Friday 23 November 2012

WD codexes?

Lately I've been reading rumours that the 6th edition Black Templars and Chaos Daemons codexes are going to be White Dwarf codexes rather than physical books. I certainly hope that this isn't going to be the case.

It has the problem that once the issue has gone out of circulation then new players can't get a hold of the codex, and potentially be stuck with an out of date codex since GW don't seem interested in putting the WD codexes up online as PDF's like they used to.

I'm going to keep an ear out on this and hope that it isn't true.

2 comments:

  1. I hope they don't, as WD codices tend to be very bland affairs with no new units (like Sisters and BA).

    What's more likely is that the Daemons book will be soon, seeing as they already got a pre-codex wave of releases back in the summer, like Vampire Counts did last year, with their new book coming last january.

    I reckon we'll see the same thing with Deamons. a January/February release would make sense, although it'd be nice to see some new fantasy instead, seeing as we've had no new books for them since April.

    My prediction (based on rumours I've heard and my own speculation based on what pre-codex waves we've had recently)

    January: Dark Angels codex/ DA Pre-codex wave (people are saying that January's WD is DA heavy)
    February/ March: Deamons (Fantasy and 40k - there's always a 40k release in march and a smaller wave of models in Feb, so March is most likely)
    March: Fantasy - most likely WoC (to cash in on the wave just released)
    Later in 2013: Tau, Templars, DE or HE, Orks

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really hope not as I don't see the point unless a book is so old and they want to test the waters. Which is is how I figure the SoB codex that last appeared in WD. The new 6th ed format is the perfect opportunity to put old new codexes.

    I've given up on rumours. GW are being so tight lipped or putting out false info that it has become pointless and just fuels irritation when things turn out to be incorrect.

    ReplyDelete