White Scars have a unique feel to the army. They are based of Mongols and I think they kind of deserve their own codex. Is there a reason for White Scars not to have their own codex? Please do not give the reason: Their is enough Marine Books, just put them in the Vanilla Marine book or something to that effect.
Here's an e.g. from Lexicanum of their fluff:
The White Scars are the fifth Space Marine Legion of the First Founding. Their Primarch is Jaghatai Khan. During the Horus Heresy the White Scars remained loyal to the Emperor, after which they reorganized and split into Chapters. Drawing on the tribal savagery of their homeworld, the White Scars practice a highly mobile method of warfare, tearing into their enemies with lightning-quick attacks and vanishing before a response can be made. A unique formation within the Chapter are the Souldrinkers, Space Marine veterans that excel in close combat. These Marines are armed with power-swords and refractor fields and bear their own distinctive shoulder badges and honour banners. Another formation are the Cobra Squads, comprised of regular members of the Chapter's companies that have been equipped with jump packs.

If not, what about for 6th edition having a White Scars/Space Wolf book because they pratice very similar Shamanistic belief systems.

Similar belief systems doesn't mean similar tactics. I would say that they really aren't different enough from the normal Codex Astartes to warrant their own book, but they are far more divergent than the Dark Angels, so why not?

My opinion would be that if the C:SM can facilitate the army with little more than a few extra rules, they should be in the C:SM. I don't think the White Scars are really different enough to need much more than something to benefit Fast Attack units, so they should stay in the normal Codex.

Nope. They're still technically Codex-adherent and can be represented fine with C:SM.

I just noticed that you "excluded" this argument. That's like saying "Agree with me and don't tell me the solid reason why it's a bad idea."

Blood Angels are also a Codex chapter. Just saying.

Either way, I don't think that arguing from a background-perspective is a good line of thinking either for or against a new Codex. That is clearly not the rationale behind it and the background will in any case either by made (Black Templars, also a little-fleshed-out Codex-chapter before they got their own book) or changed (see recent changes/expansion to Space Wolves, Blood Angels) to fit.

GW doesn't work from the background to add stuff to the game. They add stuff to the game and add/change/adapt background to sell it.

rockerbikie wrote:White Scars have a unique feel to the army. They are based of Mongols and I think they kind of deserve their own codex. Is there a reason for White Scars not to have their own codex? Please do not give the reason: Their is enough Marine Books, just put them in the Vanilla Marine book or something to that effect.

Why not? Because aside just from some Mongol ethnicity, and a preference for Biker troops which the current book already perfectly portrays, they aren't substantially different enough to warrant their own codex. Souldrinkers can be perfectly well portrayed by Vanguard Vets and Cobra Squads by Assault Marines, and simply taking a bike for your captain allows bikes as troops.


And yes, "there are already enough marine books" is a pretty good argument here. If the Catachan Jungle Fighters, Tallarn Desert Fighters, Death Korps Siege Regiments, Cadian Shock Troops, Mordian Iron Guard, Vostroyan Firstborn, Valhallans, Tanith First and Only, Elysian Drop Troops, and billions of other IG regiments which differ much more from each other than most Marine chapters do can all fit within one book, or at worst, one book and a couple Imperial Armour lists, with the same going for all the varied Ork clans/tribes/etc and Eldar Craftworlds and Chaos Traitor Legions, it's hard to see a need for a codex just for, yet another, relatively Codex-adherent Space Marine chapter.

Vaktathi wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:White Scars have a unique feel to the army. They are based of Mongols and I think they kind of deserve their own codex. Is there a reason for White Scars not to have their own codex? Please do not give the reason: Their is enough Marine Books, just put them in the Vanilla Marine book or something to that effect.

Why not? Because aside just from some Mongol ethnicity, and a preference for Biker troops which the current book already perfectly portrays, they aren't substantially different enough to warrant their own codex. Souldrinkers can be perfectly well portrayed by Vanguard Vets and Cobra Squads by Assault Marines, and simply taking a bike for your captain allows bikes as troops.


And yes, "there are already enough marine books" is a pretty good argument here. If the Catachan Jungle Fighters, Tallarn Desert Fighters, Death Korps Siege Regiments, Cadian Shock Troops, Mordian Iron Guard, Vostroyan Firstborn, Valhallans, Tanith First and Only, Elysian Drop Troops, and billions of other IG regiments which differ much more from each other than most Marine chapters do can all fit within one book, or at worst, one book and a couple Imperial Armour lists, with the same going for all the varied Ork clans/tribes/etc and Eldar Craftworlds and Chaos Traitor Legions, it's hard to see a need for a codex just for, yet another, relatively Codex-adherent Space Marine chapter.

Death Krieg deserves their own codex.

Vaktathi wrote:

And yes, "there are already enough marine books" is a pretty good argument here. If the Catachan Jungle Fighters, Tallarn Desert Fighters, Death Korps Siege Regiments, Cadian Shock Troops, Mordian Iron Guard, Vostroyan Firstborn, Valhallans, Tanith First and Only, Elysian Drop Troops, and billions of other IG regiments which differ much more from each other than most Marine chapters do can all fit within one book, or at worst, one book and a couple Imperial Armour lists, with the same going for all the varied Ork clans/tribes/etc and Eldar Craftworlds and Chaos Traitor Legions, it's hard to see a need for a codex just for, yet another, relatively Codex-adherent Space Marine chapter.

Again, faulty logic based on background. Diversity in the gaming scene isn't the number of books available, but the distribution of players across these books.

If your "average" 40k community, in a simplified example, would exist of 100 gamers in a 40K game consisting of 5 different armies, which are distributed as follows...

Space Marines: 40
Imperial Guard: 20
Orks: 10
Eldar: 10
Chaos Marines: 20

... then, as a gaming company, you should probably release a second Space Marines Codex (and consider merging Orks & Eldar if you only have the capacity to support 5 Codexes for the game) to get a more even spread in the player-base across the armies you provide, and thus a more diversified gaming-experience for the players themselves.

Internal factions in the background don't play a role in this, other than having material to work with IF you need to make/split books to address an imbalance in the player-base.

Zweischneid wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

And yes, "there are already enough marine books" is a pretty good argument here. If the Catachan Jungle Fighters, Tallarn Desert Fighters, Death Korps Siege Regiments, Cadian Shock Troops, Mordian Iron Guard, Vostroyan Firstborn, Valhallans, Tanith First and Only, Elysian Drop Troops, and billions of other IG regiments which differ much more from each other than most Marine chapters do can all fit within one book, or at worst, one book and a couple Imperial Armour lists, with the same going for all the varied Ork clans/tribes/etc and Eldar Craftworlds and Chaos Traitor Legions, it's hard to see a need for a codex just for, yet another, relatively Codex-adherent Space Marine chapter.

Again, faulty logic based on background. Diversity in the gaming scene isn't the number of books available, but the distribution of players across these books.

If your "average" 40k community, in a simplified example, would exist of 100 gamers in a 40K game consisting of 5 different armies, which are distributed as follows...

Space Marines: 40
Imperial Guard: 20
Orks: 10
Eldar: 10
Chaos Marines: 20

... then, as a gaming company, you should probably release a second Space Marines Codex (and consider merging Orks & Eldar if you only have the capacity to support 5 Codexes for the game) to get a more even spread in the player-base across the armies you provide, and thus a more diversified gaming-experience for the players themselves.

Internal factions in the background don't play a role in this, other than having material to work with IF you need to make/split books to address an imbalance in the player-base.

This is assuming those numbers are accurate. That said, it's not taking into account that marine codex's often cannibalize sales from each other, something many store owners will tell you but GW never seems to have caught on to, and that another codex release for what is a rather codex-adherent chapter that's likely just a couple FoC swaps and a couple characters is going to generate enough sales to offset the development efforts, production costs, marketing pipeline time (remember, each codex release means another has to wait 4-7 months), etc, and isn't simply going to draw players from existing armies.

If another loyalist marine book must be made, White Scars are probably not the army for it. Unless you're going to radically redesign them, there's not much to create an entirely new product line around.

I would argue that more players play SM because of GW's preferential treatment rather than Gw give them preferential treatment because more people play them, at least to start with. Now it's just

Step 1: New player picks SM because they're a good starting force and have the most options.
Step 2: GW releases more SM stuff because they will get more money.
Step 3: Repeat Step 1.

Indeed, when you can basically choose from multiple book and lists anytime you want to play as long as you make your own color scheme, have a fully fleshed out line with almost all plastic kits and everything is always available, the models are designed to be easy to paint and assemble and it's cheaper than most other armies, it's hard not to go with Space Marines whether they are your first choice or not.

I've seen many players go that route after looking at the cost of an Ork, DE or Imperial Guard army. When you look at a book like Tyranids and half the models are metal/finecast, and many of the most popular units don't even *have* kits, then regardless of power level, the increased cost and lack of models is going to divert people away from the army.

Vaktathi wrote:Indeed, when you can basically choose from multiple book and lists anytime you want to play as long as you make your own color scheme, have a fully fleshed out line with almost all plastic kits and everything is always available, the models are designed to be easy to paint and assemble and it's cheaper than most other armies, it's hard not to go with Space Marines whether they are your first choice or not.

I've seen many players go that route after looking at the cost of an Ork, DE or Imperial Guard army.

Which is odd, given that the point to cost ratio from space marine, to say DE are about the same. Once you factor in common wargear choices the only thing that really beats out DE by a wide margin as far as paying for points goes is land raiders, and even then it's not much.

For instance, 10 wyches cost 29 bucks. They are 100 points bythemselves. Give them 2 wargears, a hekkatrix, and a agoniser and that goes all the way up to 150. That's one of the better examples of getting alot of points for money, but still, it's worth mentioning.

Though, Orks and IG are hands down, alongside SoB the three most expensive armies BY FAR, no one really comes that close. Lots of low point models with VERY few high point models = headache.

Vaktathi wrote:
This is assuming those numbers are accurate. That said, it's not taking into account that marine codex's often cannibalize sales from each other, something many store owners will tell you but GW never seems to have caught on to, and that another codex release for what is a rather codex-adherent chapter that's likely just a couple FoC swaps and a couple characters is going to generate enough sales to offset the development efforts, production costs, marketing pipeline time (remember, each codex release means another has to wait 4-7 months), etc, and isn't simply going to draw players from existing armies.

1. Those numbers are certainly not correct. They are randombly picked. But I can assure you that player-distribution across the currently available Codexes is not even, thus there is reason to split some (notably Space Marines) and reasons to perhaps discontinue or merge others.

2. Cannibalizing sales isn't a bad thing. iPhone purposfully cannibalized iPod sales as it included a free player. It was one of the key ingredients to its success as it didn't scare off existing iPod-users. Similar things are likely true with Space Marines. If you can bring existing people on-board for the latest release with offering them low buy-ins due to cannibalization, all the better.

3. That one Codex-for-on-Codex argument doesn't work. Relevant isn't the release slot, but the investment into developing a miniature line. The Dark Eldar release had more models released than ALL 5th Edition Space Marine books together. They cannot possibly do a Dark Eldar style release ever half-year. Or even every year. The "spring"-release of, most recently, Marine armies has always been a comparably smaller release. If they had not released Blood Angels or Grey Knights, it wouldn't have equalled another Dark Eldar-style release. It simply would have equalled on net-Codex less in the range and the miniature-investment on those two releases was very low (but the yield probably just as high as "high-investment" releases like Dark Eldar).

I do not think that White Scars need their own codex, but then again, I don't feel like Blood Angels or Dark Angels really need a new codex. They could have been lumped into C:SM. In fact, something I've been talking to my roommate about lately that I thought would be a better way of doing things is to do just this. You could have HQ choice determine if you have the special unit available to you or if you were a 'vanilla' marine. Cuts down on the number of codices, keeps BA and DA in line power-wise with vanilla SM, and speeds up the codex release cycle for everyone.

Only problem is that you really can't do that with SW, BT, GK, or SoB, because there are too many fundamental differences in basic unit structure.

Zweischneid wrote:
1. Those numbers are certainly not correct. They are randombly picked. But I can assure you that player-distribution across the currently available Codexes is not even, thus there is reason to split some (notably Space Marines) and reasons to perhaps discontinue or merge others.

While I agree to an extent, we already have more than enough splits for SM's.

2. Cannibalizing sales isn't a bad thing. iPhone purposfully cannibalized iPod sales as it included a free player. It was one of the key ingredients to its success as it didn't scare off existing iPod-users. Similar things are likely true with Space Marines. If you can bring existing people on-board for the latest release with offering them low buy-ins due to cannibalization, all the better.

When you're coming out with an entirely new product that needs certain key features for success, sure. When you're making essentially a variant of that product that otherwise shares 80/90%+ of its content, that's a bad thing. The iPhone was, in many cases, an iPod replacement or an evolution of the iPod, existing customers wouldn't care but you probably weren't going to get as many new iPod customers. Codex: White Scars is not a replacement or an evolution for another marine codex in terms of sales and the intent of the product, but in many ways would be used like one, hence bad cannibalization. You're basically adding another book that's competing for roughly the same players using the same mini's as 5 other books.

3. That one Codex-for-on-Codex argument doesn't work. Relevant isn't the release slot, but the investment into developing a miniature line.

Release slot is relevant, it pushes back any other releases by a significant amount of time. Even when GW has products ready, they aren't going to release them back to back, they release an army and give it time to shine and for shelves to clear, then release another book. That takes 4-7 months typically.

The miniature line in this case is already developed aside from Characters, but given that the intent is to sell miniatures, if you're not selling anything new, all you're really doing is just adding another book for existing kits of which there are already plenty.

Is a new book that shares the overwhelming vast majority of its units and options, even moreso than most other books, with C:SM, really going to generate new sales, or will it more likely simply be a codex hopper book that people with existing armies switch to because it's better than C:SM?

They cannot possibly do a Dark Eldar style release ever half-year. Or even every year. The "spring"-release of, most recently, Marine armies has always been a comparably smaller release. If they had not released Blood Angels or Grey Knights, it wouldn't have equalled another Dark Eldar-style release. It simply would have equalled on net-Codex less in the range and the miniature-investment on those two releases was very low (but the yield probably just as high as "high-investment" releases like Dark Eldar).

Right, but again there's still release timeline your adding, making getting through *all* the armies take longer and a nigh impossible task within a single edition, for what basically would amount to a 1-page rules addition to C:SM.

daedalus wrote:I do not think that White Scars need their own codex, but then again, I don't feel like Blood Angels or Dark Angels really need a new codex. They could have been lumped into C:SM. In fact, something I've been talking to my roommate about lately that I thought would be a better way of doing things is to do just this. You could have HQ choice determine if you have the special unit available to you or if you were a 'vanilla' marine. Cuts down on the number of codices, keeps BA and DA in line power-wise with vanilla SM, and speeds up the codex release cycle for everyone.

Only problem is that you really can't do that with SW, BT, GK, or SoB, because there are too many fundamental differences in basic unit structure.

You could easily do it with SW. Get rid of the silly stuff like thunderwolves that they shouldn't have anyway, and they aren't that much different. Tactical squads add a CCW and acute senses and counter attack for x points, etc.

Same thing with BT. Emperor's champion is a SC, tac squads can add scouts for x points.

GK are about the only ones you really can't do it with. Not sure why you listed SoB as the arent even marines.

lledwey wrote:

You could easily do it with SW. Get rid of the silly stuff like thunderwolves that they shouldn't have anyway, and they aren't that much different. Tactical squads add a CCW and acute senses and counter attack for x points, etc.

Well, I've never been a big fan of removing ANY options. You should always give, but be very weary of taking away. Wolf Guard would be a bit cumbersome to add, not to mention that they have a lot of extra wargear. They'd probably be doable, but harder than the Angels. It's also worth mention that you'd have to add some bulky provision for SW "Tac Squads" to be able to take a second special weapon, and that they'd get it for free. Little things, like that.

Same thing with BT. Emperor's champion is a SC, tac squads can add scouts for x points.

This I'll give you. I was a little concerned they might have other things that wouldn't translate as well, as I don't know their elite choices that well.

GK are about the only ones you really can't do it with. Not sure why you listed SoB as the arent even marines.

SoB were added mostly for completeness sake. I mean, they use some of the same vehicles, and are more similar to marines than, say, IG are.

Because that is what Biker Captains and Mounted Khan do. Let you have a White Scar style list with a core of bikes.

Absolutely. There aren't nearly enough SM-varient codexes already.

daedalus wrote:I do not think that White Scars need their own codex, but then again, I don't feel like Blood Angels or Dark Angels really need a new codex. They could have been lumped into C:SM. In fact, something I've been talking to my roommate about lately that I thought would be a better way of doing things is to do just this. You could have HQ choice determine if you have the special unit available to you or if you were a 'vanilla' marine. Cuts down on the number of codices, keeps BA and DA in line power-wise with vanilla SM, and speeds up the codex release cycle for everyone.

Only problem is that you really can't do that with SW, BT, GK, or SoB, because there are too many fundamental differences in basic unit structure.

lledwey wrote:You could easily do it with SW. Get rid of the silly stuff like thunderwolves that they shouldn't have anyway, and they aren't that much different. Tactical squads add a CCW and acute senses and counter attack for x points, etc.

Disagreed. It's not just the units, but the special wargear and various rules (like non-teleporting Terminators, Scouts as elites, no Chapter Tactcs, etc). You could work it into C:SM but it would be much clunkier than just giving them a supplement or Codex. C:SM should be renamed "Codex: Astartes" or something, and specifically cover chapters that adhere closely to the Codex Astartes.

daedalus wrote: It's also worth mention that you'd have to add some bulky provision for SW "Tac Squads" to be able to take a second special weapon, and that they'd get it for free. Little things, like that

Probably not, that's one of the things that's rather broken about them, that they don't have to pay for a second weapon, there's no good balance reason for it, and it's exactly the type of little options that change from codex to codex. Notice they didn't get free/discounted weapons in any of their previous books.


Honestly, most of the stuff could be done by "you take Chapter Package X for Y points and gain the following army wide special rules instead of the generic Space Marine special rules. The following units gain/lose the following rules and wargear for Z points, no longer have access to units A/B/C, may take extra E/F/G" Easily able to be fit on a single page.

It would be interesting to see what they would do with a full Codex for the White Scar's if they do that sense I use them as the base for my Space Marine force.

Simply put. No.

The Vanilla rines Dex need the trait system from 4th edition back, then you can "flavour" your chapters.

Karnac wrote:Simply put. No.

The Vanilla rines Dex need the trait system from 4th edition back, then you can "flavour" your chapters.

This. Then we could do away with Dark Angels (whom aren't divergent enough) and Black Templars (Whom aren't divergent enough AND aren't even first-founding) codices, thus cutting back on production time for even MORE marine codices, reducing the likeliness of uber-cheese to try and make them super-different by making them OP in some aspect, and makign room for more non-marine releases.

This is Warhammer 40k, not Space Marine 40k.

No, they don't need their own book. GW has a hard enough time updating the books they already make.

*Edit*
I'd prefer GW to drop the Codex: Specific Chapter crap. Way too many books to service throughout the life cycle of a 40K edition. Codex: Battle Company and Codex: All the Other Variants?

The Sw are far different in that they don't teleport, they have slightly better Artificer armour and Force Weapons, and have Cavalry, as well as the 2 bonus HQs.

Drak Angels maybe.

Blood Angels have Red Thirst, Black Rage, Stormravens, Deep SXtriking Land Raiders, Fast Vehicles.

Black Templars mix in scout type guys with regular guys in units, and hve vows, not to mention the compulsary Emperor's Champion.

Grey Knights are completely different.


Scars can easily be represented by Biker Caps. Raven Guard by Scout Squads and Shrike. Sallies by Vulkan and HF and MM. Fists can be represented by Kantor or Lysander.

Zweischneid wrote:Blood Angels are also a Codex chapter. Just saying.

Either way, I don't think that arguing from a background-perspective is a good line of thinking either for or against a new Codex. That is clearly not the rationale behind it and the background will in any case either by made (Black Templars, also a little-fleshed-out Codex-chapter before they got their own book) or changed (see recent changes/expansion to Space Wolves, Blood Angels) to fit.

GW doesn't work from the background to add stuff to the game. They add stuff to the game and add/change/adapt background to sell it.

Oly they have the red thirst

A single special rule is no reason for an entire new codex.

Durza wrote:A single special rule is no reason for an entire new codex.

Exactly. And the DA/BT (and MAYBE even BA) stuff can be done by Special Characters and army-wide traits/rules, like the 4th ed codex had.

BA do have unique things. Fast Rhino variants, Red Thrist, DoA, Stormravens in particular.

Deadshot wrote:BA do have unique things. Fast Rhino variants, Red Thrist, DoA, Stormravens in particular.

Some of which isn't unique, some of it only originated with the latest book, most of it is tack-on rules to existing units, and all of it could be encompassed in a combined codex.

Karnac wrote:Simply put. No.

The Vanilla rines Dex need the trait system from 4th edition back, then you can "flavour" your chapters.

No they don't.

The 4th edition trait system was awful, and should never have seen print. I mean...a blind, touched monkey should have been able to see how hands-down broken it was at ten paces with the cover closed and it still managed to make it past the editor somehow.

Maybe if they made something more like the original IG traits system where step 1 is roughly "we take away EVERYTHING" and step 2 is "we'll trade you a neat option for a pound of flesh or a variant rule for your soul" it could work, but the 4th ed trait system needs to stay buried.

Stormravens should be unique to BA. it marks them out as different.

As much as Kan dislikes this; I would put all the SM chapters in a single codex and give each divergent chapter army wide rules, special characters and units as and where required.

I don't think that any SM chapter are that different from one another that they require an entire codex to themselves.

Special characters to represent all divergent SM chapters? You make me shiver. A fate worse than retcon.

BrainDeleted wrote:Special characters to represent all divergent SM chapters? You make me shiver. A fate worse than retcon.

Read the rest - army wide special rules, FOC alterations, extra units/wargear/etc

Why stop at merging the Space Marine Codices? Why not merge the Eldar and Dark Eldar? They're both the same race after all!

Why merga them at all? Is that just because you don't want so many marine dexes?

Each amrine arfmy works differently. And besides that, having all the SM in one dex would make it the size of the BRB, and cost as much too.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why stop at merging the Space Marine Codices? Why not merge the Eldar and Dark Eldar? They're both the same race after all!

Wow, that one didn't take long to crop up.

Have a cookie.

And yes, E and DE have similar playstyles and are the same race, but they are remarkably different armies with completely different units, weapons and so on.

Deadshot wrote:Is that just because you don't want so many marine dexes?

Partly, but also because I want to have the options in one book. I also think that CSM and Daemons should go in one book for example (with added legion rules).

having all the SM in one dex would make it the size of the BRB, and cost as much too.

What makes you think that? A large chunk of codexes is the army stats/options section and unit descriptions - and there are a lot of common units across the SM armies. Then you have a certain amount of common fluff - what an SM is, how they are made, etc, plus rubbish fluff just made to up the page count and fill some space. Same with the painting/model display sections.

I reckon you could make an SM omnidex without cutting out too much army specific fluff or flavour in a book maybe about twice the size of, say, the BA dex?

Deadshot wrote:Stormravens should be unique to BA. it marks them out as different.

Except it's not, GK's have it too, and it's widely expected to be available to all Space Marine armies come 6E anyway, it's too capable a unit and too successful a kit not to be.

Each amrine arfmy works differently. And besides that, having all the SM in one dex would make it the size of the BRB, and cost as much too

not really, 90% of units, weapons, wargear, etc are shared or a variant off a common platform. The biggest thing would be the Characters section. Remember, each marine book needs a section to go over the Horus Heresy, the origins of the Space Marine and the fundamental nature of the Space Marines, a section for Tacs (or their equivalent), Terminators, Predators, Rhinos, Razorbacks, Land Raiders, etc that are all identical or near identical across every book that wouldn't need to be repeated and takes up a lot of space in each current book.

And the marine armies don't play that differently, I play a marine army (CSM's admittedly, but a marine army all the same) and play against them all the time. Playing against them, tactics don't change much unless it's GK's.

Another of those debates that comes up on occassion.

I like that there are different codecies for the Space Marines. I agree that Chaos should have 3: Daemons, Legions, Renegades.

But I don't see the white scars as any different than Codex: Space Marines. Sorry. No soup for you.

Because not only wouild you have all the fluff from all the codexes in there, but many more rules and a far longer army list.

To add to a SM codex, if all the SM codex ( bar GK, they are far different)

BA
Red Thirst for most units
DoA for Assault Squads
Furiosoes and Libby Dreads
DCD
Death Co.
Stormravens
Baal Preds
Sang Guard
All the Characters
Fluff
Psychic Powers
Chaplains would have Litanies of Blood
Reclusiarchs, possibly as an upgraded Chaplain in the fluffy entry.
Sang Priests
Fasts Vehicle upgrades

SW
Wolf Guard
Rune Priests
Psychic Powers
Rune Armour
No Deep Strike for Termies
Fenrisian Wolves
TWC
2 SW characters per HQ slot, but different wargear
Wargear, like Wolf Talismans, and belt of Russ
Lone Wolves
Long Fangs ( or not )
Blood Claws
Grey Hunters
Wolf Guard Sgts
Special Characters

DA
Deathwing
Ravenwing
Fluff
Special Characters

BT
Vows
Emperor's Champion
Fluff
Special Characters
Command Units
Mixed Squads
No Redeemer LR
POTMS Vindicators


That is a liong list, especially the fluff.

I have to say though that 90% of a codex fluff is pointless rubbish used to fill up pages and most of the pictures have been endlessly recycled.

The psychic powers can be listed and detailed on a couple of pages, tops. Most of the unit specific fluff is pretty terrible anyway, but you hardly need more than half a page each for each unit, maybe a page for special characters and their rules.

Most of the army wide special rules could probably go on 1/4 of a page.

As I say, you can probably cut out most of the dead wood, condense the quality and necessary information and fluff and end up with an omnidex only twice the size of the current crop of dexes.

The BRB is twice the size of the SM codex.

Deadshot wrote:Because not only wouild you have all the fluff from all the codexes in there, but many more rules and a far longer army list.

To add to a SM codex, if all the SM codex ( bar GK, they are far different)

BA
Red Thirst for most units
DoA for Assault Squads

Toss into chapter upgrade package

Furiosoes and Libby Dreads

Basically weapon swaps on Ironclads, easily encompassed in existing entry.
DCD

Dear Vaktathi and SilverMK2,

I was going to write a long, winded response to this, but it seems you have written exactly my thoughts and feelings on the matter. I agree completely with what you two have said.

They're unnecessary, and books like DA, BT, SW, and BA could be included in a loyalist book by simply adding a few pages of options and wargear choices.

Grey Knights should be included in an Inquisition book. Oh wait...

Strugglking to get the quotes to work, eh?


It is not only the units them selves. it is the simplicity.

On an army liast, you take your codex and write what you want. You don't have to worry whther you captain is a suffering from vampire emoness, or is some Wolf Lord, or worry about whether or not your Termies can come in from deep strike first turn, or not at all. And siome of those ( Deathwing Assasult VS Wolves) clash.

You don't need to worry about power comboes like 30 man Death Company supported by Deathwing TH/SS Termies, and supproted by Long Fangs and Razorspam, while Sang Priests float about with FNP and FC.

Deadshot wrote:You don't need to worry about power comboes like 30 man Death Company supported by Deathwing TH/SS Termies, and supproted by Long Fangs and Razorspam, while Sang Priests float about with FNP and FC.

What exactly are you smoking to think that a combined codex would allow that?

Just because you have the rules for each army in the same book, doesn't mean there will be that kind of cross over.

Would it then not be simplier to have individual codexes, instaed of wasting money on sections, large sections, which you won't use?

They already have one.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why stop at merging the Space Marine Codices? Why not merge the Eldar and Dark Eldar? They're both the same race after all!

Because the Dark Eldar and Eldar are substantially different, whereas Marines are a basic force with a few small variations.

Deadshot wrote:Would it then not be simplier to have individual codexes, instaed of wasting money on sections, large sections, which you won't use?

Simpler? Yes. But it would make GW more likely to loose money, so it won't happen.

That is what we have already!

Deadshot wrote:Would it then not be simplier to have individual codexes, instaed of wasting money on sections, large sections, which you won't use?

You mean like many of the pages in books that people never look at now? How often do you read the Horus Heresy section in each codex? With a combined book, You'd get some additional fluff to read and an easy way to try out something new if you desired, and the book might actually be worth what they charge for it with the current ~15% price increase on Codex books each year for the last 5 years.

I really like the White Scars as a Marine force, but do they need their own Codex? Definately not..

Guess I'm one of those people who think SMs in general need to be condensed down. I am of the opinion (and that's all i offer it as) that there could be as few as 2 or at most 4 Marine books there. Grey Knights could be pushed into a single Inquisition Codex so wouldn't be part of the standard Astares lists.

What I'd like to see for Marines are the following (with more catchy titles, of course):

Codex: Standard Chapters (This would list all the basic options and standard marine rules and Army List. with a lot of historic fluff.. Basically what we have now in the C:SM)

Codex: Non-standard Chapter rules (This would list the top 5 or so NON-standard chapters with flavor abilities and modifications to the Army List in Standard Chapter codex, with a few possible unique Troops and Special characters. The basic Army List could be added to this edition so people wouldn't be forced to buy two books, but you don't need a seperate list for every single Chapter, but this version might be larger and cost a little more.)

Codex: Traitor Marines (Renegades) This could almost be put into the Non-standard book, if space permitted.
Codex: Chaos Marines (Legions)

As a side note, if GW continues the way they are, out of the chapters normally shown or played, Salamanders are possibly the only other chapter that might deserve their own codex, as they seem to have more non-standard chapter features and could be fluffed up to make a fun army to play.

Late night rambling stop.

Deadshot wrote:Would it then not be simplier to have individual codexes, instaed of wasting money on sections, large sections, which you won't use?

No. Individual codexes are definitely simpler, and far more fool-proof.

However, the shear number of marine codexes has been toxic to 40k for some time now, and is a big reason I've seen a lot of people stop playing. Some people don't want to play marines. Some because they don't want an army that does *everything* well, others because they don't want to play what's popular, others because marines don't do what they want them to do well enough while another army does, etc.

Yet, half the release schedule is devoted to marines.

If you got all the space marine armies over at once, you could spend the time freed up in the schedule developing the other armies.

I keep hearing this phrase whenever people talk in favor of the chapter codexes, "They're different enough they deserve their own codex!"

And the craftworlds aren't? They couldn't be further developed to deserve their own?
The dark eldar wytch cults couldn't?
The dark eldar haemonculus covens couldn't?
The dark eldar kabals couldn't?
What about the Adeptus Mechanacus and their Skitari Legions? I'd love to see whatever they're hiding from the rest of the imperium!
What about the SoB?
We're still waiting for an Ordo Xenos codex.
The Ork Kults?
How about more about the Tau Sept Worlds? Their technology develops so rapidly they could easily develop separate combat doctrines for garrisoning different kinds of worlds, and that's *just* the Tau I'm talking about. The more worlds they conquer the more aliens they draw into their empire.
The necrons have their dynasties now, and we're *missing* models from the old codex!

How about more IG? The Cadians vs. Catachans? I'd bet money assaulting a daemonic strongold with an army that's basically 100% stormtroopers (cadians are supposed to wear hardshell armor. Not flack) is infinitely different from fighting a guerrilla war on some emperor-forsaken jungle deathworld. Different enough, in fact, to warrant a separate codex.
*COUGH*http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex:_Catachans_%283rd_Edition%29#.TsM_20CiJdU*COUGH*http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex:_Catachans_%284th_Edition%29#.TsNABECiJdU*COUGH*

Must be some dust in the air or something. Maybe I'm catching a cold?

How about low gravity IG jump troops? The low grav world IG regiments are supposed to be the best paratroopers in the galaxy by imperial standards barring the obvious space marines that specialize in drop pod insertion.

Hell. How can the space marines "deserve" their chapter codexes, but the chaos legions don't? CSM *lost* the ability to play Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, and Word Bearers in all but name.

The space marine chapter codexes need to all get stuffed into the same book mid or late 6th edition, and then left the hell alone until early 8th at the earliest. 40K is stagnating because of them.

Arandmoor wrote:Stuff

Well posted

Arandmoor wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Would it then not be simplier to have individual codexes, instaed of wasting money on sections, large sections, which you won't use?

No. Individual codexes are definitely simpler, and far more fool-proof.

However, the shear number of marine codexes has been toxic to 40k for some time now, and is a big reason I've seen a lot of people stop playing. Some people don't want to play marines. Some because they don't want an army that does *everything* well, others because they don't want to play what's popular, others because marines don't do what they want them to do well enough while another army does, etc.

Yet, half the release schedule is devoted to marines.

If you got all the space marine armies over at once, you could spend the time freed up in the schedule developing the other armies.

I keep hearing this phrase whenever people talk in favor of the chapter codexes, "They're different enough they deserve their own codex!"

And the craftworlds aren't? They couldn't be further developed to deserve their own?
The dark eldar wytch cults couldn't?
The dark eldar haemonculus covens couldn't?
The dark eldar kabals couldn't?
What about the Adeptus Mechanacus and their Skitari Legions? I'd love to see whatever they're hiding from the rest of the imperium!
What about the SoB?
We're still waiting for an Ordo Xenos codex.
The Ork Kults?
How about more about the Tau Sept Worlds? Their technology develops so rapidly they could easily develop separate combat doctrines for garrisoning different kinds of worlds, and that's *just* the Tau I'm talking about. The more worlds they conquer the more aliens they draw into their empire.
The necrons have their dynasties now, and we're *missing* models from the old codex!

How about more IG? The Cadians vs. Catachans? I'd bet money assaulting a daemonic strongold with an army that's basically 100% stormtroopers (cadians are supposed to wear hardshell armor. Not flack) is infinitely different from fighting a guerrilla war on some emperor-forsaken jungle deathworld. Different enough, in fact, to warrant a separate codex.
*COUGH*http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex:_Catachans_%283rd_Edition%29#.TsM_20CiJdU*COUGH*http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex:_Catachans_%284th_Edition%29#.TsNABECiJdU*COUGH*

Must be some dust in the air or something. Maybe I'm catching a cold?

How about low gravity IG jump troops? The low grav world IG regiments are supposed to be the best paratroopers in the galaxy by imperial standards barring the obvious space marines that specialize in drop pod insertion.

Hell. How can the space marines "deserve" their chapter codexes, but the chaos legions don't? CSM *lost* the ability to play Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, and Word Bearers in all but name.

The space marine chapter codexes need to all get stuffed into the same book mid or late 6th edition, and then left the hell alone until early 8th at the earliest. 40K is stagnating because of them.

There is only 6 marine codexes, 7 if you count CSM.

MEQ
SM
BA
DA
BT
SW
GK

Xenos and other
Necrons
Tau
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Orks
Tyranids
Daemons
I count Chaos Marines as non SM.


So it is either 6:8 or 7:7 depending on where you place CSM.

Instead of that, why not just make the next vanilla codex give you bonus options for playing themed armies. For all the original chapters.

Arandmoor wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Would it then not be simplier to have individual codexes, instaed of wasting money on sections, large sections, which you won't use?

No. Individual codexes are definitely simpler, and far more fool-proof.

However, the shear number of marine codexes has been toxic to 40k for some time now, and is a big reason I've seen a lot of people stop playing. Some people don't want to play marines. Some because they don't want an army that does *everything* well, others because they don't want to play what's popular, others because marines don't do what they want them to do well enough while another army does, etc.

Yet, half the release schedule is devoted to marines.

Because SM are the flagship of GW and 40K

If you got all the space marine armies over at once, you could spend the time freed up in the schedule developing the other armies.

see above. GW want Marine codexes because that is what 40K is based around.
I keep hearing this phrase whenever people talk in favor of the chapter codexes, "They're different enough they deserve their own codex!"

And the craftworlds aren't? They couldn't be further developed to deserve their own?
The dark eldar wytch cults couldn't?
The dark eldar haemonculus covens couldn't?
The dark eldar kabals couldn't?
Yet no one who hasn't read the fluff knows bout nothing. They're al the same

What about the Adeptus Mechanacus and their Skitari Legions? I'd love to see whatever they're hiding from the rest of the imperium!
Their super poowerful Technolgy

What about the SoB?
Tghey have a (fake, badly written) minidex.



We're still waiting for an Ordo Xenos codex.
GK

The Ork Kults?
They all think the same. No need

How about more about the Tau Sept Worlds? Their technology develops so rapidly they could easily develop separate combat doctrines for garrisoning different kinds of worlds, and that's *just* the Tau I'm talking about. The more worlds they conquer the more aliens they draw into their empire.
The necrons have their dynasties now, and we're *missing* models from the old codex!

How about more IG? The Cadians vs. Catachans? I'd bet money assaulting a daemonic strongold with an army that's basically 100% stormtroopers (cadians are supposed to wear hardshell armor. Not flack) is infinitely different from fighting a guerrilla war on some emperor-forsaken jungle deathworld. Different enough, in fact, to warrant a separate codex.
*COUGH*http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex:_Catachans_%283rd_Edition%29#.TsM_20CiJdU*COUGH*http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex:_Catachans_%284th_Edition%29#.TsNABECiJdU*COUGH*

Must be some dust in the air or something. Maybe I'm catching a cold?

How about low gravity IG jump troops? The low grav world IG regiments are supposed to be the best paratroopers in the galaxy by imperial standards barring the obvious space marines that specialize in drop pod insertion.

Hell. How can the space marines "deserve" their chapter codexes, but the chaos legions don't? CSM *lost* the ability to play Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, and Word Bearers in all but name.

Iron Warriors are easily made with lots of Oblits, and WB with Daemons and Icons.

You forgot Imperial Guard and Sisters of Battle. So its 6:10 Marines:Not Marines or 8:8 for Imperium:Xenos. The fact that almost 40% of the codecies are Space Marines is a tad ridiculous.

A good balance for Space Marines might be a Codex Adherent book, a non-Codex Adherent Book, and Grey Knights/Deathwatch book.

If the complaint is that Marines are too similar, how is merging them into one book where you make everything "weapon swaps" going to help?

Furthermore, GW releases Marines because they sell. People seem to be under the impression that the number of Xenos players would skyrocket if the Marines were folded into one book. This just won't happen unless people jump ship from the Marine Codex because it sucks, in which case someone else's army will have had to suffer in order to please you.

I think the real issue is that the current Space Wolves, Grey Knights and to a lesser extent Blood Angels Codices are so damn good. We could use a Xenos Codex up there with the Wolves so that some bandwagon-jumpers start playing Xenos instead.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Furthermore, GW releases Marines because they sell. People seem to be under the impression that the number of Xenos players would skyrocket if the Marines were folded into one book. This just won't happen unless people jump ship from the Marine Codex because it sucks, in which case someone else's army will have had to suffer in order to please you.

This.

The usual armchair game designers bring this up every single time anything remotely similar to this topic comes up, and frankly, their inability to see that it's simply never going to happen has gone from amusing to annoying. They're not going to merge down into one Space Marine codex. They're not going to push fewer Marine releases. I've used this analogy time and time again, but you guys are basically doing the equivalent of telling McDonald's to only sell one type of hamburger, so that they can focus on expanding the Filet-o-Fish.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If the complaint is that Marines are too similar, how is merging them into one book where you make everything "weapon swaps" going to help?

Nobody is saying that it's going to help that, or that it should. We're saying that, given that this is in fact the case, why do we need so many disparate books to portray them when they share so much and so much of their variation simply boils down to additional special rules (Marines+1 Hooray!), wargear swaps, or FoC swaps.

Furthermore, GW releases Marines because they sell. People seem to be under the impression that the number of Xenos players would skyrocket if the Marines were folded into one book. This just won't happen unless people jump ship from the Marine Codex because it sucks, in which case someone else's army will have had to suffer in order to please you.

And if Xenos armies had full model lines with plastic kits for most units, didn't cost half again as much as SM armies to buy, and didn't have to wait 5-12 years for updates and featured in marketing materials as something other than marine fodder their sales wouldn't increase at all?

SM's are popular because GW has gone out of their way to make them as easy to get into as possible. SM armies are generally noticeably cheaper to buy with a smaller time investment to build and paint than non-SM armies and have fully fleshed out model lines while many non-SM armies have some of their most popular units going without models.

are you seriously going to assert that these things have nothing to do with marine popularity and if rectified to some extent wouldn't result in increased non-SM army sales?

I think the real issue is that the current Space Wolves, Grey Knights and to a lesser extent Blood Angels Codices are so damn good. We could use a Xenos Codex up there with the Wolves so that some bandwagon-jumpers start playing Xenos instead.

It's infinitely easier to bandwagon with marines given that, as long as you aren't painting your marines exactly as Space Wolves or Ultramarines or Dark Angels, you can pretty much use whatever book you feel like. Don't like playing C:SM anymore? Play C:BA, you won't need to change much. It's a lot harder to bandwagon hop from Tyranids to Tau or Dark Eldar. Granted, it doesn't help that C:BA and C:SW are basically C:SM+1 and are really really powerful, but bandwagon hopping in generaly is just easier with marines armies because you have at least 5 (or up to 7 if you like) books to hop from without having to change too much.

Seaward wrote:

but you guys are basically doing the equivalent of telling McDonald's to only sell one type of hamburger, so that they can focus on expanding the Filet-o-Fish.

Not a great analogy, noobdy is asking them to stop supporting other products (rather just combine them as they cannibalize each other and other armies anyway), but I'll counter with if fillet-o-fish were $0.49 and available at all locations (which it's not) with all the options hamburgers have, they'd likely be a hell of a lot more popular.

Vaktathi wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Furthermore, GW releases Marines because they sell. People seem to be under the impression that the number of Xenos players would skyrocket if the Marines were folded into one book. This just won't happen unless people jump ship from the Marine Codex because it sucks, in which case someone else's army will have had to suffer in order to please you.

And if Xenos armies had full model lines with plastic kits for most units, didn't cost half again as much as SM armies to buy, and didn't have to wait 5-12 years for updates and featured in marketing materials as something other than marine fodder their sales wouldn't increase at all?

SM's are popular because GW has gone out of their way to make them as easy to get into as possible. SM armies are generally noticeably cheaper to buy with a smaller time investment to build and paint than non-SM armies and have fully fleshed out model lines while many non-SM armies have some of their most popular units going without models.

are you seriously going to assert that these things have nothing to do with marine popularity and if rectified to some extent wouldn't result in increased non-SM army sales?

Seaward wrote:

but you guys are basically doing the equivalent of telling McDonald's to only sell one type of hamburger, so that they can focus on expanding the Filet-o-Fish.

Not a great analogy, noobdy is asking them to stop supporting other products (rather just combine them as they cannibalize each other and other armies anyway), but I'll counter with if fillet-o-fish were $0.49 and available at all locations (which it's not) with all the options hamburgers have, they'd likely be a hell of a lot more popular.

Tell that to Long John Silver's.

Businesses sell to demand. You can try and create demand, but it's far easier to simply supply what's already being demanded. Find a niche and fill it.

Space Marine codices and models sell. There's absolutely no reason for GW to shoot themselves in the foot by slashing their potential Space Marine profits by rolling everything up into one codex, in an effort to convince people that they really do like space elves just as much or more. You can theorycraft all you want, but there's zero chance that they're going to take the single codex approach, and you know it; why keep harping on endlessly about it?

Seaward wrote:
Tell that to Long John Silver's.

Businesses sell to demand. You can try and create demand, but it's far easier to simply supply what's already being demanded. Find a niche and fill it.

Space Marine codices and models sell. There's absolutely no reason for GW to shoot themselves in the foot by slashing their potential Space Marine profits by rolling everything up into one codex, in an effort to convince people that they really do like space elves just as much or more. You can theorycraft all you want, but there's zero chance that they're going to take the single codex approach, and you know it; why keep harping on endlessly about it?

Because it's slowly killing this game for many people?

Rolling SM's into one book in and of itself isn't going to make other armies attractive, what it's going to do is mean that other armies won't take as long to update, since you don't need to be devoting 28-50 months of release pipeline time and marketing efforts for 7 armies to what effectively might as well be 3 armies and 12-21 months of release pipeline time instead, which will help make it possible to get to all the armies within the span of a single edition and keep armies from being two editions out of date.

That's what would likely have an impact on non-SM army sales. You aren't taking anything away from the SM crowd, it's all still there, just in one book instead of 5, and then you've got more time and resources available, especially sales and marketing resources, to help support the other armies after the big giant happy marine release each edition.

It'll also help cut down on creep and the consistent one-upsmanship of SM armies over one another, and you won't have the silly issues of multiple profiles for assault cannons, thunder hammers, PotMS, etc existing for years.


Also, expecting GW's current scheme to be accurately responding to market pressures is a bit much. This is the company that *borrowed* money to pay dividends in a down year after all simply to double Mr.Kirby's yearly income, opens stores in the middle of nowhere and then has to shut them all down because they don't generate sales while they leave huge metro areas like Portland, San Diego, etc all without a GW presesence aside from a couple of independents, and routinely fails to deliver opening day merchandise to distributors. Business savvy is not what makes GW what it is.

I'm not saying GW should do anything to support marines less, just differently. One book doesn't mean less support for marine or that marines lose anything, it just means one book that contains everything instead of multiple books where 80% of the content is copy-pasta. It's hard not to acknlowdge that so much Marine stuff basically amounts to trivial differences to justify their own book for its own sake, often an intertia decision from a pet project of the early 90's (e.g. Space Wolves...). In many ways, it makes good business sense as it also cuts down cannibalization of marine armies from each other.

Many people already treat loyalist marines as one big book, might as well just make it one.

Vaktathi wrote:
Rolling SM's into one book in and of itself isn't going to make other armies attractive, what it's going to do is mean that other armies won't take as long to update, since you don't need to be devoting 28-50 months of release pipeline time and marketing efforts for 7 armies to what effectively might as well be 3 armies and 12-21 months of release pipeline time instead, which will help make it possible to get to all the armies within the span of a single edition and keep armies from being two editions out of date.

Rolling SM's into one book will mean that all those players who now play armies from 5 different books, many of which have more players following them than most Xenos-books, well all converge on a SINGLE Codex which will unit the vast majority of 40K players in a single book. That would kill diversty in the game as sure as the sun rises in the morning. Worst idea ever.

And "update" cycles are irrelevant. If you like a release, you'll play it. If not, you don't. This misguided sense of entitlement among some of the older players that everything that has at some point been released "deserves" an new edition/Codex at some point is frankly irritating to the highest order. What other wargame is there even outside GW that will allow you to legally use rules over 10 years old and models over 20 years old in a lively and thriving gaming-scene? Most non-GW games I've ever started have been defunct within 5 years or so anyhow. GW has by far the best "longlivety" of any game-line anyhow. Be glad for what it is.

GW will refresh older model-lines with new updates if they think it's worthwhile. But people should really get off the expectation that "their" army has some intrinsic "right" or "entitlement" for an update. They don't.

White Scars = Raven wing

Eldrad40k wrote:White Scars = Raven wing

No.

Zweischneid wrote:
Rolling SM's into one book will mean that all those players who now play armies from 5 different books, many of which have more players following them than most Xenos-books

Without any data to support that, it's a vague assertion at best. I think it'd be hard to argue that BT or DA are as popular as Eldar or Orks for example, much less moreso.

, well all converge on a SINGLE Codex which will unit the vast majority of 40K players in a single book. That would kill diversty in the game as sure as the sun rises in the morning.

If it's got everything the other books did, what diversity is lost?

It's not like these armies are super diverse anyway. C:BA outright shares 80% of it's non-SC units, with most of the rest being variations on existing units (e.g. dreads/predators/etc), with C:SM.

And "update" cycles are irrelevant. If you like a release, you'll play it. If not, you don't.

Not true at all, if it costs half again as much as a marine army or doesn't have a complete model line or you think it won't be supported as well as another, you may go with a marine army instead. I've seen people *not* start a xenos army and go with marines for those very reasons. Just last week saw a guy go with BA's over IG because of the cost and because several of the units he wanted to use he'd have to kitbash or buy from FW. I remember a now GK player having started Tyranids but switch to GK's because it was cheaper to build the entire GK army than finish out the Tyranids and there weren't models for Tervigons or Mycetic Spores.

This misguided sense of entitlement among some of the older players that everything that has at some point been released "deserves" an new edition/Codex at some point is frankly irritating to the highest order.

And you think armies being an edition or even two out of date has nothing to do with poor sales? Really? Because having played this game for years in multiple metro areas I've seen it first hand. There's a reason GW flip-flopped on it's FAQ policy and went back and updated the BT/DA wargear, because sales literally plummeted as a result of the wargear/rules creep and it was an easy-insta fix for sales (I've seen more DA and BT armies since the FAQ update than in the preceding two years). Granted it was a special circumstances case, but it shows the point.

What other wargame is there even outside GW that will allow you to legally use rules over 10 years old in a lively and thriving gaming-scene?

I'm struggling to come up with a wargame outside of GW's that lets active products go over 10 years without an update.

Without the staggered Marine releases I find it hard to beleive that GW could keep all the non-Marine armies going. As you say, Marine armies share a many models between them; this means that the effort going into updating, for example, Dark Angels, isn't nearly as big as the update of the Tau. When combined with the fact that multiple Marine releases boosts sales, one could argue that the great profit per pound invested in the multiple Marine Codices is what is letting GW keep all their armies in the first place. By the way, the current Black Templars Codex is 6 years old, the Blood Angels had a WD Codex before they got a new one, the Space Wolves had a 3rd edition Codex, as did the Grey Knights. Xenos players aren't the only ones who get to wait (shocking, I know).

As a closing note, GW seems to finally have caught up with the times; if the BT/DA FAQs and the WHFB FAQs at the start of 8th is anything to judge by, they're not gonna let the remaining 4th ed Codices remain 2 editions behind.

Vaktathi wrote:
Because it's slowly killing this game for many people?

I might redirect you to your own words on assumptions such as this..

Vaktathi wrote:

Without any data to support that, it's a vague assertion at best.

Zweischneid wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:
Because it's slowly killing this game for many people?

I might redirect you to your own words on assumptions such as this..

Vaktathi wrote:

Without any data to support that, it's a vague assertion at best.

My comment was a subjective personal statement of which similar comments have been echoed on these boards quite often and in this very thread (e.g. Arandmoor's statement on the previous page for example), not an assertion about sales numbers and army popularity. They don't equate in the way you're trying to equate them here...

Vaktathi wrote:Because it's slowly killing this game for many people?

Which is something GW couldn't care less about. They don't want you to sit on one army and be happy; they want you constantly buying. That's how they stay in business. One Space Marine book would kill a huge portion of their revenue, because it means a Space Marine player goes shopping once every four years, and is then done until the next version. They want that Space Marine player hopping from vanilla to Space Wolves to Blood Angels to Grey Knights as the successive codices are released, because it makes them far, far more money than what they make from the far smaller percentage of players who decide they want to give Dark Eldar a shot.

That's what would likely have an impact on non-SM army sales. You aren't taking anything away from the SM crowd, it's all still there, just in one book instead of 5, and then you've got more time and resources available, especially sales and marketing resources, to help support the other armies after the big giant happy marine release each edition.

No, it won't. You guys keep saying it's totally doable to just use Special Characters to represent all the rules in the variant codices, but I have yet to see anybody actually show us an example - largely because it is not in fact doable.

It'll also help cut down on creep and the consistent one-upsmanship of SM armies over one another, and you won't have the silly issues of multiple profiles for assault cannons, thunder hammers, PotMS, etc existing for years.

See above. GW wants codex creep.

I'm not saying GW should do anything to support marines less, just differently. One book doesn't mean less support for marine or that marines lose anything, it just means one book that contains everything instead of multiple books where 80% of the content is copy-pasta. It's hard not to acknlowdge that so much Marine stuff basically amounts to trivial differences to justify their own book for its own sake, often an intertia decision from a pet project of the early 90's (e.g. Space Wolves...). In many ways, it makes good business sense as it also cuts down cannibalization of marine armies from each other.

A Blood Angel Tactical Marine is the same as a Space Marine Tactical Marine, so there's no real difference between the codices? Sorry, but this has to be one of the stupidest arguments you guys make. Grey Knights play far differently from vanilla Marines; Blood Angels also play wildly differently, and Space Wolves do to quite an extent, too. They share a lot of units, but the way those units are organized, and the rules they're subject to, are quite a bit different. You say that can all be rolled into one book, I say it can't. You want to prove me wrong? Start with the Blood Angels codex. It needs FC/FNP apothecaries, Assault Marines as troops, Furioso Dreads, Stormravens, Baal Predators, DoA, BA psychic powers, Chaplains moved from HQ to Elite, Death Company, Dante, Mephiston, the Sanguinor, Astorath, Gabriel Seth, Tycho, Sanguinary Guard, Infernus Pistols, Angelus Boltguns, and Glaives Encarmine.

Just for a start. I'll be interested to see what SCs you come up with that provide all of that without simply cramming the BA codex into the SM book.

I think the best solution would be for Ward to write all codeces. Then they would all OP, but the impact would be less. Then someone else does the fluff.

Deadshot wrote:I think the best solution would be for Ward to write all codeces. Then they would all OP, but the impact would be less. Then someone else does the fluff.

Yeah, because IG and SW aren't OP either...

IMO, I think we are pretty much at our max capacity for Space Marine Codexes. I think they came up with enough Unique Ideas for BA and SW, and I think they will do it with BT as well. I'm not quite sure what they are going to do with Dark Angels though.

Deadshot wrote:I think the best solution would be for Ward to write all codeces. Then they would all OP, but the impact would be less. Then someone else does the fluff.

Not sure how you arrive by that, but the worst balance, poorest rules and most abusive, over-powere/bad-rules awards in 5th goes to IG (Cruddace) and Space Wolves (Kelly). If Ward had indeed written all 5th Edition books, balance would indeed be far superiour today.

We would also have been spared the mindboggling boredom of reading IG and the cackling loony-toon-madness of black-hole-chucking freaks that Dark Eldar suddenly became.

SilverMK2 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why stop at merging the Space Marine Codices? Why not merge the Eldar and Dark Eldar? They're both the same race after all!

Wow, that one didn't take long to crop up.

Have a cookie.

And yes, E and DE have similar playstyles and are the same race, but they are remarkably different armies with completely different units, weapons and so on.

When you get down to brass tacks: they're really not. The biggest difference lies in a few special rules(Combat Drugs, etc for Dark Eldar) and the appearance of their more bizarre units(Wraithlords v. Talos)--if created as a "generic entry" which can be upgraded as you see fit, those models can be used to either example.

Anyways, as per normal I'll just leave this here...

Kanluwen wrote:Traits were and still are terrible for representing Chapters. They're fine for representing Companies or "Mary Sue" forces--but by their very nature they will not necessarily be expansive enough to showcase those forces which we have descriptions of. Heck, if you do it right you could maybe give generic characters a 'Trait' system which lets them influence how their army list is built with a trade-off list.

Characters are a good way to add flavor, given that characters are characters for a reason--namely that they have done something 'heroic'. They have a set history, they have set ways of operating, etc.

Ideally, if Games Workshop were calling me and saying "Hey Kan, make a good way for us to stop making Chapter Codices"...I'd reply with "Okay, but it'll still be more than one book and I want to do the same thing with Chaos."

Why would I say that?

Because cramming a practically innumerable setup for Chapters into one book is ridiculous.

My 'Ideal Setup' is this:
Book I: "Angels of Death". This will be your "Codex" Chapters. Your Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists, Ultramarines and their Successors, etc. Two or three "major" characters for each of the Chapters outlined within, with a small "Chapter" section of unique weapons and/or units or formations associated with those characters.

Book II: "Savage Faith". This will be your "non-Codex" Chapters which focus mostly on close combat. Your Blood Angels and their Successors, the Space Wolves, and the Black Templars. Again, follow the setup of the above.

Book III: "Angels of Wrath". This will be your "Close to but Not Quite" Codex Chapters. Iron Hands,White Scars, and both the Raven Guard and Dark Angels along with their Successors. Same setup in regards to characters, formations, etc.

And here you go for Chaos:

Kanluwen wrote:I wouldn't give Daemons their own book, frankly. But I would have some overlap going on I guess.

It's kind of hard to really divvy Chaos up well without going silly.

Ideally, I'd do this:
Book I: "Servants of the Dark God". 'Generic' Undivided forces--Black Legion, Word Bearers, and the Thousand Sons.

Book II: "The Touch of the Corrupt".
'Generic' Tzeentchian Warbands(read: not Thousand Sons proper, but something similar might be workable) and Nurgle warbands+Death Guard.
I know that Tzeentch and Nurgle are diametrically opposed, but they also have a lot in common. Both play "the long odds", and manipulate circumstances to their favor.

Book III: "Gaze of the Gods".
Khornate warbands and Slaaneshi warbands. World Eaters and Emperor's Children get their own lists in here.
Again, they're diametrically opposed...but again very similar. They both favor their heroes who perform well, and enjoy punishing those who fail.

Book IV: "Shattered Oaths".
This one will be...well. This one is kinda tough.
I'm thinking that Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Night Lords, and Red Corsairs all have some good tie-ins. They try to get rid of 'marked' units--but they're not entirely opposed to making use of said 'marked' units.

Daemons would be available to all of them, so that's kind of my biggest fear right there.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:Because it's slowly killing this game for many people?

Rolling SM's into one book in and of itself isn't going to make other armies attractive, what it's going to do is mean that other armies won't take as long to update, since you don't need to be devoting 28-50 months of release pipeline time and marketing efforts for 7 armies to what effectively might as well be 3 armies and 12-21 months of release pipeline time instead, which will help make it possible to get to all the armies within the span of a single edition and keep armies from being two editions out of date.

That's what would likely have an impact on non-SM army sales. You aren't taking anything away from the SM crowd, it's all still there, just in one book instead of 5, and then you've got more time and resources available, especially sales and marketing resources, to help support the other armies after the big giant happy marine release each edition.

Actually yeah, you are "taking things away from the SM crowd". You're taking away the flavor of their army for the most part and genericizing it in the worst possible way.
This ridiculous notion of "Marines get so much of the release and development time" that you continually spout needs to stop. It's blatantly false, and you and I both know it.
What was the last Space Marine release that wasn't able to be utilized across almost every one of the Codices?
Oh right: the Dreadknight--and before that, the Stormraven.

But really. We know why the Dark Eldar and Necron books took so long to update. It's not because "Space Marines took development time away from them". It's because they updated these armies in a dramatic fashion.

Seaward wrote:
Which is something GW couldn't care less about. They don't want you to sit on one army and be happy; they want you constantly buying.

Except much of the reason I'm not buying much stuff now is because I'm not happy with where the games at.

That's how they stay in business. One Space Marine book would kill a huge portion of their revenue, because it means a Space Marine player goes shopping once every four years, and is then done until the next version. They want that Space Marine player hopping from vanilla to Space Wolves to Blood Angels to Grey Knights as the successive codices are released, because it makes them far, far more money than what they make from the far smaller percentage of players who decide they want to give Dark Eldar a shot.

Except a huge proportion of codex hopping is that you don't *NEED* to buy new models, or very few. I could port my CSM's to Space Wolves and all I'd need to do is swap my Daemon Prince with a different HQ. Other than that, I've already got everything I need, it's just spiky.

e]
No, it won't. You guys keep saying it's totally doable to just use Special Characters to represent all the rules in the variant codices

I never said that SC's should be used to represent variant codices

, but I have yet to see anybody actually show us an example - largely because it is not in fact doable.

I'm not a fan of SC's being used for this, I'd prefer a simple "chapter package" type thing, similar to CSM 3.5, but the concept in general is similar.

Take SC or Chapter package
Page or two explaining the following:
Army gains/loses the following army wide rules
Units A, B, C get gain/lose the following stats/rules/wargear and adjust cost by X, Y, Z.
Army gains access to units E, F loses access to units G, H, I, J.

Done.

See above. GW wants codex creep.

If that's an explicit desire then it's a bad one, it causes just as many issues and sales problems as it helps.

A Blood Angel Tactical Marine is the same as a Space Marine Tactical Marine, so there's no real difference between the codices? Sorry, but this has to be one of the stupidest arguments you guys make. Grey Knights play far differently from vanilla Marines;

In general, GK's aren't what people are talking about.

Blood Angels also play wildly differently, and Space Wolves do to quite an extent, too.

Not really, most of the differences boil down to which specific support units are better in each army (that are usually countered in generally the same way) and the more extreme niche builds (which eventually seem to get distributed to other marine armies anyway and generally are just FoC swaps or can be mostly imitated if one wishes).

With SW's most of what I see is lots of razorbacks and long fangs with rune priests, sometimes some drop pods. With BA's it's much the same thing but swap rune priests with librarians (practically identical except that RP's have better psychic defense and more abusive powers), Grey Hunters with Assault Marines (hooray we lose a bolter and counterattack and gain a 1/6 chance of Furious Charge) and Long Fangs with Fast Predators/Vindis/Stormravens. With C:SM we swap assault marines for tac marines (we gain a bolter and lose a CCW and take a heavy instead of a 2nd special, or if comparing to GH's, we lose a CCW and Counterattack and cost 10-15% more after kit) and maybe we'll see some TH/SS termi's in there. DoA isn't much different than Drop Pod lists common to every SM army now except that there's no pod. These encompass the vast majority of SM armies I see.

In general, when playing these armies, my battle plan doesn't change as it does if I'm playing against Tau or Tyranids or Eldar. That, more than anything, is what informs my opinion that these armies should be combined. If I can face them all and generally can stick with the same battleplan, they don't need their own book.

They share a lot of units, but the way those units are organized, and the rules they're subject to, are quite a bit different.

Most of the organization change is simple FoC swaps, and the rules they're subject to are simple USR that can be just as easily swapped.

You say that can all be rolled into one book, I say it can't. You want to prove me wrong? Start with the Blood Angels codex

Will do.

Lets say we have a base list, say using C:SM for now, and we have a BA Chapter Package that takes a page or two with the following notations making changes from the base list. Start it off with the BA army-wide special rules, note that certain units in the base list are no longer available (e.g. thunderfire cannons) and that the following changes are in effect.

It needs FC/FNP apothecaries

As I noted in an earlier post, this is exactly the kind of unit that changes with each codex iteration so is easily changed as needed, however if it must be kept with these exact same abilities, simply make it something like the following

"Apothecaries become Sang Priests for +Xpts with the following Y changes"

Assault Marines as troops

This is super easy and there's already tons of examples in current marine books to accomplish a simple FoC swap...take HQ with jump pack or SC or just say in the Chapter Package page that BA's can take assault marines as troops.

Furioso Dreads

Lets be honest, these were always just dreads with a 2nd DCCW, even in 5E they're basically just Ironclads with a couple minor differences simply for it's own sake. However, if they *MUST* remain distinct from an existing unit just because, it's rather easy.

"Blood Angels Ironclads are called Furioso's, they have the following X changes and additional Y options for Z points, may be upgraded to Librarian with A rules for B points"

Stormravens

This is a unit that, again, as I noted earlier, is likely to see more widespread adoption, however *assuming* it remains BA specific, then it'll get a unit entry like any other and be noted that only armies using the BA Chapter Package may take it.

Baal Predators

"BA armies may take Predators as Baal Predators, they cost additional Xpts, gain Fast, automatically swap their Autocannon for a TL Assault Cannon or Flamestorm cannon, and may swap Heavy Bolter Sponsons with Heavy Flamer Sponsons. " Scout and FA slot are relatively irrelevant and honestly never should have been either of those in the first place (and never were before this edition) so I'm not going to worry too much about that.

DoA,

Explained at the beginning of Chapter Package page.

BA psychic powers, Chaplains moved from HQ to Elite

This sort of stuff is again, the kind of thing that changes with each edition and is unlikely to survive in similar condition, and I'm not going to worry too much about. Psychic powers basically get totally redone each codex iteration for many books, and the chaplains as Elites thing is really only a thing in the 5E book and was never a thing before and isn't a popular unit option at all so it's hard to see it as a vital retainer, but if it absolutely *MUST* be retained, again

"Chaplains are elites units in an army with the BA Chapter Package. They may use the statline of a Captain instead and remain HQ's (retaining their other rules, wargear and options) and be called Reclusiarch's for +Xpts"

Death Company

There are several ways to do this one. You can either make a generic unit entry for DC and just say "only available to BA Chapter Package" or you can go the route of previous books and make it essentially a change to an existing model "units marked as Death Company swap their wargear for X loadout and gain the following Y stat changes for +Zpts"

Dante, Mephiston, the Sanguinor, Astorath, Gabriel Seth, Tycho,

characters are really going to be the big space-eater of the book, but just put them in and say only available to armies running the BA chapter package.

Sanguinary Guard

Vanguard veterans may be upgraded to Sanguinary Guard with the following X changes for Ypts.

Infernus Pistols, Angelus Boltguns, and Glaives Encarmine.

more stuff that is relatively unimportant to the character of the army and is likely to change with different iterations of the codex anyway, but not hard to put in. Infernus pistols already existed in other armies so just stick it in the summary, Angelus boltguns are EDIT: Ap4 half-range stormbolters, in all honesty probably best to just replace them with stormbolters, Glaives Encarmine is a fancy name for MC'd Powerweapon.

Also, because it wasn't mentioned

"Rhino's, Razorbacks, Predators and Vindicators in an army with the BA Chapter Package may be upgraded to Fast for +Xpts".
"Land Raiders in a BA army may deploy via Deep Strike".

Just for a start. I'll be interested to see what SCs you come up with that provide all of that without simply cramming the BA codex into the SM book.

Don't need any. All of the above stuff encompasses the BA rules almost exactly (and lets be honest, they're not going to survive as exactly in any future incarnation either no matter what) and is easily able to be fit in page or two as simple modifications to the C:SM basic list.

In my personal opinion, no, White Scars should not get their own Codex.

But Space Marines sell. Regardless of any rhyme or reason, people love to buy them. The reason why there's different codicies of Space Marines is because GW knows that fickle Space Marine players will always swap chapters, thus buying the next SM codex, thus increasing GW's coffers.

I wouldn't doubt there's another new Space Marine Chapter Codex floating about in developer purgatory, but first they have to revamp Black Templars to something more ridiculous that Grey Knights, then Dark Angels after that. My guess is on Salamanders or Raven Guard.

But I'm digressing. Whatever GW makes out as a Space Marine usually sells, and thus is embellished (Drop Pods, Storm Ravens, Pattern Land Raiders), because they know people will buy them. I do notice that there's less 'character' in the majority of Xenos and Imperial Codecies compared to SM and Chaos Marines, and its really unfortunate.

Why hasn't GW launched a global wide 40k Campaign recently? I really think if they made one in conjunction with the 6th edition release, the obvious attatchment to Space Marines would be painfully evident.

If we're going to see another "new" Space Marine Chapter Codex, it will be through Forge World.

KplKeegan wrote:Whatever GW makes out as a Space Marine usually sells, and thus is embellished (Drop Pods, Storm Ravens, Pattern Land Raiders), because they know people will buy them.

Because out of those, two are usable by every single one of the Space Marine codices...
The Stormraven is the only one which is not, and time will tell whether or not it remains that way.

I do notice that there's less 'character' in the majority of Xenos and Imperial Codecies compared to SM and Chaos Marines, and its really unfortunate.

Are you saying that the books themselves have less "character"(which is flatout bull, unless you're not really reading anything in there--and I'm including the Imperial Guard book here too. Even if I dislike how Cruddace added that character, he did at least retain some character. Sadly it didn't translate over to the viability of various characterful units or keeping the fluff in line with the previous iterations. Fething hotshot lasguns grah.) or that they have less characters?

If it's the second one: I suggest you look at Codex: Dark Eldar, Tyranids, and Necrons as the shape of things to come.

Why hasn't GW launched a global wide 40k Campaign recently? I really think if they made one in conjunction with the 6th edition release, the obvious attatchment to Space Marines would be painfully evident.

Probably because every time they've done it, the WAAC players come out of the woodwork and do everything they can to skew results to favor their armies then whine that they didn't get some kind of "prize" for it?

But really. It takes quite a bit to run even the most cursory worldwide campaign, and it nets them little to nothing in return. Just more complaints.

Vaktathi wrote:

Seaward wrote:
Which is something GW couldn't care less about. They don't want you to sit on one army and be happy; they want you constantly buying.

Except much of the reason I'm not buying much stuff now is because I'm not happy with where the games at.

Tragic. Fortunately, you're not Games Workshop's only customer.

Except a huge proportion of codex hopping is that you don't *NEED* to buy new models, or very few. I could port my CSM's to Space Wolves and all I'd need to do is swap my Daemon Prince with a different HQ. Other than that, I've already got everything I need, it's just spiky.

Let's say it were true that everyone who codex-hopped used their already-owned models and only their already-owned models, without buying any of the new, codex-specific sculpts.

Know what? GW's still earning $25 (or whatever codices are at these days, less publishing costs) more per codex hopper than they would have with only a single book. No matter how you slice it, it makes more financial sense to push your prime sellers.

I'm not a fan of SC's being used for this, I'd prefer a simple "chapter package" type thing, similar to CSM 3.5, but the concept in general is similar.

Take SC or Chapter package
Page or two explaining the following:
Army gains/loses the following army wide rules
Units A, B, C get gain/lose the following stats/rules/wargear and adjust cost by X, Y, Z.
Army gains access to units E, F loses access to units G, H, I, J.

Done.

I'm cutting it off here, as you're basically advocating smashing the variant codices' rules into the SM codex. That's perfectly possible. It's also overly complicated and stupid business, and they're simply never going to do it. And despite your claims that it'd only take "a page or two," you'd end up with a far-too-large book if you tried to do it.

See above. GW wants codex creep.

If that's an explicit desire then it's a bad one, it causes just as many issues and sales problems as it helps.

How so?

Not really, most of the differences boil down to which specific support units are better in each army (that are usually countered in generally the same way) and the more extreme niche builds (which eventually seem to get distributed to other marine armies anyway and generally are just FoC swaps or can be mostly imitated if one wishes).

I find it hard to believe you've never in life seen a DoA or Thundercav list, but I suppose I'll have to take your word on it.

Seaward wrote:
Tragic. Fortunately, you're not Games Workshop's only customer.

Nope, though I'm willing to bet that I've spent more and would be willing to spend more than most.

Let's say it were true that everyone who codex-hopped used their already-owned models and only their already-owned models, without buying any of the new, codex-specific sculpts.

Know what? GW's still earning $25 (or whatever codices are at these days, less publishing costs) more per codex hopper than they would have with only a single book. No matter how you slice it, it makes more financial sense to push your prime sellers.

Except the codex's aren't what makes them money, the models are. They come right out and say it to investors "we are a model company". If they aren't selling models, they aren't making money.

I'm cutting it off here, as you're basically advocating smashing the variant codices' rules into the SM codex.

Right, that's what I've been saying the entire time.

That's perfectly possible. It's also overly complicated and stupid business,

Aside from simply stating so, and not responding to the post I made showing you exactly how you could merge those books without losing anything significant simply by creating sublists from a base common list, by saying in effect "I'm cutting it off because a point was made and I can't or don't want to adequately reply", what's overly complicated and stupid about it? You asked, I showed you.

A couple pages per chapter, say 10-14 pages out of the entire book at a stretch, and you've got your alternate chapters. The big part would be the characters. The vast majority of units and wargear are shared, much of the fluff (e.g. Horus Heresy, SM Creation, etc) is all shared. All you'd need to do is cover major fluff sections of each chapter (smaller than you think if you actually look at each codex), some timeline with major SM battles of all chapters (say all that's 60something pages up to this point), non-duplicative unit descriptions (say 40 pages), a core army list two pages of rules for BT/DA/BA/SW so 8 total, a character section (you could fit each character in half a page with some work) of say, 16 pages, it'd be just a bit bigger than the current C:SM, so it might actually be worth the $40/45 they charge for codex's by the point such a hypothetical book would come out given codex price increases of the last few years (65% increase in the last 5 years). Add in some more fluff to make it a nice round 150 pages by fleshing out characters and chapters, and you're good. Sure it's a bit bigger than others but is that really that much of an issue at that point?

And despite your claims that it'd only take "a page or two," you'd end up with a far-too-large book if you tried to do it.

And you know that...how? And by what standard is it "too large"? Keep in mind that you're not adding much aside from the characters.

How so?

Older armies become unviable, nobody starts them, people quite, etc.

I find it hard to believe you've never in life seen a DoA or Thundercav list, but I suppose I'll have to take your word on it.

DoA plays much like a pod list. Thundercav are a niche list and are dealt with like any deathstar, SM or not.

Kanwulen wrote: Sadly it didn't translate over to the viability of various characterful units or keeping the fluff in line with the previous iterations. Fething hotshot lasguns grah.) or that they have less characters?

This. Where you could have unique and fluff regiments that you could place on the table top. From Catachans, Tanith First, Terrax, Mordian Iron Guard, Tallarn, Salvar Chem Dogs, Harkoni WarHawks, etc. you could actually field in the 4th edition Imperial Guard Codex. When the 5th one rolled around, it took all of that uniqueness away.

You can't have a deep striking guard army (unless you use Imperial Armor 8), or a regiment that can infiltrate its infantry, or give you Guard units abusive narcotics like Slaugh and Obscura.


It seems that Space Marines are going in the opposite Direction. If you take Shrike, you can trade Combat Tactics for Fleet. If you take Kahn, your Dedicated Transports have outflank. If you take Lysander, you can make your marines Stubborn. If you take Pedro Cantor, Vanguard counts as Troops. Almost Everything can take a Drop Pod.

With each iteration of a new Chapter Codex, it embellishes uniqueness even more.


I realize that they should exploit things that sell, and that the core focus of sales is Space Marines, but I'm just a little perturbed on how things come to pass.

If it's the second one: I suggest you look at Codex: Dark Eldar, Tyranids, and Necrons as the shape of things to come.

The Dark Eldar seem rather promising, Necrons and Tyranids, not so much.

Necrons actually have more in common with Dark Eldar, at least from what I saw of the book giving it a cursory glance today. Decent amount of characters, even if they don't necessarily alter the army's setup.

But really. We shouldn't see an issue with the "uniqueness" being embellished. Let's face facts here, but the Dark Angels and Space Wolves and Blood Angels and Black Templars have had lists to themselves before. They were little dinky things though.

The Guard codex is rightfully perturbing. Stupid Cruddace helming that one made no sense.

Vaktathi wrote:

Seaward wrote:
Tragic. Fortunately, you're not Games Workshop's only customer.

Nope, though I'm willing to bet that I've spent more and would be willing to spend more than most.

Huzzah for you then, I suppose. That's not the point. One individual - even a whole horde of individuals - being upset with the "state of the game" is not going to matter to GW as long as they're making money. And they are.

Let's say it were true that everyone who codex-hopped used their already-owned models and only their already-owned models, without buying any of the new, codex-specific sculpts.

Know what? GW's still earning $25 (or whatever codices are at these days, less publishing costs) more per codex hopper than they would have with only a single book. No matter how you slice it, it makes more financial sense to push your prime sellers.

Except the codex's aren't what makes them money, the models are. They come right out and say it to investors "we are a model company". If they aren't selling models, they aren't making money.

You're either being deliberately obtuse, or simply ignorant. Black Library makes a lot of money for them, and has yet to sell a single model. Their licensing deals make them fair bundles of cash. They will not turn down a profitable revenue stream. The codices wouldn't be much use without models, but if they could simply sell codices and stay profitable, they would. My point, which you seem to have wildly missed, was that even if nobody buys a single new box to go with their shiny new codex while in the process of changing to the latest and greatest army book, they're still making money from that codex sale. Whether it's a large amount or a small amount is irrelevant - it's more than they would have made if that codex didn't exist.

Aside from simply stating so and responding to the post I made by saying in effect "I'm cutting it off because a point was made and I can't or don't want to adequately reply", what's overly complicated and stupid about it?

It's stupid business for the reasons I've outlined earlier in this thread, as well as above in this post; GW wants you to be constantly buying and updating. Publishing one Space Marine codex an edition makes sure that's not going to happen. They want you to codex hop. They want to make it relatively easy for you to do it, too. If the demand is there - and it is, or none of these variant codices and their associated sculpt lines would be profitable - there's literally no reason to not continue to support them as variant codices. Aside, of course, from concerns about "game balance" and "fairness," which they couldn't care less about.

And despite your claims that it'd only take "a page or two," you'd end up with a far-too-large book if you tried to do it.

And you know that...how?

I can count.

And by what standard is it "too large"? Keep in mind that you're not adding much aside from the characters.

No, you're adding quite a lot of rules, wargear, and units, too.

Older armies become unviable, nobody starts them, people quite, etc.

Now you're starting to get it. Yes, older armies become obsolete...encouraging you to switch to a newer army. Welcome to the Games Workshop army treadmill. It's not exactly a new concept.

DoA plays much like a pod list.

LOL.

Vaktathi wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:well all converge on a SINGLE Codex which will unit the vast majority of 40K players in a single book. That would kill diversty in the game as sure as the sun rises in the morning.

If it's got everything the other books did, what diversity is lost?

It's not like these armies are super diverse anyway. C:BA outright shares 80% of it's non-SC units, with most of the rest being variations on existing units (e.g. dreads/predators/etc), with C:SM.

Apparently, for Zweischneid, "Diversity" can also be spelled d-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-t b-o-o-k c-o-v-e-r-s. Because that's all the 5 separate space marine codici really amount to in the long run.

Arandmoor wrote:
Apparently, for Zweischneid, "Diversity" can also be spelled d-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-t b-o-o-k c-o-v-e-r-s. Because that's all the 5 separate space marine codici really amount to in the long run.

Then get everyone you know to buy every xenos codex and box of models out there. Twice.

The only way you'd ever see Space Marines scaled back and any given xenos army getting nearly as much attention is if they started to come even remotely close to SM sales figures.

Which they won't because of the way GW promotes SM with 5 or 6 Codexes and AOBR, as well as other stater sets and the greater range of models.

Deadshot wrote:Which they won't because of the way GW promotes SM with 5 or 6 Codexes and AOBR, as well as other stater sets and the greater range of models.

Whereas I say the chicken came first.

If GW could wave their magic wand and instill the desire to buy something in customers, they'd be doing a much better job of saving WFB.

Kanluwen wrote:
Actually yeah, you are "taking things away from the SM crowd". You're taking away the flavor of their army for the most part and genericizing it in the worst possible way.
This ridiculous notion of "Marines get so much of the release and development time" that you continually spout needs to stop. It's blatantly false, and you and I both know it.

Blatantly false? So, space marines don't constitute 40% of the available armies in 40k?

By what math?

Oh. I know. From your perspective Marines are only 40% of the codicies, and are therefore not the majority because 40 < 51. Correct?

Except...you're comparing them to ALL the xenos armies in one lump, which is not a fair comparison. Marines make up 40% of the codicies, and are mostly interchangeable with each other barring, as you said, around 2 units.

There is no single xenos army that comes anywhere near 40% of the game's representation. The only way you can successfully claim that marines don't get the majority of the R&D schedule is if you compare them to all of the non-marine armies put together.

What you're trying to do is claim that Brentonia isn't, hypothetically, 40% of the fantasy release schedule if they went and created one army book for every single brentonian knightly order at the expense of the rest of the fantasy armies, and fantasy ended up having 9 brentonian army books and 12 books for the rest. Suddenly...Brentonia, by your logic, isn't the majority of the armies because there only have 9 books for themselves. Obviously, the other armies have more.

Well, obviously, the xenos have more. Except Necrons only have one book.
Tau only have one book.
Eldar have two.
Orks only have one.
'nids only have one.

There are five marine chapter codicies, plus the vanilla codex.

Space marines get the vast majority of the release schedule compared to any other single faction.

Seaward wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Which they won't because of the way GW promotes SM with 5 or 6 Codexes and AOBR, as well as other stater sets and the greater range of models.

Whereas I say the chicken came first.

If GW could wave their magic wand and instill the desire to buy something in customers, they'd be doing a much better job of saving WFB.

I was just stating a fact. I don't know what you mean with this chicken buisness.

I was very glad when we had the Index Astartes rules.

On the other hand I really dislike the unlocking characters, because now you have to take a certain character if you want to play a fluffy X-chapter force.

Arandmoor wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Actually yeah, you are "taking things away from the SM crowd". You're taking away the flavor of their army for the most part and genericizing it in the worst possible way.
This ridiculous notion of "Marines get so much of the release and development time" that you continually spout needs to stop. It's blatantly false, and you and I both know it.

Blatantly false? So, space marines don't constitute 40% of the available armies in 40k?

You can read, right?

The notion of "Marines getting so much of the release and development time" is what I stated as "blatantly false".
If that were true, every single "Space Marine" related release would have an entire line dedicated solely to that army.

This does not happen. There are, as you acknowledge, several shared pieces--of which none represent a real R&D investment.

Except...you're comparing them to ALL the xenos armies in one lump, which is not a fair comparison. Marines make up 40% of the codicies, and are mostly interchangeable with each other barring, as you said, around 2 units.

There is no single xenos army that comes anywhere near 40% of the game's representation. The only way you can successfully claim that marines don't get the majority of the R&D schedule is if you compare them to all of the non-marine armies put together.

Or it's because as I stated: every single book does not see them getting releases entire for just that book.

In fact, Dark Angels only received as releases two kits for "their own"(both of which were really "upgrade frames". The Ravenwing and Robed Marine bodies). The rest would be rightly considered "Space Marine Prerelease Wave 1".

To continually equate the design time necessary for these Marine books to come about with that which has been done for the Dark Eldar or Necrons is absurd. And if you really want to, again, get down to brass tacks...Guard and Tyranids received new books faster than the Marines did.

There are five marine chapter codicies, plus the vanilla codex.

Four. Grey Knights do not count by any stretch of the imagination, excepting that they are wearing Power Armour.

Space marines get the vast majority of the release schedule compared to any other single faction.

When was the last "Space Marine"(Or I guess really I'll have to go with "Power Armoured Soldiers" to answer it as a relatively recent one...) new release?

Oh right. Grey Knights.

Seaward wrote:

You're either being deliberately obtuse, or simply ignorant. Black Library makes a lot of money for them, and has yet to sell a single model.

Black library is a side business that isn't their core business. As a % of total revenue it's fairly small.

Their licensing deals make them fair bundles of cash.

Again, a side thing that makes up a relatively minute amount of revenue.

My point, which you seem to have wildly missed, was that even if nobody buys a single new box to go with their shiny new codex while in the process of changing to the latest and greatest army book, they're still making money from that codex sale. Whether it's a large amount or a small amount is irrelevant - it's more than they would have made if that codex didn't exist.

They're bringing in revenue sure. Book sales however do not make up for the cost of development, printing, shipping of that book.

It's stupid business for the reasons I've outlined earlier in this thread, as well as above in this post;

Based on the false premise that codex sales make a release worth it? They don't.

GW wants you to be constantly buying and updating. Publishing one Space Marine codex an edition makes sure that's not going to happen. They want you to codex hop.

Really? Because that sounds like poor business if all I'm doing is buying a book that's likely only recovering it's development costs and not buying an new models, the stuff where they make their real money.

They want to make it relatively easy for you to do it, too. If the demand is there - and it is, or none of these variant codices and their associated sculpt lines would be profitable - there's literally no reason to not continue to support them as variant codices. Aside, of course, from concerns about "game balance" and "fairness," which they couldn't care less about.

Aside from stopping sales cannibalizing each other and making other lines more profitable with greater support?

I can count.

And aside from ducking the question yet again with another non-answer, what is your justification?

No, you're adding quite a lot of rules, wargear, and units, too.

Almost all of which take up a grand total of one or two lines, or can relatively easily be discarded and replaced with something similar (e.g. Glaive Encarmine...it's a Master Crafted Powerweapon, it really doesn't need it's own special entry)

I went through and showed you exactly how it could be done previously in relatively small amount of space based off a shared common list without really losing anything. 2 pages for army list rules, 3 tops, 1 for DA/BT likely, 2-5 pages for characters, and you've got all your subfaction army rules. For some reason you just didn't want to respond to that after I accepted your challenge and showed you exactly how easily that could be done.

Now you're starting to get it. Yes, older armies become obsolete...encouraging you to switch to a newer army. Welcome to the Games Workshop army treadmill. It's not exactly a new concept.

Except that doesn't work for all armies and players. It works for Space Marines because the cost of switching is very low. Most people play one army, maybe two, they don't hop every new release or even every couple of years. You don't see most Eldar, IG or Necron players hopping from book to book.

DoA plays much like a pod list.
LOL.

Lots of relatively safely DS'ing units, probably a good deal of melta, they get jump-packs instead of having to foot slog it but at the distances they're coming in they're already close enough that the jumppacks are mostly a non-issue.

Were you going to actually respond with something meaningful or just duck it and pretend you've won with an evasive "lol" like a champ?

Vaktathi wrote:They're bringing in revenue sure. Book sales however do not make up for the cost of development, printing, shipping of that book.

Really? Prove it.

Based on the false premise that codex sales make a release worth it?

No, based on the correct premise that GW wants you to buy up the latest release, whatever it is. Since Space Marines are far and away their most profitable line - by huge, huge margins, according to ADB - they want to maximize Space Marine releases. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out, and I'm curious why you're struggling with it so much. Have you ever studied economics, out of curiosity?

Really? Because that sounds like poor business if all I'm doing is buying a book that's likely only recovering it's development costs and not buying an new models, the stuff where they make their real money.

That isn't what most consumers do, though. They buy the codex, and some of the new models.

Aside from stopping sales cannibalizing each other and making other lines more profitable with greater support?

At the end of the day, if they thought throwing other lines more support would make them profitable, they'd do it. I mean, seriously; your argument is essentially, "I think GW are knowingly shooting themselves in the foot financially." Why on earth would they? That's the question you guys can't answer. You all seem to think that giving Tau all the support of Space Marines will make them just as popular as Space Marines, but frankly? I'm going to give the opinion of the guys who've been running this business over yours.

And aside from ducking the question yet again with another non-answer, what is your justification?

My justification is that I can count. I can't explain it any more simply than that. I can look over what would need to be transferred, and recognize that it would fill more than a page or two, through the magic of counting.

I went through and showed you exactly how it could be done previously in relatively small amount of space based off a shared common list without really losing anything. 2 pages for army list rules, 3 tops, 1 for DA/BT likely, 2-5 pages for characters, and you've got all your subfaction army rules. For some reason you just didn't want to respond to that after I accepted your challenge and showed you exactly how easily that could be done.

Describing the process took a relatively small amount of space, yes. And I've never said that you couldn't simply staple the Blood Angel/Grey Knight/Space Wolf/Dark Angel/Black Templar rules into the back of the vanilla 'dex. I've said that trying to combine them all into one book would be complicated and extremely stupid from a business standpoint, and you've done nothing at all to dissuade that opinion.

Except that doesn't work for all armies and players. It works for Space Marines because the cost of switching is very low. Most people play one army, maybe two, they don't hop every new release or even every couple of years. You don't see most Eldar, IG or Necron players hopping from book to book.

That's the trouble with anecdotal evidence; I actually do. The two Tau players I know went to DE as soon as the DE book was released. Most people I know army hop, come to think of it. You don't lose anything by codex jumping; your Tau army's still sitting there for when the new Tau codex comes out, and you can rest assured you'll have a couple new cool units to buy for it when it does. Again, is this just an issue of you not understanding GW's business model?

Were you going to actually respond with something meaningful or just duck it and pretend you've won with an evasive "lol" like a champ?

So wait; you get to say something hilariously absurd, but I have to respond with something meaningful? Those rules don't seem particularly fair.

Seaward wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Which they won't because of the way GW promotes SM with 5 or 6 Codexes and AOBR, as well as other stater sets and the greater range of models.

Whereas I say the chicken came first.

If GW could wave their magic wand and instill the desire to buy something in customers, they'd be doing a much better job of saving WFB.

The army that sells the best at any point in time is the army that received the latest codex.

If they want xenos to outsell marines, they need to release xenos codicies more frequently.

And they'll save WFB when they make the rules less irritating. 40k surpassed it because they removed a lot of the annoying in the rule book.

Also, WFB is much, much, much more expensive than 40k. Fantasy makes 40k look downright cheap by comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I seriously hope the rumor that 6th edition is going to have a significant xenos focus is correct.

Deadshot wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Would it then not be simplier to have individual codexes, instaed of wasting money on sections, large sections, which you won't use?

No. Individual codexes are definitely simpler, and far more fool-proof.

However, the shear number of marine codexes has been toxic to 40k for some time now, and is a big reason I've seen a lot of people stop playing. Some people don't want to play marines. Some because they don't want an army that does *everything* well, others because they don't want to play what's popular, others because marines don't do what they want them to do well enough while another army does, etc.

Yet, half the release schedule is devoted to marines.

Because SM are the flagship of GW and 40K

If you got all the space marine armies over at once, you could spend the time freed up in the schedule developing the other armies.

see above. GW want Marine codexes because that is what 40K is based around.
I keep hearing this phrase whenever people talk in favor of the chapter codexes, "They're different enough they deserve their own codex!"

And the craftworlds aren't? They couldn't be further developed to deserve their own?
The dark eldar wytch cults couldn't?
The dark eldar haemonculus covens couldn't?
The dark eldar kabals couldn't?
Yet no one who hasn't read the fluff knows bout nothing. They're al the same

They're all the same simply because those two armies have already had the condensing treatment done to them. GW has essentially taken all the major Craftworlds and made a list of the key features for each. These key features then constitute the troop, elite and fast attack sections with heavy support being a universal section if we ignore Dark Reapers for a second. Essentially the equivalent troop section in a Codex Marine list would look like thus; Assault Marines, Bike Marines, Deathcompany, Scouts, Henchmen, Sisters of Battle squad and Terminators (if you give a maxed squad a 10 point upgrade that does nothing else).

But it is actually worse than that. We do know for a fact that there exists unique Aspect Warriors among the Craftworlds and that the major ones have such unique shrines. We also know that the common Aspect Warriors which are listed in the book do not exist among all the Craftworlds, or even among all the major Craftworlds. I'm willing to bet that the Saim-Hann would have a vastly different Elite section, guaranteed not to have any shrine dedicated to the Destroyer aspect of Khaine (Dark Reapers) and a good deal greater variety of jetbikes. Ulthwé on the other hand are not traditionalists, but we know that nearly everything is represented there, including a very dominant standing army. Ulthwé's Guardians would include veterans and a greater variety in it's arsenal than is possible at the moment. Then we have the lesser Craftworlds (we're talking "lesser" similar to how Dark Angels or White Scars are lesser chapters) where in one instance they are just as likely to field Titans as Dark Reapers or in another case where Aspect Warriors have been marginalised so much that Guardians are performing their duties fully.

This isn't quite the case for Marine armies. They aren't quite this different. You get a large variety of "these are those but with this tiny extra rule". What's the difference between Long Fangs and Devastators, really? Do Sanguinary Priests really deserve an entry on it's own, or could their difference to Apothecaries not easily be fixed with a shoehorn?

In the end, there is absolutely no reason what so ever not to scrap all divergent Space Marine codexes, except that if you inverse the argument into "there's absolutely no reason not to make more non-SM codexes" you realise that the Space Marine player base can support the different codexes while the non-SM playerbase can not. Yup, we're in a spiral and it's pointing towards Warhammer: Space Marine Battles, but you get to decide whether it's a bad spiral or not.

Back on topic: White Scars, you mean that chapter which are essentially human squats? Nah, I hear we're getting squats in next incarnation of Tau, so why bother with Squat Marines?

White Scars are the bikers chapter.

Deadshot wrote:White Scars are the bikers chapter.

Yup, and so were the squats. They got killed 'cause that was all they were.

Deadshot wrote:Yet no one who hasn't read the fluff knows bout nothing. They're al the same

They're all the same and nobody knows the differences because they haven't been developed, which is exactly what I'm trying to say.

If we were on the 4th dark eldar codex in 3 editions like we are with space marines, we would have a LOT more to work with.

Look at what happened to the Tau going from their first to second codex.
Look at what happened to necrons!

The army diversity of each army increased about as much as space marines did going from their 3rd edition codex to 4th. Hell...necrons and tau gained more going from their 3rd/4th edition codicies to 5th than space marines did going from vanilla marine to sub-chapter!

They definetly have more "identity" to their cultural basis and fighting style then the Bloodangels. By this point I'm sick of marine dex's though.

Deadshot wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Would it then not be simplier to have individual codexes, instaed of wasting money on sections, large sections, which you won't use?

No. Individual codexes are definitely simpler, and far more fool-proof.

However, the shear number of marine codexes has been toxic to 40k for some time now, and is a big reason I've seen a lot of people stop playing. Some people don't want to play marines. Some because they don't want an army that does *everything* well, others because they don't want to play what's popular, others because marines don't do what they want them to do well enough while another army does, etc.

Yet, half the release schedule is devoted to marines.

Because SM are the flagship of GW and 40K

If you got all the space marine armies over at once, you could spend the time freed up in the schedule developing the other armies.

see above. GW want Marine codexes because that is what 40K is based around.

Um, no? 40k is based around the inevitable death of mankind in the eternal war of the future. That's what attracted people into it originally, not some overpriced supersoldier models.

I keep hearing this phrase whenever people talk in favor of the chapter codexes, "They're different enough they deserve their own codex!"

And the craftworlds aren't? They couldn't be further developed to deserve their own?
The dark eldar wytch cults couldn't?
The dark eldar haemonculus covens couldn't?
The dark eldar kabals couldn't?

Yet no one who hasn't read the fluff knows bout nothing. They're al(l) the same

And guess what? If GW hadn't put out all those marine codices, people would think they were all the same too.

What about the SoB?

Tghey have a (fake, badly written) minidex.

Assuming that you know that is a bad thing.

We're still waiting for an Ordo Xenos codex.

GK

Really. GK are a section of the Ordo Malleus.

The Ork Kults?

They all think the same. No need

Space Marines all think the same. No need for codices for them.

Hell. How can the space marines "deserve" their chapter codexes, but the chaos legions don't? CSM *lost* the ability to play Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, and Word Bearers in all but name.

Iron Warriors are easily made with lots of Oblits, and WB with Daemons and Icons.

I don't want to write out so many quotes, so my answers are in greens.

Durza wrote:

Deadshot wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Would it then not be simplier to have individual codexes, instaed of wasting money on sections, large sections, which you won't use?

No. Individual codexes are definitely simpler, and far more fool-proof.

However, the shear number of marine codexes has been toxic to 40k for some time now, and is a big reason I've seen a lot of people stop playing. Some people don't want to play marines. Some because they don't want an army that does *everything* well, others because they don't want to play what's popular, others because marines don't do what they want them to do well enough while another army does, etc.

Yet, half the release schedule is devoted to marines.

Because SM are the flagship of GW and 40K

If you got all the space marine armies over at once, you could spend the time freed up in the schedule developing the other armies.

see above. GW want Marine codexes because that is what 40K is based around.

Um, no? 40k is based around the inevitable death of mankind in the eternal war of the future. That's what attracted people into it originally, not some overpriced supersoldier models.

I keep hearing this phrase whenever people talk in favor of the chapter codexes, "They're different enough they deserve their own codex!"

And the craftworlds aren't? They couldn't be further developed to deserve their own?
The dark eldar wytch cults couldn't?
The dark eldar haemonculus covens couldn't?
The dark eldar kabals couldn't?

Yet no one who hasn't read the fluff knows bout nothing. They're al(l) the same

And guess what? If GW hadn't put out all those marine codices, people would think they were all the same too.

No they wouldn't, because there are 3 pages of fluff in the BrB about them, and each is easily recognised. If your blue you are an ultramarine, red your a BA, if you look like a grandad, then your a SW.

What about the SoB?

Tghey have a (fake, badly written) minidex.

Assuming that you know that is a bad thing.

Yeah, I have the army list.

We're still waiting for an Ordo Xenos codex.

GK

Really. GK are a section of the Ordo Malleus.

However, if you read the codex tyhen you will find rules for Ordo Xenos Inquisitors.

The Ork Kults?

They all think the same. No need

Space Marines all think the same. No need for codices for them.

But they don't. Not many chapters have dog brains, or name everything after "Blood", or become obsessed with bikes or Mechanic configuration, or fire/dragons/crafting. Or Or flying thunderhawks or Being Possessed by Daemons to help to fight them. Or have an armoured column bigger than a IG Regiment. Or become fanatical crusaders or obssessed with killing Iron Warriors.

Hell. How can the space marines "deserve" their chapter codexes, but the chaos legions don't? CSM *lost* the ability to play Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, and Word Bearers in all but name.

Reply by: Deathly Angel - click to view full reply 

38789

Should White Scars get their own Codex? @ 2011/11/17 08:02:00

Post by: Deathly Angel

rockerbikie wrote:White Scars have a unique feel to the army. They are based of Mongols and I think they kind of deserve their own codex. Is there a reason for White Scars not to have their own codex? Please do not give the reason: Their is enough Marine Books, just put them in the Vanilla Marine book or something to that effect.
Here's an e.g. from Lexicanum of their fluff:
The White Scars are the fifth Space Marine Legion of the First Founding. Their Primarch is Jaghatai Khan. During the Horus Heresy the White Scars remained loyal to the Emperor, after which they reorganized and split into Chapters. Drawing on the tribal savagery of their homeworld, the White Scars practice a highly mobile method of warfare, tearing into their enemies with lightning-quick attacks and vanishing before a response can be made. A unique formation within the Chapter are the Souldrinkers, Space Marine veterans that excel in close combat. These Marines are armed with power-swords and refractor fields and bear their own distinctive shoulder badges and honour banners. Another formation are the Cobra Squads, comprised of regular members of the Chapter's companies that have been equipped with jump packs.

If not, what about for 6th edition having a White Scars/Space Wolf book because they pratice very similar Shamanistic belief systems.

If another loyalist Legion deserves a seperate codex, the Chaos Legions should get their own codices as well. Alpha Legion, Night Lords, Iron Warriors and Word Bearers, maybe even every Legion deserve their own codex more than White Scars, but do we really want even more Marine books? The game already has too many as it is.

Reply by: Mahtamori - click to view full reply 

28383

Should White Scars get their own Codex? @ 2011/11/17 14:10:06

Post by: Mahtamori

Deadshot wrote:I don't want to write out so many quotes, so my answers are in greens.

Durza wrote:

Deadshot wrote:

The Ork Kults?

They all think the same. No need

Space Marines all think the same. No need for codices for them.

But they don't. Not many chapters have dog brains, or name everything after "Blood", or become obsessed with bikes or Mechanic configuration, or fire/dragons/crafting. Or Or flying thunderhawks or Being Possessed by Daemons to help to fight them. Or have an armoured column bigger than a IG Regiment. Or become fanatical crusaders or obssessed with killing Iron Warriors.

Not even the chapters which are flooded with dog-for-brains or bloody blood warriors of blood are overly obsessed. They have adapted to their tactical environment or their codex author's inability not to go over the top with poor name choices. If the Emperor's tacticians decide that the White Scars are the only ones within reasonable operative distance to support the Catachans on their home planet, they'd not bring their bikes. If the Ork speed freaks decided to invade the Catachan home planet, they'd still bring their bikes. This is the difference here. The Space Marines are, when it comes to choice of equipment and tactics, rather reasonable and will bring the optimal solution based on environment and training - Orks just won't, they'll adapt the environment to their own way of fighting and damned the costs.
The marine chapters just aren't dissimilar enough to warrant their own codexes, and this means that the marine codexes are just a sales ploy for the marine army in general. As a result we do not have 50% of the armies being marine, we've got 12% of the armies being Marines which get 50% of the development time, 20% of the modelling resources, and 80% of the game's supplements and expansions (in the form of Codex: Bloody Blood Warriors of Blood.)

The simple fact is that all marine armies can be played with Codex Space Marines, which means that GWs release scheduling and their humongous amount of marine codexes are delaying the codexes of non-SM armies. NO, we don't need more marine codexes, not until GW starts releasing codexes in a more balanced manner (i.e. FIRST the core codexes, THEN the supplemental divergent chapters, etc). Necrons and Tau are prime examples of how their current schedule is just plain bad - how do you justify prioritizing an army which already has a codex over one that hasn't had a new codex for two whole editions of the game?

Edit: quotation fail.

Reply by: Seaward - click to view full reply 

33125

Should White Scars get their own Codex? @ 2011/11/17 14:24:50

Post by: Seaward

Mahtamori wrote:Necrons and Tau are prime examples of how their current schedule is just plain bad - how do you justify prioritizing an army which already has a codex over one that hasn't had a new codex for two whole editions of the game?

By pointing out you'll make more money.

Reply by: Mahtamori - click to view full reply 

28383

Should White Scars get their own Codex? @ 2011/11/17 14:30:38

Post by: Mahtamori

Seaward wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Necrons and Tau are prime examples of how their current schedule is just plain bad - how do you justify prioritizing an army which already has a codex over one that hasn't had a new codex for two whole editions of the game?

By pointing out you'll make more money.

That works for your shareholders, but is a direct insult to your customers.

Besides, I personally find it doubtful they do make more money that way, in the long run. Operating in a semi-monopoly helps, though.

Reply by: Seaward - click to view full reply 

33125

Should White Scars get their own Codex? @ 2011/11/17 15:23:03

Post by: Seaward

Mahtamori wrote:
That works for your shareholders, but is a direct insult to your customers.

Which they couldn't care less about, provided they're making money.

Besides, I personally find it doubtful they do make more money that way, in the long run. Operating in a semi-monopoly helps, though.

I don't doubt they do, but regardless, they think they do, and that's really all that matters.

Reply by: Armless Failure - click to view full reply 

51495

Should White Scars get their own Codex? @ 2011/11/17 15:52:30

Post by: Armless Failure

Commenting on topic:

There is a general marine codex and 4 sub-faction codecies, making 5 kinds of marines (not counting GK). When combined with IG, SoB, and GK we end up with 8 imperium factions. there are only 7 non-imperial factions. If the imperium gets any more armies people will stop believing that the imperium is on the edge of oblivion. Now if we got rid of an existing marine chapter codex (*cough*black templars*cough*) I could see adding a new one.

However I could very easily see whitescars becoming a forge world chapter. They just need new bitz to customize existing models and there you go.

Reply by: Zweischneid - click to view full reply 

36276

Should White Scars get their own Codex? @ 2011/11/17 16:05:23

Post by: Zweischneid

Armless Failure wrote: If the imperium gets any more armies people will stop believing that the imperium is on the edge of oblivion.

Not really. The numbers of Codexes for the game, does in no way reflect the balance of power "in the game universe" of 40K. Indeed, quite a few armies derive their appeal (and thus their justification for a book of their own as a prerequisite to plentyful sales) from the fact that they represent a small, elite, dying or otherwise rare and exotic faction in the 40K universe.

Reply by: Kepora - click to view full reply 

44112

Should White Scars get their own Codex? @ 2011/11/17 16:20:08

Post by: Kepora

Deadshot wrote:Iron Warriors are easily made with lots of Oblits, and WB with Daemons and Icons.

Sir, I am thoroughly -insulted- by this. But lack of sleep last night and ADHD meds are putting me to sleep. I'll return to chew your ass off later.

Deadshot wrote:I don't want to write out so many quotes, so my answers are in greens.

Durza wrote:

Deadshot wrote:

The Ork Kults?

They all think the same. No need

Space Marines all think the same. No need for codices for them.

But they don't. Not many chapters have dog brains, or name everything after "Blood", or become obsessed with bikes or Mechanic configuration, or fire/dragons/crafting. Or Or flying thunderhawks or Being Possessed by Daemons to help to fight them. Or have an armoured column bigger than a IG Regiment. Or become fanatical crusaders or obssessed with killing Iron Warriors.

The only reason orks don't have enough "obvious material in need of it's own codex" is because they haven't been developed enough. However, given the old chapter approved articles (a lot of which was lost in their latest codex barring some of the units) Orks have as much additional material as marines do.

Easily.

And it could be developed.

Easily.

Codex: Kult of Speed
All ork units have manditory transport options (okay...so they wouldn't exactly be "options").
All ork transports have increased transport capacity (overzealous orks hanging off the sides)
All ork transports have automatic cover from incoming fire so long as they are over their standard capacity limit.
If an ork transport can claim cover from extra passengers, any successful cover saves taken remove a model from the excess passengers.
All ork vehicles get red paint for free.
Orks assaulting from transports that have moved get bonuses beyond furious charge (combine with a tank-shock maneuver. Work like impact hits in fantasy to represent the transport running people over while orks jump on them and start laying waste. Basically, they don't have to disembark from their transport before assaulting. You, in effect, get assaulted by the transport...then it craps out orks who get to deploy into CC)
Orks not assaulting from moving transports lose furious charge (because they believe they are less effective...but them humies ain't gunna krump demselves iz dey?)
Orks in vehicles shoot better (because they think they should)
Orks get a fast attack choice that can hijack enemy vehicles (orks gain control of enemy vehicles until the end of the game)
Ork Hijackaz get a new model: ork bike that has a second ork riding behind the driver.
Speed Freak special character that allows the entire force to out-flank

There. One ork kult codex with more new rules than your average chapter codex. Didn't take much. There is so much untapped potential just sitting there it's sickening.

Zweischneid wrote:

Armless Failure wrote: If the imperium gets any more armies people will stop believing that the imperium is on the edge of oblivion.

Not really. The numbers of Codexes for the game, does in no way reflect the balance of power "in the game universe" of 40K. Indeed, quite a few armies derive their appeal (and thus their justification for a book of their own as a prerequisite to plentyful sales) from the fact that they represent a small, elite, dying or otherwise rare and exotic faction in the 40K universe.

I was being somewhat facetious. And to be fair none of the eldar are really a threat to the imperium on a large scale (barring eldrad style manipulation of things that are actually threatening), and the Tau are only a threat to those near the damocles gulf. The real threats are Chaos, Orks, and 'nids, maybe necrons (i haven't read their new codex), with 'nids being the most threatening enemy (unless chaos finds a competent replacement for failbaddon).

I know that the fluff has the imperium under siege, but given that the majority of players field imperial armies, most play groups have the feel that xenos are on the verge of extinction.

Quite. I remember when Black Templars were just marines in black power armour. Having a codex released will do wonders for the amount of uniqueness and background you get given.

Karnac wrote:

Simply put. No.

The Vanilla rines Dex need the trait system from 4th edition back, then you can "flavour" your chapters.

This has some serious merit as does producing a "flavor supplement" for this sort of thing possibly through the WD magazine.

Just pointing this out. If they did have one Codex for all Space Marines, the codex would be as big as the big rulebook.

rockerbikie wrote:Just pointing this out. If they did have one Codex for all Space Marines, the codex would be as big as the big rulebook.

Not really. If you look at a few of the Marine books, they share a lot of similary history and background, in so far as generic space marines go, such as the Horus Heresy, the Space Marine recruitment and geneseed transplants and so on.
Furthermore, the good majority of their fighting vehicles, weapons, armour and other equipment is the exact same Imperial-standard.
The only thing that would differ, rules-wise, are Chapters-specific units, special characters and special rules. Fluff-wise, it would only be fluff-specific stuff, which frankly I reckon half of them could do without half of what they've got now. So there is no way, imo, that a combined Codex for all SM Chapters would be as big as the current BRB.

Regarding the OP: Nope. Current system can reasonably approximate a White Scars force using a Captain on bike to unlock bikes as troops, with Speeders and tank support to taste. On top of that, there's the Khan IC, who can also be mounted on a (special) bike and confers fluff-appropriate special rules.

Generally, I think condensing the Marines into a single book with a trait system a la 4th ed. would be good for overall balance. It would mean fewer codices to one-up in power next release, plus fewer to cycle through until [insert older xeno codex] gets some love. The plentiful Marine vs. Marine battles would also become balanced regardless of chapter chosen, assuming internal balance of trait benefit and unit power:cost. It would also give a lot more flavor to the mass of homebrew chapters out there that are otherwise little more than a color scheme. The more popular chapters could have a page of fluff, along with a "recipe" (their particular combination of traits) right in the codex, with more fluff/trait recipe pages released in WD (giving it some actual content, if what I've heard about it is true) and/or on the GW website.

Problem is, those chapter-specific codices already exist and pulling the plug on them would cause a show of epic proportions. Short of going back in time and steering GW away from their current path, I don't see the all-in-one book ever happening.