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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Arks of Omen aren't really lending themselves to the actual releases we're seeing. Rough Riders, Rogal Dorn, artillery, etc all can't be used there...

It's.... Almost like these are two separate products. Designed with different goals in mind.
One is your standard issue Codex revamp to the current edition. Designed for regular daily/tourney use. The thing you've all been screaming for since July of 2020.
The other? Is end-of-the-edition filler garbage designed to part the marks from their cash one last time. If you can have some fun with it? More power to you.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bikers remains to be seen. Arks of Omen aren't really lending themselves to the actual releases we're seeing. Rough Riders, Rogal Dorn, artillery, etc all can't be used there...

I wouldn't be shocked if the final Gallowdark box is tied to the hulk making planetfall.

Gee. It's as if some were released for codex and other is book series for optional way to play. Look at that.

Next you are wondering how lumineth elves don't fit with chaos space marine book.

 Gert wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Rough Riders, Rogal Dorn, artillery, etc all can't be used there...

Only cowards don't use cavalry on boarding actions.

I'll have to track it down but there's a (very) old bit of Space Fleet art showing a mounted unit parading through the vaults of a starship.

Seeing all the open space in space ships in art it's hardly surprise. While space hulk made claustrophobic tunnels famous it's hardly only type of area space ships have in 40k.

tneva82 wrote:
Seeing all the open space in space ships in art it's hardly surprise. While space hulk made claustrophobic tunnels famous it's hardly only type of area space ships have in 40k.

The Ark Mechanicus in the Mars trilogy was big enough for a Cadian armoured company to drive around inside.

Jarms48 wrote:

 crumby_cataphract wrote:

This would violate the "No power armour, no subfaction codex" policy.

l could see GW doing a Catachan Killteam box. Then updating the codex Catachan Infantry datasheet. Maybe even a Tanith one.

There's two catachan dueling glaives we've seen in the rumour engine too. That's almost certainly Kill team, but whether it's Catachans or an inquisitorial retinue remains to be seen.

beast_gts wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Seeing all the open space in space ships in art it's hardly surprise. While space hulk made claustrophobic tunnels famous it's hardly only type of area space ships have in 40k.

The Ark Mechanicus in the Mars trilogy was big enough for a Cadian armoured company to drive around inside.

Yep.

Frankly the scale 40k plays out ANY board could be considered to be inside a space ship Likely even forest field...

But small narrow pathways does make interesting change for regular games so makes sense to market that as boarding action. Different game modes for different dynamics is great. Of course not that it needs to be space ship. Similar board could be used to represent clearing out level in skyscraper of our world as is...

I figure most “boarding actions” are deliberately done away from main thoroughfares and probable defensive points anyway. Not likely that the enemy will oblige you by leaving the main cargo doors open and give you time to transfer across a whole company’s worth of anything without resistance at least…

 Mr_Rose wrote:
I figure most “boarding actions” are deliberately done away from main thoroughfares and probable defensive points anyway. Not likely that the enemy will oblige you by leaving the main cargo doors open and give you time to transfer across a whole company’s worth of anything without resistance at least…

I think its useful to think about 40k ships of that size more like cities or small countries. A boarding action on something of that size is not necessarily going to be a single thing.

First its raiding parties to recon the ship and find useful entry points. Then, its targeted assaults to gain control of main control nodes and force some potential bridgeheads. Only then can you commit to dropping company sized or bigger formations into the ship, when you're reasonably sure its not likely to jump away, or that the spaces the troops are in will be opened to hard vacuum or otherwise messed up by environmental systems.

All of this will take quite a lot of time, and you'd want to be sure its not likely to wander off while the boarding operations are underway.

Found it!

It's just a detail, about 1/3 of the way in near the bottom, 2 horses just trotting on a bridge on a starship, in space.

I like the fighter jet, and, in the way distance, the knight wardens.

There's Warlord and Warhound titans to the lower right as well, I think those horses might be statues

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Found it!

It's just a detail, about 1/3 of the way in near the bottom, 2 horses just trotting on a bridge on a starship, in space.

I miss this sort of artwork.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Found it!

It's just a detail, about 1/3 of the way in near the bottom, 2 horses just trotting on a bridge on a starship, in space.

Take a closer look, you can see tiny people walking on the bridge under the horses. They're gigantic statues.

... which, in and of itself is pretty obvious proof that horses can fit on this ship.

For me the best part is that one guy in the turbolift looking at the route map (which is far to small and high up unless you’re wearing a Knight suit) all like “where the hell am I now? Is this even the same ship?”

So, looking at the codex, the Ogryn Bodyguard and Nork don't have the -1 damage that the regular Ogryn and Bullgryn have. That is a pity.

Well one fun thing that one can do with a Ogryn Bodyguard is to ressurect them using the Battlefield Surgery strategem.

Dirk Reinecke wrote:
So, looking at the codex, the Ogryn Bodyguard and Nork don't have the -1 damage that the regular Ogryn and Bullgryn have. That is a pity.

Do you think that's intentional(ly inconsistent) or something they forgot about?

Gotta keep up that Chaos......errrrr, Guardsistency.

Looking at the Cadian shock troop data sheet, it does look like you can take double specials. I might be misreading it but that’s an interesting option.

 Polonius wrote:
Looking at the Cadian shock troop data sheet, it does look like you can take double specials. I might be misreading it but that’s an interesting option.

Word on the street is 2 specials but they can't be the same, yes?

 ph34r wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Looking at the Cadian shock troop data sheet, it does look like you can take double specials. I might be misreading it but that’s an interesting option.

Word on the street is 2 specials but they can't be the same, yes?

Chances are some of them will be the same and others won't be. Total coin flip.

I tell you the Command Squad entries are a frickin' nightmare. Not quite Plague Marine levels of total bull gak, but getting there.

Who sets out to write rules in such an obtuse manner?

The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.

Swastakowey wrote:
The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.

Sometimes as many as three *** for all this.

Again, who sets out to write rules in such a needlessly complicated and restrictive manner? What purpose does it serve? What goal is it attempting to reach?

I dont buy the codex because not only are they near impossible to actually use, they also are invalidated so quickly. I also fee like they're trying desperately to get me to use Power. So why buy it? Waste of resources to produce.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Again, who sets out to write rules in such a needlessly complicated and restrictive manner? What purpose does it serve? What goal is it attempting to reach?

I think it's because they want people to accidentally get it wrong and then they have to buy more models than initially intended to fix that mistake. But I've been accused of having an unreasonably rose-tinted view of corporate ethics before. But they absolutely have the means and capacity to do better - many of their books are edited in a manner that suggests the presence of professional technical writers on staff (I myself, a professional technical writer, feel comfortable in positing this).

by now I am sure this all is a big joke
40k has always been a satirical/sarcastic project and now the designers just write the rules that way to see how long it takes people to get the joke and/or how far they can go until people realise it

if there are designers at all, could as well be an AI written book, saves a lot of money and no one cares about the quality of rules anyway

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:
The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.

Sometimes as many as three *** for all this.

Again, who sets out to write rules in such a needlessly complicated and restrictive manner? What purpose does it serve? What goal is it attempting to reach?

It has a ton of advantages. One is that you can fill much more page space without having to do more creative work (these unit entries are enormous). But there also is the additional advantage that you can put all the decisions made for the sprue directly into the rules.

And no, I'm not a fan at all. I like things to be simple, not needlessly complex. Complex rules have a place but only if they serve a real purpose and not if they serve to just be there. And I also don't like how these rules look. It just feels very messy.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:
The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.

Sometimes as many as three *** for all this.

Again, who sets out to write rules in such a needlessly complicated and restrictive manner? What purpose does it serve? What goal is it attempting to reach?

It's most likely not the writer's choice but imposed corporate policy. Being publicly humiliated by the chapterhouse lawsuit puts the boards position at risk if shareholders deem them not up to the task of running the company, NMNR is a simple way of trying to remove a reason to buy 3rd party stuff without using legal teams - same goal as the chapterhouse lawsuit but different method. They somehow seem oblivious though to deleting rules = deleting reasons to buy GW products too.

Doesn't seem to be hurting them seeing they are struggling to meet the demand...

You can't sell what you don't have.

It's almost hysterically funny how so many things that I despise about GW these days can be directly traced back to Chapterhouse Studios and their lawsuit. For mere purveyors of aftermarket Rhino doors and Stormraven hull extension kits, they left a mark on the game vastly out of proportion to their talents. One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.