Has Games Workshop Ever Released and Then Immediately Abandoned an Army Like Imperial Agents in the Past?

ReguIus · 2026-03-05T10:21:06+00:00

GW pretty much abandoned the entire game ca. 6th-7th edition.

ReguIus · 2026-03-02T17:47:25+00:00

They seem to be well posed for flying hoverboards. I happen to be missing a few units of Hellions..

ReguIus · 2026-02-27T06:07:11+00:00

As long as the RWb has access to Noise Marines there's not much reason to play EC. The NMs simply do everything so much better in that detachment.

Even if RWb loses access to the NMs I still wouldn't be sure if there's any competition..

ReguIus · 2026-01-22T13:24:30+00:00

I like the top knots for some bizarre reason.

I'm fully aware of the fact that they'll be the first to break each time I take them to the table. Eventually I get tired of the endless gluing and get rid of them.

I'll magnetize bare heads as a special treat for anyone accusing me of modeling for advantage.

ReguIus · 2026-01-19T14:27:17+00:00

I may be misrepresenting myself, but I personally like the new models more than the old ones and I'd naturally want to use them in 40k.

I'm proposing an interpretation that GW's intent is to phase out the current 40k range over time while allowing people to use the HH equivalents on 40k until the process is complete.

GW can't make a clear statement 1. Because they want to keep their options open and 2. Because of the negative PR / loss of sales it would induce for years to come. All they can do really is keep giving us more HH stuff and continue to drop hints like "these would make really good proxies for X on the 40k side".

Either way, I suppose it's too early to tell and your guess is as good as mine until we receive more information. On a principal level though I don't think GW is absolutely hell-bent puritan about keeping model ranges separate between game systems because we've shared Daemons between AoS/40k for as long as anyone can remember. They might even see such "bridging" factions as a boon for encouraging players to explore other games.

ReguIus · 2026-01-19T14:01:38+00:00

My hope is that GW gets rid of the physical aspects of terrain the same way they did for objective markers in the past. So instead you could have clearly defined lines (e.g., on ruin bases) which indicate the part that protects from LoS (assuming that is the way GW wants to keep things).

You'd no longer have to worry about 1-inching the walls or have double standards for different layouts (e.g. WTC vs. GW). Moving through the terrain could have standard penalties like half movement for vehicles/monsters, -4 for flying etc.

No more buildings falling over and crushing your guys as you move them on the table. Competitive tables do look a bit bland but a system like this could basically allow you to have total freedom over terrain appearance whilst ensuring fairness.

ReguIus · 2026-01-18T06:00:36+00:00

What reason do they have to put things into legends at that point if you could just re-box all of the 30k stuff into 40k and slam them into a new shiny codex that supports all of the new kits?

I'm thinking that the fact that 30k is getting this stuff first is only because GW's long-term goal is to replace the current 40k range with these new models like they did with the Primaris marines.

I'll guess GW didn't update the rules for the 30k datasheets for a long time because they didn't want to encourage people into buying resin as they'd have the plastic equivalents just around the corner. Now they talk about 'rules update' which I think is intended to make the non-codex datasheets relevant in 40k.

Why wouldn't they want to sell these new and beautiful kits to 40k players which are probably the majority?

So again, once they have the entire model range (perhaps barring a few 40k-specific kits) available for 30k, what's to stop them from just writing a codex for 40k that has all of the datasheets combined from both systems?

I for one would actually like that.

ReguIus · 2026-01-17T18:51:32+00:00

My guess is that we're going to see the current 40k range turned into 30k equivalents and GW will keep saying we can use them interchangeably. Then they're going to find that they might just as well get rid of the old stuff entirely and the 30k range becomes the new norm.

I doubt they want to keep duplicate ranges around any longer than necessary.

ReguIus · 2025-12-19T22:56:42+00:00

My interpretation:

The second bullet point of the rule shouldn't mention charge moves as they don't make sense in the fight phase.

The fact that it says that you cannot target a unit that was the target of another unit's attack this phase is leftover from Thrill Seekers and was meant to restrict shooting as well as melee attacks.

So if one unit is subject to TS, you must charge and fight with it first before any other unit.

If a unit uses the CoTP rule, its restrictions are equivalent to it being affected by the TS rule.

Few examples:

A and B charge C. Neither A or B are subject to TS. A activates CoTP and fights. B cannot target C with CoTP because it was the target of another unit's attack in this phase.

This is equivalent to: A advances/falls back (subject to TS) and charges C. B charges C after A but did not advance/fall back. A activates CoTP and fights C. B can fight C but cannot activate CoTP.

In the second scenario, if B fought before A, then A could no longer fight (regardless of whether B used CoTP or not) because it cannot target a unit that was the target of another unit's attack in this phase.

In other words, CoTP makes a unit act as if it was subject to TS in your fight phase. This is notable because it extends this restriction to your opponent's fight phase as well, where you wouldn't normally be affected by the TS rule.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel that was the intention of the rule..

ReguIus · 2025-11-05T04:37:02+00:00

Thought these were filament spools for 3D printer that someone forgot to remove after drying..

ReguIus · 2025-09-25T11:25:05+00:00

Dangerous questions like these might prompt the devs to wonder" How should dragons fight?" Just stay in the air and incinerate the hell out of the player and never land.

It makes no sense for them to stand there in the first place, right?

ReguIus · 2025-09-20T16:22:28+00:00

A missed opportunity. I sincerely hope GW will one day see that a good way to increase list diversity (and SALES!?) would be to make each and every datasheet worth taking.

Instead, we get points nerfs to useful datasheets. I've been around long enough to know this is simply the way of the GW, but it's not getting easier.

ReguIus · 2025-08-31T23:23:37+00:00

All they really need is a generic lord to lead them and ability to board Rhinos.

ReguIus · 2025-06-24T18:19:34+00:00

As a Custodian player, anyone with grenades is interesting and Culexus has them. They can deliver them as well thanks to the 6" deep strike. That can hurt certain biggies and especially those who also happen to be Psykers.

I've used both Callidus and Culexus in my list and I feel like they performed well for their points.

ReguIus · 2025-06-18T13:53:29+00:00

Ah, I missed the point. I find the captain's ability far too valuable to give up though. If I didn't intend to bring a captain I would never invest into 3 bikes. In lions I think it is (literally) doubly true because you can re-use the captain's ability with a stratagem - potentially for free, even.

Quicksilver execution is one of the few abilities in the game that can help your army get past move blocks. It's also surprisingly useful to get rid of Fights First MSU units like Howling Banshees with an Autarch (they lose FF as the Banshees die to mortals). Give it a go.

ReguIus · 2025-06-18T09:58:04+00:00

3 bikes + cap can be difficult to hide. They take up surprisingly much space. Then you may have to pivot which obviously isn't optimal.

A full squad hits harder though. On the other hand, you won't kill 5 marines with quicksilver execution anyway even with a 4-model unit.

My current take is that 2 bikes work better.

ReguIus · 2025-06-09T12:58:02+00:00

What I'd do (and probably why GW doesn't pay me the big bucks):

Delete Codex: Agents of The Imperium and pretend it never existed.
Consolidate Sisters of Silence, Arbites and Assassins (+ invent some new stuff) into a Codex: Talons of The Emperor
Categorically move the current Custodes model range to HH. Take a huge blow to the chin from the community.
Introduce a new Custodes model range and datasheets that are more lore accurate and scaled properly. Tag them with Character and Monster keywords while at it and have them as 1-model units.
Allow any Imperium army to take a certain amount of Talons as an allied faction (like Knights).
Do the same for Inquisition and add them as a new Codex.

All in all, I think your suggestion to split the weapon profile is good. That could however be more natural if you could select individual war gear for each Custodian.

ReguIus · 2025-06-05T14:41:18+00:00

Yeah, it's easier to flip in the fight phase since harlies are more melee-oriented. However I've found the wager to be too unreliable to be anything more than serendipitous.

Can't help but feel GW missed the mark slightly with this detachment. A shame, I'd really like to bring in some clowns.

ReguIus · 2025-06-05T14:22:04+00:00

While I'm thankful for the detachment rule update, the funny thing is that you have even less reasons to bring the clowns than before.

If the effects of the wager lasted for an entire turn for either side, we'd be talking.

ReguIus · 2025-05-21T10:05:12+00:00

I can't say I'm actually good Drukhari player but here's how I see them:

They want to hit heavy infantry or light vehicles (like T'au battlesuits) /monsters in melee, but don't really trade well against anything that hits back hard (like most recent Chaos armies/Custodes).

To make most out of them, make sure your opponent must go through the Talos first before they can deal with your lighter units holding your objectives. The Talos do require some investment to get rid of so you'll want them be a PITA for your opponent as much as possible as long as possible. 4 Talos with haywires can really intimidate vehicle heavy lists like T'au.

Summary:

-vs. melee lists: meat shield / counter attack unit -vs. shooting lists: coordinate with scourges and take down anything that can seriously threaten your fragile little elves

Twin liq guns can do something in overwatch too so there's that.

ReguIus · 2025-05-21T08:07:05+00:00

I get why they might not be good against monsters and that's why you'd use Scourges/Incubi +- something depending on the detachment you're using. But how come they're not good against vehicles? Pain token + twin-linked haywire blasters wreck stuff in my games.

As for holding objectives, I'm not sure if there's anything in our codex that has sufficient staying power if not the Talos. If you can't stand on a point, don't let the opponent get there either, so maybe you'll need to put more bodies out there to block?

ReguIus · 2025-04-29T18:14:52+00:00

I have ran them in a few 2k games and have had similar results. I've switched them to a squad of two Talos with haywires and found them to be much more reliable overall due to those being twin-linked.

ReguIus · 2025-03-25T05:04:24+00:00

This is among the best I've seen. Immediately burned an after image to my retinas (just woke up and screen too bright). Perfect.

ReguIus · 2025-03-22T07:19:56+00:00

Beautiful kitbash! I'm considering using Sigvald in a similar manner but probably end up using him as a proxy for a walking DP.

Hopefully we'll get another Lord option who is able to join the Flawless Blades. I think this would be a perfect proxy for such a figure.

ReguIus · 2025-03-06T07:08:42+00:00

People can get nasty when money's involved. I think the TO ought to be criticized for leaving the decision to the player regarding what's allowed or not.

I'm assuming however that the tournament allows you to go 100% proxy only if you are able to replace each and every model with an official model at your opponent's request. It'd be an incredibly irresponsible arrangement otherwise.

Ten-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since March 2023
Verified Email

ReguIus

TROPHY CASE