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.

Does anyone know? I’ll be curious to see how much of a taster the indexes are compared to the full blown codex.

Space Marines & Tyranids in Autumn.

It is going to be really interesting to see if they change much from index to codex, in terms of:
- Army rule.
- The index detachment rules.
- The datasheets.

I think somewhere there was a 10% of datasheets will change from index to codex claim by GW? Not 100% on that.

AdMech need some help, but are they too early in the release cycle and have they already sent their bad rules off to the printers?

EightFoldPath wrote:
AdMech need some help, but are they too early in the release cycle and have they already sent their bad rules off to the printers?

GW said every codex will be accompanied by new models, so I'm hoping AdMech get a load of new must buy, OP stuff.

beast_gts wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
AdMech need some help, but are they too early in the release cycle and have they already sent their bad rules off to the printers?

GW said every codex will be accompanied by new models, so I'm hoping AdMech get a load of new must buy, OP stuff.

They've had more model support than some over the last few editions so I'd doubt it.

The first codex (whatever it is) will be such a massive moment. It’ll show whether they’re going to actually introduce wargear points or stick with the terrible PL system.

Will completely determine whether I want to get invested in this edition, or roll my eyes and go back to playing older ones

I thought the new points system was borrowed from AOS and was quite popular. Some wargear options do increase then pints of a models, if you work your war through the new battle forge it shows you when you tick the boxes but kit before that on the data sheets

nemesis464 wrote:
The first codex (whatever it is) will be such a massive moment. It’ll show whether they’re going to actually introduce wargear points or stick with the terrible PL system.

Will completely determine whether I want to get invested in this edition, or roll my eyes and go back to playing older ones

Wargear points seems exceedingly unlikely given the commentary made when they revealed the new points (which would have been well after the Codex was sent to print): https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/06/16/get-all-of-your-points-for-free-with-the-first-munitorum-field-manual-of-new40k/

 Asmodai wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
The first codex (whatever it is) will be such a massive moment. It’ll show whether they’re going to actually introduce wargear points or stick with the terrible PL system.

Will completely determine whether I want to get invested in this edition, or roll my eyes and go back to playing older ones

Wargear points seems exceedingly unlikely given the commentary made when they revealed the new points (which would have been well after the Codex was sent to print): https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/06/16/get-all-of-your-points-for-free-with-the-first-munitorum-field-manual-of-new40k/

Nah the marketing spiel with the release would have been for that release and distinct from the codex rules. Likewise the points for the MFM would have been finalised before the codex points (you'd hope).

Dudeface wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
AdMech need some help, but are they too early in the release cycle and have they already sent their bad rules off to the printers?

GW said every codex will be accompanied by new models, so I'm hoping AdMech get a load of new must buy, OP stuff.

They've had more model support than some over the last few editions so I'd doubt it.

That's by virtue of having been two armies mushed into one.

Frankly, they're going to need it given the massive dump taken on the Rangers and Vanguard.

My question is: when is the last 10th edition codex being released?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
AdMech need some help, but are they too early in the release cycle and have they already sent their bad rules off to the printers?

GW said every codex will be accompanied by new models, so I'm hoping AdMech get a load of new must buy, OP stuff.

They've had more model support than some over the last few editions so I'd doubt it.

That's by virtue of having been two armies mushed into one.

Frankly, they're going to need it given the massive dump taken on the Rangers and Vanguard.

No, not really. The transport, flyers, cavalry. None of that was related to mushing 2 books together where the author told us they intended it to be 1 book from day 1. Altering 1 box of core troops rules does not necessitate a full wave of OP models.nobosy should want OP kits.

Players generally are like that.

Balance is good as long as it applies to others. Own army has to be op.

tneva82 wrote:
Players generally are like that.

Balance is good as long as it applies to others. Own army has to be op.

Source?

shortymcnostrill wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Players generally are like that.

Balance is good as long as it applies to others. Own army has to be op.

Source?

For most people its more that they play only one or a few factions so everything is filtered through that. If their faction loses a lot then it needs beefing up; or other factions need weakening.

They aren't really looking at a vast amounts of data and gameplay info; they aren't balancing based upon trends or competitive results. They aren't even likely fully aware of the skill disparity between them and their opponent(s).

Is their army losing because its underpowered in the rules; because they are using it wrong; because they are a lesser player than their opponent; because their opponents army is mechanically more powerful etc...


So most people argue in favour of their army(ies) because that's what they've invested into.

Dudeface wrote:

No, not really. The transport, flyers, cavalry.

Yes, and?

There was also the multiple additional techpriests, including the one and only named character for the entirety of the Mechanicus

None of that was related to mushing 2 books together where the author told us they intended it to be 1 book from day 1.

Yeah, and if that were truly the case the author did a terrible job of it. There's a reason that Cult players wouldn't shut up about how they "needed" Skitarii to function.

From the way it reads in the Goonhammer interview with him? He was told up front that it was two codices. He just disagrees with it and thinks it should have been one, and extrapolated a big explanation about how White Dwarf is the reason why it was broken into two.

Altering 1 box of core troops rules does not necessitate a full wave of OP models.nobosy should want OP kits.

Okay, cool. Let's drop your core troops down a pip of armor, restrict your loadout options beyond what anyone else had for two editions and do nothing to explain why.

Very excited to see the new Tyranid stuff that's invading the Imperium