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.

Per posts on BnC the upgrade kit is supposedly packing two sprues and transfer sheets, but not sure how reliable a claim that is.

If true, that makes it a lot better.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Current SM Codex Cost: £30

To get the same rules you'll now need to spend £130.

Except they won't be the same rules. I don't even know how you can imply that they'll be the same rules.

I mean, do you think that the White Scar book is just going to have one Chapter Tactic, one Relic, one Warlord Trait and one Stratagem?

I mean, we know it already has it's own psychic discipline, which is more than the White Scars got before.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Faction Datacards: $19.25(probably will end up being $20)

Interestingly enough, the WS datacard pack is listed as 10, not 12. So expect some variation there methinks.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:
Mega yikes on the character model costs though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Mind copy/pasting? Some are workblocked from B&C.

All in pounds:

Khan / Tiggy - 25
Primary Codex - 25
Supplement Codex - 17.50
Dice Packs - 20
Datacards - 10
Smurf Datacards - 12
Upgrade Kit - 15

Current SM Codex Cost: £30

To get the same rules you'll now need to spend £130. GW Clearly knows a good milking cow when they see one! Having to pay £42.50 to be able to play your Ultramarines army when everyone else only has to pay £25 is going to piss a lot of people off.

They said you could still play those first Founding Chapters without supplement, right? That’s what the those chapter tactics were for. You just wouldn’t be using characters and the extra options in the supplement.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Faction Datacards: $19.25(probably will end up being $20)

Interestingly enough, the WS datacard pack is listed as 10, not 12. So expect some variation there methinks.

That is kinda interesting. The datacard sets are supposed to be the same in terms of count so the price discrepancy is odd.

Did we get prices on the LE Supplements?

Do we have page counts for any of the books?

We’ve reached the most fascinating and predictable part of the Codex Space Marines discussion, where we argue whether the rules or lore support multiple books for the different “big” Chapters, the Ultramarines, the Dark Angels, the Space Wolves, and the Blood Angels.

Which is only fitting as 2019 marks the 25th anniversary of the first Codex released for Warhammer 40,000, Space Wolves.

But it is also silly, as the company makes these decisions on the basis of a consistent business case. Not whether it makes “sense” to shove 4 of their best sellers into a single release window for reasons of “fairness” or “faction balance.”

Space Marines sell more. The other bigs are reliable sellers on their own. Furthermore, because of the design similarities, other Chapters also require less work per release than, say, the Orks or Necrons.

Of course, Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, Eldar, Tau, Guard...those armies need some new models. But McDonalds isn’t getting rid of Big Macs so they can try and sell more Filet-O-Fish. Dance with who brung ya.

 dienekes96 wrote:
We’ve reached the most fascinating and predictable part of the Codex Space Marines discussion, where we argue whether the rules or lore support multiple books for the different “big” Chapters, the Ultramarines, the Dark Angels, the Space Wolves, and the Blood Angels.

Which is only fitting as 2019 marks the 25th anniversary of the first Codex released for Warhammer 40,000, Space Wolves.

But it is also silly, as the company makes these decisions on the basis of a consistent business case. Not whether it makes “sense” to shove 4 of their best sellers into a single release window for reasons of “fairness” or “faction balance.”

Space Marines sell more. The other bigs are reliable sellers on their own. Furthermore, because of the design similarities, other Chapters also require less work per release than, say, the Orks or Necrons.

Of course, Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, Eldar, Tau, Guard...those armies need some new models. But McDonalds isn’t getting rid of Big Macs so they can try and sell more Filet-O-Fish. Dance with who brung ya.

Another thing, whether a chapter should deserve a book or supplement depends on how GW wants to flesh out books. All of these supplements have their own psychic discipline and stratagems.

Sterling191 wrote:
Per posts on BnC the upgrade kit is supposedly packing two sprues and transfer sheets, but not sure how reliable a claim that is.

It says 2 sprues, 2 transfer sheets on the front of the pack. Check the picture on the community site.

BaconCatBug wrote:Saying "You can just use Death Company models as an Assault Squad" entirely misses the point that the Death Company are not Assault Squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Peeps need to chill, nobody has said people shouldn't get white scars armies with lots of bikes, or blood angels with jump packs.

An understandable concern is a player who paints rainbow marines and uses them as the best subfaction for 3 months, then when newer, better, marine subfactions come out, suddenly they use those rules for 3 months etc.

Having a custom chapter with custom fluff = consistency, using 5 different codex with the same models to game the system isn't right.

You mean that thing people have been doing since forever? What people do with their army is none of your concern.

It is if I'm sat opposite them, my options are - have a civil chat and game and agree what rules are in use, or decide they're just trying to spam ultra efficient lists and screw any sense of continuity or fluff then not play them. It's a personal choice and I would always advocate the first option.

Mandragola wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Peeps need to chill, nobody has said people shouldn't get white scars armies with lots of bikes, or blood angels with jump packs.

An understandable concern is a player who paints rainbow marines and uses them as the best subfaction for 3 months, then when newer, better, marine subfactions come out, suddenly they use those rules for 3 months etc.

Having a custom chapter with custom fluff = consistency, using 5 different codex with the same models to game the system isn't right.

I’m baffled by this complaint. If I play a guy at a tournament and he’s got a wysiwyg blood angels army, what the hell do I care if he played them as dark angels three months ago? What difference does it make to me? So long as his sanguinary guard aren’t being represented by deathwing terminators or something, all is good.

This is just a complete non-issue, which is why no tournament has ever ruled out homebrew marines, or homebrew anything else.

It's not tourney related, which is why you're baffled by it. I'm not talking about a big organised event, just when a guy in your local groups has the same army representing 4-5 sets of rules just to optimise 1 unit. It's hard to track against game to game and can be seen as overly gaming the system, stripping some of the story out of the games.

Dudeface wrote:


It's not tourney related, which is why you're baffled by it. I'm not talking about a big organised event, just when a guy in your local groups has the same army representing 4-5 sets of rules just to optimise 1 unit. It's hard to track against game to game and can be seen as overly gaming the system, stripping some of the story out of the games.

On what planet are you letting someone take four or five chapter tactics?

What GW has been doing with SW/DA/BA and now with those supplement codexes is the result of a strategy that touch all factions (cult with the tyranids, ynnari with eldari, thousand sons and death guard for CSM, knights, custodes for the imperium).
I think the idea that GW overall focus too much on space marine and should use more ressources to develop xenos factions is a valid critic, and has been a valid critic for a long time (even if SM are always a commercial success) but the idea that the core of the problem is that GW has been giving too much to SW/DA/BA and not to other chapter just comes off as a salty comment coming from people that are discontent with the fact that their own chapter has been giving less toys that those three.

Sterling191 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


It's not tourney related, which is why you're baffled by it. I'm not talking about a big organised event, just when a guy in your local groups has the same army representing 4-5 sets of rules just to optimise 1 unit. It's hard to track against game to game and can be seen as overly gaming the system, stripping some of the story out of the games.

On what planet are you letting someone take four or five chapter tactics?

Jeez, not all at once, say over the course of 10 games.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

What did you expect?

Not a 40% price increase over most existing (and already overpriced) clampack boyos.

They're not selling a ton of Khan at any price. White Scars players are pretty thin on the ground - maybe getting their own Codex will change that, but most folks take a hard pass at all white armies. This is one case where I think GW will take a long while to recoup mold costs.

Tiggy, OTOH, should sell well enough. Ultrasmurfs are common as many Xenos races.

Dudeface wrote:


Jeez, not all at once, say over the course of 10 games.

So a player playing difference forces, using different playstyles, over different games, utilizing different chapter tactics to do so is now problematic?

This is literally the situation that the ruleset is designed to encourage, and you're gaking on it. Well done.

Sterling191 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Jeez, not all at once, say over the course of 10 games.

So a player playing difference forces, using different playstyles, over different games, utilizing different chapter tactics to do so is now problematic?

This is literally the situation that the ruleset is designed to encourage, and you're gaking on it. Well done.

Day 1, my sons of Uranus live fighting in close confines and duel orks, they get ccw on tac marines for their traits since your army is weak against melee.

Day 2, my sons of Uranus had close combat and have specialist ranged training with extra ap on their bolters because you're weak to shooting.

Same models both games. But you encourage that?

Have we gotten any confirmation that any Successor Chapter will get its own supplement (looking a BT & CF). I thought I read that each supplement will contain 1 First founding chapter AND a few of their successors.
So the Imperial Fist supplement is very likely going to have the rules for BTs & CFs, which I like and hope happens.

It would also be good if this new Codex format plays around with keywords a bit, counting Successor chapters as their 1st founding for special rules.
For example, taking Crimson fists "unlocks" not only their successor trait, but also any Imperial Fists WL traits, relics, stratagems, etc.
This could also mean that Imperial Fists characters would be able to benefit CF/BT units, which would make total sense.

-

Dudeface wrote:


Same models both games. But you encourage that?

Absolutely. Especially since you're trying to pass off different equipment as different chapter tactics, then gak on the latter but making a royal mess of the whole thing.

The fewer barriers to entry you can put between players and a game, the better. And demanding no holds barred "YOU MUST PAINT AND MODEL YOUR MINIS TO EXACTING 41st MILLENIUM REALISM STANDARDS" is a massive barrier to entry.

 Galef wrote:
Have we gotten any confirmation that any Successor Chapter will get its own supplement (looking a BT & CF). I thought I read that each supplement will contain 1 First founding chapter AND a few of their successors.

Right now the only thing we have is this:

Codex: Space Marines enables you to field armies belonging to any Chapter (or even one of your own creation). However, if you seek to take your dedication to the First Founding Chapters (and their successors) to the next level, that’s where the codex supplements come in…

So the Imperial Fist supplement is very likely going to have the rules for BTs & CFs, which I like and hope happens.

It would also be good if this new Codex format plays around with keywords a bit, counting Successor chapters as their 1st founding for special rules.
For example, taking Crimson fists "unlocks" not only their successor trait, but also any Imperial Fists WL traits, relics, stratagems, etc.
This could also mean that Imperial Fists characters would be able to benefit CF/BT units, which would make total sense.
-

I wouldn't expect that to happen frankly. We know they've made a big deal about old characters "crossing the Rubicon Primaris", so I'd expect at least one Primaris character for each Successor book and then some 'generic but unique' character for each faction that uses a generic kit.

Sterling191 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Same models both games. But you encourage that?

Absolutely. Especially since you're trying to pass off different equipment as different chapter tactics, then gak on the latter but making a royal mess of the whole thing.

The fewer barriers to entry you can put between players and a game, the better. And demanding no holds barred "YOU MUST PAINT AND MODEL YOUR MINIS TO EXACTING 41st MILLENIUM REALISM STANDARDS" is a massive barrier to entry.

Chainswords on tactical was a chapter tactic back in an older edition, it's not plucked totally out of thin air. But the issue there isn't how they're painted, it's how someone can list tailor on the fly and change their stuff based on whatever will suit their game on the day. Which is crap when you want any form of narrative for an army.

Dudeface wrote:


Chainswords on tactical was a chapter tactic back in an older edition, it's not plucked totally out of thin air. But the issue there isn't how they're painted, it's how someone can list tailor on the fly and change their stuff based on whatever will suit their game on the day. Which is crap when you want any form of narrative for an army.

Here's the fatal flaw in your logic:

A cohesive narrative isnt necessary for a game to happen. Or an army to happen.

If you want one, work it out with your match partner. Its not incumbent upon the ruleset to enforce.

Sterling191 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Chainswords on tactical was a chapter tactic back in an older edition, it's not plucked totally out of thin air. But the issue there isn't how they're painted, it's how someone can list tailor on the fly and change their stuff based on whatever will suit their game on the day. Which is crap when you want any form of narrative for an army.

Here's the fatal flaw in your logic:

A cohesive narrative isnt necessary for a game to happen. Or an army to happen.

If you want one, work it out with your match partner. Its not incumbent upon the ruleset to enforce.

Which is exactly what I said about 6 posts back, 2 options, talk to them and agree what's reasonable for your games, or opt not to play them if you dont like their mannerisms, but always advocate option 1.

I’m just happy Salamanders are getting a codex of their own.

Now, I’m just waiting for my Beil-Tan, Behemoth and Bork’an Codexes...

It's certainly dubious to change your Chapter Tactics once you know what force your opponent has brought, I would say, but changing beforehand when you choose your list seems fine to me, when some of them are so much better than others, but all cost the same points.

 Stormonu wrote:
I’m just happy Salamanders are getting a codex of their own.

Now, I’m just waiting for my Beil-Tan, Behemoth and Bork’an Codexes...

Reserving judgement until we see how in-depth these new codices are, but if they're substantial I would adore everyone getting the same treatment.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I’m just happy Salamanders are getting a codex of their own.

Now, I’m just waiting for my Beil-Tan, Behemoth and Bork’an Codexes...

Reserving judgement until we see how in-depth these new codices are, but if they're substantial I would adore everyone getting the same treatment.

Relics, Psyker lores, Warlord Traits, and Stratagems...yeah, they seem kinda substantial.

I don't think some factions would benefit from them without being exactly what some claim they are("needless bloat" would, IMO, be a Bork'an or Vior'la Sept book when they're not really known for anything substantially different) but would be perfect for others(Craftworlds are known for specializing and Farsight Enclaves would be a 100% fit here).

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relics, Psyker lores, Warlord Traits, and Stratagems...yeah, they seem kinda substantial.

No disagreement there, I just try to avoid making conclusions based off incomplete data.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relics, Psyker lores, Warlord Traits, and Stratagems...yeah, they seem kinda substantial.

No disagreement there, I just try to avoid making conclusions based off incomplete data.

Frankly, for any of the First Foundings that aren't Ultramarines or related to Imperial Fists? Anything's better than what we have now.

I'm planning on getting the LE version of the Raven Guard book. I'm all in for this concept.

With Space Wolves being the first faction I ever started with I have a soft spot for them. So I am really hoping to see Ragnar get the primaris treatment.