Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't mind them keeping the two pieces of cover art that they did; it is good art, it doesn't need to be fixed in my eyes. If there is new art I'd want it to be a notable improvement rather than different for the sake of it, like what they did with IDK or... hot dam that new DoK art is so fething badass!

While it's not great losing good cover art, I prefer new over recycled art because it makes it easy to tell books from different editions apart.

Yeh. There's been people who bought wrong edition 40k codex because the cover art was same and they didn't spot difference on the edge and realize it's meaning...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:


Fyreslayers though, I wonder to what extent GW understands their lack of popularity is not because the concept is bad but because of the execution.

Idoneth don't have a lot of models but the ones they do have are very nice kits and fill out the army well when all of them are viable. There is room for diversity in the roster they have, it comes down to internal balance.

Skaven releases have always been as erratic as they are so you never know what'll happen there.

Now I am a proper knife-eared dwarf-hater, but even I feel sorry for Fyreslayers fan and the faction has been treated. Too few kits and the kits are just so similar that it is easy to dismiss it as all one single kit.
Idoneth is in a nice place, but just requires slightly more variety in the roster. I think the new Thrallmaster is an excellent idea and with a new kit I hope they change the warscrolls enough to make the army a bit more flexible than "more eels".

The Skaven problem I feel is a mixed problem. I think they are a faction that has too many sub-factions and for a long time you could even add them to different armies(Maggotkin/Pestilens) which just made the army incohesive in my mind. I do hope that when GW revisits them they do a little clean up and make the army have more synergy with itself. I am not a huge fan of the fact that if I want to run Skryre with Stormfiends as battleline I am more or less just forced into a narrow selection of units.

Yeah, the way the Skaven army/armies are currently structured is not really conducive towards having a good time. Too many subfactions with too restrictive a roster of options and too limited a range of models. GW needs to overhaul it. Honestly, Skaven are a strong enough concept in and of themselves that theres no reason to limit and restrict them so heavily and treat them like 5 different armies/subfactions or whatever it is. Skaven should be left as a cohesive single faction rather than being given the Aelf/Duardin treatment and split into different books, etc.

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't mind them keeping the two pieces of cover art that they did; it is good art, it doesn't need to be fixed in my eyes. If there is new art I'd want it to be a notable improvement rather than different for the sake of it, like what they did with IDK or... hot dam that new DoK art is so fething badass!

While it's not great losing good cover art, I prefer new over recycled art because it makes it easy to tell books from different editions apart.

At least these have the red border to help a little bit, but yeah. Strange.

tneva82 wrote:
Yeh. There's been people who bought wrong edition 40k codex because the cover art was same and they didn't spot difference on the edge and realize it's meaning...

There's also been people who bought the wrong books because they bought it online at a hefty discount...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Idoneth don't have a lot of models but the ones they do have are very nice kits and fill out the army well when all of them are viable. There is room for diversity in the roster they have, it comes down to internal balance.

The sad part is that Idoneth is one of those armies like Flesh-Eater Courts where the bits in a kit could actually be put to use.

Want to add a cheap, summonable unit?
Fish swarm units! The Gloomtide Shipwreck comes with a bunch of them!

Want to add a smaller, "buffing" piece of terrain or something like that? Coral!

Then there's stuff like the Allopex's crab for the base and the lil' eel for the Gloomtide or Reaver units.

 Kanluwen wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yeh. There's been people who bought wrong edition 40k codex because the cover art was same and they didn't spot difference on the edge and realize it's meaning...

There's also been people who bought the wrong books because they bought it online at a hefty discount...

What exactly is your point here?

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yeh. There's been people who bought wrong edition 40k codex because the cover art was same and they didn't spot difference on the edge and realize it's meaning...

There's also been people who bought the wrong books because they bought it online at a hefty discount...

What exactly is your point here?

What's the point of pretending that every instance of the cover art being the same and someone buying it is because they didn't know better?

The point should have been easily figured out though. The cover art probably should have been changed, but there being a "red stripe" on it means there's a tell for someone buying it physically. Or for someone who bothers to do even a cursory check on the GW website to see what is or isn't current.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yeh. There's been people who bought wrong edition 40k codex because the cover art was same and they didn't spot difference on the edge and realize it's meaning...

There's also been people who bought the wrong books because they bought it online at a hefty discount...

What exactly is your point here?

What's the point of pretending that every instance of the cover art being the same and someone buying it is because they didn't know better?

The point should have been easily figured out though. The cover art probably should have been changed, but there being a "red stripe" on it means there's a tell for someone buying it physically. Or for someone who bothers to do even a cursory check on the GW website to see what is or isn't current.

I didn’t realise ‘thereve been people who have…’ meant ‘every person who have…’, my mistake.

And you'll note that my wording wasn't insisting that it was in fact "every person". Just that sometimes people will try to play off these things to make themselves feel better about messing up by blaming GW for their mistake.

Also, again:
Games Workshop has a website with the listing of current products. Even if you're buying online from somewhere else or buying in-store from your local independent, it costs you nothing but internets to check.

I think Kan has a point; it isn't difficult to read the ebay listing and see that it is a previous edition's codex...

A handful of FAQ/Errata went up for a few books.

Nighthaunt, Wrath of the Everchosen and Broken Realms: Be'lakor.

At work so haven't dug into any changes. I think the Nighthaunt one is focused on Nagash's recent inclusion into the army now.

Looks like the Wrath FAQ is just to eliminate the old subfaction rules.

Nagash cleaned up a bit including no hexwraith bodyguard for nagash


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think Kan has a point; it isn't difficult to read the ebay listing and see that it is a previous edition's codex...

Yet it still happened. Different cover art would solve while not just being for saving gw cash. Cash grab by gw to not change cover.

Literally oniy reason to not change was gw's profit margin. Nothing good for players.

Different cover art doesn't solve if someone uses the wrong image.

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't mind them keeping the two pieces of cover art that they did; it is good art, it doesn't need to be fixed in my eyes. If there is new art I'd want it to be a notable improvement rather than different for the sake of it, like what they did with IDK or... hot dam that new DoK art is so fething badass!

While it's not great losing good cover art, I prefer new over recycled art because it makes it easy to tell books from different editions apart.

I've never understood why they can't just put the fething edition denomination on the cover. It really drives me crazy.

I just wonder when Nighthaunt are gonna have a Guardian of Souls mini avalible again.

Because currently you can't get either one. And being their only generic wizard, i'd say it's quite an important thing to just not have access to, at all.

 Togusa wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't mind them keeping the two pieces of cover art that they did; it is good art, it doesn't need to be fixed in my eyes. If there is new art I'd want it to be a notable improvement rather than different for the sake of it, like what they did with IDK or... hot dam that new DoK art is so fething badass!

While it's not great losing good cover art, I prefer new over recycled art because it makes it easy to tell books from different editions apart.

I've never understood why they can't just put the fething edition denomination on the cover. It really drives me crazy.

At a guess I'd say the way they handle their games is solely focused on the present. There is one game, and it's the current one. The rules you can buy right now are the rules that make up the game. They want people to get into the habit of embracing the current game and to stay current as GW moves the game along.

So they mostly just mention the edition number when they're marketing an edition change, presumably to establish pedigree, but after that it's no longer AoS 3rd ed, it's just AoS. They want you to get into the game, not a version of the game, so they can be confident that you remain in the game that they keep changing and making new products for, rather than remaining in an edition of that game that at some point receives no further product support.

GW is interested in making things timeless. Explicitly naming edition numbers on their products could work against that.

It's also likely because editions and codex/battletomes do NOT always line up. In the past you could skip whole editions with your book (some armies even skipped two whole editions - Dark Eldar and Sisters of Battle come to mind)


Basically when your codex/battletome might not actually come out until the end of an edition, GW don't want people "waiting" for their book. IF they print the number on the front people will directly connect that with the edition number.

Also sometimes a battletome/codex released late in an edition is half that edition half the next edition compatible. So suddenly its not an 8th or 9th edition its sort of an 8.5 edition.


Suffice to say if the codex/battletomes came out on launch day of a new edition it would work; but as it is now, even with their VASTLY improved speed of release, its still not ideal. And GW doesn't want armies that might be years out from getting their new edition book to have people waiting on that books' release.

From TGA

GW sent a repack notification to a store for Dryads in error for the 23rd of July so the Order Battletome is Sylvaneth. I wonder if the rebox will see them drop to 12 per box rather than 16?

 DaveC wrote:
From TGA

GW sent a repack notification to a store for Dryads in error for the 23rd of July so the Order Battletome is Sylvaneth

We already knew that. The chaos book is Skaven.

Chikout wrote:


We already knew that. The chaos book is Skaven.

what is the rumour?

Sylvaneth vs Skaven box. Hopefully this alludes to a range redo for Skaven

What's the source on that, first time I've heard of it.

We heard a lot of chatter about Beasts vs GSG box and that didn't happen.

zamerion wrote:

Chikout wrote:


We already knew that. The chaos book is Skaven.

what is the rumour?

Tga. People are lovely over there.

I wasn't really expecting them to but I still think they should move Skaven to Destruction tbh.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Sylvaneth vs Skaven box. Hopefully this alludes to a range redo for Skaven

There better be new Skaven tree rat units or this whole thing will just sounds nuts

Blood Bowl does have Akhorne the squirrel, so maybe Skaven will start using clan Moulder to further "Enhance" the wildlife of the woods with warpstone. Yes Yes.

 The Phazer wrote:
I wasn't really expecting them to but I still think they should move Skaven to Destruction tbh.

That's very very unlikely to happen considering that skaven got themselves a "not greater demon" model and the Horned Rat became the 5th Chaos God. Though that story hasn't actually gone anywhere in a while so having some focus on it would be good; then again the Great Horned Rat is even less overtly active than the other 4 Gods.


The only chaos army that almost feels like GW want to put it in destruction is Beasts of Chaos because they clearly put the next BoC model into Destruction........... Which was a curious angle. However I don't see it happening. Whilst BoC is visually very much destruction and ghur and would really fit well at giving Destruction another force (esp something other than greenskins); their lore is very much steeped in Chaos and they've so many inter-links with the other Chaos forces (heck Slaanesh has their own Beast style models now) that I don't think it would happen. What will likely happen is whenever GW revises the range design for BoC they might well gain more Chaos style elements to their models.

At the same time GW might use the Kragnos situation to break a group of Beastmen free from the clutches of Chaos. Creating a new force for Destruction that shares some visual elements, but takes things in a new direction.

 Theophony wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Sylvaneth vs Skaven box. Hopefully this alludes to a range redo for Skaven

There better be new Skaven tree rat units or this whole thing will just sounds nuts

Blood Bowl does have Akhorne the squirrel, so maybe Skaven will start using clan Moulder to further "Enhance" the wildlife of the woods with warpstone. Yes Yes.

I mean, Squirrels and Rats are both rodents-

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Sylvaneth vs Skaven box. Hopefully this alludes to a range redo for Skaven

Oh my, yes this is potentially quite a lovely box. Unlikely to be a range redo though, they usually *dont* put more than a single new character per side in these boxes, rarely you will get a new unit for one of the two sides in there, and I think precisely once there was a new unit for both sides, so the odds aren't particularly good for there being anything more than a new skaven hero or maybe a resculpt of skryre acolytes (more skryre, yes-yes).

 The Phazer wrote:
I wasn't really expecting them to but I still think they should move Skaven to Destruction tbh.

Agreed, they work better as a destruction type faction and it kinda fits them better lorewise ("gnawing at the roots of civilization" sounds more like destruction than chaos to me) than chaos does. The Great Horned Rat being a chaos god just kinda seems like a crutch, its not like the other chaos gods take the GHR seriously and thematically it overlaps with Nurgle too much. I think Skaven fluff would be more interesting if they were a Destruction faction and the GHR got exiled by the big 4 and was trying to rebuild its power to overthrow them or something. As it stands, Destruction needs more flavor to it beyond small greenskins, big greenskins, in-between greenskins, large humanoids, and giant humanoids.

The only chaos army that almost feels like GW want to put it in destruction is Beasts of Chaos because they clearly put the next BoC model into Destruction........... Which was a curious angle. However I don't see it happening. Whilst BoC is visually very much destruction and ghur and would really fit well at giving Destruction another force (esp something other than greenskins); their lore is very much steeped in Chaos and they've so many inter-links with the other Chaos forces (heck Slaanesh has their own Beast style models now) that I don't think it would happen. What will likely happen is whenever GW revises the range design for BoC they might well gain more Chaos style elements to their models.

At the same time GW might use the Kragnos situation to break a group of Beastmen free from the clutches of Chaos. Creating a new force for Destruction that shares some visual elements, but takes things in a new direction.

Yeah BoC should also be Destruction and with the focus on chaos essentially being 4 god-specific armies + the slaves to darkness as the undivided faction, I don't really think beastmen fit into the chaos grand alliance. Personally I think they should just move the beastmen over the destruction, it wouldn't be hard to rewrite the fluff to justify it (as it stands most of what ties them to chaos is basically just legacy WHFB fluff which can go away). They can take a similar angle to what I suggested for Skaven, "shunned by the chaos gods, they now seek only to destroy all that lays before them" or whatever. Hell, thats basically their fluff now, they are already a borderline destruction faction fluff-wise. The real chaos beasts are already partially present in their respective god specific armies (Slaangors and Tzaangors, missing Pestigors and Khorngors) as well as the ogroids/fomoroids. Minis wise, its worth mentioning that theres surprisingly little chaos iconography on the sculpts, what does exist is limited to a handful of models across a handful of older kits (and are generally so subtle they can be overlooked wholly or can be explained away as trophies taken from defeated enemies, etc.). As far as I can tell, none of the new post end-times beastmen sculpts (which really isn't many) have any sort of chaos iconography on them. Entirely possible that a range refresh of Gors/Ungors/Bestigors/Centigors, etc. breaks those links entirely. I think its entirely possible, using the existing model range, to basically do a chaos beastmen faction and a destruction beastmen faction. Personally I think the way they should go is to do what they are already doing and continue to fold in god-specific gors into the god themed factions (+ maybe more ogroid/fomoroid type things) + more ogroid/fomoroid and maybe undivided gors into slaves to darkness, and then do away with BOC as a standalone chaos faction and make them a destruction faction following Kragnos.

But let's be honest, even more important for grand alliance parity would be to split Order into Sigmar and Random donkey-caves