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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.

I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.

Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?

Ahhhh whataboutism. Always productive… not. And you know GW won’t do similar anyway. They’ve had plenty of opportunities but seem to prefer making money.

Ahh, the term 'whataboutism'. What better way to avoid the responsibility of responding to critique.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.

I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.

Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?

Battletech probably isn't the best example since its players are basically the trope namer for ignoring advancing plot with the huge chunk of the player base that refuses to play Clan Invasion Era and beyond.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.

I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.

Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?

Ahhhh whataboutism. Always productive… not. And you know GW won’t do similar anyway. They’ve had plenty of opportunities but seem to prefer making money.

Ahh, the term 'whataboutism'. What better way to avoid the responsibility of responding to critique.

There’s no “responsibility” what a risible post. It was an attempted diversion that didn’t warrant discussion. As is your post.

Geifer wrote: Trying an evolving story line may well have been GW's attempt at satisfying a general change in customer perception of what an entertainment product has to offer rather than listening to a specific subset of their customer base. Especially since at the time steadily decreasing profits put economic pressure on them to counter the decline.

Italicized for emphasis.

GW sure is trying to make an attempt, it's just that they're failing to make it coherent within the setting.

It feels like they have zero long-term plan as to who's in what sector at which time. Add on to that the shallowness of the stuff they do put out and it is a very wide pond but kiddie pool depth.

I think that once they start down this road of ever changing everything, they will have gone full-dumbass.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.

I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.

Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?

My guess is they could still have a regular codex. Some fragments of Tau civilisation will survive somewhere. Their lore would just shift from "we got our corner in the galaxy and are expanding" (that's still their thing, isn't it?) into "the Imperium is trying to genocide us, we're now a guerilla army/nomadic civilisation". The army could still work the same in the game. Kinda how the Crimson Fists as an normal army exist even if they just use regular SM rules and don't have a super special codex that's hyper-focused on their situation, all while being rather decimated in the lore.

Of course, in such a campaign GW could technically squat the Tau or any faction that's not selling well enough if they really, really wanted to do that but for the most part even such drastic (lore) measures would stay lore only and they can always include some "escape hatch" lore to keep the army alive and viable instead of shredding all their codex books. The campaign itself could allow for odd armies (in whatever critical predicament they would be at certain points of that crusade against them) and maybe develop a few new units for GW, (campaign specific) special characters, and missions, wargear, rules to sell/give away that then can be included in the regular army list in the next Tau codex or an update to the existing codex. Use such campaigns to generate and funnel attention to underrepresented factions by including them in campaigns with popular factions.

I generally like the idea of multi faction narrative (or competitive) campaigns in different corners of the galaxy but instead of having a big one that occupies six months exclusively with only three factions or so I'd have many of them overlapping all year with accompanying releases of all type (rules, units, anything) for all corresponding factions and just use that as the format to deliver all new releases instead of the "one codex and all its models" model. That way every faction could get a few boxes each year (something for everybody!) and it would feel natural. And if they want to keep their habit of a lot of Marine released then they'd just need to make Marines part of all/most of these campaigns without sacrificing every other faction for their Marine release schedule.

Naturally that would benefit from all the rules being free online so that people can dip into these campaigns and find stuff they like and want to buy instead of gating everything behind a paywall and/or new paper book. People could be lured to grow their armies from odd or specialised small campaign setups into full conventional armies that can be used in everyday battles. A bit like a formalised "a tale of four gamers" system mixed with a Necromunda campaign to bait people with lore, campaigns, new models, and rules into starting a new army. And if somebody already has that army they might only need a few new units to be campaign compatible so it might be a nice way to expand one's army.

That's kinda how I'd find this idea worthwhile. We'll see how GW will implement their campaigns.

If GW is gonna squat anyone it's the Nids, they haven't gotten a single release for 8 years straight, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of new Nids in either the Rumour Engine or the Leaks

Bi annually chapter approved and a constant release of new codexes. I can't keep up with the material anymore. I still have unopened codex's I never used that are outdated.

My genestealer cult soon to be outdated, and my Adeptus Mechanicus, both still in wrap.

I think it is time to downsize my collection and only get the models I want to collect. The game play aspect is getting silly rediculous with books needed.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
If GW is gonna squat anyone it's the Nids, they haven't gotten a single release for 8 years straight, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of new Nids in either the Rumour Engine or the Leaks

There are several unsolved Nid bits in the rumor engine

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.

I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.

Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?

The problem with this approach is that the way BT and 40K games are arranged are fundamentally different to allow for playing Your Dudes at whatever point in the story suits the game. 40K has become a grind of needing to maintain your army according to the most recent publication and having things become invalidated or errata'd or replaced. In BT you and your opponent agree on a point in the timeline and tech level to play a match that fits the armies you want to run, regardless of what the most current iteration of those factions are in the story. I would LOVE for 40K to break the grind cycle and get players into a mindset of being able to use whatever subset of the rules make sense to play the game against the armies the players want to run that day, but that's not the game they've built.

Voss wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
If GW is gonna squat anyone it's the Nids, they haven't gotten a single release for 8 years straight, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of new Nids in either the Rumour Engine or the Leaks

There are several unsolved Nid bits in the rumor engine

Yep. And persistent rumours of KT set inclusion.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.

I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.

Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?

Ahhhh whataboutism. Always productive… not. And you know GW won’t do similar anyway. They’ve had plenty of opportunities but seem to prefer making money.

Ahh, the term 'whataboutism'. What better way to avoid the responsibility of responding to critique.

There’s no “responsibility” what a risible post. It was an attempted diversion that didn’t warrant discussion. As is your post.

No responsibility for any argument you make? Ok, you can roll with that I guess.

"New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army."
"What about cases where it does?"
"Whataboutism screeeeeeee!!"

Non-Primaris Calgar or Tigurius aren't options anymore.
I can't take Necron Pariahs or HQ god-C'tan.
I think excitement for Tau would die down if we learned they were exterminated off, too.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Non-Primaris Calgar or Tigurius aren't options anymore.
I can't take Necron Pariahs or HQ god-C'tan.
I think excitement for Tau would die down if we learned they were exterminated off, too.

Calgar and Tigirius both have Legends rules so if you really want to use them you still can.
Pariahs haven't been in the game since 5th but you could very easily still use the models to represent a unit like Lychgard or Triarch Praetorians. C'tan being out of the HQ slot is very probably due to the fact that they aren't supposed to lead Necron armies, because of the whole post-War in Heaven rebellion thing, it wouldn't exactly make sense for Necrons to have their former masters, now slaves back in control.
Of course, both of these things are completely and utterly different from just removing an entire army from the game, something that hasn't been done since what? The 90's?
But you know that, you just think you're being funny/smart.

Of course, both of these things are completely and utterly different from just removing an entire army from the game, something that hasn't been done since what? The 90's?

Yeah, well... Corsair and R&H players might argue about that.

But also, differences of degree are not 'completely and utterly' different. Just a matter of severity.

Corsair and R&H players were playing a Forge World sublist.

You don't hear the D99 or Elysian players complaining about their stuff, despite being just as different from Codex as those two were.

Voss wrote:
Yeah, well... Corsair and R&H players might argue about that.

Man if only I'd played R&H for like 3 editions and they weren't 90% compatible with both GSC and Guard so you can very easily still use the army you bought.

But also, differences of degree are not 'completely and utterly' different. Just a matter of severity.

So you would agree that something being "completely" different is a high degree of severity yes? Or are you just looking for grammar issues because you can't actually refute my point?

Killing of an army has anything to do with story progression. Even the small tau empire has so many planets they could write dozens of books of tau losing planets and systems before they would even get close to where Crimson Fists were before their primaris reinforcements.

It's fairly realistic to assume that GW will not use story to kill off anything larger than a named character or an unnamed space marine chapter.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
40K has become a grind of needing to maintain your army according to the most recent publication and having things become invalidated or errata'd or replaced.

This statement has nothing to do with settings or narratives. We're not talking rules changes.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Non-Primaris Calgar or Tigurius aren't options anymore.
I can't take Necron Pariahs or HQ god-C'tan.
I think excitement for Tau would die down if we learned they were exterminated off, too.

Calgar and Tigirius both have Legends rules so if you really want to use them you still can.
Pariahs haven't been in the game since 5th but you could very easily still use the models to represent a unit like Lychgard or Triarch Praetorians. C'tan being out of the HQ slot is very probably due to the fact that they aren't supposed to lead Necron armies, because of the whole post-War in Heaven rebellion thing, it wouldn't exactly make sense for Necrons to have their former masters, now slaves back in control.
Of course, both of these things are completely and utterly different from just removing an entire army from the game, something that hasn't been done since what? The 90's?
But you know that, you just think you're being funny/smart.

You're missing the point Gert. Changes in the lore changed faction character and identity, and removed units, meaning I can no longer play Oldcrons with Pariahs and C'tan HQs. It's at the very heart of the discussion. (Also they've heavily downgraded many staple units).

Units in legends are no longer used for matched play. Lore changed Calgar and Tigurius, and the versions I have/want are no longer available for the format I play most. This is literally a case of progressing story changing unit availability.

Squats might have been the 90s buuuttt. . see a little-known game called Warhammer Fantasy. The story progressed and . .

Additionally, many people still see Primaris as the eventual replacement for the TrueMarine line. That's basically ground zero for what we're talking about. I HOPE it isn't the case, but it COULD be.

Ynnari appeared to be threatening something similar.

It can happen and it does happen.

Matched play does not seem like it is designed to be focused on the lore, but more on competition. Narrative play is separate and distinct.

 Insectum7 wrote:

You're missing the point Gert. Changes in the lore changed faction character and identity, and removed units, meaning I can no longer play Oldcrons with Pariahs and C'tan HQs. It's at the very heart of the discussion.

There is a difference between changing some units in an army or changing some of the background and literally removing that faction from the game.

Units in legends are no longer used for matched play. Lore changed Calgar and Tigurius, and the versions I have/want are no longer available for the format I play most. This is literally a case of progressing story changing unit availability.

They have points values therefore they objectively can be used in Matched Play. Have you actually read the Legends PDFs? Here is the actual quote from the actual PDF:

There is literally nothing stopping you at all.

Squats might have been the 90s buuuttt. . see a little-known game called Warhammer Fantasy. The story progressed and . .

And all of the units available to WHFB armies also still all have rules for AoS and have done since the game was released, in fact Narrative Play even used events from the Old World as examples in how to use the system. Or you could just keep playing WHFB because as far as I'm aware, GW didn't break down your door and burn your rulebooks.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

You're missing the point Gert. Changes in the lore changed faction character and identity, and removed units, meaning I can no longer play Oldcrons with Pariahs and C'tan HQs. It's at the very heart of the discussion.

There is a difference between changing some units in an army or changing some of the background and literally removing that faction from the game.

Units in legends are no longer used for matched play. Lore changed Calgar and Tigurius, and the versions I have/want are no longer available for the format I play most. This is literally a case of progressing story changing unit availability.

They have points values therefore they objectively can be used in Matched Play. Have you actually read the Legends PDFs? Here is the actual quote from the actual PDF:

Spoiler:

The rules here can be used in any type of play – open, narrative or matched, and full points are provided to help you balance your forces.
Warhammer Legends will not form part of our ongoing balance review for the wider Warhammer 40,000 game – and we don’t recommend Legends units for competitive tournaments.

There is literally nothing stopping you at all.

Allow me to explain the situation to you, by way of an analogy, because you appear to not understand what the text you quoted means in practice.

Twenty five years ago, I bought one of the original Keeper of Secrets models, painted it and put it on the supplied monster base. A few editions later, and a somewhat (but not too much) taller Keeper of Secrets model came out, and the 40k Keeper of Secrets was now produced with a round base. That original Keeper of Secrets is still pretty playable, and I can get by putting the square monster base on a round base.

Another few editions later, and the huge plastic Keeper of Secrets model is released. About the only way of making the previous two models comparable to the new one is to get a hold of a 100mm round base and build a diorama.

At any point along the line, did GW say "No, you can't use your old model"? No. But the difference between the models still became large enough that they're just not comparable any more, and if you're trying to be fair the models should be.

The same thing happens with Legends. "not part of the ongoing balance review" means that their point values won't get updated. And, being Legends, their data sheets won't get updated to reflect codex changes.

For example... Suppose GW decides that some Chaos Lords are overpowered, and increases their point costs by 20 (noting that you'd have to compare point values between Chapter Approved to know which point values changed, in the first place). If you're trying to use the Legends Chaos Lords, which ones should (because you're trying to be a fair player) increase by 20?

And then suppose that the new CSM codex comes out and 'Death to the False Emperor' gets changed to a different ability or removed. If you're not familiar with the old codex and the new codex, how would you know what changed? Or, for that matter, look at the various previews where weapon profile changes get announced, and think about how many Legends PDFs have those weapon profiles in them. Note: I played through one of GW's "if your codex references a rule we removed, just ignore it" edition changes. If you haven't, I'll just tell you that it's a compete garbage situation that leaves you with randomly unusable models.

That's what the text you quoted means--it's GW saying "We won't fix this model when the rules and points changes change around it." And that's why people don't take "You can still play with Legends models, no one is stopping you" as a serious statement.

 solkan wrote:

The same thing happens with Legends. "not part of the ongoing balance review" means that their point values won't get updated. And, being Legends, their data sheets won't get updated to reflect codex changes.

For example... Suppose GW decides that some Chaos Lords are overpowered, and increases their point costs by 20 (noting that you'd have to compare point values between Chapter Approved to know which point values changed, in the first place). If you're trying to use the Legends Chaos Lords, which ones should (because you're trying to be a fair player) increase by 20?

And then suppose that the new CSM codex comes out and 'Death to the False Emperor' gets changed to a different ability or removed. If you're not familiar with the old codex and the new codex, how would you know what changed? Or, for that matter, look at the various previews where weapon profile changes get announced, and think about how many Legends PDFs have those weapon profiles in them. Note: I played through one of GW's "if your codex references a rule we removed, just ignore it" edition changes. If you haven't, I'll just tell you that it's a compete garbage situation that leaves you with randomly unusable models.

That's what the text you quoted means--it's GW saying "We won't fix this model when the rules and points changes change around it." And that's why people don't take "You can still play with Legends models, no one is stopping you" as a serious statement.

Bad analogy aside, let's go through the process of these complaints:
1 - I can't use my old Named Characters because of background progression so let's get rid of a whole army False, those NCs are in the Legends PDFs, and comparing that to the removal of an entire army is silly.
2 - I can't use my old NCs in Matched Play so let's get rid of a whole army because eventually, the enthusiasm would die down False, the Legends PDFs are 100% usable in all 40k types of play.
3 - I can't use my old NCs because it is 100% balanced to every single new release sigh
You keep moving the argument because you know you're wrong but can't admit it otherwise you'd have to not go hard on the "GW BAD" train for one day out of 365. It's pathetic that you'd rather whine and moan about not getting perfection when you were never going to get it, than just using what you have and enjoy yourselves. Go outside and take in some bloody fresh air for christ's sake and stop being so angry all the damn time.

 Gert wrote:

 solkan wrote:

The same thing happens with Legends. "not part of the ongoing balance review" means that their point values won't get updated. And, being Legends, their data sheets won't get updated to reflect codex changes.

For example... Suppose GW decides that some Chaos Lords are overpowered, and increases their point costs by 20 (noting that you'd have to compare point values between Chapter Approved to know which point values changed, in the first place). If you're trying to use the Legends Chaos Lords, which ones should (because you're trying to be a fair player) increase by 20?

And then suppose that the new CSM codex comes out and 'Death to the False Emperor' gets changed to a different ability or removed. If you're not familiar with the old codex and the new codex, how would you know what changed? Or, for that matter, look at the various previews where weapon profile changes get announced, and think about how many Legends PDFs have those weapon profiles in them. Note: I played through one of GW's "if your codex references a rule we removed, just ignore it" edition changes. If you haven't, I'll just tell you that it's a compete garbage situation that leaves you with randomly unusable models.

That's what the text you quoted means--it's GW saying "We won't fix this model when the rules and points changes change around it." And that's why people don't take "You can still play with Legends models, no one is stopping you" as a serious statement.

Bad analogy aside, let's go through the process of these complaints:
1 - I can't use my old Named Characters because of background progression so let's get rid of a whole army False, those NCs are in the Legends PDFs, and comparing that to the removal of an entire army is silly.
2 - I can't use my old NCs in Matched Play so let's get rid of a whole army because eventually, the enthusiasm would die down False, the Legends PDFs are 100% usable in all 40k types of play.
3 - I can't use my old NCs because it is 100% balanced to every single new release sigh
You keep moving the argument because you know you're wrong but can't admit it otherwise you'd have to not go hard on the "GW BAD" train for one day out of 365. It's pathetic that you'd rather whine and moan about not getting perfection when you were never going to get it, than just using what you have and enjoy yourselves. Go outside and take in some bloody fresh air for christ's sake and stop being so angry all the damn time.

Stop pretending Legends are usable.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 solkan wrote:

The same thing happens with Legends. "not part of the ongoing balance review" means that their point values won't get updated. And, being Legends, their data sheets won't get updated to reflect codex changes.

For example... Suppose GW decides that some Chaos Lords are overpowered, and increases their point costs by 20 (noting that you'd have to compare point values between Chapter Approved to know which point values changed, in the first place). If you're trying to use the Legends Chaos Lords, which ones should (because you're trying to be a fair player) increase by 20?

And then suppose that the new CSM codex comes out and 'Death to the False Emperor' gets changed to a different ability or removed. If you're not familiar with the old codex and the new codex, how would you know what changed? Or, for that matter, look at the various previews where weapon profile changes get announced, and think about how many Legends PDFs have those weapon profiles in them. Note: I played through one of GW's "if your codex references a rule we removed, just ignore it" edition changes. If you haven't, I'll just tell you that it's a compete garbage situation that leaves you with randomly unusable models.

That's what the text you quoted means--it's GW saying "We won't fix this model when the rules and points changes change around it." And that's why people don't take "You can still play with Legends models, no one is stopping you" as a serious statement.

Bad analogy aside, let's go through the process of these complaints:
1 - I can't use my old Named Characters because of background progression so let's get rid of a whole army False, those NCs are in the Legends PDFs, and comparing that to the removal of an entire army is silly.
2 - I can't use my old NCs in Matched Play so let's get rid of a whole army because eventually, the enthusiasm would die down False, the Legends PDFs are 100% usable in all 40k types of play.
3 - I can't use my old NCs because it is 100% balanced to every single new release sigh
You keep moving the argument because you know you're wrong but can't admit it otherwise you'd have to not go hard on the "GW BAD" train for one day out of 365. It's pathetic that you'd rather whine and moan about not getting perfection when you were never going to get it, than just using what you have and enjoy yourselves. Go outside and take in some bloody fresh air for christ's sake and stop being so angry all the damn time.

Stop pretending Legends are usable.

Stop pretending there's only one way to pay the game.

 Gert wrote:

 solkan wrote:

The same thing happens with Legends. "not part of the ongoing balance review" means that their point values won't get updated. And, being Legends, their data sheets won't get updated to reflect codex changes.

For example... Suppose GW decides that some Chaos Lords are overpowered, and increases their point costs by 20 (noting that you'd have to compare point values between Chapter Approved to know which point values changed, in the first place). If you're trying to use the Legends Chaos Lords, which ones should (because you're trying to be a fair player) increase by 20?

And then suppose that the new CSM codex comes out and 'Death to the False Emperor' gets changed to a different ability or removed. If you're not familiar with the old codex and the new codex, how would you know what changed? Or, for that matter, look at the various previews where weapon profile changes get announced, and think about how many Legends PDFs have those weapon profiles in them. Note: I played through one of GW's "if your codex references a rule we removed, just ignore it" edition changes. If you haven't, I'll just tell you that it's a compete garbage situation that leaves you with randomly unusable models.

That's what the text you quoted means--it's GW saying "We won't fix this model when the rules and points changes change around it." And that's why people don't take "You can still play with Legends models, no one is stopping you" as a serious statement.

Bad analogy aside, let's go through the process of these complaints:
1 - I can't use my old Named Characters because of background progression so let's get rid of a whole army False, those NCs are in the Legends PDFs, and comparing that to the removal of an entire army is silly.
2 - I can't use my old NCs in Matched Play so let's get rid of a whole army because eventually, the enthusiasm would die down False, the Legends PDFs are 100% usable in all 40k types of play.
3 - I can't use my old NCs because it is 100% balanced to every single new release sigh
You keep moving the argument because you know you're wrong but can't admit it otherwise you'd have to not go hard on the "GW BAD" train for one day out of 365. It's pathetic that you'd rather whine and moan about not getting perfection when you were never going to get it, than just using what you have and enjoy yourselves. Go outside and take in some bloody fresh air for christ's sake and stop being so angry all the damn time.

He is at least somewhat right though - legends not being updated will eventually break those datasheets as new codices are released, and not every discontinued model does get legends entries.
Both things are already happing for orks.

That said, neither has anything to do with progressing the narrative. I'm fairly sure that there are a few dead names characters who continue to appear in every codex.

A player does not need anything from GW to use models/heroes that are not in the updated books

You can still play Index Army lists if you want, they have rules, points, and just need minor adjustments to fit 9th core rules

Yet, just going into a shop, put the army on the table and expect to have a pick up game within minutes won't be possible

So of course there are more ways to play, and if you play at home with friends, you don't care about anything GW releases
But if you only play pick up games in shops/clubs or events (because there is no club/shop around), it is very different

And with the main advantage of 40k, over other games being that it is easy to find someone to play with, the edge cases of "I don't need this because I play with 2 friends in the basement" is irrelevant, is in this case you can still play 5th

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/01/10/the-tau-empire-leads-the-charge-as-five-combat-patrols-prepare-to-land/

"If all that T’au tech fails to tickle you, don’t worry – over the next few months, more new Combat Patrols are coming to Warhammer 40,000, for Grey Knights, Thousand Sons, Genestealer Cults, and Adeptus Custodes."

Edit: if no mods object I'm just going to use this thread as a catch-all for any random 40k releases & updates outside of codexes, such as these combat patrols

Yo! That GSC box is incredible! Ah man… I need to save for the new Eldar but… that is a great box to start GSC too. Oof, 2022 starts off with an expensive bang.

Thousand Sons make up literally less than a quarter of their own Combat Patrol.

Absolutely laughable.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Thousand Sons make up literally less than a quarter of their own Combat Patrol.

Absolutely laughable.

True, but I like Tzaangors so it's great for me!

And maybe just me.