn't help the SoB at all.

Skriker