Alleged codex leaks

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, Subtleknife said:

I'm pretty sure even before that they lost access. Around 2010 the dark angels codex did not have entries for sternguard etc. 6th was 2012 wasnt it, it kind of blends into one so could be wrong. Can't remember before that if I'm honest. 

 

My use of the word "few" is accurate to its definition. I think any normal person who is a familiar with the definition would agree. Look it up and tell me why it isn't otherwise stop nitpicking please.

 

Lastly, there should be restrictions for picking divergent chapters. If there aren't why is there any reason to play the first founding constrained to one book. You get access to more detachment choices and therefor rules, relics and stratagems. 

 

I may have misunderstood, and I'm happy to be corrected, but I am under the impression divergent chapters can use vanilla rules or their codex rules when it releases even if using their special units. That just feels wrong to me. There is literally no draw back. 

 

Basically either all first founding should get a codex or none should and the approach should be similar to the HH which I think worked well. Either way, there should be fair treatment. I don't think that is an unreasonable thing to ask.

 

'Quite a few' means different than just 'few', to nitpick some more. And you know it is, you're just backpedalling from a bad turn of phrase. 

 

And those same "Restrictions" you talked about in regards to unit availability was just them having flavored versions of their own; Dark Angels may have lost access to Sternguard, but they had a unit that was just sternguard by another name. 

 

The only restrictions that came about was just them being slightly behind Codex: Space Marines for a while. But also, non codex Marines lost some flavor too when their units got co-opted during 8th; Storm raven comes to mind going from a special vehicle to a "whatever space Marines wants it can get it."

 

Plus just look at the Space Wolves currently. Restricted from using a bunch. But their special stuff is just slightly different versions of the regular marine stuff. I'm not sure what your concern is. 

[Lemondish]

4 hours ago, Subtleknife said:

Lastly, there should be restrictions for picking divergent chapters. If there aren't why is there any reason to play the first founding constrained to one book.

 

Because you like them.

 

Because you prefer their lore.

 

Because you like the paint scheme.

 

If applicable, you like their special characters.

 

Because you recognize this isn't some zero sum game.

 

All are valid reasons to play your preferred chapter, even a first founding one, over the so-called divergent ones.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

10 hours ago, Lemondish said:

 

I can't. It isn't having much impact on the meta. They're a mid-tier army and nobody seems to be counter-building against it.

 

Its power level is totally fine. Folks just dislike it for a variety of other, more compelling reasons.

 

Nerfing it due to its power won't have any impact except throwing balance out of whack, which would arguably be worse than leaving it as is.

 

I fear Marines will need to become a horde army to compete if the nerfs like this continue.

Mid-tier in the indexes, we don’t know what abilities, rules, or statlines will change that could have big interactions with OoM in the codex

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

52 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

 

Because you like them.

 

Because you prefer their lore.

 

Because you like the paint scheme.

 

If applicable, you like their special characters.

 

Because you recognize this isn't some zero sum game.

 

All are valid reasons to play your preferred chapter, even a first founding one, over the so-called divergent ones.

All are valid reasons…unless you’re a try hard sweaty power gamer…

Edited September 17, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Subtleknife]

50 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

 

Because you like them.

 

Because you prefer their lore.

 

Because you like the paint scheme.

 

If applicable, you like their special characters.

 

Because you recognize this isn't some zero sum game.

 

All are valid reasons to play your preferred chapter, even a first founding one, over the so-called divergent ones.

Those are nearly all thematic reasons, I'm talking about rules and competition. I may as well use the dark angel codex and play my Ultras as it gives me more access to rules and strats.

 

If you take deathwing etc you should be constrained to the DA dex. I'm assuming it won't work that way, please correct me if I'm wrong as that would alleviate my concerns somewhat.

 

 

@DemonGSides I am guessing the hidden post is replying to me. You are blocked and ive no interest conversing with you after the quality of conversation last time.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Subtleknife

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

21 minutes ago, Subtleknife said:

Those are nearly all thematic reasons, I'm talking about rules and competition. I may as well use the dark angel codex and play my Ultras as it gives me more access to rules and strats.

 

If you take deathwing etc you should be constrained to the DA dex. I'm assuming it won't work that way, please correct me if I'm wrong as that would alleviate my concerns somewhat.

 

 

@DemonGSides I am guessing the hidden post is replying to me. You are blocked and ive no interest conversing with you after the quality of conversation last time.

His post was spot on.

you backpedaled, because we all know ‘quite a few’ has a very different meaning/definition than ‘few’

per google

few- a small number 

quite a few- a fairly large number

 

along with often in the past when divergent chapters didn’t have access to a normal unit, it was because they had their own version rather than simply not having access to them

 

also pretty much nobody cares if your marines are painted as ultras and you use DA codex. That’s literally a non-issue

Edited September 17, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Blindhamster]

25 minutes ago, Subtleknife said:

Those are nearly all thematic reasons, I'm talking about rules and competition. I may as well use the dark angel codex and play my Ultras as it gives me more access to rules and strats.

 

If you take deathwing etc you should be constrained to the DA dex. I'm assuming it won't work that way, please correct me if I'm wrong as that would alleviate my concerns somewhat.

 

 

@DemonGSides I am guessing the hidden post is replying to me. You are blocked and ive no interest conversing with you after the quality of conversation last time.

except it doesn't really. You may get different units, but those units aren't necessarily better.

similarly, you can't mix and match the benefits of DA detachment with benefits of a codex detachment. So its not more access to strats as when a game starts, everyone has exactly the same number of strats (unlike 8th and 9th).

 

As a blood angels player, its pretty depressing that if I want to play "actual blood angels" I can only do so via one detachemnt and that detachment outright performs worse than the gladius anyway.

 

it's really not marines +1 this edition. As an ultramarine, you have Guilliman which is still the best loyalist primarch, you also have calgar which is still the best loyalist chapter master, you have tigarius which is still the best loyalist librarian, then you have telion and chronus as unique character options nobody else gets and you have cato sicarius who we all know is just the best space marine to ever exist plus uriel ventris who is also pretty damn good. Ultramarines are hardly in a bad place.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Also the mentality of “most first founding chapters and their successors don’t get special units, so we should take something away from the ones who do” is a horribly crab bucket mentality.

[Subtleknife]

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

His post was spot on.

 

  

Doubtful but I'm not about to unblock him so I guess I will never know.

 

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

you backpedaled,

I don't believe I have back peddled on anything personally.

 

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

because we all know ‘quite a few’ has a very different meaning/definition than ‘few’

per google

few- a small number 

quite a few- a fairly large number

Agreed quite a few does have a different meaning. However, over a 3rd of the editions (that I am aware of, so potentially more) had that exclusion in. I think over a third fits within the definition of "quite a few". Now if you are done with semantics can we please get back to the topic at hand? 

 

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

also pretty much nobody cares if your marines are painted as ultras and you use DA codex. That’s literally a non-issue

 

I'm pretty sure those who want to play white Scars (or insert any other first founding chapters that get nothing) would prefer to have their own book rather than have to use a DA book etc to get access to extra rules. All I'm asking for is parity. I don't see why that is a big issue. Can you answer me what is so wrong about having equal treatment amongst all first founding chapters?

43 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Also the mentality of “most first founding chapters and their successors don’t get special units, so we should take something away from the ones who do” is a horribly crab bucket mentality.

 

Seems fair to me. If you use dark angels (that have special units) then you should have to use the Dark angels codex. If you want to use vanilla marines, then use the vanilla codex. Makes it much easier to balance too.

 

2 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

you can't mix and match the benefits of DA detachment with benefits of a codex detachment

 

As far as I'm aware  you can still mix and match units right? So I can use my deathwing with the vanilla codex? That is what I have a problem with. I would say having special (sometimes better) units that you can still play with the vanilla dex is a benefit. 

2 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

t's really not marines +1 this edition. As an ultramarine

I don't really care what I've got as Ultramarines. They are in a much better place than some. My point isn't for Ultramarines specifically either more on the other first founding which get nearly nothing. All I want to see is fair and equal treatment. I don't really get what is wrong with that. Either put all first founding in one book (ala HH) or go the supplement approach. As long as there is equal treatment then I think that is the correct approach GW should take. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Subtleknife

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 minutes ago, Subtleknife said:

  

Doubtful but I'm not about to unblock him so I guess I will never know.

 

I don't believe I have back peddled on anything personally.

 

Agreed quite a few does have a different meaning. However, over a 3rd of the editions (that I am aware of, so potentially more) had that exclusion in. I think over a third fits within the definition of "quite a few". Now if you are done with semantics can we please get back to the topic at hand? 

 

 

I'm pretty sure those who want to play white Scars (or insert any other first founding chapters that get nothing) would prefer to have their own book rather than have to use a DA book etc to get access to extra rules. All I'm asking for is parity. I don't see why that is a big issue. Can you answer me what is so wrong about having equal treatment amongst all first founding chapters?

 

Seems fair to me. If you use dark angels (that have special units) then you should have to use the Dark angels codex. If you want to use vanilla marines, then use the vanilla codex. Makes it much easier to balance too.

 

 

As far as I'm aware  you can still mix and match units right? So I can use my deathwing with the vanilla codex? That is what I have a problem with. I would say having special (sometimes better) units that you can still play with the vanilla dex is a benefit. 

I don't really care what I've got as Ultramarines. They are in a much better place than some. My point isn't for Ultramarines specifically either more on the other first founding which get nearly nothing. All I want to see is fair and equal treatment. I don't really get what is wrong with that. Either put all first founding in one book (ala HH) or go the supplement approach. 

1/3=33%
3/10=30%
 

not one third of editions.

you back pedaled from quite a few to a few, now you’re trying to rationalize.

 

if English isn’t your first language the confusion is understandable.

 

what would be the point of a whole book for a chapter that has nothing unique aside from one HQ model?

 

you’re full of none issues.

 

”seems fair” to up end roughly 30 years of precedent and hundreds if not thousands of dollars of model purchases, because you’re butthurt you like an unpopular chapter?

 

you are aware of what the term crab bucket means right?

toxic ass people like you ruin just about everything 

A supplement is still a codex though…it’s just a supplemental codex…

 

3rd Ed BA sup, BA still had access to all non-named character units on the space marine codex, plus their own scout scouts, DC, Baal,SHP, HG, and I believe furioso dreads

 

so supplements do nothing to achieve your goal.

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Subtleknife]

24 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

1/3=33%
3/10=30%

The change I referred to has been in affect since 2010 (from what i can remember, potentially more).That is over a third of the editions, what I said was correct. I can go back and put "roughly" if it bothers you so as you seem to be getting rather wrapped round a pole on this.

 

24 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

not one third of editions.

Yes....actually more, not less like you were trying to imply. 

 

24 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

you back pedaled from quite a few to a few, now you’re trying to rationalize

No I've stayed firm on "quite a few". You are still stuck on trying to correct semantics.

 

24 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

if English isn’t your first language the confusion is understandable

Not really conducive to a good faith discussion. I suggest dropping the attitude.

 

Just seen you have edited your post to contain childish insults. I suggest you take a step back from the keyboard as you seem to be getting wound up. I won't be responding further to you in this thread.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Subtleknife

[Forté]

*** I may not be a mod these days (just a Moderati Cedo)... but I suggest taking a breather and either getting back on topic or abandoning the argument which is just going around in circles.

 

Until the Codex's are released it is only guess work on whether they'll be full Codex or supplements, so you're wasting your time getting argumentative about it.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Forté

[Dracos]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Also the mentality of “most first founding chapters and their successors don’t get special units, so we should take something away from the ones who do” is a horribly crab bucket mentality.

Of course you choose to misinterpret the crux of that argument. No one wants to take away from the diverse nature of say Blood Angels or Dark Angels but desire an equal level of diversity for Chapters like White Scars and Salamanders.

[Blindhamster]

40 minutes ago, Subtleknife said:

As far as I'm aware  you can still mix and match units right? So I can use my deathwing with the vanilla codex? That is what I have a problem with. I would say having special (sometimes better) units that you can still play with the vanilla dex is a benefit. 

I don't really care what I've got as Ultramarines. They are in a much better place than some. My point isn't for Ultramarines specifically either more on the other first founding which get nearly nothing. All I want to see is fair and equal treatment. I don't really get what is wrong with that. Either put all first founding in one book (ala HH) or go the supplement approach. As long as there is equal treatment then I think that is the correct approach GW should take. 

 

I do get where you're coming from, in an ideal world yes all the first foundings would get equal treatment.
however, there's some issues:

• most of them don't already have unique units, the ones that do most of those units are multiple decades old at this point.
  • you could argue "well, make some then", however people already complain that marines get too many releases, imagine if all 9 loyalist first foundings got releases the size of black templars, that's roughly half an editions worth of major releases on its own. GW won't do it because they simply can't dedicate that level of resource to marines.
  • the only reason DA, BA, SW continue to get a release of new things each edition is because of what basically boils down to "tradition" at this point, if GW were starting over, I doubt they'd bother with unique characters or units for any of the chapters.
  • what makes first founding more deserving of unique units than 2nd founding or later? Wouldn't black dragons make more sense to get unique units due to their mutations? Where do you draw the line? No matter what GW does, people will be unhappy.
  • they could go for units like current DC intercessors or hounds of morkai and not make new models and just make a new unit, honestly I'm sorta shocked that never happened.
• one can only assume that the first founding supplements simply didn't sell well enough for GW to continue the trend, it says a lot when they did it in 8th and didn't in 9th and seem to have further backpeddled in 10th.
• fairness really doesn't have much to do with it, for GW it's the bottom line that matters. The only reason BT got a big major update and a return to a full supplement was the vitriol and rage (Zeal) of the BT fanbase.
• they are highly unlikely to drop support for the chapters they've always supported at this point, because those chapters have considerably larger fanbases (I suspect there are more BA players than there are players of some xenos factions, for example)
• saying they give everyone the same treatment in HH is kind of irrelevant, because in HH its purely (well, almost purely) marines, so the difference between legions is far more important to the game to create distinct factions, whereas for 40k, GW do think of the divergent chapters as distinct armies, they don't think of the other first founding chapters as distinct armies though.

Outside of that, considering some of the other things you said.

• yes you can use deathwing terminators, death company or wulfen in a gladius taskforce, we dont know about the other new ones yet. Does it really matter? Is it really different from being able to use vulkan hestan or marneus calgar? I don't think GW views those things as particularly diffrent honestly.
• once again, those units are often at best on par with core codex options, many times they're straight up worse.

Honestly, personally I'd actually prefer it if Blood Angels (using them as they're my faction) didn't use the core marine codex, because I'd rather have red thirst as the faction rule, because its not something blood angels should be able to turn on or off. We actually have no idea how divergent chapters will properly work in 10th, its entirely possible they'll revert to the 4th-7th ed approach of divergent chapters being full distinct codexes.

 

I highly doubt they'll restrict core marine units again though, because they want to sell all the marine players all the marine models. Could be wrong though, of course. Regardless, even when blood angels didn't have access to some units, it ended up being a very very limited list (centurions, stormtalon/hawks, thunderfires, ironclad, venerable dreads iirc). The real issue with the divergent chapters not using the core codex was always GW sucking at updating things properly - which is why for an entire edition Dark Angels had worse storm shields than everyone else.

 

Anyway, yes in an ideal world, it would be "fair" for everyone, with all chapters having exactly the same number of special characters and special units all of broadly the same power level, but its not even the case (not even close in fact) that it balanced out like that in HH, chances of that in 40k are even less likely.

 

regardless, we have no idea how it's going to work till the dark angels get released, maybe they'll backpeddle and we'll be back to distinct codexes for divergent chapters.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Blindhamster

[Dracos]

3 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

 

it's really not marines +1 this edition. 

 

Yet

 

We are just in the Index period and you know for a fact that historicallly non-Ultramarine vanilla space marines have lacked not only the diverse rules, units, and characters of the divergent Chapters but that also that lack of diversity also translated more often than not in a competitive inequality. Death Knights, Sanguinary Guard, Thunderwolves etc are just a few examples.

 

[Dracos]

11 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

 

I do get where you're coming from, in an ideal world yes all the first foundings would get equal treatment.
however, there's some issues:

• most of them don't already have unique units, the ones that do most of those units are multiple decades old at this point.
  • you could argue "well, make some then", however people already complain that marines get too many releases, imagine if all 9 loyalist first foundings got releases the size of black templars, that's roughly half an editions worth of major releases on its own. GW won't do it because they simply can't dedicate that level of resource to marines.
  • the only reason DA, BA, SW continue to get a release of new things each edition is because of what basically boils down to "tradition" at this point, if GW were starting over, I doubt they'd bother with unique characters or units for any of the chapters.
  • what makes first founding more deserving of unique units than 2nd founding or later? Wouldn't black dragons make more sense to get unique units due to their mutations? Where do you draw the line? No matter what GW does, people will be unhappy.
  • they could go for units like current DC intercessors or hounds of morkai and not make new models and just make a new unit, honestly I'm sorta shocked that never happened.
• one can only assume that the first founding supplements simply didn't sell well enough for GW to continue the trend, it says a lot when they did it in 8th and didn't in 9th and seem to have further backpeddled in 10th.
• fairness really doesn't have much to do with it, for GW it's the bottom line that matters. The only reason BT got a big major update and a return to a full supplement was the vitriol and rage (Zeal) of the BT fanbase.
• they are highly unlikely to drop support for the chapters they've always supported at this point, because those chapters have considerably larger fanbases (I suspect there are more BA players than there are players of some xenos factions, for example)
• saying they give everyone the same treatment in HH is kind of irrelevant, because in HH its purely (well, almost purely) marines, so the difference between legions is far more important to the game to create distinct factions, whereas for 40k, GW do think of the divergent chapters as distinct armies, they don't think of the other first founding chapters as distinct armies though.

Outside of that, considering some of the other things you said.

• yes you can use deathwing terminators, death company or wulfen in a gladius taskforce, we dont know about the other new ones yet. Does it really matter? Is it really different from being able to use vulkan hestan or marneus calgar? I don't think GW views those things as particularly diffrent honestly.
• once again, those units are often at best on par with core codex options, many times they're straight up worse.

Honestly, personally I'd actually prefer it if Blood Angels (using them as they're my faction) didn't use the core marine codex, because I'd rather have red thirst as the faction rule, because its not something blood angels should be able to turn on or off. We actually have no idea how divergent chapters will properly work in 10th, its entirely possible they'll revert to the 4th-7th ed approach of divergent chapters being full distinct codexes.

 

I highly doubt they'll restrict core marine units again though, because they want to sell all the marine players all the marine models. Could be wrong though, of course. Regardless, even when blood angels didn't have access to some units, it ended up being a very very limited list (centurions, stormtalon/hawks, thunderfires, ironclad, venerable dreads iirc). The real issue with the divergent chapters not using the core codex was always GW sucking at updating things properly - which is why for an entire edition Dark Angels had worse storm shields than everyone else.

 

Anyway, yes in an ideal world, it would be "fair" for everyone, with all chapters having exactly the same number of special characters and special units all of broadly the same power level, but its not even the case (not even close in fact) that it balanced out like that in HH, chances of that in 40k are even less likely.

 

regardless, we have no idea how it's going to work till the dark angels get released, maybe they'll backpeddle and we'll be back to distinct codexes for divergent chapters.

 

Sadly its this very method of handling the First Foundling Chapters that end up with black Blood Angels with ravens on their pauldrons or green Black Templars with salamander heads. 

[Blindhamster]

38 minutes ago, Dracos said:

Yet

 

We are just in the Index period and you know for a fact that historicallly non-Ultramarine vanilla space marines have lacked not only the diverse rules, units, and characters of the divergent Chapters but that also that lack of diversity also translated more often than not in a competitive inequality. Death Knights, Sanguinary Guard, Thunderwolves etc are just a few examples.

I'm really interested to see what happens with Sanguinary Guard, right now the general consensus this edition is "just don't". For the points where those units are amazing, there have been plenty of times they suck or at least aren't as good, the same is true of codex marine units too. Vanguard have stacked up very favourably to Sanguinary Guard over the past few editions, even including this one despite them losing all their weapon options - just as an example.

 

30 minutes ago, Dracos said:

Sadly its this very method of handling the First Foundling Chapters that end up with black Blood Angels with ravens on their pauldrons or green Black Templars with salamander heads. 

Whats the fix though - assuming they cant and wont add 2-3 unique units to each first founding chapter (because they won't, it simply isn't going to happen). The counts as army has been a thing since the very beginning, not even considering the fact many many people don't actually collect a first founding chapter at all.

 

p.s. damnit I just realised I got over 9k posts 10 posts back and missed the "its over 9000" meme opportunity.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Blindhamster

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Dracos said:

Of course you choose to misinterpret the crux of that argument. No one wants to take away from the diverse nature of say Blood Angels or Dark Angels but desire an equal level of diversity for Chapters like White Scars and Salamanders.

That’s not what they’re proposing though.

they’re demanding restricting units from codex space marines for the lineages that get their own codex/supplement.

 

not in one part of their argument did they advocate that other gene lines get new unique units.

im all for that and would love to see it, but those other gene lines aren’t very popular so the units aren’t likely to sell well, and thus they’re unlikely to ever be made.

1 hour ago, Dracos said:

 

Sadly its this very method of handling the First Foundling Chapters that end up with black Blood Angels with ravens on their pauldrons or green Black Templars with salamander heads. 

Who cares?

I can’t imagine having fun against an opponent who would give 2 :cuss:s

1 hour ago, Dracos said:

 

Sadly its this very method of handling the First Foundling Chapters that end up with black Blood Angels with ravens on their pauldrons or green Black Templars with salamander heads. 

Who cares?

I can’t imagine having fun against an opponent who would give 2 :cuss:s

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

I'm really interested to see what happens with Sanguinary Guard, right now the general consensus this edition is "just don't". For the points where those units are amazing, there have been plenty of times they suck or at least aren't as good, the same is true of codex marine units too. Vanguard have stacked up very favourably to Sanguinary Guard over the past few editions, even including this one despite them losing all their weapon options - just as an example.

 

Whats the fix though - assuming they cant and wont add 2-3 unique units to each first founding chapter (because they won't, it simply isn't going to happen). The counts as army has been a thing since the very beginning, not even considering the fact many many people don't actually collect a first founding chapter at all.

 

p.s. damnit I just realised I got over 9k posts 10 posts back and missed the "its over 9000" meme opportunity.

Tbf they’d probably need more than 2-3 unique units to justify a codex.

even BA and DA had to share for an edition while they each had 2-3 special characters and at least 1 unique squad.

 

each gene line would likely need to have 2-3 special characters and 2+ unique squads/vehicles.

 

also it doesn’t matter if people play first founding or not. BA codex isn’t just for the first founding BA, it covers successors from 2nd founding up to ultima founding.

 

an IF codex is probably the most likely if another gene line were to get a codex or supplement 

they can put tor garradon, Pedro Kantor and Lysander in as special characters, and then have one tanky shield/bolter gravis unit, maybe a gladiator variant with heavy bolters instead of varying numbers of storm bolters.

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Subtleknife]

1 hour ago, Dracos said:

Of course you choose to misinterpret the crux of that argument. No one wants to take away from the diverse nature of say Blood Angels or Dark Angels but desire an equal level of diversity for Chapters like White Scars and Salamanders.

Agreed. Some sort of equality like that would be something I would be happy with. Could then all be contained in a HH style marine book or something. I like it. 

 

As a minimum it would be nice if each first founding had a Chapter Master, a librarian and maybe one unique unit.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Subtleknife

[Blindhamster]

would people be happy with DC intercessor/hounds of morkai treatment?

[Subtleknife]

1 minute ago, Blindhamster said:

would people be happy with DC intercessor/hounds of morkai treatment?

I personally would prefer a proper unit. However as a stop gap, let's say each first founding got special rule for one unit like Scars got a unique bike profile, ravenguard got assault marines or something. At least it allows them to have something and gives GW time to do something properly.

[Helias_Tancred]

12 hours ago, Subtleknife said:

I'm pretty sure even before that they lost access. Around 2010 the dark angels codex did not have entries for sternguard etc. 6th was 2012 wasnt it, it kind of blends into one so could be wrong. Can't remember before that if I'm honest. 

 

My use of the word "few" is accurate to its definition. I think any normal person who is a familiar with the definition would agree. Over a 3rd of the editions had this restriction so it is valid. Look it up and tell me why it isn't otherwise stop nitpicking please.

 

Lastly, there should be restrictions for picking divergent chapters. If there aren't why is there any reason to play the first founding constrained to one book. You get access to more detachment choices and therefor rules, relics and stratagems. 

 

I may have misunderstood, and I'm happy to be corrected, but I am under the impression divergent chapters can use vanilla rules or their codex rules when it releases even if using their special units. That just feels wrong to me. There is literally no draw back. 

 

Basically either all first founding should get a codex or none should and the approach should be similar to the HH which I think worked well. Either way, there should be fair treatment. I don't think that is an unreasonable thing to ask.

 

 

 

I agree with you in regards to there being unit differences with the divergent chapters. I preferred that in earlier editions, and outside of collecting/playing Crimson Fists for a year during 7th, I've always been a divergent guy; Blood Angels and Dark Angels, which are my two collections I've now had for years, the former being my first army. 

 

The codex-compliant chapters are not as defined or "special" as the divergent ones, but they get full access to all marine units whereas the divergents do not. I'm cool with that. 

 

And WHAT THE HECK is the GW design team smoking if they think nerfing Oath of Moment is necessary?!?!?! Really McFly? Or in this case, McFlies! 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Eilio Tiberius

[Blindhamster]

27 minutes ago, Subtleknife said:

I personally would prefer a proper unit. However as a stop gap, let's say each first founding got special rule for one unit like Scars got a unique bike profile, ravenguard got assault marines or something. At least it allows them to have something and gives GW time to do something properly.

I guess what’s needed, is the fans of those chapters to shout out that they want it - it worked for templars, GW has to feel like enough people will buy new models from those chapters to justify it.

 

Even then, it just seems very unlikely it’ll happen, considering the points already stated (even more marines for people to complain about, lack of evidence for GW that they’d even sell, if the other first foundings, why not 2nd and onward too?)

 

it would be an easy win for Gw to do a hounds of normal/dc intercessor unit for each 1st founding (and even some later ones maybe). So that seems a good start to me

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

would people be happy with DC intercessor/hounds of morkai treatment?

Probably not, since those of us who already got it, weren’t thrilled about it lol.

 

but maybe the other lineages will just be grateful for something.

3 hours ago, Eilio Tiberius said:

 

I agree with you in regards to there being unit differences with the divergent chapters. I preferred that in earlier editions, and outside of collecting/playing Crimson Fists for a year during 7th, I've always been a divergent guy; Blood Angels and Dark Angels, which are my two collections I've now had for years, the former being my first army. 

 

The codex-compliant chapters are not as defined or "special" as the divergent ones, but they get full access to all marine units whereas the divergents do not. I'm cool with that. 

 

And WHAT THE HECK is the GW design team smoking if they think nerfing Oath of Moment is necessary?!?!?! Really McFly? Or in this case, McFlies! 

In regards to OoM we don’t know what the rules for units will be in the new codex so getting bent out of shape over an OoM nerf is a little bit premature