Demon hunters codex is up?

[Havik110]

I think they removed allies...
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1050287a_Codex__Daemonhunters

[whitestar333]

So THAT'S why they released a PDF version! That makes so much sense now. GW wanted to fix the problem of allies before they completely release the update. Well done, GW, well done.

*slow clap*

[Havik110]

can we say blood angel deep striking melta teams on guard vehicle squadrons without fear of mystics!!!

Can we say no more tarot!

[Melissia]

For those that are gonna say this overrules the physical codex, that would mean Grey Knights can field nothing but terminators now because they have no FoC.

No need for PAGKs, they can just have an army consisting of entirely land raiders!

[Chuck777]

For those that are gonna say this overrules the physical codex, that would mean Grey Knights can field nothing but terminators now because they have no FoC.

No need for PAGKs, they can just have an army consisting of entirely land raiders!

Don't be such a sour puss. ;)

You know the FOC is the same for every army, there's even an example of it in the BRB.

Still I am shocked the removed that whole page rather than not simply deleting the ally column.

[Melissia]

And they didn't remove Allies from the WH pdf.

[whitestar333]

So the WH still have allies, and that's fine. If the IG want to take WH allies, I don't mind as much. I'm just sick of seeing mystics and unlimited-range psychic hoods. The IG need a weakness, dammit!

[Melissia]

Actually, the Errata/FAQs still make constant references to allies. Here, especially:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m470041a_FAQ_ImperialGuard_2009.pdf

[whitestar333]

Actually, they uploaded the WH codex too
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1050291a_Codex__Witch_Hunters

That said, in my gaming group, we have an unofficial pact not to use the allies rules because of their imbalance issues, and I don't think the upload of the DH codex will stop people from including them in friendly games, but that's where they should belong anyway. Hell, I saw a 2v2 game the other day where it was IG+Nids vs. Tau+BA, just for fun.

I'm just glad that GW realizes that they can [and isn't afraid to] make changes to armies and the game dynamic outside of normal codex updates. Whether you use allies or not, this is an exciting precedent.

[Melissia]

If this counts as them removing the allies rules, then they also removed the FoC, Grey Knights, and other rules from the codex, too that were on the same page.

This is not a revision.

[DaveLL]

If this counts as them removing the allies rules, then they also removed the FoC, Grey Knights, and other rules from the codex, too that were on the same page.

This is not a revision.
Nobody is going to try to claim that a lack of the standard FoC in the codex keeps you from playing them with a standard FoC. I don't honestly recall any "grey knights" special rule... what was it?

As for removal of allies: it's not a full revision, but removing allies was the obvious choice for a temporary update. You know as well as anybody else that the allies rules were a throwback to earlier editions of the game. And yes, this does make the army considerably worse until there's an update... but it also stops IG from cherry-picking those few parts of the codex that became undercosted with edition changes instead of overcosted like practically everything else in the codex.

It also means that they need to do an actual revision of these two codexes soon.

[Melissia]

It provided special rules for the Grey Knights.

As for Allies, they didn't remove it, they just forgot to include the page that had them on there.

[Galadren]

I'm with Melissia. If there are no allies then there is no FOC.

Also, they left out most of the fluff as well.

Why couldn't GW just use one of the PDF copies floating around the internet? :P

[Melissia]

By the way:

1. French version is renumbered, and HAS the missing two pages.
2. Spanish version has the old page numbers, and is missing the two pages.
3. English, German and Italian versions have renumbered pages are are missing the two pages.
4. There is no Japanese version.

GW is so consistent, wait what?

[sonsoftaurus]

Not a revision or an update, just a truncated scan. Does not override the physical books. If we can take things out of books and have it count, I'm sure there's some work my scissors could be doing...;)

[Havik110]

They took allies out on purpose...this is to stop psychic hoods and mystics in guard armies...

yes it overrides the paper codex...

[Lerra]

The fact that SoB kept their allies rules is encouraging. I hope the allies rules are updated but kept in the new GK/SoB codices. The Daemonhunter allies were probably removed because of the mystics, but all other Daemonhunter allies seem perfectly reasonable to me.

I'm not going to give up my allied Daemonhost list without a fight ;)

[Galadren]

They took allies out on purpose...this is to stop psychic hoods and mystics in guard armies...

yes it overrides the paper codex...

I guess we'll just have to wait for the official GW response.

I'll be over here holding my breath...

[DarkLink]

I think they dropped the DH ally rules so that every single IG/SM player in the entire game couldn't just go on the website, download the rules, and start playing an Inquisitor with mystics from then on.

This doesn't ban allies, but it doesn't make them any easier to get.

[fuzbuckle]

Their web update mentions that they'll talk more about the codex postings in tomorrows update. I'm hoping that they have a good explanation for the missing pages and lack of other updates....

[zenjah]

They took allies out on purpose...

If they took them out on purpose, why is the following text still on the first page?


Another strength of the Daemonhunters army list is the ease with
which it can be integrated with existing armies. If you already
have an Imperial army such as the Space Marines or Imperial
Guard, it can easily be incorporated into the Daemonhunters list.
For instance, a Space Marine player may choose to lead his force
into battle with a Grey Knight Grand Master and his Terminator
bodyguard, or an Imperial Guard player may choose to add a
couple of platoons of infantry to his Daemonhunters force.

I'm not sure how anyone can be certain of what GW intends.

GW doesn't even seem to know what they are trying to do...

[DaveLL]

It provided special rules for the Grey Knights.

The grey knight special rule granting special rules to GKs wasn't exactly the part I needed clarification on. The question was which special rules that page gave to GKs, since I don't have immediate access to a DH book from where I am at the moment. However...

Perhaps it was a mistake, and they'll put the pages back in. I suspect, though, that it was simple laziness on the part of whoever did the editing - maybe he was told to put everything in the codex into the PDF except the allies rule, and he decided to just take out the pages dealing with the allies rule. Allies are plainly not a part of anything released recently, and it's hard to argue that they didn't give an unintended bonus to the IG codex.

*shrug* Time will tell. If they do decide to clarify the issue, that is.

[Vaktathi]

I highly doubt that anyone rejoicing in the removal of the allies rules is actually correct in that GW intended to remove the allies rules specifically just so IG couldn't get mystics.

They also removed the rules regarding how GK squads use their psychic powers as squads, what consitutes GK's, Daemons, and Daemonhunters for the purposes of the rules, abilities and wargear.

It also removes the ability of DH's to take allies, making them much less capable.

So yeah, if you are using the PDF I guess you don't get mystics for IG, but it doesn't look like that was the intent, and it hurts DH and the game overall much more than that single removal helps.

It doesn't look like they specifically intended to remove the allies rules. Methinks people are rejoicing over a an unintended editing error, that if placed into full effect, will have far more detriment than benefit.

[Havik110]

I highly doubt that anyone rejoicing in the removal of the allies rules is actually correct in that GW intended to remove the allies rules specifically just so IG couldn't get mystics.

They also removed the rules regarding how GK squads use their psychic powers as squads, what consitutes GK's, Daemons, and Daemonhunters for the purposes of the rules, abilities and wargear.

It also removes the ability of DH's to take allies, making them much less capable.

So yeah, if you are using the PDF I guess you don't get mystics for IG, but it doesn't look like that was the intent, and it hurts DH and the game overall much more than that single removal helps.

It doesn't look like they specifically intended to remove the allies rules. Methinks people are rejoicing over a an unintended editing error, that if placed into full effect, will have far more detriment than benefit.

guard are powerful enough without the 100 point upgrade to stop deep striking and an unlimited range psycic hood...


Im sorry but nobody playing DH was winning tournaments, people playing guard and adding an inquisitor were, and its good that it is being snuffed out

[DarkLink]

If they took them out on purpose, why is the following text still on the first page?


Another strength of the Daemonhunters army list is the ease with
which it can be integrated with existing armies. If you already
have an Imperial army such as the Space Marines or Imperial
Guard, it can easily be incorporated into the Daemonhunters list.
For instance, a Space Marine player may choose to lead his force
into battle with a Grey Knight Grand Master and his Terminator
bodyguard, or an Imperial Guard player may choose to add a
couple of platoons of infantry to his Daemonhunters force.

I'm not sure how anyone can be certain of what GW intends.

GW doesn't even seem to know what they are trying to do...

That's in the original codex. They simply didn't remove this part when they removed the rest of the ally rules.

Why are people reading into this so much? GW just didn't post the full rules, and it's probably because they won't have allies in the new codices. Simple as that.

[Vaktathi]

guard are powerful enough without the 100 point upgrade to stop deep striking and an unlimited range psycic hood...


Im sorry but nobody playing DH was winning tournaments, people playing guard and adding an inquisitor were, and its good that it is being snuffed out

I'm not saying it's not potentially abusive.

I'm saying that the negative impact on the DH army is far greater than the detriment to IG, and lets be honest, it's probably an editing error. Crippling DH to remove a single ability that IG can utilize, which the vast majority of players do not, screams of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Anyone going "YAY GW removed mystics from IG" is probably very, very wrong, and engaging in wishful thinking. GW has gone far out of their way to specifically avoid such errata on such issues in the past and have a lengthy history of poor PDF editing with just such these things.

[Melissia]

The fact that SoB kept their allies rules is encouraging. I hope the allies rules are updated but kept in the new GK/SoB codices. The Daemonhunter allies were probably removed because of the mystics, but all other Daemonhunter allies seem perfectly reasonable to me.

I'm not going to give up my allied Daemonhost list without a fight ;)

I hope Allies rules ARE removed, because then GW will have to actually focus on making the codex worth a damn by itself without anything added in from other codices.

[Force21]

Oh no!


does this mean no more Grey Knight Terminators in IG armys???

or Assassins?


I is sad...

[zenjah]

Why are people reading into this so much? GW just didn't post the full rules, and it's probably because they won't have allies in the new codices. Simple as that.

You may well be correct that this represents the end of allies in 40k.

The reason I "read into" things so much is because I put a high value on recognizing uncertainty, ambiguity, and doubt, and a comparatively low value on proclamations of certainty.

I often find myself chiming in on threads where there are contradictory levels of certainty on both sides of an argument, if only to say, "There does seem to be some uncertainty here."

[Melissia]

Uncertainty means nothing.

[jeffersonian000]

Did everyone not notice that Daemon Princes are now Daemons? Or that DH Force Weapons do not grant an extra psychic power, and therefore can be used even if a psychic power was used previously in the round nor will its use prohibit a power from being used after?

SJ

[HsojVvad]

Well what does a Daemon Prince say in the Daemon codex? I am shure it's what ever the Daemon codex says is, what the Daemon Prince is then.

I never noticed about the DH Force Weapon. Then again I didn't really bother looking at the DH pdf codex much.

Then again the question needs to be asked, if the codex was "updated" why was it done only half way, and not have everything update? Shouldn't points be cheaper now? Shouldn't war gear match present war gear in other codex?

So is this really an update or just ommisions?

[blueshift]

i don't remember the Vindicare's Shield-Breaker round ignoring ANY invulnerable save... has this always been the case?

[zenjah]

Uncertainty means nothing.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

[Old_Paladin]

i don't remember the Vindicare's Shield-Breaker round ignoring ANY invulnerable save... has this always been the case?

It's been like that since the release of the Ordos codexes.
When assassin's had their own mini-dex, the 'breaker used to say "invulnerables saves granted from wargear;" but it hasn't said that in a long time.

[Melissia]

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.
Blessed is the mind too strong for it. Someone who is constantly uncertain can never get anything done.

[DarkLink]

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

Special are those who let pithy quotes do their thinking for them:p:p:p

[Leez]

Well what does a Daemon Prince say in the Daemon codex? I am shure it's what ever the Daemon codex says is, what the Daemon Prince is then.



Unfortunately the answer is it depends.

Daemon Princes from codex: Chaos Daemon are daemons, and regaurdless of the powers selected not a psyker. From codex: Chaos Space Marines are "not" daemons, and may be psykers depending upon which powers they have even we it's the exact same power as a Daemon Prince from c:cd. More over the former is a heavy support unit, the later is an HQ unit.


I say "not" in quotions because I like to think: you know it's a daemon, I know it's a daemon, everyone knows it's a daemon. But the arguement can be made that it is not a daemon because the army list doesn't say it is. But following that line of logic stormboyz are not orks (good luck with Mob Rule!) more over how many Dark Angel Space Marines are Space Marine, never mind if they are Dark Angels or not. Merely being in a specific codex means said unit can be taken be a player using the codex, think of Gretchin in an Ork army, or Inquisitors with Grey Knights.


You see just how ridiculous things can get when we follow the rule: "it is what it says it is." Much easier I think to follow the lore to determine identities as the RaI is very clear on this topic I feel.

[zenjah]

Blessed is the mind too strong for it. Someone who is constantly uncertain can never get anything done.

Tell that to the people who use the scientific method to get things done.

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darned sure of what the result is going to be, he is in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize the ignorance and leave room for doubt." -- Richard Feynman

And finally,

"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are *****ure while the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

I don't think one needs to proclaim a thing "certain" to take action. You can both acknowledge uncertainty and decide to act on what you believe.

[Melissia]

Tell that to the people who use the scientific method to get things done.Science does not use uncertainty to get things done. Science uses facts. Where there are no facts, Science seeks them out. When new facts come up, they are tested for validity, and then accepted if they are valid There is no uncertainty here.

It is religion that uses uncertainty as its argument. Not science. And since you've turned this into a debate about religion, I'm out of here. That is a subject I do not tread.

[BlacknightIII]

Uncerntainty causes us to challenge current Science facts. In doing this they either bolster evidence for a science theory or law or they find evidence to help disprove a theory or law.

[blueshift]

It's been like that since the release of the Ordos codexes.
When assassin's had their own mini-dex, the 'breaker used to say "invulnerables saves granted from wargear;" but it hasn't said that in a long time.

wow i feel old now... i've been using a vindicare like that since third edition, but then again the last time i used one was in fourth.

[zenjah]

It is religion that uses uncertainty as its argument. Not science. And since you've turned this into a debate about religion, I'm out of here. That is a subject I do not tread.

As far as I can tell, you are the only person to have discussed religion at all in this thread. And even more bizarre-- you did it in the same paragraph in which you accused me of doing so.