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.

 Galas wrote:
Is people really complaining that if you want to buy EVERYTHING you have to spend a good ammount of money?

I'm glad that they are releasing codexs so fast.
And Indexes are 20€ books with rules for EVERY FACTION in the game. Many factions are gonna use the index for probably 8moths to 1 year.
Are you really mad that you pay 20€ for a book that allow you to play with 3-5 factions for 6months-1 year?

Yeah, I agree. Full free rules for everything and everybody would be ideal. Thats not the case. I gladly pay a reasonable amount of money for a good Codex without a glance if is a army that I play. I see tha tthe problem is how you see Codexs as "50$ for a book with only a dozen of pages of usefull content (aka rules)".
Then, obviously, Warhammer40k isn't for you. This game isn't only about the gameplay. And this is not a "gid good", is just the reality. Is the experience GW is selling you.

I don't mind paying for rules. I'm just irritated that my $5 worth of rules come bundled with $45 worth of fluff. GW understands that not everyone wants the fluff. Presumably, this is why they released Gamer's Edition Codexes that were rules ONLY back in 7th. I'd like to see that again, but am not optimistic that I'll see it anytime soon.

And yes, people are complaining that a full set of rules will cost over a THOUSAND dollars when every other major table top game is entirely, if not almost entirely, FREE. That's a MASSIVE discrepancy. I'd rather spend that money on models.

Oh, I agree. Ideally we could have 100% of the rules for free and "Codexs" being 100% fluff, nice pictures, hobby and paint guides, etc...

But GW know in that case they are gonna make less money. We know that, everybody know that. I doubt that the increase in model sales for having free rules is gonna compensate the loses for codexs.

Requizen wrote:
Lol GW literally can't win unless they give every rule and model away for free with a ticket to Disneyland included (and then there would be complaints that they didn't pay for airfare).

I don't agree with every decision they make, but come on. Complaining that a $20 stopgap book is getting replaced by actual rules? Everyone knew this was coming. The Indices were always only there until the actual books came out - that's why they were cheap and not comprehensive. And they'll still be useful for certain models that won't be included in the Codex.

But yeah, the internet is for whining, among other things.

Gamers will drop $20 on a fancy burger that they enjoy for 20 minutes and then scream bloody murder over paying $20 for a book they use for a month. It is what it is.

 Kirasu wrote:
I'm glad we all collectively fell for the codex racket yet again. So Blood Angels have to use the units in the "Space Marine" section of the Index but can't use those same units in the upcoming Space Marine codex? Thanks.

1 month in and we'll already need double the amount of books to play due to that bizarre decision.

If you're going to homogenize all the space marine chapters to use a single list (IE index) then it makes sense to include them in a new codex!

This is the part that worries me. Are we going to be stuck in a weird half/half codex situation for armies like Blood Angels like it was back in 3/4E with the little supplemental codices? If I'm running BA after C:SM comes out and I want to run a Sangiunary Novitate, he uses the Apothecary data card with a fancy new BA name. Do I use the one from I:A1, or do I now need to own C:SM as well? But then in the fall when a Codex: Red Marines comes out, will I have a complete list of units there and no longer need C:SM to reference? The whole codex system is one of the worst things about playing GW games, and the last few weeks of everyone having one of five books and being on a simple, level playing field has been so refreshing.

Don't like criticism?

Call it whining.

 gorgon wrote:

Requizen wrote:
Lol GW literally can't win unless they give every rule and model away for free with a ticket to Disneyland included (and then there would be complaints that they didn't pay for airfare).

I don't agree with every decision they make, but come on. Complaining that a $20 stopgap book is getting replaced by actual rules? Everyone knew this was coming. The Indices were always only there until the actual books came out - that's why they were cheap and not comprehensive. And they'll still be useful for certain models that won't be included in the Codex.

But yeah, the internet is for whining, among other things.

Gamers will drop $20 on a fancy burger that they enjoy for 20 minutes and then scream bloody murder over paying $20 for a book they use for a month. It is what it is.

This is a next level false equivalency (food and models aren't in any fashion a similar medium), and even if it were the case they were being hypocritical, what would it matter? Hypocrisy, and personal character in general, has no impact upon criticism of perceived poor business practice.

 gorgon wrote:

Requizen wrote:
Lol GW literally can't win unless they give every rule and model away for free with a ticket to Disneyland included (and then there would be complaints that they didn't pay for airfare).

I don't agree with every decision they make, but come on. Complaining that a $20 stopgap book is getting replaced by actual rules? Everyone knew this was coming. The Indices were always only there until the actual books came out - that's why they were cheap and not comprehensive. And they'll still be useful for certain models that won't be included in the Codex.

But yeah, the internet is for whining, among other things.

Gamers will drop $20 on a fancy burger that they enjoy for 20 minutes and then scream bloody murder over paying $20 for a book they use for a month. It is what it is.

This is probably true of most people as they probably feel as if the money is wasted. The reality is no one takes the book from them nor does it disallow them to use it outside of a GW. Better for the codices than the indices since you get the lore and the pictures to go along with it at least. I mean they're even $40 here and I'm rather indifferent to the idea that my Imperium 2 will be outdated soon enough as I understood that it was just a temporary book when I got the thing.

 blood reaper wrote:
Don't like criticism?

Call it whining.

It's not criticism if you don't offer a reasonable alternative. Saying "everything should be free" is not reasonable because a) we know it will never happen and b) it's not necessary for their business model.

When you just complain about something and say it's bad for the sake of complaining and not liking it, it's not criticism.

 Prometheum5 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I'm glad we all collectively fell for the codex racket yet again. So Blood Angels have to use the units in the "Space Marine" section of the Index but can't use those same units in the upcoming Space Marine codex? Thanks.

1 month in and we'll already need double the amount of books to play due to that bizarre decision.

If you're going to homogenize all the space marine chapters to use a single list (IE index) then it makes sense to include them in a new codex!

This is the part that worries me. Are we going to be stuck in a weird half/half codex situation for armies like Blood Angels like it was back in 3/4E with the little supplemental codices? If I'm running BA after C:SM comes out and I want to run a Sangiunary Novitate, he uses the Apothecary data card with a fancy new BA name. Do I use the one from I:A1, or do I now need to own C:SM as well? But then in the fall when a Codex: Red Marines comes out, will I have a complete list of units there and no longer need C:SM to reference? The whole codex system is one of the worst things about playing GW games, and the last few weeks of everyone having one of five books and being on a simple, level playing field has been so refreshing.

I'm pretty sure that every unit that BA can take will be in their codexs.
Is just absurd otherwise. What, the BA isn't gonna have the Tactical Squad rules? Only 100% specific BA units like Sanguinary Guard and Death Company? I don't think thats the case.
Every Space Marine Codex will bring the generic Space Marine units: Tactical, Devastators, etc...
Besides Space Wolves that those are Special Snowflakes even in that case and all of their units are 100% unique
You just use your Index until your Codex comes out. I don't find that difficult. You still only need one book. Or your index, or your Codex.

Requizen wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Don't like criticism?

Call it whining.

It's not criticism if you don't offer a reasonable alternative. Saying "everything should be free" is not reasonable because a) we know it will never happen and b) it's not necessary for their business model.

It did for a bit.


Of course it's not ideal for them to do so in the long term outside of some stop gap rules really.

 gorgon wrote:

Requizen wrote:
Lol GW literally can't win unless they give every rule and model away for free with a ticket to Disneyland included (and then there would be complaints that they didn't pay for airfare).

I don't agree with every decision they make, but come on. Complaining that a $20 stopgap book is getting replaced by actual rules? Everyone knew this was coming. The Indices were always only there until the actual books came out - that's why they were cheap and not comprehensive. And they'll still be useful for certain models that won't be included in the Codex.

But yeah, the internet is for whining, among other things.

Gamers will drop $20 on a fancy burger that they enjoy for 20 minutes and then scream bloody murder over paying $20 for a book they use for a month. It is what it is.

Well said.

Gamers have always felt entitled to low prices and free things. At the end of the day, GW is a business. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy.

I work at a farm that has a market. Our prices are higher than super markets because the food is fresh and in high demand. We have a saying we use when people complain...maybe this isn't the farm for you.

People complaining about GW prices...maybe this isn't the game for you.

Requizen wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Don't like criticism?

Call it whining.

It's not criticism if you don't offer a reasonable alternative. Saying "everything should be free" is not reasonable because a) we know it will never happen and b) it's not necessary for their business model.

When you just complain about something and say it's bad for the sake of complaining and not liking it, it's not criticism.

'Saying everything should be free isn't reasonable"

Simply because the probability of something not occurring isn't great doesn't mean the claim it would be better isn't reasonable.

Furthermore, no one is claiming something to be 'bad for the sake of bad', and even if this were the case, the critique made in the process wouldn't be invalid.

 Galas wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I'm glad we all collectively fell for the codex racket yet again. So Blood Angels have to use the units in the "Space Marine" section of the Index but can't use those same units in the upcoming Space Marine codex? Thanks.

1 month in and we'll already need double the amount of books to play due to that bizarre decision.

If you're going to homogenize all the space marine chapters to use a single list (IE index) then it makes sense to include them in a new codex!

This is the part that worries me. Are we going to be stuck in a weird half/half codex situation for armies like Blood Angels like it was back in 3/4E with the little supplemental codices? If I'm running BA after C:SM comes out and I want to run a Sangiunary Novitate, he uses the Apothecary data card with a fancy new BA name. Do I use the one from I:A1, or do I now need to own C:SM as well? But then in the fall when a Codex: Red Marines comes out, will I have a complete list of units there and no longer need C:SM to reference? The whole codex system is one of the worst things about playing GW games, and the last few weeks of everyone having one of five books and being on a simple, level playing field has been so refreshing.

I'm pretty sure that every unit that BA can take will be in their codexs.
Is just absurd otherwise. What, the BA isn't gonna have the Tactical Squad rules? Only 100% specific BA units like Sanguinary Guard and Death Company? I don't think thats the case.
Every Space Marine Codex will bring the generic Space Marine units: Tactical, Devastators, etc...
Besides Space Wolves that those are Special Snowflakes even in that case and all of their units are 100% unique

The odd situation for BA and DA is going to be this: Their rules say to use the Tactical/Devastator/Assault/etc rules from the SM section of the Index.

When the SM Codex comes out, which set of rules do they use? Do they have to buy the new Codex and use those rules or are they still legally using the older versions in the Index? Likely they won't change in the new Codex but it's possible.

A valid worry.

Power armour as far as the eye can see....

Requizen wrote:


The odd situation for BA and DA is going to be this: Their rules say to use the Tactical/Devastator/Assault/etc rules from the SM section of the Index.

When the SM Codex comes out, which set of rules do they use? Do they have to buy the new Codex and use those rules or are they still legally using the older versions in the Index? Likely they won't change in the new Codex but it's possible.

A valid worry.

Right, the issue is what happens between the release of the SM codex and the eventual BA codex. Will the BA army list from I:A1 still reference the equivalent SM units from the Index, or do I need to own the SM codex for updated vanilla SM units?

Ok. I understand it now. I assume they are gonna keep those generic units the same just to evade that.
But if they change them... I don't know.
With GW everything is possible

 n0t_u wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Don't like criticism?

Call it whining.

It's not criticism if you don't offer a reasonable alternative. Saying "everything should be free" is not reasonable because a) we know it will never happen and b) it's not necessary for their business model.

It did for a bit.


Of course it's not ideal for them to do so in the long term outside of some stop gap rules really.

It's not realistic for 40k. Or rather, not necessary.

Fantasy was not selling. They were not getting new people, they were barely selling to existing people. They needed a huge shakeup to get people back into the game and get new blood in. Free rules will do that.

40k, even with all the (totally valid) complaints about 6th/7th, was still one of the top, if not the top, selling wargames on the planet. They didn't need free rules to pull people in, new people were starting all the time.


I bet you if AoS is still doing this well or better in 5 years time and all available models are represented in a Battletome, free rules may very well go away since they won't be needed.

The generic units utilized by non-codex chapters are also the least likely to change. Intercessors, Hellblasters, etc are what will be seeing changes most likely. For the vast majority of units it won't matter if you use the index or C:SM because the dataslates will be the same.

So on the actual topic of the SM Codex. Anyone notice what they listed are part of the subfactions in it?


CHAOS LEGIONS?!?!

We've complained so long that the chaos marines are never as good as loyalists, so they just made them normal marines

Requizen wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I'm glad we all collectively fell for the codex racket yet again. So Blood Angels have to use the units in the "Space Marine" section of the Index but can't use those same units in the upcoming Space Marine codex? Thanks.

1 month in and we'll already need double the amount of books to play due to that bizarre decision.

If you're going to homogenize all the space marine chapters to use a single list (IE index) then it makes sense to include them in a new codex!

This is the part that worries me. Are we going to be stuck in a weird half/half codex situation for armies like Blood Angels like it was back in 3/4E with the little supplemental codices? If I'm running BA after C:SM comes out and I want to run a Sangiunary Novitate, he uses the Apothecary data card with a fancy new BA name. Do I use the one from I:A1, or do I now need to own C:SM as well? But then in the fall when a Codex: Red Marines comes out, will I have a complete list of units there and no longer need C:SM to reference? The whole codex system is one of the worst things about playing GW games, and the last few weeks of everyone having one of five books and being on a simple, level playing field has been so refreshing.

I'm pretty sure that every unit that BA can take will be in their codexs.
Is just absurd otherwise. What, the BA isn't gonna have the Tactical Squad rules? Only 100% specific BA units like Sanguinary Guard and Death Company? I don't think thats the case.
Every Space Marine Codex will bring the generic Space Marine units: Tactical, Devastators, etc...
Besides Space Wolves that those are Special Snowflakes even in that case and all of their units are 100% unique

The odd situation for BA and DA is going to be this: Their rules say to use the Tactical/Devastator/Assault/etc rules from the SM section of the Index.

When the SM Codex comes out, which set of rules do they use? Do they have to buy the new Codex and use those rules or are they still legally using the older versions in the Index? Likely they won't change in the new Codex but it's possible.

A valid worry.

I think worst case scenario you'll use the index and your army's codex. They've already pointed out that the codexes are mostly for special rules, relics etc.

I'm not sure that you will need the vanilla SM codex just to get your tactical squad's rules, since it would probably just tell you rules you already know plus some version of "Bolter Drill or something".

In the unlikely instance of the BA and DA codexes not including basic units like tacticals etc, I really truly think it'll be as simple as applying your army rules to the index entries.

With regards to worries about creep, I don't think that's going to be a huge factor. They've already made it clear *everyone* will be getting a codex in under two years.

This implies they're all being written within a reasonable span of time from each other, so there's not much time or room for one book to really outdistance another.

Just my two cents, but the new GW has my faith, we'll wait and see if I'm proven wrong or not.

 blood reaper wrote:


Furthermore, no one is claiming something to be 'bad for the sake of bad',

yes they are, read the thread and don't ignore the things that invalidate your statments.

and even if this were the case, the critique made in the process wouldn't be invalid.

It doesn't make it invalid. It just makes it pointless whining.

I can complain that my job made me stay late to finish a project, but if there was a valid reason for it and I didn't offer a solution of my own, I'm just whinging for the sake of it.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

If there is codex creep.....I will not be so happy.

I have bad news for you, then...it's going to happen. I don't say this to be cynical, but just by adding this amount of material, there's bound to be things that come out as more powerful. Especially considering how many codices we're likely to see.

There hasn't been codex creep in AoS yet.

 unmercifulconker wrote:
Hah, was just wondering if the SM codex will have FW chapters in there. Decided on Red Scorpions to accompany the Fists but realised their chapter tactics will most likely be in Fires of Cyraxus.

Ohhh yes Im just stoked for expanded lore on the Xenos and non SM in general! Forge World Graia tactics please!

Is it possible to ask this on Facebook? Otherwise we would have to sit and wait a long while before I can use Asterion again in ALL HIS GLORY.

Rynner wrote:
It won't be Sisters.

This feels like a massive cash grab. I'm actually pretty upset that after buying all 5 indexes and the rule book they are going to get invalided pretty shortly after.

They should have made the indexes free or next to free. This is kind of outrageous and upsetting.

Most of us are going to buy the rules for the addition at least twice at this point.

So you would prefer that the indices were say, $50 like the codices of old? $25 for the ability to play 3-5 armies is literally next to free, and the digital bundles were even cheaper. Not sure what you were expecting but this is about as good as it gets. I, for one, welcome the ability to have each army have what is effectively a supplement. Will be awesome to see how the options increase and the flavor of each army expands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 silent25 wrote:
So on the actual topic of the SM Codex. Anyone notice what they listed are part of the subfactions in it?

Spoiler:

CHAOS LEGIONS?!?!

We've complained so long that the chaos marines are never as good as loyalists, so they just made them normal marines

In my mind, silent changed his avatar just for this post

Requizen wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:


Furthermore, no one is claiming something to be 'bad for the sake of bad',

yes they are, read the thread and don't ignore the things that invalidate your statments.

and even if this were the case, the critique made in the process wouldn't be invalid.

It doesn't make it invalid. It just makes it pointless whining.

I can complain that my job made me stay late to finish a project, but if there was a valid reason for it and I didn't offer a solution of my own, I'm just whinging for the sake of it.

Please provide an example of this "bad for the sake of bad".

"It just makes it pointless whining"

This relies on the previous statement of "bad for the sake of bad" being true, yet I've yet to see anyone complaining for the sake of complaining.

gungo wrote:
To be fair the rumours didn't say no codecs soon they said the list and titles and timelines of 2 a month is fake.
And this article proves it's wrong as greyknights are the second codex release.

Can anyone link to the rumour which correctly identified GK as the second release and tell us what the list for stuff after death guard is?

 Prometheum5 wrote:

Requizen wrote:


The odd situation for BA and DA is going to be this: Their rules say to use the Tactical/Devastator/Assault/etc rules from the SM section of the Index.

When the SM Codex comes out, which set of rules do they use? Do they have to buy the new Codex and use those rules or are they still legally using the older versions in the Index? Likely they won't change in the new Codex but it's possible.

A valid worry.

Right, the issue is what happens between the release of the SM codex and the eventual BA codex. Will the BA army list from I:A1 still reference the equivalent SM units from the Index, or do I need to own the SM codex for updated vanilla SM units?

An index isn't a codex, if you refer to the SM section of the index that is pretty black and white to me.

 Perfect Organism wrote:

gungo wrote:
To be fair the rumours didn't say no codecs soon they said the list and titles and timelines of 2 a month is fake.
And this article proves it's wrong as greyknights are the second codex release.

Can anyone link to the rumour which correctly identified GK as the second release and tell us what the list for stuff after death guard is?

There were no rumors that match the current release schedule. The only one was posted by Spikeybits and is fairly well proven wrong (was called out by all reliable sources and does not have the currently confirmed Codexes on there in the right order, or at all).

Requizen wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Don't like criticism?

Call it whining.

It's not criticism if you don't offer a reasonable alternative. Saying "everything should be free" is not reasonable because a) we know it will never happen and b) it's not necessary for their business model.

It did for a bit.


Of course it's not ideal for them to do so in the long term outside of some stop gap rules really.

It's not realistic for 40k. Or rather, not necessary.

Fantasy was not selling. They were not getting new people, they were barely selling to existing people. They needed a huge shakeup to get people back into the game and get new blood in. Free rules will do that.

40k, even with all the (totally valid) complaints about 6th/7th, was still one of the top, if not the top, selling wargames on the planet. They didn't need free rules to pull people in, new people were starting all the time.


I bet you if AoS is still doing this well or better in 5 years time and all available models are represented in a Battletome, free rules may very well go away since they won't be needed.

Fantasy was selling, however it was going downhill due to the entry requirement. AoS' free rules went away with the sylvaneth battletome in my opinion as in introduced the faction bonuses if I remember right. Datasheets shouldn't really be free outside of stopgaps anyways.

The thing with AoS is it moved to a new system and thus all the old models would be incompatible with their current rules, which is pretty much the same thing that just happened with the transition from 7th to 8th really. The main difference here is like the transition was smaller and thus more smoother than the rather radical one they gave WHFB. 8th ed's release, with this fresh change to reduce the bloat of 7th ed, seemed to drag a lot of people who had quit with 6th and 7th back; which is good for the health of the game. But, that these same people are at risk of feeling slapped in the face and backing away again.
What I'm trying to say is I'm not annoyed with the fact that the datasheets weren't free, as it was more likely they wouldn't than would, but I don't know it just feels like if they had been 8th's release would be more successful in the long run and draw back more of the old players it seems to be trying to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 silent25 wrote:
So on the actual topic of the SM Codex. Anyone notice what they listed are part of the subfactions in it?

Spoiler:

CHAOS LEGIONS?!?!

We've complained so long that the chaos marines are never as good as loyalists, so they just made them normal marines

Codex: Alpha Legion confirmed for 1st 8th ed codex.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

If there is codex creep.....I will not be so happy.

I have bad news for you, then...it's going to happen. I don't say this to be cynical, but just by adding this amount of material, there's bound to be things that come out as more powerful. Especially considering how many codices we're likely to see.

There hasn't been codex creep in AoS yet.

Elves disagree.

Also, savage orruks happened.

gungo wrote:

Slave wrote:

gungo wrote:
To be fair the rumours didn't say no codecs soon they said the list and titles and timelines of 2 a month is fake.
And this article proves it's wrong as greyknights are the second codex release.

I'm actually glad my main army is not the first codex as gw is still fixing the index versions of the dataslates which I'm sure are 99% copy and paste. Gw needs at least 1 more major FAQ/errata to fix a few more mistakes and some major imbalance issues. Primarily I think plasmaguns/pistols need to be nerfed to str6 base str7 overcharged. As this will make grenade launchers viable and deep strike melta viable alternatives which mathematically plasmaguns out perform both other weapon options.

10 codex in 5 months is indeed 2 per month.........

except its 6 months since they are coming in July.

*BEFORE CHRISTMAS* So, closer to 5. Put your pitchfork down, heretic.