# More 6th Edition Rumors



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

*(SOURCE)*



> Last night was when I heard about these rumors of 6th edition. As far as rumors go, these ones really come out of left field, but since they are rumors nonetheless, I decided to post em up. So without any real intro, here they are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

hmm...most seems legit from past rumors and everything, just it needs some salt.

the lack of BTs & Tau are the only differences between this rumor and what we had/speculated 6+ months ago.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Fallen said:


> hmm...most seems legit from past rumors and everything, just it needs some salt.
> 
> the lack of BTs & Tau are the only differences between this rumor and what we had/speculated 6+ months ago.


Hence why I thought it was worth sharing...and then accidentally put it int the wrong forum. I've already asked a mod to move it though.


----------



## Nave Senrag (Jul 8, 2010)

Interesting rumor, if it's true, then this will be the first starter set that I buy.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Nave Senrag said:


> Interesting rumor, if it's true, then this will be the first starter set that I buy.


Same here. I've been tempted to restart my old Dark Angels army from when I played it in 3rd for a while and am interested in Eldar (since I basically play my Sisters similar to them with units being specialists) so it's be a box I could potentially get a lot of use out of.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Nothing new to me.... I can pretty much guarentee Necrons are in the next month or two, what with the huge lack of them on the GW main page. 

As for the rest... 6th is meant to be midway through next year, which gives us a good 6 months for new codexes... hearing that eldar are meant to be the first for the new ed... I can still see a marine codex, and a xenos one between now and launch for it. 

The chaos stuff... Plausable, given that both kinds of marines are their best sellers, and the fans have been screaming for seperate chaos legion codexes for years now.


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

How wonderful, a Chaos Legion codex. This keeps getting rumored more and more. Exactly what 40k needs is yet another 3+ codex about 7ft tall genetic superhumans. Why not just one codex for Space Marines and one codex for Chaos Space Marines. It will probably however mean more money for GW which is good as they'll have more money floating around for the proper game (Warhammer Fantasy) and side-projects - like the kick-ass Dreadfleet.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

I would certainly be very interested in getting several CSM v DA box sets and i need DA to finish off my Undivided Company.

I would love to see Chaos Legions Codex.


----------



## VK-Duelist (Oct 4, 2010)

Well, my friend will be happy.

Of course.... The lack of Tau makes me sad....


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

The guy at my local store said they won't put Chaos Marines vs Space Marines in the starter box because they are to similar.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

I'm not sure how much I trust this but I do like the idea of the Traitor Legions getting some of the spotlight again. Time will tell.


----------



## Nave Senrag (Jul 8, 2010)

Zion said:


> Same here. I've been tempted to restart my old Dark Angels army from when I played it in 3rd for a while and am interested in Eldar (since I basically play my Sisters similar to them with units being specialists) so it's be a box I could potentially get a lot of use out of.


Unless the models are remade to look vastly different, and the vehicles are so unique to each codex that the effort to convert them to the other would be incredible, I see this set becoming a definite buy for both SM and CSM players who want to expand their collections on the cheap.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

Abomination said:


> How wonderful, a Chaos Legion codex. This keeps getting rumored more and more. Exactly what 40k needs is yet another 3+ codex about 7ft tall genetic superhumans. Why not just one codex for Space Marines and one codex for Chaos Space Marines.


Yes, good idea, lets put 5 codices worth of information into a single 600 page codex. Oh, wait. The reason there are more SM codices is because the fluff of the SM has been developed far more than other races. I would love to see craftworld eldar codices for each craftworld, but it won't happen because they haven't been developed to the level that the SM have. 
Why should you have a gripe with Chaos legions? They have far more merit than most chapters to have their own multidex, when chapters like DA get their own codex. Its one book and some models, it will make the game more enjoyable for us Chaos Legion players, where i can field a WE army that plays like WE. But that wouldn't matter to you would it? We are not allowed to enjoy the game because you think that there should be less PA codices? Well, the whole GW universe doesn't centre around what you think. We Chaos players deserve a real codex, not that rag that we have now. I swear its like listening to a broken record with everyone bitching about SM and CSM, i cant even count the amount of threads ive seen with "too much power armour" in the title. So why don't you stop moaning about something that should make little difference to your enjoyment of the game, and enhance that of myself and thousands of other Chaos players, and go back to your dreadfleet. So why bother posting in this thread when you clearly think that Fantasy is the "proper game"?


----------



## VK-Duelist (Oct 4, 2010)

*Comes back from reading the older Chaos Codexes*

WTH HAPPENED BETWEEN 3rd AND 4th?!?!?!?!

Though I do like the idea of a Thousand Sons Codex.


----------



## Me-dea (Mar 10, 2010)

Im sure that starter set will not include SM vs CSM. It will be same as with previous boxes (both WF and W40k): elite vs horde. I can see either SM (definitely vanila ones) or CSM on one side and Eldar or Tau on the other. As far as rummors goes it looks like it will be CSM vs Eldar.

Im curious, does anyone know some rumours around the new rules? I mean other than fliers (thats really easy to figure out since new dexes include fliers-will-be units).


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Words_of_Truth said:


> The guy at my local store said they won't put Chaos Marines vs Space Marines in the starter box because they are to similar.


But wouldn't that be why GW would do it? They are the two easiest armies to learn about..


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

They are both have the same same stat line etc they'd want to show the differences to hit etc by having different stats.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

I want a totally OP Chaos Legions codex... I really do... #isactuallyserious


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

Ill take it as a pinch of salt these rumors, but if 6th is slated for middle of next year sometime, maybe we'll see the Chaos Legion Codex either by 2nd quarter or 3rd quarter, maybe next year will be the year for me as a CSM player.


----------



## Lash Machine (Nov 28, 2008)

This rumours about 6th edition are a bit tiresome and mainly totally fake. Most people could have told people on the release of 5th edition that 6th would have been released 4 years later in the summer of 2012 as that is the current cycle of updates to main rules. Fantasy sits in the gap two years between 40K updates. 

It's all mainly for buisness reasons both the release time, summer, and attempting to improve the game.

It will be interesting to see how accurate some of these rumours are. I for one do not buy into most of it. The internet is a strange place and making up utter crap is just one thing people spend time on. You only need to have a look at you tube to see the massive compilations of made up trailers and other weirdness attempting to say it is something genuine to get a feel of it. I feel the majority, if not all these 6th edition rumours are just more of the same.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

Well, thats a very pessimistic attitude Lash :nono:  you never know, this could be a GW started leak, sort of like a beta for any video game, testing the water.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Lash Machine said:


> This rumours about 6th edition are a bit tiresome and mainly totally fake. Most people could have told people on the release of 5th edition that 6th would have been released 4 years later in the summer of 2012 as that is the current cycle of updates to main rules. Fantasy sits in the gap two years between 40K updates.
> 
> It's all mainly for buisness reasons both the release time, summer, and attempting to improve the game.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how accurate some of these rumours are. I for one do not buy into most of it. The internet is a strange place and making up utter crap is just one thing people spend time on. You only need to have a look at you tube to see the massive compilations of made up trailers and other weirdness attempting to say it is something genuine to get a feel of it. I feel the majority, if not all these 6th edition rumours are just more of the same.


These have been my thoughts exactly. I made a bet months ago that these rumors would turn out to be largely bunk and my mind hasn't changed. It's easy to come up with a bunch of BS rumors and get people to believe them.


----------



## robpfffff (Oct 1, 2011)

ARGHHH.....chaos vs anything starter box? makes me want to wait till next year to start my army....too bad i'm impatient  

and legion codex YAY!

death guard <3333333 plague marines <33333333 NURGLE <33333333


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Nave Senrag said:


> Unless the models are remade to look vastly different, and the vehicles are so unique to each codex that the effort to convert them to the other would be incredible, I see this set becoming a definite buy for both SM and CSM players who want to expand their collections on the cheap.


Dark Angels tend to rock robes and wings in their motif, Chaos tend to rock spikes, chains, and mutations in theirs. Take that as you will.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I wait with baited breath for this new edition.

At the moment I feel they have properly fucked up 40K by this obsessive codex creep crap that has got worse and worse over the years. Enough is enough! Why can't we have a system where all the codexes are reasonably balanced against each other like Fantasy?

Also as nearly every commander knows it is the infantry that are the balancing factor in engagements. I hope they get more emphasis on them next edition and not slapping everyone in a metal box so all the armies have a chance of winning.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Stephen_Newman said:


> I wait with baited breath for this new edition.
> 
> At the moment I feel they have properly fucked up 40K by this obsessive codex creep crap that has got worse and worse over the years. Enough is enough! Why can't we have a system where all the codexes are reasonably balanced against each other like Fantasy?
> 
> Also as nearly every commander knows it is the infantry that are the balancing factor in engagements. I hope they get more emphasis on them next edition and not slapping everyone in a metal box so all the armies have a chance of winning.


Codex creep has always been a problem, but from what I've seen personally with only two exceptions (Tyranids and Grey Knights) the 5th Edition codices all function fairly well and it comes down to player skill to win (Nids are more like 40K hard mode until you find the JUST right list for your local meta...and even then it's based on luck, and Grey Knights seem to be 40K easy mode). GW has gotten better about it all, and I hope they continue to do so.

I too would like to be able to do foot lists (mobbed Foot Sisters ftw?) instead of just mech. 5th is the 1st edition since the game started though transports are worth taking though, so there were bound to be some kinks in getting them right. I'm sure things will smooth out inthe future.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Zion said:


> Codex creep has always been a problem, but from what I've seen personally with only two exceptions (Tyranids and Grey Knights) the 5th Edition codices all function fairly well and it comes down to player skill to win (Nids are more like 40K hard mode until you find the JUST right list for your local meta...and even then it's based on luck, and Grey Knights seem to be 40K easy mode). GW has gotten better about it all, and I hope they continue to do so.
> 
> I too would like to be able to do foot lists (mobbed Foot Sisters ftw?) instead of just mech. 5th is the 1st edition since the game started though transports are worth taking though, so there were bound to be some kinks in getting them right. I'm sure things will smooth out inthe future.


Now I disagree. Whilst I can admit Codex Creep has always been around I will not accept that it is managable or at an acceptable level currently. At the moment it is very poor and it makes a poor game.

Lets look at Fantasy as an example. Whilst many people will agree that some armies (Brettonia and Wood Elves spring to mind) are weaker than the newer books they are not almost guaranteed to lose everytime they come up against an 8th ed book. Why? Because all the books for that system are relatively balanced against each other. In fact Dwarfs (Which are another old 6th edition book albeit written with 7th edition in mind) perform rather well under the current rules set.

Lets go back to 40K. If you were to travel around the forums or even amongst most gaming centres there would be a near general agreement that some armies are not worth taking because the fight will be over so shortly there is no point wasting money in investing in such an army. In my local area the following codexes are of no use against playing against 5th edition armies:

Necrons
Sisters of Battle (yes the new WD update!)
Tyranids (which is a shame since they are a 5th ed army themselves)
Dark Angels (Just cannot compete with the better normal Marine codex)
All Eldar builds except Mechdar
Chaos Daemons
All Tau Builds except Mech Tau or Battlesuit heavy Tau


Notice the list is considerably longer and note that Chaos Daemons should get a special mention since they get so buttfucked by Grey Knights that every fight between the 2 I have seen results in all the Daemons being wiped out by turn 4 at the very latest.

Now tell me Codex Creep is not such a big problem in 40K.


----------



## Khargoth (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm just gonna throw this prediction out there:
SM vs Eldar for the 6th ed box.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Stephen_Newman said:


> Necrons
> Sisters of Battle (yes the new WD update!)
> Tyranids (which is a shame since they are a 5th ed army themselves)
> Dark Angels (Just cannot compete with the better normal Marine codex)
> ...


You're misusing the term codex creep. Please don't, as there are enough idiots out there already bitching about it.

Your list is made up exclusively of 4th Edition books, except Tyranids. They were built for a DIFFERENT GAME with different rules and different styles of play. Of course they're going to be worse than books that are actually designed for the current edition. People bitch consecutively about consecutive codices in a new edition because they are books designed for the new edition. Everyone bitched about Guard. Then bitched about Wolves. Then bitched about DE. Now they're bitching about Grey Knights. Funny thing though, ask any tournament player whether Guard is now overpowered or not, and they'll tell you that they're not - because there are now lots of 5th books that can happily deal with them, whereas when they were released, they just had to deal with SM and lots of 4th Ed, which wasn't hard when you were the first army to put down 14+ AV12 chassis. Now that more armies have the tools to deal with it, no-one complains any more. _Except the people still playing 4th Edition books._

5th books versus 5th books, they're mostly balanced. Yes Tyranids are a little weak. Yes, GKs are a little strong. In the middle we have every other book that can deal with each other very well, with lots of builds and choices.

You're trying to run a Windows 98 program on Win7. You're trying to play 5-a-side football at the World Cup. You're trying to outrace an F1 car in a camper van. You can't complain that you're failing, because you're the one not following the established rules. Play a 5th army or suck it up, do your best, and wait for a new book. Just please, please stop crying about how OP the guys on bikes are when you're trying to run the Tour de France on foot.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Sethis said:


> You're misusing the term codex creep. Please don't, as there are enough idiots out there already bitching about it.
> 
> Your list is made up exclusively of 4th Edition books, except Tyranids. They were built for a DIFFERENT GAME with different rules and different styles of play. Of course they're going to be worse than books that are actually designed for the current edition. People bitch consecutively about consecutive codices in a new edition because they are books designed for the new edition. Everyone bitched about Guard. Then bitched about Wolves. Then bitched about DE. Now they're bitching about Grey Knights. Funny thing though, ask any tournament player whether Guard is now overpowered or not, and they'll tell you that they're not - because there are now lots of 5th books that can happily deal with them, whereas when they were released, they just had to deal with SM and lots of 4th Ed, which wasn't hard when you were the first army to put down 14+ AV12 chassis. Now that more armies have the tools to deal with it, no-one complains any more. _Except the people still playing 4th Edition books._
> 
> ...


I can accept your points happily. However even among the 5th ed codexes there is clear evidence of codex creep. Vanguard Assault Squads in Blood Angels are 5 points cheaper than normal marines and get added bonuses like the "descent of Angels" rules built in. GK marines cost 20 points per one compared to 16 points for a normal marine. The difference being that a GK gets a Storm Bolter in place of a normal one, gets access to a squad psychic power and gets a Force Weapon rather than a pistol. Heck even a Space Wolf Grey Hunter is roughly the same price or cheaper than a standard Marine and they are way better. 

You mention the term reasonably balanced but the fact still remains evident that the codex writers are unable to maintain a balance between codexes so everything is given a fair price.

The game should not have to radically change every new edition. Another flaw in 40K's design. Again looking at Fantasy there is plenty evidence that older armies can compete competitively against the new ones even if a couple of editions out of date. Necrons nowadays cannot compete with a codex written 2 editions after it. Why is there such an imbalance?

I am not normally one who complains endlessly about the game but ever since I started into Fantasy again I realise all the flaws that are prevalent in 40K that I did not see now.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Stephen_Newman said:


> I can accept your points happily. However even among the 5th ed codexes there is clear evidence of codex creep. Vanguard Assault Squads in Blood Angels are 5 points cheaper than normal marines and get added bonuses like the "descent of Angels" rules built in. GK marines cost 20 points per one compared to 16 points for a normal marine. The difference being that a GK gets a Storm Bolter in place of a normal one, gets access to a squad psychic power and gets a Force Weapon rather than a pistol. Heck even a Space Wolf Grey Hunter is roughly the same price or cheaper than a standard Marine and they are way better.
> 
> You mention the term reasonably balanced but the fact still remains evident that the codex writers are unable to maintain a balance between codexes so everything is given a fair price.
> 
> ...


We keep bringing up Fantasy, but I for one can't agree since I hate the 8th ed update since it WRECKED (Cav themed armies especially) whole army builds and made magic over-powered as hell. To say it doesn't shift drastically is a fallacy. I had an Empire Cav army that is now basically useless because the of the edition change nerfing their ability to work against large blocks of models. I don't even bother with Fantasy anymore since my other army (Beastmen) is so shoddy that it's worthless unless you want to play some kind of multi-wizard Herdstone list or Mino-bus (I want to play a massive herd, but it's a poor build to run these days with it's no shooting and only minor magic).

On the other-hand I still play 40K, and even with my WD Sisters Dex, I have fun because I know I can't lose an entire game to one bad set of rolls in the magic phase. Even at my worst it takes most opponents 5 turns to clear me completely off the table, 4 if they roll particularly well, and 3 only if they get exceptionally lucky. I've even played in tournaments with games lasting seven turns each round AND having the time limit run out (no slow play, I just don't table that easy anymore). On the other hand, in Fantasy I can be tabled as soon as turn 3 on average if I don't bring an uber-magic or gun-line list. Why? Because magic is able to murder large blocks of troops and gun-lines kill your heavy hitters pretty easy. 

So no, Fantasy is not "balanced". You still can't play a lot of armies, or army styles and you still avoid whole units for sucking more than a Dirt Devil. Any game that limits your effectiveness to a specific set of units or builds is not "balanced". 

Now can we stop comparing the two systems? They're not the same game. They have some similar mechanics, but they aren't the same thing.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Stephen_Newman said:


> I can accept your points happily. However even among the 5th ed codexes there is clear evidence of codex creep. Vanguard Assault Squads in Blood Angels are 5 points cheaper than normal marines and get added bonuses like the "descent of Angels" rules built in.


This is called "Balancing" not "Power creep". No-one ever used Vanguard in Vanilla Marines, because they were overcosted. In the later SM books that include them (so far just BA, I expect DA to follow suit) they had a price reduction so that people would actually take them. Same with Devastators. On the other hand, everyone running Vanilla Marines took TH/SS termies so BA players have to pay 5pts more if they want that 3++. If GW got their fucking act together and actually wrote meaningful FAQs then they could do the same for Vanilla, but because for some reason they are allergic to fixing what is obviously broken, SM is stuck with the crippling costs until their next book, rather than just printing "FAQ 1.3: TH/SS Termies cost 45 pts. Vanguard cost 5pts less per model" and so on.



Stephen_Newman said:


> GK marines cost 20 points per one compared to 16 points for a normal marine. The difference being that a GK gets a Storm Bolter in place of a normal one, gets access to a squad psychic power and gets a Force Weapon rather than a pistol. Heck even a Space Wolf Grey Hunter is roughly the same price or cheaper than a standard Marine and they are way better.


Pros and cons. A GK army typically has what, 10-30 Power Armoured men in it? A SM army may well have 40 or more, yet GKs die just as easily as Tac Marines. You have less troops to hold objectives, and are more vulnerable to anti-MEQ ranged weapons. You balance that out by being more killy in combat and about the same in shooting (no special/heavy trades off for Stormbolters/Psycannon).

I agree that Grey Hunters should not be a point cheaper than Tacs, but the difference isn't enough by itself to win games - even with 30 Tacs vs 30 GHs that's only enough points to buy a single Powerfist.



Stephen_Newman said:


> You mention the term reasonably balanced but the fact still remains evident that the codex writers are unable to maintain a balance between codexes so everything is given a fair price.


There are very few games that are perfecty balanced. Almost every game I've ever played has had Tiers of some sort or another. At the moment you have:

Top: GK, Wolves, Guard, DE, BA
Middle: Marines, some 4th Ed builds (recently FAQ'd DA/BTs, Mechdar, whatever), Nids
Bottom: Every 4th army that doesn't work in 5th Ed.

That's hardly critically unbalanced. If somehow every army instantly got a 5th Ed book and SM got a thorough FAQ to bring it up, we'd have nothing but top/middle tiers with a very small gap between them.



Stephen_Newman said:


> The game should not have to radically change every new edition.


Why? The whole point of new editions is to fix what doesn't work well and sell more models. In 4th vehicles didn't work well, and lots of gunlines were normal. In 5th vehicles are amazing, so everyone goes Mech. In 6th they might bring back the Rhino rush and consolidating into combat, and in 7th it might roll all the way back to gunlines. That's just how things happen.



Stephen_Newman said:


> Another flaw in 40K's design. Again looking at Fantasy there is plenty evidence that older armies can compete competitively against the new ones even if a couple of editions out of date. Necrons nowadays cannot compete with a codex written 2 editions after it. Why is there such an imbalance?
> 
> I am not normally one who complains endlessly about the game but ever since I started into Fantasy again I realise all the flaws that are prevalent in 40K that I did not see now.


Are you actually typing with a straight face when you call WFB "balanced"? Sit opposite Teclis with Shadow Magic when you're playing an Undead army or Ogres and tell me that. Tell my Chaos Knight army that it's perfectly alright that they can't ever break a unit of Skaven until they drop it to 10 models or less. Tell me that it's alright for a Steam Tank to walk straight through 60 Chaos Warriors simply because I didn't take a Lore of Magic that could handle it? I stopped playing Fantasy a few months after 8th Edition because several things were self-evidently broken beyond belief - which I wouldn't have minded, except GW as a company never really fixes problems that they create. If, when they released FAQs for the old books, they had noticed that some units were so unbalanced it wasn't even funny and fixed it, it would be fine. If they had actually paid attention to tournaments and realised that almost every game was being won/lost by 6 dice at the 6th spell until someone loses their Wizard Lord, then y'know, I might still be playing it. But they didn't. So I'm not.


----------



## osmesis (Sep 19, 2011)

Nurgle codex? /rubs hands together


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

I'm unsure whether to paint my chaos marines as Word Bearers now since I was originally going to do 50/50 split between World Eaters and Word beaers (more emphasis on World Eaters)


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

In the words of the prophet.

I'll believe it when i see it.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Balancing is still codex creep when it gives one army a distinct advantage over the old codex it borrows units from. I doesn't matter if the units was broken by poor balancing or any other reason for the change as it still at the end of the day allows one army to have a advantage not present in the older book.

Having said that I fully accept that cause of codex creep as it is the best possible kind, much better then deciding that aevery single GK should have a force weapon or DE to compensate for low survavability should have better then tau shooting at 36". Yet on the flip side they have to change things up from time to time or no one will ever change their armies up which would make the hobby stagnate. 

In short codex creep will always exist, and I am glad for it, however if GW wants to contie this trend they better release a stedy 2 40k codecies a year. Or atleast 1.5 a year. Other wise the short bus codex at the end of the cycle will calapse if they don't get a codex worth 4-5 years of build up.

On a side note there are two types of codex releases, those meant to buff a codex that has been left under powered for far to long, and those meant to break the back of game busting power armies. Case in point the new CSM codex was always meant to rain in CSM's as the old codex would still be competitive today, which is a bad sign of the ability for the codex to be abused. Others like the GK release were meant to bring a virtually dead army back from the brink (Same with DE).

In fact if your army is over powered you should fear the a new release not welcome it, and if you have been waiting for a long time with a shit dex you will probably get force weapons on everyone for your patients.

Is it a perfect system? Well no, but from a company stand point and a logical one I see it as being acceptable.


----------



## OIIIIIIO (Dec 16, 2009)

Is it at all possible that the Blood Ravens will be the new Poster Boyz for GW?


----------



## Wax (Jan 6, 2010)

OIIIIIIO said:


> Is it at all possible that the Blood Ravens will be the new Poster Boyz for GW?


No. Also gotta say, most of these rumors smell.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Blood ravens the new poster boy? Maybe when the emperors corpse grows bat wings and flies into the warp to retrieve the souls of the primarchs.


----------



## SavageConvoy (Sep 21, 2011)

The Blood Ravens were "gifted" the Ultramarine's spotlight?


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> Balancing is still codex creep when it gives one army a distinct advantage over the old codex it borrows units from. I doesn't matter if the units was broken by poor balancing or any other reason for the change as it still at the end of the day allows one army to have a advantage not present in the older book.


No, codex creep is when codices become sequentially more powerful i.e. codex 2 is better than codex 1, codex 3 is better than codex 2, codex 4 is better than codex 3, and so on and so forth.

This is not happening in 5th. If you accept my previous point that 4th armies are going to always, always suck in a game of 5th edition 40k then they become entirely irrelevant for the purposes of looking at power creep. So, that just leaves the 5th Edition books.

Space Marines
Imperial Guard
Space Wolves
Tyranids
Blood Angels
Dark Eldar
Grey Knights

As you can tell if you pay any attention to competitive gaming, Space Marines and Tyranids are the only two armies in this list incapable of going toe-to-toe with the rest. Space Marines because they were the first book of the new edition, and every codex since then has learned from their mistakes. Tyranids... well because the codex sucks. Bad rules writing combined with FoC choking and lack of answers to Mech that isn't an assaulting MC will do that. Even leaving those two aside, that means 5 of the last 7 books are equally playable with GKs currently having a bit of an edge. I would not call that "codex creep".



LukeValantine said:


> Having said that I fully accept that cause of codex creep as it is the best possible kind, much better then deciding that aevery single GK should have a force weapon or DE to compensate for low survavability should have better then tau shooting at 36".


Grey Knights are not overpowered because they all have Force Weapons. Really they're not. As mentioned previously, there is zero point in comparing 5th books to 4th. Dark Eldar are supposed to be fast and fragile, with options for shooting or combat. The new book does exactly that.



LukeValantine said:


> On a side note there are two types of codex releases, those meant to buff a codex that has been left under powered for far to long, and those meant to break the back of game busting power armies. Case in point the new CSM codex was always meant to rain in CSM's as the old codex would still be competitive today, which is a bad sign of the ability for the codex to be abused. Others like the GK release were meant to bring a virtually dead army back from the brink (Same with DE).
> 
> In fact if your army is over powered you should fear the a new release not welcome it, and if you have been waiting for a long time with a shit dex you will probably get force weapons on everyone for your patients.


Umm, no? There is only currently one type of codex release: To update a 4th Ed army into 5th Ed. I have never seen a top-tier army get a new codex. I don't understand exactly which 5th Ed books you think "broke the back of power armies", could you point one out to me?


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Sorry about this, but I got to vent on a semi-unrelated topic.

I don't mean to be offensive, but something about your recent posts has been erking the hell out of me, and that is who the hell decided you get to define codex creep? The only, and I mean only definition of the term that is sited more then once with any consistency is that its a "Change in design philosophy from one edition to another", that's it! So you have no right to tell anyone that their definition is wrong, because the term refers to a vague concept that is very subjective. Its in the same vain as what qualifies as a 'cheesy list" as there is no clear criteria that denotes the term. Hell by your logic we should let anyone that steps up define any other vague general term, hell lets let bob over there in the corner define beauty for everyone while were at it.

Continuing on. I suppose I see your perspective on the matter. However I still hold that as a general trend GW attaches more bells and whittles to codices that wait longer for a update (Codecies that are two+ editions old). Case in point is the number of threads on major forums complaining about each new codex. For relatively normal numbers of people bitched about IG or even SW, but the shit storm that is still going on about GK is still relatively high compared to the level of disdain that were shown for GW, SW, Nids after the same amount of time, I know it may be just do to the fact that its a codex released just a year or two before the next edition, but when the cron or sisters book is released we will see if this is the truth of the matter, and I don't want to hear any excuses about it being a badly written codex as that would be faulty reasoning in favor of proving your point.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Codex Creep defined - the latest thing written by Matt Ward.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Oddly enough, I thought codex creep was a fairly obvious term - the power level of codices creeping upwards. This is not, in fact, happening, as proven by Nids being worse than Guard, and the rest being almost perfectly balanced. Maybe GKs are a little more powerful, but not by enough to make sure that they steal all top 3 places at every tournament, ever, and certainly not by enough to justify all the bitching about them. At worst, they can be thought of as "reverse tyranids" and they just got an above-par book while nids got lumbered with a sup-par book. It happens - this is how we get Tiers. Some books are just bad, even at the time of writing. They are, however, statistical anomalies and should not be taken as evidence of sequential increases in power.

I'm sorry if I've somehow offended you by defining a term before arguing about it, but it seems to be rather more effective than trying to argue about something when people can't even agree on what that term means. If you can think of a better way to define "codex creep" as used by lots of people than the definition I have outlined above, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## elmir (Apr 14, 2011)

Just one thing to add, although this might not be a huuuughe factor.

I think the shock-effect for people who now get their ass handed to them by grey knights is also partly because most have 0,0 experience in facing them before. It was one of the few imperial armies that was actually not played frequently, along with witchhunters. 

The previous codex was absolutely drenched in weaksauce... meaning not a lot of ppl actually played them and they were not shown a lot of love. I predict this same thing will happen when the new necron codex rolls in. When that codex gets updated, ppl will actually start losing to them on a more regular basis and the QQ will start too. 

For those who ever played any form of MMORPG before: think about what happens when a class/race/career/whatever got pulled out of the muddy depths of underpoweredness. Most ppl will bitch and complain because they are used to that class being free kills. 

Not a major deal, I'm not saying the GK codex isn't VERY competitive, just saying that inexperience of the playerbase to deal with them is a bit of a factor as well.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Sethis said:


> I'm sorry if I've somehow offended you by defining a term before arguing about it, but it seems to be rather more effective than trying to argue about something when people can't even agree on what that term means. If you can think of a better way to define "codex creep" as used by lots of people than the definition I have outlined above, I'd love to hear it.


Ok now your just playing dumb, as you were applying your personally accepted definition to my post, "No, codex creep is when codices become sequentially more powerful i.e. codex 2 is better than codex 1, codex 3 is better than codex 2, codex 4 is better than codex 3, and so on and so forth." As I was not applying your personal operational definition of the term , your statment has the same logic as if I corrected someone walking down the street for not defining good and bad as I did. True my first post was a reaction to the earlier posts, but it doesn't mean I had to use your definition. You really have not defense against the crticism I have laid against you this time.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> Ok now your just playing dumb, as you were applying your personally accepted definition to my post... As I was not applying your personal operational definition of the term , your statment has the same logic as if I corrected someone walking down the street for not defining good and bad as I did. True my first post was a reaction to the earlier posts, but it doesn't mean I had to use your definition. You really have not defense against the crticism I have laid against you this time.


So if you disagree with my definition, what is yours? Once we've settled on a clear definition of the phenomenon, maybe then we can actually argue effectively about whether or not it is happening?


----------



## Troublehalf (Aug 6, 2010)

On reading the posts on being imbalanced so on so forth.

Why does everything have to be perfectly balanced? Forgetting it's not possible to do that, why would you want that?

The hobby is about fun isn't it? Sure winning is great, but if you have a laugh while winning or loosing, isn't that better than doing a hardcore list and raging when you loose? 

I want a GK army, not because I want to own everything, I just like the models and their unique look and gear. Just because they might be a tiny bit more powerful than some armies, they are beatable... But.... half the game is makin models and enjoying them. I want them for their looks, but I also like IG, but that means more money spent on them.... BA are also cool....

I hate the idea people are "noobs" or "not skilled" just because they use one army. Why can't people just enjoy what they want to enjoy? >_<


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Sethis said:


> So if you disagree with my definition, what is yours? Once we've settled on a clear definition of the phenomenon, maybe then we can actually argue effectively about whether or not it is happening?


I think we are talking past each other hear let me illiterate to what I am actually referring to in my critic. I am not faulting your definition as it made sense to operationalize it, and your reasoning behind your definition is sound. What I was criticizing was the fact that you then tried to forcefully apply your definition to people who are not applying your personal definition. True I should have defined my term coming in, but the term itself is not the point of tension here. For that would be how you illogically applied your definition to people entering into the debate who are simply arguing using the generally accepted definition, which boils down to saying that the change in design philosophy as par the course is causing older codecies to become less and less feasible. 

In fact I agree with a lot of what your saying, but that doesn't excuse the faulty straw man arguments you have applied to others. If your are not familiar to the term it is when you defeat a argument that others weren't actually making and claim victory for showing your view point is the right one (I am oversimplifying it but that's the general strokes). As stated I am partially to blame for this, for making it seem like I was applying your definition do to not establishing that I wasn't when I responded, but honestly I tend not to read every single page on a thread before posting (Like most people that have better things to do).

In fact the only point I was contesting was the obvious fact that codecies are not never acceptably balanced and in every edition there are losers and winners, although I may have over over simplified my point by trying to present the idea that all strong codecies are rained in with updates and all noticeably old or under powered codecies are brought into relevance by gaining equal to and more then other updated codecies. I suppose this may have been bias on my behalf do to the fact that my personal armies was on of the rare codecies in a development cycle to actually be reduced in strength/forced to accept trade off through a edition update. Yet you have to admit it is strange how the other bad boy of 3-4th nids was bitch slapped in there update (I didn't complain about them back in the day, but like 3.5 CSM codex forums were heavy with complaints about how complicated it was to fight nids, and how cheesy x and y were). While it was a long accepted fact that GK, and D eldar were fringe armies barley able to hold their own with the exception of some mono builds before there update.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Troublehalf said:


> On reading the posts on being imbalanced so on so forth.
> 
> Why does everything have to be perfectly balanced? Forgetting it's not possible to do that, why would you want that?


Why wouldn't we want that? Having an army from any Codex have an equal chance of winning games assuming equal player skill and even luck distribution is something that everyone should want, that way games are decided more on skill than which Codex one player's army comes from.



> The hobby is about fun isn't it? Sure winning is great, but if you have a laugh while winning or loosing, isn't that better than doing a hardcore list and raging when you loose?


Playing competitively is fun for many people. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that people that take hard lists are freaking out when they lose games.



> I want a GK army, not because I want to own everything, I just like the models and their unique look and gear. Just because they might be a tiny bit more powerful than some armies, they are beatable... But.... half the game is makin models and enjoying them. I want them for their looks, but I also like IG, but that means more money spent on them.... BA are also cool....


That's good, you don't need to justify your preferences to anyone.



> Why can't people just enjoy what they want to enjoy? >_<


They can. Ignore people that tell you otherwise, they're not worth listening to.


----------



## Me-dea (Mar 10, 2010)

LukeValentine I really cant see point of your criticism in first half of #42. I think everyone here knows what Sethis means by codex creep and I even didnt know that definition you writed existed. Yes some newbie on W40k and this forum may not know what it means, but they can simply ask somebody. If we should explain common terms every time we use them, we will be going nowhere.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> I think we are talking past each other here. Let me illustrate what I am actually referring to in my critique. I am not faulting your definition as it made sense to operationalize it, and your reasoning behind your definition is sound. What I was criticizing was the fact that you then tried to forcefully apply your definition to people who are not applying your personal definition.


(I've proof-read and edited the quotes for clarity of expression - not meant to be offensive)

But this is my point - I think there are "facts" and "opinions" in life. Facts have set definitions which can be followed and understood by everyone, for example, "liquid" is a state of matter that conforms to the shape of its container and has various other properties. In trying to determine if something is liquid or not, you compare what you have in front of you to the commonly accepted definition of a "liquid" and then either say "Yes it is" or "No, it isn't."

Opinions, on the other hand, have variable definitions. Things like "Good" and "Evil" and so forth. Someone might think TV is evil and someone else might think it's the best thing ever. In this there is generally no conclusive definition available.

I view some of the debates around gaming systems as Fact, and also a lot of them as Opinion. Codex creep (as I defined it) is something I would call Fact - it has a set meaning and can be examined as to whether it is actually occuring in 40k through examination of tournament results, personal observation, playtesting and so on.

Your accusation against me that I am using my own "personal" definition without considering others would hold more water if you could prove that I am in the minority - however I do not think I am. If you asked every 40k player how they define "Power creep" then I am willing to bet that over 80% would say something similar to my "personal" definition of "Codices gradually increasing sequentially in power and competitiveness". Given that consensus defines meaning, I present my argument that the definition I have been supplying here since my first post is in fact the correct and universally accepted one - and is far from just my own personal opinion.



LukeValantine said:


> For that would be how you illogically applied your definition to people entering into the debate who are simply arguing using the generally accepted definition, which boils down to saying that the change in design philosophy as par the course is causing older codecies to become less and less feasible.


I have to say that I have never heard of this phenomenon being labelled as "power creep". Old books are, by their very nature, outdated as soon as the new system comes in. This isn't "creep" because it isn't sequential (all books become sub-par at the same time when the new rulebook is released) and it's not "Armies get better and better"; it is in fact "armies are being brought into line with the current ruleset".



LukeValantine said:


> I tend not to read every single page on a thread before posting (Like most people that have better things to do).


Well I generally do, because I read quickly and it often stops me from waltzing in and making a bombastic self-righteous post that either misses the point entirely or misunderstands what people are saying in the first place. Not that you do that either. 




LukeValantine said:


> Yet you have to admit it is strange how the other bad boy of 3-4th nids was bitch slapped in there update (I didn't complain about them back in the day, but like 3.5 CSM codex forums were heavy with complaints about how complicated it was to fight nids, and how cheesy x and y were). While it was a long accepted fact that GK, and D eldar were fringe armies barley able to hold their own with the exception of some mono builds before there update.


I wouldn't attribute this to anything so... intentional... as codex creep, or a deliberate effect on GWs part.

I think the Nid codex suffered from a marked lack of playtesting. This is evident to me in how a lot of the rules were written, and how they were then FAQ'd. It is also evident in the higher numbers of "useless" units than is present in all other 5th books, in the limited anti-tank options, and in the FOC choking. There are some good ideas that just haven't been thought through or playtested sufficiently.

Dark Eldar are not overpowered. They're really not.

Grey Knights are a bit ahead of the curve, but again I don't see that as being part of a pattern or deliberate. I think again it's just a lack of playtesting and fine-tuning, and possibly the rules writers getting a bit carried away with the fluff. Instead of getting creative and throwing out lots of new ideas, they just refined and slightly added to what was already there and in the process made a very strong book.


----------



## zbrann91 (Jun 21, 2011)

That would be amazingly convienent for me, the 2 armies I play currently are Dark Angels and Chaos Space Marines. I would enjoy an updated Dark Angel Codex, but I don't believe it's needed.

Death Guard and Deathwing FTW!!!:victory:


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

@mcmuffin - woah, chill out bro, no need to throw your toys out the pram. Firstly I ain't trying to crush anyone's enjoyment of the game. But even as a huge fan of Space Wolves I can see non-power armies have been sidelined by the focus on power armour which is detrimental to the game as a whole. These rumors would indicate this trend is not leaving anytime soon. That just grinds my gears. Especially when Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines only need 1 codex each. Not several. Regardless of background and how it's been developed. Otherwise why don't we have a million Imperial Guard codices for every regiment and take their background to such development.


----------



## Master_Marius (Sep 5, 2010)

zbrann91 said:


> That would be amazingly convienent for me, the 2 armies I play currently are Dark Angels and Chaos Space Marines. I would enjoy an updated Dark Angel Codex, but I don't believe it's needed.
> 
> Death Guard and Deathwing FTW!!!:victory:


I really thing a update of DA is need it is really far from SW or BA.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

Master_Marius said:


> I really thing a update of DA is need it is really far from SW or BA.


DA are almost codex adherent except for the Ravenwing and Deathwing. 

@ Abomination: my toys aren't in my pram to begin with. I just don't see why you have a beef with Power armour. Space Wolves, while appearing similar to codex marines, are the most divergent chapter. They have their own structure and number around double that of a normal chapter. How would i represent Blood Claws in a standard codex? or Wolf Guard? or Thunderwolves? or Fen-wolves, or any of the special characters? How would a BA player represent death company? or furiosos, or anything else unique to BA? 

Power armoured armies work well as release space fillers anyway, because the templates are already there, its not as if they are taking their attention away from other armies, they are just filling up their release schedule. I would rather see 2 new SM armies and a single xeno army each year than a single xeno army. SM dexes take f-all amount of time to write, a year at most, while a proper update for xeno armies will take far longer. 

As for CSM, what other armies would you rather see released? Face it, CSM need a real codex, not a spiky space marine codex. All armies need character, and if a new dex gives the Legions their rightful place in 40k back, then i would think most people will enjoy the game a lot more. If the rumours about the crons come true, then SM along with the Nuns will be the only 3+ armies in the game, even though i know they make up about 50% of the armies played. The reason guard (you mentioned them) don't have different codices is because none of them have such a large number of units not found in the Guard codex, and the ones that do ( DKoK and Elysians) are covered by forge world. Oh and guard dont sell as well as SM anyway, which is a big factor in the amount of SM codices. So there.


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

@mcmuffin - You say they don't take away attention from other armies but clearly in 5th edition they have. Who was in the 40k film - marines, who got their own videogame - marines, which army receives the most promotion and focus by GW - marines. While they may not take development attention away from other armies (although given the amount of marine codex's to non-marine in 5th and the crystal clear lack of development put into the Tyranid codex that itself is debatable) they have always been GW's public focus of attention outside the actual release windows for Tyranids/IG/DE. I have nothing against chaos having an awesome codex, and I agree that they do need a new book. But Chaos Legions/Chaos Space Marines could easily be the same book and still have everything you want from it, such as highly developed background and a deeper character.

In anycase it's clear we can't come to a resolution and we'll end up derailing the thread if we carry on so let's shake hands, agree to disagree and leave these good people to enjoy their thread.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Side note: If they add another codex beyond the current ones it will inevitably lengthen production cycles from edition to edition, and considering it can take up to 4-5 years for a codex to get updated I think most would be against anymore codecies. So I am against a separate legion book on those grounds alone.

In fact it would probably actually help the game if some SM codecies were reabsorbed into the core SM book.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

Abomination :








just on a side note though, Tau got a game before marines, but that was shite.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Tbh Chaos Legions are more diverse than standard marines, SMs have like 2 or 3 maybe that are standard out different Chaos on the other hand has like 8 all with their own quirks and specialities, and that's not including the general renegade chapters to. So two books to cover the legions as a whole and the renegade chapters is the least they can do to represent chaos as a whole.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Sethis, Valentine, the rest: Enough with the codex creep debate. This is a thread about rumours and the upcoming 6th Ed 40K. Keep on topic and take the debate to the General 40K forum where it belongs. I understand that the topic will diverge a bit from the OP but you two especially have irritated me with your bitching and everyone on this forum knows that is not the easiest thing to do. Drop it and get back on topic. Consider this warning given.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I think we were going to leave it there anyway, apologies for inadvertantly raising the mods blood pressure!


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Things did get a bit side tracked there. 

So back on topic has anyone got any evidence at all about who is going to be 6th bitch? After all someone has to go first and by the looks of it so far its going to be either SoB, CSM, Necrons.

Also even though it keeps coming up common sense dictates that it won't be marine on marine for the starter set, although GW has been throwing a lot of suprises around latly so who knows.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

No, basically this entire thread is bollocks!


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

slaaneshy said:


> No, basically this entire thread is bollocks!


No more than any other rumor we've seen to date. At this point in time, and with the conflicting information, who can say what's going to be in that box when it comes? I'm keeping an open mind until it gets here.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

slaaneshy said:


> No, basically this entire thread is bollocks!


 
Agreed, but we are allowed to ponder whats coming.

My Fave at the moment is the new Starter Set to replace AoBR, my personal choice is CSM v DA.


----------



## Mundungu (Jul 23, 2010)

While CSM and DA have a very different aesthetic, I don't think they play differently enough to really be dynamic. SM have always been the workhorse of GW's finances, so I feel very strongly that they will be one of the factions. Perhaps Eldar will be the other. Eldar are also an elite army, requiring less plastic for the starter set. They play differently than SM. Finally, they have a very old codex, so perhaps theirs will be the first of 6th edition to pair with this release.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

If it was Chaos vs DA in the starter, we could easily see something like:

Terminator Captain
5x Deathwing Terminators
10x Tac Marines
3x Ravenwing Bikers (w/ Attack Bike?)

vs 

Daemon Prince
5x Zerkers
10x Lesser Daemons
5x Raptors

Two armies that are both Power Armour books, but play very differently and have very different units. Also the sculpts for Chaos I can see leaping forwards in quality - they're still using a lot of 3rd Ed models that could use improvement, and with the IoB WFB box showing that they're not scared of putting big nasties in...


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

While i think DA vs Eldar would sell well because of the Human vs Alien aspect, i doubt it would sell as well as DA vs Chaos space marines, 
the reasons why i say this is, its good vs evil (one of the most easily recognizable theme) they will play very different especially if that at some nasty goodies to the Chaos Marine dex, plus the set will be more conversion friendly what i mean by that is there both power armour so could be converted to get more CSM or DA, 
unlike the current starter kit.
So it would be a very popular set, i for one would buy one this time if it had DA vs SM.


----------



## Aegir Einarsson (Feb 27, 2011)

Where are my BT....... grrrrrrrr I'm sp angry. I lived because I thought thast next starter will be BT vs whatever... I hope that earlier rumours was right.... I hope so.... ehh


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

The old rumors for BT for starter set where based on Warhammer 40k: Dark Millennium, because they showed BT like Marines in the Screen Shots, i doubt it will be BT, all we can be certain of really is that itll contain some kind of PA.


----------



## Malferion (Mar 9, 2011)

The guy at my local gaming store told me that he heard that the starter set would be DA vs. Chaos and that the next codexes will be Necrons, Eldar and then Chaos Legions. I'm dissapointed about the lack of a new Tau Codex in the near future


----------



## Overbeing (Oct 9, 2011)

Well I guess we'll just find out when it all releases as I can't fully trust everything said here! (no offense) :yahoo:


----------



## jondoe297 (Jan 6, 2010)

Chaos legions and Dark angels? playing out a fallen type story line sounds feasible although as its been mentioned already Meq vs Meq seems unlikely. I hope they don't mess around with the rules too much, Imo the game only needs a few tweaks as it plays pretty well.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

Well if they bring out a CSM v DA starter set i hope they include a plastic CSM dreadnought.


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

I also hope Eldar arent done before Chaos as from what iv seen and played Chaos need a new Codex before them. (based on my personnal experience and opinion)


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

cant see GW putting two types of marines in a starter set, vanilla marines and some xenos of some kind.


----------



## Uveron (Jun 11, 2011)

I have been thinking about this, and it would not supprise me to see more than one starter box out there.. I have this feeling from looking at GW's stance on bit sales and things that it would rather players spent more money with them and not on ebay selling there new modles they dont want from the "starter kit", so to counter this I expect to see the slighty half-baked plan of having more than one starter kit... Its the type of solution a committee would make.


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

lets see:
2nd edition: Marines v Orks
3rd edition: Marines v Dark Eldar
4th edition: Marines v Tyranids
5th edition: Marines v Orks

It's always marines v xenos, the only certain thing is that it won't be orks this time round


----------



## SoulGazer (Jun 14, 2009)

The rumors suggest GW is going to try and make CSM play differently than SM this time around. Perhaps this starter set is to show off how different they will be in 6th?


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Marines vs Tau? Maybe the zeist campaign?


----------



## Yru0 (May 9, 2011)

Words_of_Truth said:


> Marines vs Tau? Maybe the zeist campaign?


I'd love to see something like that  but tbh I don't really see it. Only if the Tau get an early codex slot would they be in the starter kit i think. Although fingers crossed!


----------



## Uveron (Jun 11, 2011)

Yru0 said:


> I'd love to see something like that  but tbh I don't really see it. Only if the Tau get an early codex slot would they be in the starter kit i think. Although fingers crossed!


I suspect Necrons may be more likely, We know they are coming soon, and we know 6th is also coming soon as well... they could be hitting at the same time...It could be the reason for all the delays with it you know if they have been chosen to be part of the new launch.


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

Black templars or DA v necrons? 

I know they usually use vanilla marines in the starter set but second edition definitely had a lot of blood angels going on if I remember my box sets correctly


----------



## Uveron (Jun 11, 2011)

TheReverend said:


> Black templars or DA v necrons?
> 
> I know they usually use vanilla marines in the starter set but second edition definitely had a lot of blood angels going on if I remember my box sets correctly


I expect it will be the Ultramarines again.. its whats its been since the start of 3rd ed... (I mean they will be clip together models, and they have been makeing them for Ultramar for some time now..)

but yes the 2nd ed box was Blood Angels, but there were instructions on how to paint them to be other chapters as well.


----------



## Overbeing (Oct 9, 2011)

Achaylus72 said:


> Well if they bring out a CSM v DA starter set i hope they include a plastic CSM dreadnought.


Yeah bro I'm not a Chaos player but I love the dreadnoughts. I read that they are mentally and externally tortured Prisoners of War that they chain inside the armoured sarcophagus of a dreadnought and unleash it into battle. It just goes absolutely mental and even turns on it's own players sometimes!!!

If you want to read the the book it's called 'The Chapters Due' by Graham McNeil :so_happy::aggressive:


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

Overbeing said:


> Yeah bro I'm not a Chaos player but I love the dreadnoughts. I read that they are mentally and externally tortured Prisoners of War that they chain inside the armoured sarcophagus of a dreadnought and unleash it into battle. It just goes absolutely mental and even turns on it's own players sometimes!!!
> 
> If you want to read the the book it's called 'The Chapters Due' by Graham McNeil :so_happy::aggressive:


Erm, thats obviously only happens in his books, Chaos Dreadnoughts are mainly if not all the time, Chaos Space Marines from whatever legion of warband they belonged too, some are put in for punishment, which drives them crazy.

Anyway in the end 6th is to far off to even be sure whats going into the starter kit, we could debate all we wanted but we wouldnt know till closer to the time, saying it will always be generic marines, no matter what, that will never change.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

So lets look at when the last Codex of each of the parties came out. Overlay how old they will be in 2012

2005-Black Templars 6 years
2009-Blood Angels 3 years
2007-Chaos Daemons 5 years
2007-Chaos Space Marines 5 years
2011-Grey Knights 1 year
2006-Dark Angels 6 years
2010-Dark Eldar 2 years
2006-Eldar 6 years
2008-Imperial Guard 4 years
2002-Necrons 10 years
2007-Orks 5 years
2008-Space Marines 4 years
2009-Space Wolves 3 years
2003-Sisters of Battle/Witch Hunters 9 years (an actual Codex and not a magazine article)
2005-Tau Empire 7 years
2009-Tyranids 3 years.

So looking at this, i can see that when 6th Edition comes out, the first race to come out with an all new Codex and range update should be Necrons, then a full Codex for Sisters of Battle (not a magazine article or two), then Tau Empire.

What do other feel about what i have suggested.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

I tell you what, if it was up to me and looking at the above post of mine, it would be great to see the starter set being DA v Necrons.

It would certainly make me happy, i could almost plan to build two armies in tandem, whilst finishing off my CSM and Ork armies off.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

You're assuming GW uses codex age as a criteria for determining releases. This is obviously not true, otherwise the release schedule wouldn't have looked like this for 5th:

Power Armour (imperial)
something else (imperial)
Power armour (imperial)
something else (xenos)
power armour (imperial)
something else (xenos)
power armour (imperial)
power armour (imperial)


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

Sethis said:


> You're assuming GW uses codex age as a criteria for determining releases. This is obviously not true, otherwise the release schedule wouldn't have looked like this for 5th:
> 
> Power Armour (imperial)
> something else (imperial)
> ...


Awww crap, there goes my theory.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

I think that release is more like "OH this is cool lets work on this next" or something erratic like that


----------



## oiad (Feb 10, 2011)

Sethis said:


> You're assuming GW uses codex age as a criteria for determining releases. This is obviously not true, otherwise the release schedule wouldn't have looked like this for 5th:
> 
> Power Armour (imperial)
> something else (imperial)
> ...


Indeed. Looking at your list Sethis reminds me of the simple PA/Non-PA theory I used to run with before C:SoB. If you ignore that codex (considering it's a WD/PDF codex) then the pattern may still hold if Necrons are next.

I also wouldn't be surprised if an army that already received a codex in 5E may receive yet another update in 6E - much like SMs and the Tyranids did in both 4E and then 5E. Fans may hate the idea but GW'll do what GW does best - which is they'll do as they please...


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Sethis said:


> You're assuming GW uses codex age as a criteria for determining releases. This is obviously not true, otherwise the release schedule wouldn't have looked like this for 5th:
> 
> Power Armour (imperial)
> something else (imperial)
> ...


Sad but true, GW's release schedule has always been epileptic with only SM getting a update almost every edition. I think people became confused when they updated two old codecies back to back.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

Achaylus72 said:


> 2008-Imperial Guard 4 years


Guard was '09, I remember because that was the year I graduated high school. 

Doesn't really make a difference though, they won't see an update for a while I'd imagine, what with so many other dexes in need of some love, and of course the space marines in need of a sixth edition codex.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Cadian81st said:


> and of course the space marines in need of a sixth edition codex.


How can you be so negative.....? :laugh:


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

Tawa said:


> How can you be so negative.....? :laugh:


Because Vanilla Marines are always first out of the gate and if the rumours about Codex: Chaos Legions are true, GW clearly think they are currently showing _too little_ love for Marines right now.

That's just they way it is, no sense being surprised.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

Cadian81st said:


> Guard was '09, I remember because that was the year I graduated high school.
> 
> Doesn't really make a difference though, they won't see an update for a while I'd imagine, what with so many other dexes in need of some love, and of course the space marines in need of a sixth edition codex.


Actually inside the over page 2 it clearly states 

(C) Games Workshop Limited 2008. I would say not for at least 4 years and rightly so, there are others that are in desperate need of an upgrade. SM is a given as they are the poster boys of GW.

But this is what GW gets for their haphazzard approach to releasing their product.

If i was in charge of GW i would form a Strategic Planning of Operations Office. This would allow GW to formulate when new Editions and Codex/Products to come out and which particular order over a 5 year plan, meaning that every 5 years we get a new edition and a strategic releasing schedule. Of course this will be all confidential.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

I'm aware, but copyright dates don't always match up with actual product release dates. I clearly remember it being may of 2009 because my friends and I went to the IG launch the morning after finals; we had ended up pulling an all nighter the night before for no good reason and I was so tired I almost sliced my hand open assembling my new command squad.

But yes, the point remains that Space Marines are a given, because they are 40K's flagship product. From a fiscal perspective it makes sense though. I remember some redshirt telling me that space marines account for almost 50% of the profits 40K posts. So, despite how much we all bitch and moan, it won't change anytime soon.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

Cadian81st said:


> I'm aware, but copyright dates don't always match up with actual product release dates. I clearly remember it being may of 2009 because my friends and I went to the IG launch the morning after finals; we had ended up pulling an all nighter the night before for no good reason and I was so tired I almost sliced my hand open assembling my new command squad.
> 
> But yes, the point remains that Space Marines are a given, because they are 40K's flagship product. From a fiscal perspective it makes sense though. I remember some redshirt telling me that space marines account for almost 50% of the profits 40K posts. So, despite how much we all bitch and moan, it won't change anytime soon.


 
Oops my bad, you are correct, although the Codex has copyright 2008, ot came out in May 2009, i have the May White Dwarf Magazine that covers the Imperial Guard Release.

So in a way we are both correct, i am correct on the copyright date and you are correct on the release date. Win/win. 

And although we do bitch about Space Marine being the Poster Boys as you point out that are the flegship product and deserves to be, and in the end of it god damn it they are just hunks of plastic crack. I love my Plastic Crack.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

Well, I don't know if they DESERVE to be, from anything other than a fiscal standpoint. If GW were to invest all of the time and energy into promotion, and cool new models in other lines that they do with the space marines I bet they'd see an increase in sales there too. But hey, a guy can dream right?


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

Cadian81st said:


> Well, I don't know if they DESERVE to be, from anything other than a fiscal standpoint. If GW were to invest all of the time and energy into promotion, and cool new models in other lines that they do with the space marines I bet they'd see an increase in sales there too. But hey, a guy can dream right?


Yes a guy can dream.


----------

