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.

My partner has finally admitted that she wants to start up 40k, and is eyeing up Necrons or Daemons as her first army. I have a somewhat dated necron army I collected from their start through to 6th/7th edition, which I want to gift her to start her army off. But I don't have an up to date codex.

I expect that the new books won't be too far off, but I'm happy to get the current 'dex provided it's not due for replacement in the next couple of months! Does anyone have any rumors or info on this?

Cheers!

Necron book in Oct.

Yeah, Necrons will get a new codex soon. October is a solid bet.

Daemons? They surely need it, but nobody knows.

Necrons are in the Indomitus starter set, so I imagine they’ll get a dex roughly the same time as Space Marines.

GW has already confirmed that a new Necron Codex is coming in October. It's likely to come along with a slew of other releases as well - new heavy destroyer, new large walker; new monolith; new terrain; the silent king and the void dragon shard. Loads of preview photos on the GW Community website

Now is a great time to start Necrons there are loads of split halves of Indomitus around on ebay and in trade groups. You can get a chunk of new models for between £50 (very low end) to £70 (higher end of sane pricing at present) - note on ebay do look at the postage, some are very cheeky with it!

If you collect marines there's still copies of the boxed set itself around.

Necrons and Space Marines are confirmed for Oktober.

Considering how we have seen death guard, drukhari, sisters and ork models previewed, it's a good bet that next codices will be among those.

sweet, thanks for the feedback guys! I'll suggest that we focus on the models & paint first and then start the games when the codex drops!

 Jidmah wrote:
Necrons and Space Marines are confirmed for Oktober.

Considering how we have seen death guard, drukhari, sisters and ork models previewed, it's a good bet that next codices will be among those.

I would not be holding out for sisters. They aren't exactly known for getting codexes frequently and haven't been out that long.

For starting necrons only issue is if you want to buy stuff NOW there's not much you can get besides indominatus box contents...So even small games for now would be hard due to complete lack of AT. Then again not sure are daemons any better now...

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Necrons and Space Marines are confirmed for Oktober.

Considering how we have seen death guard, drukhari, sisters and ork models previewed, it's a good bet that next codices will be among those.

I would not be holding out for sisters. They aren't exactly known for getting codexes frequently and haven't been out that long.

For starting necrons only issue is if you want to buy stuff NOW there's not much you can get besides indominatus box contents...So even small games for now would be hard due to complete lack of AT. Then again not sure are daemons any better now...

He has some necrons already. And the Indomitus Box might be good for the new units/models, and the BRB big rule book. Needing any models right now would make it hard. I think the only think for marines not sold out are scout bikes.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Necrons and Space Marines are confirmed for Oktober.

Considering how we have seen death guard, drukhari, sisters and ork models previewed, it's a good bet that next codices will be among those.

I would not be holding out for sisters. They aren't exactly known for getting codexes frequently and haven't been out that long.

For starting necrons only issue is if you want to buy stuff NOW there's not much you can get besides indominatus box contents...So even small games for now would be hard due to complete lack of AT. Then again not sure are daemons any better now...

The sisters just got their codex. GW said that everything going back to CSM 2.0 (excluding Marine 2.0) was written for 9th edition. Marine 2.0 is being replaced because of a metric feth ton of new models and units. I would expect to see Eldar, Guard, Tyranids and the earliest codexes from 2017 getting 2.0s first. Alongside Marines and Necrons.

That "made with 9th ed in mind" is just marketing speak. Sisters have special rule that was made 100% useless in 9th ed. One of their orders had 2/3 of it's bonuses neutered by 9th ed and one stratagem got 100% useless(your warlord dies, spend 1CP, get d3 back except you are limited to 1 so you get only 1 back. So you gain exactly NOTHING. Well you pay nothing as well...).

Oh and whole sacred rites is stupid concept for 9th ed. That's 8th ed codex paragrim. For 9th it's unneeded sillyness.

"Made with 9th in Mind" doesn't mean made in a way that ignores 8th and lines up perfectly with 9th. It's not like you can't see 9th Edition in some of those things you say are made invalid.

The only reason I think Sisters might see an early codex is GW's recent PR about wanting to showcase more female characters to make the hobby more inclusive, because that is by far the most obvious way for them to do that.

 Togusa wrote:

Spoiler:

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Necrons and Space Marines are confirmed for Oktober.

Considering how we have seen death guard, drukhari, sisters and ork models previewed, it's a good bet that next codices will be among those.

I would not be holding out for sisters. They aren't exactly known for getting codexes frequently and haven't been out that long.

For starting necrons only issue is if you want to buy stuff NOW there's not much you can get besides indominatus box contents...So even small games for now would be hard due to complete lack of AT. Then again not sure are daemons any better now...

The sisters just got their codex. GW said that everything going back to CSM 2.0 (excluding Marine 2.0) was written for 9th edition. Marine 2.0 is being replaced because of a metric feth ton of new models and units. I would expect to see Eldar, Guard, Tyranids and the earliest codexes from 2017 getting 2.0s first. Alongside Marines and Necrons.

"CSM 2.0 was written for 9th edition".

The daemon codex is absurdly out of date and needs to be changed out soon. I understand why SM and necrons are getting theirs first, but I hope the other ones come out quickly after that.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
The daemon codex is absurdly out of date and needs to be changed out soon. I understand why SM and necrons are getting theirs first, but I hope the other ones come out quickly after that.

Daemons and AdMech, alongside SM and Necrons, will need new books just due to volume of new releases since their 1.0 book came out.

In the case of other factions, we can only hope that a 2.0 book is the cause for a solid number of releases...

 alextroy wrote:
"Made with 9th in Mind" doesn't mean made in a way that ignores 8th and lines up perfectly with 9th. It's not like you can't see 9th Edition in some of those things you say are made invalid.

If they had made those books 9th ed in mind they could easily have made books for 8th and 9th so that only points need changing. But that would require modicrum of talent rather than just willingness to shout waaaaagh during job interview.

It's just marketing speak. Gw doesn't have enough talent to do such long term writing as you imply they did. They just do now without thinking about how it interacts in future.

Ad mech got in april　release new ability that became useless in 9th core rules. April. With 9th　ed around the corner. Even at best of case they would enjoy new rule few months and then...useless.

Really? I'd like to see your super intelligent way to make these three changes in the Adepta Sororitas Codex make sense for both 8th and 9th Edition. No credit for giving away the 9th Edition rules 6 months before the announcement of the edition.

*Page 92 – Mortifiers, Abilities, Blaze of Agony
Change to read:
‘When you choose this unit to shoot with in your Shooting phase, you can choose for heavy bolters that models in this unit are equipped with to have a Type characteristic of Assault 3 until the end of that phase.’

*Page 95 – Battle Sanctum, Abilities, Adeptus Ministorum Structure
Change to read:
‘After this model is set up, it becomes an Area Terrain feature with the following terrain traits: Breachable; Heavy Cover; Light Cover; Scalable (see the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book).’

*Page 101 – Devout Serenity, rules text
Change the first sentence to read:
‘Each time a Combat Attrition test is taken for this unit, it is automatically passed’

1) Works in both 8th and 9th
2) this terrain is a ruin for all intents and purposes
3) You can never lose more than one model during the moral phase.

 Jidmah wrote:
1) Works in both 8th and 9th
2) this terrain is a ruin for all intents and purposes
3) You can never lose more than one model during the moral phase.

Ruins are obscuring and this is not.

Other ones are fine though I wouldn't doubt some people would be confused by the inconsistent wording with the rest of the game and so FAQing it to be in line makes the rules cohesive.

Also, 3 fails due to there being no "moral" phase in the game in either edition.

 Jidmah wrote:
1) Works in both 8th and 9th
2) this terrain is a ruin for all intents and purposes
3) You can never lose more than one model during the moral phase.

So it was made with 9th Edition in mind. Imagine that?

Well, except for the Battle Sanctum not be Obscuring and the clarification of how exactly only losing one model from Morale works between the Morale check and the Combat Attrition check.

I guess GW did it the best way possible after all.

 alextroy wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
1) Works in both 8th and 9th
2) this terrain is a ruin for all intents and purposes
3) You can never lose more than one model during the moral phase.

So it was made with 9th Edition in mind. Imagine that?

Well, except for the Battle Sanctum not be Obscuring

As a matter of fact, the battle sanctum is a ruin plus a statue. Somehow the ruin lost the ability to obscure a morkanaut when a statue was added to it. You are under the false assumption that randomly adding keywords to all faction terrain rather than making a ruin a ruin was the best course of action.

and the clarification of how exactly only losing one model from Morale works between the Morale check and the Combat Attrition check.

That's why I wrote "moral phase". It includes both.

I guess GW did it the best way possible after all.

Wait, which side are you arguing for? Are you seriously claiming that PA was written in the best possible way for 9th when dozens of rules in The Greater Good, Saga of the Beast, Engine War and War of the Spider became obsolete, non-functional or suffer from unintended interactions within half a year of their release despite GW issuing errata for all of them?

 Jidmah wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
1) Works in both 8th and 9th
2) this terrain is a ruin for all intents and purposes
3) You can never lose more than one model during the moral phase.

So it was made with 9th Edition in mind. Imagine that?

Well, except for the Battle Sanctum not be Obscuring

As a matter of fact, the battle sanctum is a ruin plus a statue. Somehow the ruin lost the ability to obscure a morkanaut when a statue was added to it. You are under the false assumption that randomly adding keywords to all faction terrain rather than making a ruin a ruin was the best course of action.

Except for the ways it isn’t. I’m going on the assumption that the rules GW assigned to it make it worth the points value they assigned to it in their mind. Apparently that doesn’t include allowing the player to add a Obscuring terrain piece to the table as part of their army.

and the clarification of how exactly only losing one model from Morale works between the Morale check and the Combat Attrition check.

That's why I wrote "moral phase". It includes both.

But the errata prevents any misunderstandings. It is a good update to the rule.

I guess GW did it the best way possible after all.

Wait, which side are you arguing for? Are you seriously claiming that PA was written in the best possible way for 9th when dozens of rules in The Greater Good, Saga of the Beast, Engine War and War of the Spider became obsolete, non-functional or suffer from unintended interactions within half a year of their release despite GW issuing errata for all of them?

I didn’t say anything about the effectiveness of PA, not that I’ve noticed anything particularly horrible about them and the move to 9th. There are other than leaving out entirely things that became redundant, they seem to have done as good a job as they could.

All, lets play nice please, thanks!