Any chance we get a new scout bike type unit?

[Indy Techwisp]

4 hours ago, Tacitus said:

I'm pretty much expecting that when they get their supplement - I'd also expect some other named character to drop for White Scars.  They're one of the last two? supplement chapters with only the one named.

 

Since White Scars aren't a "Codex Divergent" Chapter according to GW (their stated reasoning for DA, BA, DW, BT and SW being separated out), I doubt White Scars will be getting their own supplement in 10th

[Tacitus]

1 hour ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Since White Scars aren't a "Codex Divergent" Chapter according to GW (their stated reasoning for DA, BA, DW, BT and SW being separated out), I doubt White Scars will be getting their own supplement in 10th

I'd bet my money they all get a supplement.  It might be some fluff, a couple Dets, and a couple characters/datasheets but I'm still betting they all get a supplement.   Its easy money.

[DemonGSides]

Yeah, might be a good opportunity to rebalance Space Marines later in the edition as well, like they've done in the past.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Tacitus said:

I'd bet my money they all get a supplement.  It might be some fluff, a couple Dets, and a couple characters/datasheets but I'm still betting they all get a supplement.   Its easy money.

Probably not since all the current compliant chapters have detachments that correspond to them in some way.

[Tacitus]

17 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Probably not since all the current compliant chapters have detachments that correspond to them in some way.

They all have one.  The bigger argument against it is all the Epic Heroes are already in the main Codex.   But everybody got One Det for their faction in the index, the supplements bring out bonus Dets.  DA had Grim Resolve, and got two more in their supplement.  I'd expect to see supplements with the Compliant Chapters with updated Epic Heroes, maybe new ones, and a couple Chapter Only Dets.

[Indy Techwisp]

4 hours ago, Tacitus said:

They all have one.  The bigger argument against it is all the Epic Heroes are already in the main Codex.   But everybody got One Det for their faction in the index, the supplements bring out bonus Dets.  DA had Grim Resolve, and got two more in their supplement.  I'd expect to see supplements with the Compliant Chapters with updated Epic Heroes, maybe new ones, and a couple Chapter Only Dets.

 

It is possible that the other "codex compliant" chapters get more stuff in the usual Space Marine Codex 2 most editions seem to manifest.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

I would love to see supplements return. I still have the IF one from, I think it ws 8th edition? Seems like easy money for GW and just because Imperial Fists, White Scars, Iron Hands or Raven Guard aren't as divergent as Space Wolves or Blood Angels doesn't mean they aren't different enough to warrant a small supplement. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 3/15/2024 at 5:30 PM, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

I would love to see supplements return. I still have the IF one from, I think it ws 8th edition? Seems like easy money for GW and just because Imperial Fists, White Scars, Iron Hands or Raven Guard aren't as divergent as Space Wolves or Blood Angels doesn't mean they aren't different enough to warrant a small supplement. 

They really aren’t…

theyre 100% compliant, just like every other codex compliant chapter…

 

and yea supplements would be easy money, and the only reason I believe they’re likely, because GW has become extremely greedy.

[Guest Triszin]

I hope not.

 

Its redundant, and was redundant.

[Tacitus]

1 hour ago, Triszin said:

I hope not.

 

Its redundant, and was redundant.

Well I'm hoping an improved Chapter Tactics makes a return which would be perfect for supplements.  Also It would provide Chapter Specific Dets for the Codex Compliant Chapters.  DA get 3+6, while Codex Compliant get... 6.  The DA codex didn't take away the 1st Company and Stormlance Task Forces, it added two new similar Dets.  Why shouldn't IF (and all the others) get a 1st company and more specifically tailored task force of their own?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

12 hours ago, Tacitus said:

Well I'm hoping an improved Chapter Tactics makes a return which would be perfect for supplements.  Also It would provide Chapter Specific Dets for the Codex Compliant Chapters.  DA get 3+6, while Codex Compliant get... 6.  The DA codex didn't take away the 1st Company and Stormlance Task Forces, it added two new similar Dets.  Why shouldn't IF (and all the others) get a 1st company and more specifically tailored task force of their own?

Codex compliant already have detachments to represent them.

 

I am sorry for the people who like compliant chapters, but there just isn’t any real justification for them to get extra detachments let alone whole ass books for themselves.

[Tacitus]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Codex compliant already have detachments to represent them.

 

I am sorry for the people who like compliant chapters, but there just isn’t any real justification for them to get extra detachments let alone whole ass books for themselves.

Sure there is.  For starters, as has already been mentioned, it makes GW money and they're a business so they don't need much more justification than that.  Codex Non-Compliant get 9.  Codex Compliant get 6 which are even part of the nine someone else gets.  People do not usually respond well to getting less than someone else. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

38 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

Sure there is.  For starters, as has already been mentioned, it makes GW money and they're a business so they don't need much more justification than that.  Codex Non-Compliant get 9.  Codex Compliant get 6 which are even part of the nine someone else gets.  People do not usually respond well to getting less than someone else. 

Non-compliant get more than compliant because they’re different.

who cares how people respond to getting less? 
Want more, don’t play a cookie cutter chapter.

[AutumnEffect]

12 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Non-compliant get more than compliant because they’re different.

who cares how people respond to getting less? 
Want more, don’t play a cookie cutter chapter.

 

Right? How dare you want things for the Chapter you like and invested in.
The nerve.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 hours ago, AutumnEffect said:

 

Right? How dare you want things for the Chapter you like and invested in.
The nerve.

Giving them different things changes what they are. If you like a compliant chapter why desire to become non-compliant?

[Tacitus]

11 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Giving them different things changes what they are. If you like a compliant chapter why desire to become non-compliant?

So you're saying Terminators and Phobos are compliant because compliant chapters have them,  but a Det for the Ravenguard mixing Terminators, Vanguard Vets and Phobos is not compliant even though they're compliant and that's their fluff? 

[AutumnEffect]

13 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Giving them different things changes what they are. If you like a compliant chapter why desire to become non-compliant?

Did giving them supplements and unique things, like the Khan on Bike dataslate, change what they were?

[Tacitus]

2 hours ago, AutumnEffect said:

Did giving them supplements and unique things, like the Khan on Bike dataslate, change what they were?

Honest answer?  Yes.  But it didn't make them Non-Complaint.  Also complaint is a misnomer.  Complaint doesn't mean Cookie Cutter.  The Codex may suggest loading up on Flamers when confronted with dug in lightly armed and armored Chaos Cultists.  The Imperial Fists running in bolter's blazing doesn't make them non-compliant.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

18 hours ago, Tacitus said:

So you're saying Terminators and Phobos are compliant because compliant chapters have them,  but a Det for the Ravenguard mixing Terminators, Vanguard Vets and Phobos is not compliant even though they're compliant and that's their fluff? 

What? 
can you at least try making some sort of sense next time you post?

16 hours ago, AutumnEffect said:

Did giving them supplements and unique things, like the Khan on Bike dataslate, change what they were?

What unique things did they give them 

 

captain on bike isn’t special. It’s still a codex compliant way of war.

[jaxom]

  

On 1/17/2024 at 1:03 PM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I liked it, especially being able to take a grenade launcher instead of just bolters,  would help them stand out a bit from regular outriders.

 

Would anyone else like to see that?

 

Subjectively, I do not. I like the Power Armour silhouette visual identifier for the majority of an Astartes force. It's irrational, but *shrug*. 

 

On 1/17/2024 at 1:11 PM, DemonGSides said:

I'd prefer multi part kits of outriders and some leader options before bothering with more scouts.

 

Ditto.

 

On 1/18/2024 at 3:27 PM, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

Hopefully GW has the common sense to get the Captain & Lieutenant (and ideally the Librarian and Techmarine too) on Bikes released this decade at least. 

 

My assumption is the design work is all done because it was probably done as part of the same concept and development was as the Bike Chaplain; and it's just a question of when some suit decides now's the time for their actual production.

 

On 1/23/2024 at 1:23 AM, AutumnEffect said:

I'd actually kind of surprised if we got new Primaris Vanguard Veterans as Bladeguard fill the slot of 'melee veteran unit' quite nicely. Sure they aren't the same thing and I wouldn't be disappointed to see Vanguard vets, but...
Well, we'll just have to see.

 

I think Primaris Vanguard Vets are a kit that has enough pros and cons on both sides that it would come down to its projected ROI.

 

On 1/23/2024 at 5:36 AM, Tacitus said:

Plus we've still got the Blood Angels Release.  I think we're getting a new VV release because we already got a new SG release with the Ultras.

If you go all the way back to 2E Angels of Death/Ultramarines codex - 

Ultras = SG/Tacticals

BA = VV/Assault Marines

DA = Terminators and only Terminators. 

 

Maybe, but I think that's giving GW too much credit (and ignores 2E DA getting Ravenwing, too). I think it more likely that the Blood Angels come out with new Assault Terminators and/or Sanguinary Guard.

 

On 1/23/2024 at 6:18 AM, Karhedron said:

I was thinking the same thing and I was (pleasantly) surprised to see Vanguard Veterans survive into the new codex. I assumed they would get punted off to Legends like several other entries from the Index. I guess Tactical Squads and Devastators are still around as Primaris don't have a direct equivalent for those yet. I would quite like to see new VVs but I will make the most of my squad for this edition without holding out too much hope that they will survive into 11th.

 

There are a number of reasons Vanguard Vets could have made it into the new codex and I don't think we'll know why unless there's a tell-all interview at some point.

 

Tacticals and Intercessors are both basic bolter bodies with a few extra toys. I'd argue it's semantics that they are not direct equivalents. Similarly, Hellblasters and Desolators cover a good slice of the weapon types and preferred role of Devastators. 

 

On 2/24/2024 at 7:42 PM, Nephaston said:

If anything I wouldn't be surprised to see Bikes for Phobos and Gravis down the line, perhaps even before we see another character on bike. If done smart a scout bike squad could use the same bike model as a theoretical phobos bike squad.

 

Vanguard Vets in Phobos armour, calling it now. Gotta have a shooty vet and a choppy vet per armour sub-mark.

 

I do think the idea was for Vanguard/Phobos marines to replace all the Scout units. I'm guessing it changed when someone realized that if they're making Neophytes for Templars.... Regardless, a I don't see a Gravis bike being a thing. Inceptors are basically one-person drop pods, but otherwise the visual language doesn't really match up with speed.

 

Questions: by veteran do you mean First Company or just "experienced marines"?

 

On 3/11/2024 at 6:04 AM, Tacitus said:

The bigger argument against it is all the Epic Heroes are already in the main Codex.   But everybody got One Det for their faction in the index, the supplements bring out bonus Dets.  DA had Grim Resolve, and got two more in their supplement.  I'd expect to see supplements with the Compliant Chapters with updated Epic Heroes, maybe new ones, and a couple Chapter Only Dets.

 

Epic heroes in the 'dex makes me think any future Not-As-Big Four coverage could be a White Dwarf Index Astartes with a single new Detachment. Less time that designers have to work on "smaller" subfactions, great ROI than having to print whole supplements with mostly recycled art and fluff, etc. GW could even use sales of those issues to track if it's worth developing full supplements.

 

On 3/15/2024 at 5:30 PM, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

Seems like easy money for GW and just because Imperial Fists, White Scars, Iron Hands or Raven Guard aren't as divergent as Space Wolves or Blood Angels doesn't mean they aren't different enough to warrant a small supplement. 

 

Given the design space of 10th edition, it's very possible that the design team decided the Not-As-Big Four aren't different enough to warrant their own detachments (not my personal opinion, as per my signature). Or, it's possible that a suit looked at the previous supplement sales and decided against putting resources towards 10th edition version in favor of putting those resources to something else.

 

On 3/16/2024 at 9:09 PM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

They really aren’t…

theyre 100% compliant, just like every other codex compliant chapter…

 

and yea supplements would be easy money, and the only reason I believe they’re likely, because GW has become extremely greedy.

 

If GW embraced digital publishing sure, but they have to print whatever books they decide to do. 

 

As for compliance, there's a lot of wriggle room there. Special characters and detachments can exist within a compliant design space. That's one reason why I think it's possible we won't get new Not-As-Big Four supplements. The Inner Circle Task Force could easily represent the Imperial Fists First Company; just take only units in Codex: Space Marines. Sons of Sanguinius could easily represent a 19th Legion gene-seed force that has embraced their atavistic fury (Carcharadons, anyone?); again, just take only C:SM units.

 

I'm aware that's just at a rules-mechanics level, and I'm neither endorsing nor not endorsing it. Just that if there's someone at GW who sees it that way then we're not likely to see supplements.

 

On 3/16/2024 at 11:46 PM, Tacitus said:

Well I'm hoping an improved Chapter Tactics makes a return which would be perfect for supplements.  Also It would provide Chapter Specific Dets for the Codex Compliant Chapters.  DA get 3+6, while Codex Compliant get... 6.  The DA codex didn't take away the 1st Company and Stormlance Task Forces, it added two new similar Dets.  Why shouldn't IF (and all the others) get a 1st company and more specifically tailored task force of their own?

 

What do you mean by "improved Chapter Tactics"?

 

As per my earlier writing, I think it really depends on how the folks at GW see it. If someone thinks painting up a white Sammael and calling him Samsara Khan is good enough for White Scars players who are envious of Company of Hunters....

 

On 3/17/2024 at 2:46 PM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Non-compliant get more than compliant because they’re different.

who cares how people respond to getting less? 
Want more, don’t play a cookie cutter chapter.

 

 

Still, detachments are, loosely speaking, chapter-agnostic. Non-compliant chapters get more units/kits, but their detachments don't actually require taking them. And without chapter-locked units, nothing mechanically differentiates one chapter from another in 10th edition. 

 

23 hours ago, Tacitus said:

So you're saying Terminators and Phobos are compliant because compliant chapters have them,  but a Det for the Ravenguard mixing Terminators, Vanguard Vets and Phobos is not compliant even though they're compliant and that's their fluff? 

 

Speaking only for myself, Ravenguard mixing all those units could be compliant. It depends on context and my idiot brain is having trouble parsing the context. I'd assume that if someone wanted an army of Terminators, Vanguard Vets, and Phobos they'd either pick the Vanguard Detachment for Ravenguard flavor or they'd pick the 1st Company Task Force if the majority are the elite units, and the presence of Phobos units is the Ravenguard flavor.

 

5 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

What unique things did they give them 

 

captain on bike isn’t special. It’s still a codex compliant way of war.

 

The Not-Big-Four received unique data slates, stratagems, relics, and psychic powers in their respective supplements. Do you mean Codex Astartes lore-compliant or Codex: Space Marines rules-compliant?

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

19 hours ago, jaxom said:

  

 

Subjectively, I do not. I like the Power Armour silhouette visual identifier for the majority of an Astartes force. It's irrational, but *shrug*. 

 

 

Ditto.

 

 

My assumption is the design work is all done because it was probably done as part of the same concept and development was as the Bike Chaplain; and it's just a question of when some suit decides now's the time for their actual production.

 

 

I think Primaris Vanguard Vets are a kit that has enough pros and cons on both sides that it would come down to its projected ROI.

 

 

Maybe, but I think that's giving GW too much credit (and ignores 2E DA getting Ravenwing, too). I think it more likely that the Blood Angels come out with new Assault Terminators and/or Sanguinary Guard.

 

 

There are a number of reasons Vanguard Vets could have made it into the new codex and I don't think we'll know why unless there's a tell-all interview at some point.

 

Tacticals and Intercessors are both basic bolter bodies with a few extra toys. I'd argue it's semantics that they are not direct equivalents. Similarly, Hellblasters and Desolators cover a good slice of the weapon types and preferred role of Devastators. 

 

 

I do think the idea was for Vanguard/Phobos marines to replace all the Scout units. I'm guessing it changed when someone realized that if they're making Neophytes for Templars.... Regardless, a I don't see a Gravis bike being a thing. Inceptors are basically one-person drop pods, but otherwise the visual language doesn't really match up with speed.

 

Questions: by veteran do you mean First Company or just "experienced marines"?

 

 

Epic heroes in the 'dex makes me think any future Not-As-Big Four coverage could be a White Dwarf Index Astartes with a single new Detachment. Less time that designers have to work on "smaller" subfactions, great ROI than having to print whole supplements with mostly recycled art and fluff, etc. GW could even use sales of those issues to track if it's worth developing full supplements.

 

 

Given the design space of 10th edition, it's very possible that the design team decided the Not-As-Big Four aren't different enough to warrant their own detachments (not my personal opinion, as per my signature). Or, it's possible that a suit looked at the previous supplement sales and decided against putting resources towards 10th edition version in favor of putting those resources to something else.

 

 

If GW embraced digital publishing sure, but they have to print whatever books they decide to do. 

 

As for compliance, there's a lot of wriggle room there. Special characters and detachments can exist within a compliant design space. That's one reason why I think it's possible we won't get new Not-As-Big Four supplements. The Inner Circle Task Force could easily represent the Imperial Fists First Company; just take only units in Codex: Space Marines. Sons of Sanguinius could easily represent a 19th Legion gene-seed force that has embraced their atavistic fury (Carcharadons, anyone?); again, just take only C:SM units.

 

I'm aware that's just at a rules-mechanics level, and I'm neither endorsing nor not endorsing it. Just that if there's someone at GW who sees it that way then we're not likely to see supplements.

 

 

What do you mean by "improved Chapter Tactics"?

 

As per my earlier writing, I think it really depends on how the folks at GW see it. If someone thinks painting up a white Sammael and calling him Samsara Khan is good enough for White Scars players who are envious of Company of Hunters....

 

 

 

Still, detachments are, loosely speaking, chapter-agnostic. Non-compliant chapters get more units/kits, but their detachments don't actually require taking them. And without chapter-locked units, nothing mechanically differentiates one chapter from another in 10th edition. 

 

 

Speaking only for myself, Ravenguard mixing all those units could be compliant. It depends on context and my idiot brain is having trouble parsing the context. I'd assume that if someone wanted an army of Terminators, Vanguard Vets, and Phobos they'd either pick the Vanguard Detachment for Ravenguard flavor or they'd pick the 1st Company Task Force if the majority are the elite units, and the presence of Phobos units is the Ravenguard flavor.

 

 

The Not-Big-Four received unique data slates, stratagems, relics, and psychic powers in their respective supplements. Do you mean Codex Astartes lore-compliant or Codex: Space Marines rules-compliant?

 

 

Other than unique characters there’s no justification for compliant chapters to get unique units. That would literally make them non-compliant.

 

if you don’t want a chapter that’s codex compliant, don’t play a compliant chapter.

it’s pure childish jealousy. If the big 4 didn’t have unique stuff none of the compliant chapter players would care that they don’t have anything unique.

 

i admit it would be cool to have multimeltas available for my impulsors, it would be great to have my own primarch…but guess what…I can paint the lion red, slap some wings on him use the DA codex and call him sanguinius if I want a primarch that badly.

 

all this on top of the fact that multiple unique units have been made available to all chapters over the years.

 

Edited March 20 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[jaxom]

4 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Other than unique characters there’s no justification for compliant chapters to get unique units. That would literally make them non-compliant.

 

if you don’t want a chapter that’s codex compliant, don’t play a compliant chapter.

it’s pure childish jealousy. If the big 4 didn’t have unique stuff none of the compliant chapter players would care that they don’t have anything unique.

I don't understand the context for this. Is it for 10th edition? Regardless, I agree that the Not-Big-Four should not be getting unique units. At the same time, it is very possible to make a non-compliant Chapter using Codex: Space Marines; hence my earlier question. Are you referring to the Codex Astartes or Codex: Space Marines?

[AutumnEffect]

2 hours ago, jaxom said:

I don't understand the context for this. Is it for 10th edition? Regardless, I agree that the Not-Big-Four should not be getting unique units. At the same time, it is very possible to make a non-compliant Chapter using Codex: Space Marines; hence my earlier question. Are you referring to the Codex Astartes or Codex: Space Marines?

 

Seconded. I'm unsure if you're talking about the Codex Astartes (the in-universe document) or Codex: Space Marines.

If it's the in-universe document then I would say that 'codex-compliant' is a spectrum that people in-universe will bicker about even more than we do. The Salamanders have only 7 companies. That's clearly not codex-compliant but they are covered in the Codex: Space Marines. The Iron Hands have their Clan Company that are completely self contained units; each company has it's own scouts, their own Terminator squad leaders. This is also clearly not codex compliant. The Exorcists have 12 companies, 3 of which are scouts. They are also included in Codex: Space Marines but are clearly not codex compliant.

'Codex compliant' isn't a strict term, it is, as I said, a spectrum or shorthand used in-universe. It has no bearing on the rules we use to play with our toy figures. For a couple editions, the Codex: Space Marines were the official rules you would use for Black Templars but that did not make them a 'codex compliant' chapter.

Lets take Iron Hands for an example. As you can see from the illustration I linked, there is a clear precedent in the lore for them to have Terminator equipped Squad Sergeants.
Iron Hands players wishing they had access to this is not childish jealousy. It's someone invested in that chapter just wishing they had the option to represent this aspect.

 

6 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

it’s pure childish jealousy. If the big 4 didn’t have unique stuff none of the compliant chapter players would care that they don’t have anything unique.

This is both pure speculation and an ad-hominem. 
The only childish thing is you assuming, insulting and then dismissing off hand other people's opinions because they are not your own and you do not understand or share them.

Edited March 21 by AutumnEffect

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 hours ago, jaxom said:

I don't understand the context for this. Is it for 10th edition? Regardless, I agree that the Not-Big-Four should not be getting unique units. At the same time, it is very possible to make a non-compliant Chapter using Codex: Space Marines; hence my earlier question. Are you referring to the Codex Astartes or Codex: Space Marines?

Do you not know what codex compliant means?

[AutumnEffect]

8 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Do you not know what codex compliant means?

This answer has nothing to do with the question asked.

Brother jaxom ask a legitimate question, politely. 

 

And your response is to show contemptful sarcasm. This is unwarranted and does nothing other than put both you and your arguments in a negative light.