34644
Post by: Mr Nobody
I've heard alot of griping about there being multiple space marine codex. So I had the idea that, what if these were combined into one large codex, with diffferent play styles choices inside of it instead of having a separate one for each. Of course, this would be an expensive codex. So my question is would you prefer the multiple codices, or have a large, unified codex?
19099
Post by: Dark
I'm ok with separated codices, but other factions would deserve some of that love
30625
Post by: SumYungGui
You'd best don your asbestos suit and batten down the hatches for the storm of flames headed your way. You see it was OK to cram Orks klans, Eldar craftworlds and Chaos legions all into single books but it's just not acceptable for the poster boys.
34439
Post by: Formosa
tis true, they should put them all in one codex, but im not willing to pay £50 for that codex.
It would have to be at least 600 pages, for all the fluff and variant armies (to be done properly)
19099
Post by: Dark
The thing is, if GW stopped hiding behind that "We're only a miniature company that happends to make rules for them" it'd be possible to have códices for everyone.
34644
Post by: Mr Nobody
At first, the expense would seem hard on your wallet, but buying a single expensive codex would actually be cheaper than than if you bought all the codices separately.
27391
Post by: purplefood
IMO There should only be 3 SM codeci at most:
The SW codex
The BT codex
And the main SM codex
The codeci were meant to show a difference in structure and only the SW and BT truly have that... and even then they could be folded into a super SM codex pretty easily.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
It wouldn't be a problem to integrate SM's so we basically just have C: SM, C: CSM, C: DH/ GK.
In all honesty, the differences between most loyalist SM armies are rather hamfisted and flimsy, there simply to justify a different book, not really critical underlying differences. Most differences are less than the differences between their own codex updates. C: SM 4E plays far more differently from C: SM 5E than say, C: BA 5E play from C: SM 5E.
Hell, C: BA and C: SM outright share like 80% of their units and almost all wargear, and most of the rest are simply variants of similar units. Between C: SM and C: BA there are only two units in each book that don't really have a counterpart in the opposite codex. C: SM has Thunderfires and LS Storms, C: BA has Death Company and Stormravens (sanguinary guard are just slightly beefed Vanguard Vets, don't really count).
Even with C: SW, as is they are mostly C: CSM "undivided" but with Counterattack and loyalist equipment and waaayy cheaper. The only unit that C: SW has that doesn't have an identical counterpart or very similar equivalent in C: SM (or C: CSM) is Thunderwolf Cavalry, a rather hamfisted fanfic-y addition.
DA's whole shtick is basically just FoC swapping that other armies already do, other than that they really have nothing truly unique except SC's.
BT's again, primarily just random special rules as with the rest and then can have mixed Scout/ Tac squads. Not really something they needed their own book for.
None of these would be very difficult to fold into one book. Most really never should have had their own book in the first place.
Also, to those complaining about having to buy a potentialy $50 book, at the rate codecies have increased in price over the last 4 years we will be there in another 4 years anyway, and it doesn't seem to hurt most other wargames, e.g. Flames of War with $50 operational theater books (e.g. Eastern Front).
Cutting out 4 armies and amalgamating them into a single Loyalist SM book would solve a lot of headaches with books spread over various editions, differing versions of identical wargear, increasingly random new units hamfisted in to maintain "uniqueness", etc.
It would also mean that armies get updated faster. At this point, GW puts out 2-3 books a year, cutting 4 armies from that cycle could mean that GW gets through every army two years faster, maybe even within the span of a single edition. Wouldn't that be nice? 
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I like the cut of your jib.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
SumYungGui wrote:You'd best don your asbestos suit and batten down the hatches for the storm of flames headed your way. You see it was OK to cram Orks klans, Eldar craftworlds and Chaos legions all into single books but it's just not acceptable for the poster boys.
I love how people point towards "Chaos Legions" and "Ork Klans" as "crammed into single books".
They've, since 2nd edition, been single books.
The only one you're even remotely close to having a good example to go on is "Eldar Craftworlds", and even then that book was the size of the old Blood Angels/Dark Angels/Space Wolves/Catachan Codices. And required you to have a parent Codex to work from.
Vaktathi wrote:DA's whole shtick is basically just FoC swapping that other armies already do, other than that they really have nothing truly unique except SC's.
You mean other than the whole "being the first and only Codex that really was just serving as a testbed to see how that FoC swapping that other armies already(which at that time were not published) do" thing?
Yeah. The problem with Dark Angels is they royally fethed up producing it. It was the first attempt for genericizing an army that had a lot of uniqueness going on. It failed miserably, and they corrected the mistakes for Codex: Space Marines.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Dark wrote:I'm ok with separated codices, but other factions would deserve some of that love
I agree with this pretty much. There should be more love for xenos factions (I play orks  and nids  ) but that doesn't mean that we have to amalgamate other armies.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kanluwen wrote:
You mean other than the whole "being the first and only Codex that really was just serving as a testbed to see how that FoC swapping that other armies already(which at that time were not published) do" thing?
Yeah. The problem with Dark Angels is they royally fethed up producing it. It was the first attempt for genericizing an army that had a lot of uniqueness going on. It failed miserably, and they corrected the mistakes for Codex: Space Marines.
Ok...but still not really what's wrong with them.
Dark Angels still have always been a rather Codex chapter, far more so than something like the Iron Hands or Raven Guard, their only shtick has been FoC swaps since the 3E reinvention, and in 2E it was basically just SC's to differentiate them. They are, and always have been, just Codex Marines with extra SC's and FoC swaps. That does not a codex make, or at least, really shouldn't. Making them radically different at this point would simply be doing so just for the sake of making them different, and retconning their last 15+ years of background.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Vaktathi wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
You mean other than the whole "being the first and only Codex that really was just serving as a testbed to see how that FoC swapping that other armies already(which at that time were not published) do" thing?
Yeah. The problem with Dark Angels is they royally fethed up producing it. It was the first attempt for genericizing an army that had a lot of uniqueness going on. It failed miserably, and they corrected the mistakes for Codex: Space Marines.
Ok...but still not really what's wrong with them.
Dark Angels still have always been a rather Codex chapter, far more so than something like the Iron Hands or Raven Guard, their only shtick has been FoC swaps since the 3E reinvention, and in 2E it was basically just SC's to differentiate them. They are, and always have been, just Codex Marines with extra SC's and FoC swaps. That does not a codex make, or at least, really shouldn't.
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Raven Guard are a Codex Chapter. Their "only shtick" is that they excel at guerilla warfare(i.e. hit and run strikes, surgical removal of command assets, hitting assets that are critical to the opponents' war effort, etc) and the commanders have a large amount of individual discretion in how they deploy their forces.
Of those two items the only one that can really be represented in game terms is their excellence of guerilla warfare. Which doesn't require an entire Codex into itself, just a character and a USR.
Iron Hands are a Codex Chapter, whose "only shtick" is that they have the Iron Fathers, strong ties to the Adeptus Mechanicus(which results in a large propensity of bionics, many of which really serve no combat function and are just an aesthetic), and a semi-rigid Clan structure inherent in the makeup of their Companies.
Of those...the only ones that can really be represented are the Iron Fathers and a larger amount of bionics. Both of which, again, do not require an entire Codex into themselves.
Dark Angels, on the other hand, field entire armies made up of units from their Deathwing or Ravenwing forces and do not generally deploy Chaplains(they actually did not have Chaplains during the Horus Heresy, instead having "Brother-Redemptors" who filled the same role and were permanently assigned to individual squads. That, as far as I know, is still true to form for the Dark Angels and their Successors. The Interrogator-Chaplains are not combat personnel, as the loss of Asmodai in the Codex should tell you) onto the field of battle.
The Deathwing and Ravenwing alone is more than enough to set them far apart from the standard Codex Chapters. All they need to do is work at fleshing the indivudal units out more.
32376
Post by: Th3ee Legged Dog
Vaktathi wrote:It wouldn't be a problem to integrate SM's so we basically just have C: SM, C: CSM, C: DH/ GK.
In all honesty, the differences between most loyalist SM armies are rather hamfisted and flimsy, there simply to justify a different book, not really critical underlying differences. Most differences are less than the differences between their own codex updates. C: SM 4E plays far more differently from C: SM 5E than say, C: BA 5E play from C: SM 5E.
Hell, C: BA and C: SM outright share like 80% of their units and almost all wargear, and most of the rest are simply variants of similar units. Between C: SM and C: BA there are only two units in each book that don't really have a counterpart in the opposite codex. C: SM has Thunderfires and LS Storms, C: BA has Death Company and Stormravens (sanguinary guard are just slightly beefed Vanguard Vets, don't really count).
Even with C: SW, as is they are mostly C: CSM "undivided" but with Counterattack and loyalist equipment and waaayy cheaper. The only unit that C: SW has that doesn't have an identical counterpart or very similar equivalent in C: SM (or C: CSM) is Thunderwolf Cavalry, a rather hamfisted fanfic-y addition.
DA's whole shtick is basically just FoC swapping that other armies already do, other than that they really have nothing truly unique except SC's.
BT's again, primarily just random special rules as with the rest and then can have mixed Scout/ Tac squads. Not really something they needed their own book for.
None of these would be very difficult to fold into one book. Most really never should have had their own book in the first place.
Also, to those complaining about having to buy a potentialy $50 book, at the rate codecies have increased in price over the last 4 years we will be there in another 4 years anyway, and it doesn't seem to hurt most other wargames, e.g. Flames of War with $50 operational theater books (e.g. Eastern Front).
Cutting out 4 armies and amalgamating them into a single Loyalist SM book would solve a lot of headaches with books spread over various editions, differing versions of identical wargear, increasingly random new units hamfisted in to maintain "uniqueness", etc.
It would also mean that armies get updated faster. At this point, GW puts out 2-3 books a year, cutting 4 armies from that cycle could mean that GW gets through every army two years faster, maybe even within the span of a single edition. Wouldn't that be nice?
THIS.
It makes logical sense.
At this point GW can not hide behind "we are a model company that just so happens to make rules for them."
722
Post by: Kanluwen
This part is another pet peeve of mine: Vaktathi wrote:Cutting out 4 armies and amalgamating them into a single Loyalist SM book would solve a lot of headaches with books spread over various editions, differing versions of identical wargear, increasingly random new units hamfisted in to maintain "uniqueness", etc.
It would also mean that armies get updated faster. At this point, GW puts out 2-3 books a year, cutting 4 armies from that cycle could mean that GW gets through every army two years faster, maybe even within the span of a single edition. Wouldn't that be nice?
Do you really think that the books are what is keeping them down to "2-3 books a year"?
If you do, you're deluded. The biggest part of the lengthy design cycle for codices, by GW's own admission, is the concept/design phase for the models.
20867
Post by: Just Dave
Oooh. Some more Space Marine criticism. Yippee, it's not like this doesn't get old. Fast.
Lets just complain about the pricing too, it's not like that hasn't been done before.
*ahem*
Anyways...
Whilst I can understand your criticism and Space Marines are too dominant, I believe a big ol' Space Marine Codex wouldn't work for several reasons.
The first of which is highlighted by Formosa here:
Formosa wrote:tis true, they should put them all in one codex, but im not willing to pay £50 for that codex.
It would have to be at least 600 pages, for all the fluff and variant armies (to be done properly)
I play Space Wolves, lets say that you combine the 5 £15 codices into one book, therefore costing £75 in theory. I would not pay £75 for a book I will use less than a quarter of.
Secondly, the Space Marine variant Codices are actually more popular than several stand alone Codices; the last poll I saw about this but them above at least Dark Eldar and Necrons.
Thirdly, it's simply not fair on the current variant players to shove them all in one book; it cuts down on variance, would likely appear ham-fisted and would ultimately cost them another £50+.
Fourth, Games Workshop is a business. As a business, this doesn't make sense.
Fifth, Many of these individual Space Marine Codices have existed long before many of other Codices available these days.
Sixth, there are too many variant chapters and too much variance to squeeze them all into one book. I expect 3 books could work:
- Space Marines
- Angels of Death
- Space Wolves and Black Templar (the two most divergent).
However, particularly with the new Codices that further enhances any differences, most Space Marine armies are too different to be shoved into one Codex which tacks on something akin to Chapter Tactics to enable the differences.
With the level of variation there is, it would be far too unwieldy to put them into one Codex IMHO.
I don't deny it; I am a fan of Space Marines, however I'm not a fanboy. I simply think it's unreasonable to try putting them all into one Codex. 3 may work, but 1 Codex is simply not right IMHO and frankly, GW will never do it.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
I would actually, if they did a 3 book bit or so see:
"Angels of Death"--Codex Marines(Salamanders, Ultramarines, Fists, etc)+Blood Angels(with a few characters/Chapter Traits they easily are able to be folded into the main book).
"Angels of Vengeance"--'Fleet' based Chapters(Raven Guard, Black Templars, Dark Angels, etc. They all tend towards being heavily individualized, with lots of independence granted to the troops and variations would be quite doable. Black Templars don't get Devastator Squads/Scouts but do get Neophytes and Brothers of the Blade. Things like that, y'know?)
"Angels of Savagery"--The more 'feral'/Clan based Chapters(Iron Hands, Space Wolves, Carcharadons, Storm Wardens, etc) in here.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kanluwen wrote:
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Fascinating Yarn Chap. It's not like I don't have the Angels of Death codex here on my desk, or the 3E and 4E Dark Angels books in reach, along with the various SM codecies. Methinks someone needs to calm down.
Raven Guard are a Codex Chapter. Their "only shtick" is that they excel at guerilla warfare(i.e. hit and run strikes, surgical removal of command assets, hitting assets that are critical to the opponents' war effort, etc) and the commanders have a large amount of individual discretion in how they deploy their forces.
Of those two items the only one that can really be represented in game terms is their excellence of guerilla warfare. Which doesn't require an entire Codex into itself, just a character and a USR.
While I agree, there's also a lot more that could be done with it than the simple FoC swaps that DA's offers. All sorts of "guerilla" deployment tricks, outflanking bonuses, hidden deployment, boobytrapping of board pieces, etc. There's just as much if not more that could be done with this chapter than with DA's at this point.
Iron Hands are a Codex Chapter, whose "only shtick" is that they have the Iron Fathers, strong ties to the Adeptus Mechanicus(which results in a large propensity of bionics, many of which really serve no combat function and are just an aesthetic), and a semi-rigid Clan structure inherent in the makeup of their Companies.
Of those...the only ones that can really be represented are the Iron Fathers and a larger amount of bionics. Both of which, again, do not require an entire Codex into themselves.
I agree they don't need their own book. Any more than Dark Angels. However their actual structure and operation is far less "codex" than the Dark Angels. Their clan structure is extremely distanced from the Company structure of the Codex Astartes, essentially each operating as mini-chapters, with lots of dreadnoughts, extensive cybernetics even for Space Marines, access to strange and arcane wargear through their ties to the Mechanicus, etc. There's a lot more there that could be used to make a distinct codex than the Dark Angels at this point. If a chapter such as this can make do without its own book, certainly Dark Angels can too.
Dark Angels, on the other hand, field entire armies made up of units from their Deathwing or Ravenwing forces
The Dark Angels deploy their first and second companies en-masse instead of simply attached to other companies for support more often than other chapters. Oh wow. They don't field "entire armies" as you say. They don't have any more Terminator or Bike units than other chapters, they just deploy them as a whole typically instead of being broken up as support for various operations. It's not like other chapters don't *ever* do this, the Ultramarines did it fighting against the Tyranids.
Given that all that is done to represent this is a simple FoC swap to make these units troops, and that it's replicated in other books already, I'd say their unique gameplay shtick is up.
and do not generally deploy Chaplains(they actually did not have Chaplains during the Horus Heresy, instead having "Brother-Redemptors" who filled the same role and were permanently assigned to individual squads. That, as far as I know, is still true to form for the Dark Angels and their Successors.
As I read this, I open up my copy of Angels of Death, 3E Dark Angels, and 4E Dark Angels, and see that they do in fact have a Chaplain entry. It would seem that they do have Chaplains, and no, don't seem to have any special restriction on their use.
Battle redemptors from pre-heresy days are a more recent development from BL if I'm not mistaken, for something that takes place ten millenia before the current timeline when the Space Marines were an entirely different entity, and have no presence in any of the codex fluff that I can see from their 2E, 3E or 4E books.
The Interrogator-Chaplains are not combat personnel
Um, where are you getting this from? They seem rather very much combat oriented to me, especially with rules that enhance their, and their units, close combat ability when used offensively.
The Deathwing and Ravenwing alone is more than enough to set them far apart from the standard Codex Chapters. All they need to do is work at fleshing the indivudal units out more.
How so? With Dark Missiles, Ravencannons, and Angelfists and like they did with BA? Obvious hamfisting of stuff on armies that share 80-90% of their units, wargear, vehicles and special rules just to desperately justify having their own book?
Kanluwen wrote:
Do you really think that the books are what is keeping them down to "2-3 books a year"?
If you do, you're deluded. The biggest part of the lengthy design cycle for codices, by GW's own admission, is the concept/design phase for the models.
 No, I'm not talking about increasing the number of books per year, I'm talking about cutting out books that would reduce the total number of years required to get every book updated.
I play Space Wolves, lets say that you combine the 5 £15 codices into one book, therefore costing £75 in theory. I would not pay £75 for a book I will use less than a quarter of.
That would be a pants on head dumb way of combining those books, and there's no reason, considering these books share the vast majority of their units, with most variation simply being wargear/weapon swaps on common platforms, for the book to be *that* big or that expensive.
Secondly, the Space Marine variant Codices are actually more popular than several stand alone Codices; the last poll I saw about this but them above at least Dark Eldar and Necrons.
There are probably several reasons for that. Probably because DE went twelve years waiting for an update with *ugly* models and you couldn't even get them in stores for the last 5 years or so, so they had no exposure. I'd bet if you'd measured Necrons in 4E rather than nowish they'd have been *far* more popular. Armies tend to become less popular when their rules are two editions old and they routinely get steamrolled.
Thirdly, it's simply not fair on the current variant players to shove them all in one book; it cuts down on variance, would likely appear ham-fisted and would ultimately cost them another £50+.
Most of the variance currently is already forced and hamfisted, awkward justifications for disparate books. How many Dread variants are really needed? There are what, like 7 now? How many variations on "melta/flamer toting close combat walker" are really needed?
Fourth, Games Workshop is a business. As a business, this doesn't make sense.
It very much can. You cut down on time spent on product development, increase resources available to other lines, reduce cannibalization of sales from having so many similar products, etc.
Fifth, Many of these individual Space Marine Codices have existed long before many of other Codices available these days.
Which really shouldn't have any bearing on whether they really should have their own codex or not.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Participants in this thread need to dial down the hostility. Take a break from posting and get some of that bracing February air.
36433
Post by: Lord PoPo
I just wish they brought back chapter traits. I like the idea of an entire army's mindset being the cause for divergences or special abilities, rather than one guy saying:
"My flamers are better than your flamers because I'm flamey!"
"Hey guys? Um... why aren't you.. like.. charging after you ran all that way to get to your forsworn enemy? And you terminators come with me."
Not sure if this is on topic or not... just my two cents.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Vaktathi wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Fascinating Yarn Chap. It's not like I don't have the Angels of Death codex here on my desk, or the 3E and 4E Dark Angels books in reach, along with the various SM codecies. Methinks someone needs to calm down.
Methinks someone needs to realize that they're not getting under my skin nearly as much as they think they are.
You just have no clue what you're talking about.
Raven Guard are a Codex Chapter. Their "only shtick" is that they excel at guerilla warfare(i.e. hit and run strikes, surgical removal of command assets, hitting assets that are critical to the opponents' war effort, etc) and the commanders have a large amount of individual discretion in how they deploy their forces.
Of those two items the only one that can really be represented in game terms is their excellence of guerilla warfare. Which doesn't require an entire Codex into itself, just a character and a USR.
While I agree, there's also a lot more that could be done with it than the simple FoC swaps that DA's offers. All sorts of "guerilla" deployment tricks, outflanking bonuses, hidden deployment, boobytrapping of board pieces, etc. There's just as much if not more that could be done with this chapter than with DA's at this point.
And the only reason we didn't see that much get done with DAs was because they were lazy gits.
Iron Hands are a Codex Chapter, whose "only shtick" is that they have the Iron Fathers, strong ties to the Adeptus Mechanicus(which results in a large propensity of bionics, many of which really serve no combat function and are just an aesthetic), and a semi-rigid Clan structure inherent in the makeup of their Companies.
Of those...the only ones that can really be represented are the Iron Fathers and a larger amount of bionics. Both of which, again, do not require an entire Codex into themselves.
I agree they don't need their own book. Any more than Dark Angels. However their actual structure and operation is far less "codex" than the Dark Angels. Their clan structure is extremely distanced from the Company structure of the Codex Astartes, essentially each operating as mini-chapters, with lots of dreadnoughts, extensive cybernetics even for Space Marines, access to strange and arcane wargear through their ties to the Mechanicus, etc. There's a lot more there that could be used to make a distinct codex than the Dark Angels at this point. If a chapter such as this can make do without its own book, certainly Dark Angels can too.
You mean they operate almost like...*gasp* the Space Wolves?
My God! It's almost like there's already a Codex exactly like how the Iron Hands would play!
Dark Angels, on the other hand, field entire armies made up of units from their Deathwing or Ravenwing forces
The Dark Angels deploy their first and second companies en-masse instead of simply attached to other companies for support more often than other chapters. Oh wow. They don't field "entire armies" as you say. They don't have any more Terminator or Bike units than other chapters, they just deploy them as a whole typically instead of being broken up as support for various operations. It's not like other chapters don't *ever* do this, the Ultramarines did it fighting against the Tyranids.
You're missing the point entirely, but I'm not surprised considering you just seem to want to whine about Space Marines having multiple codices.
The whole thing with the Ultramarines on Macragge was that it was extremely dire circumstances. If it hadn't been defending the polar defense stations against the shock force of an entire bloody Hive Fleet--it never would have happened.
The Dark Angels(and their Successors for that matter) do, however, field the entirety of the Deathwing or Ravenwing on operations as a pretty standard thing.
Given that all that is done to represent this is a simple FoC swap to make these units troops, and that it's replicated in other books already, I'd say their unique gameplay shtick is up.
And I'd say read the copyright/publication dates on those books.
They didn't come along until after the Dark Angels book was already published and had been out for at least a year.
and do not generally deploy Chaplains(they actually did not have Chaplains during the Horus Heresy, instead having "Brother-Redemptors" who filled the same role and were permanently assigned to individual squads. That, as far as I know, is still true to form for the Dark Angels and their Successors.
As I read this, I open up my copy of Angels of Death, 3E Dark Angels, and 4E Dark Angels, and see that they do in fact have a Chaplain entry. It would seem that they do have Chaplains, and no, don't seem to have any special restriction on their use.
And why would there be? The fluff is new, and the authors on Codex: Dark Angels were lazy slobs. They didn't even bother checking the wargear they were writing versus the Space Marines codex being worked on at the same time.
Battle redemptors from pre-heresy days are a more recent development from BL if I'm not mistaken, for something that takes place ten millenia before the current timeline when the Space Marines were an entirely different entity, and have no presence in any of the codex fluff that I can see from their 2E, 3E or 4E books.
Again: Lazy codex authors.
And if you're really trying to use 2nd edition fluff, you're a loon.
The Interrogator-Chaplains are not combat personnel
Um, where are you getting this from? They seem rather very much combat oriented to me, especially with rules that enhance their, and their units, close combat ability when used offensively.
Um, where are you not getting that from? The whole bloody idea of them is that they're INTERROGATORS AND KEEPERS OF THE CHAPTER'S SECRETS.
You don't send those kinds of individuals out on the field, unless the circumstances are so absurdly dire that it necessitates it.
Strike the bloody Interrogator-Chaplain entry from the book, allow squads to get a Brother-Redemptor and voila. You're already getting away from the Codex Marines right there, now aren't you?
The Deathwing and Ravenwing alone is more than enough to set them far apart from the standard Codex Chapters. All they need to do is work at fleshing the indivudal units out more.
How so? With Dark Missiles, Ravencannons, and Angelfists and like they did with BA? Obvious hamfisting of stuff on armies that share 80-90% of their units, wargear, vehicles and special rules just to desperately justify having their own book?
Yes, because clearly the Dark Lances and Dark Darkness of the Dark Eldar Codex is completely non-hamfisted compared to their Craftworld counterparts?
And no. It's really easy to actually think up things for differentiating the Dark Angels from their Codex brothers, provided you're not biased enough to not even bother trying or using a half-assed excuse for a Codex like the Blood Angels one as an example.
Kanluwen wrote:
Do you really think that the books are what is keeping them down to "2-3 books a year"?
If you do, you're deluded. The biggest part of the lengthy design cycle for codices, by GW's own admission, is the concept/design phase for the models.
No, I'm not talking about increasing the number of books per year, I'm talking about cutting out books that would reduce the total number of years required to get every book updated.
And you'd still be wrong. It takes far more work for them to do Codices like Orks or Eldar than it does for them to do a SM variant.
Why?
Once again: it comes down to the models involved in a codex release. Notice that, at best, we saw one or two releases that were exclusively Dark Angels with the Dark Angels codex. Everything else was generic, plain old Space Marines and was replacing something that was already on its way out anyways(the Librarians/Devastator kits).
8620
Post by: DAaddict
Personally I agree, I liked the chapter traits and veteran abilities. It brought a lot to C:SM and C: CSM in their previous renditions. However - those days are gone. While I like a separate codex for DA, SW, BA, BT, and SM and the easy way of subbing in chapter traits via a trade off of the obvious penchant for Smurfs to run away for some more manly trait or ablities, it would be better served to have a main codex for all things SM - I will beg to say that even the extreme variant of GK could be handled under that one codex. The variant of BA could easily be handled through character abilities, SW abilities could be dealt with through characters and perhaps some core troop choice differences. DA could be handled much the same way as could BT.
While the complicated days of yesteryear seem better in retrospect - at least when my codex was the newest. The reduction of codex creep and codex crumbling (as it gets long in the tooth) would benefit all if we were looking at say a 3-year rotation through all versus 4+ year rotation.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kanluwen wrote:
Methinks someone needs to realize that they're not getting under my skin nearly as much as they think they are.
You just have no clue what you're talking about.
Very obviously I am.
And the only reason we didn't see that much get done with DAs was because they were lazy gits.
Or the fact that just in all honesty they are a standard Codex chapter as their Fluff has proclaimed them to be aside from the way they deploy their 1st and 2nd Companies.
You're missing the point entirely, but I'm not surprised considering you just seem to want to whine about Space Marines having multiple codices.
The whole thing with the Ultramarines on Macragge was that it was extremely dire circumstances. If it hadn't been defending the polar defense stations against the shock force of an entire bloody Hive Fleet--it never would have happened.
The Dark Angels(and their Successors for that matter) do, however, field the entirety of the Deathwing or Ravenwing on operations as a pretty standard thing.
And why does this require a distinct codex? Other chapters do it, other chapters field bikes en-masse at least as often as the DA's do. Why do we need a DA codex specifically to allow them to do that? Why not just slap their SC's in C: SM and that way they don't have to worry about being left behind like they are now, and they can still be portrayed in a perfectly fluffy manner, and other chapters can represent those "dire circumstance" armies as well?
If they share, and always have shared, 90%+ of their units, wargear, and special rules, why do they *NEED* a codex? IG and SM's need different codecies because they share only about a dozen weapons between the two and little else. DE and Eldar need different books because they share almost nothing except Dark/Bright lances and Harlequins. Why do armies that share so much *require* a book to play them, when other books are able to portray *far* more variation within a single book (e.g. Orks, IG)?
And I'd say read the copyright/publication dates on those books.
They didn't come along until after the Dark Angels book was already published and had been out for at least a year.
I understand they are later books, but that doesn't mean that a couple FoC swaps makes a codex when you're sharing 100% of the rest of your weapons, wargear, units and special rules with another book, and always have.
And why would there be? The fluff is new, and the authors on Codex: Dark Angels were lazy slobs. They didn't even bother checking the wargear they were writing versus the Space Marines codex being worked on at the same time.
The fluff is new yes, but for something that happened *ten millenia* before the current timeline and before the standardization under the Codex Astartes. The current codex is rather faithful to the background of the previous books. The DA's, it says right in all of their books, are rather codex chapters whose big difference is the Deathwing and Ravenwing (1st and 2nd companies) being deployed as entire fighting units on their own routinely.
Again: Lazy codex authors.
And if you're really trying to use 2nd edition fluff, you're a loon.
So referencing the official game material for the last 15 years (which hasn't changed almost at all if you have read these three books) for an army is simply "lazy authors" and "me being a loon" but taking a fluff reference from a third party novel written after the latest codex about events ten thousand years under an altogether different Imperium and totally different Chapter organization and crying out that *that* is the true fluff for the current Dark Angels isn't loony?
Um, where are you not getting that from? The whole bloody idea of them is that they're INTERROGATORS AND KEEPERS OF THE CHAPTER'S SECRETS.
By the fact that they are available in an army list, able to lead an army, carry extensive close combat oriented gear, and have offensive close combat oriented rules? How is this not making sense?
You don't send those kinds of individuals out on the field, unless the circumstances are so absurdly dire that it necessitates it.
Except that they are, and always have been, just as liable to lead their troops into battle as any other HQ unit, with plenty of fluff references for it (e.g. Siege of Vraks where they fought the Alpha Legion), and aren't any more restricted than any other HQ?
Strike the bloody Interrogator-Chaplain entry from the book, allow squads to get a Brother-Redemptor and voila. You're already getting away from the Codex Marines right there, now aren't you?
Sure, if you want to base it off a Black Library novel taking from events before a drastic reorganization and ten thousand years previously with no mention of anything in previous 15+ years of fluff or any post heresy events.
And no. It's really easy to actually think up things for differentiating the Dark Angels from their Codex brothers, provided you're not biased enough to not even bother trying or using a half-assed excuse for a Codex like the Blood Angels one as an example.
Such as?
And you'd still be wrong. It takes far more work for them to do Codices like Orks or Eldar than it does for them to do a SM variant.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It's true that 80-90% of it isn't copy-paste, but at the same time it isn't cannibalizing sales from other ranges. I can't take my homebrew Ork race and reuse them as Tyranids. I can take my Homebrew SM chapter (and lets face it, most people make homebrew chapters) and use it as basically any SM army, needing to buy few or even no new models, resulting in drastically less sales. This has been endemic with the various SM books recently at my current shop.
Either way, there's still the same gaps and time lapses between SM books as between non- SM books. It certainly doesn't seem like it take them any more or less time to get out a Marine book than any other book.
37225
Post by: theduncan
All the codices would easily fit in C: SM if it wasn't overflowing with ultramarine  .
Seriously, all the chapters have one SC except for Ultras, who have 4 if I remember correctly.
Stupid Matt Ward.
34644
Post by: Mr Nobody
Just Dave wrote:Oooh. Some more Space Marine criticism. Yippee, it's not like this doesn't get old. Fast.
Lets just complain about the pricing too, it's not like that hasn't been done before.
The thread wasn't meant for complaining, but to discuss a solution to the codex congestion that the multiple codices cause. I apologize for the confusion.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Would this be lilke a $99 Mega-Codex!?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Would this be lilke a $99 Mega-Codex!?
In all honesty, They could fit something like this in a $30 book if they wanted to, they just don't. A more realistic thought would be $50, but as I pointed out earlier, if Codex prices keep rising at they rate they have been since 2007, they'll all be $50 by 2014 anyway.
34644
Post by: Mr Nobody
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Would this be lilke a $99 Mega-Codex!?
I'm not sure how much more expensive it would become (suck at business), but the idea that it would be a unified codex with different playstyle structures and wargear options, with specific chapters listed in these groups. That way you can have your different playstyles, but frees up space for faster codex updates.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
The only problem with 7 SM codexes (SM, SW, BA, BT, DA, CSM, DH) is that they have to be updated every so often and because there's so many of them, many armies go for a decade or more without an update.
There's three solutions, IMO.
1) Keep the current SM codexes as-is. But, increase GW's release schedule significantly. This is hard to pull off, but if they do it, I'll be happy!
2) Keep the current SM codexes as-is. But, do the same thing with every other army, expanding them to 5 or 6 codexes from each force. This will mean it's a LONG time between codex updates, but will give everyone a codex eventually.
3) Change how they view the updates to SM codexes. Completely abandon the "core" codex (re-releasing it as codex: Ultramarines). Then, slowly release a codex for each and every SM chapter (like 1 every 3 years). After releasing this codex, never go back and update it. This way, every legion will eventually get a codex, and in 42 years (18 known legions, including traitors but minus the 4 codexes we already have, leaving 14), we'll be able to finally be done with SM once and for all!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Vaktathi wrote:Such as?
Let's see, where to begin...
Let's start with Brother-Redemptors being a squad upgrade, and removing Interrogator-Chaplains period. They removed Asmodai specifically because he had no reason, whatsoever, to be on the battlefield.
We can also go with some sort of "fire discipline" special rule, where Dark Angels Tactical/Terminator Squads get bonuses doing short-range firefights and tactical withdrawls to set up firelanes(which is actually something they've, fluffwise, been adept at since 2E and beyond).
Aiming towards the Deathwing...Plasma weaponry is also another big part of the Dark Angels' background, wherein they've got working examples of Heresy era weapons that the Imperium/Adeptus Mechanicus can only dream of.
A Plasma Cannon upgrade for Terminator Squads wouldn't be entirely out of character, especially since no other Chapter would have it.
Some kind of "Inner Circle"(Remember: Inner Circle does not necessarily mean "high ranking". It's all about loyalty to the Chapter and the hunt for the Fallen) Terminator HQ Squad that is then distributed amongst the Deathwing Terminators would be characterful and, again, uniquely Dark Angels.
A return of the "Hunt the Fallen" rules, but reworked so it doesn't necessarily have to be an enemy HQ(which never made sense when facing Tyranids or Necrons), but necessitates the deployment/designation of a specific objective that has to be secured and that is considered "a clue to the distribution of the Fallen" would, again, be fluffy+unique.
Ravenwing don't really need much done to them to retain the uniquely Dark Angels factor. The only thing I'd do is add in Land Speeder Storms for the Scout Squads(which should be troops or Fast Attack, depending on if they're mounted in a LSS or not) and Scout Bikes as Fast Attack(standard DA) and Troops(Ravenwing force).
There's also the "Ironwing" that could be added in, which was the Predator/Razorback mechanized heavy force that they occasionally field when besieging a known sanctuary of the Fallen.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
The problem is that, we're still going out of our way to find reasons for a separate Codex for an army that, at the end of the day, is still going to share 90% of its content with Codex: Space Marines, and could be represented as well as its ever been, and at least as well as most other Space Marine chapters, if folded into C:SM.
Sure, those aren't half bad ideas for a Dark Angels codex. But is all that suff, in a separate *Dark Angels* Codex, really required to play a fluffy and competitive Dark Angels army any more than Iron Hands, Salamanders, or White Scars? Or even more, are they really that much more different compared with C:SM more than say, Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children, Death Guard, Iron Warriors, Night Lords or Word Bearers are to each other?
Aside from the fact that they simply historically have had their own codex, looking at the DA's fluff and their Codecies for the last 15 years, it's hard to say "yes" to the above questions. Sure, you can come up with all sorts of stuff, but how much of it will be either retcons or newly made up after nearly four editions of consistent fluff, and how much of it is still just slapping a couple special rules or slight wargear modifications on top of common SM units and wargear? Is it really *that* much more varied than what you could come up with for another chapter?
We still end up with a book that is basically a handful of extra special rules and some FoC swaps on top of C:SM. That'd be fine for a WD list or a Chapter Approved thing, which I wish GW would bring back, but a Codex should really be something that stands for an entire faction. Just as IG don't need a Codex: Armored Companies or Codex: Airborne Cavalry or Codex: Jungle Fighters, Tau don't need Codex: Farsight Enclace, and Eldar don't need Codex: Saim Hann or Codex: Ulthwe, these can all be done in one book, it's hard to see where we *need* a Codex: Dark Angels or Blood Angels or Space Wolves or Black Templars. Despite all my issues with C:CSM (and they are...numerous to say the least) I don't have a problem using my Iron Warriors within the scope of C:CSM despite that they are *vastly* different from Thousand Sons or Night lords (aside from the fact that C:SW makes almost the exact same army for cheaper and with Counterattack.), I'd much rather see a much better and comprehensively written singular CSM book than multiple Legion books.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Vaktathi wrote:The problem is that, we're still going out of our way to find reasons for a separate Codex for an army that, at the end of the day, is still going to share 90% of its content with Codex: Space Marines, and could be represented as well as its ever been, and at least as well as most other Space Marine chapters, if folded into C:SM.
Sure, those aren't half bad ideas for a Dark Angels codex. But is all that suff, in a separate *Dark Angels* Codex, really required to play a fluffy and competitive Dark Angels army any more than Iron Hands, Salamanders, or White Scars? Or even more, are they really that much more different compared with C:SM more than say, Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children, Death Guard, Iron Warriors, Night Lords or Word Bearers are to each other?
Aside from the fact that they simply historically have had their own codex, looking at the DA's fluff and their Codecies for the last 15 years, it's hard to say "yes" to the above questions. Sure, you can come up with all sorts of stuff, but how much of it will be either retcons or newly made up after nearly four editions of consistent fluff, and how much of it is still just slapping a couple special rules or slight wargear modifications on top of common SM units and wargear? Is it really *that* much more varied than what you could come up with for another chapter?
We still end up with a book that is basically a handful of extra special rules and some FoC swaps on top of C:SM. That'd be fine for a WD list or a Chapter Approved thing, which I wish GW would bring back, but a Codex should really be something that stands for an entire faction. Just as IG don't need a Codex: Armored Companies or Codex: Airborne Cavalry or Codex: Jungle Fighters, Tau don't need Codex: Farsight Enclave, and Eldar don't need Codex: Saim Hann or Codex: Ulthwe, these can all be done in one book, it's hard to see where we *need* a Codex: Dark Angels or Blood Angels or Space Wolves or Black Templars. Despite all my issues with C:CSM (and they are...numerous to say the least) I don't have a problem using my Iron Warriors within the scope of C:CSM despite that they are *vastly* different from Thousand Sons or Night lords (aside from the fact that C:SW makes almost the exact same army for cheaper and with Counterattack.), I'd much rather see a much better and comprehensively written singular CSM book than multiple Legion books.
The biggest problem is that "Chaos Space Marines" is, quite frankly, a misnomer.
Right now, the book is "Renegade Space Marines". An actual "Chaos Space Marines" book is going to be a hugely different beast.
Just like Codex: Dark Angels, if done properly, is going to be a hugely different beast than Codex: Space Marines.
The other examples you give are not really divergent force lists, but rather just variations on the main concept.
With the Airborne Cavalry/Armored Companies? Nothing contained within is unique to that specific force. Leman Russes and Chimeras are commonly attached to normal Infantry Companies, same with Valkyries.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kanluwen wrote:]
The biggest problem is that "Chaos Space Marines" is, quite frankly, a misnomer.
Right now, the book is "Renegade Space Marines". An actual "Chaos Space Marines" book is going to be a hugely different beast.
Right, I agree, but what I was driving at is that, we have so many armies contained in one book, with far more variation between them, that have never needed their own book. Why do Dark Angels or any of the other loyalist SM armies that have them need them if the *far* more varied Chaos Legions have always made do with one?
Just like Codex: Dark Angels, if done properly, is going to be a hugely different beast than Codex: Space Marines.
The other examples you give are not really divergent force lists, but rather just variations on the main concept.
How would Dark Angels not be? Their fluff consistently describes them as a codex chapter. Aside from their first and second companies, and a little bit with their upper leadership, they are very adherent to the Codex Astartes. They don't have any more equipment than other chapters or more marines, the majority of their forces don't operate any differently, and they've never been evidenced as having weapons/wargear that other chapters don't aside from a couple rare relics that a couple of their SC's carry like every SM army has.
They are, aside from the operation of their first and second companies, a very Codex chapter, and always have been. How would a "proper" DA codex be a divergent force rather than a variation?
They have always been simply a slight variation, why put so much effort into making them something so much different when they just aren't?
How do DA's just flat out need their own book, given their history in the game, that they just could not possibly be played as they have always been if folded into C: SM? If one is playing DA's and isn't using Deathwing or Ravenwing units, or at least not as Troops, could you not have always used C: SM to portray an exactly identical force? If so, why the need for a separate book? It's hard to see where any DA book would not still end up sharing 90% of its content (weapons, wargear, units, special rules, etc) with C: SM. In that case, why is it so necessary for it to have its own book? If the only point of a DA book is to play Deathwing/Ravenwing forces, and its known that many other chapters field similar formations (some just as often, some not, but most at some point), why do we need a DA book just for that instead of just making that a capability of C: SM?
With the Airborne Cavalry/Armored Companies? Nothing contained within is unique to that specific force.
Dedicated transport valks (as opposed to Squadroned Fast Attack choices which makes a huge difference in how they work on a tabletop) for infantry units, heavy support vulture gunships instead of Leman Russ tanks and artillery, deep striking infantry, no tanks, etc. FW's IA:8 Airborne list plays *waaaayy* differently than a C: IG list trying to do the same thing would. There's just as much variation there, if not more, as there has ever been with Dark Angels aside from the Special Characters. The IA:8 list plays more like an Eldar army than a typical IG army, even one trying to do Aircav with the IG book. And yet its fine as a FW list, not needing its own codex.
Leman Russes and Chimeras are commonly attached to normal Infantry Companies
Right but there are also entire Armored Companies consisting of nothing but tanks that commonly take the field. Leman Russ tanks as Troops, HQ, and Elites instead of just HS, elite tanks skills that gave them extra abilities, etc. They used to have a Chapter Approved list and still have a FW list, yet have never needed their own codex.
These lists are still at least as varied as DA have ever been compared with C: SM (which again, was practically not at all in 2E, and simply Bike/Terminator FoC swaps to troops since the late 1990's), yet don't need their own codex. Within these contexts, how are they not just as divergent as DA's have ever been? How far must one go to make DA divergent "enough" to justify their own book without still sharing the overwhelmingly vast majority of units/wargear/weapons/rules/vehicles/etc and not totally retconn all of their previous background?
33511
Post by: Alphapod
Dark Angels don't need their own codex. They only need one special character:
Belial: Allows a player to take terminator squads as troops, and allows you to mix terminator squads.
Ravenwing is already represented in C:SM because they have models that let you bring bikes as troops.
Edit: Grammar
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Vaktathi wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
The biggest problem is that "Chaos Space Marines" is, quite frankly, a misnomer.
Right now, the book is "Renegade Space Marines". An actual "Chaos Space Marines" book is going to be a hugely different beast.
Right, I agree, but what I was driving at is that, we have so many armies contained in one book, with far more variation between them, that have never needed their own book. Why do Dark Angels or any of the other loyalist SM armies that have them need them if the *far* more varied Chaos Legions have always made do with one?
You missed my point, entirely.
The Chaos Space Marines book is not Chaos Space Marines. It's "Renegade" Space Marines.
Just like Codex: Dark Angels, if done properly, is going to be a hugely different beast than Codex: Space Marines.
The other examples you give are not really divergent force lists, but rather just variations on the main concept.
How would Dark Angels not be? Their fluff consistently describes them as a codex chapter. Aside from their first and second companies, and a little bit with their upper leadership, they are very adherent to the Codex Astartes. They don't have any more equipment than other chapters or more marines, the majority of their forces don't operate any differently, and they've never been evidenced as having weapons/wargear that other chapters don't aside from a couple rare relics that a couple of their SC's carry like every SM army has.
They are, aside from the operation of their first and second companies, a very Codex chapter, and always have been. How would a "proper" DA codex be a divergent force rather than a variation?
They have always been simply a slight variation, why put so much effort into making them something so much different when they just aren't?
Probably because they aren't?
The whole point of Dark Angels is that they're "codex...but not". They retain their original, pre-Founding traditions in the form of the Inner Circle. They retain the tradition of the Legions in that all the Successor Chapters answer directly to Azrael. The Inner Circles of every single one of the Unforgiven Chapters are a tightly knit group, and the Dark Angels themselves approve the ascension of their progeny to the Inner Circle and the mysteries of the Unforgiven.
How do DA's just flat out need their own book, given their history in the game, that they just could not possibly be played as they have always been if folded into C: SM? If one is playing DA's and isn't using Deathwing or Ravenwing units, or at least not as Troops, could you not have always used C: SM to portray an exactly identical force? If so, why the need for a separate book? It's hard to see where any DA book would not still end up sharing 90% of its content (weapons, wargear, units, special rules, etc) with C: SM. In that case, why is it so necessary for it to have its own book? If the only point of a DA book is to play Deathwing/Ravenwing forces, and its known that many other chapters field similar formations (some just as often, some not, but most at some point), why do we need a DA book just for that instead of just making that a capability of C: SM?
With the Airborne Cavalry/Armored Companies? Nothing contained within is unique to that specific force.
Dedicated transport valks (as opposed to Squadroned Fast Attack choices which makes a huge difference in how they work on a tabletop) for infantry units, heavy support vulture gunships instead of Leman Russ tanks and artillery, deep striking infantry, no tanks, etc. FW's IA:8 Airborne list plays *waaaayy* differently than a C: IG list trying to do the same thing would. There's just as much variation there, if not more, as there has ever been with Dark Angels aside from the Special Characters. The IA:8 list plays more like an Eldar army than a typical IG army, even one trying to do Aircav with the IG book. And yet its fine as a FW list, not needing its own codex.
Then you're using the wrong example.
"Airborne Cavalry" is a standard Guard formation, but with enough Valkyries attached to the regiment that they can reasonably transport the majority of their forces that way.
The Elysians are, again, an entirely different beast. They're "Codex--but Not".
Just like the Dark Angels.
And as a sidenote? IA:8 is effectively "Codex: Drop Troops". It contains the fluff of the Elysians, all the individual units you could potentially field, and their special rules.
Leman Russes and Chimeras are commonly attached to normal Infantry Companies
Right but there are also entire Armored Companies consisting of nothing but tanks that commonly take the field. Leman Russ tanks as Troops, HQ, and Elites instead of just HS. They used to have a Chapter Approved list and still have a FW list, yet have never needed their own codex.
Probably because of the fact that it's a specialist formation that is supposed to be extremely rare?
These lists are still at least as varied as DA have ever been compared with C:SM (which again, was practically not at all in 2E, and simply Bike/Terminator FoC swaps to troops since the late 1990's), yet don't need their own codex. Within these contexts, how are they not just as divergent as DA's have ever been? How far must one go to make DA divergent "enough" to justify their own book without still sharing the overwhelmingly vast majority of units/wargear/weapons/rules/vehicles/etc and not totally retconn all of their previous background?
What previous background would have to be retconned? Everything I proposed fits within their previously established background. The Deathwing, Interrogator Chaplains being relegated to a non-combat role, Hunt the Fallen, Scouts, etc.
The only remote argument you might have is in regards to the Brother-Redemptors, but considering the novels are from the Horus Heresy series and are dated post-Fulgrim/C.S. Goto(which means excessive fact-checking and absurd amounts of approval from the "Background Masters" at the Black Library) it's fair to say that it's as canon as it will ever get, or regarding the Terminator Plasma Cannons.
14816
Post by: alexwars1
In my mind, the only SM chapters truly deserving of a whole book of their own are the Spess Wulfs, and maybe the Templars. The rest should just have .pdf expansions for the vanilla codex.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kanluwen wrote:
You missed my point, entirely.
The Chaos Space Marines book is not Chaos Space Marines. It's "Renegade" Space Marines.
No, I didn't miss that point, I agreed with it, but it wasn't my original point when bringing up CSM's. I realize there are many problems with Chaos Space Marines (I've been very vocal about it as well), but its irrelevant to the discussion. The point was that the Chaos Legions have *ALWAYS* shared a book, despite being more varied than loyalist legions who have their own book. That's not new to the current book, and likely will never change. If the forces of Chaos can use a single book, surely a chapter that simply operates its 1st and 2nd companies a bit differently than the strictest of codex chapters doesn't need its own book.
Probably because they aren't?
The whole point of Dark Angels is that they're "codex...but not". They retain their original, pre-Founding traditions in the form of the Inner Circle.
And many other chapters don't retain many/most of their traditions?
They retain the tradition of the Legions in that all the Successor Chapters answer directly to Azrael. The Inner Circles of every single one of the Unforgiven Chapters are a tightly knit group, and the Dark Angels themselves approve the ascension of their progeny to the Inner Circle and the mysteries of the Unforgiven.
And there's a similar, although not identical relationship described of the Ultramarines and all their successor chapters. What effect does this have on the army as a playable force? None.
Then you're using the wrong example.
"Airborne Cavalry" is a standard Guard formation, but with enough Valkyries attached to the regiment that they can reasonably transport the majority of their forces that way.
The Elysians are, again, an entirely different beast. They're "Codex--but Not".
Right, but they make do with a FW list or make do with the IG, they don't need their own distinct Codex book
And as a sidenote? IA:8 is effectively "Codex: Drop Troops". It contains the fluff of the Elysians, all the individual units you could potentially field, and their special rules.
To an extent (there's really not much on their history of foundings, primarily just their operations and the IA:8 setting), but is done basically as a side project, just like a WD article or Chapter Approved. They aren't needing their own fleshed out mainstream codex and can if needs be be played with C: IG just not as competitively. If the various loyalist SM books were done as FW lists, or WD articles, it'd lend more legitimacy to the other armies that currently share that status, and remove a lot of the issues and pressures that result from them having a Codex book, and would probably have more page space to go into the DA fluff rather than simply copy/pasting most of the information from C: SM since they won't need to describe and explain each unit as they do in a Codex. They could also be updated faster/easier and remove the issue of varying rules for identical wargear that have arisen as they'd be tied to C: SM not their own thing that gets outdated.
Probably because of the fact that it's a specialist formation that is supposed to be extremely rare?
And the *Deathwing* of all things is not? Or Space Marines as a whole? These are the very definition of extremely rare specialist formations.
Lets be honest, there are going to be far more IG armored companies in the 40k universe than there are going to be Space Marine chapters. IG armor is raised as an entire regiment and then attached as needed to infantry formations usually. Only certain mechanized regiments like Armageddon Steel Legion have integral armor support. Quite often Armor Regiments are fielded as whole armored companies. They're going to be a lot less rare than Space Marines as a whole, much less the nigh Mythical Deathwing.
What previous background would have to be retconned? Everything I proposed fits within their previously established background. The Deathwing, Interrogator Chaplains being relegated to a non-combat role, Hunt the Fallen, Scouts, etc.
The only remote argument you might have is in regards to the Brother-Redemptors, but considering the novels are from the Horus Heresy series and are dated post-Fulgrim/C.S. Goto(which means excessive fact-checking and absurd amounts of approval from the "Background Masters" at the Black Library) it's fair to say that it's as canon as it will ever get, or regarding the Terminator Plasma Cannons.
Hunt the fallen and Scouts on bikes, Deathwing and whatnot is all fine, but does not a codex make. Interrogator Chaplains being relegated to non-combat roles only would certainly be a retcon from how they've always been used in the army.
Still, even if all of this and more was put in, it still wouldn't really amount to anything more than was a WD list would offer. They're still sharing the overwhelmingly vast majority of units/wargear/weapons/vehicles/etc with C: SM, and would still operate basically identically to C: SM if you weren't running a Ravenwing/Deathwing army.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Then let's roll Chaos Space Marines into Codex: Space Marines.
After all, they're just Space Marines by another name and with a few different weapon choices!
That's all I'm really getting from your argument, frankly.
And as a further sidenote?
The whole crux of the issue is that Dark Angels have gotten nowhere near the amount of development that Space Wolves and Blood Angels have gotten. They're content to continually copy/paste everything, and relegate the Dark Angels to a "minor" army who only does well if running a Ravenwing/Deathwing force.
If Dark Angels got more than 15 workhours, at best, of development time we'd be seeing a whole different beast.
Lets be honest, there are going to be far more IG armored companies in the 40k universe than there are going to be Space Marine chapters. IG armor is raised as an entire regiment and then attached as needed to infantry formations usually. Only certain mechanized regiments like Armageddon Steel Legion have integral armor support. Quite often Armor Regiments are fielded as whole armored companies. They're going to be a lot less rare than Space Marines as a whole, much less the nigh Mythical Deathwing.
Uh, actually you're wrong again there.
Pretty much no mechanized regiments have integral armor support. Not even the fabled "Steel Legion" had it, and they fielded obscene amounts of mechanized infantry.
But their tanks were from actual armored companies, not within the regiments themselves.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kanluwen wrote:Then let's roll Chaos Space Marines into Codex: Space Marines.
After all, they're just Space Marines by another name and with a few different weapon choices!
That's all I'm really getting from your argument, frankly.
Well then I'm sorry, don't know what to say. That's certainly not what I wrote or what I think most people would take away from my arguments.
The whole crux of the issue is that Dark Angels have gotten nowhere near the amount of development that Space Wolves and Blood Angels have gotten. They're content to continually copy/paste everything, and relegate the Dark Angels to a "minor" army who only does well if running a Ravenwing/Deathwing force.
To be fair, BA's were in the exact same boat until last May when they hamfisted in tons of stuff just to make them "unique" enough for their own book. Nowhere previously did they have WS6 AV13 Dreads that could continue rolling attacks until they stopped killing stuff, Death Company dreads (why stick an insane, psychotic dying man in a giant engine of destruction?) Fast Skimmer Gunships, 2+ sv Powerweapon wielding Jump Infantry, Fast on every vehicle, or Scouting AV13 Fast Attack slot tanks. Before it was just "we have a turret weapon swap option for preds, can take a 2nd DCCW on dreads instead of a ranged weapon, and can take Assault Marines as Troops, and That's Blood Angels". Everything I'm arguing for about DA's I'd apply to DA's and SW's and BT's as well.
If Dark Angels got more than 15 workhours, at best, of development time we'd be seeing a whole different beast.
Why? That's the core of the matter. They never have been, why radically change them? Why not just accept what they are and always have been and fold them into C: SM? Why do they, above so many other Space Marine chapters that diverge significantly from the Codex Astartes, need their own stand alone Codex?
*WHY* do Dark Angels need to be a whole different beast?
Uh, actually you're wrong again there.
Pretty much no mechanized regiments have integral armor support. Not even the fabled "Steel Legion" had it, and they fielded obscene amounts of mechanized infantry.
But their tanks were from actual armored companies, not within the regiments themselves.
Well whatever, I'm not going to argue this as I can't find my Armageddon codex right now, and more the the point its completely irrelevant (though does support) to the previous issue of Armored Companies not being the rare specialist formations that Space Marines and Deathwing are.
20876
Post by: Gridge
I wouldn't necessarily be against this but I can't see it ever happening. Marines are huge for GW and as with all things in business, what sells rises to the top in priority. I would love it if GW would hold off releasing new basic rules until they have updated all books and can release them together, but that also isn't likely to happen.
34644
Post by: Mr Nobody
alexwars1 wrote:In my mind, the only SM chapters truly deserving of a whole book of their own are the Spess Wulfs, and maybe the Templars. The rest should just have .pdf expansions for the vanilla codex.
But that's the beauty of a conjoined book, you have a cerntain section of playstyle, units and wargear, and different chapters go under certain categories.
20867
Post by: Just Dave
I'm going to say it again,
Whilst I can understand your criticism and Space Marines are too dominant and they do get too much attention compared to other races, I believe a big ol' Space Marine Codex wouldn't work for several reasons.
The first of which is the sheer cost of such a book; I play Space Wolves, lets say that you combine the 5 £15 codices into one book, therefore costing £75 in theory. I would not pay £75 for a book I will use less than a quarter of. Not only that, but it would be near-obscene for Games Workshop to charge so much for a book. They will not charge the normal price for a 'Super Codex' and even £50 or so is ridiculous.
Secondly, the Space Marine variant Codices are actually more popular than several stand alone Codices; the last poll I saw about this but them above at least Dark Eldar and Necrons. You get players complaining about the restrictions placed upon their armies (CSM, LaTD, Inq.) already, let alone after such a change as this.
Thirdly, it's simply not fair on the current variant players to shove them all in one book; it cuts down on variance, would likely appear ham-fisted and would ultimately cost them another £50+. You simply cannot go from 5 different Books into 1.
Fourth, Games Workshop is a business. As a business, this doesn't make sense.
Fifth, Many of these individual Space Marine Codices have existed long before many of other Codices available these days.
Sixth, there are too many variant chapters and too much variance to squeeze them all into one book. I expect 3 books could work:
- Space Marines
- Angels of Death
- Space Wolves and Black Templar (the two most divergent).
However, particularly with the new Codices that further enhances any differences, many Space Marine armies are too different to be shoved into one Codex which tacks on something akin to Chapter Tactics to enable the differences.
With the level of variation there is, it would be far too unwieldy to put them into one Codex IMHO.
Finally, as has all ready been said; this likely wouldn't make much of a difference to development times - it's the model production, rather than codex production, that takes so long. With such a book as this; you'd ALSO have a significant amount of time taken to make the book rather than the models. Making it the worst of both worlds.
True, whilst this could ultimately help other Codices to be released quicker as there won't be other Space Marine Codices to get in the way, it would still take a large amount of development time and I wouldn't expect many other codices to be released in the same year as such a book. Also, it could get out-dated very quickly. It'd be a big thing to have all Space Marine armies out-dated, rather than just DA and BT.
I'm probably going to duck out of this thread as it appears as though it's dominated by people too stubborn in their mindset to consider themselves incorrect. If someone could present to me a good argument why such a book would be superior to separate Codices, I'd listen.
13512
Post by: Jon Garrett
I must admit, I don't really understand the need for so many different flavours of power armour in book form, but on the other hand they need to keep those flavours in play. The latest Chaos Codex is an example of how to take several forces, in the shape of the Chaos Legions, and such the very life from the bulk of them.
If it was me, I think I'd prefer something more akin to the older style, where there was a parent codex and then a smaller Codex for the specific rules of that Chapter. The smaller Codex shouldn't be full price (HAH, Games Workshop not making something as expensive as they can manage) which I seem to recall them doing for the older ones, but simply contain the chapter's fluff, FOC, special rules, units and war gear. Maybe a third of the size of the normal Codex.
The Mini-Dexes could even be in mini, starter box sized books. And with a little luck brought out fairly quickly. Of course, with that style, I'd then suggest that the other main Codexes could have similar stuff...Craftworld varients, Chaos Legions, Ork Clans, heck maybe even Hive Fleets and Tau Septs. If enough variation can be brought in to justify it.
It has the bonus of keeping the cost down for the guy who wants to play, say, Space Wolves without buying a £60 book full of all the Marines, and netting Games Workshop additional funds. But knowing them they'd still bring out the mini codexes incredibly slowly. They shouldn't take as long as a full on 'dex, but this is GW...
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Chapter Traits System and the Books of Chaos/Legion rules back in 4th ed did a pretty good job of giving variety to their respective marine dexes, and I can easily see it being used with Combat Tactics to adapt the Vanilla dex into the various other Dexes.
For example, for Space Wolves you can take a trait that replaces Combat Tactics with Counter Attack and Acute Senses, but forbids them from taking heavy Weapons in a Tact Squad (and allowing them two Special Weapons). Assault Marines become Troops (Blood Claws) and gets +2 attack on the charge instead of +1, but suffer a -1 WS and BS penalty. Devastator Squads can now Fire at two different targets but capped at 6 models max. Finally, SM bikers can trade in their Bikes to ride Thunderwolves at the apropriate cost.This can be broken down into three traits, one that affects the Grey hunters and Blood Claws, one for the Devastators, and one for the TWCs.
For BAs, it could be a Trait that replaces Chapter Tactics with Furious Charge and allows Assault Marines as troops. Another trait could allow them to give a single Assault Marine squad DC upgrades, including the associated rules and abilities much like the TWC example above. A third trait can either be used on Vanguards to make them Sanguinary Guards, or allow multiple Apothecaries to be taken as a single elites choice for Sanguinary Priests.
BTs similarly can have traits that change their special rules as well as giving you one free (on the FoC at least) commander that MUST be upgraded into the Emperor's Champion in lieu of having Librarians, and a second one that allows you to take scouts in a Tactical Squad.
By far the easiest way for GW to do all of this is to give us the Codexes free as online downloads, this way they can update faster and give every single craftworld, klan, CSM Legion, Chapter, Hive Fleet, Sept and whatever else their own "book". They can also fix errata easier and solve rule disbutes faster. But that wont be profitable as printed books. The reason why the army distribution in Fantasy is more balanced (not exactly balanced, but at least they don have 50% of the players being marines, with another 40% or something being bandwagon jumpers that leap onto the latest marine dex) is because they dont have an oversaturation of books from a single model range. The two that does have counterparts (Bretonnia to Empire and Tomb Kings to Vampire Counts) play very differently than their counterparts.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Codex New Space Marines
Chapter 1
The original foundings and making of a Spam. 6 pages.
Chapter 2
Ultramarines, with a bit of fluff, special characters and rules. 5 pages (2 fluff, 2 characters, 1 rules)
Chapter 3
How to make variant chapters using Traits. The variant traits are used to make the four following chapters, but there are more traits available to make more variations. 12 pages.
Chapter 4
Dark Angels, with a bit of fluff, special characters and rules. 5 pages (2 fluff, 2 characters, 1 rules)
Chapter 5
Space Wolves, with a bit of fluff, special characters and rules. 5 pages (2 fluff, 2 characters, 1 rules)
Chapter 6
Black Templars, with a bit of fluff, special characters and rules. 5 pages (2 fluff, 2 characters, 1 rules)
Chapter 7
Blood Angels, with a bit of fluff, special characters and rules. 5 pages (2 fluff, 2 characters, 1 rules)
Chapter 8
All of the equipment and troop lists. 10 pages.
Chapter 9
Hobby section. 5 pages.
Chapter 10
Quick Reference Sheets. 6 pages
64 pages plus covers, smaller than any of the current SM codexes and could be put out for £15 and make a good profit. It contains all the major units and gives players great flexibility to make up their own.
It could be written in a couple of months mostly by recycling and adapting the stuff that already exists.
The key to this book is several things.
1. No duplication of equipment and army lists.
2. A lot of historical fluff is deleted and put into Black Library books, thus increasing sales.
3. Don’t try too hard to give every chapter dozens of special rules and characters.
4. Fewer pictures.
22639
Post by: Baragash
Personally I'd like to see the basic Codex: Space Marines replaced with a generic Space Marine book containing no special Characters, with all the basic fluff about Space Marines and all the basic units available to lots of people.
Then I'd like to see an Imperial Armour style quality hard-back with about 10 pages per major chapter (and maybe 5 for some minor Codex adherent ones like in IA9 & 10) with IA style fluff, special characters and unique units and a list of which units they use from Codex Space Marines.
Ofc I realise not everyone wants to spend £15 on a codex and £45 on substantial hardback, but that's they way I'd like to see it done.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kilkrazy wrote:Codex New Space Marines
SNIP
The key to this book is several things.
1. No duplication of equipment and army lists.
2. A lot of historical fluff is deleted and put into Black Library books, thus increasing sales.
3. Don’t try too hard to give every chapter dozens of special rules and characters.
4. Fewer pictures.
I like it, I like it a lot. They could even expand it with tons more fluff and picture and even throw in some more random SM rules for the sake of being the poster boys and still fit it in a current sized and priced codex.
Just Dave wrote:
The first of which is the sheer cost of such a book; I play Space Wolves, lets say that you combine the 5 £15 codices into one book, therefore costing £75 in theory. I would not pay £75 for a book I will use less than a quarter of. Not only that, but it would be near-obscene for Games Workshop to charge so much for a book. They will not charge the normal price for a 'Super Codex' and even £50 or so is ridiculous.
And again, assuming it will cost as much as all of the SM books combined is ridiculous. At *least* half the material, probably more, in all the SM books is identical or nearly identical (here's the intro to the 40k universe, the Great Crusade and the Horus Heresy, here's the background on the basics of Space Marines, Here's some common battles that almost every SM book shares like Armageddon, here's all the common units/vehicles/weapons/wargear/etc).
And finally, pricing generally just does not work that way. I've never seen a company amalgamate a product like that and simply add up the cost of all of the previous units and just combine it.
Secondly, the Space Marine variant Codices are actually more popular than several stand alone Codices; the last poll I saw about this but them above at least Dark Eldar and Necrons. You get players complaining about the restrictions placed upon their armies (CSM, LaTD, Inq.) already, let alone after such a change as this.
And again, the Dark Eldar had ugly models and no support for twelve years and were featured in almost nothing. They weren't even stocked in stores after 2005 or so and never were seen, and were could only be bought expensively online direct from GW.
Necrons have a similar problem in that they are *TWO* editions old and are rather bad competitively. Had you checked their popularity in 2006 I'm sure it would have been a far different story.
Thirdly, it's simply not fair on the current variant players to shove them all in one book; it cuts down on variance, would likely appear ham-fisted and would ultimately cost them another £50+. You simply cannot go from 5 different Books into 1.
Once again, most of the current variation is already ham-fisted and forced simply to justify distinct books, not to better represent a certain Space Marine chatper. And no, it needn't cut everything away. If it were done like a CSM 3.5 codex I imagine there would be very few complaints.
Fourth, Games Workshop is a business. As a business, this doesn't make sense.
Again, yes it can. You remove many of the issues with armies sitting there outdated and not selling, you remove the cannibalization of sales from multiple lines and combine it into a single product line, you are able to better support the other existing armies, etc.
Fifth, Many of these individual Space Marine Codices have existed long before many of other Codices available these days.
And again...this really shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not they continue to have one. IG used to have Jetbikes, Dreads and Land Raiders too, does that mean they should still have them?
Sixth, there are too many variant chapters and too much variance to squeeze them all into one book. I expect 3 books could work:
- Space Marines
- Angels of Death
- Space Wolves and Black Templar (the two most divergent).
If The entirety of the Chaos Legions can fit in one book, I'm sure we can fit these, none of which are as different to each other as say Thousand Sons and Night Lords or World Eaters into one book. DA's are basically two FoC swaps. BA's got more complicated after they hamfisted tons of random crap in there, but basically are a Troops FoC swap, dual DCCW dreads, turret swap predators, a random CC rule that changes every edition, and Death Company. SW's are basically just ATSKNF bearing CSM's. BT's get a couple random special rules that could easily be dropped or changed just as easily as any of the other 4E/3E rules like that (traits, doctrines, etc) and they get mixed Scout/ Tac squads as troops, doesn't seem all that different to me.
Finally, as has all ready been said; this likely wouldn't make much of a difference to development times - it's the model production, rather than codex production, that takes so long.
And yet SM releases take no more or less time to get to market than others despite needing far less model input.
With such a book as this; you'd ALSO have a significant amount of time taken to make the book rather than the models.
Certainly not much more than the current C: SM or CSM: 3.5. The design work on a book like that doesn't take huge numbers of months, you might add a month or two, tops, probably less to army design time.
True, whilst this could ultimately help other Codices to be released quicker as there won't be other Space Marine Codices to get in the way, it would still take a large amount of development time and I wouldn't expect many other codices to be released in the same year as such a book.
You mean, maybe 1? That wouldn't be any different than the situation is now. We get 2-3 books a year. If it's SM's and something else, that's a normal year.
Also, it could get out-dated very quickly. It'd be a big thing to have all Space Marine armies out-dated, rather than just DA and BT.
How so? Updated it at the beginning of each edition, like they do the basic C: SM every time. Not seeing why it would get outdated. It might not be the ultra mega cheese book by the end of the edition,but in 4E C: SM was never seen as a bottom of the pile army by the end, and in 5E we still aren't seeing that, rather the biggest problem with C: SM is C: BA and C: SW.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Outdated-ness is only evident when there are similar books about. DA and BT became outdated because the newer C:SM, SW and BA books had better equipment for less cost. If all of the marines are rolled into one book, such power creep would not be evident, as everything will get updated at once.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
SUPER CODEX HAS COME TO SAVE THE DAY!
Oh wait wrong thread. When I read this I thought it was a joke, But apparently its a legitmate claim that we should have all codexs of SM in one codex..... You know how freaking long that would be? The lore alone would be 3/4 of it.
*walks out*
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Asherian Command wrote:SUPER CODEX HAS COME TO SAVE THE DAY!
Oh wait wrong thread. When I read this I thought it was a joke, But apparently its a legitmate claim that we should have all codexs of SM in one codex..... You know how freaking long that would be? The lore alone would be 3/4 of it.
*walks out*
It's always worked for the Chaos Space Marines 
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Vaktathi wrote:Asherian Command wrote:SUPER CODEX HAS COME TO SAVE THE DAY!
Oh wait wrong thread. When I read this I thought it was a joke, But apparently its a legitmate claim that we should have all codexs of SM in one codex..... You know how freaking long that would be? The lore alone would be 3/4 of it.
*walks out*
It's always worked for the Chaos Space Marines
OH really?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Asherian Command wrote:SUPER CODEX HAS COME TO SAVE THE DAY!
Oh wait wrong thread. When I read this I thought it was a joke, But apparently its a legitmate claim that we should have all codexs of SM in one codex..... You know how freaking long that would be? The lore alone would be 3/4 of it.
*walks out*
Not if you cut out most of the lore, and put it into BL novels. I put five core chapters plus a good variant list creation into one 64 page book.
34644
Post by: Mr Nobody
Asherian Command wrote:Vaktathi wrote:Asherian Command wrote:SUPER CODEX HAS COME TO SAVE THE DAY!
Oh wait wrong thread. When I read this I thought it was a joke, But apparently its a legitmate claim that we should have all codexs of SM in one codex..... You know how freaking long that would be? The lore alone would be 3/4 of it.
*walks out*
It's always worked for the Chaos Space Marines
OH really?
yes, I hear it was quite popular, it was part of why I thought of this.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Mr Nobody wrote:Asherian Command wrote:Vaktathi wrote:Asherian Command wrote:SUPER CODEX HAS COME TO SAVE THE DAY!
Oh wait wrong thread. When I read this I thought it was a joke, But apparently its a legitmate claim that we should have all codexs of SM in one codex..... You know how freaking long that would be? The lore alone would be 3/4 of it.
*walks out*
It's always worked for the Chaos Space Marines
OH really?
yes, I hear it was quite popular, it was part of why I thought of this.
Sory I can't see this happening, GW would not allow the diversity of units and different customs of the chapter get lost. I cannot see this happening and thats all I am going to say about the subject.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
The different customs of chapters needn't be lost, the vast majority aren't even reflected in the game, and between 5 loyalist books they share like 80% of the same units just outright, closer to 95% if you include variations (e.g. Ironclad to Furioso) so there's not exactly too much diversity to lose there.
If the *far* more diverse and varied Chaos Space Marines can make do with one book (is one really going to argue that BA's are more different from UM's than Thousand Sons are from Night Lords or Death Guard or the Black Legion?), I'm sure the 5 loyalist marine books can be amalgamated.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Vaktathi wrote:The different customs of chapters needn't be lost, the vast majority aren't even reflected in the game, and between 5 loyalist books they share like 80% of the same units just outright, closer to 95% if you include variations (e.g. Ironclad to Furioso) so there's not exactly too much diversity to lose there.
If the *far* more diverse and varied Chaos Space Marines can make do with one book, I'm sure the 5 loyalist marine books can be amalgamated.
You forgot alot of units. Space Wolves differ the most. Only ones I can see being merged are the Dark Angels and Regular Marines. Blood Angels are need on their own. And Black Templars differ from every chapter.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Asherian Command wrote:
You forgot alot of units. Space Wolves differ the most.
They get Counterattack and a CCW, along with a giant wolf unit. They have Scouts, they have their Vets and Terminators, they have all the same vehicles, they have their simply renamed iterations of Librarians, Chaplains and Techpriest, they have their Tac equivalents, their jump pack troops, their bikers and their devestators. None of these are significantly different enough that they couldn't be changed with less work than changed or adapted. You're talking about slight stat or wargear variations on common units. They could easily be covered in a sublist, WD article, of FW book/list.
They are certainly no more different from C: SM than say, Emperor's Children from Thousand Sons or Word Bearers which have always shared a book.
Blood Angels are need on their own.
Why? Port to C: SM. Give options for Fast vehicles in a BA sublist or unlock from a BA HQ, and allow Assault Marines as troops by the same token. Furioso's and Ironclads honestly are for the most part the same thing, dual DCCW combat walkers with frontal AV13, throw in an librarian option. Baal preds are just a weapon swap on normal preds, easily combined in with the HQ unlock.
BA's share outright over 80% of their units with C: SM, even more their weapons, and the core underlying special rules of the army ( ATSKNF, Combat Squads). That's not something that needs its own dedicated codex, that's a WD article or FW list.
And Black Templars differ from every chapter.
How? Functionally they have a couple army wide rules (vows) that are as replacable and muteable as the 4E Traits, Doctrines were, and far less than the CSM Legion sublists. When it comes to the actual army list, the only real difference is they have the Emperor's Champion (a simple 2 wound combat character that's relativley easy to port) and then mixed Scout/ Tac squads as troops.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Kilkrazy wrote:Asherian Command wrote:SUPER CODEX HAS COME TO SAVE THE DAY!
Oh wait wrong thread. When I read this I thought it was a joke, But apparently its a legitmate claim that we should have all codexs of SM in one codex..... You know how freaking long that would be? The lore alone would be 3/4 of it.
*walks out*
Not if you cut out most of the lore, and put it into BL novels. I put five core chapters plus a good variant list creation into one 64 page book.
And it will still come down to what Just Dave posted, to be frank about it.
"I'm paying $XX for my army book--and I only use about 20% of it!".
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
That doesn't seem to hurt many other gaming companies, and it also assumes that only 20% of the book is useable, which probably isn't an accurate measure at all. Again, these armies share the overwhelmingly vast majority of their units, statline, weapons, wargear, equipment and vehicles, their "unique" stuff pales in comparison to all the common stuff they share.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Vaktathi wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Codex New Space Marines
SNIP
The key to this book is several things.
1. No duplication of equipment and army lists.
2. A lot of historical fluff is deleted and put into Black Library books, thus increasing sales.
3. Don’t try too hard to give every chapter dozens of special rules and characters.
4. Fewer pictures.
I like it, I like it a lot. They could even expand it with tons more fluff and picture and even throw in some more random SM rules for the sake of being the poster boys and still fit it in a current sized and priced codex.
So 2. = delete and 4. = delete leads to expand what exactly?
New math?
Vaktathi wrote:
. I've never seen a company amalgamate a product like that and simply add up the cost of all of the previous units and just combine it.
GW won't add anything in the open, just hidden cost that add up.
They won't give us a discount, I'd guess the whfb line of "heraldry books" could hint on GW adopting that and your "only different paint schemes" end up beeing
a basic codex ( with UM obviously ) and the rest needs that " SM heraldry book" which adds up to a combined cost of all the integrated SM codices + 10% price increase.
Vaktathi wrote:Once again, most of the current variation is already ham-fisted and forced simply to justify distinct books, not to better represent a certain Space Marine chapter. And no, it needn't cut everything away. If it were done like a CSM 3.5 codex I imagine there would be very few complaints.
Oh we KNOW what happened to CSM 3.5.......
Plus, if its should be SM, the CSM belong into this. NO escape for traitorus scum. 
Vaktathi wrote:You remove many of the issues with armies sitting there outdated and not selling, you remove the cannibalization of sales from multiple lines and combine it into a single product line, you are able to better support the other existing armies, etc.
Lets see, selling fewer basic products successfully vs supporting multiple lines of different products.
Obviously, leads to more free ressources when you can't use the same basic product with a few changes to have a "new release".
Ever looked at GW kits? Lots of similar poses, assuming GW just took a existing piece and greenstuffed a few details on isn't incorrect.....
Vaktathi wrote: IG used to have Jetbikes, Dreads and Land Raiders too, does that mean they should still have them?
The Emperor said No, do you defy him?
Vaktathi wrote: If The entirety of the Chaos Legions can fit in one book, I'm sure we can fit these, none of which are as different to each other as say Thousand Sons and Night Lords or World Eaters into one book.
Look, chaos legions ceased to exist in M33.
Your warbands may not deserve multiple codices, at least when 40k background is mostly traitor GUARD vs IoM.
The pre-heresy Legions were equally different, but this is M419999999999 now, the year that never moves on, precisely eternally pre-M42.
Vaktathi wrote:And yet SM releases take no more or less time to get to market than others despite needing far less model input.
Can't you see the time spent to design the storm(chibi)raven ?
Think of the game designers!
...
And think of who IS the possible candidate to design the 'megadex'.
Vaktathi wrote: Updated it at the beginning of each edition, like they do the basic C:SM every time. Not seeing why it would get outdated. It might not be the ultra mega cheese book by the end of the edition,but in 4E C:SM was never seen as a bottom of the pile army by the end, and in 5E we still aren't seeing that, rather the biggest problem with C:SM is C:BA and C:SW.
Oh noes, how can one claim the single codex at the start of a edition may become outdated if the following years of that edition are filled with other codices,
none of them ever cheesy, as the "bottom of the pile army" will surely be one of the last releases of that edition, right?
just replace the SM codices with codex : movie marines and all is well../
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Vaktathi wrote:That doesn't seem to hurt many other gaming companies
Which other companies are we talking about here?
Because Warmachine, Starship Troopers, etc all went from having 'everything in one book' towards having individual army books.
and it also assumes that only 20% of the book is useable, which probably isn't an accurate measure at all. Again, these armies share the overwhelmingly vast majority of their units, statline, weapons, wargear, equipment and vehicles, their "unique" stuff pales in comparison to all the common stuff they share.
Fwoosh. Again, right over your head.
No matter how you cut it, there's going to be waste.
We'll use KK's "super codex" idea. 2 Dark Angels characters(likely Sammael and Belial, ditching Azrael and Ezekiel) which 'unlock' the specialist Deathwing and Ravenwing formations.
Those two formations do not field anything outside of the 1st Company Terminators or 2nd Company 'Rapid Strike(for lack of a better term)' vehicles like bikes and Land Speeders.
So what the hell is the point of buying this big huge army book for a Dark Angels player?
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Vaktathi wrote:Asherian Command wrote:
You forgot alot of units. Space Wolves differ the most.
They get Counterattack and a CCW, along with a giant wolf unit. They have Scouts, they have their Vets and Terminators, they have all the same vehicles, they have their simply renamed iterations of Librarians, Chaplains and Techpriest, they have their Tac equivalents, their jump pack troops, their bikers and their devestators. None of these are significantly different enough that they couldn't be changed with less work than changed or adapted. You're talking about slight stat or wargear variations on common units. They could easily be covered in a sublist, WD article, of FW book/list.
They are certainly no more different from C: SM than say, Emperor's Children from Thousand Sons or Word Bearers which have always shared a book.
Blood Angels are need on their own.
Why? Port to C: SM. Give options for Fast vehicles in a BA sublist or unlock from a BA HQ, and allow Assault Marines as troops by the same token. Furioso's and Ironclads honestly are for the most part the same thing, dual DCCW combat walkers with frontal AV13, throw in an librarian option. Baal preds are just a weapon swap on normal preds, easily combined in with the HQ unlock.
BA's share outright over 80% of their units with C: SM, even more their weapons, and the core underlying special rules of the army ( ATSKNF, Combat Squads). That's not something that needs its own dedicated codex, that's a WD article or FW list.
And Black Templars differ from every chapter.
How? Functionally they have a couple army wide rules (vows) that are as replacable and muteable as the 4E Traits, Doctrines were, and far less than the CSM Legion sublists. When it comes to the actual army list, the only real difference is they have the Emperor's Champion (a simple 2 wound combat character that's relativley easy to port) and then mixed Scout/ Tac squads as troops.
So you want to fill this lets get this right, all the special characters from every chapter INTO ONE BOOK? Do you know how stupid and inefficient that sounds? Sorry to insult but seriously that is a very stupid idea. It doesn't make any sense to fit the Black Templars that have alot of different units, they do not have tactical squads, they do not have devastator squads, they do not have librarians, you can't pull all chapters into one book with one army list. THAT IS BAD. That will mean Space Wolves will be able to take Emperors Champion, do you have any idea that if they did this would ruin alot of the borders of armies. Each codex is meant to ensure other chapters can't just other codex's rules it will be a mess if we put all the special rules into one book.
What you need to think is how will this affect the history, lore and the chapter units themselves? Just because they are renamed does not make them similar. The only two codexes that can fit together in my mind are dark angels and blood angels. Ultramarines + Black Templars. and Space Wolves by themselves. Lets face it if you put two almost opposite chapters like these together it would make sense. But seperate them into different parts like half the book concentrates on dark angels and the other half the blood angels. Etc. It can't simply say you can't use this for this chapter. Because someone could claim to be another chapter that fits between both.
Plus I don't want to face someone that keeps changing their chapter roots due to their codex having all the space marine codexes in one. think of it this way. if they made sagas for all codexes then people would change them for every game. This is unfluffy and really unfair for other races. Because they may prepare for a Space Marine army that is shooty next second they have red raged marines and space wolves on them killing their entire gunline.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
1hadhq wrote:
GW won't add anything in the open, just hidden cost that add up.
They won't give us a discount, I'd guess the whfb line of "heraldry books" could hint on GW adopting that and your "only different paint schemes" end up beeing
a basic codex ( with UM obviously ) and the rest needs that "SM heraldry book" which adds up to a combined cost of all the integrated SM codices + 10% price increase.
Methinks this is taking the GW "evil megacorp" thing a bit too far. When you're sharing 50%+ of the fluff, and 80% of the unit entries, there's not really that much more work to do or reason to make it that much. Also, GW's not going to make a codex costing twice what current books do (at least right now), and there's no good reason why a combined SM book *should* cost that much.
Oh we KNOW what happened to CSM 3.5.......
Plus, if its should be SM, the CSM belong into this. NO escape for traitorus scum.
Not quite sure what you mean here
Lets see, selling fewer basic products successfully vs supporting multiple lines of different products.
This is assuming that sales decrease, especially in the long run, and that the multiple lines aren't cannibalizing from each other and choking marketing/development support off from other products.
Vaktathi wrote:
Look, chaos legions ceased to exist in M33.
Your warbands may not deserve multiple codices, at least when 40k background is mostly traitor GUARD vs IoM.
The pre-heresy Legions were equally different, but this is M419999999999 now, the year that never moves on, precisely eternally pre-M42.
M33 precisely? Not M32 or M35? lets face it, the Legions may be fractured, but while some may be simple small groups of troops no more than a dozen or two strong, some remain quite unified. The Word Bearers for example are still quite whole, and the Iron Warriors Grand Companies that have split up still share a common homeworld for the most part and each one may be larger than most SM chapters.
Can't you see the time spent to design the storm(chibi)raven ?
Lets be honest, it's not hard to see that was a late development that probably wasn't initially planned. There's little mention of it in the book, no artwork, etc.
Oh noes, how can one claim the single codex at the start of a edition may become outdated if the following years of that edition are filled with other codices,
none of them ever cheesy, as the "bottom of the pile army" will surely be one of the last releases of that edition, right?
As it is, we either have Marine books in two or three different editions at a time, some always *vastly* oudated, and extending the time it takes to update *all* books. Just because it might not be the Über tourney army by the end of an edition doesn't mean it's really an issue. Lets be honest, C: SM is always the first book for any edition, it's never seen as trash by the end of an edition, except in relation to other Marine books, and is always immediately updated in the next edition. Combining them would solve many of these issues.
just replace the SM codices with codex : movie marines and all is well../
And have SM armies that are comprised of a single tac squad with a Rhino? That's a terrible business decision.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Not going to get into the debate side of things. I'd be for an all in one Space Marine Codex. Here's my rough outline...
Generic Space Marine Units
HQ - Chapter Masters, Captains, Chaplains & Librarians
Honour Guard & Command Squad
Elite - Terminator Squads, Veteran Squads & Dreadnoughts
Troops - Tactical Squads & Scouts (Transport Options)
Fast Attack - Assault Squads, Bike Squads & Landspeeder Squadrons
Heavy Support - Devastator Squads, Tanks and other Vehicles
Chapter Tactics
Different tactics for all major chapters similar to current codex. You would use the tactics of your chosen chapter e.g. Raven Guard would get fleet, Ultramarines would have their ability to fail a leadership test etc. This would take up two pages at most.
Special Characters
A series of special characters for the main codex chapters
Special Chapters
This would include the special characters & variant units for the three main oddball chapters, namely Blood Angels, Dark Angels & Space Wolves. Some of the current variations would need trimming down especially the Pups.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kanluwen wrote:Vaktathi wrote:That doesn't seem to hurt many other gaming companies
Which other companies are we talking about here?
Because Warmachine, Starship Troopers, etc all went from having 'everything in one book' towards having individual army books.
Flames of War comes immediately to mind. Books like Eastern Front, Fortress Europe, etc combining huge varieties of armies and nations into single books centered around a specific theater of war.
Fwoosh. Again, right over your head.
Hooray for Ad Hominem arguments!
No matter how you cut it, there's going to be waste.
We'll use KK's "super codex" idea. 2 Dark Angels characters(likely Sammael and Belial, ditching Azrael and Ezekiel) which 'unlock' the specialist Deathwing and Ravenwing formations.
Those two formations do not field anything outside of the 1st Company Terminators or 2nd Company 'Rapid Strike(for lack of a better term)' vehicles like bikes and Land Speeders.
So what the hell is the point of buying this big huge army book for a Dark Angels player?
The Deathwing and Ravenwing fight alone, without the support of any other units in the chapter at all all time every time?
How many DA players play Deathwing or Ravenwing exclusively now with nothing but Deathwing or Ravenwing units now? I can't recall a single one in years. I see lots of Double-wing, usually some sort of HS units for fire support. I don't ever recall seeing a pure Ravenwing army ever.
Also, from this line of argument, it would seem DA players are already only using 20% of their book, so what's the problem? Should Dark Angels should consist of nothing but Deathwing Terminators and Ravenwing units? Cut out the Tac squads, scouts, vets, tanks, other HQ's, etc?
Asherian Command wrote:
So you want to fill this lets get this right, all the special characters from every chapter INTO ONE BOOK? Do you know how stupid and inefficient that sounds? Sorry to insult but seriously that is a very stupid idea
So you get a bountiful SC section that's broken down by Chapter. What's the problem? Hell, half of them could probably be replaced with generic HQ entries, characters like Hellbrecht who don't really have any army-wide bonuses and whose wargear isn't really all that out of the ordinary.
It doesn't make any sense to fit the Black Templars that have alot of different units, they do not have tactical squads, they do not have devastator squads, they do not have librarians, you can't pull all chapters into one book with one army list. THAT IS BAD
Black Templars have Crusader squads. They mix scouts and tacs into one unit, not hard to replicate and certainly not deserving of its own book. The fact that they don't have dev's or librarians is irrelevant as that could simply be left to player choice not to take or built into an army sublist or HQ unlock for BT's.
That will mean Space Wolves will be able to take Emperors Champion,
Or just call it a Lone Wolf or Wolf Guard Battle Brother. These are basically the same unit just dressed up differently. It's a 2W disposable specialized combat character that can cheaply lead an army if necessary.
What you need to think is how will this affect the history, lore and the chapter units themselves?
Probably not at all, just reprint the core background material on each major chapter, give a couple good examples of famous battles, and give some SC's and their background.
It can't simply say you can't use this for this chapter. Because someone could claim to be another chapter that fits between both.
Already happens, and if really necessary could be dealt with in the army list itself if sublists or HQ unlocks are involved.
Plus I don't want to face someone that keeps changing their chapter roots due to their codex having all the space marine codexes in one.
Guess what, that already happens all the time. It's nothing new, and isn't exactly uncommon by any means now. As long as you aren't painting your marines exactly like Blood Angels or Ultramarines or Black Templars, there's really little to even object to when this is done.
This is already a ubiquitous practice.
if they made sagas for all codexes then people would change them for every game.
Saga's are a disposable and/or mutable special rule, the type that comes and goes with each edition, just like Traits, Doctrines, Rites of Battle, psychic powers (how many different powers have vanilla SM's had in three editions? practically nothing has remained constant) etc. They can be modified/renamed to be suitable for all SM armies or ditched and in the greater scheme of things aren't necessary to the inherent feel of Space Wolves.
This is unfluffy and really unfair for other races. Because they may prepare for a Space Marine army that is shooty next second they have red raged marines and space wolves on them killing their entire gunline.
Again, this already happens, nothing new.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Kanluwen wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Asherian Command wrote:SUPER CODEX HAS COME TO SAVE THE DAY!
Oh wait wrong thread. When I read this I thought it was a joke, But apparently its a legitmate claim that we should have all codexs of SM in one codex..... You know how freaking long that would be? The lore alone would be 3/4 of it.
*walks out*
Not if you cut out most of the lore, and put it into BL novels. I put five core chapters plus a good variant list creation into one 64 page book.
And it will still come down to what Just Dave posted, to be frank about it.
"I'm paying $XX for my army book--and I only use about 20% of it!".
But that's what happens at the moment, if you don't need the fluff in an SM book. (Most other codexes too for that matter.)
In fact it's worse, because of the amount of duplicated material.
My way, anyone wanting to look up the SW or any other SM army can buy a single £15 book and have all five main armies plus the Trait chapters.
Your way, you need to buy £75 of books and you don't get any Trait chapters.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Vaktathi wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Vaktathi wrote:That doesn't seem to hurt many other gaming companies
Which other companies are we talking about here? Because Warmachine, Starship Troopers, etc all went from having 'everything in one book' towards having individual army books.
Flames of War comes immediately to mind. Books like Eastern Front, Fortress Europe, etc combining huge varieties of armies and nations into single books centered around a specific theater of war.
Fwoosh. Again, right over your head.
Hooray for Ad Hominem arguments!
No matter how you cut it, there's going to be waste.
We'll use KK's "super codex" idea. 2 Dark Angels characters(likely Sammael and Belial, ditching Azrael and Ezekiel) which 'unlock' the specialist Deathwing and Ravenwing formations.
Those two formations do not field anything outside of the 1st Company Terminators or 2nd Company 'Rapid Strike(for lack of a better term)' vehicles like bikes and Land Speeders.
So what the hell is the point of buying this big huge army book for a Dark Angels player?
The Deathwing and Ravenwing fight alone, without the support of any other units in the chapter at all all time every time? How many DA players play Deathwing or Ravenwing exclusively now with nothing but Deathwing or Ravenwing units now? I can't recall a single one in years. I see lots of Double-wing, usually some sort of HS units for fire support. I don't ever recall seeing a pure Ravenwing army ever. Also, from this line of argument, it would seem DA players are already only using 20% of their book, so what's the problem? Should Dark Angels should consist of nothing but Deathwing Terminators and Ravenwing units? Cut out the Tac squads, scouts, vets, tanks, other HQ's, etc? Asherian Command wrote:
So you want to fill this lets get this right, all the special characters from every chapter INTO ONE BOOK? Do you know how stupid and inefficient that sounds? Sorry to insult but seriously that is a very stupid idea
So you get a bountiful SC section that's broken down by Chapter. What's the problem? Hell, half of them could probably be replaced with generic HQ entries, characters like Hellbrecht who don't really have any army-wide bonuses and whose wargear isn't really all that out of the ordinary. It doesn't make any sense to fit the Black Templars that have alot of different units, they do not have tactical squads, they do not have devastator squads, they do not have librarians, you can't pull all chapters into one book with one army list. THAT IS BAD
Black Templars have Crusader squads. They mix scouts and tacs into one unit, not hard to replicate and certainly not deserving of its own book. The fact that they don't have dev's or librarians is irrelevant as that could simply be left to player choice not to take or built into an army sublist or HQ unlock for BT's. That will mean Space Wolves will be able to take Emperors Champion,
Or just call it a Lone Wolf or Wolf Guard Battle Brother. These are basically the same unit just dressed up differently. It's a 2W disposable specialized combat character that can cheaply lead an army if necessary. What you need to think is how will this affect the history, lore and the chapter units themselves?
Probably not at all, just reprint the core background material on each major chapter, give a couple good examples of famous battles, and give some SC's and their background. It can't simply say you can't use this for this chapter. Because someone could claim to be another chapter that fits between both.
Already happens, and if really necessary could be dealt with in the army list itself if sublists or HQ unlocks are involved. Plus I don't want to face someone that keeps changing their chapter roots due to their codex having all the space marine codexes in one.
Guess what, that already happens all the time. It's nothing new, and isn't exactly uncommon by any means now. As long as you aren't painting your marines exactly like Blood Angels or Ultramarines or Black Templars, there's really little to even object to when this is done. This is already a ubiquitous practice. if they made sagas for all codexes then people would change them for every game.
Saga's are a disposable and/or mutable special rule, the type that comes and goes with each edition, just like Traits, Doctrines, Rites of Battle, psychic powers (how many different powers have vanilla SM's had in three editions? practically nothing has remained constant) etc. They can be modified/renamed to be suitable for all SM armies or ditched and in the greater scheme of things aren't necessary to the inherent feel of Space Wolves.
This is unfluffy and really unfair for other races. Because they may prepare for a Space Marine army that is shooty next second they have red raged marines and space wolves on them killing their entire gunline.
Again, this already happens, nothing new.
not going to lie but I feel insulted >.< Your lack of lore and history has completely destroyed my efforts to actually agree with you at all. I find your post very untrue to what space marines do. The combiniations of different culture chapters is dumb. Its like putting together Guardsmen into a space marine book. That is a NO. Emperors Champion DOES NOT = Lone Wolves. Lone Wolves are 1st company +3 save not a Emperors Champion that has a +2 save. You cannot put two opposite units into one profile. Helbrich is an old character that needs an update and the Chaplain has many different things, not only that but its the feel of each chapter that you need to remember. The fluff is the main reason why I go into 40k. It is a really bad idea to mix these chapters that should not be used with each chapter. Plus we are discussing something that will never happen.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Kilkrazy wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Asherian Command wrote:SUPER CODEX HAS COME TO SAVE THE DAY!
Oh wait wrong thread. When I read this I thought it was a joke, But apparently its a legitmate claim that we should have all codexs of SM in one codex..... You know how freaking long that would be? The lore alone would be 3/4 of it.
*walks out*
Not if you cut out most of the lore, and put it into BL novels. I put five core chapters plus a good variant list creation into one 64 page book.
And it will still come down to what Just Dave posted, to be frank about it.
"I'm paying $XX for my army book--and I only use about 20% of it!".
But that's what happens at the moment, if you don't need the fluff in an SM book. (Most other codexes too for that matter.)
In fact it's worse, because of the amount of duplicated material.
My way, anyone wanting to look up the SW or any other SM army can buy a single £15 book and have all five main armies plus the Trait chapters.
Your way, you need to buy £75 of books and you don't get any Trait chapters.
No, with my way you get a single army that you're actually interested in.
Speaking as a Dark Angels player?
I don't give a crap about the rest of the Astartes. If I buy the Codex associated with an army--I buy it because I'm actually interested in that army.
With your way, I'm stuck with a ton of crap in the form of Chapter Traits for the other "Founding Legions" that will likely never be useful to me.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Are you not interested in finding out about your opponents' armies?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Not enough to buy the Codex in most cases, no.
Plus: unless they've got something to hide(i.e., they're not actually playing 'by the book') they'll have it on hand to let me look at.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Asherian Command wrote:
not going to lie but I feel insulted >.< Your lack of lore and history has completely destroyed my efforts to actually agree with you at all. I find your post very untrue to what space marines do. The combiniations of different culture chapters is dumb. Its like putting together Guardsmen into a space marine book. That is a NO.
Besides a lot of emotion and shouting "no", and cries that I don't know the lore and history of the Space Marines (I've got all the 2E SM books but SW's sitting here, all the 3E ones, the index astartes articles, and the 4E/5E books within reach, I've read them all), what exactly is so terrible?
Emperors Champion DOES NOT = Lone Wolves. Lone Wolves are 1st company +3 save not a Emperors Champion that has a +2 save.
The difference in save is the thing that's killing it here?
Take generic 2W character, look through available upgrade options. Give it artificer armor and master crafted relic blade and an Iron Halo. You have Emperor's Champion! Take generic 2W character, give Stormshield and powerweapon, Lone Wolf!
If you're going to get that upset and nitpicky over tiny little differences that change from edition to edition with each update, nothing is ever going to seem right, not even an updated codex just for that one faction.
You cannot put two opposite units into one profile.
They aren't opposite. We're talking about a couple minor differences in stats, something you could build out of a common platform. Take a base WS5 BS4 S4 T4 I5 A2 Ld9 3+ sv statline, and add wargear/special rules packages from there. Does there really, truly need to be a distinct special entry for such units?
Helbrich is an old character that needs an update
He's a character because the BT's got their own book and needed a named chapter master, he's not old like Mephiston, Calgar, Tigurius, or Tycho (unless I'm not remembering something, I concede I could be wrong but IIRC he has his origins in the early 2000's not the mid or early 90's). He could easily be done using a standard Chapter Master generic entry, especially as he is now.
Kanluwen wrote:With your way, I'm stuck with a ton of crap in the form of Chapter Traits for the other "Founding Legions" that will likely never be useful to me.
Getting all the info on the other very similar armies and ability to play them if you choose in addition to that of your own army, in one package, ideally with lots of fluff and cool artwork, doesn't exactly sound like a terrible thing. I'd be willing to pay for that. Especially as, in the grand scheme of things, it's a one time payment that will last for 4-5 years, and would mean I have the rules for a large number of armies in a *single* book, and not have to worry about random updates over multiple editions for multiple SM armies with multiple rules for common wargear and having to reference and/or buy multiple books.
39004
Post by: biccat
Shooty-but-assaulty marines need a separate codex from marines that are simply assaulty-but-shooty. They are completely different armies. One has a unit that shoots, but is good at assaulting, while the other has a unit that assaults, but is good at shooting.
Further, these should be separate from the vanilla marines who are shooty or assaulty, as this army allows you to choose between shooty-but-assaulty units or assaulty-but-shooty units.
Completely different.
Also, one time on planet XXX four marines from the shooty-but-assaulty guys wiped out an entire heretic civilization, while on planet YYY four marines from a completely different, assaulty-but-shooty, army wiped out an entire civilization that had devolved into heresy.
Therefore, for fluff reasons alone, shooty-but-assaulty marines need a different codex from assaulty-but-shooty marines, and also from your average run-of-the-mill shooty-and-assaulty marines.
This should be self evident because it's been done before.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
biccat wrote:Shooty-but-assaulty marines need a separate codex from marines that are simply assaulty-but-shooty. They are completely different armies. One has a unit that shoots, but is good at assaulting, while the other has a unit that assaults, but is good at shooting.
Further, these should be separate from the vanilla marines who are shooty or assaulty, as this army allows you to choose between shooty-but-assaulty units or assaulty-but-shooty units.
Completely different.
Also, one time on planet XXX four marines from the shooty-but-assaulty guys wiped out an entire heretic civilization, while on planet YYY four marines from a completely different, assaulty-but-shooty, army wiped out an entire civilization that had devolved into heresy.
Therefore, for fluff reasons alone, shooty-but-assaulty marines need a different codex from assaulty-but-shooty marines, and also from your average run-of-the-mill shooty-and-assaulty marines.
This should be self evident because it's been done before.
This sounds like alot like Vaktathi. As it seems that he has a simlar writing style. This i found very stupid mate. You are basically making me want to insult every single movie, plot ever made.
So you are going to insult the horus heresy? That can be described in one sentence. And Many people will find your post very insulting. And you are insulting me as a player. Good DAY SIR!
27391
Post by: purplefood
Asherian Command wrote:not going to lie but I feel insulted >.< Your lack of lore and history has completely destroyed my efforts to actually agree with you at all. I find your post very untrue to what space marines do. The combiniations of different culture chapters is dumb. Its like putting together Guardsmen into a space marine book. That is a NO.
Emperors Champion DOES NOT = Lone Wolves. Lone Wolves are 1st company +3 save not a Emperors Champion that has a +2 save. You cannot put two opposite units into one profile.
Helbrich is an old character that needs an update and the Chaplain has many different things, not only that but its the feel of each chapter that you need to remember. The fluff is the main reason why I go into 40k. It is a really bad idea to mix these chapters that should not be used with each chapter.
Plus we are discussing something that will never happen.
It's a touch hypocritical to accuse someone of having no lore when you claim that Lone Wolves are 1st company although SW don't have a 1st company.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
This sounds like alot like Vaktathi. As it seems that he has a simlar writing style. This i found very stupid mate. You are basically making me want to insult every single movie, plot ever made.
So you are going to insult the horus heresy? That can be described in one sentence. And Many people will find your post very insulting. And you are insulting me as a player. Good DAY SIR!
It's not me.
And you also are having a gross overreaction to a simple case of intentionally unsubtle instance of humorous internet hyperbole.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
purplefood wrote:Asherian Command wrote:not going to lie but I feel insulted >.< Your lack of lore and history has completely destroyed my efforts to actually agree with you at all. I find your post very untrue to what space marines do. The combiniations of different culture chapters is dumb. Its like putting together Guardsmen into a space marine book. That is a NO.
Emperors Champion DOES NOT = Lone Wolves. Lone Wolves are 1st company +3 save not a Emperors Champion that has a +2 save. You cannot put two opposite units into one profile.
Helbrich is an old character that needs an update and the Chaplain has many different things, not only that but its the feel of each chapter that you need to remember. The fluff is the main reason why I go into 40k. It is a really bad idea to mix these chapters that should not be used with each chapter.
Plus we are discussing something that will never happen.
It's a touch hypocritical to accuse someone of having no lore when you calim that Lone Wolves are 1st company although SW don't have a 1st company.
well wolf Guard. They are what become the Wolf guard are the lone wolves. They go out and kill until they feel like they have done their job and come back and become Wolf Guard Plus I was talking about how he wants to put all these chapters that ARE all culturally different into one book and I find that kinda of ignorant. Vaktathi wrote:It's not me.
And you also are having a gross overreaction to a simple case of intentionally unsubtle instance of humorous internet hyperbole.
If i find insulting then why would I want to read it? Plus its a form I know that. You guys are probably hundreds of miles away from me. Plus at least I AM not writing BLAME THE VICTIM. Just saying I found it kinda of ignorant and very insulting.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Asherian Command wrote:purplefood wrote:Asherian Command wrote:not going to lie but I feel insulted >.< Your lack of lore and history has completely destroyed my efforts to actually agree with you at all. I find your post very untrue to what space marines do. The combiniations of different culture chapters is dumb. Its like putting together Guardsmen into a space marine book. That is a NO.
Emperors Champion DOES NOT = Lone Wolves. Lone Wolves are 1st company +3 save not a Emperors Champion that has a +2 save. You cannot put two opposite units into one profile.
Helbrich is an old character that needs an update and the Chaplain has many different things, not only that but its the feel of each chapter that you need to remember. The fluff is the main reason why I go into 40k. It is a really bad idea to mix these chapters that should not be used with each chapter.
Plus we are discussing something that will never happen.
It's a touch hypocritical to accuse someone of having no lore when you calim that Lone Wolves are 1st company although SW don't have a 1st company.
well wolf Guard. They are what become the Wolf guard are the lone wolves. They go out and kill until they feel like they have done their job and come back and become Wolf Guard
Plus I was talking about how he wants to put all these chapters that ARE all culturally different into one book and I find that kinda of ignorant.
Anyone can become Wolfguard. The point of a Lone Wolf is he has no pack and therefore no status in a Great Company so he sets out to either die or kill a big creature/person to become a Wolfguard.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Asherian Command wrote:
Plus I was talking about how he wants to put all these chapters that ARE all culturally different into one book and I find that kinda of ignorant.
You are assuming that because I want to combine them that I am ignorant of their background, which is just as ignorant an insulting (well, I'm over it really )
I just think this can all be done in a single book.
Again, even at their most diverse, Chaos Space Marines, which are far different from each other than the loyalist books are, shared a single book.
If i find insulting then why would I want to read it? Plus its a form I know that. You guys are probably hundreds of miles away from me. Plus at least I AM not writing BLAME THE VICTIM.
Just saying I found it kinda of ignorant and very insulting.
Then either don't read it or don't respond to it if it bothers you that much, and don't make insults at other posters when doing so.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Vaktathi wrote:Asherian Command wrote:
Plus I was talking about how he wants to put all these chapters that ARE all culturally different into one book and I find that kinda of ignorant.
You are assuming that because I want to combine them that I am ignorant of their background, which is just as ignorant an insulting (well, I'm over it really ) I just think this can all be done in a single book. Again, even at their most diverse, Chaos Space Marines, which are far different from each other than the loyalist books are, shared a single book.
If i find insulting then why would I want to read it? Plus its a form I know that. You guys are probably hundreds of miles away from me. Plus at least I AM not writing BLAME THE VICTIM.
Just saying I found it kinda of ignorant and very insulting.
Then either don't read it or don't respond to it if it bothers you that much, and don't make insults at other posters when doing so.
Yeah but lets not forget the Chaos Legions are now warbands, no longer full pledged legions. The thousand sons are no longer together. And that and they are all controled by chaos and they all use Daemons. That and they are mean't for warbands and that and they needed to be tuned down a bit and GW could afford to make more codexs. And mate. I called you ignorant in that aspect. I am sorry if it insulted you. But the Blame the Victim thing is needed.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Personally i think it would be easily possible.
The use of special rules and unlockable options would make it possible...
If they managed it, it would hopefully open up all the other codeci such as the CSM, IG and Eldar codex.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Chaos Legions all in one book had just as much diversity as the current spinoff SM Codexes, largely because they had unlockable units (Servo Arms, Basilisk and Vindicators for Iron Warriors, Cultists for Alpha Legion, The Accursed Crozius for Dark Apostles for Word Bearers. On the Books of Chaos Side, Death Guard and Noise Marine Havocs, Noise Dreadnoughts, Rubric Terminators, Destroyer Rhinos, etc...) and different FoC organisation (Daemonbomb Word Bearers played very differently than Siege Iron Warrior, who was even more different than the headstrong and rushing Khornate Armies).
All of that with the simple addition of a cheaper or free Veteran Skill, one or two unlockable units, and a different FoC organisation. Same goes for the 4th Ed SM codex, which a simple Chapter Traits system made Iron Hands different from White Scars. They also didnt take up that much space in the codex either. Iron Warriors were just as different as Blood Angels, and all it took for them was one extra page of fluff and rules. Sure they had two vehicles which weren't in the codex, but they took up no more than another half-page to get the rules in (and possibly not even that now, as the Vindicator became a standard Chaos vehicle).
All of it's completely do-able. It might even get rid of some of the cheese, as GW might not feel as pressured to put in some of the more ridiculous units just to make each codex stand out a little more. But it's just not profitable. GW would not get as much money selling you one compiled book as they would selling you three books, containing Dreadnought Clsoe Combat Weapons and Lightning Claws, Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons and Wolf Claws, or Blood Fist and Lightning Claws.
24150
Post by: ChocolateGork
I think it would be a good idea.
And could this thing PLEASE have a poll? it would be good to see what the majority would like.
30625
Post by: SumYungGui
Some people are just convinced that one color of dudes in power armor with bolters and chain swords actually are different from another color of dudes in power armor with bolters and chain swords. There's really no reasoning with them, and thus they will never admit that it's amazingly simple to put every marine codex into one codex and not have it be a single cent more expensive or a single page longer than they already are.
That's just the way it is. They actually believe their color of dudes is different. No amount of your silly evidence will ever convince them. They already believe it and you're wrong in their mind. *shrug* Nothing you can do.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
SumYungGui wrote:Some people are just convinced that one color of dudes in power armor with bolters and chain swords actually are different from another color of dudes in power armor with bolters and chain swords. There's really no reasoning with them, and thus they will never admit that it's amazingly simple to put every marine codex into one codex and not have it be a single cent more expensive or a single page longer than they already are.
That's just the way it is. They actually believe their color of dudes is different. No amount of your silly evidence will ever convince them. They already believe it and you're wrong in their mind. *shrug* Nothing you can do.
Nobody believes "the color of dudes is different, thus needs a codex!". If it went like that, we'd have had Yellow and Gray Marine codices years ago.
It's the background, signature units, characters, and more that has always made them different.
My Dark Angels have always had a very different background and playstyle than the standard Codex Marines or the Space Wolves or Blood Angels or Black Templars.
They're also one of the most interesting aspects of the Imperium at large.
It's GW's fault they did a piss-poor job underlining that fact. I could have done a more characterful and unique Dark Angels codex in a manner of weeks than the piece of crap copy/paste fest they produced. They could have gone into any number of parts of the background and expounded upon them, or fleshed out new characters, etc.
But they didn't. They half-assed it because they did "Codex: Dark Angels" as an experiment, a test run prior to the actual Codex: Space Marines.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Vaktathi wrote:Methinks this is taking the GW "evil megacorp" thing a bit too far. When you're sharing 50%+ of the fluff, and 80% of the unit entries, there's not really that much more work to do or reason to make it that much. Also, GW's not going to make a codex costing twice what current books do (at least right now), and there's no good reason why a combined SM book *should* cost that much.
I'll provide a listing of the amount of space used for fluff, unit entrys, etc later.
For now, separate books are neccessary to keep even partially wat is there yet. At least 1 codex and 1 "expansion" or watever you want to call it.
Price = codex + "ex" = codex x3. Minimum.
Vaktathi wrote:
Oh we KNOW what happened to CSM 3.5.......
Plus, if its should be SM, the CSM belong into this. NO escape for traitorus scum.
Not quite sure what you mean here
Is CSM 3.5 the actual codex? How varied are CSM today?
Are doctrines and traits gone, like IA is gone and any other non- SC method of unlocking options?
Vaktathi wrote:
Look, chaos legions ceased to exist in M33.
Your warbands may not deserve multiple codices, at least when 40k background is mostly traitor GUARD vs IoM.
The pre-heresy Legions were equally different, but this is M419999999999 now, the year that never moves on, precisely eternally pre-M42.
M33 precisely? Not M32 or M35? lets face it, the Legions may be fractured, but while some may be simple small groups of troops no more than a dozen or two strong, some remain quite unified. The Word Bearers for example are still quite whole, and the Iron Warriors Grand Companies that have split up still share a common homeworld for the most part and each one may be larger than most SM chapters.
So basically a special "Legion/cult only choice" and a few changes to the FOC validate difference but "successor of a Legion choices" and a few FOC changes do not?
Not buying that 'i is cramped into one dex, so you shall to' argument.
The way 5th ed goes, IW cant hold a fortress...
But renegades get a coverage by FW. Could predict the lack of 5thed notions of WB and IW in GW publications isn't an accident.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
All of it's completely do-able. It might even get rid of some of the cheese, as GW might not feel as pressured to put in some of the more ridiculous units just to make each codex stand out a little more. But it's just not profitable. GW would not get as much money selling you one compiled book as they would selling you three books, containing Dreadnought Clsoe Combat Weapons and Lightning Claws, Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons and Wolf Claws, or Blood Fist and Lightning Claws.
Exactly. Releases are driven by profit.
SumYungGui wrote:Some people are just convinced that one color of dudes in power armor with bolters and chain swords actually are different from another color of dudes in power armor with bolters and chain swords. There's really no reasoning with them, and thus they will never admit that it's amazingly simple to put every marine codex into one codex and not have it be a single cent more expensive or a single page longer than they already are.
That's just the way it is. They actually believe their color of dudes is different. No amount of your silly evidence will ever convince them. They already believe it and you're wrong in their mind. *shrug* Nothing you can do.
Imagination isn't part of the hobby?
OTOH, since your evidence is silly, wy should I believe in silly things?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Took some time to sort it out, but its a best guess:
Space Marines codices have:
1) pages of painting examples = 13 - 22
adds up to 70 pages..
2) pages wargear, examples/drawings thereof = 4 - 8
adds up to a minimum of 4/5 pages if not all is kept. If a line is drawn and specific wargear kept, may expand to another 4/5 pages. Sum = 8 - 10.
3) Illustrations over the whole page = 4
filler or not, unlikely to be less than 4
4) History, ie HH = 2 per codex. Even reduced to a single basic overview of the Heresy and a paragraph per Legion, its unlikely less than 6 pages.
could be moved to BL and a additional background book, but losing basic information of heritage?
5) Specific background = 9 -34 pages per codex. Sum of 75 pages.
since I doubt anyone supports the "IH disaster" of M.Ward, assuming less background than vanilla(34) is unlikely to happen. Adds up to 50+x pages if done correctly. Could be outsourced too, but who supports a "bestest marines only in this codex, please buy our expansion pack" approach for all the non-UM ?
6) creation of a space marine = 2
Stays without doubt.
7) chart of the Legions and successors = 1
Stays too.
8) organization = 1-2 per codex
Having them all, adds up to 9-10 pages.
9) summary of units, weapons, etc = 1
could be possible to stay 1, didn't try to find out if still readable then.Depends on whats kept,too. Maybe rather 2 pages.
10) Special rules = 1 -2 pages per codex. Sum of 6-7.
If it is not to be just different paintschemes, less than 6 pages isn't cutting it. Likely to be up to 10.
11) Units, pics/descriptions/rules = 7-34. ( skewed by BT, age shows lack of basic units having such pages). Adds up to 102. Doubles would be erased.
The course of 5th is having a page per 1-5 models/units. 30 basic units plus 15 specific ones, sums up to 45. Its GW so +5 new ones.
Maybe condensed to 40 pages, without characters because Iam going to list those seperately.
12) SC = 2 - 11 per codex. Adds up to 33.
Most of those 33 have models, unlikely to be dropped in numbers significantly. Again GW, maybe the lists follow still the SC design so +5 new isn't impossible.
13) general codex bla bla = 2
part of the design, stays for sure.
units of the FOC:
14) HQ = 3 - 5 per codex. ( please notice: SC extracted and listed seperately ).
Consider Chapter master, Captain, Chaplain, Librarian, one type of command squad a given. Add Honor guard, Master of the forge, different levels of chaplains and librarians, Termie command and a dread HQ. Don't forget specialists like the EC. Sums up to = 12+ entrys without SC.
15) Elite = 3 per codex
Consider 2 Termie variants, a dread, PA veterans a given. Add more Dreads ( 3 ), specific units from SW ( 2 ) and most likely Techmarines. Sums up to = 10+
16) Fast assault = 3 - 5 per codex. Sums up to = 8+
Consider ASM, bikes ( 3 ), Landspeeders a given, add a Dread, Baal pred, ASM vets. Sums up to = 8 for sure without specialists.
17) Troops = 1-4 per codex. Adds up to = 4.
Consider Tacs and scouts given, add death co ( 2 ). Any FOC change could rise that number.
18) Heavy support = 5 - 11. Adds up to = 11 until the SR branches out to multiple variants.
8 should be common.
19) pages used to present the army list = 10 - 14. per codex.
Basic units = ~14 pages. Add specific untis = ~10, sums up to = ~25 pages minimum.
20) pages spent on "combined dex" : 311 without cuts. Again: 311 .
So a 311 page tome is cheap if GW sells it you say? 
Just remember, this counts no doubles, ie any similar entry is reduced to 1.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Look at my page list for how it can be done in 64 pages.
39004
Post by: biccat
Asherian Command wrote:This sounds like alot like Vaktathi. As it seems that he has a simlar writing style. This i found very stupid mate. You are basically making me want to insult every single movie, plot ever made.
So you are going to insult the horus heresy? That can be described in one sentence. And Many people will find your post very insulting. And you are insulting me as a player. Good DAY SIR!
I'm confused, how does that lead to you insulting every movie plot ever made? Given that there are only 7 basic plots, it's not hard to make an argument that everything is repeated somewhere.
First, from a game perspective, most marine armies are indistinguishable. Blue Marines get just about the same number of choices as Grey, Red, Black, or Green Marines. The deck is shuffled around a little more for all the different colors, but there's little to distinguish them.
Besides, the fluff says that the Emperor, through His Most Holy Deck of Playing Cards, has decreed that everyone follow the Blue Marines' force org anyway. Are you defying the Emperor?
Second, from a fluff perspective, the differences between most of the SM Legions (and successor chapters) is minimal. After the Heresy, several (most) of the Loyalist Legions were decimated, and were barely salvaged by Roboute, who organized ALL of the legions into chapters according to the Ultramarine model. Any differences therefore are entirely based on differences in the gene-seed and a few holdover traditions.
In contrast, the Chaos Legions maintained much of their original characters, surviving well the Heresy (better than the Loyalists at least). The differences in their gene-seeds and traditions are at least as strong as the differences between individual SM legions, and likely stronger due to the lack of quality control and the warping effects of living in the EoT.
In conclusion, the only reason for separate codexes for the SM is because of GW-manufactured differences that don't make any sense from either a marketing perspective or from a fluff perspective. The difference, in both fluff and purported play style, between the World Eaters and Death Guard is far more profound than any difference between the Space Wolves and Dark Angels.
Yet somehow CSM has survived as a viable army for a long time with one Codex. And on an army-population-per-codex basis, are probably better than SM.
That said, I don't think SM deserve one codex, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. They should have 2, one for basic Blue Marines, and one for alternative/other chapters, like the Orks/Feral, Eldar/Craftworld, or IG/Catachans sets.
Not only would it give more flexibility to units, it would allow other codices to be updated quicker. Maybe regular updates of armies, or more variety in armies, would bring more people into the game.
25139
Post by: micahaphone
While it would work (with variations and special rules for the various chapters), it would make GW less money. GW is a business, they need to make money. Ergo, multiple codecies.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
micahaphone wrote:While it would work (with variations and special rules for the various chapters), it would make GW less money. GW is a business, they need to make money. Ergo, multiple codecies.
Why would they necessarily make less money?
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Kilkrazy wrote:Look at my page list for how it can be done in 64 pages.
( had to dig a bit as some posters were so engaged in a debate your post nearly gone missed...)
This?
Codex New Space Marines
Chapter 1
The original foundings and making of a Spam. 6 pages. Cut down 10 pages to 6?
Chapter 2
Ultramarines, with a bit of fluff, special characters and rules. 5 pages (2 fluff, 2 characters, 1 rules) cut down 20 pages to 5?
Chapter 3
How to make variant chapters using Traits. The variant traits are used to make the four following chapters, but there are more traits available to make more variations. 12 pages. cherrypicking ensues....
Chapter 4
Dark Angels, with a bit of fluff, special characters and rules. 5 pages (2 fluff, 2 characters, 1 rules) cut down 19 pages to 5?
Chapter 5
Space Wolves, with a bit of fluff, special characters and rules. 5 pages (2 fluff, 2 characters, 1 rules) cut down 23 pages to 5?
Chapter 6
Black Templars, with a bit of fluff, special characters and rules. 5 pages (2 fluff, 2 characters, 1 rules)cut down 10 pages to 5?
Chapter 7
Blood Angels, with a bit of fluff, special characters and rules. 5 pages (2 fluff, 2 characters, 1 rules)cut down 24 pages to 5?
Chapter 8
All of the equipment and troop lists. 10 pages. cut equipment from 8 to ? Cut lists from 14 to ? See, can't have 22 pages cut to 10 without deleting tons of equipment and troops. Really?
Chapter 9
Hobby section. 5 pages. cut from 15 to 5?
Chapter 10
Quick Reference Sheets. 6 pages Reference sheets are where mistakes lurk...
Sorry, this isn't even remotely keeping half of the models "legal", drops the fluff in swathes and does not allow to control and balance the builds.
It is a way to reduce the fluff, the SC and the hobby section along with existing models.
As an example, if you cut:
- painting 70 pages,
- specific wargear 5 pages
- illustrations 4 pages
- HH 6-8 pages
- fluff 75 pages
- > thus half of the 311 I counted, youre left with another 150-60 pages, not 64, even losing all of the above.
A simplyfied rules&units&basic info& lists codex. Uninspiring and maybe not even worth the usual price of a codex.
If you claim, the traits will cover the units, sorry existing models are hard to discount. Basic units alone eat 11-14 pages without SC and without chapter specific
units around. Your 10 pages can't even keep the common units in the game.
5th ed also uses pages to explain units and the rules for them. Part of what in your codex?
So 6th ed doesn't IYO?
Basic equipment needs 3-4 pages. You have to have 20 pages and invest just 10. Somehow this dex will lack the size to print the text in a readable font IMHO.
Or is the trick to have 64 pages A0 format?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Yes, cut ruthlessly.
Most of the fluff can be exported to novels and albums.
Hobby advice can be cut in half easily -- there is White Dwarf and "How To Paint Citadel Miniatures".
Delete duplicated troops and equipment.
It can be done, if GW have the will.
34439
Post by: Formosa
The problem with the DA Codex isn't that it isn't diferent enough from the Space marine codex, its that it's very badly designed.
If DA are done properly then Ravenwing and Deathwing would be the smallest of changes from the standard codex, and all the other oddities could be added in, like watchers in the dark, warp beasts (or something like that) etc. hell it could even become the first truelly "Gun line" SM codex
31375
Post by: stompydakka
That would be interesting, Formosa.
We'll se what the update does (when it happens)
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Formosa wrote:The problem with the DA Codex isn't that it isn't diferent enough from the Space marine codex, its that it's very badly designed.
Definitely. But...
If DA are done properly then Ravenwing and Deathwing would be the smallest of changes from the standard codex, and all the other oddities could be added in, like watchers in the dark, warp beasts (or something like that) etc. hell it could even become the first truly "Gun line" SM codex
Warp Beasts and Watchers in the Dark really have nothing to do with the Dark Angels.
The Watchers in the Dark are just something that tags along into battle. They never take part, nothing they do ever swings the tide of battle or does anything aside from them sort of being a hat rack for the Chaptermaster Azrael. Arguably, you could do something with them and have them conferring a strategic initiative(since they're supposed to be Psykers on par with Eldrad, if "Descent of Angels" is to be believed) or some kind of bonus.
Warp Beasts though, were something that occurred on Caliban. It was a result of the planet being tainted to its very core, and spawned such monstrosities as the Calibanite Lions.
But--those were all killed off when Caliban was destroyed. And the "Calibanite Lions"? They weren't Lions. They were just given that name by the settlers, and were more like Chimerae--blending features of all different kinds of beasts.
The last part though, I definitely agree with. Dark Angels could easily become the first real "combined arms" Astartes codex. The Ravenwing launching flank attacks and grabbing a vital objective while the main force holds the line with precision gunfire and sheer tenacity until the Deathwing steps in?
Easily makes for a more interesting playstyle than most will admit.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, cut ruthlessly.
All of the fluff can be exported to novels and albums.
Hobby advice can be cut completly -- there is White Dwarf and "How To Paint Citadel Miniatures".
Delete troops and equipment.
It can be done, if GW have the will.
A) fixed it for you.
B) codex BT = 64, codex DA = 89, codex SW = 96, codex BA = 96, codex SM = 144. Doesn't look like 64 "is the common size"......
C) one design at one edition of 40k. Can't do one codex that way without every other codex following that design. Lets see the level of happyness when the
non- SM players find out what you have done to them.
is the trick to have 64 pages A0 format?
Go on and support the illusion of a 64 pages combined SM codex.
The moment you cut plastic kits from codices is the moment the company cuts your contract.
23115
Post by: OoieGoie
Killkrazy made some great posts about being able to do the combination of Codices. Read them! Ha.
Yes, it could be done, it would all be in a very different format though and they wouldnt have to fill the Codex with junk just to fill the pages.
I dont think GW ever will though. Where will they put the future space marine Codices?? There will be more. 
722
Post by: Kanluwen
They would have to alter the format of every Codex if they were to do the Space Marine codex that KK suggests.
And no matter what, that would be a crummy codex.
30625
Post by: SumYungGui
See, what did I say? Completely convinced their color of marines is different from that color of marines. Just no reasoning with the mind set and the furor that would come from doing something intelligent and in the best interest of the hobby would be unprecedented. Too many people play marines and think the special treatment their army gets is what they deserve. They could never handle being brought so low as to deal with the bread crumbs and back-of-the-hand 'tough love' that other armies put up with year after year.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
SumYungGui wrote:See, what did I say? Completely convinced their color of marines is different from that color of marines. Just no reasoning with the mind set and the furor that would come from doing something intelligent and in the best interest of the hobby would be unprecedented. Too many people play marines and think the special treatment their army gets is what they deserve. They could never handle being brought so low as to deal with the bread crumbs and back-of-the-hand 'tough love' that other armies put up with year after year.
Considered to not reply to such whining.
But here I am.
1) when the commonly used size of codices in a edition of WH 40k is different to the suggested size of a "SMsc",
2) when the company responsible for publications of 40k codices enlarges codices from edition to edition,
3) when basic layout does not allow to put the content into what is suggested as size,
then I feel its only right to criticise any claim of " it can be done at XX pages ".
It just can't. GW won't change codex sizes to adopt this suggested format.
Example: codex SM 3rd ed = 48 pages, codex SM 4th ed = 80 pages, codex SM 5th ed = 144 pages;
Doesn't look like there was nothing added and can be cut "ruthlessly" without keeping that "ruthlessness" after the 1st codex of a new edition. I am fine with your favourite codex cut down to a single page in a "non- SM super codex". You won't need more, like Killkrazy said: there is WD for you.....
4) doing something intelligent...
- have a look at the past?
3rd ed:
- space marines 48 pages
- choas space marines 48 pages ( surprise surprise...)
- imperial guard 48 pages ( again? )
- Eldar 48 pages ( must be a pattern...)
- Dark Eldar .....48? yep 48 pages
- orks 48 pages ( even orks..)
- tyranids 48 pages ( how so? accident? )
- mini-codices 25-30 pages ( could list them, but I think you know them ).
Follow-ups:
- space marines 48 pages
- Space marines 80 pages
- Space marines 144 pages
- choas space marines 48 pages
- choas space marines 80 pages
- chaos space marines 104 pages
- imperial guard 48 pages
- imperial guard 64 pages
- imperial guard 104 pages
- orks 48 pages
- orks 104 pages
- Eldar 48 pages
- Eldar 83 pages
- Dark eldar 48 pages
- Dark eldar 96 pages
- tyranids 48 pages
- tyranids 64 pages
- tyranids 96 pages
- T'au 64 pages
- T'au empire 64 pages
- dark angels 25 pages
- dark angels 88 pages
- blood angels 25 pages
- blood angels 96 pages
- space wolves 25 pages
- space wolves 96 pages
- Necrons 64 pages
- demonhunters 64 pages
- witchhunters 64 pages
- EoT campaign dex 50 pages
- chaos demons 88 pages
- black templars 64 pages
5th ed :
- Space marines 144 pages
- imperial guard 104 pages
- space wolves 96 pages
- tyranids 96 pages
- blood angels 96 pages
- Dark eldar 96 pages
guess the size of upcoming GK: maybe 96 pages?
Seems the size doubled since 3rd ed. Why should (6th,7th or? ) revert back to only 75%?
5) the best interest of the hobby...
- is the best interest to reduce the hobby material in a codex?
- is the best interest to reduce background?
- is the best interest to reduce existing metal and plastic models?
- is the best interest to drive off the collectors with the above?
The best interest is to not cater to elitists.
6) bread crumbs.
Such a well thought out idea. Lets treat them like DE and they will go away.
Oh wait, De codex wasn't shrinked...got new models.......
Maybe like necrons then?
Just 1 codex, only a few models....but what if there is a codex behind the rumors , what if it is expanded.....
To achieve your weird state, may I suggest to start your own club and:
- Prohibit playing SM
- Prohibit painting SM in any color
See, success is guaranteed!
- No space marines around you!
- ......
7) 'super' codex.
So a 'super' codex is so super, it hasn't even half of the content of a basic codex.... 
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Kanluwen wrote:They would have to alter the format of every Codex if they were to do the Space Marine codex that KK suggests.
And no matter what, that would be a crummy codex.
No, they wouldn't. No-one else except Space Mariens has five codexes for basically one force.
It would be a great codex.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Kilkrazy wrote:Kanluwen wrote:They would have to alter the format of every Codex if they were to do the Space Marine codex that KK suggests.
And no matter what, that would be a crummy codex.
No, they wouldn't. No-one else except Space Mariens has five codexes for basically one force.
It would be a great codex.
Except you're not advocating it to be a "super codex".
You're altering stripping out the entire format of how Codices are set up(fluff section being a certain percentage of the book, etc).
So yes, they would have to alter the format of every Codex to reflect that.
24150
Post by: ChocolateGork
Kanluwen wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Kanluwen wrote:They would have to alter the format of every Codex if they were to do the Space Marine codex that KK suggests.
And no matter what, that would be a crummy codex.
No, they wouldn't. No-one else except Space Mariens has five codexes for basically one force.
It would be a great codex.
Except you're not advocating it to be a "super codex".
You're altering stripping out the entire format of how Codices are set up(fluff section being a certain percentage of the book, etc).
So yes, they would have to alter the format of every Codex to reflect that.
Welll good.
They alter the style of the codexes nearly every edition. And so far it has been for the better.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
#1: Black Library is god awful. It is NOT canon, will never be canon, and SHOULD never be canon. Porting fluff out to those books means many people would never know or care about the fluff of their army. It's bad enough in some codices already (see: Necron and Blood Angel bro job), without letting some of those Black Library hacks getting to it.
#2: Super dex with traits. They tried that, it didn't work. I'm not sure why you think it would work now. Do Chaos Space Marines sort of get the shaft? Absolutely. Does that mean anything regarding the other armies? Absolutely not. You can argue for a worthwhile Chaos Dex without arguing against other Dexes.
#3: Combining loyalist books. I play Space Wolves (along with 4 others). If you honestly think that just moving assault marines to troops and changing our bikes for wolves leaves the army in tact, you're either delusional or have not regularly fielded Space Wolves. SW Scouts are not SM Scouts. Wolf Guard are not Sternguard. Blood Claws are not Assault Troops (we can take Skyclaws for that).
#4: Xenos need more love. I completely agree. 100%. Absolutely. Never hear otherwise from me. After the amazing SW codex, the Tyranid Dex was the biggest disappointment that GW has ever landed in my lap. Does that mean I blame the SW dex? Or the annoyingly stupid BA Dex that followed? No. I blame the craptastical hack that wrote it, who had nothing to do with either of the other dexes. Blame where blame is do, don't just rage blindly.
#5: Too much of these 4 pages is "My army should be the special little fairy!" "No! My army should be!" "No, this force is much more deserving!"
Bah, forget it.
|
|
