Warhammer World Anniversary Reveals March 2nd

[dalmer]

To be fair, 3rd edition Codex: Daemonhunters DID provide a stand-alone Ordo Malleus Inquisitiorial army list and then 3rd edition Codex: Witch Hunters provided a stand-alone Ordo Hereticus Inquisitorial army list.

 

Sure, you could also combine those forces with others but there were "entire [armies] of their own." 

[ThePenitentOne]

4 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

This old commercial mode didn't work. Current "every imperium player could buy some Agents model, and try to field 1-2 units" is much more easier to comprehend and accept by most players.

 

The old mode worked fine- the editions that contained that mode just met with the end of their life cycles, which is the churn and burn model. There was nothing inherently wrong with Agents as faction... Though I can't speak to what happened in 6th and 7th because I didn't play those editions.

 

Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying that the Assigned Agent method of appending these models to other Imperial Forces isn't more profitable for GW... It might be. But advocating for an Agents dex and the ability to field Agent detachments does not mean that ANYONE is suggesting we get rid of the Assigned Agent rule. The editions that handled it best where 8th and 9th. In these editions, you could field Agents by attaching them to other armies as you do know, but if you wanted to, you could ALSO field detachments of either Inquisitors or Rogue Traders (but neither Arbites nor Navy due to lack of HQ). And of course, those were the days when detachments weren't the difference engine for diversity the way they are now, which facilitated multi-detachment armies. So fielding a Hereticus Vanguard and a Martyred Lady Patrol was a very fluffy build, as would be a Malleus Vanguard and a Grey Knight Patrol or a Xenos Vanguard and a Deathwatch patrol.

 

This approach was great because it lets the Inquisition units fight like the Inquisition and the Chamber units fight like the Chamber units. It was also great for narrative campaign play- you could use your Inquisition force for investigation-type missions while your Chamber is occupied with other in-theatre threats of the mass battle variety and then as your Inquisition team's investigation uncovers a genuine threat, the Inquisition requisitions their Chamber for combined precision strike based on gathered intelligence. 

 

45 minutes ago, crimsondave said:

Idk.  I wish they’d have an entire army of their own like they used to have.  

 

So again, I can't speak to what happened in 6th and 7th, but it's a bit of a misnomer to suggest that the Hunter dexes were armies of their own, because what happened was GW released combined Ordo + Chamber dexes. Hereticus didn't have "their own army" - most of their units were actually Sororitas, and many of those contextualized as Inquisitorial tools were later revealed to be Ministorum units (lookin at you battle conclave).

 

Now, dropping Agents back into the Dexes of their Chambers IS something that is often suggested by folks who are looking for simple answers to the Agent issue. Again, it's workable, but it doesn't suit my preferences, and certainly isn't a complete solution to the problem.

 

When you add Navy and Arbites into the Agent equation, things get more complicated. The versatility of the Arbites kit, and the Milage that GW gets out of it (3 Units!) makes them really viable as a minifaction- the same sort of thing we are hoping for with Ordo forces. GW could do it with as little as an HQ choice and adding existing Imperial vehicles to the list. In a perfect world, they'd also give us a bike unit and a plastic Repressor dual kit for Sisters/ Arbites.

 

Rogue Traders have 2 datasheets, including an HQ unit... And somewhat more variety than that might otherwise imply by virtue of having 3 official Rogue Trader models in plastic. And for folks who play the game as intended and use Legends, you can still access Rogue Traders as character models meaning that you can field them as single characters, rather than requiring the entourage. So if you want to create variety in the army, you could field one RT with entourage + Voidsmen (Warlord) and then two more RTs with Voidsmen alone. You'd also have access to unaligned, so Espern Locarno (who would totally be Chewie to RT Han), as well as any other BSF weirdo that suits your Fleet. Again, adding vehicles to the list is a big deal. 

 

Navy are the weirdest ones- a single unit- breachers. Now, because Rogue Trader forces also operate from fleets, they share some features with Navy, and the current squishiness of Agent rules allows Rogue Traders to fill the absent Navy HQ spot, and allow breachers to be used in RT forces- but again, with 10th's Agent squishiness, it isn't necessary for Agent units to be fielded as if they were a detachment with its own command structure. If an Agents dex restores the capacity for Agent detachments, I'd like to see a few Navy units added to the range so that they have the capacity to be field as a detachment.

 

So ideally, and Agent dex continues to offer the Assigned Agents method of inclusion, but also has detachments for Hereticus, Malleus, Xenos, Arbites, RT and Navy detachments. Furthermore, all of these detachments should be able to be fielded alongside a Guard detachment, allowing both to return their rules, provided the Agent detachment accounts for no more than 25% of the total force. Additionally, Hereticus can ally with Sisters, Malleus can ally with GK and Xenos can ally with DW under the same set of rules and restrictions.

 

Combined detachment armies, but only for Agents, and only under strict conditions.

 

It is VERY unlikely to happen that way. In fact, while I find the rumours encouraging, I am not taking anything for granted. If the rumour is Ordo boxes, I feel like they're probably just Inquisitor + Retinue + Chamber boxes, with mostly if not entirely existing kits.

 

Final Note: In 9th ed, Rogue Traders received bespoke Crusade content but the Inquisition did not. For me, Crusade content for my Agents is critical if I'm going to buy into this edition- it isn't the only factor, but it's a big one. And again, if White Dwarf could get up off their butts and actually publish content for factions that need it rather than contributing another handful of pages to the MOUNTAIN of content available to Marines and to a lesser extent Nids, an Agents dex would not have to do all the heavy lifting.  

[Noserenda]

Yeah there is absolutely no reason you cant have both armies of agents and little bands running around inside other armies, its just whatever method is in fashion with the designers right now and how into narrative gaming they are.

[TheMawr]

22 minutes ago, Tokugawa said:

 

If there really exists Ordo detachments, it still must follow 10th format, and still part of "Agents of imperium".

 

It doesnt have to be, its seems like that because people ( incl GW so far ) see detachments as <subfactions> by another name, but where <subfactions> was tied to datasheets and the army you choose.. detachments actually arent.

 

They are a shape of your army you pick after you chose your army, that shape often is a subfaction or sub subfaction. However, that shape can be a lot more than any previous incarnation of this concept... and, in this matter.. the shape doesnt need to be directly tied to the army choice part of building an army.

 

For example an hypothetical Ordo Hereticus detachment, to use it you first pick your army... here you can choose wether its Sisters of Battle, Astra militarum or Custodes for example, Then choose this detachment like you would any other. Ability, Stratagems and Enhancements can syphon of the Imperium keyword, but even that isnt absolutely necessary, instead those things could focus on the inquisitor and imperial agents, as the wider army already has its faction abilities and synergies with each other.

 

There is a lot of potential imho and really worth a topic of its own ( not just inquisitors, but the whole detachment potential for allies, soup and offbeat armies.)

 

Nevertheless, despite how clean and interesting this can be done.. I expect GW to make it as awkward as it is now or worse. ( the fact that the Harlequin ally rules for drukhari are written on an aeldari-faction detachment that can not be taken by drukhari and thus might as wel have been written on a necron lord datasheet is still beyond ridiculous, but I seem to be the only one who feels that way.)

 

/offtopic off

 

More on the topic of the preview

 

Regarding the Shield captains someone else mentioned, something I wonder is if the new custodes character wont be a replacement of the shield captains made from the unit kits, and the Ork big mek a replacement of the one coming in the Mega nobz kit.

 

So far every codex in 10th has gotten rid of the "Leader that comes from a unit" datasheets they had, though its too small a pool still to draw conclusions from. I think these two codexes are interesting to keep an eye out for what happens there. Though apart from Spacewolves and Grey knights there arent many who have that.. only the troupemaster for harlequins beyond that I can think of.

 

 

[01RTB01]

Your mek theory doesn't hold up. It's on a totally different base size and to nuke a mega mek that'd mean you have a defunct option in the box. I'd argue it's something new and standalone. However, we will see soon I guess.

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

5 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

" Ordo hereticus task force: 

your army could include 3/4 Agent of imperium characters, instead of 2.

All non-assassin characters must be in Ordo hereticus.

They can lead Sacresant/Dominion/Novitiate squads. When they leading such units, they gain Y leader ability in addition to/instead of original X ability. 

Karamazov gain lone operative when in 3" of friendly pertinent engines or mortifiers unit."

This is the same outcome as my suggestion...

[TheMawr]

7 hours ago, 01RTB01 said:

Your mek theory doesn't hold up. It's on a totally different base size and to nuke a mega mek that'd mean you have a defunct option in the box. I'd argue it's something new and standalone. However, we will see soon I guess.

 

The base size doesnt matter at all, or am I missing something ? As I assume you dont mean there is a relevance between leader/unit and basesizes. ( there are many examples there isnt)

Mind you I dont mean a literal replacement but rather a spiritual one.. like a lot of Primaris units are for example or the deffkilla wartrike. But even with literal updates base sizes have increased more often than they didnt.

 

However the defunct option is a very true counter argument, the other nuked options had no very dedicated build options that couldnt just as well work as a part of the unit. ( standardbearers for custodes for example ) and making the mek an option for a meganobz unit like that is a rather big change I indeed dont see happening.

It wouldnt be orks only defunct option in a box though, GW always forgets the 5 2-handed uge choppa's in the Nobz kit... both in promo material and the rules. As far as I can tell, making a secondary "Nobzerkers or Waaghzerker Nobz" datasheet with that might even fill in a role for Orks. But thats not really the same situation, as I think GW always ignored those.

 

[Indy Techwisp]

20 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

" Ordo hereticus task force: 

your army could include 3/4 Agent of imperium characters, instead of 2.

All non-assassin characters must be in Ordo hereticus.

They can lead Sacresant/Dominion/Novitiate squads. When they leading such units, they gain Y leader ability in addition to/instead of original X ability. 

Karamazov gain lone operative when in 3" of friendly pertinent engines or mortifiers unit."

 

"Agents of the Imperium" Army.
>Still only up-to 1 of each Assassin

>Restriction on number of AoI units otherwise removed.
>New datasheets for the 3 HH Assassins (either as a "Legends of the Horus Heresy" doc or as an Imperial Armour doc)

>Can "soup" in units from SoB, GK, DW and TotE using the same rules as Daemonic Summoning for Chaos Factions (So you actually need battleline to drag in a character from that faction and the maximum "souped" points are the same)

 

 

But I genuinely doubt AoI will get any brand-new models/units that aren't just pulled from something else tbh.
(I actually doubt they'll get stand-alone army rules at all but that's what's being speculated on here.)

[Master Commander Ajax]

Is there any official word on what time the previews are starting? 

[Noserenda]

I think this sort of preview will pop up at/around Warhammer world opening, so about 10am GMT? 

Was just wondering if id just missed some run up but i guess not?

[TheMawr]

With how previous preview events where bigger than their predecessors I was wondering if the previews here would be too.. but I highly doubt it now with the lack of build up.

It seems to be there is 1 BB video ( goose.. obviously ), 2 40k ones and 1 or 2 AoS ( its unclear wether the other was there already.)

 

The simplest and likeliest guess would be Custodes and Ork codex and miniature reveal, the Darkoath cavalry for AoS.. thus finishing off the Silhouette teasers and a single bloodbowl starplayer. Maybe with a teaser thing sprinkled on top for Adepticon.

 

Found out that Warpspiders are having their anniversary too though, and since back-to-back codex+solo release often share a video, who knows there might be some early teasing there, considering the rumors, in the vein of the ork buggys teaser in 8th edition or the April 1st squat teaser.. but the chances are slim.

[Corswain]

I completely forgot this was happening. Something to look forward to after work.

[Burni]

Was hoping to see the HH command squad today.

[Astartes Consul]

That would be my guess of what the HH review will be. Maybe a tease of some more Solar plastics as well.

[Mogger351]

18 minutes ago, Astartes Consul said:

That would be my guess of what the HH review will be. Maybe a tease of some more Solar plastics as well.

There isn't one? 3 posts up details there's 2 40k videos 2 sigmar and a blood bowl.

Edited March 2 by Mogger351

[ZeroWolf]

6 hours ago, TheMawr said:

With how previous preview events where bigger than their predecessors I was wondering if the previews here would be too.. but I highly doubt it now with the lack of build up.

It seems to be there is 1 BB video ( goose.. obviously ), 2 40k ones and 1 or 2 AoS ( its unclear wether the other was there already.)

 

The simplest and likeliest guess would be Custodes and Ork codex and miniature reveal, the Darkoath cavalry for AoS.. thus finishing off the Silhouette teasers and a single bloodbowl starplayer. Maybe with a teaser thing sprinkled on top for Adepticon.

 

Found out that Warpspiders are having their anniversary too though, and since back-to-back codex+solo release often share a video, who knows there might be some early teasing there, considering the rumors, in the vein of the ork buggys teaser in 8th edition or the April 1st squat teaser.. but the chances are slim.

Turns out that you got 4 out of 5 right 

 

And Valrak's source was right about the ork stompa box, hopefully that is the same source whose made a lot of the 40k rumours as of late.

[Lord Marshal]

Big Mek and Shield Captain. 

 

Edited March 2 by Lord Marshal

[Joe]

I swear they've yet to design a remotely interesting looking character for the Adeptus Custodes. That's genuinely as dull as it could have come.

[Bouargh]

The shield Captain is OK, but should definitively keep his helmet on...

 

Battle forces are also on:

 

 

I am a little bit concerned by the inflation in power level.

• A battle force with a Stompa for orks... Hum looks like the perfile of forces on the table will go to big and bigger or even bigger machines. 
• So many jetbikes for Custodes, and not a single "basic" troop unit.

[Dagoth Ur]

The Big Mek is great but something about that Shield Captain is not clicking for me.

[Sergeant Centurion]

Im not sure if there will be more content, but im not impressed at all with the miniatures they show allready. Lets be clear, they are not bad, but i dont know, not my teste.

[Lord_Ikka]

The Custodes box looks decent, if I wanted to start another army (which I won't because my wife would kill me). Unless the Stompa gets a serious glow-up I don't see much value in the Ork box though.

[Kharn13]

So now that we’ve seen these and most of Tau, does that mean CSM at Adepticon? Maybe they’ll reveal that EC aren’t part of the dex? :)

[Karhedron]

8 minutes ago, Bouargh said:

I am a little bit concerned by the inflation in power level.

• A battle force with a Stompa for orks... Hum looks like the perfile of forces on the table will go to big and bigger or even bigger machines. 
• So many jetbikes for Custodes, and not a single "basic" troop unit.

 

Those are Battle forces rather than Combat Patrols so a balanced power level is not really vital. Also the Stompa is a pretty old model which dilutes the value to some extent although they make good starting points for people looking to begin a new army.

[Doghouse]

I like the Ork but it doesn't look like a GW product and more like a third party model. I think it's the head, it's looks sad to me when it should be revelling in the glory of the Waaargh. Replace that with a regular shouty head and jobs a good un.

 

I don't like the Custodian, with the exception of the spear and the torso it doesn't feel like it fits with the others to me personally speaking.