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.

Jake, I'd raise the white flag on this one as soon as you can - you're clearly out of your depth (and the CGL webstore is definitely missing products at present).

This discussion of the number of Battletech Units vs the number of Imperial Guard units is SO VERY INTERESTING, so I STRONGLY RECOMMEND, it be moved to its own thread and dropped from here.

Mod edit - removed.

Some updates are up in the warcom downloads section, grotmas FAQ stuff and the day 1 patch for Imperial Guard (points, Death Korp sergeant boltgun, some minor wording updates). Biggest change of note is both the index points and codex points are listed on the new MFM, the codex version has had the Forge World points values almost entirely deleted (2 units remain). No legends updates yet so wait and see on that.

Worth adding that Starshatter has recieved a fair nerf, with two strats going to 2CP and the reactive move changing from flat 6" to D6"

 Insularum wrote:
Some updates are up in the warcom downloads section, grotmas FAQ stuff and the day 1 patch for Imperial Guard (points, Death Korp sergeant boltgun, some minor wording updates). Biggest change of note is both the index points and codex points are listed on the new MFM, the codex version has had the Forge World points values almost entirely deleted (2 units remain). No legends updates yet so wait and see on that.

I'm curious to find out the logic for the Avenger Strike Fighter and Cyclops Demo Vehicle being the survivors of the purge. Extra stock? Future plastic releases? Champion for them in the studio?

The Avenger has only just had a book out focused on an Avenger squadron, and I've always been surprised at the love for the old cyclops.

That said, Death Korp engineers and a Cyclops in a Chimera will kick out a hell of a lot of mortal wounds in one turn.

Scions getting deep strike back again is a big one.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Insularum wrote:
Some updates are up in the warcom downloads section, grotmas FAQ stuff and the day 1 patch for Imperial Guard (points, Death Korp sergeant boltgun, some minor wording updates). Biggest change of note is both the index points and codex points are listed on the new MFM, the codex version has had the Forge World points values almost entirely deleted (2 units remain). No legends updates yet so wait and see on that.

I'm curious to find out the logic for the Avenger Strike Fighter and Cyclops Demo Vehicle being the survivors of the purge. Extra stock? Future plastic releases? Champion for them in the studio?

I’d guess future plastic releases for Horus Heresy.

The Avenger is currently a Legacies choice for HH and only for the Legiones Astartes.

I'd just chalk it up to weird decisions from whoever makes the cuts.

 Gert wrote:

I'd just chalk it up to weird decisions from whoever makes the cuts.

And as the past has shown even if you do get rules in an edition for a FW model that doesn't stop them randomly removing it mid-season.

Bit of a stretch, but it could be due to Interceptor City? The special edition features an extra flight journal or somesuch dedicated to the Avenger.

 Gert wrote:
The Avenger is currently a Legacies choice for HH and only for the Legiones Astartes.

I'd just chalk it up to weird decisions from whoever makes the cuts.

The Cyclops is a regular choice for Solar Auxilia though.

Proves my point that there isn't any logic behind it.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I keep hearing the no models, no rules arguments. Is it safe to assume that of no model exists for a unit (or has ever existed, ever) that it will probably be removed for the next codex?

For example the Grey Knight Techmarine.

I'd expect the GK Techmarine to remain in the GK Codex, because it is just a silver-painted Techmarine... possibly with a blue-painted force/power axe.

It's why the Techmarine is/was the only model in the Grey Knights army which can carry a regular bolter rather than storm bolter, because the generic model has one.

Similar to GK Chaplains, Stormravens, Land Raiders, Rhinos etc. If a generic SM model is discontinued, I'd expect that to be removed from the GK roster. Otherwise I'd expect them to leave it in.

Thoughts and hopes for the preview? Not on here but in other online holes there's a constant "the Emperor's Children box will be revealed and/or go up for preorder this week!!!" Since December. It's tiring. I was lucius and that's it for them. Bring on the knight previews so we know what is actually coming out for the next 3 months.

 Patriarch wrote:
It's why the Techmarine is/was the only model in the Grey Knights army which can carry a regular bolter rather than storm bolter, because the generic model has one.

Funnily enough, not the only one - GK librarian is the only GK model that can replace its storm bolter for combi-weapon (which is just bolter plus attachment). Why? Because GW used SM librarian in terminator armor in GK army box as they lacked any plastic characters back then, so they just copy pasted SM librarian in TDA rules into GK book. Not noticing the model itself has only storm bolter bit, and it had combi-weapon option in SM rules because different model, Blood Angels librarian in TDA, was armed with combi-melta. SM players were expected to use both, but only the generic one fit GK look yet it got options of both (and combi-plasma as a bonus, despite there never being TDA model with one, but not combi-flamer or grav or anything else, because CONSISTENCY!)

To make it even sillier, you could replace storm bolter with nothing, because model had optional hand in spell casting pose instead of a gun. Same as primaris sergeant, who has option to disarm himself almost completely due to empty/auspex hand options, because clown writing rules really expected people to replace free, good wargear on their army sheets with air for some reason, even though said models have pouches/holsters/scabbards for 'missing' stuff good enough for even most anal wysiwyggers. Logic!

ccs wrote:
Meanwhile, over in HH.... There's a Sisters of Silence squad that can include caimans. Yes, that's right, small alligators. To the best of my knowledge GWs never made a caiman. Or even an alligator/crocodile. And likely wont.

All weird animals found in SoS, Legion, and Militia 'pet' units are models from Necromunda. Because for some reason, HH is allowed to drive Necromunda sales but 40K is not allowed to drive HH sales, ditto with AoS and TOB because Spec Games team hates any and all help they could get for free from other games and banned it. Logic AND consistency!

I've never really understood the whole "Same universe, but not same game, so no models sharing" philosophy. You'd think you'd want as mush synergy as possible.

Yes, there could be balance issues. Just limit the really strange stuff to 1 per army or something.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've never really understood the whole "Same universe, but not same game, so no models sharing" philosophy. You'd think you'd want as mush synergy as possible.

Yes, there could be balance issues. Just limit the really strange stuff to 1 per army or something.

IMO it's because the goal for GW is to have people starting (but not necessarily completing) as many 2000 point armies as possible. That's where the money is and that's why they silo things so heavily.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've never really understood the whole "Same universe, but not same game, so no models sharing" philosophy. You'd think you'd want as mush synergy as possible.

Yes, there could be balance issues. Just limit the really strange stuff to 1 per army or something.

It is not a gamer or game designer philosophy, it is a company management perspective. They want to be able to tell if the sales of models for Game A justify dedicating the resources to continued support of Game A. They can't tell if HH is supporting itself if you keep putting HH Chocolate in your 40K Peanut Butter.

 alextroy wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've never really understood the whole "Same universe, but not same game, so no models sharing" philosophy. You'd think you'd want as mush synergy as possible.

Yes, there could be balance issues. Just limit the really strange stuff to 1 per army or something.

It is not a gamer or game designer philosophy, it is a company management perspective. They want to be able to tell if the sales of models for Game A justify dedicating the resources to continued support of Game A. They can't tell if HH is supporting itself if you keep putting HH Chocolate in your 40K Peanut Butter.

While true of in person sales, it's not necessarily true of online sales where consumers need accounts to make purchases, because you can see all the products the consumer has purchased. If I bought a Spartan online, GW would know it's for 40k cuz they've got dozens of straight 40k purchases in my history, but not a single straight HH purchase.

Granted, online sales are a fraction of total sales... But I'm curious how accurately online shopping data can indicate trends in retailer shopping.

I didn't expect nothing from EC reveal and still I feel disapointed.

I suppouse Slaanesh is just not for me.

Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Chaos Knights are on the upcoming releases, and I’m guessing Imperial Knights will either be a simultaneous release, or maybe a shared codex even. I don’t know why you wouldn’t release the two together anyway.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've never really understood the whole "Same universe, but not same game, so no models sharing" philosophy. You'd think you'd want as mush synergy as possible.

Yes, there could be balance issues. Just limit the really strange stuff to 1 per army or something.

I am adamantly convinced it has to do with bonuses for people internally. Someone is "in charge" of each product line and wants their bonus counted for just their products. That's just the sort of corporate nonsense that would lead here.

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Daemons go bye-bye? Please elaborate?

Are they finally dropping 40K support for AOS Daemon models, or just dropping the Daemons codex and consolidating them into these CSM subfaction dexes?

 tauist wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Daemons go bye-bye? Please elaborate?

Are they finally dropping 40K support for AOS Daemon models, or just dropping the Daemons codex and consolidating them into these CSM subfaction dexes?

Yeah they’re splitting the daemons into their respective CSM faction books.

 tauist wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Daemons go bye-bye? Please elaborate?

Are they finally dropping 40K support for AOS Daemon models, or just dropping the Daemons codex and consolidating them into these CSM subfaction dexes?

Slaanesh daemons were called out as being included in the Emperor's Children book, and World Eaters, Death Guard, and Thousand Sons are all in the soon after EC pipeline, so logical to assume they will be getting their god specific Daemons as well. EC are said to have 6 detachment, so I'm guessing 2-3 Astartes focused, 1-2 Daemon focused, and 1-2 combined forces

 ImAGeek wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Chaos Knights are on the upcoming releases, and I’m guessing Imperial Knights will either be a simultaneous release, or maybe a shared codex even. I don’t know why you wouldn’t release the two together anyway.

Because they're not the same army largely, there's no real reason to launch them together. It's like saying "I don't know why you wouldn't release eldar and dark eldar together". Beyond that they were next after eldar on last years "roadmap", they've just vanished.

Dudeface wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Chaos Knights are on the upcoming releases, and I’m guessing Imperial Knights will either be a simultaneous release, or maybe a shared codex even. I don’t know why you wouldn’t release the two together anyway.

Because they're not the same army largely, there's no real reason to launch them together. It's like saying "I don't know why you wouldn't release eldar and dark eldar together". Beyond that they were next after eldar on last years "roadmap", they've just vanished.

They’re small books with a lot of overlap, it makes sense to me to release them together.

But I’d forgotten about the ‘roadmap’ that had them on, I thought the timing for them was just based on rumour. That is weird that they’ve shifted so far.