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.

After reading quite a bit on the topic of whether or not both BA and SW should be swallowed into the general space marine codex, I have seen quite a few people who have been openly ignorant of just how much is different between the standard codex chapters and these specific two.

In light of this, I decided to go through all 3 books and list exactly how many units are undeniably different. These are units that would either need their own special entry, which includes a fluff page, or would need to be removed altogether. Most of them (maybe all, didn't check that part) have specific GW official models, which would also mean pulling those from the shelves.

Now, of course, I did have to set a few ground rules. If you disagree with them, feel free to run your own analysis using your own rules.


ground rules:
1: A unit is considered a different unit from C:SM if it cannot be replicated simply by replacing ONLY wargear and adding army-wide chapter tactic special rules. I am running under the assumption that the potential combined codex can have army specific wargear sections and not make the entire thing a jumbled mess. (I don't actually believe this assumption for a second, but I'll roll with it.)

Also of note, I'm assuming that lucifer pattern engines are included in BA chapter tactics, else they would have another 6 entries that are different. Also note that this implies the folded-in Blood Angels will get fast vehicles for free, or extra measures must be taken to give the BA player a different point cost for his fast vehicles.

Bear in mind that virtually every unit I mention, and most of the ones I don't, WILL have different wargear from C:SM, and I won't bring it up due to ground rule #1. So when folded into the core SM book, pretty much every unit will have to send the prospective player to either the BA or SW armory with different point costs to figure out how he's loading the unit out. (This will probably be extremely bothersome turned up to 11.)

2: Any unit composition change constitutes a new unit.

3: A heavy (two or more points) statline change constitutes a new unit. Just one point is more of an editions issue, and the unit will most likely receive/lose that point when folded into the codex.

4: A FOC change alone is not enough to constitute a new unit. The chapter tactics can easily point these out.

5: JUST a points cost change will be attributed to a difference in editions.

6: Any one C:SM unit may not be cited more than once as a similar unit.

Note: I don't list ALL the units, because some of them are pretty undeniably similar to C:SM equivalents. I did however go through EVERY unit in both codices and check them against my ground rules.

SC's
BA: 8.5 different
SW: 8 different

HQ's
BA:
Reclusiarch: chaplain with several stat changes. different.
Honour guard: required sanguinary novitiate. different.
net = 2 different.

SW:
Rune priests= librarians. same.
Wolf Lord= chapter masters with -1 W. same.
Wolf priest= chaplain. Preferred enemy instead of hatred. Different.
Wolf Guard Battle Leader = captain with -1 w and -1 Ld. different.

net: 2 different

Elites
BA:
Sanguinary priests: very different.
Sanguinary guard: very different.
Furioso dreadnought: Ironclad, different side armor, higher WS. Different.
Furioso Librarian: different
Chaplains in elite: just a FOC change. Same.

net: 4 different

SW:
Wolf scouts: FOC change and stat change. different.
Wolf guard pack: different.
Lone wolf: very different.
dreadnoughts: same, but the venerable costs a lot. still same though.
Iron priest: techmarine. Not independent. Different.

net: 4 different

Troops:
BA:
Assault squad: just a FOC change. same.
Death company: very very different.
Death company dreadnought: different.

net: 2 different.

SW:
Grey hunters: no sarge, different.
Blood claws: no sarge, up to 15. different.

net: 2 different.

Fast
BA:
Vanguard Vets: assault from deep strike. different. (yeah they may lose it, but that's pure speculation.)
Baal Predator: different. SM predator is equated to BA heavy support predator, and can't be cited here. also scout/outflank.
net: 2 different.

SW:
Thunderwolf cavalry: different.
Swiftclaws: stats and no sarge, different.
Skyclaws: stats and no sarge, different.
Wolves: obviously different.
net: 4 different.

Heavy
BA:
None!

SW:
Long fangs: Whole unit of vet stats, split fire. different.
net: 1 different


Net results:

Blood angels have 10 units and 8 special characters, as well as a second version of a special character, that cannot be easily replicated by pointing a player to the closest unit and telling them to apply BA chapter tactics and visit the BA wargear page. So 18 fluff/rules pages are needed, as well as 19 slots (one for DC tycho) in the points area. Any other units can be replicated, but must note in the normal marine entry that the player must go to the blood angel armory section of the book for wargear.

Space wolves have 13 units and 8 special characters that cannot be easily replicated by pointing a player to the closest unit and telling them to apply SW chapter tactics and visit the SW wargear page. So 21 fluff/rules pages are needed, as well as 21 slots in the points area. Like BA, any other units can be replicated, but must note in the normal marine entry that the player must go to the space wolves armory section of the book for wargear.

Personal thoughts: I was surprised to find out the number of differences was very close to the same in the two books. (I was expecting a blowout by the wolves, but it turns out the BA give them a run for their money.) Both have very different elite sections, and the wolves have a wildly different fast attack section from standard marines.
There were some that just barely skirted the line. But I had to obey the rules I decided on at the start.

Hopefully this will help inform some of the people who have not read either codex about just HOW different they are from the standard codex, how difficult it would be to roll either of them in, and how much of a jumbled mess it would make the resulting book.

I love research.

Death company are assault marines with a few extra special rules, some stat changes and access to the melee weapons list. Youd need one or two sentences stating you can upgrade AM to DC. I am not sure about Dreadnought but i believe its the in about the same boat.

Grey hunters are just your basic tac squad with CCWs and access to two special weapons.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Death company are assault marines with a few extra special rules, some stat changes and access to the melee weapons list. Youd need one or two sentences stating you can upgrade AM to DC. I am not sure about Dreadnought but i believe its the in about the same boat.

Grey hunters are just your basic tac squad with CCWs and access to two special weapons.

DC: also have no sarge, can have a unit from 3-30, and there's no way you can communicate properly the options each DC member has without causing a huge mess on the assault marine page. For one, they can take boltguns and be tactical death company instead. They also don't start with jump packs, and don't get a discount on vehicles for not taking them. It sounds like you haven't read the codex entry.

Dreadnought: incorrect, sounds like you haven't read the codex entry.

Grey hunters: also have no sarge and get one free special gun, one pistol swap, and one special gun for points. Sounds like you haven't read that codex entry either.

I just put a wall of research up for you. Please use it to avoid spreading misinformation.

also:

Now, of course, I did have to set a few ground rules. If you disagree with them, feel free to run your own analysis using your own rules.

niv-mizzet wrote:


Grey hunters: also have no sarge and get one free special gun, one pistol swap, and one special gun for points. Sounds like you haven't read that codex entry either.

So what? They're still a tactical marine squad and can be represented as such in the C: SM book.

If you're just going to be snarky to everyone, you'll soon find yourself on everyone's ignore. You've gone through a lot of trouble to make these lists. Try not to ruin your efforts with sarcasm.

Look, we can mince words here but the bottom line is that just because there is a wargear change or two doesnt make it a hugely different unit. Space Marine tac squads, for example, have no special stats for their sarge other than a CCW built in. If the whole unit had them then he wouldnt be distinct in anything but name. The only thing he would count for is challenges but thats it. If you really dont like the idea of your squads having a sergeant then pretend he isnt one. Say he is just the squad member thats the most belligerent.

As for Death Company, if you really want them to be walking then you have the option of removing your jump packs gratis. And again, they have no distinct sarge. Its just the guy with another attack and has to answer to challenges. Its not going to ruin the flavor of the DC. They dont have to muck up the AM page they can just give the option as a CT.

About the Dreadnought... Yeah, thats fair. Someone more knowledgeable will have to cover it.

My point is that you dont have to have every little rule and change to have the flavor the unit. Its the player that makes the army not a lack of sergeants.

SW:
Wolf Guard Battle Leader = captain with -1 w and -1 Ld. different.

LOL! "We just added Space Wolves to the C: SM. Your WG Battle Leaders are now captains and just gained +1 W and +1 LD. Congrats!"

SW
Wolf scouts: FOC change and stat change. different.

Then change them back! Simple.

BA:
Reclusiarch: chaplain with several stat changes. different.
Honour guard: required sanguinary novitiate. different

No reason for them to even be different. Change Reclusiarch to match Chaplain and Honor Guard to match either Honor Guard or Command Squad in the C: SM

Most of your points are ticky-tack, man. Was this a trolling thread? Was there a need to make a new one when there are 2 threads covering this?

One slight issue: Wolf Lords are Captains, and Battle Leaders are beneath captains.

I also am not a fan of the 'Wargear' not mattering in comparison, since about 90% of the units in the Space Marine codex itself share two or three different statlines between the lot of them. That's a more minor issue, though. Your ruling seems really fair.

Have an Exalt.

I'm completely disagree about rolling the codex together but saying units are different don't mean a thing.
Black Templar:
Emperors Champion
2 special characters
Special wargear and relics
Crusader squads
Army wide availability to LRC
Other wargear load outs that are gone (termi set up I.e sword brethren)
I don't include added units.

 kronk wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:


Grey hunters: also have no sarge and get one free special gun, one pistol swap, and one special gun for points. Sounds like you haven't read that codex entry either.

So what? They're still a tactical marine squad and can be represented as such in the C: SM book.

If you're just going to be snarky to everyone, you'll soon find yourself on everyone's ignore. You've gone through a lot of trouble to make these lists. Try not to ruin your efforts with sarcasm.

There is no sarcasm there. It sounds like he's just going off his general knowledge of the units from seeing them in games rather than reading the codex entry with the situation in mind. Which is why I said "it sounds like."

I specifically posted criteria I was following, and they did not fit it. I also pointed out that my criteria are not the word of God, and any of differing opinions should: "feel free to run your own analysis using your own rules."

He did not run his own analysis nor set his own criteria, but instead claimed that some of the entries I posted were incorrect, when they weren't. If he wishes to state that he was using his own criteria that he did not list, he should do so.

If you're going to perceive insults through Internet text, perhaps you should step back and read again. I haven't applied any sarcasm or snarkiness of my own intent. Any that you received from my post is of your own creation, sir. If you still feel that my speech is somehow offensive to you, then please, by all means, ignore me.

If there IS any insult to be found, I would say that I could easily find your post quite condescending, but when reading text, I give people the benefit of the doubt that their intention was conveying information, not ill will.

Happy gaming.

Most of the claimed 'different' units are so similar to vanilla units that its hardly worth a distinct book for.

But I obviously won't convince you how a unit with -1W and -1Ld is hardly a different unit, so I won't bother.

I maintain these codices could easily be rolled in, add in additional options to the vanilla book so everyone has access to more wargear options and unit variations, and let players build unique chapters using unit selection, modelling, and painting, rather than half a dozen separate codices.

I'll be the first to say it. Well done Niv-Mizzet! You have done good research here. If people want to point out 'oh well you can change this unit and that units options to include them' and then ignore the other 30 units you mentioned, then they will never actually consider what you are saying anyway. If they say 'well you can change this unit, this unit, this unit, this unit... etc.' Whilst trying to counter every unit you mentioned. They are utterly ignoring the point you made about it then requiring many pages and making the c:sm dex into a jumbled mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry - second to say it :-p!

 kronk wrote:
SW:
Wolf Guard Battle Leader = captain with -1 w and -1 Ld. different.

LOL! "We just added Space Wolves to the C: SM. Your WG Battle Leaders are now captains and just gained +1 W and +1 LD. Congrats!"

fair enough, but based on my initial ground rules before starting, they did in fact barely pass as a separate unit. I dwelled on not calling them different, but I set my rules so I stuck to them. Feel free to set your own when you run your own analysis.

SW
Wolf scouts: FOC change and stat change. different.

Then change them back! Simple.

I don't think it's as simple as you say. SW fluff goes against this, and I missed the "behind enemy lines" special rule that they also have, differentiating them further. (My apologies to SW scout players.)

BA:
Reclusiarch: chaplain with several stat changes. different.
Honour guard: required sanguinary novitiate. different

No reason for them to even be different. Change Reclusiarch to match Chaplain and Honor Guard to match either Honor Guard or Command Squad in the C: SM

There's already a BA chaplain. Admittedly the honour guard being different from a command squad because of the required novitiate (+war gear, of course) is thin, but again, I set my rules and saw them through. I personally think it would be simple enough to roll them in, but I didn't want to sully research with personal opinion.

Most of your points are ticky-tack, man. Was this a trolling thread? Was there a need to make a new one when there are 2 threads covering this?

Does it go in the space wolf thread or the blood angel thread? Both?
And why would it be a troll thread? I took the 3 books and examined them thoroughly with the "roll in" theme in mind, and decided to let others know how it turned out. I was not aware this was considered trolling.

Did you not like the turnout? Feel free to set your own ground rules and do your own analysis then. I'd be happy to read it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Poly Ranger wrote:
I'll be the first to say it. Well done Niv-Mizzet! You have done good research here. If people want to point out 'oh well you can change this unit and that units options to include them' and then ignore the other 30 units you mentioned, then they will never actually consider what you are saying anyway. If they say 'well you can change this unit, this unit, this unit, this unit... etc.' Whilst trying to counter every unit you mentioned. They are utterly ignoring the point you made about it then requiring many pages and making the c:sm dex into a jumbled mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry - second to say it :-p!

Thanks for the appreciation. I'm glad someone at least enjoyed my curiosity and spare couple of hours' effort.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 kronk wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:


Grey hunters: also have no sarge and get one free special gun, one pistol swap, and one special gun for points. Sounds like you haven't read that codex entry either.

So what? They're still a tactical marine squad and can be represented as such in the C: SM book.

If you're just going to be snarky to everyone, you'll soon find yourself on everyone's ignore. You've gone through a lot of trouble to make these lists. Try not to ruin your efforts with sarcasm.

There is no sarcasm there. It sounds like he's just going off his general knowledge of the units from seeing them in games rather than reading the codex entry with the situation in mind. Which is why I said "it sounds like."

I specifically posted criteria I was following, and they did not fit it. I also pointed out that my criteria are not the word of God, and any of differing opinions should: "feel free to run your own analysis using your own rules."

He did not run his own analysis nor set his own criteria, but instead claimed that some of the entries I posted were incorrect, when they weren't. If he wishes to state that he was using his own criteria that he did not list, he should do so.

If you're going to perceive insults through Internet text, perhaps you should step back and read again. I haven't applied any sarcasm or snarkiness of my own intent. Any that you received from my post is of your own creation, sir. If you still feel that my speech is somehow offensive to you, then please, by all means, ignore me.

If there IS any insult to be found, I would say that I could easily find your post quite condescending, but when reading text, I give people the benefit of the doubt that their intention was conveying information, not ill will.

Happy gaming.

I don't believe in your rules since I do not think they allow for a fair argument. It's also unfair to say that just because my idea of what makes a unit different is not the same as yours I cannot provide a legitimate counter argument. That's just being closed minded.

My claim was that your analysis is incorrect because you are assuming that just because a unit has slight compositional differences it warrants a unique entry. For example, one of your points in your counter argument was that Death Company do not come with jet packs so therefore that makes them ill suited as a ASM modification. This, as I have stated earlier, is an incredibly flawed point because ASM can elect to not come with Jet Packs at no cost at all. Also, I don't see any difference between meticulously listing what a DC member can take when access to the melee weapons list would do fine. Before you say it, no, the fact that they can take infernus pistols does not make it too different. Infernus pistols is something C:SM assault units should have anyway.

But, really, the biggest issue I find with this thread is that, OP, if you really want to know the various arguments just read the "Should BA/SW be rolled into C:SM?" threads. They are all there. They may not have your idea of what makes a unit different but, as I have stated, discounting them for that reason is flawed at best.

I tip my hat to the research you did, OP.

You've made your point, eloquently enough. I don't agree with your assessment that BA and SW are different enough to warrant their own codex, but then, I'm all for variety and don't honestly care if they stay separate or not.

Best of luck!

Doesn't matter, you can still stuff them in.

Death company differences with C:SM ASM:
-Better weapon skill
-Higher attacks
-Rage
-Non scoring
-Fnp
-Furious charge
-Different wargear options
-Unit size from 3 to 30
-Can reroll to hits and wounds if joined by a chaplain.
-5 unlocks a death company dreadnought.
-Troops choice not FA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and fearless.

 ravengatorfan wrote:
I'm completely disagree about rolling the codex together but saying units are different don't mean a thing.
Black Templar:
Emperors Champion
2 special characters
Special wargear and relics
Crusader squads
Army wide availability to LRC
Other wargear load outs that are gone (termi set up I.e sword brethren)
I don't include added units.

I would like to see the OP,or someone else who has access to the old BT codex, do a line by line evaluation using the same criteria. If for no other reason then to set a benchmark for what level of different it’s OK to absorb.

I disagree on some points (like calling vanguard vets different) but it’s nice to see a list.

>the slightest change in a unit constitutes a 'new unit'
>surprised that there are heaps of 'new units'

Ok mate.

 Nevelon wrote:


I would like to see the OP,or someone else who has access to the old BT codex, do a line by line evaluation using the same criteria. If for no other reason then to set a benchmark for what level of different it’s OK to absorb.

I disagree on some points (like calling vanguard vets different) but it’s nice to see a list.

I'm afraid I lack a templar's codex, unfortunately.

I don't believe in your rules since I do not think they allow for a fair argument. It's also unfair to say that just because my idea of what makes a unit different is not the same as yours I cannot provide a legitimate counter argument.

I set my criteria with the thought process of "Ok, I'm the codex writer. How much can I tell the player to do to a unit to get a new unit for his specific army before I feel uncomfortable that they'll mess it up, or I'll mess up the rules somehow and people on ymdc will get thunderwolf cavalry in their ultramarine lists because of a rules oversight."

If you don't think my ground rules allow for a fair argument, by all means, create your own and do an analysis your way. I have made no effort to claim that my ground rules are ironclad. They are opinions, based on how much I think a unit can change before I, as the hypothetical codex writer, would want them as a new unit for simplicity's sake. I believe I specifically said:

I also pointed out that my criteria are not the word of God, and any of differing opinions should: "feel free to run your own analysis using your own rules."

and

Now, of course, I did have to set a few ground rules. If you disagree with them, feel free to run your own analysis using your own rules.

The ground rules themselves ARE what you consider to be "the line" of what makes a different unit merit a different codex entry rather than a "may upgrade to this and gain this rule for xx pts." line off to the side. I've mentioned several times that I would, in fact, like to see others' ground rules. Where they consider the line between a unit pretending to be another unit, and an entirely different unit, to be.

I don't believe there's any unfairness at all in me saying "here are the rules I've used, if you want to use different rules, please do." and if so, I'd like to know where you find such unfairness, specifically?

It's unfair for a simple reason: It assumes that what you are saying is correct in terms of what makes a unit different and that anyone who disagrees with you can't argue with your points since they are approaching it differently. Or, in other words, you made up the rules for what constitutes a different unit so of course from that perspective you are correct.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It's unfair for a simple reason: It assumes that what you are saying is correct in terms of what makes a unit different and that anyone who disagrees with you can't argue with your points since they are approaching it differently. Or, in other words, you made up the rules for what constitutes a different unit so of course from that perspective you are correct.

That is blatantly against what he said. You called his rules unfair and wrong, when he explicitly and repeatedly said that his rules were neither perfect nor infalliable.

I wouldn't say the Rune Priest is the same as a tech marine. He's not an Independant character, he uses up an elite slot, and the options for models in his unit include Fenresian Wolves in addition to the Servitors. Those aren't just wargear and chapter tactics changes.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It's unfair for a simple reason: It assumes that what you are saying is correct in terms of what makes a unit different and that anyone who disagrees with you can't argue with your points since they are approaching it differently. Or, in other words, you made up the rules for what constitutes a different unit so of course from that perspective you are correct.

That is blatantly against what he said. You called his rules unfair and wrong, when he explicitly and repeatedly said that his rules were neither perfect nor infalliable.

What part of what I said is blatantly wrong? His rules are that if a unit requires more than just wargear changes, more than one stat change and compositional differences it warrants a unique entry. If that is what he thinks makes a unique unit good on him. I don't think so.

As for your other point, yeah, that's fine, but he says this: "I specifically posted criteria I was following, and they did not fit it... and any of differing opinions should: "feel free to run your own analysis using your own rules".

The key part is "Your own analysis". I don't know if this is the OP's intent but what it tells me is that if people disagree with him then they can't argue with what he is saying because they aren't using the same parameters as to what warrants a unique unit. Instead, what I am getting is that he wants us to write our own, different opinions on whether the units warrant a unique entry or not.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It's unfair for a simple reason: It assumes that what you are saying is correct in terms of what makes a unit different and that anyone who disagrees with you can't argue with your points since they are approaching it differently. Or, in other words, you made up the rules for what constitutes a different unit so of course from that perspective you are correct.

That is blatantly against what he said. You called his rules unfair and wrong, when he explicitly and repeatedly said that his rules were neither perfect nor infalliable.

What part of what I said is blatantly wrong? His rules are that if a unit requires more than just wargear changes, more than one stat change and compositional differences it warrants a unique entry. If that is what he thinks makes a unique unit good on him. I don't think so.

As for your other point, yeah, that's fine, but he says this: "I specifically posted criteria I was following, and they did not fit it... and any of differing opinions should: "feel free to run your own analysis using your own rules".

The key part is "Your own analysis". I don't know if this is the OP's intent but what it tells me is that if people disagree with him then they can't argue with what he is saying because they aren't using the same parameters as to what warrants a unique unit. Instead, what I am getting is that he wants us to write our own, different opinions on whether the units warrant a unique entry or not.

No, you can't argue. Because he's not stating is as a stance, or an opinion, he's stating it as fact. Here's the fact: 'Under a set of rules that he made up, these units are different enough from the vanilla versions to qualify as 'Unique.''
In your posts, you then argue that certain units aren't unique, because of a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT set of criteria.
He's not trying to set up 'Fair argument.' He's not saying that his analysis is the defining answer on whether or not any units deserve a new codex, or whether any units are in fact unique. He's saying that he made up a set of rules that he thought was fair, and here are some of the results. It's not an argument. It's not a discussion. It's a chart that he made up.

Trying to argue with it is like trying to argue with the result of a mathematical equation done in Base 7: Whether or not you think it's the correct way to do math, or even a sensible way, the result isn't debatable. It's just a thing, which exists. You can do all your math in Base 10. It might be faster that way. It might be more sensible that way. But the result of the problem done in Base 7 is still correct, and there's really no arguing about that.

Oh, I understand what are you saying. Well, yes, you are correct and by his own criteria he is also correct. What I am arguing against is the spirit of his argument rather than the letter if you get me.

niv-mizzet wrote:



I don't believe in your rules since I do not think they allow for a fair argument. It's also unfair to say that just because my idea of what makes a unit different is not the same as yours I cannot provide a legitimate counter argument. That's just being closed minded.

I think that's ops the point, to set a set of robust rules an follow them, rather than dilute them with discussion.

To the op, with BA I think there is an argument to be made for including the stormraven for the blood angels, since it was initially a unique Blood Angel/Grey Knight exclusive.

Personally I sit on the fence on rolling the codexes together, if Codex space marines was the size of the BRB and had proper army lists for each chapter I would be all for it, if not then not so much, I have already lost my templars to this rolling in maddness, they just don't feel like templars anymore.

For that matterhave you considered doing this for the Dark angels and the Templars, because at first glance Da seem least deserving of their own book so far. I you did end up doing it for templars, would you apply a compensation factor to account for them being a 4th ed book while BA and SW are all 5th ed books and Da are 6th ed? (and thus BA, DA and SW have had a more recent injection of additional units and rules)

I am generally in support of rolling codices together due to the amount of replication I see in the codices. It simply does not make sense to me have Tactical Marines along with all their equipment in C:SM, and then have three separate entries along with mostly identical equipment reproduced in three separate books. It just seems like a lot of wasted effort.

An entry for a single unit, whether it be tactical marines or predators or death company takes up a full page in the book, which includes fluff, stats and special rules. It then takes an additional third to half page in the back of the book for purchasing options. So you are looking at a page in a half devoted to each individual unit and its various options. If two units only differ by a special rule or statline or piece of equipment, it makes more since to just spend a few lines of text adding said option, rather than adding an additional page and a half to support the unit. Most of this is already precedented in some way. Wargear is usually purchased on a unit by unit basis anyway, you can frequently upgrade a model in the unit or even every model in the unit to a superior statline, and special rules can often be added, if not directly such as Eldar exarch abilities, than through specific pieces of wargear. A units FOC location can also be altered, but typically through the purchase of special characters. It stands to reason that any unit off only by a few statpoints, special rules or wargear from its parent unit can be merged with said unit.

I suppose the question becomes how much deviation between the parent unit and modified unit is necessary to make the modified unit a separate codex entry in its own right. While I don't have a criteria as well defined as OP, I think two things need to be looked at. First, how much of the parent unit is being replicated vs. being changed. For example, the Wolf Guard Battle Leader has two stat changes relative to a Captain. Its modified stats could easily be listed under the parent units stats, which would only take a single extra line in the unit entry and a single extra line in the summary in the back. This is compared to spending an extra page and a half creating a separate unit entry because exactly two single digit numbers are different between the two unit, which to me is a complete waste of space and effort. Thus I believe this entries could be merged. So one it comes to merging entries, it is less a matter of how the entries are different then how difficult it would be to join them together.

A second criteria is determining if the differences between the parent and modified unit are really important. Some seemingly minor differences can be critical, such as the ability to split fire or access to FNP. Others are really questionable, such as the fact many Space Wolf squads don't have sergeants even though their parent units do. Would adding sergeants to these squads really impact SW in any meaningful way, because if it does, that discrepancy between the units can be removed allowing their profiles to be consolidated. By the same logic, the aforementioned Wolf Guard Battle Leader could just as easily be done away with then appended to the captain entry, I doubt the mild buff would have any impact on the way SW played.

This does make consolidation a bit more of a judgement call than OPs criteria, but this is the line of thinking I have been using in my belief that many of these profiles can be consolidated.

What I find amusing is that people who promote the rolling of all SM armies into a single codex think that it would speed up the codex process in any meaningful way. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the next three codexs are already done and in the can just waiting for their release date.

There is so much copy and paste in the variant books that any real changes that are made, also would have to be made to the consolidated SM book in however many or few additional pages are needed. Thus your not really doubling up on work, just doubling up on your saved document files.

Also, in a condensed SM codex why should anything be kept that doesn't need to be kept. I'd hate to loose the Lone Wolf Entry, but face it, there is no official lone wolf model, so why actually keep the entry? Yeah, it sucks when units go away, but it wouldn't be the first time. Heck even having an official model isn't a safety net. Look at Ork Warboss Nasdreg of the Badmoons. He has a model from way back when but got cut when the 4th ed book hit.

And now for the biggest reason why all the SM books wont be rolled into one is GW would loose money. As it is right now, everyone who wants to play a divergent chapter will buy that divergent chapters book. If they by chance should want to also have a normal SM army or one of the other divergent chapters they will buy those books as well. Thus GW gets two or more sales from you. If it was all rolled into one book then the gamer would just buy one book ever instead of possibly all four books.

 kronk wrote:
SW:
Wolf Guard Battle Leader = captain with -1 w and -1 Ld. different.

LOL! "We just added Space Wolves to the C: SM. Your WG Battle Leaders are now captains and just gained +1 W and +1 LD. Congrats!"

SW
Wolf scouts: FOC change and stat change. different.

Then change them back! Simple.

BA:
Reclusiarch: chaplain with several stat changes. different.
Honour guard: required sanguinary novitiate. different

No reason for them to even be different. Change Reclusiarch to match Chaplain and Honor Guard to match either Honor Guard or Command Squad in the C: SM

Most of your points are ticky-tack, man. Was this a trolling thread? Was there a need to make a new one when there are 2 threads covering this?

Ah! We have found a true genius indeed!!
If there's an unique unit, just delete it and you're good to go!

Seriously "Then change them back! Simpe." Seriously!?
Blood Angels could easily be rolled into C:SM. Their Libby Dreadnought is just a regular Dreadnought with more WS, psychic powers and Force weapon. Just remove those, no problem!
And Space Wolves are just regular Space Marines after all, aren't they? Long Fangs are completely similar to Devastators, at least when you change their rules!

 soomemafia wrote:
And Space Wolves are just regular Space Marines after all, aren't they? Long Fangs are completely similar to Devastators, at least when you change their rules!

No Space Wolves are not just Grey Space Marines.
Grey Hunters are NOT Tactical Marines. They are Equiped completly difrent and are used difrently. Thay are real good at the Mid-Ranged [out to 24"] and in the Counter Assualt Role.

The same with Long Fangs. While outwordly simialr to Devistators, they are used as a Jack of Trades type of Role. Devistators Generaly are 4 of the same making them Uni-Taskers and are hard pressed pressed to do the job they were not set up, Anit-Vehicle, Anti-Infantry or Anti-Aircraft.
Long Fangs is set up correctly are Multi-Taskers being able to take Weapons for both Anti-Vehicle and Anti -Infanftry and can do both at the same time. Their Split Fire is what allows them to do both. That is why they are better, becouse they can do both jobs at the same time.
Now if Devistatores could reliably Split Fire they would be able to Multi-Task without relying Combat Squading.