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.

Sad Panda has yet to be wrong. He was the first to rumor Khorne Daemonkin, and right from the beginning pointed out there won't be any other Daemonkin book. Later he posted also no new Chaos Space Marine Codex in 2015 and no Tzeentch Daemonkin specificially although many rumors said otherwise. All this turned out to be true.

It is sad for AM players. I would not wait for an AM codex book between Mont'Ka and Q3 2016.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Exactly, GoonBandito

Why Q3 / 2016 ?

Who gets Q1 + Q2 ???

Anything from Sad Panda about things to happen?

He said not in the first half of 2016 (posts quoted on the previous page).

Can't wait to see the cadian warlord traits in English. Looks like there's one that boosts the BS of something? and more master of ordnance love.

 1hadhq wrote:
Why Q3 / 2016 ?

Who gets Q1 + Q2 ???

Anything from Sad Panda about things to happen?

Also this one

Sad Panda

AM? Tyranids? Tzeentch Daemonkin?



February will hear the Saga of the Clickbait Slayer.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670756/8279614.page#8279614

 alasta wrote:
Can't wait to see the cadian warlord traits in English. Looks like there's one that boosts the BS of something? and more master of ordnance love.

Heh.

I posted the translations (cross-checked them against the Mont'ka Glossary, so no translation issues--just translated the Warlord trait's name and matched it with the Glossary) earlier. Here you go:

Warlord Traits
Master Orator: Your Warlord has the Zealot special rule.



Dead-Eye Shot: Add 2 to your Warlord's Ballistic Skill, and 1 to the Ballistic Skill of models in his unit.



Artillery Veteran: Once per game, your Warlord can make an Artillery Bombardment as though he were a Master of Ordnance.



Unflappable Stoicism: Friendly units that are part of a Cadian Detachment do not take Morale tests for suffering 25% or more casualties while they are within 12" of your Warlord.



Above the Thundering Guns: Your Warlord has the Voice of Command special rule. If your Warlord already has the Voice of Command special rule, he can issue one additional order each turn.



Staunch Traditionalist: Friendly characters that are part of Cadian Detachments must issue and accept challenges wherever possible. If there is more than one friendly model with a rule that has this effect in a challenge, you may select which model issues or accepts the challenge. When fighting in challenges, friendly Characters that are part of Cadian Detachments can reroll failed To Hit and To Wound rolls.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dead-Eye Shot: Add 2 to your Warlord's Ballistic Skill, and 1 to the Ballistic Skill of models in his unit.

BS of 6 sounds funny but there is nothing to shoot with :(

Wow.. the last warlord trait makes it pretty risky to even use the detachment. Does IG really need the worst ability CSM has? Hmm..

That's really weird to give them a dueling warlord trait that seems more at home with an army like Black Templars, I don't recall Cadians having a very strong sense of dueling pride? They seem to come off as more pragmatic and disciplined rather than bound by codes of martial honour, given that doesn't get you very far against the rampant cultist and CSM activity near the Eye of Terror.

 vostroyan second born wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dead-Eye Shot: Add 2 to your Warlord's Ballistic Skill, and 1 to the Ballistic Skill of models in his unit.

BS of 6 sounds funny but there is nothing to shoot with :(

Heh.

Remember that you can take a Tank Commander as a Warlord. So a BS6 Tank Commander and his BS4 Tank Bodyguard, given Kabe's Herald, issuing Orders to all the Leman Russ tanks.

ALL THE SPLIT-FIRE ORDNANCE SHENANIGANRY!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimskul wrote:
That's really weird to give them a dueling warlord trait that seems more at home with an army like Black Templars, I don't recall Cadians having a very strong sense of dueling pride? They seem to come off as more pragmatic and disciplined rather than bound by codes of martial honour, given that doesn't get you very far against the rampant cultist and CSM activity near the Eye of Terror.

"Cadian Blood" brought up duels, but it didn't seem to be "pride in their skill as duelists" but rather "pride in their skill compared to outsiders". Thade beat the snot out of the Commissar assigned to the unit, simply because he wasn't a Cadian.

wrt the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon requirements and the bundle GW were doing for it - it looks like they've changed the wording on the website. It doesn't say "contains everything you need to run an Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon" anymore, rather "34 models in total, for an awesome Astra Militarum strike force".

Sad Panda wrote:
AM? Tyranids? Tzeentch Daemonkin?



February will hear the Saga of the Clickbait Slayer.

I heard slayer. So Dwarves in February then? I am grateful to Sad panda for debunking the nonsense, I just wish we could hear more about what IS coming. I am also sad that Tzeentch never seems to be coming.

 GoonBandito wrote:
wrt the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon requirements and the bundle GW were doing for it - it looks like they've changed the wording on the website. It doesn't say "contains everything you need to run an Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon" anymore, rather "34 models in total, for an awesome Astra Militarum strike force".

They did the same thing with the "Rapid Insertion Force" last week, despite it still matching the requirements.

As of right now, the only things reading what is effectively "this bundle has everything to build a bundle as found in Mont'ka"? Counterstrike Cadre, Ranged Support Cadre, Riptide Wing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I don't think it will be the AM codex in the spring. I think I might know what it is, but I'd prefer to keep it in the family for now, lest my brothers turn to brooding.

Brooding?

Tyranids confirmed! You heard it here first!

Hmmm...

Lest my brothers turn to brooding

Brothers turn to brooding

Brothers Brooding

Brood Brothers

Hold onto your denim pants guys, Genestealer cult confirmed!

bogalubov wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It is the new normal, and the IG should be at that same power level when using whatever formations they get. That would be balanced and fair.

This won't make you feel any better, but I don't think that's how GW writes these books and codices. I think their goal is to best approximate the fluff and create a way to recreate the book battles on the table top. That's why in these campaign books you see aliens battling a host of Imperial forces. So to compare power levels, you should take into account the knight formations and space marine formations that can be found in these books.

The Necron, Tau and Eldar books need to contain everything necessary to fight all the Imperium books, so they tend to be more powerful.

A platoon of guardsmen might not be strong. But a platoon of guardsmen being led by a White Scar librarian conclave with the item that grants ignore cover has a bit more juice.

For those players who want to collect and play a single codex, this might be frustrating, but that's the cinematic vision that GW is trying to achieve.

No, GW claims that they do internal playtesting, so IG should be just as strong as any other recent Codex, specifically Necrons & SMs.

SM's are strong enough by themselves. SM don't need Knights to be competitive. SM are on par with Knights and Necrons.

A platoon of Guardsmen should be points equivalent to a IKT, and a IG formation should be points equivalent to Decurion. And in those campaign books, they also highlight actions by individual Imperial forces. An IG Battalion or Battle Group. A SM Company. A Knight Lance.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

bogalubov wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It is the new normal, and the IG should be at that same power level when using whatever formations they get. That would be balanced and fair.

This won't make you feel any better, but I don't think that's how GW writes these books and codices. I think their goal is to best approximate the fluff and create a way to recreate the book battles on the table top. That's why in these campaign books you see aliens battling a host of Imperial forces. So to compare power levels, you should take into account the knight formations and space marine formations that can be found in these books.

The Necron, Tau and Eldar books need to contain everything necessary to fight all the Imperium books, so they tend to be more powerful.

A platoon of guardsmen might not be strong. But a platoon of guardsmen being led by a White Scar librarian conclave with the item that grants ignore cover has a bit more juice.

For those players who want to collect and play a single codex, this might be frustrating, but that's the cinematic vision that GW is trying to achieve.

No, GW claims that they do internal playtesting, so IG should be just as strong as any other recent Codex, specifically Necrons & SMs.

SM's are strong enough by themselves. SM don't need Knights to be competitive. SM are on par with Knights and Necrons.

A platoon of Guardsmen should be points equivalent to a IKT, and a IG formation should be points equivalent to Decurion. And in those campaign books, they also highlight actions by individual Imperial forces. An IG Battalion or Battle Group. A SM Company. A Knight Lance.

GW doesn't claim any play testing as they don't communicate their design philosophy to us. We are left guessing about their intention and how much play testing occurs.

As for points. Five hundred points of grots is not going to be nearly as useful as 500 points of knights in most cases.

It's not unreasonable for you to expect that the IG codex should be as good as the Tau codex. However, that's generally setting yourself up for disappointment. Just like expecting that 500 points of Orks wil be as good as 500 points of Tau. Taking a combined arms approach will make your lists more competitive for Imperials as independent character force multipliers make up for the gross point mismanagement on the part of GW.

If/when Orks get a new Codex, I would expect them to be points competitive with Tau.

500 points of Necrons / SMs / Tau should match fairly against 100 pts of IKTs; 500 points of Guard should also match that 500 pts of IKTs. And when Orks are upgraded, 500 pts of Orks should match 500 pts of IKTs. .

Right now, taking a combined approach is stupid because IKTs do everything IG could do, but better and cheaper. There are no force multipliers for IKTs. And the same holds for SMs, who also categorically outclass IG.

I think you credit GW with putting more thought and consideration into this than they are.

Another "Breaking" News from BoLS: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/11/breaking-assassin-pics-rules-spotted.html

"New" Assassin rules. *yeah*

As a german who read the rules: don't bother with it. nothing changed. at all. literally nothing.

Via those crazy Germans

Good job with belittling your source Bell of Lost Trolls!

I honestly don't think we will be seeing a new IG/Am Codex, or for that matter new Codexes (Codices) in the future at all.

It seems that GW have realised that people don't want to keep buying hard back books every time the rules change but it also means that they aren't constrained by the Codex when they want to release new models.

Tau were a good example of this - they got several brand new models (Stormsurge, Shieldwall, Ghostkeel etc) released without having to publish a new book.

I think this is the way things will now be done, in other words campaign books that update or refresh existing Codex books without having to produce a new Codex.

However it's kind of annoying as Mont'Ka is £45 which is more than a codex would have cost and all I want from it are the Cadian formations!!

I know it has lots of other stuff for other armies too but I don't understand the rationale of saving players money by not having to buy a codex only for them to have pay more for the campaign book....

But in terms of updating rules via formations I think it's a great idea and think the Tau model works well, and avoides power creep which we've had for a while whilst we wait for new Codexes.

I just think the data sheets for the formations would be better published in weekly White Dwarf (which I think most of them are but not all of them?).

StraightSilver wrote:


I know it has lots of other stuff for other armies too but I don't understand the rationale of saving players money by not having to buy a codex only for them to have pay more for the campaign book....

The rationale of saving players money? Highly, highly, doubt that GW consider that.

StraightSilver wrote:
I honestly don't think we will be seeing a new IG/Am Codex, or for that matter new Codexes (Codices) in the future at all.

It seems that GW have realised that people don't want to keep buying hard back books every time the rules change but it also means that they aren't constrained by the Codex when they want to release new models.

Tau were a good example of this - they got several brand new models (Stormsurge, Shieldwall, Ghostkeel etc) released without having to publish a new book.

I think this is the way things will now be done, in other words campaign books that update or refresh existing Codex books without having to produce a new Codex.

Don't forget that Tau did get a new codex. So I don't think we have seen the end of codex's. Using campaigns to refresh armies is a cool way to go though, so hopefully they continue that.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:

StraightSilver wrote:
I honestly don't think we will be seeing a new IG/Am Codex, or for that matter new Codexes (Codices) in the future at all.

It seems that GW have realised that people don't want to keep buying hard back books every time the rules change but it also means that they aren't constrained by the Codex when they want to release new models.

Tau were a good example of this - they got several brand new models (Stormsurge, Shieldwall, Ghostkeel etc) released without having to publish a new book.

I think this is the way things will now be done, in other words campaign books that update or refresh existing Codex books without having to produce a new Codex.

Don't forget that Tau did get a new codex. So I don't think we have seen the end of codex's. Using campaigns to refresh armies is a cool way to go though, so hopefully they continue that.

Tau didn't actually get a new Codex though, they got the old one with the formations from Kauy'On (sp?) and GW explicitly stated that if you already had the old one you shouldn't buy the new one, so technically it was a reprint rather than a new 'Dex. So possibly we may see a reprinted AM/IG Codex but I doubt it will have any changes to the existing one.

In terms of saving palyers money I actually think the new CEO has grasped thhe concept that players have felt a bit cheated as far as Codexes are concerned, I certainly felt that way about the Imperial Knights and Space Marine Codexes.

But I also think they realise that Codexes actually stall new model production so they will possibly go altogether at some point as they have done in Age of Sigmar.

StraightSilver wrote:
I honestly don't think we will be seeing a new IG/Am Codex, or for that matter new Codexes (Codices) in the future at all.

It seems that GW have realised that people don't want to keep buying hard back books every time the rules change but it also means that they aren't constrained by the Codex when they want to release new models.

Tau were a good example of this - they got several brand new models (Stormsurge, Shieldwall, Ghostkeel etc) released without having to publish a new book.

I think this is the way things will now be done, in other words campaign books that update or refresh existing Codex books without having to produce a new Codex.

However it's kind of annoying as Mont'Ka is £45 which is more than a codex would have cost and all I want from it are the Cadian formations!!

I know it has lots of other stuff for other armies too but I don't understand the rationale of saving players money by not having to buy a codex only for them to have pay more for the campaign book....

But in terms of updating rules via formations I think it's a great idea and think the Tau model works well, and avoides power creep which we've had for a while whilst we wait for new Codexes.

I just think the data sheets for the formations would be better published in weekly White Dwarf (which I think most of them are but not all of them?).

i dont think this will work. AM can't be fixed with formations alone ... especialy when the majority of the formations is "useless" and if GW wants to sell miniatures they should try to create a game setting where the codices are equal so that every player has the chance to win. nobody buys miniatures from a game system that makes no fun playing.

Tau did get a new codex for all intents and purposes. The new book has a different layout, some cool new artwork and a couple of new units + the formations. That's all I want out of a new codex personally.
The only lame thing about the codex was the re-used cover artwork, I got the LE version so I'm not too annoyed but still...

As for GW looking to save people money, they are not really. Since if you are a tau player you pretty much had to buy montka and kauyon which costs you 90 pounds to replace the tau codex and farsight enclaves which were 50 pounds. So GW can use this method to make even more dolla, Hurray!

 vostroyan second born wrote:

StraightSilver wrote:
I honestly don't think we will be seeing a new IG/Am Codex, or for that matter new Codexes (Codices) in the future at all.

It seems that GW have realised that people don't want to keep buying hard back books every time the rules change but it also means that they aren't constrained by the Codex when they want to release new models.

Tau were a good example of this - they got several brand new models (Stormsurge, Shieldwall, Ghostkeel etc) released without having to publish a new book.

I think this is the way things will now be done, in other words campaign books that update or refresh existing Codex books without having to produce a new Codex.

However it's kind of annoying as Mont'Ka is £45 which is more than a codex would have cost and all I want from it are the Cadian formations!!

I know it has lots of other stuff for other armies too but I don't understand the rationale of saving players money by not having to buy a codex only for them to have pay more for the campaign book....

But in terms of updating rules via formations I think it's a great idea and think the Tau model works well, and avoides power creep which we've had for a while whilst we wait for new Codexes.

I just think the data sheets for the formations would be better published in weekly White Dwarf (which I think most of them are but not all of them?).

i dont think this will work. AM can't be fixed with formations alone ... especialy when the majority of the formations is "useless" and if GW wants to sell miniatures they should try to create a game setting where the codices are equal so that every player has the chance to win. nobody buys miniatures from a game system that makes no fun playing.

Not alone, but I think it can fix the majority of the problems. IG are a victim of power creep combined with the fictional reality that they can't be as individually as tough as Marines. Marines have no limit so there is no limit to their power creep. Fictionally IG on a unit to unit basis can never be as powerful as marines. So without increasing the power of individual units GW can only increase the number of models and units taken relative to the other or increase the synergistic advantages of taking combinations of units. The latter being what formations do. The quality and how worthwhile those formations are a different issue but it's a step in the right direction when the main distinction of IG is its numerical superiority of units that are suppose to work together rather than be individually powerful.

Chikout wrote:

I heard slayer. So Dwarves in February then? I am grateful to Sad panda for debunking the nonsense, I just wish we could hear more about what IS coming. I am also sad that Tzeentch never seems to be coming.

Dwarves might be earlier than that.

The hint with the Saga of was too subtle?

The problem being, the IG cannot achieve sufficient numerical superiority because the models and upgrades are about 30% too expensive. And synergy fails when all of the individual pieces are weak.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The problem being, the IG cannot achieve sufficient numerical superiority because the models and upgrades are about 30% too expensive. And synergy fails when all of the individual pieces are weak.

This seems to be a consistent problem with the cheaper armies (DE, SoB etc.) - especially in terms of characters. They start off cheap, but don't get any discounts on wargear. So, as soon as you start trying to tool them up, the difference in cost between them and, say, a tooled-up marine HQ quickly diminished - to the point where you're just not getting enough of a discount to justify the drastic drop in damage output and survivability.

Special/heavy weapons aren't quite as bad, but it's still an issue - especially when you consider upgrades as a % of a model's base cost. e.g. a marine pays ~100% of his cost for a plasmagun. A guardsman pays 300% of his base cost. Is he getting 3 times as much value as the space marine?