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.

For Tau:

Return our Advanced Stabilization Systems and Vehicle Multi-Trackers. I want my army to move and shoot rather than hunker in the corner. I think my opponents would like me out if the castle too.

More of the Tau's Allied Races. I really want to see the Demi-urg specifically.

For Space Wolves:

Some good in theme anti-air capability that doesn't turn into a flying wolf that spits wolf missiles and craps wolf bombs.

Leman Russ tanks.

A cool original Dreadnaught that doesn't wind up in Space Marines

For Tau:

Return our Advanced Stabilization Systems and Vehicle Multi-Trackers. I want my army to move and shoot rather than hunker in the corner. I think my opponents would like me out if the castle too.

I second that. I wouldn't mind a codex flyer that didn't suck as well, preferably something that could hunt heavy armor.

Phanixis wrote:

For Tau:

Return our Advanced Stabilization Systems and Vehicle Multi-Trackers. I want my army to move and shoot rather than hunker in the corner. I think my opponents would like me out if the castle too.

I second that. I wouldn't mind a codex flyer that didn't suck as well, preferably something that could hunt heavy armor.

Railgun not good enough?...

Tau non-super heavy flyers don't carry anything stronger than st 8 AP 3 and no anti vehicle rules. Almost every imperium flyer gets the option for 1 or more Lascannons or Multi-Meltas or missiles with the Ordnance rule.

So no, Tau flyers aren't good anti-armour platforms and they've lost sixty-seven percent of their Railgun capacity on the ground. In short Tau are now much weaker against AV 13 -14 compared to before. So a strong ground attack flyer would be a big improvement for the Tau, but its not at the top of my wish list. I'd rather get back some of the goodies that were lost.

BA: Moriar

Nids: Mycetic Spores

C:SM Nothing. Pretty happy with it. Could use a better MBT and a cheaper assault transport, but all in all a pretty solid dex.

I want a proper inquisition codex >.> Oh and Imperial guard paratroopers, i went dem in the darn vanilla dex

I would like to be able to swap out my IG troops laser rifle for a pistol or another cc weapon. Purely To be able to field a massive non ork barbarian hoard. It would be beautiful

Adepta Sororitas, (From 1997 Sisters of Battle)I want my Saints back other than Celestine, (From Witch Hunters), I want the feel of "BURN THE HERETIC, KILL THE MUTANTS!" again with the many options available. The faith system returned to its former glory.

 conker249 wrote:
Adepta Sororitas, (From old Sisters of Battle)I want my Saints back other than Celestine, (From Witch Hunters), I want the feel of "BURN THE HERETIC, KILL THE MUTANTS!" again with the many options available. The faith system returned to its former glory.

On that note, I'd be extatic if they actually changed the allies chart so I could take some Sisters of Battle as allies for my Templars without having them shoot eachother. It makes absolutely 0 sense.

Probably best we don't bring up the topic(allying) for those 2 armies in particular since GW refuses to produce a Faq to clarify a vast difference of opinion among this site. Already had one thread locked over it

DA: a proper angelic unit a la SG.

SM: No special characters for Iron Hands.

Adepta Sororitas:

Things they have in the fluff and not in the game:

Drop Pods
Palatines
Named Spceial Characters
Various Relics

An Iron Hands Character
Bolter Drill for special ammunition like it was meant to be
A devastator option that is special weapons instead of heavy weapons

Skyfire/interceptor on something.
Interceptor on something
Skyfire on something useful
A monster
A wishlist

 Mr Morden wrote:
Adepta Sororitas:

Things they have in the fluff and not in the game:

Drop Pods
Palatines
Named Spceial Characters
Various Relics

... plastic.

Periahs!

Also, warscythes in fluff have built in Gauss flayers and noteworthy space marines have repeatedly been shown to be incapable of or at least have serious trouble to keep up with the speed, skill and reaction times of Necron lords/overlords.

Both facts are suspeciously absent from the Codex...

Also, Overlords are WAAAY too high up the totem pole of Necron society for them to be the basic HQ choice, it's the equivalent of sending a Sector Governor or Chapter Master to war leading a company level force. Sure, it could happen (does happen often enough for the latter), but as the default, cheapest choice?

Do you think it'll make sense for a chapter master to be the default, cheaper HQ choice of a generic SM company?

And Phaerons... Oh boy... I could see "small fry" phaerons of lesser Dynasties being reasonable choices for higher cost HQ choices in regular games, but how often do you suppose Sementum command or a Lord of Terra takes to the field leading a small strike force (or even a sizable one, say a regiment)?

Imotekh the Stormlord has no business leading anything below apocalypse point levels- he's got an entire hierarchy of lesser subordinates to lead such small engagements for him (hell, I do believe most named HQ choices in the book ARE his subordinates).

I did like how how FW handled it though- the Phaeon of the Maynarkh Dynasty, the Mother of Darkness, is named and mentioned at some points in IA12, but the highest HQ choice you can actually field is her Nemesor, Kultekh the Worldkiller, and he's a big enough honcho to get the Phaeron trait in his statline, being the commander of the armies of a major Dynasty.

Still, Lords should be the basic HQ choices, not Overlords.

 conker249 wrote:
Probably best we don't bring up the topic(allying) for those 2 armies in particular since GW refuses to produce a Faq to clarify a vast difference of opinion among this site. Already had one thread locked over it

GW has actually FAQ'd it, in a way. The Inquisition codex came with its own allies chart, and the Templars were not on there. Ergo, they use the C:SM slot.

 Troike wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
Probably best we don't bring up the topic(allying) for those 2 armies in particular since GW refuses to produce a Faq to clarify a vast difference of opinion among this site. Already had one thread locked over it

GW has actually FAQ'd it, in a way. The Inquisition codex came with its own allies chart, and the Templars were not on there. Ergo, they use the C:SM slot.

For Codex: Inquisition, yes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
Probably best we don't bring up the topic(allying) for those 2 armies in particular since GW refuses to produce a Faq to clarify a vast difference of opinion among this site. Already had one thread locked over it

GW has actually FAQ'd it, in a way. The Inquisition codex came with its own allies chart, and the Templars were not on there. Ergo, they use the C:SM slot.

For Codex: Inquisition, yes.

Yes, and it demonstrates their intention. If the BT were meant to retain their own allies sliot, they would've gotten a spot on the Inquisition allies table. But they didn't.

I would love to see something like Chapter approved for CSM or a renegade SM codex that details traitor legions that haven't fallen to Chaos.

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
Probably best we don't bring up the topic(allying) for those 2 armies in particular since GW refuses to produce a Faq to clarify a vast difference of opinion among this site. Already had one thread locked over it

GW has actually FAQ'd it, in a way. The Inquisition codex came with its own allies chart, and the Templars were not on there. Ergo, they use the C:SM slot.

For Codex: Inquisition, yes.

Yes, and it demonstrates their intention. If the BT were meant to retain their own allies sliot, they would've gotten a spot on the Inquisition allies table. But they didn't.

Or, you know, the designer's note in Codex: Space Marines telling us to use the BT chart tells us the intent?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
Probably best we don't bring up the topic(allying) for those 2 armies in particular since GW refuses to produce a Faq to clarify a vast difference of opinion among this site. Already had one thread locked over it

GW has actually FAQ'd it, in a way. The Inquisition codex came with its own allies chart, and the Templars were not on there. Ergo, they use the C:SM slot.

For Codex: Inquisition, yes.

Yes, and it demonstrates their intention. If the BT were meant to retain their own allies sliot, they would've gotten a spot on the Inquisition allies table. But they didn't.

Or, you know, the designer's note in Codex: Space Marines telling us to use the BT chart tells us the intent?

Nobody could agree on that designer's note, and even GW customer service gave conflicting replies

Anyway, why remove the Templars from the Inquisition codex if they are, supposedly, meant to retain their own allies slot?

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
Probably best we don't bring up the topic(allying) for those 2 armies in particular since GW refuses to produce a Faq to clarify a vast difference of opinion among this site. Already had one thread locked over it

GW has actually FAQ'd it, in a way. The Inquisition codex came with its own allies chart, and the Templars were not on there. Ergo, they use the C:SM slot.

For Codex: Inquisition, yes.

Yes, and it demonstrates their intention. If the BT were meant to retain their own allies sliot, they would've gotten a spot on the Inquisition allies table. But they didn't.

Or, you know, the designer's note in Codex: Space Marines telling us to use the BT chart tells us the intent?

Nobody could agree on that designer's note, and even GW customer service gave conflicting replies

Anyway, why remove the Templars from the Inquisition codex if they are, supposedly, meant to retain their own allies slot?

For the same reason that Brotherhood Champions in Codex: Grey Knights can take Digital Weapons despite already rerolling all to-wound rolls in close combat: no one at GW has a clue what they're doing.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
Probably best we don't bring up the topic(allying) for those 2 armies in particular since GW refuses to produce a Faq to clarify a vast difference of opinion among this site. Already had one thread locked over it

GW has actually FAQ'd it, in a way. The Inquisition codex came with its own allies chart, and the Templars were not on there. Ergo, they use the C:SM slot.

For Codex: Inquisition, yes.

Yes, and it demonstrates their intention. If the BT were meant to retain their own allies sliot, they would've gotten a spot on the Inquisition allies table. But they didn't.

Or, you know, the designer's note in Codex: Space Marines telling us to use the BT chart tells us the intent?

Nobody could agree on that designer's note, and even GW customer service gave conflicting replies

Anyway, why remove the Templars from the Inquisition codex if they are, supposedly, meant to retain their own allies slot?

For the same reason that Brotherhood Champions in Codex: Grey Knights can take Digital Weapons despite already rerolling all to-wound rolls in close combat: no one at GW has a clue what they're doing.

And yet, the Inquisition codex did recieve and update, and the allies table was untouched. And how exactly would they accidentally draw the allies table wrong? That's an intentional action, not an oversight.

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
Probably best we don't bring up the topic(allying) for those 2 armies in particular since GW refuses to produce a Faq to clarify a vast difference of opinion among this site. Already had one thread locked over it

GW has actually FAQ'd it, in a way. The Inquisition codex came with its own allies chart, and the Templars were not on there. Ergo, they use the C:SM slot.

For Codex: Inquisition, yes.

Yes, and it demonstrates their intention. If the BT were meant to retain their own allies sliot, they would've gotten a spot on the Inquisition allies table. But they didn't.

Or, you know, the designer's note in Codex: Space Marines telling us to use the BT chart tells us the intent?

Nobody could agree on that designer's note, and even GW customer service gave conflicting replies

Anyway, why remove the Templars from the Inquisition codex if they are, supposedly, meant to retain their own allies slot?

For the same reason that Brotherhood Champions in Codex: Grey Knights can take Digital Weapons despite already rerolling all to-wound rolls in close combat: no one at GW has a clue what they're doing.

And yet, the Inquisition codex did recieve and update, and the allies table was untouched. And how exactly would they accidentally draw the allies table wrong? That's an intentional action, not an oversight.

Or they just figured that Codex: Inquisition didn't need a row for Templars since the alliance level was supposed to be the same as for C:SM, so they didn't include it. There's really no need to when there's no difference between the two.

The other Space Marine Chapters were all on there, though.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
Probably best we don't bring up the topic(allying) for those 2 armies in particular since GW refuses to produce a Faq to clarify a vast difference of opinion among this site. Already had one thread locked over it

GW has actually FAQ'd it, in a way. The Inquisition codex came with its own allies chart, and the Templars were not on there. Ergo, they use the C:SM slot.

For Codex: Inquisition, yes.

Yes, and it demonstrates their intention. If the BT were meant to retain their own allies sliot, they would've gotten a spot on the Inquisition allies table. But they didn't.

Or, you know, the designer's note in Codex: Space Marines telling us to use the BT chart tells us the intent?

Nobody could agree on that designer's note, and even GW customer service gave conflicting replies

Anyway, why remove the Templars from the Inquisition codex if they are, supposedly, meant to retain their own allies slot?

For the same reason that Brotherhood Champions in Codex: Grey Knights can take Digital Weapons despite already rerolling all to-wound rolls in close combat: no one at GW has a clue what they're doing.

And yet, the Inquisition codex did recieve and update, and the allies table was untouched. And how exactly would they accidentally draw the allies table wrong? That's an intentional action, not an oversight.

Or they just figured that Codex: Inquisition didn't need a row for Templars since the alliance level was supposed to be the same as for C:SM, so they didn't include it. There's really no need to when there's no difference between the two.

Except you stated there was a difference between the two as you keep stating. If there's no difference, then your argument is moot as BT uses the C:SM chart exactly.

I think (hope) everyone agrees that the Black Templars and Sisters should be best of allies but that GW cocked it up in their book.............

Hopefully we will get a FAQ that firmly puts this to rest sometime before 7th or 8th Edition............

Orks should have Madboyz

Eldar should have Venoms (and Harlequin ICs, and detachable Death Jesters from Harlequin squads)

Jefffar wrote:
Tau non-super heavy flyers don't carry anything stronger than st 8 AP 3 and no anti vehicle rules. Almost every imperium flyer gets the option for 1 or more Lascannons or Multi-Meltas or missiles with the Ordnance rule.

So no, Tau flyers aren't good anti-armour platforms and they've lost sixty-seven percent of their Railgun capacity on the ground. In short Tau are now much weaker against AV 13 -14 compared to before. So a strong ground attack flyer would be a big improvement for the Tau, but its not at the top of my wish list. I'd rather get back some of the goodies that were lost.

Plenty of armies don't have a flyer capable of harassing and out right killing ground AV-13/14... Don't gimme that... What you WANT is a flyer like Crons, with stupid rules, and arguably the most flexible if not broken mechanic for dealing str 10 hits on your enemies... Tau don't need that... You have riptides for str 9 large blasts... You have the range to keep yourself safe as well... How much more does that army need in terms of firepower?....

The Tau used to be able to put 9 strength 10 weapons on the table fire around 650 points using 3 heavy support slots.

Now they can put 3 strength 10 and 3 strength 9 weapons on the table for around 975 point using 3 heavy support slots and 3 elite slots.

So their anti-armour firepower has taken a hit and a lot of Tau would like some of it back. It doesn't need to be Deathray or flying Railgun crazy but if Imperial Flyers can carry Lascannons, Multimeltas and Ordnance weapons, why can't Tau flyers carry something more armour busting than Seeker Missiles?