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.

To everyone saying that such and such army would like to have a word with you on that....

Cute but I never said that all the armies aren't special snowflakes. Every army is a little different or it wouldn't have some mention in any of the books. But that doesn't mean it's different enough to merit its own unique rule set.

While Tyranid Hive Fleets, Ork Waaaghs, Tau Enclaves, and Necron Tombwrolds all have variations in personality and flare, they hardly differ at all in terms of gameplay.(Red goz fasta! - A single special rule does not a codex make). They share a common group of units and rules that can be used differently from player to player, and that amount of variety is sufficient to represent the diversity of that faction in the game.

SM and CSM are quite different. The varying factions do have unique units, characters, tactics, and rules that are not just footnotes. In many cases they are enough to merit entire books! Not always... but many times.

While the IG do have lots of very awesome style choices, most of them don't do battle very differently from the "core" of the IG. (the Elysians are a slight departure in that they favor drop troops, which are themselves only a footnote in the existing books).

Again - that's not the way it has to be. Just the way it currently is.

I personally think that the SM codex line-up should look something like this:

Codex: Ultramarines (includes rules for playing the Ultramarines and their successor chapters, as well as any "DIY chapter that strictly adheres to the Codex Astartes)
Codex: Imperial Fists (Includes rules for playing the IF - focus on siege units, siege tactics, and their successor chapters suc has BT and CF)
Codex: DA (already covered)
Codex: BA (already covered)
Codex: Ravenguard (includes rules for playing the RG and their successors. Special rules and units emphasizing scouts, infiltration, and speed)
Codex: White Scars (includes rules for playing the WS and their successors, Special rules for mounted units, special mounted units, blitz tactics and speed)
Codex: Space Wolves (already covered)
Codex: Iron Hands (Includes rules for playing the IH and their successors. Special rules for augmented infantry, heavy tanks, etc)
Codex: Salamanders (Includes special rules for playing the Salamanders and their successors. Special rules for unique techmarines, emphasis on special wargear, and use of flamers, relics and heavy infantry).

The Same could be done for the 5 CSM armies

Codex: CSM (Khorne)
Codex: CSM (Nurgle)
Codex: CSM (Slaanesh)
Codex: CSM (Tzeentch)
And perhaps a very small suupliment for playing undivided

I would rather see more diversity in the books than is needed, than suffer through not enough diversity to adequately represent the factions

I hate when these threads devolve into this type of discussion.

Before their 4th and 5th edition books, none of them needed to be separated because the special rules that each got could have been handled with a few special entries on a HQ and some limitations the player could accept on his own. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on which side of the debate you’re on) GW has expanded these few chapters enough over the years to warrant their additional books for more than just the background they offer which is really the only reason they were split off to begin with.

But I agree with CalgarsPimpHand more or less. If we’re seriously going to keep the books separate, there’s no reason to introduce more loyalist books as all of the divergent chapters are listed. A special rule for an HQ or detachment would be enough to give most of the others a reasonable enough identity that players would be content. Chaos is in a similar boat. Why have a book for things like Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, or Word Bearers? These legions are covered fairly well with the standard book and if GW introduced some special rules on HQ choices or through detachments, you’d get a reasonable list for these (could be better, CSM is starved for choices). It’s the 4 main cult legions that really stand apart, but seeing as how they don’t have the amount of background material that the loyalists have I don’t even know if we need a separate book for each of them. Just a generic CSM Cult Legion book.

If we could turn back the clock back to 3rd edition when none of the books had enough rules to warrant splitting them, I’d be fine with doing away with all of them. Especially now that Black Library is handling the background material so well. But that’s not going to happen. The last thing we need is for it to be made worse though. SM don’t need more division. CSM certainly deserve it though.

Roll all of the Space Marines into one codex and make supplements for the special snow flakes. That includes Black Templars, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels.

And for God's sake, make Dreadnoughts into Monstrous Creatures so that we can use the damn things!

 kronk wrote:
Roll all of the Space Marines into one codex and make supplements for the special snow flakes. That includes Black Templars, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels.

And for God's sake, make Dreadnoughts into Monstrous Creatures so that we can use the damn things!

Please yes

Though what are the chances the whole set is just going to be rehashed again next year.

Dreadnoughts as MCs? Holy hell. I throw my hands up. That is the solution? My god.

darkcloak wrote:
Dreadnoughts as MCs? Holy hell. I throw my hands up. That is the solution? My god.

No kidding. How about we just make them competitive within the rules the have?

darkcloak wrote:
Dreadnoughts as MCs? Holy hell. I throw my hands up. That is the solution? My god.

Right now there is a huge disconnect between the relative durability, utility, and power of monstrous creatures and vehicles. If you can one shot one, why can't you head shot the other? Making them two completely different systems was stupid in the first place. Alternately, if they came up with a damage table for multiwound creatures that decreased their effectiveness as well as gave the a chance to be one shotted as well that would be fair as well in a separate but equal way. That's better than coming up with convoluted special rules for EACH case like dreads with IWND, invuls, and ignores half the damage result, and rerolls damage results. YMMV.

 Desubot wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Roll all of the Space Marines into one codex and make supplements for the special snow flakes. That includes Black Templars, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels.

And for God's sake, make Dreadnoughts into Monstrous Creatures so that we can use the damn things!

Please yes

Though what are the chances the whole set is just going to be rehashed again next year.

Grey Knights are missing from that list

While I wouldn't mind a supercodex, I don't think it will ever happen. I certainly don't want to see Ultramarines, imperial fists, ravenguard, white scars, iron hands, and salamanders getting their own codex -- at least not unless each of those has at least a half dozen distinct models.

I think Blood Angels and Dark Angels would be the best candidates for being rolled into the main codex, because they are the least distinct from basic SM. Space Wolves just look so different, and their units are very distinct. And Grey Knights have their own thing going.

I know lots of people who buy BA/DA and play them with vanilla space marine rules (just because they like the models), but I don't know anyone who plays GK/SW who does this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

darkcloak wrote:
Dreadnoughts as MCs? Holy hell. I throw my hands up. That is the solution? My god.

Right now there is a huge disconnect between the relative durability, utility, and power of monstrous creatures and vehicles. If you can one shot one, why can't you head shot the other? Making them two completely different systems was stupid in the first place. Alternately, if they came up with a damage table for multiwound creatures that decreased their effectiveness as well as gave the a chance to be one shotted as well that would be fair as well in a separate but equal way. That's better than coming up with convoluted special rules for EACH case like dreads with IWND, invuls, and ignores half the damage result, and rerolls damage results. YMMV.

Yes, putting vehicles and MCs on equal footing would make me so happy. As you say, it makes no sense that you can head shot one and not the other.

The Vehicle system does make sense from the perspective that many vehicles are more heavily armored in the front than the sides or back. However, I would prefer to see the MCs moved into the Vehicle side, than vice versa. It would be a way of toning them down a bit, and I'm all for that. Perhaps, just make MCs Vehicles with Fear and call it a day; then, in books, add armor facings.

SM and CSM are quite different. The varying factions do have unique units, characters, tactics, and rules that are not just footnotes. In many cases they are enough to merit entire books! Not always... but many times.

While the IG do have lots of very awesome style choices, most of them don't do battle very differently from the "core" of the IG. (the Elysians are a slight departure in that they favor drop troops, which are themselves only a footnote in the existing books).

Again - that's not the way it has to be. Just the way it currently is.

Not really - the Imperial Guard have always been the most diverse figting force in the Imperium- they have primatives with sword and axe and technoligical advanced Regiments in sleek armour and with cybernetics, plus steampunk power armour and everything in between.

The Astartes are massively varied Culturally BUT not in tems of the actual fighitng forces and until recently not on the battlefield.

Recently GW deiced not bother making different IG models but has spent all its time an effort on crowbaring in new units and vehicles into the Marines in an atempt to mkae them a little different from each other - hence horrifici mistakes (IMO) like Centuirons, the dire looking flyers and Baby carriers.

IG is the easiest army to make supplements for - which they can't bothered - not when they can make ever so slightly different Marines - and continue the self perpuating cycle of they sell most - cos we make the most of them - odd that.

 kronk wrote:
Roll all of the Space Marines into one codex and make supplements for the special snow flakes. That includes Black Templars, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels.

And for God's sake, make Dreadnoughts into Monstrous Creatures so that we can use the damn things!

Best suggestion so far...
And let's not forget that in game terms most "deviant" astartes are made by giving them a special unit or two or weapon upgrades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

darkcloak wrote:
Dreadnoughts as MCs? Holy hell. I throw my hands up. That is the solution? My god.

If life gives you lemons, throw a lemon party.

 Kosake wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

darkcloak wrote:
Dreadnoughts as MCs? Holy hell. I throw my hands up. That is the solution? My god.

If life gives you lemons, throw a lemon party.

Lime agrees.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

Yes, putting vehicles and MCs on equal footing would make me so happy. As you say, it makes no sense that you can head shot one and not the other.

The Vehicle system does make sense from the perspective that many vehicles are more heavily armored in the front than the sides or back. However, I would prefer to see the MCs moved into the Vehicle side, than vice versa. It would be a way of toning them down a bit, and I'm all for that. Perhaps, just make MCs Vehicles with Fear and call it a day; then, in books, add armor facings.

You could still have that though for "vehicles" with toughness by just saying they're -1 T on the side and -2 T on the back. I'd prefer switching everything to one system with a slight preference for the T one but I'd be fine with both. I just don't think it's fair to have such major differences in power between them with things like the wraithknight being 100% fine at 1 wound and then suddenly dropping dead when a land raider at the same cost can be gimped either permanently or at a minimum for 1 turn with each shot and that's assuming it's not just destroyed right away.

Vehicles are just too easy to damage. I watch a lot of movies. Only the heroes AP1 revolver has the destructive potential to blow up the enemies camaro. The normal AK47s can fire 100rounds into them and nothing happens! The same should be true here!

 Talys wrote:

I know lots of people who buy BA/DA and play them with vanilla space marine rules (just because they like the models), but I don't know anyone who plays GK/SW who does this.

They play DA/BA that way because vanilla codex is clearly stronger them DA/BA codecies not because there to small diferences. DA for one have 2 flyers, 2 LSs, 1 uniqe Terminaor flawor, 1 bike flawor, 1 uniqe HQ type, 5 named HQsm uniq force organisations, thta's no small differences. Would they do that if DA had strong competitve codex? I doubt it.

 Reinokarite wrote:

 Talys wrote:

I know lots of people who buy BA/DA and play them with vanilla space marine rules (just because they like the models), but I don't know anyone who plays GK/SW who does this.

They play DA/BA that way because vanilla codex is clearly stronger them DA/BA codecies not because there to small diferences. DA for one have 2 flyers, 2 LSs, 1 uniqe Terminaor flawor, 1 bike flawor, 1 uniqe HQ type, 5 named HQsm uniq force organisations, thta's no small differences. Would they do that if DA had strong competitve codex? I doubt it.

It's kinda a symptom of the fact we have to many codexs in the game that play similar to each other.

Unless you spamming the special units for BA or DA, then your just playing a inferior version of the vanilla SM book.

The same way if your not spamming deamon engines in a CSM army, your just playing a inferior version of the Space Wolf Codex.



I'm not saying that these armies should exist in the fluff or game. But I think rolling Dark Angels into the SM book, and making the CSM and space wolf play styles more divergent from each other would improve the game over all. Blood Angels could swing either way IMHO when it comes to rolling into a super sized SM book.


To me the biggest problem is when you have to many armies that have to similar play styles. Because it's impossible to not compare thows two books together and just use the best one.

@Reinokarite, Lockark -- I don't really see it that way.

I actually play my BA as BA about 3/4 of the time, because it lets me play the "flavored" BA units like Death Company, Sanguinary Guard, and that kind of thing. But sometimes it gets a bit boring, and I want to use Centurions and Stormtalons, or even something silly like a ven dred (because I have a nicely painted model) and use some different Chapter Tactic to mix things up. It's just kind of nice having an army that you can apply more than one set of rules to. None of my SM lists are really killer lists by today's standards (though they're not hopeless, either). Plus, when you put BA Tacticals beside standard Tacticals, DC to standard Assault Marines, BA Terminators to standard Terminators... there is just no comparison in models. The Blood Angels models are just a billion times better. It's also nice that BA are a faction that you can get sculpted icons for (as a part of kits) without having to spend a fortune with Forge World.

From a practical perspective, the very first faction of Space Marines I modelled were Blood Angels (during Rogue Trader) followed by Grey Knights when the Chaos book that was shared with Fantasy came out. I've kind of stuck with BA as my space marine chapter, partly because I paint my Eldar blue/yellow (Alaitoc colors), so I didn't want blue/white Ultramarines I didn't do Salamanders because my Orks have claimed green/black, and Dark Eldar have claimed the dark green colors.

I guess I have some Dark Angels that are also dark green, but really just because the Ravenwing Command and Deathwing Knights were cool, and the 6th ed DV box had them I've never had enough DA to actually play 'em as DA. I haven't gotten very far with Necron, but for sure they'll be painted to codex.

I guess that leaves me purple for some Chaos army one day, and yellow for something IMPERIAL FISTS HERE WE COME!!!

Nvs wrote:
Vehicles are just too easy to damage. I watch a lot of movies. Only the heroes AP1 revolver has the destructive potential to blow up the enemies camaro. The normal AK47s can fire 100rounds into them and nothing happens! The same should be true here!

Sigh...

Vehicles are absolutely not too easy to damage.

Try playing the DE where the toughness vehicle in your list has a 10 AV on all sides. Your 'too easy to damage' dreadnaughts are the same front AV as an Eldar heavy tank. Do you hear Eldar players griping about how weak their tanks are?

What would turning the dreadnaught in a MC really accomplish? You'd lose the AV and get a T value instead. At first that sounds cool but after a few games you'd realize that it comes with a mess of its own drawbacks. Ever heard of poison? Having 4+ or 2+ poison weapons just obliterate MC. And now that Fleshbane is being handed out like party favors in the codices my wraithlords are lucky to get passed turn 2. I've all but retired the damn things...

On top of that, having all the walker-type units in the game be MC ultimately just strips away what little variety is left in the game. Wouldn't it be more desirable to have the dreadnaught remain a vehicle and just alter some of the rules for vehicles when in CC?

Not that I see anything changing anyway - when the New Astartes codex hits I don't think that the dreads will be altered in any significant way. The only thing I could see happening is a point cost reduction. A small one...

I'd honestly rather they make some much needed changes to other units. With the current 7E rules the Assault marines are virtually useless. I feel especially bad for Black Templar players who rely heavily of CC. If there is any major change I want to see in the new book that would be it....

These codex books and supplements are getting out of hand. DA, BA, and SW are unique enough with rules, deviations, and models that they deserve their own book.

White scars, salamanders, iron hands, adventures, don't deviate from the codex astartes and are known only for being specialized in one area that all other armies have access to as well. I hope they keep the codex as is where a character gives you more heavies (imperial fists), fast attack units or abilities (raven guard, white scars, etc). Why make more codex books when some armies are basically copy in others in the firat place (Ravenwing was here long before white scars had anything besides a different painted job).

I can understand Templars getting their own book as thwy deviate a bit. If anything they ahould make a codex forgeworld which has official updated differentiated rules for carcharodons, minotaurs, and red scorpions... now that would be cool!!

GW keep it simple. I don't want a frikin library of books that are outdated in a years time.

 455_PWR wrote:
GW keep it simple. I don't want a frikin library of books that are outdated in a years time.

Looks at the "new" Imperial Knights codex after one year
I have some bad news for you...

 455_PWR wrote:
These codex books and supplements are getting out of hand. DA, BA, and SW are unique enough with rules, deviations, and models that they deserve their own book.

White scars, salamanders, iron hands, adventures, don't deviate from the codex astartes and are known only for being specialized in one area that all other armies have access to as well. I hope they keep the codex as is where a character gives you more heavies (imperial fists), fast attack units or abilities (raven guard, white scars, etc). Why make more codex books when some armies are basically copy in others in the firat place (Ravenwing was here long before white scars had anything besides a different painted job).

I can understand Templars getting their own book as thwy deviate a bit. If anything they ahould make a codex forgeworld which has official updated differentiated rules for carcharodons, minotaurs, and red scorpions... now that would be cool!!

GW keep it simple. I don't want a frikin library of books that are outdated in a years time.

The actual equipment of Chapters such as the Blood and Dark Angels only really changed from standard in 5th edition onwards when GW expanded hugely (and poorly IMO) those Chapters bredth of equipment in order to justify having their own Codex and sell slightly different Marine stuff besides different coloured armour and heraldry.

The other First Founding Chapters listed in particular have many and varied nuances and differecnes in cultural terms which if they had had Sepcial Snowflake status would have resulted in them having dire looking flyes, various weapons in the same manner as Blood fists and blood Talons

A proper large scale codex with a variety of specalised and unusual "generic" Marine units such as say those that use riding beasts would mean that many and varied Chapters could easily be well represented by one book.

 Accolade wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
GW keep it simple. I don't want a frikin library of books that are outdated in a years time.

Looks at the "new" Imperial Knights codex after one year
I have some bad news for you...

Preceeded by the eldar that lasted less than two years which followed 6th edition whose life cycle was 2 years and released with the assassin's game which came out less than a year ago (but is admittedly the same). The era of 0-2 year product usefulness is already in full swing.

 En Excelsis wrote:

With the current 7E rules the Assault marines are virtually useless.

ASM are a fantastic Blood Angels tool. They are cheap, you get a free drop pod, and you can take 3 special weapons out of a squad of 5.

They're terrible as the fluff depicts most ASM which is sad, because they are awesome lorewise.

10 guys, jump packs, sergeant with a pw/pf.

 Talys wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:

With the current 7E rules the Assault marines are virtually useless.

ASM are a fantastic Blood Angels tool. They are cheap, you get a free drop pod, and you can take 3 special weapons out of a squad of 5.

The blood Angel assault Marines are prety great also since they get Red Thirst witch can give them abit of a edge in CC when push comes to shove. But the reasons you state is why they are still amazing. Most people I see who play blood angels uses the 6 fast attack slot flesh terror formation, so they can take more assault mariens and less of the "meh" tactical squads. That and the fact anyone who owns a bunch of assault mariens from previous editions of the army, can still field them on the table top doing so.

Their cheap price point wise also allows you to get more of thows amazing BA Fast Las-Plas Razor Backs into your army.

You don't get Red Thirst in a Flesh Tearers Detachment. They get some crappy 'roll more than 10 on the charge' thing that may as well be forgotten about.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
You don't get Red Thirst in a Flesh Tearers Detachment. They get some crappy 'roll more than 10 on the charge' thing that may as well be forgotten about.

Ah. Didn't know that. Will let some people know in my area they have been playing it wrong.

Maybe terminators will become good?

Ironically, everyone in my local area stopped wanting to play against my deathwing army as soon as 6th edition hit and changed powerswords to ap3. I haven't been able to get anything other than polite "no thanks" when offering games against them.

darkcloak wrote:
Dreadnoughts as MCs? Holy hell. I throw my hands up. That is the solution? My god.

It's one of them. Giving vehicles armour saves is another.

 warboss wrote:
Ironically, everyone in my local area stopped wanting to play against my deathwing army as soon as 6th edition hit and changed powerswords to ap3. I haven't been able to get anything other than polite "no thanks" when offering games against them.

Then the people in your locals suck, no offense.

Let's see how many of you would wine and complain about every Chapter getting their own codex.....

Cash grab! Now I have to buy 9 books! GW is ruining my life!

Or let's not.