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.

 insaniak wrote:

Which, funnily enough, was exactly why they changed them to require an Inquisitor Lord back in 3rd edition... to stop people from just throwing an Assassin into their army to plug holes in their list.

So we've come full circle, there. Although unless the new dataslate buffs them considerably, Assassins admittedly aren't as good as they were back in 2nd ed when everyone was actually using them...

That's my history lesson for the day, thanks!

Not sure how we're getting hosed, we can use them still and they dont take up a force org slot

I think I may have figured out why there really not any point changes and would explain the lack of them as an option.
Everyone gets Psybolt Ammo

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think I may have figured out why there really not any point changes and would explain the lack of them as an option.
Everyone gets Psybolt Ammo

That would make me very happy

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Assassins DLC. Just what the doctor ordered.

Assassins got EVERYONE!

Next on "Pretre's obscure references"...

Combination of my phone being weird and me being incomprehensible leads to some fun posts...

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think I may have figured out why there really not any point changes and would explain the lack of them as an option.
Everyone gets Psybolt Ammo

Makes sense to me, it always struck me as something that should be standard issue

Wow... all the Wolves releases aren't even out and now GKs...

I guess it's time for 2nd breakfast.

I guess the formula is

old codex + 7th ed rule set + current FAQs = new codex.

 wuestenfux wrote:
I guess the formula is

old codex + 7th ed rule set + current FAQs = new codex.

That's pretty much how 7th edition came into being. It's not really a new edition just FAQd 6th edition with a few tweaks.

My thoughts on the current dead horse...
No new models is a bit odd since GW makes most of their money from models. If the points values in the leaked army builder shots are accurate, GKs are still a dreadfully elite army without in-codex options for filler units to bring the model count up or increase volume of fire in a snooty edition of the rules.

Yes we can ally and yes it's more fluffy this way but removal of inquisition removes flavor from the codex along with fairly low point units without adding anything at all (that we know of so far).

Bummer says I.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There was no nerf. There was just people "expecting" something.

People were expecting something that was FAQ'd in the Space Marines book to do just that. Pedro (or the SM guy that makes Sternguard scoring) was FAQ'd to make his elite units Objective Secured. Coteaz, in the Inquisition Codex, had the very same rule, vis a vis, logic would say that he too would make his guys Objective Secured and thus, making the Codex a big boy Codex. Then GW makes an update that defies their previous actions and takes this away, making the Codex, a name which used to imply a stand alone effective product, essentially just a character generator and not much else. And pretty much invalidated folks' armies who ran complete Inquisition as competing without Objective Secured is a fool errand.

So yes, sorry for folks, including myself, using a bit of reasoning when drawing conclusions when purchasing a $35 codex and then having a key function drastically changed 6~8 months later and further being a bit upset over it.

And let's see if they actually fix the assassins.

The analogy does not quite work.
Pedro made Sternguard (an elite choice) scoring but they remained in Elites.
Coteaz made Henchman Squads troops and removed the 1 per Inquisitor restriction on them.
However with the advent of C: =I=, I believe they were already troops? So GW decided that because you can field an Inq detachment on its own anyways that rule was unnecessary. So they gave the same ruling for GK. Which meant that GK Inq armies were now gone (as they should be, its Codex Grey Knights).

 Deadshot wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There was no nerf. There was just people "expecting" something.

People were expecting something that was FAQ'd in the Space Marines book to do just that. Pedro (or the SM guy that makes Sternguard scoring) was FAQ'd to make his elite units Objective Secured. Coteaz, in the Inquisition Codex, had the very same rule, vis a vis, logic would say that he too would make his guys Objective Secured and thus, making the Codex a big boy Codex. Then GW makes an update that defies their previous actions and takes this away, making the Codex, a name which used to imply a stand alone effective product, essentially just a character generator and not much else. And pretty much invalidated folks' armies who ran complete Inquisition as competing without Objective Secured is a fool errand.

So yes, sorry for folks, including myself, using a bit of reasoning when drawing conclusions when purchasing a $35 codex and then having a key function drastically changed 6~8 months later and further being a bit upset over it.

And let's see if they actually fix the assassins.

The analogy does not quite work.
Pedro made Sternguard (an elite choice) scoring but they remained in Elites.
Coteaz made Henchman Squads troops and removed the 1 per Inquisitor restriction on them.
However with the advent of C: =I=, I believe they were already troops? So GW decided that because you can field an Inq detachment on its own anyways that rule was unnecessary. So they gave the same ruling for GK. Which meant that GK Inq armies were now gone (as they should be, its Codex Grey Knights).

Makes sense.
From a practical point of view, some tournaments don't all digital-only codices and so no GK Inq armies.

That's the tournie organisers failure tho, not GW's.

No new models does seem really strange, unless they're trying releasing the codex first with new models after? They shouldn't have to worry about IP problems as presumably any new units will have a photo in the dex anyway?

The only reason I suggest this is that no one at my local store tends to order new kits until the dex is out...I know that the rules tend to be previewed in WD but still, ut seems people want the dex before commuting to new units.

Also, I'm glad to see Assassins in a data slate, I can run a Witch Hunter style list with SoB, Inquisitors and Assassins. Woo.

D

 Deadshot wrote:


The analogy does not quite work.
Pedro made Sternguard (an elite choice) scoring but they remained in Elites.
Coteaz made Henchman Squads troops and removed the 1 per Inquisitor restriction on them.
However with the advent of C: =I=, I believe they were already troops? So GW decided that because you can field an Inq detachment on its own anyways that rule was unnecessary. So they gave the same ruling for GK. Which meant that GK Inq armies were now gone (as they should be, its Codex Grey Knights).

No... In codex: Inquisition, henchmen warbands are elites. The army has a unique FoC that is 1-2 HQ and 0-3 elites with their DT if wanted. In codex: Inquisition, those DT don't have psychic pilots either.

In the recent update, coteaz doesn't make warbands objective secured either... So that's a huge kick in the competitive bits right there. Well... I do fully get where the frustration comes from for a lot of the Old daemonhunter players though. Let me show you what GW has done with this army over the past 10 years for people who started out with them in their earliest days:

Codex: Daemonhunters

Inquisition:was there, only ordo malleus was an option though (there was nothing for ordo xenos and ordo hereticus was in codex:witchhunters). You could take henchmen back in those days, so no probs there.

Assassins: were in there. All 4 of them in the book, but you needed an inquisitor to "unlock them"

Grey knights: were in there. Psycannons were pure infantry killers (no S7rending wonders we know today). If you did go full GK infantry, you'd have ZERO anti-tank troops in your army. Hell, there was even a paragraph in the book in army selection that discouraged newer players from taking this type of force (saying you'd definatly need the emperors blessing to pull it off).

Inquisitorial stormtroopers: remember those guys? That was for the people who didn't want to run GKs or wanted to play a radical inquisitor playstyle. Half of your wargear was not allowed if you played with GK infantry, it really was a bad case of "take this to unlock this" and "avoid this to allow this".

Inducted troops: To flesh out the codex a bit, daemonhunter players were allowed to use some entries from imperial guard and space marines. Many took this option, it was all in one book (mind you, they did reference to the "parent codex" to select them). It was your only decent source of getting some much needed anti-tank options really...

Codex Grey knights:

Scratch the inducted troops and inquisitorial stormtroopers. This was also in the days that allies was not a thing... Effectively scrapping over half of my models. I still have 20 painted kasrkin troops standing around and around 40 IG veterans with a leman russ that were just plain unusable.

If you say: "well, you could still use them as IG, so no worries". There is a HUGE difference in playing a large, fully painted 2500p army on a regular basis, to then be told that you now own 2 small ones in a pointscale that your regular opponents never play. :(

Luckily, you got acces to ordo Xenos and ordo Hereticus inquisition, along with a decent fleshing out of the grey knight section. Still annoyed that there weren't any bikes added though (how much more "knight" can you get than riding your iron steed). Your assasins are still in.

New Codex Grey knights:

Inquisition: GONE, assassins: GONE. All that remains is GK stuff (and that really isn't a lot, I'll do a quick overview in the end).

In order to potentially play an army that you collected over 10 years ago, players now have to buy:

-Codex: Grey knights
-Codex: inquisition
-Codex: astra militarum/tempestus (depending on what you want).
-Codex: Space marines
-Dataslates: Assassins (lord knows they'll try to sell you all 4)

So... you can understand why a few older players have their jimmies rustled. I don't think there has been any army so far that has had such dramatic changes to what you could and couldn't field in one source as the old codex: Daemonhunters.

Also, if no new stuff is added, this is the amount of choices GK players will have in each slot:

HQ: 7 (down from 14)
Elites: 4 (down from 9)
Troops: 2 (same as before, but without Thawn as an option), lowest option possible?
Fast attack: 2 (same as before), lowest option possible?
Heavy support: 6 (same as before).

Grey knights already felt "spammy" before they cut out all those option. I'm afraid that won't get any better under these conditions. They'll also feel more powerwhore like for being forced to take so many different sources just to play with your old models.



TLDR: It's been a long essay, but in response to the "just be happy you are getting something" attitude, some GK players really do have a more than good reason to be slightly upset at yet another splitting up of their army. Especially if they start forcing limited sources for games/tournaments. In essence, you can see your previous army evaporate in front of your eyes.

 Deadshot wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There was no nerf. There was just people "expecting" something.

People were expecting something that was FAQ'd in the Space Marines book to do just that. Pedro (or the SM guy that makes Sternguard scoring) was FAQ'd to make his elite units Objective Secured. Coteaz, in the Inquisition Codex, had the very same rule, vis a vis, logic would say that he too would make his guys Objective Secured and thus, making the Codex a big boy Codex. Then GW makes an update that defies their previous actions and takes this away, making the Codex, a name which used to imply a stand alone effective product, essentially just a character generator and not much else. And pretty much invalidated folks' armies who ran complete Inquisition as competing without Objective Secured is a fool errand.

So yes, sorry for folks, including myself, using a bit of reasoning when drawing conclusions when purchasing a $35 codex and then having a key function drastically changed 6~8 months later and further being a bit upset over it.

And let's see if they actually fix the assassins.

The analogy does not quite work.
Pedro made Sternguard (an elite choice) scoring but they remained in Elites.
Coteaz made Henchman Squads troops and removed the 1 per Inquisitor restriction on them.
However with the advent of C: =I=, I believe they were already troops? So GW decided that because you can field an Inq detachment on its own anyways that rule was unnecessary. So they gave the same ruling for GK. Which meant that GK Inq armies were now gone (as they should be, its Codex Grey Knights).

Unless they changed things, then C: =I= is 1-2 HQ and 0-3 Elites. They don't have troops at all, period. In C:GK Coteaz made henchmen (an elite choice) troops. BUT in C: =I= Coteaz only made them scoring, but left them as elite choices. So the analogy for C: =I= works perfectly.

Removing of units is an obvious scam to get you to buy a second book for "Allies". Allies that used to be units from your codex.

 Alkasyn wrote:
Removing of units is an obvious scam to get you to buy a second book for "Allies". Allies that used to be units from your codex.

But means that any people with other Imperial army's can use Inquisitors and Assassins without buying the GK book, and can buy the data slates. It also removes the weird inconsistencies you have at the moment where the Inquisitor codex has different rules to the GK codex. Yes, they could align them, but that leaves inquisitors stuck as they are, as there are two different sources of rules for the same mini, and lead to all sorts of arguments over which rules take priority, if any, and if you could have the same unique character twice. Splitting them up is not so good for GK players, but much better for everyone else.

I'm glad that Assassins are out. Hopefully if more people use them we'll get some nice new plastic kits in the form of the single clamshell format. Still would love to be able to put Eversors in a drop pod.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I'm glad that Assassins are out. Hopefully if more people use them we'll get some nice new plastic kits in the form of the single clamshell format. Still would love to be able to put Eversors in a drop pod.

SW allies

When GW pull stuff like this, is it any wonder that people pirate their content? At this point they're the EA of wargaming.

you can, with space wolves allies

 Alkasyn wrote:
Removing of units is an obvious scam to get you to buy a second book for "Allies". Allies that used to be units from your codex.

Some of those units never should have been in the GK codex in the first place: Ordo Xenos and Ordo Hereticus inquisitors? They were only there because they had nowhere else to go. Now with wide use of allies, there is no reason Inq can't be a standalone book to support other codices.

sleekid wrote:
you can, with space wolves allies

Ninja'd bro

 Brother Payne wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I'm glad that Assassins are out. Hopefully if more people use them we'll get some nice new plastic kits in the form of the single clamshell format. Still would love to be able to put Eversors in a drop pod.

SW allies

Heck, if you go unbound, you can just take the SW pod by itself!

katfude wrote:

 Brother Payne wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I'm glad that Assassins are out. Hopefully if more people use them we'll get some nice new plastic kits in the form of the single clamshell format. Still would love to be able to put Eversors in a drop pod.

SW allies

Heck, if you go unbound, you can just take the SW pod by itself!

But why do that when you can grab a Wolf Priest, a bunch of Blood Claws and a Stormfang(? - the one w more transport, less dakka) and stay bound? Unless they change the assassins from being Unique then you'll only ever need the one Pod.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I'm glad that Assassins are out. Hopefully if more people use them we'll get some nice new plastic kits in the form of the single clamshell format. Still would love to be able to put Eversors in a drop pod.

The problem before was that they had horrific rules in 5th, removal of infiltration and outflanking for them from their original incarnation meant that most of them had to footslog.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Alkasyn wrote:
Removing of units is an obvious scam to get you to buy a second book for "Allies". Allies that used to be units from your codex.

Some of those units never should have been in the GK codex in the first place: Ordo Xenos and Ordo Hereticus inquisitors? They were only there because they had nowhere else to go. Now with wide use of allies, there is no reason Inq can't be a standalone book to support other codices.

You know what. I'd be fine with that, if they recognised that "ally" codices (Inquisition, Assassins, Knights and arguably even Grey Knights themselves) are not full codices and should not be priced as such AND if they actually bothered to put the time and effort in to actually writing them properly.

The Inquisition codex in particular is a horrid, slap-dash, money grabbing copy-paste out of the current GK codex, with no effort put into even formatting the unit entries, nevermind fixing some of the glaring issues those units had or looking at what other options could be included.


To summarise; well thought out, fluffy and reasonably priced allies supplements = good, half-hearted butchering of existing material just to sell a shiny new book at premium pricing = BAD.

Wonder if there will be changes to the much debated falchions?

 mjl7atlas wrote:
Wonder if there will be changes to the much debated falchions?

They cost the same as far as I can see so maybe not :/ I am bettering on either +1 attack because there's 2 or +2 from having 2 and a special rule.

Coteaz was an undercosted dweeb that got auto-included for his ridiculous rules. You want objective secured troops in your grey knights codex? Run some of those grey knights then instead of alien monkeys, rogue psykers and guardsmen.