1hadhq wrote:

GW has marketing beyond this 1 week pre-order and buy our limited stuff?

No, it's that you generally leave time between releases instead of dropping 6 armies at once so they don't cannibalize sales from each other.

You seem to think its neccessary to run with a impulse buy marketing. Time in the sun shouldn't matter. Aren't all those books made to make the minis fieldable in a game?

Impulse buys are a huge part of this market, huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge. That said, it's not just impulse buys. If you drop lots of products at once, they tend to overload the consumer and cannibalize sales which had you spread them out more would have resulted in customers buying more and spreading releases helps maintain tempo and excitement. That's basic retail stuff. There's a reason no gaming company does huge numbers of releases all at once generally, but rather in phases and usually per faction or on a limited expansion basis. That's all well and good usually, but it has become a problem with GW because they have so many product lines that they can't update them all within a reasonable time frame, or at least haven't in the past, and wait far too long between releases.

I don't think a dex has just a small release window and should sink to the bottom then.

that's how GW has done releases since...ever. They don't release a dex and then release update content for that dex 2 years later or every 6 months, they release the dex and then an update 4-10 years later. For anything different they'd need to completely redo their business methodology (which is an entirely different conversation)

I think I'd prefer a full SM Codex which covers the majority of generalised issues, much as it is now, with a series of mini-dexes detailing individual chapters and forces (something like a 1/3 size of a full codex for 1/2 the price). That way everyone can have their own individual special troops/re-organising/fluff without the duplication and page filling of a full codex (and GW can still fill their pockets). Then you could have one mini-dex for each of the founding chapter/legions.
Of course I'd like to see official mini-codices for cults, mechanicum, arbites, kroot...

Cut grey knights and replace it with codex inquisitors, or something along those lines.

 Manchu wrote:
There's often talk about GW having too many Astartes codices. So which if any would you cut? Would you add any? You can chose multiple options in the poll.

Remove CSM, they are just normal C:SM that turned from the emperor's light. Just paint(darker) and model(spiker) your C:SM a little different and you are good to go. All they really need is a different allies matrix that removes all the IoM allies and adds in Daemons. Done.

 Exergy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
There's often talk about GW having too many Astartes codices. So which if any would you cut? Would you add any? You can chose multiple options in the poll.

Remove CSM, they are just normal C:SM that turned from the emperor's light. Just paint(darker) and model(spiker) your C:SM a little different and you are good to go. All they really need is a different allies matrix that removes all the IoM allies and adds in Daemons. Done.

Y'know... Aprils Fools Day was on Monday

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

JWhex wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


To put it simply, everything has drastic styles within their own ranks..Yet they only have one codex, why are space marines the only one allowed to have multiple codex?

Because Space Marines sell more miniatures than all the other factions combined. GW is simply giving most people what they want most of all and thats more marines. If you like the other factions better, well it is kind of annoying but thats the way the hobby has developed to this point.

It could be worse you know, you could have had a huge investment in epic and had your whole game system and all your armies assigned to limbo.

Indeed on the part about Epic.

Though at the same time I'm not so sure about the space marines. Could it be because they gave them more marketing, gave them far more supplements back around 2nd, and in general market them as the ultimate good guys? Thus creating a propagation where Space marines = Poster = Ultimate selling because = 3/4ths of the marketing go to space marines.

I am not persuaded that the SM are popular because they get the marketing rather than they are intrinsicly popular for other reasons. At this point it is a chicken vs egg argument and doesnt matter. They are entrenched as the best seller by light years. I dont even know what people mean when they talk about GW marketing anyway, it practically does not exist in any meaningful way outside the WD and the website.

As far as the idea raised for mini codexes, just no. They had those in 3rd edition and they were resoundly rejected and universally despised.

I am with the others that mentioned having one generic C:SM codex and either make it rather large to include the variants within the different chapters or put out one addendum that includes all the various chapters. It could go into more detail on each of the 1st founding chapters and how they differ. BA and Raven Guard are similar enough with their assault style that you might alter their special rules, White Scars and Dark Angels the same with again, special rule variance... etc.

I have just come to accept that GW is a company and that they are more concerned with their profit margin than keeping their fan base happy. They literally have to answer to their board members and only pay attention to us infrequently at best. In there defense, there are so many different opinions from us players that it is impossible to appease us all, but it does seem they barely try to appease the majority.

Since I came back in 07 to the game, there prices have gone up anywhere from 30 to near 50 percent. A lot can be blamed on the economy, but not to that extent.

Space marines could be cut in to 2 codexes. Shooty=Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, salamanders, etc. Choppy=BAs, BTs, SWs. Theyed just be thick books.

For that matter we could do the same for xenos. What's the difference between ork hordes & tyranid hordes? Genuinly, I can't tell. They've got super fast in your face units & deep striking/infiltraters assault units. What's the difference between wraiths & crisis suits? Or devilfish & waveserpents. The way I fight each transport skimmer is pretty much the same. It would speed up the release dates for each army & help with game balance.

 Barathoern wrote:

I have just come to accept that GW is a company and that they are more concerned with their profit margin than keeping their fan base happy. They literally have to answer to their board members and only pay attention to us infrequently at best. In there defense, there are so many different opinions from us players that it is impossible to appease us all, but it does seem they barely try to appease the majority.

Sorry, but I don't see how this argument works. If a majority of the players play Space Marines of one kind or another, it IS appeasing the majority to increase the diversity of the game by having multiple different MEQ books. I think you've got "majority" mixed up with "non-MEQ players".

 RedAngel wrote:
For that matter we could do the same for xenos. What's the difference between ork hordes & tyranid hordes? Genuinly, I can't tell. They've got super fast in your face units & deep striking/infiltraters assault units. What's the difference between wraiths & crisis suits? Or devilfish & waveserpents. The way I fight each transport skimmer is pretty much the same. It would speed up the release dates for each army & help with game balance.

That's not really a good comparison. Non-marine armies might have a small number of similar units if you look hard enough (and use a generous definition of "similar"), but the armies as a whole are entirely different. Marine armies, on the other hand, share most of the same units and function the same way except for a handful of special rules/units that could easily be compiled into a single book.

Only just saw this thread.

What Codices would I cut? The ones that aren't different enough to justify their existence, or ones that never should have existed in the first place.

1. Codex Dark Angels:
Codex Marines w/fancy Terminators and Bikes. There's no reason they need a whole book for such a thing. Special rules to make a DA army? No problem. Whole book? Waste of time.

2. Codex Blood Angels:
Codex Marines w/more Assault Marines and a special one-odd squad of raving loonies. They have even less of a reason to exist than the Dark Angels as they follow Codex structure even more closely than the DA's do. Again, special rules for DA armies would be nice to have, but in now way do they need a full Codex.


I'm not advocating a special character that makes Assault Marines or Terminators troops or whatever as replacements. I'm saying that you could easily do DA's and BA's with a page of special rules and one or two unique units (plus their Special Characters). Templars and Wolves have unique organisations that cannot be represented via the standard Codex. They stay.

3. Grey Knights:
No, I'm not just saying this as a reason to exorcise 40K of the Wardian nightmare that is the GK Codex fluff, but actually because this book destroyed something else in its creation. I don't think Grey Knights should be the focus. I think the Inquisition as a whole should be the focus, with Grey Knights acting as one aspect or element of that force. Should full GK armies be possible? Sure. But so should full SoB, Deathwatch and Inquisitorial forces.

Ditch GKs as a Codex, bring in Codex: Inquisition, and be done with it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Templars and Wolves have unique organisations that cannot be represented via the standard Codex. They stay.

What exactly do BT have that's so special? Mixed scout and "tactical" squads? Terminator command squads (which would be nice in C:SM anyway)? Old 4th edition relics, like two heavy/special weapons in five-man squads, that won't be in an updated codex? None of these things are really divergent in an army-defining way like SW, they're just differences that happen to exist because marine books have changed over the years. Replace BT with a special character in C:SM with the Rage USR for chapter tactics and you've covered the entire BT concept.

 Peregrine wrote:
Replace BT with a special character in C:SM with the Rage USR for chapter tactics and you've covered the entire BT concept.

Good job, you just proved that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. There's the small issue about Tactical Squads not having the option of CCW/Pistol. There's Righteous Zeal. There's Fearless in CC. The obvious answer you're going to come up with is "well, but in THIS Codex that'd not be the case!", but that'd mean that it ISN'T just "add Rage, done!". Everyone keeps saying how easy it'd be to just add 2 pages of special rules, but no one's actually stepped up and showed it in a feasible way. It's probably completely possible to do it, but no one's showed how to do it properly yet.

 Peregrine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Templars and Wolves have unique organisations that cannot be represented via the standard Codex. They stay.

What exactly do BT have that's so special? Mixed scout and "tactical" squads? Terminator command squads (which would be nice in C:SM anyway)? Old 4th edition relics, like two heavy/special weapons in five-man squads, that won't be in an updated codex? None of these things are really divergent in an army-defining way like SW, they're just differences that happen to exist because marine books have changed over the years. Replace BT with a special character in C:SM with the Rage USR for chapter tactics and you've covered the entire BT concept.

So what if they unique organsations anyway? Compared to codex compliant chapters, the White Scars have a very unique organisation and funny enough, it is easily represented by a single special rule, just one, imagine if they had a whole page to work it?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Replace BT with a special character in C:SM with the Rage USR for chapter tactics and you've covered the entire BT concept.

Good job, you just proved that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. There's the small issue about Tactical Squads not having the option of CCW/Pistol. There's Righteous Zeal. There's Fearless in CC. The obvious answer you're going to come up with is "well, but in THIS Codex that'd not be the case!", but that'd mean that it ISN'T just "add Rage, done!". Everyone keeps saying how easy it'd be to just add 2 pages of special rules, but no one's actually stepped up and showed it in a feasible way. It's probably completely possible to do it, but no one's showed how to do it properly yet.

Take a look at CSM 3.5 codex legion rules. Namely the ones that would represent the gods.

Then your done.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Replace BT with a special character in C:SM with the Rage USR for chapter tactics and you've covered the entire BT concept.

Good job, you just proved that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. There's the small issue about Tactical Squads not having the option of CCW/Pistol. There's Righteous Zeal. There's Fearless in CC. The obvious answer you're going to come up with is "well, but in THIS Codex that'd not be the case!", but that'd mean that it ISN'T just "add Rage, done!". Everyone keeps saying how easy it'd be to just add 2 pages of special rules, but no one's actually stepped up and showed it in a feasible way. It's probably completely possible to do it, but no one's showed how to do it properly yet.

Take a look at CSM 3.5 codex legion rules. Namely the ones that would represent the gods.

Then your done.

The overly complicated mess of a book that's the baseline comparison for Codices considered OP? What?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Replace BT with a special character in C:SM with the Rage USR for chapter tactics and you've covered the entire BT concept.

Good job, you just proved that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. There's the small issue about Tactical Squads not having the option of CCW/Pistol. There's Righteous Zeal. There's Fearless in CC. The obvious answer you're going to come up with is "well, but in THIS Codex that'd not be the case!", but that'd mean that it ISN'T just "add Rage, done!". Everyone keeps saying how easy it'd be to just add 2 pages of special rules, but no one's actually stepped up and showed it in a feasible way. It's probably completely possible to do it, but no one's showed how to do it properly yet.

Take a look at CSM 3.5 codex legion rules. Namely the ones that would represent the gods.

Then your done.

The overly complicated mess of a book that's the baseline comparison for Codices considered OP? What?

Yes, that one, and yes the rules were imbalanced (Are you going to shout flyers when someone talks about necrons?) however it showed how to properly allow for multiple legions/chapters.

I think a singlr codex that covered the majority of chapters would be truly outstanding. it would truly allow you to personalise your force and give you unprecedented flexibility. Flexibility is already a hallmark of C:SM and adding to that would only make a good codex better.

I also don't see how any of the current crop of marine codices are that disimilar from C:SM in the first place. sure they have one or two rules, and the odd toy that is unique, but the differences in playstyle are really quite minor, and can currently be done fairly well simply through army selection.
for example, it's an exercise in simplicity to do a biker army from C:SM, just give your captain a bike, take bikes as troops, some landspeeders, paint them black, and you have Raven wing. other armies might be harder to emulate in C:SM, but thats simply down to the force organization chart more than anything else.

An easy way to throw all the chapters into the same book (special characters aside) would be to have the ability to buy chapter traits, buy your captain, pay a few points to make him the first company captain, and you can take terminators and sternguard as troops. Or make him the 8th company captain, and take assault marines as troops.
Maybe you want a unique chapter, buy the righteous zeal trait to make him a black templar captain, or give him the curse of sanguinus to make him a blood angel. how about stubborn to turn him into an imperial fist?

There are also not 'that' many unique units across the different books, thay are all essentially variants of basic space marines. so you could have unit entries that are restricted based on what traits you have, so with righteous zeal you can take an emperors champion, and mix scouts into basic marine squads but can't take librarians. Only armies with 'curse of sanguinus' can take the Deathcompany, or furioso dreadnaughts.

Its already being done on a smaller scale in the current C:SM, Take pedro and sternguard are scoring (but not troops) and all your guys are stubborn. Cato, Kayvaan and Kor'sarro add to, or change your armies special rules. more of the same wouldn't be hard.

IIRC we are in 6th ed right now....

There is a direction, a general layout they seem to follow.

Codices of 6th:

Open with a pic, the content and a introduction. ( first 3 pages. )
End with a summary and charts. ( last 4 pages ).
Separate each section with pics ( 2 pages ), usually 3-4 x
This may fill ~13 pages. Codex size is 105 pages.


Chaos Space Marines

Background = 15 pages

Timeline = 4 pages

Units/Characters = 36 pages

Equipment/Armory = 6 pages

Psi = 3 pages

Army/Rules = 14 pages

Dark Angels

Background = 17 pages

Timeline = 4 pages

Units/Characters = 32 pages

Equipment/Armory = 8 pages

Psi = 3 pages

Army/Rules = 15 pages

Chaos Demons

Background = 14 pages

Timeline = 4 pages

Units/Characters = 36 pages

Equipment/Armory = 6 pages

Psi = 2 pages

Army/Rules = 14 pages

Tau

Background = 23 pages

Timeline = 2 pages

Units/Characters = 33 pages

Equipment/Armory = 7 pages

Psi = 0 pages

Army/Rules = 10 pages

The scheme of 6th so far:

Background = 14-23 pages

Timeline = 2-4 pages

Units/Characters = 32-36 pages

Equipment/Armory = 6-8 pages

Psi = 0-3 pages

Army/Rules = 10-15 pages

So 13 pages used before anything specific is part of the layout. Units and characters usually 1 per page and almost 30% of the codex is just the units and characters. 20% rules and 20% fluff.

Everyone aware of this design template,yes?

Doesn't look like a oversized dex would fit in.

For everyone touting '1 big book to rule them all' nonsense, I hope you realise that this idea is;
a) Screwing over every single marine player by hienously over-charging them for their book.
Not to mention, who the hell wants to carry a fething 250+pg hardback tome around with them?!

b) Impossible to balance while still retaining any kind of flavour & individuality between the various main Chapters.
Traits, Chapter Tactics, SC's, whatever... You'd simply have everyone cherry-picking the best stuff from across the million or so options such a huge book would contain.
Or else to stop it from happening, you'd need so many rules exceptions that the book would start to read something more akin to legalise and we'd end up with the massive confused mess that was the 3.5 CSM codex of crap.

GW has tried things like Legion rules & Traits before. They sucked rotten monkeyballs and simply ended up either OP, or else only the 2-3 'best' options ever got picked and suddenly every single marine army was exactly the same... (because 3x infiltrating devastator squads and True-grit everywhere was totally fair when the marines couldn't take those land raiders they were never going to include anyways!)

For everyone touting '1 big book to rule them all' nonsense, I hope you realise that this idea is;
a) Screwing over every single marine player by hienously over-charging them for their book.
Not to mention, who the hell wants to carry a fething 250+pg hardback tome around with them?!

To be honest, nobody wants that. 2-3 per codex chapter tops, cut the fluff if need be seeing as most of it is simply rehashed from the older dexs.

b) Impossible to balance while still retaining any kind of flavour & individuality between the various main Chapters.
Traits, Chapter Tactics, SC's, whatever... You'd simply have everyone cherry-picking the best stuff from across the million or so options such a huge book would contain.
Or else to stop it from happening, you'd need so many rules exceptions that the book would start to read something more akin to legalise and we'd end up with the massive confused mess that was the 3.5 CSM codex of crap. GW has tried things like Legion rules & Traits before. They sucked rotten monkeyballs and simply ended up either OP, or else only the 2-3 'best' options ever got picked and suddenly every single marine army was exactly the same... (because 3x infiltrating devastator squads and True-grit everywhere was totally fair when the marines couldn't take those land raiders they were never going to include anyways!)

Oh hey, the thing EVERY SINGLE CODEX does. It at least allows people to at least try and make their codex at least, considering the fact that every single IG army is near the same now, every SW is going to be near the same. At the very least you'll have some options for whatever it is your trying to make.

Not to mention the Legion rules were cool, though like all things GW, unbalanced because the varied authors have their own thoughts on how the balance should work. Though at least you'll be updated far more often.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

For everyone touting '1 big book to rule them all' nonsense, I hope you realise that this idea is;
a) Screwing over every single marine player by hienously over-charging them for their book.
Not to mention, who the hell wants to carry a fething 250+pg hardback tome around with them?!

To be honest, nobody wants that. 2-3 per codex chapter tops, cut the fluff if need be seeing as most of it is simply rehashed from the older dexs.

Codex: Black Templars shares 3 pages of roughly the same fluff with Vanilla out of 16 pages of fluff. That's less than 20%.

ZebioLizard2 516486 5472913 5e88f0764335a063ef9 wrote:

2-3 per codex chapter tops, cut the fluff if need be seeing as most of it is simply rehashed from the older dexs.

Why should anyone have less fluff?
BTW each codex is the single source GW has, you don't get to choose from codex SM 3rd,4th or 5th ed on the shelf.

I've posted the current layout. And thats what we got to work with. Would bet money on the next ( Eldar? ) codex having a 105 pages and a layout like the other codices of 6th ed.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Oh hey, the thing EVERY SINGLE CODEX does. It at least allows people to at least try and make their codex at least, considering the fact that every single IG army is near the same now, every SW is going to be near the same. At the very least you'll have some options for whatever it is your trying to make.

Not to mention the Legion rules were cool, though like all things GW, unbalanced because the varied authors have their own thoughts on how the balance should work. Though at least you'll be updated far more often.

Not everyone plays 100% balls-to-the-wall competitive all the time ya know. Nor is every single game played in a "only wins matter" style tournament...

While it's true that I almost never see the local hyper-competitive power gamers make any kind of llist changes beyond "what's the most pts-efficient spam for Codex 'X'", MOST players (ie: the vast majority of the 40k community at large), will simply use the units they actually want to use/like and don't give three flying rat's farts about if it's the most optimal build or not.
I know plenty of SW players for example who *gasp* use Bloodclaws and a Lone Wolf and even run Swiftclaw Bikers instead of the supposed, "every SW player just runs max Missilefangs + Grey Hunter spam."

On the otherhand, going with a 1-2 book approch to Space Marines means we simply go back to the days of 0 balance what-so-ever like we had with the 3.5 CSM's & 4th ed C:SM's, only it would be about a hundred times worse since now you's be adding all the newer Chapter-specific stuff into the perverbial mixing pot.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

For everyone touting '1 big book to rule them all' nonsense, I hope you realise that this idea is;
a) Screwing over every single marine player by hienously over-charging them for their book.
Not to mention, who the hell wants to carry a fething 250+pg hardback tome around with them?!

To be honest, nobody wants that. 2-3 per codex chapter tops, cut the fluff if need be seeing as most of it is simply rehashed from the older dexs.

Codex: Black Templars shares 3 pages of roughly the same fluff with Vanilla out of 16 pages of fluff. That's less than 20%.

Then good! We can condense everything down easier.

Generally you'll be sharing with everyone else:

Chaplain
Commander

Dreadnought
Sword brothers (Just renamed Terminators)
Techmarine
Veteran Squad (Sword Brethren)
Attack Bikes
Standard bikes
Land speeder
Assault Squad
Land Raiders
Predator
Vindicator

Things that will be Unique to Black Templar:

Emporer's Champion: Gains X, can buy X vow that will apply for the army that is Black Templar.

Tactical Squad Upgrade:
Able to take 1 neophyte per "Crusader"
Neophytes can take shotguns, start with CCW/Bp
Tactical Squad is able to replace bolters with CCW/BP

Unique Rules:
Cannot buy Sargent for units (if they go with the DA way and make them upgradable)

Unique Armory: Can take X wargear

Why should anyone have less fluff?
BTW each codex is the single source GW has, you don't get to choose from codex SM 3rd,4th or 5th ed on the shelf.

True enough I suppose, but then it'd be easy to condense down whats needed, honestly at this point I'd say let black library sort it out, at least they try with the fluff rather then rehash from the previous codex.

On the otherhand, going with a 1-2 book approch to Space Marines means we simply go back to the days of 0 balance what-so-ever like we had with the 3.5 CSM's & 4th ed C:SM's, only it would be about a hundred times worse since now you's be adding all the newer Chapter-specific stuff into the perverbial mixing pot.

Yes, because people don't complain enough about balance as it is, and considering that 4th ed C:SM wasn't that great, (Everyone picked the same thing, yeah I remember that one at least, but it certainly wasn't a good codex.), CSM just had some horrible, horrible balancing when it came to equipment and mutations (The S6, A6 Chaos lord that ignores all Armour comes to mind..)

Honestly, I'd rather go back to supplements, you have X main codex, then the rest are the expanded variants.

To make everyone happier, why don't you have a Master codex, then have mini codexes with the fluff and unique bits? You don't need to print the rules for a Rhino so many times. The mini-dexes should be quicker to produce and easier to make. Also, if a vanilla SM player doesn't want 15 pages of other unique rules to certain chapters that he/she may not even want to play, then they don't have to have it.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
To make everyone happier, why don't you have a Master codex, then have mini codexes with the fluff and unique bits? You don't need to print the rules for a Rhino so many times. The mini-dexes should be quicker to produce and easier to make. Also, if a vanilla SM player doesn't want 15 pages of other unique rules to certain chapters that he/she may not even want to play, then they don't have to have it.

Because they did that before.

It resulted in the mini codices not getting updated to match the Space Marines book that they suggested you refer to, and the decision to expand the mini codices into full blown codices to avoid such a situation in the future.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
To make everyone happier, why don't you have a Master codex, then have mini codexes with the fluff and unique bits? You don't need to print the rules for a Rhino so many times. The mini-dexes should be quicker to produce and easier to make. Also, if a vanilla SM player doesn't want 15 pages of other unique rules to certain chapters that he/she may not even want to play, then they don't have to have it.

Because mini-'Dexes still punishes those specific groups of players by forcing them to spend more than everyone else just so they can play their army?!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
To make everyone happier, why don't you have a Master codex, then have mini codexes with the fluff and unique bits? You don't need to print the rules for a Rhino so many times. The mini-dexes should be quicker to produce and easier to make. Also, if a vanilla SM player doesn't want 15 pages of other unique rules to certain chapters that he/she may not even want to play, then they don't have to have it.

Because they did that before.

It resulted in the mini codices not getting updated to match the Space Marines book that they suggested you refer to, and the decision to expand the mini codices into full blown codices to avoid such a situation in the future.

And it resulted in the same unit across three books being different in prices despite being the same unit, with the best variant getting extra special rules on top of being cheaper resulting it in being spammed.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Codex: Black Templars shares 3 pages of roughly the same fluff with Vanilla out of 16 pages of fluff. That's less than 20%.

Then good! We can condense everything down easier.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If 80% of the Black Templars Codex isn't repeated fluff, how does that make it EASIER to condense?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Things that will be Unique to Black Templar:

Emporer's Champion: Gains X, can buy X vow that will apply for the army that is Black Templar.

Tactical Squad Upgrade:
Able to take 1 neophyte per "Crusader"
Neophytes can take shotguns, start with CCW/Bp
Tactical Squad is able to replace bolters with CCW/BP

Unique Rules:
Cannot buy Sargent for units (if they go with the DA way and make them upgradable)

Unique Armory: Can take X wargear

Can't take Librarians, Whirlwinds or Devestators. Can buy Power Fists/Power Swords/etc. on non-Sergeants. Cenobyte Servitors, ICs starting with Crusader Seals. You keep missing stuff, which makes the rest of your suggestions seem a bit shady.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Chaplain
Commander

Dreadnought
Sword brothers (Just renamed Terminators)
Techmarine
Veteran Squad (Sword Brethren)
Attack Bikes
Standard bikes
Land speeder
Assault Squad
Land Raiders
Predator
Vindicator

There's no fluff about Vindicators, Predators, Land Raiders (other than the Crusader, seeing as BT invented them...), Assault Squads, Land Speeders or Bikes in Codex: Black Templars. At least have the decency to know what you're talking about before making an argument.

There's no fluff about Vindicators, Predators, Land Raiders (other than the Crusader, seeing as BT invented them...), Assault Squads, Land Speeders or Bikes in Codex: Black Templars. At least have the decency to know what you're talking about before making an argument.

Edit: Ah, I was trying to condense everything down to what could be added/changed in the general template, rather then what fluff they contained.

Can't take Librarians, Whirlwinds or Devestators. Can buy Power Fists/Power Swords/etc. on non-Sergeants. Cenobyte Servitors, ICs starting with Crusader Seals. You keep missing stuff, which makes the rest of your suggestions seem a bit shady.

I was making a general template that could be used, I would've taken more time if you preferred being nitpicky.

Vanilla Marines are staying for being the originals. GW will never cut them. But I am against rolling the other codexes into one monster book since it will screw the other Marine players out of lots of their signature things.

Blood Angels would lose Furioso Dreads, Baal Preadators, Death Company, and several characters that I see used extremely frequently like the Sanguinor, Mephiston, Lemartes, and Brother Corbulo.

Space Wolves would provide nerfs to Grey Hunters and Long Fangs who will then be nothing more than lackluster tacticals and devastators. Runic Weapons would be nerfed to standard Force Weapons. They'll also lose Thunderwolves, Lone Wolves, Fenrisian Wolves, and all the cool characters that they have.

Dark Angels would lose all their bike and TDA goodies; their players are not going to want Ravenwing and Deathwing Knights available to Space Wolf lists. Samael and Belial would be lost.

Chaos Marines; this is 100% out of the question, more than any other codex here. They've got too many things that distinguish them from loyalist Marines. Lack of ATSKNF, Marks of Chaos, Daemon Princes, Daemon Engines, Zerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines, Obliterators, all their exclusive Wargear, Mutation, etc.

Now, you could theoretically put all of the Marine stuff into one mega codex...

...or you could have them as separate, easier to read books that won't screw their man dedicated players. Do not remove any of the Marine books.

 Wilytank wrote:
Vanilla Marines are staying for being the originals. GW will never cut them. But I am against rolling the other codexes into one monster book since it will screw the other Marine players out of lots of their signature things.

Blood Angels would lose Furioso Dreads, Baal Preadators, Death Company, and several characters that I see used extremely frequently like the Sanguinor, Mephiston, Lemartes, and Brother Corbulo.

Space Wolves would provide nerfs to Grey Hunters and Long Fangs who will then be nothing more than lackluster tacticals and devastators. Runic Weapons would be nerfed to standard Force Weapons. They'll also lose Thunderwolves, Lone Wolves, Fenrisian Wolves, and all the cool characters that they have.

Dark Angels would lose all their bike and TDA goodies; their players are not going to want Ravenwing and Deathwing Knights available to Space Wolf lists. Samael and Belial would be lost.

Chaos Marines; this is 100% out of the question, more than any other codex here. They've got too many things that distinguish them from loyalist Marines. Lack of ATSKNF, Marks of Chaos, Daemon Princes, Daemon Engines, Zerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines, Obliterators, all their exclusive Wargear, Mutation, etc.

Now, you could theoretically put all of the Marine stuff into one mega codex...

...or you could have them as separate, easier to read books that won't screw their man dedicated players. Do not remove any of the Marine books.

I don't think the issue is about actually removing the likes of Death Comp, Furiosos, Ravenwing, etc... But rather the 'pro 1-2 big books' crowd are aruging that you can supposedly get the same 'feel' by simply using a few USR's and calling it, "job's a good 'un."
ie, In the pro-camp, the idea is if you simply give say;
- Rage + FnP to Assault Marines you have Death Company. (which unfortunately glosses over the fact they also have +1WS and get more bonuses out of their Chappies, etc...)
- Add extra CCW to basic Dreads and you have Furiosos apparently, because it's not like they have other unique options.
- Stubborn = Deathwing Termies. (and let's forget the fact that they are able to mix-and-match their weaponry)
- Tactical Squad can replace heavy weapon w/additional special weapon and gain Acute Senses = Grey Hunters. (but let's just take away the rest of their options unfortunately)

That kind of idea.
In other words, either each unit entry becomes a small novel to include all the relevent "Chapter of Legend" upgrades, OR, you have a complete mess of 3-4 special rules pages that require endless referencing and lead to mistakes being made in list creation and hence, illegal armies being fielded. (like what happened with the 3.5 CSM 'dex)


The idea that the specialist Space Marines get more army updates is silly anyways...
Only the actual Codex: Space Marines gets updated each edition. Space Wolves for example got a book about mid-way through 3rd edition, and then had to wait until 5th to get the new book. BA's went even longer without a new codex, while DA's went all of 5th edition without anything. (and the poor Templars are still waiting their turn...)

Orks, IG & Tyranids have all been given way more love than any of the specialist Chapters, but somehow, all the marine-haters seem to forget this point.

Orks, IG & Tyranids have all been given way more love than any of the specialist Chapters, but somehow, all the marine-haters seem to forget this point.

Because you'd still have MEQ coming up the pipeline, the one few army that you can spraypaint black and use as "Counts as Newest MEQ Update" (Speaking of which, CSM has only skipped 5th as well, so they're on that list for favored as well ) Many people don't exactly differentiate between them because besides a few things that differentiate them is not exactly big enough to matter aside from a few minor things. It's not like coming across Dark Elder vs Eldar.

So to many others they don't see "Special Independent Codex" they see "Imperium Space Marine Codex #3" You kill them in mostly the same way, they have the same statline, and generally there's nothing that makes you tilt your head to much. "This one flee's from combat and shoots, this one has alotta jump packs, this one has more meleeish troops with scouts mingling with tacticals, this one has bikes or terminators, this one has better marines with cavalry with a buncha things named wolf"

And Imperial Guards previous codex (as in 4th) was not exactly a good codex, same with Tyranids 5th (Who would rather they had kept their 4th for much of that run).

It'd probably help that if the MEQ coming from the Imperium were actually pretty different, and that powergames didn't switch to the hottest codex when a new SM dex comes out. Which grinds on the perspective that rather then there being a theme you enjoy, you just want to have multiple opportunities to get a good power dex. I don't feel that way myself, I just feel that they all return to supplements (and add the return of the others as well)

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Because you'd still have MEQ coming up the pipeline, the one few army that you can spraypaint black and use as "Counts as Newest MEQ Update" (Speaking of which, CSM has only skipped 5th as well, so they're on that list for favored as well ) Many people don't exactly differentiate between them because besides a few things that differentiate them is not exactly big enough to matter aside from a few minor things. It's not like coming across Dark Elder vs Eldar.

So to many others they don't see "Special Independent Codex" they see "Imperium Space Marine Codex #3" You kill them in mostly the same way, they have the same statline, and generally there's nothing that makes you tilt your head to much. "This one flee's from combat and shoots, this one has alotta jump packs, this one has more meleeish troops with scouts mingling with tacticals, this one has bikes or terminators, this one has better marines with cavalry with a buncha things named wolf"

And Imperial Guards previous codex (as in 4th) was not exactly a good codex, same with Tyranids 5th (Who would rather they had kept their 4th for much of that run).

It'd probably help that if the MEQ coming from the Imperium were actually pretty different, and that powergames didn't switch to the hottest codex when a new SM dex comes out.

And the people who codex hop to the flavour of the month marines tend to also be hyper-competitive types who take the game far too seriously in my humble experiences.
We had an Eldar player years ago who did just that with the Craftworld Codex. He'd see what army you'd brought, and then swap his Craftworld to counter you... (Mind you, it was halarious when he tried to pull Ulthwe Seer-Congress against my Drop Guard and fought his first ever Culexus Assassin! )
5th edition also made this much harsher because we not only had 4 loyalist marine books released, but also the studio was going overboard on the codex-creep and building too many outright hard-counters into the system. (*cough*GreyKnights*cough* being the outright worst offenders)

Just because a few unscrupulous as play army-roulette to always gain the biggest advantage doesn't mean GW should abandon the vast majority who don't sink to such level of filthy hobo shinanigans.

Read through most of the thread, and I find myself agreeing most with Peregrine's first reply.

Personally, I'd remove BT, BA, SW, and DA. I'd also remove GK, and have them replaced with a Codex: Inquisition. In a perfect world, there would be a loyalist marine codex, a traitor marine codex, and then the current selection of non-meq codices.

Then again, this would never happen, as marines sell the most models.

Experiment 626 wrote:
For everyone touting '1 big book to rule them all' nonsense, I hope you realise that this idea is;
a) Screwing over every single marine player by hienously over-charging them for their book.

What, to have access to all marine rules in one book to play what is effectively one army with a couple pages worth of variant rules? Do they never buy another codex besides a single variant chapter codex? I would think it'd make it cheaper for people that play multiple armies, or would like to, or simply buy most of the codex books. It's not like GW didn't already charge more for Codex: Space Marines than they did for any other codex book until they went to hardcovers.

Not to mention, who the hell wants to carry a fething 250+pg hardback tome around with them?!

Why on earth would it need to be 250 pages? As is the newer 6E books are smaller than most of the 5E books so there's apparently space to be found already.

Also, have you taken a look at any other wargames recently? If you check out say, Flames of War, they routinely have ~300page army books with complete army listings of every imagineable formation type for a faction and they don't exactly break anyone's back (and cost less than GW's boks that are 1/3rd the size). To say nothing of the basic $75 humongous brick of a core rulebook 40k already has, so if they can deal with that I'm sure they can deal with something half the size quite well.

The basic IG codex doesn't seem to mind having to cover most of the IG subfactions that have been created over the years, even those that had their own books at one time. It's hard to see why the snowflake chapters need be all that different.

b) Impossible to balance while still retaining any kind of flavour & individuality between the various main Chapters.

Why not?

Take basic SM list, add 2-5 pages in back for each variant chapter noting difference in certain units and adding variant options and mandatory changes. Voila, you've just included all the unique rules and units from each of the variant books and done so in a way that retains their special snowflake nature without making the mix-n-match or watering them down.

Traits, Chapter Tactics, SC's, whatever... You'd simply have everyone cherry-picking the best stuff from across the million or so options such a huge book would contain.
Or else to stop it from happening, you'd need so many rules exceptions that the book would start to read something more akin to legalise and we'd end up with the massive confused mess that was the 3.5 CSM codex of crap.

Why is it assumed they could only do it in the most asinine way possible and are completely unable to learn from their mistakes.

I don't understand how so many other wargames manage to be able to create subfactions and portray them accurately so much easily in combined lists but a combined SM book where they all share 50-90% of the same content is supposedly impossible.

GW has tried things like Legion rules & Traits before. They sucked rotten monkeyballs and simply ended up either OP, or else only the 2-3 'best' options ever got picked and suddenly every single marine army was exactly the same... (because 3x infiltrating devastator squads and True-grit everywhere was totally fair when the marines couldn't take those land raiders they were never going to include anyways!)

And having different books isn't any different when so many treat them all as one army anyway. Reference Adepticon 2011 where the most popular army was Space Wolves but only 3 of like 31 were actual SW armies and not codex-hoppers. Even players that don't fall under the super WAAC cheesy types will do this.

 Wilytank wrote:
Vanilla Marines are staying for being the originals. GW will never cut them. But I am against rolling the other codexes into one monster book since it will screw the other Marine players out of lots of their signature things.

Blood Angels would lose Furioso Dreads, Baal Preadators, Death Company, and several characters that I see used extremely frequently like the Sanguinor, Mephiston, Lemartes, and Brother Corbulo.

Space Wolves would provide nerfs to Grey Hunters and Long Fangs who will then be nothing more than lackluster tacticals and devastators. Runic Weapons would be nerfed to standard Force Weapons. They'll also lose Thunderwolves, Lone Wolves, Fenrisian Wolves, and all the cool characters that they have.

Dark Angels would lose all their bike and TDA goodies; their players are not going to want Ravenwing and Deathwing Knights available to Space Wolf lists. Samael and Belial would be lost.

Chaos Marines; this is 100% out of the question, more than any other codex here. They've got too many things that distinguish them from loyalist Marines. Lack of ATSKNF, Marks of Chaos, Daemon Princes, Daemon Engines, Zerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines, Obliterators, all their exclusive Wargear, Mutation, etc.

Now, you could theoretically put all of the Marine stuff into one mega codex...

...or you could have them as separate, easier to read books that won't screw their man dedicated players. Do not remove any of the Marine books.

Why do you assume they'll lose these things entirely, and why are you assuming so many of these are hugely unique? Furioso dreads? Prior to 5th edition, take Dread, give 2nd DCCW. After 5th edition, take Ironclad, swap a couple optionsand add Librarian option. Baal predator? Take Predator, put in wholly inappropriate FoC slot and swap turret weapon for +X pts. Add a couple pages for each chapter's unique stuff, takes maybe 15-20 pages, done.

Also, in many respects, some of these need to be adjusted, GH's/Long Fangs for one.


Lastly, I don't think anyone is suggesting seriously that CSM's be rolled in.

So, 12 pages in and people still don't understand the difference between "keeping every single option exactly the way it is right now" and "keeping the general 'feel' of the army". Who cares if a combined C:SM codex wouldn't keep every single detail of every single unit in the former independent codices? Those details aren't relevant. For example, death company could easily be represented by C:SM vanguard vets with black paint. Why? Because if you ignore the current rules for the unit the basic concept of death company is "powerful elite assault unit". All that stuff about falling to their curse and being doomed is FLUFF. If the current BA codex had just printed the exact same rules as vanguard vets and renamed them "death company" nobody would have complained at all, it would have been a perfect representation of the unit (especially now that rage is just an assault bonus and not a drawback). The same is true for a lot of other things, there's nothing special about the current rules representing the concept, and nothing would be lost if they were changed to merge with C:SM.

In short, 90% of the objections to a combined marine codex consist of "it wouldn't be exactly the same", and that's a ridiculous standard to use.

I would cut Dark Angels, and I am a Dark Angels player. (In fact, DA is now my only army since Vetock destroyed Tau.)

Simply, DA have very little which couldn't be modelled with mere WD supplement, or even just page's worth of special rules in the SM codex. They are (nominally) a Codex chapter.

Personally, I'd say Space Wolves, and I'm man enough to admit that it's because I dislike their models and their general attitude in the BL books, not because of the way they play. I'm a fan of more codexes, as it means more options. And I feel a sudden hatred for the 30% of you who said my Templars should go. I hope your armies get squatted.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, 12 pages in and people still don't understand the difference between "keeping every single option exactly the way it is right now" and "keeping the general 'feel' of the army". Who cares if a combined C:SM codex wouldn't keep every single detail of every single unit in the former independent codices? Those details aren't relevant. For example, death company could easily be represented by C:SM vanguard vets with black paint. Why? Because if you ignore the current rules for the unit the basic concept of death company is "powerful elite assault unit". All that stuff about falling to their curse and being doomed is FLUFF. If the current BA codex had just printed the exact same rules as vanguard vets and renamed them "death company" nobody would have complained at all, it would have been a perfect representation of the unit (especially now that rage is just an assault bonus and not a drawback). The same is true for a lot of other things, there's nothing special about the current rules representing the concept, and nothing would be lost if they were changed to merge with C:SM.

In short, 90% of the objections to a combined marine codex consist of "it wouldn't be exactly the same", and that's a ridiculous standard to use.

12 pages and you still got NO point.
Maybe it would help to actually read and accept the POV of anyone who isn't "Peregrine".?
All I see is a pretty self-centered person that doesn't play the army he debates.
All I see is someone who hates fluff and will jump ship to whatever 'powerful' bunch of stat lines and USR is considered "hot".

So after I've listed the current design of 6th ed codices in a post, where is your irrelevance of fluff now , if this "fluff" and artwork easily got as many or even more pages than rules have?
You're so called argument is like people asking for EGA graphics in modern games because "we only need the mechanics of the game, graphics be damned".

If you do not understand the value of the grown setting, its worth in expanding the basic TT-game to a world and the motivation of people to have more than just a bunch of markers to shove around then I suggests to find something else to call ridiculous because honestly, your posts stink.
They reek of a personal issue with Space Marines in general.

And no, nothing is irrelevant just because you deem it so.
Make no mistake, people like you are a reason to replace SM with movie-marines and to ignore the whining to follow.

 1hadhq wrote:
All I see is someone who hates fluff and will jump ship to whatever 'powerful' bunch of stat lines and USR is considered "hot".

Nice stereotype, but no, I've only ever played two armies (Tau and IG). And the current model is WORSE for "WAAC abuse", defining half the armies in the game as "marines +1" makes power creep inevitable as every "special" codex has to be better than the last one. Combining all marine armies into a single codex removes the power creep and lets marine players pick a single army based on fluff/cool models/etc instead of switching to the most recent (and most powerful) codex every few months.

So after I've listed the current design of 6th ed codices in a post, where is your irrelevance of fluff now , if this "fluff" and artwork easily got as many or even more pages than rules have?

Who cares?

1) We have an entire division of GW (BL) dedicated to making entire novels about marines. Losing a few pages of generic codex fluff is a tiny sacrifice to make if it means improving the rest of the game.

2) If we're going to ignore game mechanics then nothing about the current armies with their own codices makes them more deserving of expanded fluff than White Scars/Salamanders/etc, the armies that have to settle for a bit of fluff in C:SM.

Just sticking my head into the thread to say I voted Black Templars for the boot. I like all the others (especially Dark Angels).

 Flashman wrote:
Just sticking my head into the thread to say I voted Black Templars for the boot. I like all the others (especially Dark Angels).

No reason? Or is it just because you don't like them?

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
Just sticking my head into the thread to say I voted Black Templars for the boot. I like all the others (especially Dark Angels).

No reason? Or is it just because you don't like them?

I've not read the entire thread, so this has probably been covered already, but it's largely because they are a 2nd founding Chapter and one that was only added to the fluff in the mid 1990s. Yes, I know this also applies to Necrons, Tau and Dark Eldar but these races add something different to the game. Codex Close Combat Space Marines does not.

 Peregrine wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:
All I see is someone who hates fluff and will jump ship to whatever 'powerful' bunch of stat lines and USR is considered "hot".

Nice stereotype, but no, I've only ever played two armies (Tau and IG). And the current model is WORSE for "WAAC abuse", defining half the armies in the game as "marines +1" makes power creep inevitable as every "special" codex has to be better than the last one. Combining all marine armies into a single codex removes the power creep and lets marine players pick a single army based on fluff/cool models/etc instead of switching to the most recent (and most powerful) codex every few months.

Why do they have to be more powerful? Why couldn't they be different? Dark Angels aren't overly more powerful than Vanilla, so your premise is blatantly not true.

 Peregrine wrote:


Who cares?

You will.

Because GWHQ is going to enlighten you on their route, their actual line of products and the template to follow.
So either adopt or no go.

Remember, the "vanilla" flavor has no 6th ed codex. Whatever you suggest to include in it , same layout as established Material right now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why do they have to be more powerful? Why couldn't they be different?

They don't have to be. But that's how GW has been doing it, and the result is that C:SM is irrelevant after years of power creep and "marines +1" books. An alternative system where all marine armies were combined into a single codex would be better for balance and reduce the amount of "WAAC abuse" and flavor of the month marine armies.

Dark Angels aren't overly more powerful than Vanilla, so your premise is blatantly not true.

Nonsense. DA terminators are C:SM terminators but better. DA bikes are C:SM bikes but better. DA tactical squads are C:SM tactical squads but better. DA devastator squads are C:SM devastator squads but better. Etc.

 1hadhq wrote:
Because GWHQ is going to enlighten you on their route, their actual line of products and the template to follow.

Really? I had no idea that, in a thread about a hypothetical "what would you do" scenario, we aren't actually making the decision and are stuck with what GW decides to publish. Instead of stating the obvious could you actually address my response to you? Or are you just going to quietly pretend you didn't call me TFG?

 Peregrine wrote:
So, 12 pages in and people still don't understand the difference between "keeping every single option exactly the way it is right now" and "keeping the general 'feel' of the army". Who cares if a combined C:SM codex wouldn't keep every single detail of every single unit in the former independent codices? Those details aren't relevant.

Yes they are. They make the other codexes worth looking into in the first place.

 Peregrine wrote:
For example, death company could easily be represented by C:SM vanguard vets with black paint. Why? Because if you ignore the current rules for the unit...

You mean ignore the rules that make them unique in the first place? Because I'm sure C:SM has Red Thirst, Relentless for Vanguards, and more right? Right? They got Counter Attack for free along with Wolf Standards and Mark of the Wulfen? Not even Matt Ward would or could come up with a way how Ultramarines got the curse of the Wulfen.

Let's lump Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Orks, and Tyranids together next for Codex: Xenos. Forget all their individual details; they're filthy xenos anyway. As long as you get that general 'feel' anyway, it shouldn't matter one bit.

Combining the Marine books into one codex and taking away all their unique attributes is going to piss off a massive percentage of players and would be one of the worst choices GW ever made. I'm astounded how there's any amount of people who suggest that doing so would be beneficial or even necessary.

 Wilytank wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, 12 pages in and people still don't understand the difference between "keeping every single option exactly the way it is right now" and "keeping the general 'feel' of the army". Who cares if a combined C:SM codex wouldn't keep every single detail of every single unit in the former independent codices? Those details aren't relevant.

Yes they are. They make the other codexes worth looking into in the first place.

 Peregrine wrote:
For example, death company could easily be represented by C:SM vanguard vets with black paint. Why? Because if you ignore the current rules for the unit...

You mean ignore the rules that make them unique in the first place? Because I'm sure C:SM has Red Thirst, Relentless for Vanguards, and more right? Right? They got Counter Attack for free along with Wolf Standards and Mark of the Wulfen? Not even Matt Ward would or could come up with a way how Ultramarines got the curse of the Wulfen.

Let's lump Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Orks, and Tyranids together next for Codex: Xenos. Forget all their individual details; they're filthy xenos anyway. As long as you get that general 'feel' anyway, it shouldn't matter one bit.

Combining the Marine books into one codex and taking away all their unique attributes is going to piss off a massive percentage of players and would be one of the worst choices GW ever made. I'm astounded how there's any amount of people who suggest that doing so would be beneficial or even necessary.

Combat tactics easily swaps into those you know, also the offensive part of your hyperbole makes you hard to pay attention to (Anyone who uses, EVERYTHING INTO XENO'S is really trying to press back, it doesn't work.)

 Peregrine wrote:

Dark Angels aren't overly more powerful than Vanilla, so your premise is blatantly not true.

Nonsense. DA terminators are C:SM terminators but better. DA bikes are C:SM bikes but better. DA tactical squads are C:SM tactical squads but better. DA devastator squads are C:SM devastator squads but better. Etc.

Not the best example. The DA has a shiny new 6th edition codex, which does have stuff thats better than C:SM, but the things in C:SM that set it apart are better than the equivalents in the DA dex, basically canceling each other out. DA has good stuff, SM has good stuff (flyers are an excellent example), so their basically on equal terms.

But, if you want to further develop this argument, just wait 'til August-November for the 6th Edition SM dex.

 Wilytank wrote:
You mean ignore the rules that make them unique in the first place? Because I'm sure C:SM has Red Thirst, Relentless for Vanguards, and more right? Right? They got Counter Attack for free along with Wolf Standards and Mark of the Wulfen? Not even Matt Ward would or could come up with a way how Ultramarines got the curse of the Wulfen.

Sigh. Read the post again and try to understand the point of it. The concept of a unit is not limited to any specific set of rules, you could easily come up with several different alternative rules for any given unit that would capture the same "feel". It doesn't matter if C:SM "death company" have the exact same rules as long as they still play the same role in the army.

Let's lump Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Orks, and Tyranids together next for Codex: Xenos. Forget all their individual details; they're filthy xenos anyway. As long as you get that general 'feel' anyway, it shouldn't matter one bit.

Except, unlike marines, xenos armies don't have 90% of their units shared with other xenos armies.

 ace101 wrote:
]Not the best example. The DA has a shiny new 6th edition codex, which does have stuff thats better than C:SM, but the things in C:SM that set it apart are better than the equivalents in the DA dex, basically canceling each other out. DA has good stuff, SM has good stuff (flyers are an excellent example), so their basically on equal terms.

It's not about overall power level, it's about the concepts involved. Each army takes a subset of the units from C:SM and makes them better. How do you make DA tactical squads different from C:SM ones? Make them cheaper and let them take upgrade weapons in 5-man squads. How do you make SW tactical squads different from C:SM ones? Make them cheaper, let them take upgrades in 5-man squads, and give them a bunch of special rules. Can you make DA terminators troops and nothing else? Of course not, you have to make them better than the C:SM ones. Etc.

The end result is that units and even entire armies are sold as "C:SM +1", and over the years C:SM has become little more than the reference point by which other marine armies are judged. This encourages "WAAC" players to keep switching to the latest codex (remember that this came up because I was accused of being a WAAC player who wants to combine the books to win more), while a single marine book would balance all of the armies at a fixed level and remove the incentive to switch to the newest and best.

But, if you want to further develop this argument, just wait 'til August-November for the 6th Edition SM dex.

Yeah, at which point the whole cycle starts again. C:SM will be great for a while, but GW's marketing of several other armies as "C:SM +1" will ensure that power creep will keep going.

In which the power creep will ensure people buy more space marines..darn you GW!!!

If it were up to me, I would cut every specialist space marine faction and reduce space marines to just the core codex.

Having all these specialist factions creates two problems. The first is it takes too much focus and attention away from other armies. This was particularly problematic in 5th edition, were a full half of the releases were space marine codices.

The second problem is a bit more subtle. I believe that having all these specialist factions undermines space marines in general. Space marines are supposed to be a powerful, elite, infantry focused faction in their own right. Their basic troops are individually tough and space marines should be feared powerhouses on the tabletop. Instead, they just feel average, because they essentially are average, as everyone and their brother plays either them, or one of their many permutations. And because the various codices seem to one up each other, the space marines belonging to an inferior may even make space marines appear weak.

By reducing space marines to a single dex, they would become rarer and more special on the table top, and clearer contrast would be drawn between tactical marines and the weaker troops of other races, while also not being upstaged by more powerful tactical marines of a superior specialist dex. I think if this were done, space marines would feel a lot more like the heroic supersoldiers of the 41st millenium. The specialist factions would just exist in fluff and in model customization, which is were they belong.

Phanixis wrote:
Space marines are supposed to be a powerful, elite, infantry focused faction in their own right. Their basic troops are individually tough and space marines should be feared powerhouses on the tabletop. Instead, they just feel average, because they essentially are average, as everyone and their brother plays either them, or one of their many permutations.

This is a very good point. Notice the complaints (justified, IMO) about Tau being BS 3. Even though theoretically BS 3 is the average for a trained professional soldier the dominance of marine armies makes BS 4 the real "average" in 40k and anything with BS 3 automatically feels like "horde unit that sucks at shooting but brings tons of guns to make up for it". Likewise for all the other stats, anything with a 3 is automatically below average and that makes a huge impact on how a unit is seen.

Phanixis wrote:
If it were up to me, I would cut every specialist space marine faction and reduce space marines to just the core codex.

Having all these specialist factions creates two problems. The first is it takes too much focus and attention away from other armies. This was particularly problematic in 5th edition, were a full half of the releases were space marine codices.

The second problem is a bit more subtle. I believe that having all these specialist factions undermines space marines in general. Space marines are supposed to be a powerful, elite, infantry focused faction in their own right. Their basic troops are individually tough and space marines should be feared powerhouses on the tabletop. Instead, they just feel average, because they essentially are average, as everyone and their brother plays either them, or one of their many permutations. And because the various codices seem to one up each other, the space marines belonging to an inferior may even make space marines appear weak.

By reducing space marines to a single dex, they would become rarer and more special on the table top, and clearer contrast would be drawn between tactical marines and the weaker troops of other races, while also not being upstaged by more powerful tactical marines of a superior specialist dex. I think if this were done, space marines would feel a lot more like the heroic supersoldiers of the 41st millenium. The specialist factions would just exist in fluff and in model customization, which is were they belong.

Why would there be fewer Space Marines? It'd just mean every Marine player would play out of the same Codex, wouldn't it?

If you want less Space Marines, encourage people to play other armies. Don't punish those that want to play Space Marines because you don't like them.

 Peregrine wrote:

Nonsense. DA terminators are C:SM terminators but better. DA bikes are C:SM bikes but better. DA tactical squads are C:SM tactical squads but better. DA devastator squads are C:SM devastator squads but better. Etc.

Meanwhile, Vanilla has better fliers, better Sternguard, cheaper TH/SS (although admittedly not scoring), Thunderfire Cannons, Ironclad Dreadnoughts and a selection of Chapter Tactics that don't suck (seriously, Stubborn is a drawback most of the time on a unit with ATSKNF). If you ignore everything that's good about Vanilla and just bring up stuff that Dark Angels do better you're OBVIOUSLY going to come to the conclusion that Dark Angels are better, but it's a shoddy argument at best.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Meanwhile, Vanilla has better fliers, better Sternguard, cheaper TH/SS (although admittedly not scoring), Thunderfire Cannons, Ironclad Dreadnoughts and a selection of Chapter Tactics that don't suck (seriously, Stubborn is a drawback most of the time on a unit with ATSKNF). If you ignore everything that's good about Vanilla and just bring up stuff that Dark Angels do better you're OBVIOUSLY going to come to the conclusion that Dark Angels are better, but it's a shoddy argument at best.

Again, I'm not necessarily talking about the entire army and how well it wins games, I'm talking about how things are "marketed". Ask for a one-sentence description of a non-C:SM marine army and it's probably going to be something like "they're C:SM, but better at X, Y and Z". Yes, in theory if you want to do A, B and C you might take C:SM, but if you want to do X, Y and Z you're going to pick the other army. And if a new marine army comes out that does some of those things better you're going to change your "custom" chapter to use the new rules. This isn't just speculation, it's exactly what happens in large numbers.

And of course my point was never that C:SM is the worst at everything, it's that power creep exists and the current situation is better for "WAAC" players than a single all-marines codex would be. It's a response to a specific claim that I'm a WAAC player arguing for a more powerful army, not a general statement about the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Meanwhile, Vanilla has better fliers, better Sternguard, cheaper TH/SS (although admittedly not scoring), Thunderfire Cannons, Ironclad Dreadnoughts and a selection of Chapter Tactics that don't suck (seriously, Stubborn is a drawback most of the time on a unit with ATSKNF). If you ignore everything that's good about Vanilla and just bring up stuff that Dark Angels do better you're OBVIOUSLY going to come to the conclusion that Dark Angels are better, but it's a shoddy argument at best.

Again, I'm not necessarily talking about the entire army and how well it wins games, I'm talking about how things are "marketed". Ask for a one-sentence description of a non-C:SM marine army and it's probably going to be something like "they're C:SM, but better at X, Y and Z". Yes, in theory if you want to do A, B and C you might take C:SM, but if you want to do X, Y and Z you're going to pick the other army. And if a new marine army comes out that does some of those things better you're going to change your "custom" chapter to use the new rules. This isn't just speculation, it's exactly what happens in large numbers.

And of course my point was never that C:SM is the worst at everything, it's that power creep exists and the current situation is better for "WAAC" players than a single all-marines codex would be. It's a response to a specific claim that I'm a WAAC player arguing for a more powerful army, not a general statement about the game.

No, I claimed Dark Angels weren't very far ahead of Vanilla, you called that "nonsense" and then backed it up with the very stuff that Dark Angels are supposed to be better at. Good job. Yes, that means that if you want to play a Terminator army you'd be better off with Dark Angels, but that's the entire point. There's stuff that Vanilla does that no one else does as well. As long as the variant Marine Codices don't become "Vanilla +1" (which I completely agree Space Wolves and to a lesser extent Blood Angels were in 5th) there's no such WAAC factor, which is why I brought up Dark Angels as an example. They're different without being better in every single way.

Peregrine wrote:
An alternative system where all marine armies were combined into a single codex would be better for balance and reduce the amount of "WAAC abuse" and flavor of the month marine armies.

FotM depends on character. Your local problem is irrelevant to the world.
Plus, any FotM player would move towards "counts as", this little plastic figure is ork this month and elf next. WAAC are acting like this everywhere, not just TT-games.
Codex hopping isn't forced by GW, because GW wants you to buy their kits each time they release something.
To re-use the same Models isn't it.

 1hadhq wrote:
Because GWHQ is going to enlighten you on their route, their actual line of products and the template to follow.

Peregrine wrote:
Really? I had no idea that, in a thread about a hypothetical "what would you do" scenario, we aren't actually making the decision and are stuck with what GW decides to publish. Instead of stating the obvious could you actually address my response to you? Or are you just going to quietly pretend you didn't call me TFG?

I am aware you got no idea.
But still try my best to understand how some people assume they get to ignore the basic template of an edition of 40k. Hypothetical is an excuse and a bad one.
And rest assured, if i post something, i really mean it. I do not quietly pretend.

"what would you do" only makes sense if we have a common ground.
If a layout or size isn't part of this, we are at handwavium stage.

Phanixis wrote:If it were up to me, I would cut every specialist space marine faction and reduce space marines to just the core codex.

Welcome back, illoyal traitors.

Phanixis wrote:
Having all these specialist factions creates two problems. The first is it takes too much focus and attention away from other armies.

GW is losing the attention with their marketing... not the line of products.

Phanixis wrote:
The second problem is a bit more subtle. I believe that having all these specialist factions undermines space marines in general. Space marines are supposed to be a powerful, elite, infantry focused faction in their own right. Their basic troops are individually tough and space marines should be feared powerhouses on the tabletop. Instead, they just feel average, because they essentially are average, as everyone and their brother plays either them, or one of their many permutations. And because the various codices seem to one up each other, the space marines belonging to an inferior may even make space marines appear weak.

By reducing space marines to a single dex, they would become rarer and more special on the table top, and clearer contrast would be drawn between tactical marines and the weaker troops of other races, while also not being upstaged by more powerful tactical marines of a superior specialist dex. I think if this were done, space marines would feel a lot more like the heroic supersoldiers of the 41st millenium.

Nice start and then .....

Why would they be rarer?
- the player base annoyed and leaving?
- sucktastic codex no one wants to play except die hard fans?
- only available as digital download?
- WD dex, like sisters?
- people forced to play something else?

Maybe a human has his/her own will and chooses freely? Or at least, attempts to ignore marketing...and the "advice" of the interwebz..

Peregrine wrote:

Notice the complaints (justified, IMO) about Tau being BS 3. Even though theoretically BS 3 is the average for a trained professional soldier the dominance of marine armies makes BS 4 the real "average" in 40k and anything with BS 3 automatically feels like "horde unit that sucks at shooting but brings tons of guns to make up for it". Likewise for all the other stats, anything with a 3 is automatically below average and that makes a huge impact on how a unit is seen.

The theme of Tau was to pimp by tech, not increased statlines. BS 3 is exactly that. Orks do not complain , BS 2 and shouldn't so much lead in the air grant a better chance to hit?
BS 0-10. BS 2-5 used. Average is a funny concept. Orks live with BS 2 and Tau threads are filled with BS 5.....

Can't change your feelings of whats average, but seriously a scale of 10 using only 50% cannot provide a fine-tuned upscaling from can't hit a barn to professional .

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

If you want less Space Marines, encourage people to play other armies. Don't punish those that want to play Space Marines because you don't like them.

The theme of Tau was to pimp by tech, not increased statlines. BS 3 is exactly that. Orks do not complain , BS 2 and shouldn't so much lead in the air grant a better chance to hit?
BS 0-10. BS 2-5 used. Average is a funny concept. Orks live with BS 2 and Tau threads are filled with BS 5.....

Which is weird, because orks used to have BS3, warbosses had around BS4-6 (based on clan, bad moonz got bonuses!) a long while back.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

The theme of Tau was to pimp by tech, not increased statlines. BS 3 is exactly that. Orks do not complain , BS 2 and shouldn't so much lead in the air grant a better chance to hit?
BS 0-10. BS 2-5 used. Average is a funny concept. Orks live with BS 2 and Tau threads are filled with BS 5.....

Which is weird, because orks used to have BS3, warbosses had around BS4-6 (based on clan, bad moonz got bonuses!) a long while back

Happens when you put dakka on top of more dakka
More fun, decreasing bullet to hit ratio.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, I claimed Dark Angels weren't very far ahead of Vanilla, you called that "nonsense" and then backed it up with the very stuff that Dark Angels are supposed to be better at. Good job. Yes, that means that if you want to play a Terminator army you'd be better off with Dark Angels, but that's the entire point. There's stuff that Vanilla does that no one else does as well. As long as the variant Marine Codices don't become "Vanilla +1" (which I completely agree Space Wolves and to a lesser extent Blood Angels were in 5th) there's no such WAAC factor, which is why I brought up Dark Angels as an example. They're different without being better in every single way.

That's a nice theory. Unfortunately reality disagrees with you and "my 'custom chapter' that always uses whatever the newest and most overpowered marine list happens to be" is the popular "WAAC" way of playing marines.

 1hadhq wrote:
Plus, any FotM player would move towards "counts as", this little plastic figure is ork this month and elf next. WAAC are acting like this everywhere, not just TT-games.

You do realize that we're talking about space marine codex hopping, right? You know, the kind where 95% of the models are the same and the only difference is the paint? Let's review:

You said that I'm arguing out of WAAC desire to have a more overpowered army with a single book.

I corrected you and pointed out that the current system does more for WAAC players and replacing it with a single marine codex would reduce the potential for WAAC abuse.

"what would you do" only makes sense if we have a common ground.
If a layout or size isn't part of this, we are at handwavium stage.

As if "change the layout or size" is any more handwavium than anything in the basic premise of the thread?

GW is losing the attention with their marketing... not the line of products.

Nonsense. What do you think is going to happen when the next 40k army is released? Tau "marketing" disappears and we go back to 24/7 marines. The existence of so many marine armies with constant updates pushes all of the other armies out of the spotlight. Reduce the number of separate marine armies and there's more room for attention for the non-marine armies.

Why would they be rarer?

Because new players don't walk into a GW store and see marine armies taking up half the shelves?

The theme of Tau was to pimp by tech, not increased statlines. BS 3 is exactly that. Orks do not complain , BS 2 and shouldn't so much lead in the air grant a better chance to hit?
BS 0-10. BS 2-5 used. Average is a funny concept. Orks live with BS 2 and Tau threads are filled with BS 5.....

Orks don't complain because their fundamental concept is "quantity over quality". Individual Orks suck, but there's an endless number of them.

Tau were supposed to be an elite army. Fire warriors at BS 3 is fine, but battlesuit pilots (veterans of years of combat before they're even allowed to take the trial by fire to get promoted to a battlesuit) should be able to shoot better than a basic guardsman. Just like IG veterans there should be a nice simple progression: fire warriors and pathfinders at BS 3, battlesuits at BS 4, and characters at BS 5.

And sure, represent it with technology. The problem is that we lost targeting arrays (the technological solution to having BS 4) and replaced it with the magic laser pointer gimmick. That's terrible design.

Can't change your feelings of whats average, but seriously a scale of 10 using only 50% cannot provide a fine-tuned upscaling from can't hit a barn to professional .

The point is that the average stat line in the 40k system is supposed to be 3s for everything, with a 4 for a stat representing exceptional ability in that area. But marine dominance completely skews that so that 4 is the average players expect and anything 3 or less is perceived as well below average. BS 4 is "standard" and anything with BS 3 is viewed as an IG-style horde of conscripts unit, T4/3+ is the MEQ standard and anything less is dismissed as no-save light infantry, etc.

The Tau are just the latest example of this problem, people complain about fire warriors being BS 3 even though BS 3 is what professional soldiers get because of marine dominance. Remove the redundant marine books and fire warrior BS 3 would be viewed as average, not a below-average "can't aim worth anything" insult.

 Peregrine wrote:

The point is that the average stat line in the 40k system is supposed to be 3s for everything, with a 4 for a stat representing exceptional ability in that area. But marine dominance completely skews that so that 4 is the average players expect and anything 3 or less is perceived as well below average. BS 4 is "standard" and anything with BS 3 is viewed as an IG-style horde of conscripts unit, T4/3+ is the MEQ standard and anything less is dismissed as no-save light infantry, etc.

The Tau are just the latest example of this problem, people complain about fire warriors being BS 3 even though BS 3 is what professional soldiers get because of marine dominance. Remove the redundant marine books and fire warrior BS 3 would be viewed as average, not a below-average "can't aim worth anything" insult.

There does seem to be bit of a trend reversing stats inflation however: Necron Warriors lost their Sv3+, Daemon troops had stats reduction across the board.Kroot lost a point of Strength. Etc. I suspect the idea is partly to make Marine statline stand apart bit more.

If forced to make a guess, it's possible Ork boyz will lose either one Attack or WS4 in next Codex?

Backfire wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The point is that the average stat line in the 40k system is supposed to be 3s for everything, with a 4 for a stat representing exceptional ability in that area. But marine dominance completely skews that so that 4 is the average players expect and anything 3 or less is perceived as well below average. BS 4 is "standard" and anything with BS 3 is viewed as an IG-style horde of conscripts unit, T4/3+ is the MEQ standard and anything less is dismissed as no-save light infantry, etc.

The Tau are just the latest example of this problem, people complain about fire warriors being BS 3 even though BS 3 is what professional soldiers get because of marine dominance. Remove the redundant marine books and fire warrior BS 3 would be viewed as average, not a below-average "can't aim worth anything" insult.

There does seem to be bit of a trend reversing stats inflation however: Necron Warriors lost their Sv3+, Daemon troops had stats reduction across the board.Kroot lost a point of Strength. Etc. I suspect the idea is partly to make Marine statline stand apart bit more.

If forced to make a guess, it's possible Ork boyz will lose either one Attack or WS4 in next Codex?

Melee boyz are in enough trouble as is, and I'm not cynical enough to believe that they are weakening everything to make MEQ better..

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

If forced to make a guess, it's possible Ork boyz will lose either one Attack or WS4 in next Codex?

Melee boyz are in enough trouble as is, and I'm not cynical enough to believe that they are weakening everything to make MEQ better..

I think loss of an attack might hurt Shoota boyz more? But I'm just speculating.

I don't believe it's to make Marines so much "better" but at least to make their statline stand out bit more. When 3/4 of the armies have troops with same statline, it's kinda hard to argue that they're some sort of "super" soldiers.

Backfire wrote:
I don't believe it's to make Marines so much "better" but at least to make their statline stand out bit more. When 3/4 of the armies have troops with same statline, it's kinda hard to argue that they're some sort of "super" soldiers.

Nerfing everyone else's stats doesn't accomplish this, it just means that half the game is all-4s while everyone else sucks. The only way to fix stat inflation is to reduce the dominance of marines, and one way to start is by removing all the redundant "marines but slightly different" codices so that marines only occupy two army "slots" (chaos and loyalist).

For those saying no one should be cut you would all be happy i assume with codex world eaters, codex thousand sons, codex death guard, codex emperors children, codex bad moons, codex snakebites etc...

Why, well why not. If gw dropped all the imperial marines into one book other than gk they could release stuff for armies that need it. Contrary to popular belief not everyone has a marine army

So 13 pages in and people still dont realize the number of marine books is based on selling models. There have been many suggestions of how and why to slice the codex pie differently but none of them advance the sale of more space marine models and all the ones that reduce the number of books just clog up the production line.

GW is not going to cannibilize its sales and shrink the opportunities for new releases of space marines by dropping GK, SW, BA, and DA UNLESS and UNTIL they are not selling enough models to pull their weight.

The BT appear to not be pulling their weight because now they are only a section in the general SM section on the website. This is probably a portent that they will be rolled into the SM book when it comes out later this year.

 Peregrine wrote:

You do realize that we're talking about space marine codex hopping, right? You know, the kind where 95% of the models are the same and the only difference is the paint?

Codex hopping isn't limited to space marines.
Maybe in your area.
On earth, our little blue ball we live on, there is more than your little neighborhood.

Maybe everyone you know has just a cheap starter set and thus 95% of the models are the same. Because seriously, only paint is different is nonsense.
Your flawed logic throws CSM into the mix:
power armor standard = yes, Statline not far off = yes, boltgun = yes, may use parts of the loyalists = yes, same ammo = yes,
conclusion: per Peregrines idea of too identical so just different paintjob, CSM are SM and should be condensed into the SM dex.
Well done.

 Peregrine wrote:

Nonsense. What do you think is going to happen when the next 40k army is released?

Some people buy it, some people wait. Some people aren't interested right now and pick them up someday before they get a 7th ed codex.

 Peregrine wrote:

Tau "marketing" disappears and we go back to 24/7 marines.

Good thing we have Eldar in the pipeline. Care to visit News&rumors?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/371300.page
Space Elfs are Space Marines now?

 Peregrine wrote:

The existence of so many marine armies with constant updates pushes all of the other armies out of the spotlight. Reduce the number of separate marine armies and there's more room for attention for the non-marine armies.

Constant updates? Vanilla, IG, CSM, Nids and Tau, sure. Soo many SM

 Peregrine wrote:

Why would they be rarer?

Because new players don't walk into a GW store and see marine armies taking up half the shelves?

Again, you view may be right somewhere on this planet. It is not at this side of the atlantic. Usually 45% are WHFB, 10% Lotr and 45% 40k.
Showcases tend to have the recently released army and a mix of the rest. A balanced mix.

So new player walks into store, sees lots of WHFB. WD and Terrain, lotr. Has to get further to reach 40k.
Every codex and army. Except sisters.
The basic line of SM boxes isn't bigger than the IG. So all they have as additional shelf space filler are a few chapter specific boxes. Maybe 2x SW, 2x BA and 2x DA. If your lucky BT upgrade set.
Too bad the space wasted on CSM, Necrons,Tau,Eldar, Tyranids,IG is equal to the basic line of SM products , so the corner of SM is about 1/8 of the 40 shelf without the codex specific boxes. Oh noes!
Add the grey knights. The silvery shiny knights. The ones they most likely deemed as a attraction to new players.
Tell me, how many people would play a non-marine army if the GK had no codex or minis?

 Peregrine wrote:

Tau were supposed to be an elite army.

No. A young upstart Empire. They don't have the numbers but their military size doesn't make them elite.

 Peregrine wrote:

Fire warriors at BS 3 is fine, but battlesuit pilots (veterans of years of combat before they're even allowed to take the trial by fire to get promoted to a battlesuit) should be able to shoot better than a basic guardsman. Just like IG veterans there should be a nice simple progression: fire warriors and pathfinders at BS 3, battlesuits at BS 4, and characters at BS 5.

The species who survives even when most of the Galaxy is attacking them has to get better to live another day.
Tau just serve for a while. If they lack any abitlity, they try to find an ally to fill that role.

 Peregrine wrote:

The point is that the average stat line in the 40k system is supposed to be 3s for everything, with a 4 for a stat representing exceptional ability in that area. But marine dominance completely skews that so that 4 is the average players expect and anything 3 or less is perceived as well below average. BS 4 is "standard" and anything with BS 3 is viewed as an IG-style horde of conscripts unit, T4/3+ is the MEQ standard and anything less is dismissed as no-save light infantry, etc.

The only way to fix stat inflation is to reduce the dominance of marines, and one way to start is by removing all the redundant "marines but slightly different" codices so that marines only occupy two army "slots" (chaos and loyalist).

How would the common statline change if the sources to field the existing models are fewer?
Maybe not at all? Like these models aren't going away?
Or is their fate to sit on a shelf and people fondly remember the good old days when you had a choice ? One of your own?
Could the "sky is falling attitude" of threads turn people from non-SM armies towards the oh so dominant SM?

 Skriker wrote:
[Why can't Ultramarines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels and other marine forces do the same thing?

Skriker

TL;DR, because Space Marine players don't want to give up their favored status and let someone else get some special snowflake treatment for a change.

JWhex wrote:
So 13 pages in and people still dont realize the number of marine books is based on selling models. There have been many suggestions of how and why to slice the codex pie differently but none of them advance the sale of more space marine models and all the ones that reduce the number of books just clog up the production line.

GW is not going to cannibilize its sales and shrink the opportunities for new releases of space marines by dropping GK, SW, BA, and DA UNLESS and UNTIL they are not selling enough models to pull their weight.

The BT appear to not be pulling their weight because now they are only a section in the general SM section on the website. This is probably a portent that they will be rolled into the SM book when it comes out later this year.

And so were Dark Angels until about a month or so before their codex update into 6th edition, so your theory holds little water here...
Templars have been a sub-section in the on-line store since around the begining of 5th edition or so. Until Hastings & Harry come right out and say emphatically that Black Templars are 100% definately getting folded into codex marines, it's nothing but the wishlisting of marine-haters imho.

Mind you, most of the anti-marine crowd also seem to forget that 4th edition was the "Non-Marine Edition" with only C:SM's, BT's & DA's getting updates, while we got IG, CSM's, Tau, Tyranids, Eldar & Orks with Daemons being only 2 months before 5th edition! That's a grand total of 2 non-codex Chapter updates vs 2 'generic' marine varients, IG and 5 Xenos books!
So really, 5th edition was simply the turn for the specialist Chapters to get their turn in the limelight...

And right now, 6th has thus far been anything BUT "Marine get all the love - GW hates Xenos" whinefest. We've had Dark Angels so far, but also CSM's, Daemons & Tau, with rummors of Eldar being very close as well, and whispering of Tyranids and potentially Orks also being on the perverbial horrizon with only Codex Marines getting any solid leads on the marine front.

CSMs are just marines of a different color. Stop acting like they aren't.

 Melissia wrote:
CSMs are just marines of a different color. Stop acting like they aren't.

Not sure if serious...

 Melissia wrote:
CSMs are just marines of a different color. Stop acting like they aren't.

Well they did use to be different..Back before 4th.

Though they do have marks, cult units, daemon units, and the fact that GW restricts them from standard space marine wargear (Why can't renegades steal some storm shields again?)

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
CSMs are just marines of a different color. Stop acting like they aren't.

Not sure if serious...

Why wouldn't I be?

They are Chaos Space Marines. They're just another army of Space Marines, based off of the standard Space Marine codex, with some alterations to make them stand out-- just like every Space Marine book. "Space Marines" is in their name. They are Space Marines in the lore. They are just another MEQ army of Space Marines in the tabletop. Hell, most of their units are practically identical to loyalist Space Marines in form and function, varying only in certain details like exchanging a special rule for a different benefit-- just like all the other space marine codices. Even the new codex which includes a few cultists is still not any more different from standard Space Marines than Grey Knights, who themselves are... just another color of Space Marines (silvery-grey in this case).

They're Space Marines. Yet for some nonsensical reasons they're treated as if they aren't.

 Melissia wrote:
CSMs are just marines of a different color. Stop acting like they aren't.

I concur.

Even with the whole 'marks' thing they just feel like spikier space marines. I think they need something like the Sister's Faith point thing... (actually do sisters still have that).

Not in anywhere near as useful a form.

Also? The only way to stop them from being just another flavor of Space Marines is to completely rework them, rename hem, and make them no longer Space Marines.

So basically by turning them in to Lost and the Damned and dropping the Marines in the army entirely (or relegating them to the occasional choice, and not the focus of the army).

 Melissia wrote:
Not in anywhere near as useful a form.

Also? The only way to stop them from being just another flavor of Space Marines is to completely rework them, rename hem, and make them no longer Space Marines.

So basically by turning them in to Lost and the Damned and dropping the Marines in the army entirely (or relegating them to the occasional choice, and not the focus of the army).

Course by that logic, Dark Eldar and Eldar should just be together as well? Just from the tone of the thought.

Mainly because I'd love to see a rework of CSM to give them new entire weapon lines and various different factors. Gimme my Q'sal tzeentchians and Blood gladiators of khorne.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Course by that logic, Dark Eldar and Eldar should just be together as well? Just from the tone of the thought.

They probably could in some sense. But there's a bigger difference between DE and CE than CSM and Loyalist SM.

Look at the different marine codices. BA, DA, and SW are all first founding, aka former legions. Their history is in there geneseed flaws, though DA diverge in their shame of having to hunt the Fallen. The BA and SW have different combat doctrines because their gene seed makes them behave differently, namely wulfen and sharp senses for the SW and red thirst and black rage for BA. DA have changed their doctrines specifically to hunt the Fallen. BT, although not a first founding, are on a 10000 year crusade, as I recall as a big middle finger to Guillman so that they didn't have to mold to the codex astartes. These non C:SM codices have a deep and storied history that makes them different from standard marines. Also, GW and BL play them out as different in their story telling too. SW, as big a fan as I am, make appearances a tad too often in the books, largely because most stories in the western world typically have that big burly guy who drinks copiously and loves a good brawl.

Also of note, it seems like most armies have a WFB counterpart.

 Melissia wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
CSMs are just marines of a different color. Stop acting like they aren't.

Not sure if serious...

Why wouldn't I be?

They are Chaos Space Marines. They're just another army of Space Marines, based off of the standard Space Marine codex, with some alterations to make them stand out-- just like every Space Marine book. "Space Marines" is in their name. They are Space Marines in the lore. They are just another MEQ army of Space Marines in the tabletop. Hell, most of their units are practically identical to loyalist Space Marines in form and function, varying only in certain details like exchanging a special rule for a different benefit-- just like all the other space marine codices. Even the new codex which includes a few cultists is still not any more different from standard Space Marines than Grey Knights, who themselves are... just another color of Space Marines (silvery-grey in this case).

They're Space Marines. Yet for some nonsensical reasons they're treated as if they aren't.

Apparently you seem to forget the whole bit about CSM's being a 110% different force in terms of looks, playstyle and story from their loyalist brethren? There is absolutely no way in hell to properly combine CHAOS marines into a generic SM 'dex, unless of corse your aim is to simply squat the entire army itself...
Which I'm sure every single Chaos player will no doubt rejoyce over.

But seriously, try and show us how you'd represent the Marks of the Gods, daemonic upgrades/blessings + units like Possessed, Daemon engines, cult units, etc... within the confines of just a few USR's.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
CSMs are just marines of a different color. Stop acting like they aren't.

Not sure if serious...

Why wouldn't I be?

They are Chaos Space Marines. They're just another army of Space Marines, based off of the standard Space Marine codex, with some alterations to make them stand out-- just like every Space Marine book. "Space Marines" is in their name. They are Space Marines in the lore. They are just another MEQ army of Space Marines in the tabletop. Hell, most of their units are practically identical to loyalist Space Marines in form and function, varying only in certain details like exchanging a special rule for a different benefit-- just like all the other space marine codices. Even the new codex which includes a few cultists is still not any more different from standard Space Marines than Grey Knights, who themselves are... just another color of Space Marines (silvery-grey in this case).

They're Space Marines. Yet for some nonsensical reasons they're treated as if they aren't.

Apparently you seem to forget the whole bit about CSM's being a 110% different force in terms of looks, playstyle and story from their loyalist brethren? There is absolutely no way in hell to properly combine CHAOS marines into a generic SM 'dex, unless of corse your aim is to simply squat the entire army itself...
Which I'm sure every single Chaos player will no doubt rejoyce over.

But seriously, try and show us how you'd represent the Marks of the Gods, daemonic upgrades/blessings + units like Possessed, Daemon engines, cult units, etc... within the confines of just a few USR's.

That, and they are mortal enemies. Slappings by both an Ultramarine and a Black Legionaire for saying they are the same and should be in the same book.

Experiment 626 wrote:
GW has tried things like Legion rules & Traits before. They sucked rotten monkeyballs and simply ended up either OP, or else only the 2-3 'best' options ever got picked and suddenly every single marine army was exactly the same... (because 3x infiltrating devastator squads and True-grit everywhere was totally fair when the marines couldn't take those land raiders they were never going to include anyways!)

Don’t put “Legions” and “Traits” in the same sentence as if their problems were universal. The Marine Traits system (and the Guard Doctrine system) were bad sets of rules because they only provided benefits, that is to say the things you “lost” by using them weren’t really losses (eg. “Oh no! I can’t take allies for my Marines... wasn’t going to take them anyway?” “Really? No Sanctioned Psykers? Well good thing I never planned on taking any...”). These problems are independent and unrelated to the balance issues of the way 3.5 Chaos did its Legion rules.

The method used for the 3.5 Codex (which, incidentally, is exactly the same method used in the first FW HH book for its Legion Specific lists) is a perfectly straightforward method of creating variant lists and is exactly how I’d do BA’s and DA’s.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWhex wrote:
So 13 pages in and people still dont realize the number of marine books is based on selling models.

Of course it's based on selling models. That's not in dispute. But that’s also irrelevant to this thread. We're not talking about sales, we're talking about what books we'd cut.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Apparently you seem to forget the whole bit about CSM's being a 110% different force in terms of looks, playstyle and story from their loyalist brethren?

Hmm, you might have a point.

Looks: They're Space Marines with spikes.
Playstyle: They're Space Marines with some extra mutations.
Story: They're Space Marines who are mad at their dad.

Wait, no, you don't have a point.

I'd probably go for black templars or space wolves but then some people would have an utter fit and launch a big 4chan invasion of the GW home page and hack the utter sh*t out of it. That or 4chan users would just whine and rage until their mom gives them a pacifier to suck on. I figure they'd tire themselves out eventually. It's not like 4chan hates on just one thing and stays on it after all but perhaps i'm wrong.

The only huge difference with chaos marines from normal marines is the whole daemon possession and chaos gods bit. Honestly you could probably buy normal marines and just a sort of expanded plastic set to make your chaos marines if you had to. In the end it all comes down to popularity or lack thereof. It doesn't help when an army book and models themselves look underwhelming and perform lousy. Sisters do deserve better for instance. They need a dark eldar re-vamp or they'll absolutely die out much like wood elves and bretonnia need one for fantasy.

Experiment 626 wrote:

JWhex wrote:
So 13 pages in and people still dont realize the number of marine books is based on selling models. There have been many suggestions of how and why to slice the codex pie differently but none of them advance the sale of more space marine models and all the ones that reduce the number of books just clog up the production line.

GW is not going to cannibilize its sales and shrink the opportunities for new releases of space marines by dropping GK, SW, BA, and DA UNLESS and UNTIL they are not selling enough models to pull their weight.

The BT appear to not be pulling their weight because now they are only a section in the general SM section on the website. This is probably a portent that they will be rolled into the SM book when it comes out later this year.

Until Hastings & Harry come right out and say emphatically that Black Templars are 100% definately getting folded into codex marines, it's nothing but the wishlisting of marine-haters imho.

Well Hastings has indeed essentially said the BT were going to be rolled into codex SM in a thread on Warseer. I dont have a problem with several SM codexes and I think all the ideas for dramatically cutting them back are plain silly because they are the butter of GW's bread.

I think if it wasn't for popularity of the marines that chaos marines would be forced into the same situation as a traitor guard or cultist army. In the end they'd only be a chaos faction as a whole with only slightly different chaos marine units. It's all about popularity man.

 Melissia wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
Apparently you seem to forget the whole bit about CSM's being a 110% different force in terms of looks, playstyle and story from their loyalist brethren?

Hmm, you might have a point.

Looks: They're Space Marines with spikes.
Playstyle: They're Space Marines with some extra mutations.
Story: They're Space Marines who are mad at their dad.

Wait, no, you don't have a point.

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about...

The only thing Chaos Marines & Loyalist lapdogs have in common are;
a) being 'Space Marines' in terms of basic unit stats & general equipment. (ie: power armour + bolter + bolt pistol + grenades)
b) most of their very basic equipment and a few vehicles.

Outside of that, Space Marines are defined by their generalist nature. (ie: jacks of all trades, masters of none)
Chaos Marines on the other hand have only 1 such generalist unit - their basic Troop squad, and even they can be tailored into a more dedicated/specialised role unlike a Loyalist Tactical Squad. Outside of the basic grunts, every single Chaos Marine unit is a specialist AND will also typically beat the crap out of their similar Loyalist counter-parts thanks to their Mark of Chaos, improved stats, dedicated upgrade options and/or daemonic enhancements.
The only thing Loyalists arguably do better than CSM's is play the gunline list at long range and don't need allies for access to Prescience.

How the feth would you even begin to make Chaos Marines with a loyalist book?! (serious question here)
The only Loyalists who even come remotely close to Chaos Marines are Space Wolves, and even then the similarities are only that both armies excel within 12" - 24" of their opponents.

 Melissia wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
[Why can't Ultramarines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels and other marine forces do the same thing?

Skriker

TL;DR, because Space Marine players don't want to give up their favored status and let someone else get some special snowflake treatment for a change.

Which is actually a big thing. A lot of players are really invested in fluff and like their individual codexes. Someone who only plays uber competitive lists with zero interest in the fluff then 40k is playing the wrong game.

What are you benefits of having a combined codex anyway?

[quote=What are you benefits of having a combined codex anyway?

Not to mention that much of the playerbase already treats marines as one big book anyway, simplifying things for those that do.

I think the Imperial Fists should get a codex or maybe the Salamanders? It has to be one that already has a character in the vanilla marine codex.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, I claimed Dark Angels weren't very far ahead of Vanilla, you called that "nonsense" and then backed it up with the very stuff that Dark Angels are supposed to be better at. Good job. Yes, that means that if you want to play a Terminator army you'd be better off with Dark Angels, but that's the entire point. There's stuff that Vanilla does that no one else does as well. As long as the variant Marine Codices don't become "Vanilla +1" (which I completely agree Space Wolves and to a lesser extent Blood Angels were in 5th) there's no such WAAC factor, which is why I brought up Dark Angels as an example. They're different without being better in every single way.

That's a nice theory. Unfortunately reality disagrees with you and "my 'custom chapter' that always uses whatever the newest and most overpowered marine list happens to be" is the popular "WAAC" way of playing marines.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted. Try reading what I'm saying next time?

I also don't see the WAAC bandwagon jumping ship to Dark Angels in massive numbers, so I think you'll find that you're the one that reality disagrees with.

 Melissia wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
Apparently you seem to forget the whole bit about CSM's being a 110% different force in terms of looks, playstyle and story from their loyalist brethren?

Hmm, you might have a point.

Looks: They're Space Marines with spikes.
Playstyle: They're Space Marines with some extra mutations.
Story: They're Space Marines who are mad at their dad.

Wait, no, you don't have a point.

Eh, not really. There's still the cult marines and marines with Marks. Chaos also shouldn't be able to use some things in a SM army, and they should have corrupted and demonic units. There's a lot of different wargear as well. You'd have to say that a CSM unit/character/whatever can't take this, but they can take this, and that no SM can't take this, but they can take the other stuff. You'll need many pages to describe what's different between Space Marines and CSM. Plus, since the Horus Heresy, they don't really share much of the same fluff. It's just easier to put them in a different codex.

Personally I would have two Space Marine Codexes

The Codex Marines - similar to the present one and one that represents all of the "others" so Space Wolves, Blood and Dark Angels etc.

I'd keep Chaos seperate.

Its clear that other non Marines can be hugely successful - especially with a relaunch - Dark Eldar, Necrons and likely now Tau means that the "Marines are the only thing that sell" argument holds very little water.

Having many slightly different coloured marines with some desperatly thrown together and dire looking flyers is a waste of the designers time.

You could indeed roll the Dark Eldar together - with a light / dark theme - but they are radically different- far more so than Marine Chapters and don't use the same equipment, looks, or even basic vehicles.

 schmoozies wrote:

Wilytank wrote:What are you benefits of having a combined codex anyway?

You free up a lot of design studio time to work on other projects (Sisters, Genestealer Cult, Lost and Damned, etc.) and can control the power creep that new Marine books always lead to.

There's plenty of ways to counter Marines, it's not that difficult. Any new army book has some worry moments at first at the new threats posed (see new Tau), but after a while the strategies on how to beat them will start showing up and it won't be as bad. Meanwhile, older books will always appear as new books get released be they Sisters or Black Templars or even Vanilla Marines.

And Lost and Damned? Seriously? A book that hasn't seen the light of day since 1st edition? People say Chaos Marines are not at all dissimilar to regular Space Marines, but Renegade Guardsmen are extremely different from the Imperial Guard codex?

And Genestealer Cult? Where did that even come from? Are there actually large numbers of people anxiously awaiting these books?
ers of people anxiously awaiting these books?

People want genestealer cult armies to ally with nids - so Nids can have guard shooting power too.

Having said that, I'd love to fight against a genestealer cult army again. Haven't played against that since 2nd ed iirc.

I'd rather see Genestealer Cult than another slightly different Marine book

Plus:

Sisters of Battle
Adeptus Mechanicus - so so much to be done here IMO
Imperial Allies
Xenos Allies and Mercenaries

 Wilytank wrote:


And Lost and Damned? Seriously? A book that hasn't seen the light of day since 1st edition? People say Chaos Marines are not at all dissimilar to regular Space Marines, but Renegade Guardsmen are extremely different from the Imperial Guard codex?

And Genestealer Cult? Where did that even come from? Are there actually large numbers of people anxiously awaiting these books?
ers of people anxiously awaiting these books?

Or you know the Lost and the Damned list that appeared in the Eye of Terror Campaign. Yes it would feature traitor guard fairly heavily, but you also get other choices like Beastmen, ans some more diverse cultist options.

Genestealer cults were a viable army in 2nd edition and have been completly ignored by the design studio since. There are several fan dexs out their for them, and one even made it to print in the old Citadel Journal so yes I'd say their is interest.

Plus if you don't llike those options fine how about Ad Mech. Its one of the most commonly requested factions that gets no love. Or the triumphant return of the Squats updated and retooled to get rid of the more silly aspects of the old model range and bring in the astetic that they established with the Epic releases.

Jon

 schmoozies wrote:

Or you know the Lost and the Damned list that appeared in the Eye of Terror Campaign. Yes it would feature traitor guard fairly heavily, but you also get other choices like Beastmen, ans some more diverse cultist options.

Take Beastmen models and kit bash them into cultists in the current Chaos Marine codex. They'll look awesome to boot.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I'd rather see Genestealer Cult than another slightly different Marine book

My argument isn't for more Marine books; it's against cutting the ones that already exist.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Plus:

Adeptus Mechanicus - so so much to be done here IMO
Imperial Allies
Xenos Allies and Mercenaries

Do the Adeptus Mechaicus even have a playable army besides Titans? You don't see a whole lot of fluff about the Secutors doing conquest.

And what are you trying to say about allies? The BRB already covers that.

 schmoozies wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:


And Lost and Damned? Seriously? A book that hasn't seen the light of day since 1st edition? People say Chaos Marines are not at all dissimilar to regular Space Marines, but Renegade Guardsmen are extremely different from the Imperial Guard codex?

And Genestealer Cult? Where did that even come from? Are there actually large numbers of people anxiously awaiting these books?
ers of people anxiously awaiting these books?

Or you know the Lost and the Damned list that appeared in the Eye of Terror Campaign. Yes it would feature traitor guard fairly heavily, but you also get other choices like Beastmen, ans some more diverse cultist options.

No you really don't. Lost and the Damned was Guard with Chaos Marines.

I have Codex: Eye of Terror sitting right in my hands. I can also tell you that the people who I have played against who used C: EoT used it exactly in that way. Guard with Chaos Marines.

Genestealer cults were a viable army in 2nd edition and have been completly ignored by the design studio since. There are several fan dexs out their for them, and one even made it to print in the old Citadel Journal so yes I'd say their is interest.

Ignored with good reason. They're not a "real" army. They're Guard with some Tyranid units.

Plus if you don't llike those options fine how about Ad Mech. Its one of the most commonly requested factions that gets no love. Or the triumphant return of the Squats updated and retooled to get rid of the more silly aspects of the old model range and bring in the astetic that they established with the Epic releases.
Jon

You're NEVER going to see the Squats. Ever. Let them rest in peace.

Ad Mech is the same as Lost and the Damned or the Genestealer Cults:
They can easily be proxied using existing rulebooks.
Given that GW/BL/FW can't even make up their mind about what Skittari are (some descriptions are that they're cybernetically enhanced Guardsmen who retain their mental faculties while others have them being nothing more than Servitors without the grafted weapons), there's a bit of difficulty in finding the right book.

Well, if Genestealer Cult are just Guard with Tyranid units, at least allow it to happen in the rules!

Experiment 626 wrote:
The only thing Chaos Marines & Loyalist lapdogs have in common are;
a) being 'Space Marines'

Well aside from simply BEING Space Marines, they are also looking like space marines, acting like space marines, playing like space marines, and generally do everything a Space Marine does, just slightly different from other colors of space marines.

You know the old saying-- if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, etc, it's a fething duck. Stop trying to claim the Chaos Space Marine army is not an army of Space Marines. It's just... sad.

But I'm pretty sure people don' t play Chaos Marine because they wanted to play Vanilla Marines. They wanted to play Chaos Marines.

They really don't play like Space Marines at all. Marks, daemon weapons, Obliterators, Cult troops, icons, demon engines etc. isn't different enough for you?

 Wilytank wrote:
But I'm pretty sure people don' t play Chaos Marine because they wanted to play Vanilla Marines. They wanted to play Chaos Marines.

Just like Blood Angels or Dark Angels or Black Templars or Space Wolves or Grey Knights:

"Space Marines, but different!"

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
They really don't play like Space Marines at all. Marks, daemon weapons, Obliterators, Cult troops, icons, demon engines etc. isn't different enough for you?

Space Marines with a few spiky toys and mutations is still just "Space Marines, but different!"

Hell, I'm not even arguing that C:CSM should be removed. I'm arguing that people should stop treating Codex: Chaos Space Marines as if it's not an army of Space Marines. It's in the fething name, get over yourselves already.

 Melissia wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
But I'm pretty sure people don' t play Chaos Marine because they wanted to play Vanilla Marines. They wanted to play Chaos Marines.

Just like Blood Angels or Dark Angels or Black Templars or Space Wolves or Grey Knights:

"Space Marines, but different!"

And the problem is...what?

 Wilytank wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
But I'm pretty sure people don' t play Chaos Marine because they wanted to play Vanilla Marines. They wanted to play Chaos Marines.

Just like Blood Angels or Dark Angels or Black Templars or Space Wolves or Grey Knights:

"Space Marines, but different!"

And the problem is...what?

The problem is people are trying to claim Chaos Space Marines aren't an army of Space Marines.

 Melissia wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
But I'm pretty sure people don' t play Chaos Marine because they wanted to play Vanilla Marines. They wanted to play Chaos Marines.

Just like Blood Angels or Dark Angels or Black Templars or Space Wolves or Grey Knights:

"Space Marines, but different!"

And the problem is...what?

The problem is people are trying to claim Chaos Space Marines aren't an army of Space Marines.

So what? They can play whatever codex they want and call them whatever they want. Leave these people alone.

 Wilytank wrote:
So what? They can play whatever codex they want and call them whatever they want. Leave these people alone.

Stop attacking a straw argument-- I didn't say they should stop playing CSMs.

I only insist that the Chaos Space Marine army is an army of Space Marines.

Sorry. It just doesn't seem like a legit argument to drop the codexes given that's the topic of this thread. That's what I was going by.

 Wilytank wrote:

 schmoozies wrote:

Or you know the Lost and the Damned list that appeared in the Eye of Terror Campaign. Yes it would feature traitor guard fairly heavily, but you also get other choices like Beastmen, ans some more diverse cultist options.

Take Beastmen models and kit bash them into cultists in the current Chaos Marine codex. They'll look awesome to boot.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I'd rather see Genestealer Cult than another slightly different Marine book

My argument isn't for more Marine books; it's against cutting the ones that already exist.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Plus:

Adeptus Mechanicus - so so much to be done here IMO
Imperial Allies
Xenos Allies and Mercenaries

Do the Adeptus Mechaicus even have a playable army besides Titans? You don't see a whole lot of fluff about the Secutors doing conquest.

And what are you trying to say about allies? The BRB already covers that.

The Adeptus Mechanicus have vast standing armies incorporating speclialist infantry, heavy weapon platforms, vechicles, they fight wars on their own - both amongst themselves, against invaders and as part of explorator fleets. They are more likely to be encountered by Xenos and Imperials alike as a large coherent force than most Marine Chapters or indeed the Tau........

Allies - I meant operatives and Imperial/ Xenos organisations that can be used as allies/ auxillaries by forces - so pirates, mercenaries, Judges, Church, etc

Ad Mech is the same as Lost and the Damned or the Genestealer Cults:
They can easily be proxied using existing rulebooks.

And you can't proxy the various Marine Chapters in the same way? Bit of a strawman argument

At least the Ad Mech can have hugely different models rather than slightly different number of skulls or different coloured armour.

 Wilytank wrote:
Sorry. It just doesn't seem like a legit argument to drop the codexes given that's the topic of this thread. That's what I was going by.

As I've said SEVERAL times now, that isn't what I was arguing. Actually read the posts you're responding to instead of responding to bizarre fantasies.

I tend to think of it like this:

C:SM is the "standard" by which we measure divergence.

C:CSM is the most divergent SM book. C:GK is the second most divergent SM book.

Then you get into rating C:BA, C:BT, C: DA, and C:SW in terms of divergence.

I rate them as follows, from least to most divergent from C:SM -- not necessarily just as a matter of how they currently are but also as a matter of how different they ought to be given the fluff:

C:BA
C: DA
C:SW ties with C:BT

Explanation: If C:SM is the standard then that means the standard is really Codex Astartes. SW and BT never did more than create a bad illusion that they cared about Codex Astartes. In fact, BT were arguably founded in protest of Codex Astartes. It's pretty obvious to anyone that these chapters do not give a crap about following the Codex and exist pretty much as they did (for the BT, as the IF did) before and during the HH. Meanwhile, the BA try their best to strictly adhere to the Codex even though their flaws mean they simply can't comply 100%. Similarly, the DA cultivate the appearance of compliance and their non-compliant features are centered on their secret objectives.

By this logic, the DA and especially the BA are the chapters that should most likely be folded into C:SM.

But that's not really the logic that actually lands a dex, I think.

Shrug.

I could probably manage folding all of them in to a single codex, but I think it'd be better to just leave Space Marines as is-- just ignore them for a while and focus on everyone else, delivering a few Imperial Guard codices (could very easily include tons of variety here, even if it's just a supplement that gives additional rules for other regiment types), variant Ork and Tyranid codices (Feral Orks for example, and perhaps a Pacificus strain that has developed new tactics and absorbed/created new breeds), a separatist Tau codex (because why the hell not, can always change the fluff to suit the codex), etc., to expand the non-Space Marine fluff. Then after all the SM codices(yes, this includes CSM, who are still just SMs of another color) are ignored for a few years and everyone else is brought up to snuff so that non-SM armies outnumber SM armies at least two to one, then finally they can get back to occasionally updating an SM army as well. You'd still have your marine favoritism, but everyone else would have more variety as well, making it have much less of an impact than it currently does.

But then again I'm apparently an donkey-cave who wants to destroy all Space Marines because I'm posting in this thread, so what do I know about my own goddamned opinions and beliefs on how this should be done.

 Melissia wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
But I'm pretty sure people don' t play Chaos Marine because they wanted to play Vanilla Marines. They wanted to play Chaos Marines.

Just like Blood Angels or Dark Angels or Black Templars or Space Wolves or Grey Knights:

"Space Marines, but different!"

And the problem is...what?

The problem is people are trying to claim Chaos Space Marines aren't an army of Space Marines.

They are indeed space marines.

I mean they still share the statline, but at the very least they can contribute to actual, different things to include within it compared to "Slightly less orthadox chapter Number 2"

Course then again I want all my CSM to stop being renegades and start coming forth with boltguns mutated with the powers of the warp! I want Eldar vs DE level changes here.

 psychadelicmime wrote:
Cut grey knights and replace it with codex inquisitors, or something along those lines.

Been there and done that...was supposed to be 3 books: Daemonhunters, Witchhunters and Alienhunters. The concept failed so miserably by Witchhunters that Alienhunters never happened.

It is a shame because I really enjoyed the flexibility in the Daemonhunters and Witchhunters books.

Skriker

 Melissia wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
But I'm pretty sure people don' t play Chaos Marine because they wanted to play Vanilla Marines. They wanted to play Chaos Marines.

Just like Blood Angels or Dark Angels or Black Templars or Space Wolves or Grey Knights:

"Space Marines, but different!"

And the problem is...what?

The problem is people are trying to claim Chaos Space Marines aren't an army of Space Marines.

No one is arguing that Chaos Marines are not strictly speaking evil "Space Marines."

What's idiotic is the argument that Chaos Marines should be folded into a giant Codex Space Marines book, because other than their basic name, basic statline and a few bits of genralist gear + 4 vehicles, they share absolutely nothing in common with Codex Space Marines and are in fact a highly unique army.

 Melissia wrote:
Shrug.

I could probably manage folding all of them in to a single codex, but I think it'd be better to just leave Space Marines as is-- just ignore them for a while and focus on everyone else, delivering a few Imperial Guard codices (could very easily include tons of variety here, even if it's just a supplement that gives additional rules for other regiment types), variant Ork and Tyranid codices (Feral Orks for example, and perhaps a Pacificus strain that has developed new tactics and absorbed/created new breeds), a separatist Tau codex (because why the hell not, can always change the fluff to suit the codex), etc., to expand the non-Space Marine fluff. Then after all the SM codices(yes, this includes CSM, who are still just SMs of another color) are ignored for a few years and everyone else is brought up to snuff so that non-SM armies outnumber SM armies at least two to one, then finally they can get back to occasionally updating an SM army as well. You'd still have your marine favoritism, but everyone else would have more variety as well, making it have much less of an impact than it currently does.

But then again I'm apparently an donkey-cave who wants to destroy all Space Marines because I'm posting in this thread, so what do I know about my own goddamned opinions and beliefs on how this should be done.

So, you want GW to ignore it's main cash cow that in essence helps to fund every other army?

You do realise that;
a) That'd be a super dumb move, even by GW's standard.
b) Only Codex Space Marines themselves get regular updates. BA's waited roughly 9 years for an update, GK's held out for 8 years, SW's waited 7 years, DA's went roughy 6 years, while Templars are now standing at over 8 years and counting!
So really, all these so-called special snowflake Chapters tend to wait at least as long and sometimes longer than most Xenos books for an update!

The other main reason why Marines get a codex for 'X/Y/Z' special chapters; they'd be hienously OP if everything was kept to a single book, unlike Xenos who can easily fit most of their various themes/subfactions within the confines of 1 book.
Feral Orks for example only need Boarboyz, Madboyz & Squiggoths added back into their book and they're perfectly doable. Likewise, the only thing Eldar really need are a few new Character options to pull some FOC shinanigans + Wild Rider & Black Guardians options and all the Craftworlds are back. Ie: add a new option for a Court of the Young King which then allows you 1 Troop Aspect per Exarch in the Court = Biel Tan. (ie: each Banshee Exarch allows for a unit of Banshees to be taken as a Troops choice)
Guard simply need a few optional Combat Doctrines to be added back into the Command Squad option, whereas Tyranids just need some general re-balancing and the inclusion of the Genestealer Patriarch + Genestealer hybrids.

On the other hand, trying to balance a book with all the individual specialty Chapter units would be an utter nightmare, especially to put into practice with the massive amount of exceptions/restrictions & clarifications you'd need.

Experiment 626 wrote:
No one is arguing that Chaos Marines are not strictly speaking evil "Space Marines."

Actually, that's exactly what they are arguing.

Experiment 626 wrote:
So, you want GW to ignore it's main cash cow

Yes.

Unashamedly so. Their profit is not my concern when making this suggestion. I'm not even convinced that Space Marine focus was started for financial reasons to begin with. But that discussion is not relevant to this thread.

Experiment 626 wrote:
unlike Xenos who can easily fit most of their various themes/subfactions within the confines of 1 book.

Marines could, too.

Orks in the lore have FAR more variety than Space Marines. So do the Imperial Guard and Tyranids. If IG, Tyranids, and Orks manage to have everything in one codex despite being the three most highly variable factions in the game, it's certainly possible for such a highly limited and dogmatic faction as Space Marines to all be stuffed in a single book.

Hell, Space Marines can't even really function in most situations without the help of the Imperial Guard.

 Melissia wrote:
Hell, Space Marines can't even really function in most situations without the help of the Imperial Guard.

But then what does that have to do with anything?

In the context of the rest of my post.

LOL @ Melissa, she has gone over the top in this thread.

If any codex deserves to be dropped its the demon dex. The demons should be rolled back into the CSM dex and treated like the second edition book. For those that do not have it, there were chaos cult and demon world lists in addition to the main feature which was chaos space marines, legions and demons.

Chaos Daemons being separate from whiny marines with spiky shoulder pads is about the only reason I'd bother to get a chaos army at this point.

The game became a better place when Daemons were separated from CSMs.

 Melissia wrote:
Chaos Daemons being separate from whiny marines with spiky shoulder pads is about the only reason I'd bother to get a chaos army at this point.

The game became a better place when Daemons were separated from CSMs.

You are arguing against yourself now. In second edition you had the option of a separate demon army and a csm army in one book. Now it takes two books to accomplish even fewer lists (no cults) thus leaving fewer codex slots for what you want which is more xenos. The demon codex is such a failure they are only good for fluff allies for csm so they might as well be in that book.

JWhex wrote:
You are arguing against yourself now.

No I'm not.

Second edition wasn't all that great; remembering it as some obscure golden age is doing yourself a severe disfavor.

As a player who has always loved Chaos, I would have no problem with all the Daemon and Chaos Marine units being described and given rules in one Codex, with a couple of alternate Force Organiser Lists in it.

Mainly Daemon, Mainly Marine, Mainly Traitors and Heretics. Yup, sounds cool to me.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 schmoozies wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:


And Lost and Damned? Seriously? A book that hasn't seen the light of day since 1st edition? People say Chaos Marines are not at all dissimilar to regular Space Marines, but Renegade Guardsmen are extremely different from the Imperial Guard codex?

And Genestealer Cult? Where did that even come from? Are there actually large numbers of people anxiously awaiting these books?
ers of people anxiously awaiting these books?

Or you know the Lost and the Damned list that appeared in the Eye of Terror Campaign. Yes it would feature traitor guard fairly heavily, but you also get other choices like Beastmen, ans some more diverse cultist options.

No you really don't. Lost and the Damned was Guard with Chaos Marines.

I have Codex: Eye of Terror sitting right in my hands. I can also tell you that the people who I have played against who used C: EoT used it exactly in that way. Guard with Chaos Marines.

Genestealer cults were a viable army in 2nd edition and have been completly ignored by the design studio since. There are several fan dexs out their for them, and one even made it to print in the old Citadel Journal so yes I'd say their is interest.

Ignored with good reason. They're not a "real" army. They're Guard with some Tyranid units.

Plus if you don't llike those options fine how about Ad Mech. Its one of the most commonly requested factions that gets no love. Or the triumphant return of the Squats updated and retooled to get rid of the more silly aspects of the old model range and bring in the astetic that they established with the Epic releases.
Jon

You're NEVER going to see the Squats. Ever. Let them rest in peace.

Ad Mech is the same as Lost and the Damned or the Genestealer Cults:
They can easily be proxied using existing rulebooks.
Given that GW/BL/FW can't even make up their mind about what Skittari are (some descriptions are that they're cybernetically enhanced Guardsmen who retain their mental faculties while others have them being nothing more than Servitors without the grafted weapons), there's a bit of difficulty in finding the right book.

So if all these armies can be subbed using the Guard book with allies why do I need 5 different marine books to reflect the one or two squad difference that most marine chapters have?

Jon

Because space Vikings riding huge wolves is fething awesome.

 schmoozies wrote:

So if all these armies can be subbed using the Guard book with allies why do I need 5 different marine books to reflect the one or two squad difference that most marine chapters have?

Jon

Probably because those armies did not really have special rules or formations associated with them, while Marine Chapters do have such things.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Ditch GKs as a Codex, bring in Codex: Inquisition, and be done with it.

This idea makes too much sense. Therefore, it won't happen.

Have an exalt, anyway.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 schmoozies wrote:

So if all these armies can be subbed using the Guard book with allies why do I need 5 different marine books to reflect the one or two squad difference that most marine chapters have?

Jon

Probably because those armies did not really have special rules or formations associated with them, while Marine Chapters do have such things.

Again that just having one rule for marines and another for other armies. Marines only have special rules because they have their own codexes - the basic SM codex gave characters for those "unlucky" Chapters to give them representation - the same could have bene done for most of the "Special needs" Chapters.

Otherwise you are bsically saying non marines should always "make do" with what there is already is but Marines have to have their "special" rules, even if its just for the odd squad difference. Which is nonsense

I just don't get why people would want chaos removed! You don't want enemies in your war game?!

I would condense into

Space Marines (Codex Astartes)
(Basic marine codex)

Chaos Space Marine
(Basic Chaos Lists)

Inquisition
(Role Grey Knights into them add SOB as well)

Chapter Variants
(A separate codex listing all the unique traits of the individual chapters with added sections to create your own "custom" chapters)

I haven't read the other fifteen pages.

I wouldn't mind all the marine chapters in one codex, it would be better for people who might want to play space wolves and vanilla marines and so on, then again you could keep the vanilla codex and add the DA, SW, BT, and so on in another codex.

I have the BT codex and I could easily see taking some of the filler out and replacing it with other chapters.

 Rippy wrote:
I just don't get why people would want chaos removed! You don't want enemies in your war game?!

While I'm NOT arguing for the removal of all Chaos forces (even in my half-assed reference to combining all marine codices in to one book, I did not include Chaos Daemons, who are not Space Marines), the idea is that you'd represent chaos forces through imperial guard or space marines codices, perhaps allied with daemons.

Besides, CSMs are a tiny, insignificant portion of Chaos forces in the lore, especially compared to the forces colloquially known as "the lost and the damned". If you REALLY wanted to represent the forces of Chaos on tabletop you'd very likely play traitor guard allied with daemons anyway.

 Melissia wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
I just don't get why people would want chaos removed! You don't want enemies in your war game?!

While I'm NOT arguing for the removal of all Chaos forces (even in my half-assed reference to combining all marine codices in to one book, I did not include Chaos Daemons, who are not Space Marines), the idea is that you'd represent chaos forces through imperial guard or space marines codices, perhaps allied with daemons.

Besides, CSMs are a tiny, insignificant portion of Chaos forces in the lore, especially compared to the forces colloquially known as "the lost and the damned". If you REALLY wanted to represent the forces of Chaos on tabletop you'd very likely play traitor guard allied with daemons anyway.

Sure, Chaos Marines are so insignificant that they only led the complete fustigation of fething Cadia itself and it's surrounding sectors!
Backstory does not equal game rules...

If that were the case, then we'd be throwing out not only Marines, but also Eldar because let's face it, they're a dying race. And we wouldn't need Necrons either since they're only just starting to wake-up. And how often do the Tau *really* come into play in the lore since they're still just a tiny empire stuck waaaaay out on the edges of the Ultima Segmentum?!

Going purely by how many front-line forces there are in the backstory, then basically we may as well throw out everything bar Orks, Tyranids & IG because they outnumber everyone else...

 Melissia wrote:

JWhex wrote:
You are arguing against yourself now.

No I'm not.

Second edition wasn't all that great; remembering it as some obscure golden age is doing yourself a severe disfavor.

I never said 2nd was a golden age. I gave an example from 2nd simply to show that they had done it before and thus it was feasible to put multiple lists in a single codex.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
I just don't get why people would want chaos removed! You don't want enemies in your war game?!

While I'm NOT arguing for the removal of all Chaos forces (even in my half-assed reference to combining all marine codices in to one book, I did not include Chaos Daemons, who are not Space Marines), the idea is that you'd represent chaos forces through imperial guard or space marines codices, perhaps allied with daemons.

Besides, CSMs are a tiny, insignificant portion of Chaos forces in the lore, especially compared to the forces colloquially known as "the lost and the damned". If you REALLY wanted to represent the forces of Chaos on tabletop you'd very likely play traitor guard allied with daemons anyway.

Sure, Chaos Marines are so insignificant that they only led the complete fustigation of fething Cadia itself and it's surrounding sectors!
Backstory does not equal game rules...

If that were the case, then we'd be throwing out not only Marines, but also Eldar because let's face it, they're a dying race. And we wouldn't need Necrons either since they're only just starting to wake-up. And how often do the Tau *really* come into play in the lore since they're still just a tiny empire stuck waaaaay out on the edges of the Ultima Segmentum?!

Going purely by how many front-line forces there are in the backstory, then basically we may as well throw out everything bar Orks, Tyranids & IG because they outnumber everyone else...

... Chaos Marines backed by tens of thousands of thrall-wizards, Traitor Guardsmen, Daemons, pirates, raiders, mercenaries, slave-soldiers, Dark Mechanicus Skitaarii, Warp-tainted Xenos, Daemons, mortal warbands, Chaos Orks, Ork Mercenaries, Daemons without number, Renegades and Heretics, and did I mention Daemons yet?

Just like their Loyalist counterparts, CSM are primarily shock-troops, not siege warfare specialists (with one notable exception). Just like the Loyalists, they win wars when they can maximize the battlefield to their strengths (mobility and overwhelming shock-and-awe tactics), but otherwise they are relegated to breaking open the foe's defenses, so that the Traitor Guard (or its equivalent) can exploit that weakness, just as the IG do with the Space Marines.

I would say all of the loyalist codex since And we shall know no fear is so retardedly overpowered.

I wouldn't cut any of the current spessmuhreen books simply because people spend much time and effort to create their favourite army and taking that away wouldn't be cool.
On the other hand i would hate to see any aditional spacemarine books. The current ones are certainly enough, especialy when there are still armies which currently get no love whatsoever.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Probably because those armies did not really have special rules or formations associated with them, while Marine Chapters do have such things.

The only reason the marine chapters have all those special rules is because they have a separate book and need content for the book. The only chapter that has a real claim to being a separate book and doing things completely differently than other chapters are the Grey Knights. Space wolves have a unique "overall" force organization, but in practice on the table it doesn't matter that much. Wolf lords, greyhunters, wolf scouts, blood claws and long fangs are just Captians, Tactical Marines, scouts, Assault marines and devastators and can be easily represented by those units in a rulebook. A single book gets rid of the cheaper, but better issues, the "we horde this blueprint" units to rationalize why only one chapter has access to a tank to help add another unique unit to that chapter book (baal predator, vengeance land speeder), and finally units and rules that make no sense to be limited to a specific chapter due to that chapter's history or something that they benefit from that other marines don't (librarian dreadnought, and long fangs). With all marines using the same unit entries there is no longer any reason to limit access to certain things from certain chapters either since they will no longer have the over the top advantages they currently possess. Finally those chapters that have truly unique and special units would see those units listed in the codex: Death company, wolf cavalry, ravenwing, but units like sanguinary guard would disappear except in name beacuse they can easily fit in as vanguard vets and don't need to be a unique unit.

Include a chapter selection requirement, and a table that alters force organization and unit availability based on chapter selected and you can cover every chapter.

For example:
Blood angels: Death company, assault marines as troops
White scars: Fast attack as troops
Black templars: Tacticals and scouts can form combined squads as a single troops entry (or some other method of representing the neophytes).
Crimson Fists: Sternguard as troops
Imperial Fists: All fortifications bought get +1 to cover save value (2+ max)

Etc, etc.

Skriker

 Skriker wrote:
For example:
Blood angels: Death company, assault marines as troops
White scars: Fast attack as troops
Black templars: Tacticals and scouts can form combined squads as a single troops entry (or some other method of representing the neophytes).
Crimson Fists: Sternguard as troops
Imperial Fists: All fortifications bought get +1 to cover save value (2+ max)

Etc, etc.

Skriker

Nah. That massively simplifies the variant codices.

And yet it does so while distilling the core of what they are.

For all of you who are saying that you would have the "basic" Sm codex and then another book for all the other chapters, at that point, why not just make it one book? I say this because if you buy the second book to play BA, DA, etc., won't you need the first for all the vanilla units anyway?

I think the main reason why GW does not do this is because they need a steady release of new books / models to last then over the years of the edition. If every single MEQ army came out day one of a new release, does that mean that they also have to have ALL the shiny new models out as well? By keeping them all spaced out, it keeps interest in their game and helps keep the game fresh / exciting over the life of the edition.

With that said I think there could be minor tweaks like combining DA and BA, GK and SoB, Vanilla and BT, and making rules to field the different armies in the same book. That way you still have plenty of books to show off new models while spacing it out and making sure that it isn't too long between codex editions.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Were I in charge they'd do one book with 'variant list' sections in the back like the Horus Heresy list for Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Inquisition (core Inquisition forces, Sisters of Battle, Grey Knights, Deathwatch), Chaos (including Daemons, CSM, and renegade Guard), Eldar (Craftworld, Dark, Corsairs), Tau, Necrons, Orks, and Tyranids and call it done, but I'm not in charge, so...

Plus that'd clump releases, which would damage GW's business model, which is probably the real reason they don't cut books once they exist.

Sisters of Battle are not Inquisition. This really needs to be said so often.

Once upon a time there were three Ordos of the Inquisition (the Ordo Hereticus, who fought heretics and rogue psykers; the Ordo Malleus, who fought daemons and daemon cults; and the Ordo Xenos, who fought aliens). They each had an Order Militant to carry out their will (Sisters of Battle for the Ordo Hereticus, the Grey Knights for the Ordo Malleus, and the Deathwatch for the Ordo Xenos). Then Matt Ward came along and decreed that the Grey Knights were awesome enough to do everyone's job with only eight hundred Marines, which I find kind of silly.

Sisters of Battle are strictly speaking their own organization, but given significant thematic and historical ties to the Ordo Hereticus I would still go back to the pre-5e GK fluff on the Orders Militant if I were in charge.

Note also the key phrase in all of this is "If I were in charge." Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, I'm actually not.

I think the main reason why GW does not do this is because they need a steady release of new books / models to last then over the years of the edition

This most assuredly is not the entire case, because if it was they wouldn't leave armies basically dead for ten to fifteen years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Sisters of Battle are strictly speaking their own organization, but given significant thematic and historical ties to the Ordo Hereticus I would still go back to the pre-5e GK fluff on the Orders Militant if I were in charge.

The Sisters were never a part of the ordo hereticus, unlike the Deathwatch/Ordo Xenos and Grey Knights/Ordo Malleus.

Even in C:WH, Sisters were not actually a part of the Inquisition-- merely allies.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Were I in charge they'd do one book with 'variant list' sections in the back like the Horus Heresy list for Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Inquisition (core Inquisition forces, Sisters of Battle, Grey Knights, Deathwatch), Chaos (including Daemons, CSM, and renegade Guard), Eldar (Craftworld, Dark, Corsairs), Tau, Necrons, Orks, and Tyranids and call it done, but I'm not in charge, so...

Plus that'd clump releases, which would damage GW's business model, which is probably the real reason they don't cut books once they exist.

Sisters of Battle are not Inquisition. This really needs to be said so often.

Once upon a time there were three Ordos of the Inquisition (the Ordo Hereticus, who fought heretics and rogue psykers; the Ordo Malleus, who fought daemons and daemon cults; and the Ordo Xenos, who fought aliens). They each had an Order Militant to carry out their will (Sisters of Battle for the Ordo Hereticus, the Grey Knights for the Ordo Malleus, and the Deathwatch for the Ordo Xenos). Then Matt Ward came along and decreed that the Grey Knights were awesome enough to do everyone's job with only eight hundred Marines, which I find kind of silly.

Sisters of Battle are strictly speaking their own organization, but given significant thematic and historical ties to the Ordo Hereticus I would still go back to the pre-5e GK fluff on the Orders Militant if I were in charge.

Note also the key phrase in all of this is "If I were in charge." Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, I'm actually not.

Even the book itself calls the Sisters of Battle the "Fighting arm of the Ecclesiarchy".
The problem is that the Order Militants are actual, separate groups with their own rankings. While they would help, they were their own fully functional groups. They are not "Fully linked" with the other, though it would make sense to have them still together.

 Melissia wrote:
And yet it does so while distilling the core of what they are.

Only if we ignore the majority of what they actually are.

Either way, not happening. GW's not going to cut their profitable lines in favor of expanding on stuff that doesn't sell nearly as well.

Ultimately, the profitability of Marines and Marines +1 mean they're always going to have a bunch of different codexes. I'm still all for the super-large Marine codex with really in-depth customization and all sorts of special units for different variant chapters, but it's never, ever going to happen.

What they're doing is profitable; marines make money, and while I don't imagine a pair of Marine dexes (GK and SM, not discussing CSM, as they have no business being rolled in) with lots of customization and special units for specific chapters and their successors would negatively affect ales, but the chance that it might harm GW's single most profitable line, and complicate logistics as people buy other armies means they'll never change the current setup.

What is possible, I think, is an Inquisiton Codex. People like the inquisition, and customizable ordos warbands with the various ordos militant, all producible with current model ranges, but with room for expansion would seem a decent business and gameplay move. Especially after all the WAAC spending on GKs in 5th tapered off, they might view it as a way to increase the sales of the GK line, and yet another marine variation they can sell; Deathwatch.

I'd cut Space Wolves because I don't like them.

Not to mention they upset the inquisition enough to have them threaten to annihilate Fenris. There's enough of a back story there to have them taken out.by the inquisition.

GW could rewrite every codex and release them all within a certain time frame just to bring each and every one up to standard. This would help with the amount of codex books. It would also mean the Space Marine books could be done in a way that there was space between releases for other forces to be sorted.

After that they could rather easily make new units and models and release them over the years to update said books. Which would give marine, xenos etc players time to get their stuff and build, paint etc. It would also mean that no army was negelcted for 10+years because GW wanted to make more Space Marines

If GW actually used white dwarf as a "hobby magazine" the rules for these new units etc could be thrown in that.

Other companies manage such things but other companies are smart.

Obviously none of this will happen cos we all know GW is only about the money and while they are getting money, they have no reason to care what its fans who are left anyway want!

Motograter wrote:
GW could rewrite every codex and release them all within a certain time frame just to bring each and every one up to standard. This would help with the amount of codex books. It would also mean the Space Marine books could be done in a way that there was space between releases for other forces to be sorted.

Pretty sure that's what they're doing right now

Changing gears:

BT & BA need to be rolled into the SM codex. They just do. It would be good for everyone involved.

For BA (after 8 pages of fluff on them)
If you include a "build your own chapter" matrix and give the ability to make Assault marine troops, all you need is some special characters (4 pages of then) and you're there. Give predators big flamers and assault cannons in the codex, and add a new CC dreadnaught arm and BA are done well enough. The rest of it can be covered with a couple simple options to existing units (let Tacticals take an Apothecary, let Honour Guard take a Jet Pack, etc).

For BT (give them 8 paged of fluff too)
Let a DIY option mix Scouts with Tacticals, give up 4 special characters, and the rest is covered with a "Crusade Seal" option unlocked by a character, or an "Oath" option unlocked by another. Make adamantium mantle a unique special equipment and you're done.

 Seaward wrote:
Nah. That massively simplifies the variant codices.

One could argue that the only reason those codecies need to be complicated to begin with is to validate their own existence.

Skriker

 Skriker wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Nah. That massively simplifies the variant codices.

One could argue that the only reason those codecies need to be complicated to begin with is to validate their own existence.

Skriker

This. A thousand times this... as if, besides SW the variants are even significant. I know they won't be bundled (except BT) but they should

 MajorStoffer wrote:
What is possible, I think, is an Inquisiton Codex. People like the inquisition, and customizable ordos warbands with the various ordos militant, all producible with current model ranges, but with room for expansion would seem a decent business and gameplay move. Especially after all the WAAC spending on GKs in 5th tapered off, they might view it as a way to increase the sales of the GK line, and yet another marine variation they can sell; Deathwatch.

Sadly you would be wrong. They already tried this focus on the Inquistion with customizable ordos warbands with the various ordos militant and it FAILED. I think they were some of the best books for 40k in a long time, but I would be in the minority as the Witchhunter's codex especially did very poorly. Didn't help that the only new SoB minis were the sisters repentia... I still think the Grey Knights in the daemon hunters book were the best incarnation of them to date. Too overpriced in the past and too uber killy against everything now and even more uber killy against daemons just ruined them for me.

Skriker

 Skriker wrote:
One could argue that the only reason those codecies need to be complicated to begin with is to validate their own existence.

Skriker

One could, yes. There's a saying about spilled milk that comes to mind, however, and collapsing them back into one codex now would essentially retcon several editions' worth of established fluff, units, and rules.

Guys, it's pretty simple. If you want variant non-Space Marine codices, you need to buy the gak out of non-Space Marine models. And convince everyone you know to do the same. And convince most of the people who talk about 40K on the internet to also do the same.

 Seaward wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
One could argue that the only reason those codecies need to be complicated to begin with is to validate their own existence.

Skriker

One could, yes. There's a saying about spilled milk that comes to mind, however, and collapsing them back into one codex now would essentially retcon several editions' worth of established fluff, units, and rules.

Rules perhaps, but that happens all the time anyway. No reason the fluff needs to be retconned however.

Guys, it's pretty simple. If you want variant non-Space Marine codices, you need to buy the gak out of non-Space Marine models. And convince everyone you know to do the same. And convince most of the people who talk about 40K on the internet to also do the same.

It's a chicken and egg problem. Other armies don't sell as well because they get less support, they go forever without updates, they have lots of (or are entirely) expensive and awkward to acquire metal models/finecast models and direct order parts (Eldar, Sisters of Battle), or require a much larger investment than SM armies (IG and Orks will typically cost 50-200% more than a similar point SM army), etc.

If you're just getting into the game, for most people the most rational choice in terms of price and competitiveness is an SM army of some sort typically. When that's the case, of course other armies aren't going to do as well, and that in turn created a self-reinforcing cycle.

 Seaward wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
One could argue that the only reason those codecies need to be complicated to begin with is to validate their own existence.

Skriker

One could, yes. There's a saying about spilled milk that comes to mind, however, and collapsing them back into one codex now would essentially retcon several editions' worth of established fluff, units, and rules.

Guys, it's pretty simple. If you want variant non-Space Marine codices, you need to buy the gak out of non-Space Marine models. And convince everyone you know to do the same. And convince most of the people who talk about 40K on the internet to also do the same.

They ripped a ton of stuff from chaos and a number of codex's come 4th edition.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
One could argue that the only reason those codecies need to be complicated to begin with is to validate their own existence.

Skriker

One could, yes. There's a saying about spilled milk that comes to mind, however, and collapsing them back into one codex now would essentially retcon several editions' worth of established fluff, units, and rules.

Guys, it's pretty simple. If you want variant non-Space Marine codices, you need to buy the gak out of non-Space Marine models. And convince everyone you know to do the same. And convince most of the people who talk about 40K on the internet to also do the same.

They ripped a ton of stuff from chaos and a number of codex's come 4th edition.

Yes, they did. People are still complaining (and rightfully so). How is it a good idea to do that again?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
One could argue that the only reason those codecies need to be complicated to begin with is to validate their own existence.

Skriker

One could, yes. There's a saying about spilled milk that comes to mind, however, and collapsing them back into one codex now would essentially retcon several editions' worth of established fluff, units, and rules.

Guys, it's pretty simple. If you want variant non-Space Marine codices, you need to buy the gak out of non-Space Marine models. And convince everyone you know to do the same. And convince most of the people who talk about 40K on the internet to also do the same.

They ripped a ton of stuff from chaos and a number of codex's come 4th edition.

Yes, they did. People are still complaining (and rightfully so). How is it a good idea to do that again?

I dunno, but everytime I bring up the 3.5 chaos codex everyone seems to agree they should have lost all their options, had chaos daemons ripped from them, and a number of things torn down to be very weak in effectiveness. So apparently people are also saying it was very good idea as well.

They should cut all but Codex: Space Marines.
The differences are negligible enough that they can fit them into one book (except Chaos SMs of course) and stop cluttering up the release schedule.
If they did this, people would stop holding out for their respective Codex before purchasing miniatures. Codex and Miniature sales would not change (If people really want to play SMs, then they will.) and they'd save time and money on not printing so many iterations of what is essentially the same army.
We may even see a lot of the sales become better distributed among the other armies. (Heaven forbid!)

 Archonate wrote:
They should cut all but Codex: Space Marines.
The differences are negligible enough that they can fit them into one book (except Chaos SMs of course) and stop cluttering up the release schedule.
If they did this, people would stop holding out for their respective Codex before purchasing miniatures. Codex and Miniature sales would not change (If people really want to play SMs, then they will.) and they'd save time and money on not printing so many iterations of what is essentially the same army.
We may even see a lot of the sales become better distributed among the other armies. (Heaven forbid!)

They'd save time and money on not updating their biggest cash cow as often? Wut?

And I don't think anyone minds non-SM getting sales, what people mind is that they don't want their armies gutted so that someone else can have it better.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
One could argue that the only reason those codecies need to be complicated to begin with is to validate their own existence.

Skriker

One could, yes. There's a saying about spilled milk that comes to mind, however, and collapsing them back into one codex now would essentially retcon several editions' worth of established fluff, units, and rules.

Guys, it's pretty simple. If you want variant non-Space Marine codices, you need to buy the gak out of non-Space Marine models. And convince everyone you know to do the same. And convince most of the people who talk about 40K on the internet to also do the same.

They ripped a ton of stuff from chaos and a number of codex's come 4th edition.

Yes, they did. People are still complaining (and rightfully so). How is it a good idea to do that again?

I dunno, but everytime I bring up the 3.5 chaos codex everyone seems to agree they should have lost all their options, had chaos daemons ripped from them, and a number of things torn down to be very weak in effectiveness. So apparently people are also saying it was very good idea as well.

Or rather, people hate how silly OP the 3.5 codex was and what a convoluted mess the rules were.

Chaos Marines are in a better state right now with their 6th ed book in terms of building Legion lists. The only things that are still 'impossible' to field are the Noise Termies/Preds/Dreads.
Everything else at least has a decent 'counts as' option open to it.

 Skriker wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Nah. That massively simplifies the variant codices.

One could argue that the only reason those codecies need to be complicated to begin with is to validate their own existence.

And that argument is completely valid and correct.

 Melissia wrote:

 Skriker wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Nah. That massively simplifies the variant codices.

One could argue that the only reason those codecies need to be complicated to begin with is to validate their own existence.

And that argument is completely valid and correct.

To the people making the decision, the codexes are validated by how many models they sell not the level of their complexity.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
One could argue that the only reason those codecies need to be complicated to begin with is to validate their own existence.

Skriker

One could, yes. There's a saying about spilled milk that comes to mind, however, and collapsing them back into one codex now would essentially retcon several editions' worth of established fluff, units, and rules.

Guys, it's pretty simple. If you want variant non-Space Marine codices, you need to buy the gak out of non-Space Marine models. And convince everyone you know to do the same. And convince most of the people who talk about 40K on the internet to also do the same.

They ripped a ton of stuff from chaos and a number of codex's come 4th edition.

Yes, they did. People are still complaining (and rightfully so). How is it a good idea to do that again?

I dunno, but everytime I bring up the 3.5 chaos codex everyone seems to agree they should have lost all their options, had chaos daemons ripped from them, and a number of things torn down to be very weak in effectiveness. So apparently people are also saying it was very good idea as well.

Or rather, people hate how silly OP the 3.5 codex was and what a convoluted mess the rules were.

Chaos Marines are in a better state right now with their 6th ed book in terms of building Legion lists. The only things that are still 'impossible' to field are the Noise Termies/Preds/Dreads.
Everything else at least has a decent 'counts as' option open to it.

The only cult terminator that matches closely enough is Khorne terminators. All they really miss is WS5 (of course khorne bezerkers are crap for their cost, but still)

The rest have no counts as option, nothing flavorful outside of cult troops. No poisoned flamers for nurgle troops, no sonic weapons for slaaneshi.

As for the rest of the Individual legions outside the gods..

Iron legion is the closest to having a full counts as army, with the Warpsmith, new daemon engines, full armaments, and some other things.

The rest..Yeah, not even close.

What a load of gash you chaps are talking. I don't know why people bring up 'but fluff!' as an argument. The background is changeable to fit any purpose, the background exists solely to provide context for stories and games. That context can be changed as required to suit new editions of the games, or new stories (e.g. the HH books).

Moving onto the main point that I want to make, it is fairly clear that Space Marines are the USP of the 40k setting, the thing that defines it in a way that "things are a bit dark" doesn't - Guardsmen and Eldar are good, but there is a reason that they don't make the front covers. Everyone who plays 40k either likes marines, or likes to posture against them (e.g. Xenos players painting anti-marine slogans on their units). Space Marines, effectively, are 40k. You may not like it, but it is foolishness to argue otherwise: try counting how many people you know who own some variant of 3+ armour.

The reason that this matters is that Space Marines are the baseline of the game. In Fantasy, a basic human is the baseline - the game assumes WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I3 and so on. In 40k, a Space Marine, with his 4s across the board and his 3+ save, is the baseline. Note how weapons tend to be priced according to that statline: we all think that lasguns are crap, due to their weakness versus it; we all think that Plasma Guns are great, due to their strength versus it. Thus, to ask 'why must there be so many Space Marine codices' is to misunderstand the point of that baseline: it serves as the statline that can most easily be used, and slightly altered, to be the building block of an army. The reason that we have Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels, instead of Xenoi or Guardsmen equivalents - Hrud, Exodites for Space Wolves, whatever - is because the game is built around that statline. When people think, "I want an army that runs around and stabs stuff in a bestial fashion", they look to the Space Wolf codex and find that it fits into the game's baseline, with some slight changes. Thus the baseline has been used to build several other armies, which people have duly bought as being minor variants which fit a certain playstyle. No doubt they could have been built with another baseline - but not in 40k, because here the expected and rules-centred statline is that of a Space Marine.

So the reason that there are so many Space Marine codices is that the game is built around having them. If this game had been built around Imperial Guard, then perhaps you might see more IG-style factions. Much like in Fantasy, the human baseline leads to the 3 Elven factions, BoC, WoC, Empire, Bretonnia - all falling reasonably close to that baseline, to varying degrees. But to then say, "Well we should change the baseline" is to further compound misunderstanding: because you have forgotten that Warhammer 40k, the game that started with Space Marines on the front cover, that was inspired by books about Space Marine style figures (Judge Dredd, Starship Troopers, etc), and whose peripheral industry has identified Space Marines as the most important element to focus on (e.g. THQ's games, Black Library books) is about Space Marines. People like them. People want to play them. They further want to play them in a variety of different army styles. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand the actual facts of this game and the desires of its player base.

JWhex wrote:
To the people making the decision, the codexes are validated by how many models they sell not the level of their complexity.

I don't particularly care about that, or about the inevitable chicken-egg argument.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

The only cult terminator that matches closely enough is Khorne terminators. All they really miss is WS5 (of course khorne bezerkers are crap for their cost, but still)

The rest have no counts as option, nothing flavorful outside of cult troops. No poisoned flamers for nurgle troops, no sonic weapons for slaaneshi.

As for the rest of the Individual legions outside the gods..

Iron legion is the closest to having a full counts as army, with the Warpsmith, new daemon engines, full armaments, and some other things.

The rest..Yeah, not even close.

I can agree that's highly fustrating that CSM players still can't really use their converted Noise Termies.
But the other cults? Nurgle never had anything like poisoned flamers so, they've lost no options there, while Rubric Termies lost the +1W wound but gained weapon options and +1 invuln.

Word Bearers have their cult Daemons back through Daemon allies, plus they gained the Dark Apostle and masses of cultist fodder.

Night Lords can be ably done by maxing out Fast Attack like Bikers, Raptors and/or Talons, while there's two named HQ options who can 'count as' in order to ensure the D3 Infiltrate.
The only things they're currently still without are army-wide Night Vision and Stealth. (which btw, would be broken as feth on an entire MEQ army!)

Alpha Legion now has cultists, plus IG allies for representing local forces who've sided with them while again, those two HQ options can easily 'count as' and give them some Infiltrators.
Or else just stick with the main CSM Warlord table as it's decent at representing the various secretive missions the Alpha Legion will set for themselves.


Not seeing the problem outside of the Sonic Weapons for dedicated Legion fans... The options are there if you look for them.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

The only cult terminator that matches closely enough is Khorne terminators. All they really miss is WS5 (of course khorne bezerkers are crap for their cost, but still)

The rest have no counts as option, nothing flavorful outside of cult troops. No poisoned flamers for nurgle troops, no sonic weapons for slaaneshi.

As for the rest of the Individual legions outside the gods..

Iron legion is the closest to having a full counts as army, with the Warpsmith, new daemon engines, full armaments, and some other things.

The rest..Yeah, not even close.

I can agree that's highly fustrating that CSM players still can't really use their converted Noise Termies.
But the other cults? Nurgle never had anything like poisoned flamers so, they've lost no options there, while Rubric Termies lost the +1W wound but gained weapon options and +1 invuln.

Word Bearers have their cult Daemons back through Daemon allies, plus they gained the Dark Apostle and masses of cultist fodder.

Night Lords can be ably done by maxing out Fast Attack like Bikers, Raptors and/or Talons, while there's two named HQ options who can 'count as' in order to ensure the D3 Infiltrate.
The only things they're currently still without are army-wide Night Vision and Stealth. (which btw, would be broken as feth on an entire MEQ army!)

Alpha Legion now has cultists, plus IG allies for representing local forces who've sided with them while again, those two HQ options can easily 'count as' and give them some Infiltrators.
Or else just stick with the main CSM Warlord table as it's decent at representing the various secretive missions the Alpha Legion will set for themselves.


Not seeing the problem outside of the Sonic Weapons for dedicated Legion fans... The options are there if you look for them.

Except it doesn't fit the "Feel" of the army, as one quoted from this thread, for those who prefer their special codex.

Of course what I was meaning was that they should've expanded the options out. (Also the Dark Apostle is pretty bad). Even when forgeworld got a crack at it they made far more flavorful versions of the legions even before their fall.