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.

Hi, I just got the regular Codex for 9th edition and I can't seem to find the new Secondaries. Anyone care to enlighten me as to which book has them?

Chapter approved. Codex ones aren't legal in new battle packs. Instead they are in ca

Thanks. The trend of not having all the rules in one place continues i see...

Out of curiosity, are there any conflicts between the AoO IG secondaries and the new Codex?

 Dysartes wrote:
Out of curiosity, are there any conflicts between the AoO IG secondaries and the new Codex?

Daemons and tsons at least. Also marines. Pretty sure ba and sob as well.

They are in 1 place so they can be changed as their effect on power level is so big


Automatically Appended Next Post:

konst80hummel wrote:
Thanks. The trend of not having all the rules in one place continues i see...

All rules related to battle pack are.

konst80hummel wrote:
Thanks. The trend of not having all the rules in one place continues i see...

On top of that, Arks of Omen is/was out of stock. You know, the main tournament rules everyone is expected to be using...

The worst part is that they basically have errata (the secondaries are updated in the GT pack) that's only in the GT pack, which isn't meant for use in everyday games just tournaments. But if you aren't using the GT pack, you're technically using outdated rules. which is absolutely mind-boggling since the tournament play is supposed to be a subset of the game, and not update core parts of a codex. It would be like if they had the dataslate updates ONLY in the GT pack.

You aren't expected to use GT pack rules outside GT pack games. The GT secondaries are to be used with GT scenarios. If you aren't playing those you shouldn't use those secondaries anyway,.

Which circles us back to the problem of the IG book (and probably the WE book) not including faction secondaries at all - putting those books on an uneven footing compared to any books from earlier in the edition, with the possible exception of LoV, as those books do include their faction secondaries.

This isn't hard to figure out, tneva.

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't expected to use GT pack rules outside GT pack games. The GT secondaries are to be used with GT scenarios. If you aren't playing those you shouldn't use those secondaries anyway,.

They are updated secondaries to the ones in the codex, though. not new ones. They reprinted and, in some cases, updated the secondaries. Ergo if you are NOT using the GT pack you're using rules that are outdated as they were updated in a later product.

That's still ridiculous.

GT Pack Releases don't update other mission packs. Inversely, the release of the Tempest of War mission pack or Crusade Mission Packs like Containment, the release of GW's player-placed-terrain mission pack "Tactical Deployment" weren't updates to GT mission packs like Nachmund or Nephilim or some such, even if they were "later" releases.

Wayniac wrote:
On top of that, Arks of Omen is/was out of stock. You know, the main tournament rules everyone is expected to be using...

To be fair, even at GW events people were using Wahapedia for those rules. The only real question here is why GW bothers printing the books at all at this point.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
On top of that, Arks of Omen is/was out of stock. You know, the main tournament rules everyone is expected to be using...

To be fair, even at GW events people were using Wahapedia for those rules. The only real question here is why GW bothers printing the books at all at this point.

The better question is why GW wasn't kicking the pirates out of their events.

 Dysartes wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
On top of that, Arks of Omen is/was out of stock. You know, the main tournament rules everyone is expected to be using...

To be fair, even at GW events people were using Wahapedia for those rules. The only real question here is why GW bothers printing the books at all at this point.

The better question is why GW wasn't kicking the pirates out of their events.

Because "kick out at least half the players as a result of printing so few copies of the mandatory book that even people who want a legal copy are not able to buy it" is not great for the health of an event.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
GT Pack Releases don't update other mission packs. Inversely, the release of the Tempest of War mission pack or Crusade Mission Packs like Containment, the release of GW's player-placed-terrain mission pack "Tactical Deployment" weren't updates to GT mission packs like Nachmund or Nephilim or some such, even if they were "later" releases.

Very true!
It makes me wonder if they're going to get rid of secondaries for the core game (Yay, I hate them), and eave them only in the GT packs as a tournament thing.

 Blndmage wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
GT Pack Releases don't update other mission packs. Inversely, the release of the Tempest of War mission pack or Crusade Mission Packs like Containment, the release of GW's player-placed-terrain mission pack "Tactical Deployment" weren't updates to GT mission packs like Nachmund or Nephilim or some such, even if they were "later" releases.

Very true!
It makes me wonder if they're going to get rid of secondaries for the core game (Yay, I hate them), and eave them only in the GT packs as a tournament thing.

I doubt it. Getting to pick your own victory conditions is silly but the game needs something to fill that role, primary objectives alone aren't enough. The more likely outcome is that the weird relic of "matched play" being a thing outside of the current mission pack but never updated or acknowledged will end and there will only be Crusade and the seasonal GT format. That's probably why secondaries are no longer in newer codices, non-GT matched play won't exist anymore so there's no need to duplicate the content that's already found in the GT book.

 Dysartes wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
On top of that, Arks of Omen is/was out of stock. You know, the main tournament rules everyone is expected to be using...

To be fair, even at GW events people were using Wahapedia for those rules. The only real question here is why GW bothers printing the books at all at this point.

The better question is why GW wasn't kicking the pirates out of their events.

They never kicked people out who had photocopied pages of their rules before, how is Wahapedia any different?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
GT Pack Releases don't update other mission packs. Inversely, the release of the Tempest of War mission pack or Crusade Mission Packs like Containment, the release of GW's player-placed-terrain mission pack "Tactical Deployment" weren't updates to GT mission packs like Nachmund or Nephilim or some such, even if they were "later" releases.

Very true!
It makes me wonder if they're going to get rid of secondaries for the core game (Yay, I hate them), and eave them only in the GT packs as a tournament thing.

I doubt it. Getting to pick your own victory conditions is silly but the game needs something to fill that role, primary objectives alone aren't enough. The more likely outcome is that the weird relic of "matched play" being a thing outside of the current mission pack but never updated or acknowledged will end and there will only be Crusade and the seasonal GT format. That's probably why secondaries are no longer in newer codices, non-GT matched play won't exist anymore so there's no need to duplicate the content that's already found in the GT book.

That sounds horrible.

 Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
GT Pack Releases don't update other mission packs. Inversely, the release of the Tempest of War mission pack or Crusade Mission Packs like Containment, the release of GW's player-placed-terrain mission pack "Tactical Deployment" weren't updates to GT mission packs like Nachmund or Nephilim or some such, even if they were "later" releases.

Very true!
It makes me wonder if they're going to get rid of secondaries for the core game (Yay, I hate them), and eave them only in the GT packs as a tournament thing.

I doubt it. Getting to pick your own victory conditions is silly but the game needs something to fill that role, primary objectives alone aren't enough. The more likely outcome is that the weird relic of "matched play" being a thing outside of the current mission pack but never updated or acknowledged will end and there will only be Crusade and the seasonal GT format. That's probably why secondaries are no longer in newer codices, non-GT matched play won't exist anymore so there's no need to duplicate the content that's already found in the GT book.

That sounds horrible.

Why? Who cares about a dead format that is already abandoned in all but name? Core book matched play is just the GT book with the old and less-balanced version of some secondaries, it's not a meaningfully different format that has its own value. So why should it be supported as a separate format?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
GT Pack Releases don't update other mission packs. Inversely, the release of the Tempest of War mission pack or Crusade Mission Packs like Containment, the release of GW's player-placed-terrain mission pack "Tactical Deployment" weren't updates to GT mission packs like Nachmund or Nephilim or some such, even if they were "later" releases.

Very true!
It makes me wonder if they're going to get rid of secondaries for the core game (Yay, I hate them), and eave them only in the GT packs as a tournament thing.

I doubt it. Getting to pick your own victory conditions is silly but the game needs something to fill that role, primary objectives alone aren't enough. The more likely outcome is that the weird relic of "matched play" being a thing outside of the current mission pack but never updated or acknowledged will end and there will only be Crusade and the seasonal GT format. That's probably why secondaries are no longer in newer codices, non-GT matched play won't exist anymore so there's no need to duplicate the content that's already found in the GT book.

That sounds horrible.

Why? Who cares about a dead format that is already abandoned in all but name? Core book matched play is just the GT book with the old and less-balanced version of some secondaries, it's not a meaningfully different format that has its own value. So why should it be supported as a separate format?

Some people enjoy just needing the corebook and their Codex. No GT treadmill.

The GT books don't invalidate the corebook mission pack. The corebook also has matched play mission for Combat Patrol games which don't exist in the GT books.

 Blndmage wrote:
Some people enjoy just needing the corebook and their Codex. No GT treadmill.

But do those people need to be supported? Book simplicity is nice but the reality is the core book secondaries were horribly balanced and needed to be fixed in later books. That kind of thing is always going to happen and there's no sense in supporting two parallel versions where one is just a worse version of the other, especially when GW seems to be expecting most people to use Wahapedia for everything.

The GT books don't invalidate the corebook mission pack.

Not yet. That's why I said I expect that it will in the future, not that it currently works that way.

The corebook also has matched play mission for Combat Patrol games which don't exist in the GT books.

It does, but they don't work very well. I suspect 10th will either put 500 point games in the GT book or, more likely, abandon Combat Patrol entirely since it's a broken format that doesn't fit the goals of matched play.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Some people enjoy just needing the corebook and their Codex. No GT treadmill.

But do those people need to be supported? Book simplicity is nice but the reality is the core book secondaries were horribly balanced and needed to be fixed in later books. That kind of thing is always going to happen and there's no sense in supporting two parallel versions where one is just a worse version of the other, especially when GW seems to be expecting most people to use Wahapedia for everything.

The GT books don't invalidate the corebook mission pack.

Not yet. That's why I said I expect that it will in the future, not that it currently works that way.

The corebook also has matched play mission for Combat Patrol games which don't exist in the GT books.

It does, but they don't work very well. I suspect 10th will either put 500 point games in the GT book or, more likely, abandon Combat Patrol entirely since it's a broken format that doesn't fit the goals of matched play.

Also, non Matched Play, Aka Open Play, exists and is surprisingly common.

 Blndmage wrote:
Also, non Matched Play, Aka Open Play, exists and is surprisingly common.

Open Play is a tiny minority of the game and has no reason to exist as a separate format. You don't need official rules for choosing to modify the rules to suit your own preferences.

Open Play doesn’t mean no structure at all. The Open War Mission Pack https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Open-War-Cards-EN-2020 provides structure without being Narrative or Matched Play.

 alextroy wrote:
Open Play doesn’t mean no structure at all. The Open War Mission Pack https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Open-War-Cards-EN-2020 provides structure without being Narrative or Matched Play.

If you have structure you can just play normal matched play games. There is no need for a separate structured format with a different name.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Open Play doesn’t mean no structure at all. The Open War Mission Pack https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Open-War-Cards-EN-2020 provides structure without being Narrative or Matched Play.

If you have structure you can just play normal matched play games. There is no need for a separate structured format with a different name.

It's a very different form of play;
- no secondaries
- no phase limits on stratagems
- I'm sure I'm missing things

It's a drastically different take on the same base rules. Even things like the dataslates are specifically for Matched Play, FAQ/erattas, however, apply to all modes of play.

Have you ever played using the Open War deck, or the Open Hostility Mission Pack?

 Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Open Play doesn’t mean no structure at all. The Open War Mission Pack https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Open-War-Cards-EN-2020 provides structure without being Narrative or Matched Play.

If you have structure you can just play normal matched play games. There is no need for a separate structured format with a different name.

It's a very different form of play;
- no secondaries
- no phase limits on stratagems
- I'm sure I'm missing things

It's a drastically different take on the same base rules. Even things like the dataslates are specifically for Matched Play, FAQ/erattas, however, apply to all modes of play.

"Do matched play, but make the balance worse" is not a format that needs to be supported.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Open Play doesn’t mean no structure at all. The Open War Mission Pack https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Open-War-Cards-EN-2020 provides structure without being Narrative or Matched Play.

If you have structure you can just play normal matched play games. There is no need for a separate structured format with a different name.

It's a very different form of play;
- no secondaries
- no phase limits on stratagems
- I'm sure I'm missing things

It's a drastically different take on the same base rules. Even things like the dataslates are specifically for Matched Play, FAQ/erattas, however, apply to all modes of play.

"Do matched play, but make the balance worse" is not a format that needs to be supported.

Have you ever actually played using the Open War deck, or the Open Hostility Mission Pack?

 Blndmage wrote:
Have you ever actually played using the Open War deck, or the Open Hostility Mission Pack?

Why would I play an obviously bad format? I also haven't played games with a single Warhound titan against a 5000 point army. I haven't played any games where we skip the movement phase. I haven't played any games where marines get a 1+ save and S20/AP-20/D20 bolters (with no other changes to balance them). All it takes is one look at the format to see that it's just matched play with worse balance and there is no reason whatsoever for it to exist.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Have you ever actually played using the Open War deck, or the Open Hostility Mission Pack?

Why would I play an obviously bad format? I also haven't played games with a single Warhound titan against a 5000 point army. I haven't played any games where we skip the movement phase. I haven't played any games where marines get a 1+ save and S20/AP-20/D20 bolters (with no other changes to balance them). All it takes is one look at the format to see that it's just matched play with worse balance and there is no reason whatsoever for it to exist.

Can I correctly assume you feel the same way about Crusade Play?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I gave Matched Play it's fair chance, the majority of the FLGS scenes are competitively focused. I've played it, and find it to be extremely taxing with so so much to manage.

I've tried Crusade, but found that the bookkeeping wasn't what I actually wanted from the game, even if I did enjoy it.

Open Play, especially using the Open War deck, has been a breath of fresh air and has reignited my passion for the game. It's the format that feels most like the 40k I remember from my early days in 4th Ed, when I played many times a week. I enjoy the entirety of the game front start to finish.

 Blndmage wrote:
Can I correctly assume you feel the same way about Crusade Play?

Not at all. Crusade has its flaws (primarily in how it only works for a narrow range of stories) but it does at least do something genuinely different from matched play. I would hope that in 10th GW uses their experience with the current version to fine-tune the concept and continue supporting an improved version of the format.

Open Play, especially using the Open War deck, has been a breath of fresh air and has reignited my passion for the game. It's the format that feels most like the 40k I remember from my early days in 4th Ed, when I played many times a week. I enjoy the entirety of the game front start to finish.

I'm really not sure how "ignore all the balance fixes and keep using the overpowered nonsense that GW banned for good reasons" and "add random rule changes to how units function" make the game simpler and easier to keep track of. Playing the standard secondaries your army is built to accomplish is far less mental load than remembering that, to give a couple example draws from the Open War deck, psykers get +1 to their tests and harsher perils or units automatically pass morale tests. All you've done is made it more likely that the outcome of the game is decided by whose army the RNG rule changes favor instead of the on-table decisions.