I think part of the reason GK and BA are so over-powered is that within the MEQ niche there's nowhere to go but up (or down lol).
For example with hordes, orks cover melée and guard cover ranged, you couldn't really introduce another horde army that wasn't overly unbalanced.
So I think the following codexes should go:
GK-should be no more than a couple of units in an Inquisitor codex
BA-SM with fast predators
Probably keep Space Wolves and Dark Angels because they're both quite distinctive (remove Long Fang silliness, obviously).
Fact is if, to pick an example, Imperial Guard were as popular as Space Marines, we'd be getting a Cadia codex with rending infantry squads and Catachan codex with infiltrating platoons.

I think the other SM dexes. In a thread similar to this, someone suggested a Codex:Space Marines and a Codex: Chapters of the Astartes.
Your Inquisition dex is a great idea. Why aren't Soritas and GK in one called Codex: Forces of the Inquisiton.

There needs to be one book to rule them all. One SM book, one inquisition book...

Ya, put GK/sisters into a single book and I would also have most of the SM codexs become 1 book.

Um, no. BA aren't really OP, and Grey Knights aren't even THAT amazing.

And besides, the different codexes are supposed to be Marines with different methods of waging war.

Vanilla Marines: Gunline, tough, tactical
Space Wolves: Close combat, heroes
Blood Angels: Speed and deep-striking
Black Templar: Horde-style close combat
Dark Angels: Shooty
Grey Knights: Even more elite than standard Marines, but fewer in number

Although, I do suppose you could have separate codexes for every other army as well. The idea that no codex has anywhere to go but "up" is a silly notion - they should have strengths in certain areas, but they should also be weaker in certain areas.

For instance, Space Wolves lack Combat Tactics.

If the SM get a Codex for each major Chapter with a different tactic, then the Eldar should get one for each Craftworld with a different tactic:

Biel-tan get the Aspects moved into Troops
Ulthwe have all aspects at 0-1, Black Guardian squads, Warlock squads are elite etc etc

Your reasoning could and should apply all armies, or none of them.

Yes let the hatred flow..

DeadlySquirrel wrote:If the SM get a Codex for each major Chapter with a different tactic, then the Eldar should get one for each Craftworld with a different tactic:

Biel-tan get the Aspects moved into Troops
Ulthwe have all aspects at 0-1, Black Guardian squads, Warlock squads are elite etc etc

Your reasoning could and should apply all armies, or none of them.

...Or just Codex: Eldar (Vanilla craftworld and Exodites) and Craftworld of the Eldar.

lets keep fluff out of it.

they do it because marines sell. end of story.

if eldar sold like marines you would see 10 different eldar codexs

Indeed. They are a miniatures company afterall.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Indeed. They are a miniatures company afterall.

yup, keeping that in mind, if anything we will see more. 20 marine flavors each with its own book anyone?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i heard gw is working on a few new meq books as we speak.

the grey templars - the elite of the grey knights. you only need to buy one squad.

and blood samurai- they are even more jump specialized than blood angels and get fast, cheap land raiders.

and also one chaos one. abbadon's offspring. but that's just a rumour.

:coolface:

Remove Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Black Templars. It's stupid they all have their own dex's anyway.

Harriticus wrote:Remove Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Black Templars. It's stupid they all have their own dex's anyway.

Yeah, please remove four valid armies from the game and piss off every one of their players.

Joey wrote:I think part of the reason GK and BA are so over-powered is that within the MEQ niche there's nowhere to go but up (or down lol).
For example with hordes, orks cover melée and guard cover ranged, you couldn't really introduce another horde army that wasn't overly unbalanced.
So I think the following codexes should go:
GK-should be no more than a couple of units in an Inquisitor codex
BA-SM with fast predators
Probably keep Space Wolves and Dark Angels because they're both quite distinctive (remove Long Fang silliness, obviously).
Fact is if, to pick an example, Imperial Guard were as popular as Space Marines, we'd be getting a Cadia codex with rending infantry squads and Catachan codex with infiltrating platoons.

I don't really think DA deserve a dex TBH, all terminator force? Congrats, just like every other 1st company.

But the Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Chapters Idea is good. Have all the big name chapters- UM, IF, BT, CF etc. all have their own things, because even if they are compliant, they all have their specialties, and in the case of IF, their own LR variant.

And I LOVE your Codex: Inquisition book. It would also allow room for deathwatch which is just awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother SRM wrote:

Harriticus wrote:Remove Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Black Templars. It's stupid they all have their own dex's anyway.

Yeah, please remove four valid armies from the game and piss off every one of their players.

Well it was stupid to introduce them, but they can't just do away with them. People are still mad about them doing that with squats.

They should consolidate them into a single codex.

No way to go but up? I don't agree. They theoretically could make a codex that's 'weaker' than the codex released before it, and people would still buy it and play that army, and it wouldn't really attract the attention of 'hoppers'. Just my .02 dollars

Samus_aran115 wrote:No way to go but up? I don't agree. They theoretically could make a codex that's 'weaker' than the codex released before it, and people would still buy it and play that army, and it wouldn't really attract the attention of 'hoppers'. Just my .02 dollars

This.

All they need to do is make it different enough to have to use different tactics. They don't seem to realize that new units and upgrades is the way to do that, not adding free upgrades and making stuff that's bad cheap enough to be good.

DoctorZombie wrote:Why aren't Soritas and GK in one called Codex: Forces of the Inquisiton.

Because they have little to nothing in common? And no, occasional Inquisition usage doesn't count - Inquisitors can and do requisition any Imperial force.

It'd make more sense to combine every Marine Chapter (sans GK) into a single Codex. If you want to condense, then start with the ONE army that is broken down into various sub-codices for a dozen variants before moving to something more distinctive. Marines deserve their special Codices no more or less than the various Imperial Guard regiments.

Of course, this is argueing purely from an external perspective. In economical terms, I do not believe GW would pursue such a course, given that Marines are and will likely continue to be their cash cow, their popularity being equivalent to the attention they receive from the studio - regardless of how much other armies have to suffer due to this.

Lynata wrote:

DoctorZombie wrote:Why aren't Soritas and GK in one called Codex: Forces of the Inquisiton.

Because they have little to nothing in common? And no, occasional Inquisition usage doesn't count - Inquisitors can and do requisition any Imperial force.

It would be like with DA where you can make a deathwing army, or a ravenwing army, or a normal DA army, choosing between the ordos with some possible overlap à la teaming up.

im2randomghgh wrote:
Well it was stupid to introduce them, but they can't just do away with them. People are still mad about them doing that with squats.

They should consolidate them into a single codex.

I wouldn't say it's stupid; it was goddamn genius from a business perspective. I wouldn't argue with consolidating them into a codex or two though. I think general consolidation is a better route than straight up removal of armies in any system.

Samus_aran115 wrote:No way to go but up? I don't agree. They theoretically could make a codex that's 'weaker' than the codex released before it, and people would still buy it and play that army, and it wouldn't really attract the attention of 'hoppers'. Just my .02 dollars

Like sisters of battle!

im2randomghgh wrote:It would be like with DA where you can make a deathwing army, or a ravenwing army, or a normal DA army, choosing between the ordos with some possible overlap à la teaming up.

Which would be the same for any Imperial force recruited by an Inquisitor - just that you'd see Imperial Guard and Space Marines way more often alongside a single Chamber Militant than one Ordo working with another.

Lynata wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:It would be like with DA where you can make a deathwing army, or a ravenwing army, or a normal DA army, choosing between the ordos with some possible overlap à la teaming up.

Which would be the same for any Imperial force recruited by an Inquisitor - just that you'd see Imperial Guard and Space Marines way more often alongside a single Chamber Militant than one Ordo working with another.

Well I imagine it would have the inquidsition specific units as normal in the codex, and then a FOC slot or two for units from other codices, sorta like how orks have looted wagon which can be anything, except obviously not with one-size fits all stats like the wagon.

Why not release one codex and an expantion for each race?
Codex: Space Marines; Chapters of the Space Marines.
Codex: Imperial Guard; Regiments of the Imperial Guard.
Codex: Dark Eldar; Kabals of the Dark Eldar.
Codex: Eldar; Craftworlds of the Eldar.
Codex: Chaos; Daemons of Chaos; Servants of Chaos.
Codex: Necrons; Dynasties of the Necrons.
Codex: Tyrannids; Hive Fleets of the Tyrannids.
Codex: Tau; Colonies of the Tau.
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus; Forge Worlds of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Codex: Ordos Imperialis; Forces of the Inquisition; Orders of the Sisters of Battle; Agents of the Imperium.
Codex: Orks; Klans of the Orks.
I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

im2randomghgh wrote:Well I imagine it would have the inquidsition specific units as normal in the codex, and then a FOC slot or two for units from other codices, sorta like how orks have looted wagon which can be anything, except obviously not with one-size fits all stats like the wagon.

SoB are not Inquisition-specific. And why would you force people to buy other Codices for units that make more sense appearing in a battle than those belonging to the Chamber Militant of another Ordo?

Again, if you want to condense, why not start with those armies that have the smallest difference in background/style/rules?

Rabtorian wrote:I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

Lumping in SoB with the Inquisition, but the AdMech gets its own book? I see what you did there.

Rabtorian wrote:Why not release one codex and an expantion for each race?
Codex: Space Marines; Chapters of the Space Marines.
Codex: Imperial Guard; Regiments of the Imperial Guard.
Codex: Dark Eldar; Kabals of the Dark Eldar.
Codex: Eldar; Craftworlds of the Eldar.
Codex: Chaos; Daemons of Chaos; Servants of Chaos.
Codex: Necrons; Dynasties of the Necrons.
Codex: Tyrannids; Hive Fleets of the Tyrannids.
Codex: Tau; Colonies of the Tau.
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus; Forge Worlds of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Codex: Ordos Imperialis; Forces of the Inquisition; Orders of the Sisters of Battle; Agents of the Imperium.
Codex: Orks; Klans of the Orks.
I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

Oh there would be rage. The expansions would be treated like FW, with some players accepting and some not and RAGE!!!

I'm not sure I'd be able to keep up with it.

Keep it simple, do it the way it is EXCEPT with SM, which either have 2 codices, or all just in one codice with HQs unlocking options that give each major chapter it's own flavour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AdMech gets its own book?

I personally would like an Admech codex, but the problem is with as many as there already are...and with more than half of them Imperial...

Lynata wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

Lumping in SoB with the Inquisition, but the AdMech gets its own book? I see what you did there.

The general Imperial codex would be more like several mini-dexes strung together that could be mixed and matched. The SoB would be bigger than the white dwarf codex, with the expansion giving you as much variety as the other codexes. I would lump AdMech in there, but they are literally a seperate entity to the Imperium.

Rabtorian wrote:Why not release one codex and an expantion for each race?
Codex: Space Marines; Chapters of the Space Marines.
Codex: Imperial Guard; Regiments of the Imperial Guard.
Codex: Dark Eldar; Kabals of the Dark Eldar.
Codex: Eldar; Craftworlds of the Eldar.
Codex: Chaos; Daemons of Chaos; Servants of Chaos.
Codex: Necrons; Dynasties of the Necrons.
Codex: Tyrannids; Hive Fleets of the Tyrannids.
Codex: Tau; Colonies of the Tau.
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus; Forge Worlds of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Codex: Ordos Imperialis; Forces of the Inquisition; Orders of the Sisters of Battle; Agents of the Imperium.
Codex: Orks; Klans of the Orks.
I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

Twice as many army books means even less balance.
We need far fewer races. I think we have too many xenos races but they all seem to "fit".
I'm still not sure about necrons. Call me old school but they just seem a bit...eh. They don't fit into the binary good vs evil world of 40k.

Rabtorian wrote:Why not release one codex and an expantion for each race?
Codex: Space Marines; Chapters of the Space Marines.
Codex: Imperial Guard; Regiments of the Imperial Guard.
Codex: Dark Eldar; Kabals of the Dark Eldar.
Codex: Eldar; Craftworlds of the Eldar.
Codex: Chaos; Daemons of Chaos; Servants of Chaos.
Codex: Necrons; Dynasties of the Necrons.
Codex: Tyrannids; Hive Fleets of the Tyrannids.
Codex: Tau; Colonies of the Tau.
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus; Forge Worlds of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Codex: Ordos Imperialis; Forces of the Inquisition; Orders of the Sisters of Battle; Agents of the Imperium.
Codex: Orks; Klans of the Orks.
I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

While I kile the theory behind this, I thing some armies don't really need an expansion for their particular variations. My example would be necrons, There really isn't a need to give them a second book, as there aren't any (large ) variations between dynasties. Sure the fluff says that certain SC don't or do do certain things. ( like Zandrehk not using deathmarks or flayed ones), but that's a minor thing that could be easily added to a regular codex. Now for armies like SM, CSM, IG, Eldar etc., Yes this makes great sense. The thing I see as a possible hang is that you'll need the original to use the expansion. Not a big problem if this is how it turned out though.

Joey wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:Why not release one codex and an expantion for each race?
Codex: Space Marines; Chapters of the Space Marines.
Codex: Imperial Guard; Regiments of the Imperial Guard.
Codex: Dark Eldar; Kabals of the Dark Eldar.
Codex: Eldar; Craftworlds of the Eldar.
Codex: Chaos; Daemons of Chaos; Servants of Chaos.
Codex: Necrons; Dynasties of the Necrons.
Codex: Tyrannids; Hive Fleets of the Tyrannids.
Codex: Tau; Colonies of the Tau.
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus; Forge Worlds of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Codex: Ordos Imperialis; Forces of the Inquisition; Orders of the Sisters of Battle; Agents of the Imperium.
Codex: Orks; Klans of the Orks.
I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

Twice as many army books means even less balance.
We need far fewer races. I think we have too many xenos races but they all seem to "fit".
I'm still not sure about necrons. Call me old school but they just seem a bit...eh. They don't fit into the binary good vs evil world of 40k.

I know what you mean. Necrons are definitely the odd one out, the old ones fit a BIT better, but leaving them as nothing more than passing mention in the Eldar codex about their history would have worked really well. They won't die any time soon though because of new codex. If they happen to get the "squat treatment" a few months into 6ed we might get the ball rolling.

Joey wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:Why not release one codex and an expantion for each race?
Codex: Space Marines; Chapters of the Space Marines.
Codex: Imperial Guard; Regiments of the Imperial Guard.
Codex: Dark Eldar; Kabals of the Dark Eldar.
Codex: Eldar; Craftworlds of the Eldar.
Codex: Chaos; Daemons of Chaos; Servants of Chaos.
Codex: Necrons; Dynasties of the Necrons.
Codex: Tyrannids; Hive Fleets of the Tyrannids.
Codex: Tau; Colonies of the Tau.
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus; Forge Worlds of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Codex: Ordos Imperialis; Forces of the Inquisition; Orders of the Sisters of Battle; Agents of the Imperium.
Codex: Orks; Klans of the Orks.
I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

Twice as many army books means even less balance.
We need far fewer races. I think we have too many xenos races but they all seem to "fit".
I'm still not sure about necrons. Call me old school but they just seem a bit...eh. They don't fit into the binary good vs evil world of 40k.

It's a fair point, though I think it would allow for post codex release balancing without a 5-page FAQ, though I'm not sure where you get the binary good vs evil thing from. In 40k, there are only bad guys of various degrees of evil.

Sunoccard wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:Why not release one codex and an expantion for each race?
Codex: Space Marines; Chapters of the Space Marines.
Codex: Imperial Guard; Regiments of the Imperial Guard.
Codex: Dark Eldar; Kabals of the Dark Eldar.
Codex: Eldar; Craftworlds of the Eldar.
Codex: Chaos; Daemons of Chaos; Servants of Chaos.
Codex: Necrons; Dynasties of the Necrons.
Codex: Tyrannids; Hive Fleets of the Tyrannids.
Codex: Tau; Colonies of the Tau.
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus; Forge Worlds of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Codex: Ordos Imperialis; Forces of the Inquisition; Orders of the Sisters of Battle; Agents of the Imperium.
Codex: Orks; Klans of the Orks.
I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

While I kile the theory behind this, I thing some armies don't really need an expansion for their particular variations. My example would be necrons, There really isn't a need to give them a second book, as there aren't any (large ) variations between dynasties. Sure the fluff says that certain SC don't or do do certain things. ( like Zandrehk not using deathmarks or flayed ones), but that's a minor thing that could be easily added to a regular codex. Now for armies like SM, CSM, IG, Eldar etc., Yes this makes great sense. The thing I see as a possible hang is that you'll need the original to use the expansion. Not a big problem if this is how it turned out though.

I don't think craftworld of the eldar would be good, but craftworld eldar and harlequin/exodite eldar as separate codices would be good.

Rabtorian wrote:The general Imperial codex would be more like several mini-dexes strung together that could be mixed and matched.

I don't see the point. Why not simply do a Minidex like the SoB received in WD just for the Inquisition? To allow players to add Inquisition units to any Imperial army? Would be the most expedient way to do it, I think - it preserves the existing GK and SoB Codices, which do have enough of both material and distinctiveness to stand for themselves, whilst simultaneously creating an Inquisitorial "add-on" that doesn't even pretend to be a Codex by itself, designed to be an expansion from the get-go.

Rabtorian wrote:I would lump AdMech in there, but they are literally a seperate entity to the Imperium.

About as separate as the Space Marines. GW actually intended to throw them into the so-called "Codex: Imperial Agents" at a time. Alas, just like the Codex: Alien Hunters, that one never saw the light of day.

Rabtorian wrote:

Joey wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:Why not release one codex and an expantion for each race?
Codex: Space Marines; Chapters of the Space Marines.
Codex: Imperial Guard; Regiments of the Imperial Guard.
Codex: Dark Eldar; Kabals of the Dark Eldar.
Codex: Eldar; Craftworlds of the Eldar.
Codex: Chaos; Daemons of Chaos; Servants of Chaos.
Codex: Necrons; Dynasties of the Necrons.
Codex: Tyrannids; Hive Fleets of the Tyrannids.
Codex: Tau; Colonies of the Tau.
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus; Forge Worlds of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Codex: Ordos Imperialis; Forces of the Inquisition; Orders of the Sisters of Battle; Agents of the Imperium.
Codex: Orks; Klans of the Orks.
I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

Twice as many army books means even less balance.
We need far fewer races. I think we have too many xenos races but they all seem to "fit".
I'm still not sure about necrons. Call me old school but they just seem a bit...eh. They don't fit into the binary good vs evil world of 40k.

It's a fair point, though I think it would allow for post codex release balancing without a 5-page FAQ, though I'm not sure where you get the binary good vs evil thing from. In 40k, there are only bad guys of various degrees of evil.

In the universe of 40k the only moral imperative is the continued survival of mankind, compared to chaos, orks and tyranids who all threaten this to varying degrees, and the neutral eldar.

I think giving the Grey Knights their own codex was a bad decision game wise, but it was obviously a great decision business wise given the number of models they sell.

Personally, if you were going to trim down SM codex books (which will never happen, SM sell too many models for them to cut their profits by releasing less books about them), I'd say the Black Templars and Grey Knights should go first. Grey Knights were never supposed to be an "army". They were supposed to be these mysterious bad asses that fought specifically against demons. Collapse them back into a "Witch Hunters" book with Sisters. And the Black Templars are just kinda silly. A "horde" style army is antithetical to the idea of Space Marines, which are an elite, highly specialized force. The fluff behind the Black Templars make no sense (even with 6000 Battle Brothers, they aren't a viable self contained force), and their tactics make no sense. They are the Doritos of Space Marines ("Crunch all you want, we'll make more!"), and Space Marines shouldn't be Doritos.

The Space Marines should collapse back to the Big Four like they used to be. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Ultramarines. Those four cover pretty much all necessary army builds. Just bring them into a more equal level (give Tactical Marines back their close combat weapon so they have 2 attacks again in close combat). That will make Tactical Marines tactical again (giving them the ability to both attack and defend, though not as good as specialized units like Assaults and Devastators, instead of having them be a points sink and damage soak), and will make the power gap between C:SM and C:SW & C:BA significantly smaller.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:I think giving the Grey Knights their own codex was a bad decision game wise, but it was obviously a great decision business wise given the number of models they sell.

Personally, if you were going to trim down SM codex books (which will never happen, SM sell too many models for them to cut their profits by releasing less books about them), I'd say the Black Templars and Grey Knights should go first. Grey Knights were never supposed to be an "army". They were supposed to be these mysterious bad asses that fought specifically against demons. Collapse them back into a "Witch Hunters" book with Sisters. And the Black Templars are just kinda silly. A "horde" style army is antithetical to the idea of Space Marines, which are an elite, highly specialized force. The fluff behind the Black Templars make no sense (even with 6000 Battle Brothers, they aren't a viable self contained force), and their tactics make no sense. They are the Doritos of Space Marines ("Crunch all you want, we'll make more!"), and Space Marines shouldn't be Doritos.

The Space Marines should collapse back to the Big Four like they used to be. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Ultramarines. Those four cover pretty much all necessary army builds. Just bring them into a more equal level (give Tactical Marines back their close combat weapon so they have 2 attacks again in close combat). That will make Tactical Marines tactical again (giving them the ability to both attack and defend, though not as good as specialized units like Assaults and Devastators, instead of having them be a points sink and damage soak), and will make the power gap between C:SM and C:SW & C:BA significantly smaller.

Lol, wut? I hope you know, in the fluff the templars are:
1. Spread across the galaxy, so it's not like 6,000 all in one place
2. Use tactics and vehicles. While they prefer close combat and personal honor, it's not like they just go "derp tiem to charge" and send all their marines at a heavily fortified bunker.
3. Way more of a unique chapter than the Blood Angels, who prior to the new codex with all their crazy assaulting shenanigans, were pretty adherent to the Codex Astartes.

Rabtorian wrote:Why not release one codex and an expantion for each race?
Codex: Space Marines; Chapters of the Space Marines.
Codex: Imperial Guard; Regiments of the Imperial Guard.
Codex: Dark Eldar; Kabals of the Dark Eldar.
Codex: Eldar; Craftworlds of the Eldar.
Codex: Chaos; Daemons of Chaos; Servants of Chaos.
Codex: Necrons.
Codex: Tyrannids; Hive Fleets of the Tyrannids.
Codex: Tau.
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus; Forge Worlds of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Codex: Sisters of Battle; Orders of the Sisters of Battle.
Codex: Orks; Klans of the Orks.
I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

Better, Sunnocard?
I think it would be hilarious to do a few 600 page Codeci: Imperium, Eldar, Chao, Xenos 1, Xenos 2. It would cut down on the number of codexes massively.

In response to a few points:
Joey-yep, the good guys, humanity, who just happen to kill every other race they find, commit genocide on a weekly basis, sacrifice thousands every day to keep their navigation functioning, kill anyone who disagrees with them and pay no attention to the rights of the average citizen. I can see how they are now the moral champions of tthe galaxy.

Also, Squatting anybody would be a bad move, losing players because the $1000+they spent on their army was wasted, because that army now cannot be played.

Rabtorian wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:Why not release one codex and an expantion for each race?
Codex: Space Marines; Chapters of the Space Marines.
Codex: Imperial Guard; Regiments of the Imperial Guard.
Codex: Dark Eldar; Kabals of the Dark Eldar.
Codex: Eldar; Craftworlds of the Eldar.
Codex: Chaos; Daemons of Chaos; Servants of Chaos.
Codex: Necrons.
Codex: Tyrannids; Hive Fleets of the Tyrannids.
Codex: Tau.
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus; Forge Worlds of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Codex: Sisters of Battle; Orders of the Sisters of Battle.
Codex: Orks; Klans of the Orks.
I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

Better, Sunnocard?
I think it would be hilarious to do a few 600 page Codeci: Imperium, Eldar, Chao, Xenos 1, Xenos 2. It would cut down on the number of codexes massively.

In response to a few points:
Joey-yep, the good guys, humanity, who just happen to kill every other race they find, commit genocide on a weekly basis, sacrifice thousands every day to keep their navigation functioning, kill anyone who disagrees with them and pay no attention to the rights of the average citizen. I can see how they are now the moral champions of tthe galaxy.

Also, Squatting anybody would be a bad move, losing players because the $1000+they spent on their army was wasted, because that army now cannot be played.

I know what you mean, everyone sees the IoM as the good guys, but by far the least evil factions are Eldar and Tau, because the Eldar only attack when they have a good reason, even if their reason is only apparent to themselves, and tau because they actually USE diplomats.

BobTheChainsaw wrote:And besides, the different codexes are supposed to be Marines with different methods of waging war.

Yes, but you can have many different styles in a single codex. Just look at ork or guard.

Plus, different codecies should have different units. The overlap between any other SM chapter and BA is huge. BA use almost the exact same unit set, but with different special rules. This doesn't require them to have an entire codex to themselves.

I mean, compare, say, the guard codex to the eldar codex, and you can see just how similar any SM splinter group is to SM...

Ailaros wrote:

BobTheChainsaw wrote:And besides, the different codexes are supposed to be Marines with different methods of waging war.

Yes, but you can have many different styles in a single codex. Just look at ork or guard.

Plus, different codecies should have different units. The overlap between any other SM chapter and BA is huge. BA use almost the exact same unit set, but with different special rules. This doesn't require them to have an entire codex to themselves.

I mean, compare, say, the guard codex to the eldar codex, and you can see just how similar any SM splinter group is to SM...

+1

Guard codex has many ways to be played and is an excellent example.

Rabtorian wrote:
In response to a few points:
Joey-yep, the good guys, humanity, who just happen to kill every other race they find, commit genocide on a weekly basis, sacrifice thousands every day to keep their navigation functioning, kill anyone who disagrees with them and pay no attention to the rights of the average citizen. I can see how they are now the moral champions of tthe galaxy.

Don't throw your bourgeois notion of morality at me.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Ailaros wrote:

BobTheChainsaw wrote:And besides, the different codexes are supposed to be Marines with different methods of waging war.

Yes, but you can have many different styles in a single codex. Just look at ork or guard.

Plus, different codecies should have different units. The overlap between any other SM chapter and BA is huge. BA use almost the exact same unit set, but with different special rules. This doesn't require them to have an entire codex to themselves.

I mean, compare, say, the guard codex to the eldar codex, and you can see just how similar any SM splinter group is to SM...

+1

Guard codex has many ways to be played and is an excellent example.

And many IG players complain that they want a dex for each guard group sooo doesnt seem a popular choice.

Draigo wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Ailaros wrote:

BobTheChainsaw wrote:And besides, the different codexes are supposed to be Marines with different methods of waging war.

Yes, but you can have many different styles in a single codex. Just look at ork or guard.

Plus, different codecies should have different units. The overlap between any other SM chapter and BA is huge. BA use almost the exact same unit set, but with different special rules. This doesn't require them to have an entire codex to themselves.

I mean, compare, say, the guard codex to the eldar codex, and you can see just how similar any SM splinter group is to SM...

+1

Guard codex has many ways to be played and is an excellent example.

And many IG players complain that they want a dex for each guard group sooo doesnt seem a popular choice.

The difference between, say, Catachan, and Cadia (the IG "standard"), is far greater than the difference between BA or DA and Ultramarines.
Not that I particularly want regimental codexes, but some doctrines would be nice.

Joey wrote:

Draigo wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Ailaros wrote:

BobTheChainsaw wrote:And besides, the different codexes are supposed to be Marines with different methods of waging war.

Yes, but you can have many different styles in a single codex. Just look at ork or guard.

Plus, different codecies should have different units. The overlap between any other SM chapter and BA is huge. BA use almost the exact same unit set, but with different special rules. This doesn't require them to have an entire codex to themselves.

I mean, compare, say, the guard codex to the eldar codex, and you can see just how similar any SM splinter group is to SM...

Guard codex has many ways to be played and is an excellent example.

And many IG players complain that they want a dex for each guard group sooo doesnt seem a popular choice.

The difference between, say, Catachan, and Cadia (the IG "standard"), is far greater than the difference between BA or DA and Ultramarines.
Not that I particularly want regimental codexes, but some doctrines would be nice.

A doctrines type system in every codex would also be very nice-enough variety to create different chapters/regiments/craftworlds/etc. without releasing 5 codexes for every force.

Rabtorian wrote:

Joey wrote:

Draigo wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Ailaros wrote:

BobTheChainsaw wrote:And besides, the different codexes are supposed to be Marines with different methods of waging war.

Yes, but you can have many different styles in a single codex. Just look at ork or guard.

Plus, different codecies should have different units. The overlap between any other SM chapter and BA is huge. BA use almost the exact same unit set, but with different special rules. This doesn't require them to have an entire codex to themselves.

I mean, compare, say, the guard codex to the eldar codex, and you can see just how similar any SM splinter group is to SM...

Guard codex has many ways to be played and is an excellent example.

And many IG players complain that they want a dex for each guard group sooo doesnt seem a popular choice.

The difference between, say, Catachan, and Cadia (the IG "standard"), is far greater than the difference between BA or DA and Ultramarines.
Not that I particularly want regimental codexes, but some doctrines would be nice.

A doctrines type system in every codex would also be very nice-enough variety to create different chapters/regiments/craftworlds/etc. without releasing 5 codexes for every force.

What I meant with IG is that they can be played as a horde, as a ~kinda elite force, as a mech force etc.

im2randomghgh wrote:
What I meant with IG is that they can be played as a horde, as a ~kinda elite force, as a mech force etc.

Similarly SM are pretty versatile.
GK and BA both only really have one method each.

Joey wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
What I meant with IG is that they can be played as a horde, as a ~kinda elite force, as a mech force etc.

Similarly SM are pretty versatile.
GK and BA both only really have one method each.

dc army, doa, razorspam, etc arent all that similar..

draigowing doesnt play like a purifier army, henchman or power armor list using interceptors and ds dk.

If you all wanted to cram all sm together etc the book would cost 100 dollars and look like an encyclopedia with all the stuff they have plus new models they just made like dk who wont go away.

BobTheChainsaw wrote:Lol, wut? I hope you know, in the fluff the templars are:
1. Spread across the galaxy, so it's not like 6,000 all in one place

I know this. But all the more reason why their back story makes no sense, off crusading along without any real sense of direction or Navy/Guard support, lol.

2. Use tactics and vehicles. While they prefer close combat and personal honor, it's not like they just go "derp tiem to charge" and send all their marines at a heavily fortified bunker.

Heh. Nope. They aren't quite as derp as you suggest I'm suggesting, but they're still pretty Derp.

3. Way more of a unique chapter than the Blood Angels, who prior to the new codex with all their crazy assaulting shenanigans, were pretty adherent to the Codex Astartes.

Disagree. The Blood Angels have always been pretty well defined. Being "Codex Adherent" isn't a bad thing or even a problem. But their differentiations in organization with the Death Company, and a prevalence of Assault Squads, and the fact that their gene seed has created a large number of successor chapters makes a rule set for them make sense. The Black Templars foray into the Blood Angels territory of being close combat oriented, but take it several steps towards 'tarded by eliminating supporting fires from Devastator squads or Whirlwinds which makes very little sense tactically. Yeah, they are unique, but they are still kinda stupid.

Draigo wrote:And many IG players complain that they want a dex for each guard group sooo doesnt seem a popular choice.

Many? I've never come across any myself, nor would I wish for such a thing (nor would I condone said wishes in others).

The guard codex can play artillery, tanks, mech infantry, foot horde and air cavalry, all out of the same codex. They can play gunline, close combat, short-range firefight, you name it. Likewise, the ork codex allows for nearly any play style, and that's just within one codex.

Meanwhile, I fail to see much difference between razorspam in a BA army, and razorspam in any other SM army, nor between DoA and drop pod lists, etc. etc. You could easily remake a BA army in the SM codex with the addition of death company as a unit that you need a special HQ to unlock, along with some special rules you can upgrade your vehicles with. A BA land raider is still a land raider (even if it can deepstrike), and a BA rhino is still a rhino (even if it's faster). Likewise, practically everything in the BA codex has a SM analogue that just has some special rules thinly draped on top. Nothing that couldn't be rolled into the SM codex.

It's funny that people are so ready to remove Marine Codices from the game wholesale yet when you complain that your own army (Inquisition, Lost and the Damned) were removed you get "Just use 'Counts As'" bleated back at you.



All that said, Grey Knights. Then we can forget all that Ward-esque fluff exists...

Draigo wrote:And many IG players complain that they want a dex for each guard group sooo doesnt seem a popular choice.

Well, it's hardly surprising that everyone would want to have his favorite sub-faction to have a Codex of their own, but I don't think that's the point of this topic. I doubt it's even possible to churn out Guard Codices for the most popular regiments, for then you'd quickly get to a dozen books or so, with the rest of the players rightfully asking "where's mine?" Limiting an army to its basics yet allowing customization via some sort of traits builder (a la IG doctrines) seems to be the most balanced approach. In fact, didn't the 4E Marine 'dex even include such a DIY Chapter builder with special rules and traits to select from?

Of course, I see a clear conflict between what would be good for 40k as a game and what would be good for the franchise as a product to be sold, so the last thing GW would cut back are Marine Codices, which leaves us with the current release schedules. C'est la vie.

All of them.

Most of you would still be able to play your old armies by way of counts as. Craftworld Eldar would easily count as Exodites, for example, and Imperial Guard are just loyalist Lost And The Damned. There should be enough power armor in the Mechanicus codex to cover all of your marine needs.

H.B.M.C. wrote:It's funny that people are so ready to remove Marine Codices from the game wholesale yet when you complain that your own army (Inquisition, Lost and the Damned) were removed you get "Just use 'Counts As'" bleated back at you.



All that said, Grey Knights. Then we can forget all that Ward-esque fluff exists...

I've said this before, but you can still play an Inquisition army in the Grey Knight codex.

BobTheChainsaw wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:It's funny that people are so ready to remove Marine Codices from the game wholesale yet when you complain that your own army (Inquisition, Lost and the Damned) were removed you get "Just use 'Counts As'" bleated back at you.



All that said, Grey Knights. Then we can forget all that Ward-esque fluff exists...

I've said this before, but you can still play an Inquisition army in the Grey Knight codex.

Yeah, but you don't get Stormtroopers! BAWWWWW!!!

There should be one Marine Dex with a tier system, each HQ unlocking special rules for your troops or allowing you to take Chapter Specific ones... Done.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

BobTheChainsaw wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:It's funny that people are so ready to remove Marine Codices from the game wholesale yet when you complain that your own army (Inquisition, Lost and the Damned) were removed you get "Just use 'Counts As'" bleated back at you.



All that said, Grey Knights. Then we can forget all that Ward-esque fluff exists...

I've said this before, but you can still play an Inquisition army in the Grey Knight codex.

Yeah, but you don't get Stormtroopers! BAWWWWW!!!

There should be one Marine Dex with a tier system, each HQ unlocking special rules for your troops or allowing you to take Chapter Specific ones... Done.

They kinda still have stormtroopers in the henchmen section. You just have to make them that way.

As for a marine dex to rule them all. Just give Legion traits. Sons of Sanguinus, Sons of the Lion, Sons of Russ, Sons of Corax, Sons of Guilliman, Sons of Dorn, Sons of Khan, Sons of Vulcan and Sons of Ferrus Manus. Pick your Primarch and it unlocks your chapter traits and special units (if applicable) and special characters and potentially locks others. To be completely honest, the only two that need their own force org are Space Wolves and Black Tepmplar.

BobTheChainsaw wrote:I've said this before, but you can still play an Inquisition army in the Grey Knight codex.

So I can still have my army led by my Laspistol wielding Inquisitrix and her three Servo-Skull bodyguard, backed up by two smaller Malleus units with Psycannons and Combat-Servitors, and 6 squads of Inquisitorial Storm Troopers? I can still do that can I?

I would merge all Space Marine Codexes into one and name it: "Codex: Adeptus Astartes". So that people could still have BA, SW, DA, GK lists but all in one codex, but to still have freedom to play their favorite army tactics.

Well. If you must know.

Codex Space Wolves.
Codex Black Templars
Codex Blood Angels.
Codex Dark Angels







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:I would merge all Space Marine Codexes into one and name it: "Codex: Adeptus Astartes". So that people could still have BA, SW, DA, GK lists but all in one codex, but to still have freedom to play their favorite army tactics.

Second. I even played Templars and aside from the Champion it was just a chainsword mob.

Remove Tau. Add Squats.

This is how I would do it:

Codex: Adeptus Astartes ( All Space Marie Chapters with all of chapters having special tactics and rules ).
Codex: Imperial Guard ( All Regiments in one book and special rules and tactics for each one ).
Codex: Inquisition ( All 3 orders wit htheir chamber militant with each of chambers special rules and tactics ).
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus ( They to deseve a codex being 2'nd most powerful faction in the Imeprium ).
Codex: Forcess of Chaos ( Chaos Space Marines with both warbands, legions and renegade chapters with Daemons and Renegade Militia, all with their special rules and tactics ).
Codex: Eldar ( Craftworld Eldar, Exodite Eldar and Harlequines with all of their special rules and tactics )
Codex: Dark Eldar ( All Dark Eldar Cabals with their uniqu ruels and tactics ).
Codex: Tyranids ( All Hive Fleets with each hive fleet with it's special rules and tactics ).
Codex: Necrons ( All Dynasties, each with it's own special ruels and tactics ).
Codex: Tau ( Tau, Kroot, Demiurg, Gue'Vesha and Vespid, liberty to play with each of them as unique army for itself with their own special Tactics and rules ).
Codex: Orks ( Every clan with it's own special ruels and tactics ).

What is my point: If I want to start ( for exampel Blood Ravens Chapter ), I buy Space Marine Codex and choose Blood Ravens. They have their own unique heroes ( Angelos, Apollo, Tarkus... ) and their special rules and tactics are concerned with Librarians.
For Guard, I would buy Guard codex and choose Elysian Drop Troops. They would have their own set of miniatures, but with Elysian Guardsman having different stats then Cadian. They would also have special airborne rules and no access to Heavy Artillery or Tanks at all.
For Eldar, if I choose Ulthe I get more Farseers and Warlocks then usual, if I choose Iyanden I would have more Wrathlords then usual and special rules for them that doesn't apply to other Craftoworlds ( like more tougher Wrathlord with 1 more wound and bigger I for example ).
For Orks, one warband would have special rules for sabotage, other for having more boyz then other Ork clans, their would have rules for Tanks etc...
I think this was it would make 40k more awesome that it really is not and every player would have large verity of tactics, rules and characters to make. ( of course, for example the freedom for player to make his own Chapter of Marines and choose whatever tactic he want for his Marines, but in certain point. For example: I made up my Chapter and called them Emperor's Chainswords. I would say taht they are close combat specialists and then see what kind of First Founding Chapters use that doctrines. I see Blood Angels, love their fluff and make Emperor's Chainswords descendants of Blood Angels. Or I could even get second founding one with the same traits - like Black Templars. And by choosing them also have the ability to yield more marines per squad. )

Why I have a felling I will get a lot of feedback on this

Lynata wrote:

Of course, I see a clear conflict between what would be good for 40k as a game and what would be good for the franchise as a product to be sold, so the last thing GW would cut back are Marine Codices, which leaves us with the current release schedules. C'est la vie.

Raxmei wrote:All of them.

One book to rule them all Remove codices - give us an army book, 500 + pages to contain them all.
Voila- no more whining of " left behind" etc as everyone has its army at once updated.

And another tome for fluff....
New entry point to 40k = 3 tomes of 100$ each

rockerbikie wrote:Remove Tau. Add Squats.

Army swap?


GW altered their course from main+sub codices, from main armies + allies, etc and the removal of codices would just end with sqatted armies in that new system. So who is up to explain his fellow gamer his/her expensive heap of plastic/metal ( resin ) isn't 'legal' anymore as is, face to face ? Without hiding behind the anonymity of the interweb?
Last time I've asked for, none of the codex-condensers was willing to prove the possibility of his/her claim in the proposed rules forum.
Isn't as easy as it seems to do.

Dark Eldar are more than just the Kabals - there's Kabals, Covens and Cults.

But either way - they used to have the expansion books.
I remember in 3rd you could buy the Guard codex and expand it with catachan or whatever, and you had the Craftworlds expansion. I think there were others.

And of course all the different chapter approved mini-dexs and the sort.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

BobTheChainsaw wrote:I've said this before, but you can still play an Inquisition army in the Grey Knight codex.

So I can still have my army led by my Laspistol wielding Inquisitrix and her three Servo-Skull bodyguard, backed up by two smaller Malleus units with Psycannons and Combat-Servitors, and 6 squads of Inquisitorial Storm Troopers? I can still do that can I?

More or less, yes. The henchmen unit is pretty diverse. You can have servitors in a unit, although I'll admit you won't be able to take Psycannons.

For the inquisitorial stormtroopers, use Warrior Acolytes and give them carapace armor and hot-shot lasguns.

Bam. There you go.

Frankly, I would leave all the xenos codices as is. I would condense Loyal Marines into "Vanilla", Templar, and Wolves. The DA and BA would get their HQ units in the vanilla dex, and they would "unlock" their rules similar to how Calgar and Vulkan work now. This would also allow guys to take a "fluffy" army that would truly be good at deep striking without the BA dex (Raven Guard) etc. It is my opinion that the Wolves and Templars actually do play much much differently from the Vanilla dex.

I'd update the "Inquisition" codices, possibly combining them. For instance, if a player took a generic inquisitor, they could take a "Mark" (similar to chaos) that would unlock the ability to take Sisters, or GK (they could always take storm trooper henchmen), though I am really lost on how to make a Death Watch army within this one book)

I would also expand the Chaos book. RIght now, it really feels too much like Chaos Renegades. I would make a Chaos Legions, and Chaos "LatD", with the Chaos Daemons as the third book.

BobTheChainsaw wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

BobTheChainsaw wrote:I've said this before, but you can still play an Inquisition army in the Grey Knight codex.

So I can still have my army led by my Laspistol wielding Inquisitrix and her three Servo-Skull bodyguard, backed up by two smaller Malleus units with Psycannons and Combat-Servitors, and 6 squads of Inquisitorial Storm Troopers? I can still do that can I?

More or less, yes. The henchmen unit is pretty diverse. You can have servitors in a unit, although I'll admit you won't be able to take Psycannons.

For the inquisitorial stormtroopers, use Warrior Acolytes and give them carapace armor and hot-shot lasguns.

Bam. There you go.

Yeah, this. Codex: GK added a great deal more than it removed from Codex: Daemonhunters.

And, well. . . every time a Codex gets updated, armies get invalidated. That's just the way the game goes. When Orks got updated way back when, I lost my Skarboyz, my Big Mek's Mekboy bodyguard, and, of course, my Looted Leman Russ. You change the army, you figure out something new, you keep playing. Everybody has to do it. There are plenty of things to whine about in C: GK, but "Bawww there's a new codex and now my army has to change!" ain't one of them.

Back on topic: Either condense the Space Marines or widen everything else comparably. Of course, if they widen every other range to the level of Space Marines we'd end up with about sixty codexes, so just combine some/all of the Space Marine chapters and add in doctrine/specialization options to the various other codexes.

Brother Coa wrote:This is how I would do it:

Codex: Adeptus Astartes ( All Space Marie Chapters with all of chapters having special tactics and rules ).
Codex: Imperial Guard ( All Regiments in one book and special rules and tactics for each one ).
Codex: Inquisition ( All 3 orders wit htheir chamber militant with each of chambers special rules and tactics ).
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus ( They to deseve a codex being 2'nd most powerful faction in the Imeprium ).
Codex: Forcess of Chaos ( Chaos Space Marines with both warbands, legions and renegade chapters with Daemons and Renegade Militia, all with their special rules and tactics ).
Codex: Eldar ( Craftworld Eldar, Exodite Eldar and Harlequines with all of their special rules and tactics )
Codex: Dark Eldar ( All Dark Eldar Cabals with their uniqu ruels and tactics ).
Codex: Tyranids ( All Hive Fleets with each hive fleet with it's special rules and tactics ).
Codex: Necrons ( All Dynasties, each with it's own special ruels and tactics ).
Codex: Tau ( Tau, Kroot, Demiurg, Gue'Vesha and Vespid, liberty to play with each of them as unique army for itself with their own special Tactics and rules ).
Codex: Orks ( Every clan with it's own special ruels and tactics ).

I really like this layout, though to streamline it more, you could merge Admech and IG together, since the Skitari Legions are basicly cyber-enhanced guard regiments and could be done using altered force org. and special rules.

Let's not mince words here, if GW did do this, each book would likely be about 1/2 an inch thick and double in cost.

Emperordammit, why do so many people try to throw the Sisters back into an Inquisition Codex, just because GW made the mistake of doing this in a single book? They're an Ecclesiarchy army first and foremost!

1hadhq wrote:One book to rule them all Remove codices - give us an army book, 500 + pages to contain them all.
Voila- no more whining of " left behind" etc as everyone has its army at once updated.

It would be doable, actually... With less than 500 pages. The Codex Imperialis was quite awesome.

Lynata wrote:Emperordammit, why do so many people try to throw the Sisters back into an Inquisition Codex, just because GW made the mistake of doing this in a single book? They're an Ecclesiarchy army first and foremost!

1hadhq wrote:One book to rule them all Remove codices - give us an army book, 500 + pages to contain them all.
Voila- no more whining of " left behind" etc as everyone has its army at once updated.

It would be doable, actually... With less than 500 pages. The Codex Imperialis was quite awesome.

SOB are dumb, they shouldn't have their own codex at all.
There should only be two Imperium codex, IG and SM.

Joey wrote:
SOB are dumb, they shouldn't have their own codex at all.
There should only be two Imperium codex, IG and SM.

What a very limited perspective. The IoM is one of the two largest factions in the setting, and certainly the least homogeneous; why on earth should they be limited to only two codexes? SM, IG, Mechanicus, and Servants of the Emperor (Ecclesiarchy, Inquisition, and AdMech) could work well. I tend to agree that the Sisters of Battle are kind of a small faction to get a codex entirely to themselves, but there's absolutely no reason to cut down the Imperium that far.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
SOB are dumb, they shouldn't have their own codex at all.
There should only be two Imperium codex, IG and SM.

What a very limited perspective. The IoM is one of the two largest factions in the setting, and certainly the least homogeneous; why on earth should they be limited to only two codexes? SM, IG, Mechanicus, and Servants of the Emperor (Ecclesiarchy, Inquisition, and AdMech) could work well. I tend to agree that the Sisters of Battle are kind of a small faction to get a codex entirely to themselves, but there's absolutely no reason to cut down the Imperium that far.

Look outside of the fluff.
The IG are trillions(googleplexes?) of men across countles etc etc.
The SM are badass space knights.
How could you explain Mechanicus and "servants of the emperor" in a few words to someone who wasn't familiar with 40k canon?
Hell I'm more familiar with most but I'd still have no idea what a Mechanicus codex would actually entail...mainly since they don't actually do any fighting IIRC. So giving them their own codex would be a little odd.
An Inquisitor book would work though. GK really don't need their own codex.

Joey wrote:
Look outside of the fluff.
The IG are trillions(googleplexes?) of men across countles etc etc.
The SM are badass space knights.
How could you explain Mechanicus and "servants of the emperor" in a few words to someone who wasn't familiar with 40k canon?
Hell I'm more familiar with most but I'd still have no idea what a Mechanicus codex would actually entail...mainly since they don't actually do any fighting IIRC. So giving them their own codex would be a little odd.
An Inquisitor book would work though. GK really don't need their own codex.

The Adeptus Mechanicus are cyberpunk wizards. Their codex would include the Tech-Guard (cyborg Imperial Guard), battle servitors, and a huge number of strange vehicles, possibly including Knights (mini-Titans, essentially very large Dreadnoughts).

Servants of the Emperor are members of the various branches of His Imperial Majesty's Most Holy Secret Service. James Bond with a rosarius and a flamethrower. Pitiless assassins, secret agents with insane devices, and ravening religious fanatics, sometimes all at once.

That's how I'd explain them.

I wouldn't get rid of ANY of the armies. Unlike quite a few players I had the dubious honor of having my army removed completely from 40k and it is not a good feeling. Regardless of what other people think about if they fit in the 40k universe or not, removing anyone's army is never a good idea. Especially after someone has spent a ton of money on the army. How would you personally feel if they removed your favorite army after you spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars on them?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
Look outside of the fluff.
The IG are trillions(googleplexes?) of men across countles etc etc.
The SM are badass space knights.
How could you explain Mechanicus and "servants of the emperor" in a few words to someone who wasn't familiar with 40k canon?
Hell I'm more familiar with most but I'd still have no idea what a Mechanicus codex would actually entail...mainly since they don't actually do any fighting IIRC. So giving them their own codex would be a little odd.
An Inquisitor book would work though. GK really don't need their own codex.

The Adeptus Mechanicus are inhuman, cyberpunk sorcerers. Their codex would include the Tech-Guard (cyborg Imperial Guard), battle servitors, and a huge number of strange vehicles, possibly including Knights (mini-Titans, essentially very large Dreadnoughts).

Servants of the Emperor are members of the various branches of His Imperial Majesty's Most Holy Secret Service. James Bond with a rosarius and a flamethrower. Pitiless assassins, secret agents with insane devices, and ravening religious fanatics, sometimes all at once.

That's how I'd explain them.

You make a compelling case of Adeptus Mechanicus, though I don't find anthropomorphic robots very cool (other than tech-priests themselves). They'd also be able to use those GK dread-knight things without looking horiffically out of place.
I'd still favour Inquisition rulebook over Servants of the Emperor, though.

BeRzErKeR wrote:I tend to agree that the Sisters of Battle are kind of a small faction to get a codex entirely to themselves

Size by numbers isn't that important - you won't ever have a 40k game where this actually starts to play any role whatsoever. Otherwise you might as well can the Space Marines, for in comparison to the Imperial Guard and the overall number of battles fought across the galaxy they pale just as much. What is important is their uniqueness in fluff and visual design, and I daresay that the Sisters are filling a rather distinctive role since the very first edition of 40k.

AdMech on the other hand is much more of a problem since they don't deploy in a conventional military manner. It might be possible to deliver them in a new Apocalypse Codex where they share the book with the game rules. Or GW would have to come up with some more fluff for Inquisitor-like Explorator missions, which is pretty much the only capacity in which the AdMech ever engages in an offensive manner, aside from their supporting role in larger Imperial campaigns.

Joey wrote:How could you explain Mechanicus and "servants of the emperor" in a few words to someone who wasn't familiar with 40k canon?

Wait, that is the problem?
Sisters: badass female space knights
AdMech: huge fething killing machines

Lynata wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:I tend to agree that the Sisters of Battle are kind of a small faction to get a codex entirely to themselves

Size by numbers isn't that important - you won't ever have a 40k game where this actually starts to play any role whatsoever. Otherwise you might as well can the Space Marines, for in comparison to the Imperial Guard and the overall number of battles fought across the galaxy they pale just as much. What is important is their uniqueness in fluff and visual design, and I daresay that the Sisters are filling a rather distinctive role since the very first edition of 40k.

AdMech on the other hand is much more of a problem since they don't deploy in a conventional military manner. It might be possible to deliver them in a new Apocalypse Codex where they share the book with the game rules. Or GW would have to come up with some more fluff for Inquisitor-like Explorator missions, which is pretty much the only capacity in which the AdMech ever engages in an offensive manner, aside from their supporting role in larger Imperial campaigns.

Joey wrote:How could you explain Mechanicus and "servants of the emperor" in a few words to someone who wasn't familiar with 40k canon?

Wait, that is the problem?
Sisters: badass fanatical female space warrior nuns
AdMech: huge fething killing machines

Fix'd it.

Lynata wrote:Size by numbers isn't that important - you won't ever have a 40k game where this actually starts to play any role whatsoever. Otherwise you might as well can the Space Marines, for in comparison to the Imperial Guard and the overall number of battles fought across the galaxy they pale just as much. What is important is their uniqueness in fluff and visual design, and I daresay that the Sisters are filling a rather distinctive role since the very first edition of 40k.

AdMech on the other hand is much more of a problem since they don't deploy in a conventional military manner. It might be possible to deliver them in a new Apocalypse Codex where they share the book with the game rules. Or GW would have to come up with some more fluff for Inquisitor-like Explorator missions, which is pretty much the only capacity in which the AdMech ever engages in an offensive manner, aside from their supporting role in larger Imperial campaigns.

I DO think size is a factor, at least when you get down to sizes this small. There are literally only a few thousand Sisters of Battle in the whole damn galaxy. There are 20,000 Imperial Stormtroopers; they only get a unit in the IG Codex, and that's as it should be.

By comparison, there are ~500 Space Marines for every single Imperial Stormtrooper. A tiny fraction of the numbers the IG muster? Yes. But enough of them that you can make a reasonable argument for some of them being present in any given large warzone. With the Sisters of Battle, that's a bit sketchier.

Furthermore, I actually have to say that I don't think the Sisters of Battle are particularly unique, either in the fluff or on the tabletop. Fluff-wise, they're the Ecclesiarchy's personal army, just like the ISTs are the Inquisitions personal army and the PDF are any given Governor's personal army and. . .

On the tabletop, they're Space Marines light, with extra flamer. They don't have anything particularly special going for them, and I personally feel they'd do better as part of a larger Codex: Either Servants of the Emperor, or Ecclesiarchy, or SOMETHING. SoB alone just don't quite cut it. Of course, others can certainly disagree.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Lynata wrote:Size by numbers isn't that important - you won't ever have a 40k game where this actually starts to play any role whatsoever. Otherwise you might as well can the Space Marines, for in comparison to the Imperial Guard and the overall number of battles fought across the galaxy they pale just as much. What is important is their uniqueness in fluff and visual design, and I daresay that the Sisters are filling a rather distinctive role since the very first edition of 40k.

AdMech on the other hand is much more of a problem since they don't deploy in a conventional military manner. It might be possible to deliver them in a new Apocalypse Codex where they share the book with the game rules. Or GW would have to come up with some more fluff for Inquisitor-like Explorator missions, which is pretty much the only capacity in which the AdMech ever engages in an offensive manner, aside from their supporting role in larger Imperial campaigns.

I DO think size is a factor, at least when you get down to sizes this small. There are literally only a few thousand Sisters of Battle in the whole damn galaxy. There are 20,000 Imperial Stormtroopers; they only get a unit in the IG Codex, and that's as it should be.

By comparison, there are ~500 Space Marines for every single Imperial Stormtrooper. A tiny fraction of the numbers the IG muster? Yes. But enough of them that you can make a reasonable argument for some of them being present in any given large warzone. With the Sisters of Battle, that's a bit sketchier.

Furthermore, I actually have to say that I don't think the Sisters of Battle are particularly unique, either in the fluff or on the tabletop. Fluff-wise, they're the Ecclesiarchy's personal army, just like the ISTs are the Inquisitions personal army and the PDF are any given Governor's personal army and. . .

On the tabletop, they're Space Marines light, with extra flamer. They don't have anything particularly special going for them, and I personally feel they'd do better as part of a larger Codex: Either Servants of the Emperor, or Ecclesiarchy, or SOMETHING. SoB alone just don't quite cut it. Of course, others can certainly disagree.

Codex Grey Knights.
Your argument is invalid.
Seriously GW, wtf? C: Daemonhunters made more sense considering the use of GK.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Lynata wrote:Size by numbers isn't that important - you won't ever have a 40k game where this actually starts to play any role whatsoever. Otherwise you might as well can the Space Marines, for in comparison to the Imperial Guard and the overall number of battles fought across the galaxy they pale just as much. What is important is their uniqueness in fluff and visual design, and I daresay that the Sisters are filling a rather distinctive role since the very first edition of 40k.

AdMech on the other hand is much more of a problem since they don't deploy in a conventional military manner. It might be possible to deliver them in a new Apocalypse Codex where they share the book with the game rules. Or GW would have to come up with some more fluff for Inquisitor-like Explorator missions, which is pretty much the only capacity in which the AdMech ever engages in an offensive manner, aside from their supporting role in larger Imperial campaigns.

I DO think size is a factor, at least when you get down to sizes this small. There are literally only a few thousand Sisters of Battle in the whole damn galaxy. There are 20,000 Imperial Stormtroopers; they only get a unit in the IG Codex, and that's as it should be.

By comparison, there are ~500 Space Marines for every single Imperial Stormtrooper. A tiny fraction of the numbers the IG muster? Yes. But enough of them that you can make a reasonable argument for some of them being present in any given large warzone. With the Sisters of Battle, that's a bit sketchier.

Furthermore, I actually have to say that I don't think the Sisters of Battle are particularly unique, either in the fluff or on the tabletop. Fluff-wise, they're the Ecclesiarchy's personal army, just like the ISTs are the Inquisitions personal army and the PDF are any given Governor's personal army and. . .

On the tabletop, they're Space Marines light, with extra flamer. They don't have anything particularly special going for them, and I personally feel they'd do better as part of a larger Codex: Either Servants of the Emperor, or Ecclesiarchy, or SOMETHING. SoB alone just don't quite cut it. Of course, others can certainly disagree.

A bit OT but where did you get the "20,000" stormtroopers from? That's less than one per imperial world...that's tiny.

Joey wrote:
A bit OT but where did you get the "20,000" stormtroopers from? That's less than one per imperial world...that's tiny.

There's only a single regiment, officially, of Imperial Stormtroopers; the Cadian Kasrkin, various grenadier regiments, none of those guys are Officially Stormtroopers (TM). So there's lots of storm troopers around, but very, very few Stormtroopers. Don't think about that, it'll just hurt your brain. Certainly did mine.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Codex Grey Knights.
Your argument is invalid.
Seriously GW, wtf? C: Daemonhunters made more sense considering the use of GK.

I think that C:GK should get erased, or at least put into one slightly larger, C: Inquisition. With the direction that GW has taken with 40k, the army HQ is basically the most important choice in the entire thing, and it makes sense to have an Inquisitorial book that would allow, depending on options, a GK force, or a SoB force.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
A bit OT but where did you get the "20,000" stormtroopers from? That's less than one per imperial world...that's tiny.

There's only a single regiment, officially, of Imperial Stormtroopers; the Cadian Kasrkin, various grenadier regiments, none of those guys are Officially Stormtroopers (TM). So there's lots of storm troopers around, but very, very few Stormtroopers. Don't think about that, it'll just hurt your brain. Certainly did mine.

So...what are stormtroopers then?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

So...what are stormtroopers then?

Grenadiers. Or Kasrkin. Or some other regiment's elite shock troops. Or, possibly, Imperial Stormtroopers. . . but not likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Codex Grey Knights.
Your argument is invalid.
Seriously GW, wtf? C: Daemonhunters made more sense considering the use of GK.

Well, I make exactly the SAME argument about Grey Knights, so make of that what you will.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

So...what are stormtroopers then?

Grenadiers. Or Kasrkin. Or some other regiment's elite shock troops. Or, possibly, Imperial Stormtroopers. . . but not likely.

But you just said Kasrkin and grenadiers weren't stormtroopers
I am so confused
Sorry I meant Official Stormtroopers


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Codex Grey Knights.
Your argument is invalid.
Seriously GW, wtf? C: Daemonhunters made more sense considering the use of GK.

Well, I make exactly the SAME argument about Grey Knights, so make of that what you will.

Lol, fair enough

BeRzErKeR wrote:By comparison, there are ~500 Space Marines for every single Imperial Stormtrooper. A tiny fraction of the numbers the IG muster? Yes. But enough of them that you can make a reasonable argument for some of them being present in any given large warzone. With the Sisters of Battle, that's a bit sketchier.

Not really, given that their fluff points the Major Orders out to be highly mobile, which is exactly why they can pop up all over the place. They spend less time in their Head Convents than Space Marines do in their Fortress Monastery - and a Major Order of the SoB is several thousand stronger than most Marine Chapters. Do you see anyone proposing to can the Marines because it doesn't make sense that your one Chapter shows up for all the fights?

You can even make this case for the majority of Imperial Guard regiments, for when you break it down into the various sub-formations, then everybody suddenly becomes too small to be "present in any given larger warzone".

BeRzErKeR wrote:Fluff-wise, they're the Ecclesiarchy's personal army, just like the ISTs are the Inquisitions personal army and the PDF are any given Governor's personal army and. . .

... and the Marines are the Emperor's personal army and the Imperial Guard are the Munitorum's personal army ... point being? Symbolism is important, especially when it also affects the visual style of an army. Some people like the idea of a bunch of ordinary people thrust into total war and getting through with balls of steel, or the grimdark hopelessness of endless wave assaults where a human life is worth nothing, so they play IG. Other people like the superhuman masculinity and power focused within a Space Marine, so they play them. The Sisters are there for those who are fond of the religious nutjob side of Imperial fluff, and sort of share the "paladin" angle with the SM with the difference that they're female and still only human.
I'm convinced that the visual style of their models brings something to the table not represented by any other army.

BeRzErKeR wrote:They don't have anything particularly special going for them

Yeah, Acts of Faith totally don't count - before we're even delving into various unique units or the hybrid role between SM and IG.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there. For what it's worth, it isn't surprising that we all have our own opinions on what is and what isn't interesting.

Joey wrote:A bit OT but where did you get the "20,000" stormtroopers from? That's less than one per imperial world...that's tiny.

The 20k number is from the 2E Guard Codex, the 5E one reiterates that there is only a single regiment. It has to do with the way how they are organized and dispatched, not permanently attached to any IG regiment but based centrally and sent in platoon-to-company-strength to crisis zones on an as-needed basis.

As mentioned, Grenadiers and Kasrkin fulfill a nigh-similar function in battle, but they don't share the "real" Storm Troopers' organization, nor their Schola Progenium origin, nor vehicles. Though this is only relevant in the fluff, which is why you can represent them all with a single unit entry.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
A bit OT but where did you get the "20,000" stormtroopers from? That's less than one per imperial world...that's tiny.

There's only a single regiment, officially, of Imperial Stormtroopers; the Cadian Kasrkin, various grenadier regiments, none of those guys are Officially Stormtroopers (TM). So there's lots of storm troopers around, but very, very few Stormtroopers. Don't think about that, it'll just hurt your brain. Certainly did mine.

Kind of like how there's no actual margerine around any more, it's all oil-based spreads.
People think it's margerine because the name has carried down, but technically they're not.
There you have it, stormtroopers are like margerine.

Joey wrote:
Kind of like how there's no actual margerine around any more, it's all oil-based spreads.
People think it's margerine because the name has carried down, but technically they're not.
There you have it, stormtroopers are like margerine.

But with one major difference; Stormtroopers aren't delicious.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
Kind of like how there's no actual margerine around any more, it's all oil-based spreads.
People think it's margerine because the name has carried down, but technically they're not.
There you have it, stormtroopers are like margerine.

But with one major difference; Stormtroopers aren't delicious.

They are to a carnifex

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
Kind of like how there's no actual margerine around any more, it's all oil-based spreads.
People think it's margerine because the name has carried down, but technically they're not.
There you have it, stormtroopers are like margerine.

But with one major difference; Stormtroopers aren't delicious.

They are to a carnifex

And carnifexes are delicious with margerine.
The circle is complete.

Joey wrote:
And carnifexes are delicious with Pasteurized Processed All-Natural Stormtrooper Spread (TM)
The circle is complete.

Fixed it for you.

And that is how the IoM recycle their losses.

BT already fulfill the role of nut-job fanatics. They're more paladin-like than Sisters, and they're more crazy. At most Sisters should only really get a few slots in an Inquisitorial codex, along with Grey Knights.

No army should be removed. Every single represented army has lots of people who put lots of effort into their prefered faction. To take that away just because GW is too damn incompetent to keep their rulebooks up to date and balanced would be wrong imo.

KingDeath wrote:No army should be removed. Every single represented army has lots of people who put lots of effort into their prefered faction. To take that away just because GW is too damn incompetent to keep their rulebooks up to date and balanced would be wrong imo.

I don't think that too many people are suggesting the absolute elimination of certain armies; Rather, and I am included in this, we are suggesting that the book gets rolled into another one.. for fluff and mechanical reasons. In no way have my previous suggestions invalidated (or would invalidate) an existing army. What would happen, is basically the armies would still be the same, only using a different book, often times resulting in more options for said player.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

KingDeath wrote:No army should be removed. Every single represented army has lots of people who put lots of effort into their prefered faction. To take that away just because GW is too damn incompetent to keep their rulebooks up to date and balanced would be wrong imo.

I don't think that too many people are suggesting the absolute elimination of certain armies; Rather, and I am included in this, we are suggesting that the book gets rolled into another one.. for fluff and mechanical reasons. In no way have my previous suggestions invalidated (or would invalidate) an existing army. What would happen, is basically the armies would still be the same, only using a different book, often times resulting in more options for said player.

This.

Really, it would be so much simpler. The way we have now is annoying and over complex like the game mechanics of 2nd ed.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

KingDeath wrote:No army should be removed. Every single represented army has lots of people who put lots of effort into their prefered faction. To take that away just because GW is too damn incompetent to keep their rulebooks up to date and balanced would be wrong imo.

I don't think that too many people are suggesting the absolute elimination of certain armies; Rather, and I am included in this, we are suggesting that the book gets rolled into another one.. for fluff and mechanical reasons. In no way have my previous suggestions invalidated (or would invalidate) an existing army. What would happen, is basically the armies would still be the same, only using a different book, often times resulting in more options for said player.

Indeed, i didn't say the removal of armies I said the removal of codexes.
Here's the blood angels codex in one line of the SM codex:
Blood Angels-take assault marines as troops, predators, rhinos and razorbacks are "fast".
And a couple of the higher-profile charectors makes it a good'un.

I dunno... Seems like one codex for the entire race, or one for every variation. You can't make your own rules for your army even though according to their fluff they vary greatly, and I don't think GW has the time/resources to make each variation a codex. I get that it's a business, but its also a game, so the way it is people who play whatever the focus of the month is just have to wait around.

Joey wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

KingDeath wrote:No army should be removed. Every single represented army has lots of people who put lots of effort into their prefered faction. To take that away just because GW is too damn incompetent to keep their rulebooks up to date and balanced would be wrong imo.

I don't think that too many people are suggesting the absolute elimination of certain armies; Rather, and I am included in this, we are suggesting that the book gets rolled into another one.. for fluff and mechanical reasons. In no way have my previous suggestions invalidated (or would invalidate) an existing army. What would happen, is basically the armies would still be the same, only using a different book, often times resulting in more options for said player.

Indeed, i didn't say the removal of armies I said the removal of codexes.
Here's the blood angels codex in one line of the SM codex:
Blood Angels-take assault marines as troops, predators, rhinos and razorbacks are "fast".
And a couple of the higher-profile charectors makes it a good'un.

The 3rd edition rulebook did this for each army list. The special chapters had this type of treatment for Marines and specific Eldar craftworlds did also.

Joey wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

KingDeath wrote:No army should be removed. Every single represented army has lots of people who put lots of effort into their prefered faction. To take that away just because GW is too damn incompetent to keep their rulebooks up to date and balanced would be wrong imo.

I don't think that too many people are suggesting the absolute elimination of certain armies; Rather, and I am included in this, we are suggesting that the book gets rolled into another one.. for fluff and mechanical reasons. In no way have my previous suggestions invalidated (or would invalidate) an existing army. What would happen, is basically the armies would still be the same, only using a different book, often times resulting in more options for said player.

Indeed, i didn't say the removal of armies I said the removal of codexes.
Here's the blood angels codex in one line of the SM codex:
Blood Angels-take assault marines as troops, predators, rhinos and razorbacks are "fast".
And a couple of the higher-profile charectors makes it a good'un.

Other than tactics and their sanguinary/death guard, they really are pretty codex compliant, so them having those assault marines as troops represents their preference for that kind of warfare but they wouldn't necessarily have any more assault marines than other chapters, the same way that IF might prefer using devastators but have no reason to possess any more than anyone else. The jump packs everywhere approach really only works for 1st company and the assault reserve company.

From a fluff perspective anyways

The Inquisition and their Ordos Millitant (Gk, SoB etc) belong behind the scenes in the darker areas of fluff where most won't dare to go... Not at the forefront of every fething battle.

If it was GW they would probually remove all races but the Space Marines. And maybe Imperial Guard and Orks

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The Inquisition and their Ordos Millitant (Gk, SoB etc) belong behind the scenes in the darker areas of fluff where most won't dare to go... Not at the forefront of every fething battle.

Which is why they should be a 0-1 elite choice in a inquisitorial codex. Or something like that.

Really though, I would like to see a codex that combines all the Ordos. Deathwatch included.
If you select a Ordo Hereticus inquisitor, you get SoB (limited number of squads)
Same with Ordo Xenos and Malleus, but with Deathwatch and GK instead respectively (obviously)
Always Inquisitorial Stormtroopers.

None, I love diversity and lots of armies. I hate how there are no Tau I can crush in DoW 2, IT MAKES ME ANGRIER THAN BROTHER COA IN A IMPERIUM VS ANYTHING THREAD.

Codex: Space Marines (Vanilla/BA/DA/BT/SW)
Codex: Imperial Guard
Codex: Inquisition (Includes SoB/GK/Deathwatch)
Codex: Chaos Space Marines (Includes Daemon options)
Codex: Chaos Renegades (Includes Daemon Options)
Codex: Eldar
Codex: Dark Eldar
Codex: Orks
Codex: Tyranids
Codex: Necrons
Codex: Tau Empire

11 vs 16 army books

why not make dark eldar and eldar have the same book? I mean theyre both elves? Isnt that the sm or guard arguement for one? Hell crush the renegades in the IG I mean same vehicles.. just take a mark. Cram csm in marines.. Condensing sm or any army is silly because gw just wants to make money and theyre not gonna condense the cash cow armies like ba sw etc for anyone. lol

Draigo wrote:why not make dark eldar and eldar have the same book? I mean theyre both elves? Isnt that the sm or guard arguement for one?

No.

They are the same species, but are COMPLETELY different.

Banzaimash wrote:BT already fulfill the role of nut-job fanatics. They're more paladin-like than Sisters, and they're more crazy.

Given that the SoB fulfilled this role first, I guess this means BT will have to go.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The Inquisition and their Ordos Millitant (Gk, SoB etc) belong behind the scenes in the darker areas of fluff where most won't dare to go... Not at the forefront of every fething battle.

SoB =/= Inquisition.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:They are the same species, but are COMPLETELY different.

What, you mean like GK and SoB?

In the old Witch Hunter's 'dex, it explicitly stated the SoB were the Ordo Hereticus' Ordo Millitant. They may function as a stand-alone force, but so do the other Ordos Millitants...

DeadlySquirrel wrote:In the old Witch Hunter's 'dex, it explicitly stated the SoB were the Ordo Hereticus' Ordo Millitant. They may function as a stand-alone force, but so do the other Ordos Millitants...

Except deathwatch that is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alexzandvar wrote:None, I love diversity and lots of armies. I hate how there are no Tau I can crush in DoW 2, IT MAKES ME ANGRIER THAN BROTHER COA IN A IMPERIUM VS ANYTHING THREAD.

350 posts and he already understands how dakka works.

I'm so proud.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:In the old Witch Hunter's 'dex, it explicitly stated the SoB were the Ordo Hereticus' Ordo Millitant. They may function as a stand-alone force, but so do the other Ordos Millitants...

SO then why can you condense them and not the 2 eldar?

Differences people put out among marines is similar vehicles.. Dont all space elves fly in hover tanks/speeders and use mostly lance weapons? Different between banshee and wyches is just wargear.. kinda like a strike gk and a smurf.

Draigo wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:In the old Witch Hunter's 'dex, it explicitly stated the SoB were the Ordo Hereticus' Ordo Millitant. They may function as a stand-alone force, but so do the other Ordos Millitants...

SO then why can you condense them and not the 2 eldar?

Differences people put out among marines is similar vehicles.. Dont all space elves fly in hover tanks/speeders and use mostly lance weapons? Different between banshee and wyches is just wargear.. kinda like a strike gk and a smurf.

Except they use different weapons, different vehicles, different tactics, different everything. Only back ground is the same.

All marines use bolters and tac squads, GK use bolters and PA, so do sisters etc. etc.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:In the old Witch Hunter's 'dex, it explicitly stated the SoB were the Ordo Hereticus' Ordo Millitant. They may function as a stand-alone force, but so do the other Ordos Millitants...

Even assuming that is still the case in the current version of the fluff, that doesn't say a lot. An Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor may just as well take command of an Imperial Guard regiment or a Marine Chapter for the duration of his mission - all the Convocation of Nephilim does is create a diplomatic link between both organizations. It's an alliance, and the designers even flat-out stated so in the design notes.

And no, the other Chambers Militant do indeed function differently, as the fluff in the "Inquisitor" RPG makes them out to be the Inquisition's own fighting formations. Something that cannot be applied to the Sisters of Battle, as they still belong to the Church.

"Bearing in mind the sinister character and role of the Ordo Hereticus, the Sisters of Battle slotted right in as their Chamber Militant, though we were keen to maintain their identity as separate from the Inquisition."
- Andy Hoare on the 3E Witch Hunters Codex design notes as published in WD #292

im2randomghgh wrote:All marines use bolters and tac squads, GK use bolters and PA, so do sisters etc. etc.

All Marines are also quite capable of surviving close combat - do you honestly believe this applies to SoB?
Just because the mainstay infantry troop uses a similar ranged weapon does not render two armies "identical".

Belonging to the Church or not, they are the Chamber Millitant (I have been getting it wrong for years ) of the Witch Hunters.

The Deathwatch belong to the Space Marines, but they are a Chamber Millitant...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SoB are just just a rule #63 of Space Marines. They wear power armour and have Bolters...

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Belonging to the Church or not, they are the Chamber Millitant (I have been getting it wrong for years ) of the Witch Hunters.

And apparently this is of no concern whatsoever for their role in the Imperium, given that their latest Codex has cut all ties. You cannot even legally field an Inquisitor with an SoB army at a tournament right now.*

(*: much to the detriment of certain people who had mixed armies - I maintain that the Inquisition should simply get a minidex that can work as an addon for any Imperial force)

im2randomghgh wrote:

Draigo wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:In the old Witch Hunter's 'dex, it explicitly stated the SoB were the Ordo Hereticus' Ordo Millitant. They may function as a stand-alone force, but so do the other Ordos Millitants...

SO then why can you condense them and not the 2 eldar?

Differences people put out among marines is similar vehicles.. Dont all space elves fly in hover tanks/speeders and use mostly lance weapons? Different between banshee and wyches is just wargear.. kinda like a strike gk and a smurf.

Except they use different weapons, different vehicles, different tactics, different everything. Only back ground is the same.

All marines use bolters and tac squads, GK use bolters and PA, so do sisters etc. etc.

different tactics? like fly around the board and shoot lance weapons? Harlequins already made the move over you know cause theyre all so different. They could easily be made into the same book just like any marine faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Draigo wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:In the old Witch Hunter's 'dex, it explicitly stated the SoB were the Ordo Hereticus' Ordo Millitant. They may function as a stand-alone force, but so do the other Ordos Millitants...

SO then why can you condense them and not the 2 eldar?

Differences people put out among marines is similar vehicles.. Dont all space elves fly in hover tanks/speeders and use mostly lance weapons? Different between banshee and wyches is just wargear.. kinda like a strike gk and a smurf.

Except they use different weapons, different vehicles, different tactics, different everything. Only back ground is the same.

All marines use bolters and tac squads, GK use bolters and PA, so do sisters etc. etc.

different tactics? like fly around the board and shoot lance weapons? Harlequins already made the move over you know cause theyre all so different. They could easily be made into the same book just like any marine faction. Vipors and Venoms look awful similar along with scourges and swooping hawks.

Joey wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

KingDeath wrote:No army should be removed. Every single represented army has lots of people who put lots of effort into their prefered faction. To take that away just because GW is too damn incompetent to keep their rulebooks up to date and balanced would be wrong imo.

I don't think that too many people are suggesting the absolute elimination of certain armies; Rather, and I am included in this, we are suggesting that the book gets rolled into another one.. for fluff and mechanical reasons. In no way have my previous suggestions invalidated (or would invalidate) an existing army. What would happen, is basically the armies would still be the same, only using a different book, often times resulting in more options for said player.

Indeed, i didn't say the removal of armies I said the removal of codexes.
Here's the blood angels codex in one line of the SM codex:
Blood Angels-take assault marines as troops, predators, rhinos and razorbacks are "fast".
And a couple of the higher-profile charectors makes it a good'un.

What about Baal Predators, Death Company, Furiso Dreadnoughts, and the Storm Raven?

except eldar and dark eldar are legitimately different, doubly so with coven forces.

I can see where people are coming from though, when X codexes only difference is x unit is now a different foc selection, X has this rule, and all of 1 new unit + a couple of special characters.

If an entire codexes rules is able to be done by adding 2-3 lines to another book, you should be able to see why people think it's samey.

I think a few major changes could make the majority of players happy with the level of representation of their specific army.

1) All Marines should be in one codex. I'm a space wolf player myself, and I can honestly say that I wouldn't mind being slumped into a giant loyal marines codex. Bring back the traits system from the older dex (man I loved that thing...) so that players can still get the unique feel of most of the armies. Allow special characters to unlock really unique options, with more wargear options for termies and veterans. Honestly, I'd be losing Long Fangs (dirty unit) and thunderwolves (Which are pretty stupid). No big loss. GW just has different rulebooks so they can charge you two times to play marines (consider how different wolves look from other marines in terms of models...Blood Angels and Ultramarines are similar throughout 90% of their models that aren't IC's)

2) Allow ALL army books to have some sort of trait system. Anyone remember third edition Chaos, where different legions allowed access to different options? Or the Craftworld eldar book, which allowed you to select from Biel-Tan, Iyanden, or Saim-hann (the wild host was so fluffy...you just can't do it in this edition without a seer council). I wouldn't even mind if this was a supplement for each army...say 30 bucks a pop. If you want to play vanilla, awesome, if not, then buy the extra book for traits. It seems to me the biggest peeve of eldar and chaos players are the fact that they once had access to legions and craftworlds...and now don't. Granted you can still do SOME of these, but Alpha Legion and Saim-Hann are hard to do...

3) Inquistion book. Something combining DeathWatch kill teams, GK, SoB, The big I, and storm troopers into one book. Have an HQ from each one of the listed armies that allows the player to unlock that unit as troops. This would allow people to field their original armies, and yet still be able to mix and match within the church. I think it'd add a lot of variety to armies that are currently lacking it. Let's face it, GK have 4 of the same models with slight variations, and a sweet dreadnought. Sisters have a great tank, and 4 models that are the same (although a few with jet packs...), deathwatch could be marines with additional wargear/options with veteran stats.

I don't think they'd even see a major decline in sales if they offered these extra armies as a different book to go with the codex one. To play space wolves I'd be forced to buy 2 books, and I could still use the majority of my list. Templars, DA, and Angels wouldn't even have that problem...

First off there shouldn't be an Inquisition book. An inquisitor should be an HQ choice in a couple different loyalist books. Grey knights are just "special" space marines. Throw them in as a "cult unit" like noise marines are for chaos.

Blood angels I agree as well should be thrown into the vanilla marine dex.

Demons should be put back in the chaos book.

Just remove tau from the game. No one likes them.

Why do people even want a whole Inquisition book? That's what I don't get.

Deathwatch Kill Teams cannot be fielded in normal games, and both GK as well as SoB are, by now, unique enough to warrant their own Codex each (distinctive focus, distinctive fluff, distinctive visuals, all-distinctive units and rules). Yes, on the surface GK have some overlap with SM, but I still just see a situation much like Eldar and Dark Eldar, and personally I wouldn't wedge either of these four armies into two books. I am convinced that Demons need to get back with the CSM tho.

All you really need to cut down on are the sub-factions of the various armies.

Inquisitors and ISTs should be a small expansion to tack onto any existing Imperial force. This is how the Inquisition operates in the fluff, and this is how it would work wonderfully on the TT as well.

While I disagree with inq being HQ, I have to say I forgot about Deamons being rolled back into the chaos dex. A fantastic idea!

I don't think any MODEL should be phased out. If I paid 40-50 for something, it BETTER stay viable.

Draigo wrote:why not make dark eldar and eldar have the same book? I mean theyre both elves? Isnt that the sm or guard arguement for one? Hell crush the renegades in the IG I mean same vehicles.. just take a mark. Cram csm in marines.. Condensing sm or any army is silly because gw just wants to make money and theyre not gonna condense the cash cow armies like ba sw etc for anyone. lol

DE and Eldar are fundalmentally different in gameplay, models, units, and background. The same can not be said for Blood Angels vs Black Templars. There are only slight variations there.

As stated before fast skimmers/tanks that use lances is not a different style. No a wyche and a banshee that similar outside of wargear. No different then a tac marine and a strike squad. Outside of the psykers there is very little difference. Viper to venoms also not that different. Background is the same till slaanesh which again is not that unique. Harelquins are also in both books. I can come up with as many reasons for one book as you can 2 just like gk or sw to smurfs.

Problem i notice with EVERYBODY who plays a marine variant is they have their mech/heavy weapons that just sits back (be it dreadnoughts with autocannons, razorbacks with lascannons, predators with auto cannons and lascannons, longfangs, etc.) and unload while the rest of their troops walk up slowly and mulch on everything the mech opened.

From what i've seen and encoutered, ALL marine players just have half their army sit there and shoot. It's annoying. I'd rather face parking lot guard and know the challenge is *GETTING* there. Whereas with marines, you'll get intercepted by their regular marines , terminators, jump infantry, etc if you try and close the gap from yourself to their gun lines.

I find Xenos armies so appealing because they ALL are so different from one another and require a lot more finesse. I even find imperial guard more interesitng than marines. I have GK's and i have my dreadnoughts who just sit back and shoot while i have interceptors/purifiers make their way up the field

Cryage wrote:Problem i notice with EVERYBODY who plays a marine variant is they have their mech/heavy weapons that just sits back (be it dreadnoughts with autocannons, razorbacks with lascannons, predators with auto cannons and lascannons, longfangs, etc.) and unload while the rest of their troops walk up slowly and mulch on everything the mech opened.

From what i've seen and encoutered, ALL marine players just have half their army sit there and shoot. It's annoying. I'd rather face parking lot guard and know the challenge is *GETTING* there. Whereas with marines, you'll get intercepted by their regular marines , terminators, jump infantry, etc if you try and close the gap from yourself to their gun lines.

I find Xenos armies so appealing because they ALL are so different from one another and require a lot more finesse. I even find imperial guard more interesitng than marines. I have GK's and i have my dreadnoughts who just sit back and shoot while i have interceptors/purifiers make their way up the field

And if CC is buffed people whine that shooty armies can't compete. Let's face it, if CC was better at handling vehicles (or, indeed, if vehicles were worse) marines wouldn't play like that.

I think the biggest failing of the current marine Codex is that vehicles have the same base-cost in all the new Codices. If they had differing costs, to emphasise that some Chapters don't have access to or don't use as many transports as other Chwpters. That way all the Razorspam would be gathered in one Codex, allowing the other Chapters to play as differently as they should.

Lynata wrote:

Banzaimash wrote:BT already fulfill the role of nut-job fanatics. They're more paladin-like than Sisters, and they're more crazy.

Given that the SoB fulfilled this role first, I guess this means BT will have to go.

Not really, because although the SoB may have come first, it doesn't mean that the BT should go, considering that they fulfill the fanatic role much better. Also, consider the impact the SoB have on the galaxy compared to the BT. The SoB aren't nearly big or important enough to warrant their own codex.

SoB have been around since about RT, so why should they go for a marine army that can get away with just priming the entire force? Not even an original legion at that, but a successor. Where's the Iron Hands, the Raven Guard? The hands have a somewhat different organisation yet we get the Blood Angels instead.

With work the marines can get condensed down into a big fancy codex just for them and still work out the same as having several. The only reason why they probably aren't is that they can be spread out more this way. No army has to go, the amount of codices can be reduced without reducing the available forces and model lines.

Rabtorian wrote:Why not release one codex and an expantion for each race?
Codex: Space Marines; Chapters of the Space Marines.
Codex: Imperial Guard; Regiments of the Imperial Guard.
Codex: Dark Eldar; Kabals of the Dark Eldar.
Codex: Eldar; Craftworlds of the Eldar.
Codex: Chaos; Daemons of Chaos; Servants of Chaos.
Codex: Necrons; Dynasties of the Necrons.
Codex: Tyrannids; Hive Fleets of the Tyrannids.
Codex: Tau; Colonies of the Tau.
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus; Forge Worlds of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Codex: Ordos Imperialis; Forces of the Inquisition; Orders of the Sisters of Battle; Agents of the Imperium.
Codex: Orks; Klans of the Orks.
I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

I agree with this

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
SoB are just just a rule #63 of Space Marines. They wear power armour and have Bolters...

Nerd Rage in 3....2.....1.......


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lynata wrote:Why do people even want a whole Inquisition book? That's what I don't get.

To simplify things. To have all 3 Inquisitorial army's ( even if SoB are part of Imperial Church they often serve as military force of Ordo Hereticus, so they are counted as one ) in one book then to have three separate books all with different version and fluff that is varying over the years. In one book they would all be the same edition and have the same non-questionable fluff.

None, really.

If I based my decision on what would affect me personally, well, I have a variety of armies, because what I like changes constantly. People mentioned the number of Chapter-specific Space Marine Codices, but I really only play the vanilla ones. Hell, I only have the vanilla dex, not counting my older, possibly 3e - unsure about that really, as I got it years and years ago when I was still fairly clueless - Dark Angels Codex, so keeping or axing the others doesn't affect me. So the stuff I have models for, I'd like to keep. The stuff I don't have models for, I don't care about, so it can stay. So none get axed.

If I considered what would affect other people as well as myself, I wouldn't remove any army, because everyone has their favorite, and I sure as hell wouldn't like it if the decision were someone else's and one of my armies got axed. So I wouldn't remove anyone else's army either.

Edit: I wouldn't even roll the Marines together. Cause I sure as heck wouldn't enjoy having to share a codex with the Grey Knights - I'm still a little upset about that one truly ridiculous story, by the way. How the heck do you need THAT much blood for that? - and having to stare at their shiny armored models in the model gallery section, like a lot of people here seem to want.

IcedAnimals wrote:
Just remove Tau from the game. No one likes them.

I love you

Lynata wrote:
Inquisitors and ISTs should be a small expansion to tack onto any existing Imperial force. This is how the Inquisition operates in the fluff, and this is how it would work wonderfully on the TT as well.

And also this, Grey Knights were more then good as Daemonhunters. I don't like the idea of them going alone and wreaking stuff across the stars. I love the idea of Ordo Malleus Inquisitor investigating Daemon invasion with his Stormtroopers and then call the Grey Knights from orbit to assist him.

So drop Grey Knights and Blood Angels, two fully fleshed out and distinctive armies, but keep Dark Angels, who are two Special Characters away from being Codex: Space Marines? No thanks. There aren't too many armies, but there are too many of these "I hate this army and it should be removed from the game" threads on the internet.

Banzaimash wrote:Not really, because although the SoB may have come first, it doesn't mean that the BT should go, considering that they fulfill the fanatic role much better.

I beg to differ. First off, religion makes a much more obvious catalyst for fanaticism. For what it's worth, it is rather weird and unfitting to have a Marine Chapter called "Templars" and bearing the symbolism of the christian Knights Hospitaller in the first place. To me, this is just one of many cases where the secular Marines ursurped a bit of the Sisters' style. Alas, by now it is far too late to do anything about it, so I guess we have to live with it. Still, units such as the Repentia and their Mistress, the Arco-Flagellants, the Penitent Engine or Ecclesiarchy Preachers and waves of fanatic Frateris Militia paint an obvious image on the tabletop, and this is even before you start delving into their fluff (history, organization, purpose, internal rules and rituals).

Banzaimash wrote:Also, consider the impact the SoB have on the galaxy compared to the BT. The SoB aren't nearly big or important enough to warrant their own codex.

Whilst not as big or important as the Adeptus Astartes as a whole, the Orders Militant as a whole are certainly bigger and consequently more important than any single Space Marine Chapter.

Brother Coa wrote:To simplify things. To have all 3 Inquisitorial army's ( even if SoB are part of Imperial Church they often serve as military force of Ordo Hereticus, so they are counted as one ) in one book [...]

Yeah, but then you'd have to throw in SM and IG there as well. And suddenly we're back to the Codex Imperialis.

SoB were never meant to be thought of as an "Inquisition army", and the tenacity with which some people think of them as one only shows that it was high time they were separated again.

Brother Coa wrote:In one book they would all be the same edition and have the same non-questionable fluff.

Tbh, I'm not sure what that would change - you'd still end up with Draigo etc.

IcedAnimals wrote:Just remove tau from the game. No one likes them.

Apart from all the people who play tau.

Oh and there's only over 7000 members on Advanced Tau Tactica alone, one assumes the vast majority of them play tau. (Plus numerous other Tau Specific forums, and of course, all the people on here who play em)

The only thing you can reasonably say is that YOU don't like Tau. Loads of people do.

n0t_u wrote:SoB have been around since about RT, so why should they go for a marine army that can get away with just priming the entire force? Not even an original legion at that, but a successor. Where's the Iron Hands, the Raven Guard? The hands have a somewhat different organisation yet we get the Blood Angels instead.

With work the marines can get condensed down into a big fancy codex just for them and still work out the same as having several. The only reason why they probably aren't is that they can be spread out more this way. No army has to go, the amount of codices can be reduced without reducing the available forces and model lines.

Just because Sisters have been around since RT, doesn't mean that they should get a whole codex to themselves. They don't play nearly as large a part in the defence of the IoM as the BT. Also, although the BT are successors, they are a massive force with a largely different structure to the first founding codex chapters, such as Salamanders, and they arguably outshine their IF ancestors.To argue that BT aren't as worthy as SoB just because they can be primed and left (which isn't exactly true, as at least the shoulder pads have to be painted white) is without foundation, considering DA, DE, Necrons, Tau, BA, GK, Daemons and CSM, as well as other armies (such as SoB) can also classify as painted with just a one-colour basecoat. As to which SM chapters should get their own codex, almost all could, and I agree that the Iron Hands have a structure, background and fighting style substantially different from Codex doctrine to justify their own codex (which would be awesome), whereas the BA don't really deviate massively from the codex, as their only defining features are assault marines as troops, fast Preds, DC, Sanguinary Guard, Sanguinary Priests and their own named characters (a similar situation applies to DA too), which could all find their place in a SM codex. No one's codex needs to be destroyed, just several codices need to be consolidated (eg. Codex: Inquisition, which would include the three Ordos, their goons, SoB as mainstay troops alongside stormtroopers, and a few elites options withe GK in them). IMHO, the SoB should still have a more weight than GK, who are a relatively small and highly specialised force, and should be represented as such. Many of their units are quite unnecessary or just plain foolish, such a Purifiers (purest of the purest pure?) and Strike Squads (these were only made to give GK jump infantry like the other armies, jump infantry that wouldn't be necessary in the Codex:Inquisition above, as Seraphim would do the job).

Eliminate an army? Why? They all have their place.

Combine codexes? Maybe. I think this could work for
Marines if they added locking abilities to certain HQs. For example if you take khan then at least half the army must be on bikes. However GW would have to scale back the fluff in order to keep printing costs down, and I like fluff. So that's really a non starter.

Lynata wrote:

Banzaimash wrote:Also, consider the impact the SoB have on the galaxy compared to the BT. The SoB aren't nearly big or important enough to warrant their own codex.

Whilst not as big or important as the Adeptus Astartes as a whole, the Orders Militant as a whole are certainly bigger and consequently more important than any single Space Marine Chapter.

The Ultramarines, with their multiple systems, and hundreds of Guard regiments and influence over an entire Segmentum, would like a word with you, lol.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:The Ultramarines, with their multiple systems, and hundreds of Guard regiments and influence over an entire Segmentum, would like a word with you, lol.

Phht, if you want it that way, I can add the countless Frateris Militia or the Guard regiments and Navy fleets under influence of some Cardinal.

Though the Ultras' role is probably worthy of being mentioned as an exception - not because I consider them a necessary military resource, but because of their administration of the Ultramar realm, which in itself is a very valuable asset indeed.

As a side question: The worlds of Ultramar are not the entire Segmentum, are they? I mean, Valhalla and Catachan are located there as well, and certainly both regiments are not subject to the Ultramarines.

BobTheChainsaw wrote:

Joey wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

KingDeath wrote:No army should be removed. Every single represented army has lots of people who put lots of effort into their prefered faction. To take that away just because GW is too damn incompetent to keep their rulebooks up to date and balanced would be wrong imo.

I don't think that too many people are suggesting the absolute elimination of certain armies; Rather, and I am included in this, we are suggesting that the book gets rolled into another one.. for fluff and mechanical reasons. In no way have my previous suggestions invalidated (or would invalidate) an existing army. What would happen, is basically the armies would still be the same, only using a different book, often times resulting in more options for said player.

Indeed, i didn't say the removal of armies I said the removal of codexes.
Here's the blood angels codex in one line of the SM codex:
Blood Angels-take assault marines as troops, predators, rhinos and razorbacks are "fast".
And a couple of the higher-profile charectors makes it a good'un.

What about Baal Predators, Death Company, Furiso Dreadnoughts, and the Storm Raven?

Storm Raven should be available for all SM, and other chapters have their own unique vehicle variants too, but don't have codices.

im2randomghgh wrote:
Storm Raven should be available for all SM, and other chapters have their own unique vehicle variants too, but don't have codices.

Storm Raven should NOT be available for ANYONE.. SM have the Thunderhawk as their transport/fighter aircraft, not some Land Raider with jet packs and stubby wings.

Nthing the Codex: Chapter Astartes option.

You can go vanilla, take a 'themed' chaplain/captain/librarian/techmarine to add army wide rules (unlocking red thirst, death company, etc). Mesh the current vehicle lines into one cohesive list, its not like a chapter wouldn't use something if they could get their hands on it and with thousands of years of history I think the chances of that are rather high. "Approval by the mechanicum" blah blah blah are just excuses, individual techmarines aren't above this.

Black Templars and Space Wolves are a bit too unique to jive with a codex astartes list, so they'd have to have their own books. Ditto on Chaos obviously.

Also Nthing codex: Forces of the inquisition. Though, given the absurd and Wardian new GK units, I don't think that can happen anymore.

Ovion wrote:

IcedAnimals wrote:Just remove tau from the game. No one likes them.

Apart from all the people who play tau.

Oh and there's only over 7000 members on Advanced Tau Tactica alone, one assumes the vast majority of them play tau. (Plus numerous other Tau Specific forums, and of course, all the people on here who play em)

The only thing you can reasonably say is that YOU don't like Tau. Loads of people do.

*sound of hand going over head* fwooosh.

At least brother coa got it.

While it pains me to say this, DA should really just be rolled into C:SM and given special characters to unlock their chapter traits.

King Crow wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:Why not release one codex and an expantion for each race?
Codex: Space Marines; Chapters of the Space Marines.
Codex: Imperial Guard; Regiments of the Imperial Guard.
Codex: Dark Eldar; Kabals of the Dark Eldar.
Codex: Eldar; Craftworlds of the Eldar.
Codex: Chaos; Daemons of Chaos; Servants of Chaos.
Codex: Necrons; Dynasties of the Necrons.
Codex: Tyrannids; Hive Fleets of the Tyrannids.
Codex: Tau; Colonies of the Tau.
Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus; Forge Worlds of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Codex: Ordos Imperialis; Forces of the Inquisition; Orders of the Sisters of Battle; Agents of the Imperium.
Codex: Orks; Klans of the Orks.
I don't see how anybody could be unhappy with the list above, and using a system of expansions could also mean that should GW wish, they could release more content by releasing more expansions.

I agree with this

Not only do I also agree with this, I think it could be taken further. Make the "Codex" bit a free, downloadable PDF of the basic rules for the army, then have the other portion as a nice, fluffy full colour hardback book. The book could also give you special characters and legion/cult/clan specific tactics etc.

This would allow them to tweak and update the core rules for each army, maintaining game balance, whilst giving them an opportunity to really develop the background for different factions.

Joey wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
SOB are dumb, they shouldn't have their own codex at all.
There should only be two Imperium codex, IG and SM.

What a very limited perspective. The IoM is one of the two largest factions in the setting, and certainly the least homogeneous; why on earth should they be limited to only two codexes? SM, IG, Mechanicus, and Servants of the Emperor (Ecclesiarchy, Inquisition, and AdMech) could work well. I tend to agree that the Sisters of Battle are kind of a small faction to get a codex entirely to themselves, but there's absolutely no reason to cut down the Imperium that far.

Look outside of the fluff.
The IG are trillions(googleplexes?) of men across countles etc etc.
The SM are badass space knights.
How could you explain Mechanicus and "servants of the emperor" in a few words to someone who wasn't familiar with 40k canon?
Hell I'm more familiar with most but I'd still have no idea what a Mechanicus codex would actually entail...mainly since they don't actually do any fighting IIRC. So giving them their own codex would be a little odd.
An Inquisitor book would work though. GK really don't need their own codex.

Simples

Sisters of Battle = Nuns with gunz

Totalwar1402 wrote:
Simples

Sisters of Battle = Nuns with gunz

There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

We can't handle trolling of this magnitude!

The urge to post that image gives me an opportunity to hand in my own list, though:

Codex: Space Marines
Codex: Grey Knights
Codex: Imperial Guard
Codex: Sisters of Battle (=Ecclesiarchy in general)

Codex: Apocalypse (includes Mechanicus and Dark Mechanicus section)
Codex: Chaos Space Marines (=Chaos in general, including demons)

WD Minidex: Inquisition (add-on for all Imperial forces, includes Inquisitors of all Ordos, retinues, ISTs and "Kill Team" rules for DW, GK, ISTs, SoB)

Codices: Dark Eldar, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Tau, Tyranids (as usual, each gets 1)

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

We can't handle trolling of this magnitude!

It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

For real now? Wow.

Okay, I guess ... free speech and all.

Banzaimash wrote:BT already fulfill the role of nut-job fanatics. They're more paladin-like than Sisters, and they're more crazy. At most Sisters should only really get a few slots in an Inquisitorial codex, along with Grey Knights.

I played Templars and the difference was quite minor to regular astartes.

Champion
Vows
Mixed Squads
Zealous advance when shot at

I know they're an old codex but several of those things are included in other marine dexs in some form

GK get a chapter champion
Space Wolves can mix terminators with there basic infantry

I don't really think armies should be removed, the problem is that half the armies released this edition were marines (4) and we're in line for another four in 6th. Given the obligitory Imperial Guard codex that doesn't leave much for xenos or even chaos daemons.

Vanilla
Templars
Dark Angels
Chaos Marines

But, considering that both Dark Eldar and Necrons got such considerable revamps probably on the easy proceeds of marines dexs IMO we probably have the best of all possible worlds.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:
Simples

Sisters of Battle = Nuns with gunz

There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

Either have all the SM codices condensed in one book, or give the other armies the same treatment.

If BA, DA, SW, and BT get their own books, then so should World Eaters, Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children and Death Guard.

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

And people wonder why Sisters of Battle get so little love, because of people thinking that women are good in life only for sex and cooking.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Either have all the SM codices condensed in one book, or give the other armies the same treatment.

If BA, DA, SW, and BT get their own books, then so should World Eaters, Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children and Death Guard.

Why? These warbands are just a wild bunch of madmen. No discipline, no coherency nothing to codify...
And how many legionaires are left at all?


I think a good number of codices to have would be: 12.

Lynata wrote:As a side question: The worlds of Ultramar are not the entire Segmentum, are they? I mean, Valhalla and Catachan are located there as well, and certainly both regiments are not subject to the Ultramarines.

They don't technically rule anything except the Realm of Ultramar, but they more or less run the show in that part of the galaxy, at least that's what the fluff has suggested since the Ultramarines are involved in just about everything that goes down there. That may just be laziness on the part of GW though. "Oh hey, Galactic East? Okay, the Ultramarines." Unless it involves getting destroyed, then they just make up some kind of now-defunct Space Marine Chapter or Imperial World that the Ultramarines have to bail out, or avenge, haha. It seems that even when other Chapters get involved in that realm, it is usually under the nominal supervision of the Ultramarines. It would be interesting if GW every intelligently explored just how powerful and influential the Ultramarines seem to be, something that walks the line that delineates the limitations a Chapter is supposed to have. I actually kind of like the fact that it makes the Ultramarines, the ultimate upholders of the Codex Astartes, the slightest bit hypocritical. But I fear they'd give the story to Graham McNeil and he'd dick it all up like he did all the rest of his Ultramarines novels and stories.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

We can't handle trolling of this magnitude!

It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

Having served in the Marine Corps, I won't lie, I felt that the females brought overall readiness and effectiveness down a lot of the time, but 40K is a tabletop game, not real life. I am pretty vocal about my misgivings regarding the Sisters of Battle, but that stems from disagreements with their fluff and rules, not their gender. In a world not bound by any kind of strict rules of science, I figure women warriors aren't too far out of bounds. The implementation of the Howling Banshees, for example, seems fine to me. I even enjoy it when people create custom female Imperial Guardsmen. Let's try not to be too misogynistic here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Either have all the SM codices condensed in one book, or give the other armies the same treatment.

If BA, DA, SW, and BT get their own books, then so should World Eaters, Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children and Death Guard.

If Chaos Marines had ever sold as well as normal Space Marines, then they probably would have their own Codex books. But I think that is the fault of GW. They were always a bit too over the top with Chaos Marines. The more that Chaos got expanded on, the more cartoonish it got. And that cartoonishness is a draw for a lot of players, but I think for the most part, it is a turnoff for the greater playing public. When I had a Chaos army years ago, it was Alpha Legion, and these days, if I were to resurrect it, I would probably do a Pre-Heresy themed force (or Alpha Legion again). The whole "spikes and horns" thing tends to make Chaos models look kinda silly. Chaos needed to be dark and sinister, not outlandish and goofy. I mean, everybody loves the classic Rogue Trader era Noise Marine, but few people actually want to play that army.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:[...] since the Ultramarines are involved in just about everything that goes down there.

Oh. Well, I'd say this applies to any Space Marine Chapter; If they would only move out when their own worlds are under siege, they'd be pretty useless for the Imperium as a whole.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

I played Templars and the difference was quite minor to regular astartes.

Champion
Vows
Mixed Squads
Zealous advance when shot at

I know they're an old codex but several of those things are included in other marine dexs in some form

GK get a chapter champion
Space Wolves can mix terminators with there basic infantry.

Oh look, two of the defining traits of the Black Templars exist in other marine armies, therefore we need to REMOVE THEM! Nevermind that the Brotherhood Champion is a blatant ripoff, just like Loganwing is a blatant ripoff of Deathwing, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

I also think a fair bit, if not the largest part, of the entire issue ultimately boils down to selfishness: those of us who play marines want our own Codices and don't really care about "the others", just as Xenoes players want their faction to become the focus of GWs attention.

Regardless, I don't see how one can argue that forcing more people into the same Codex will increase diversity.

Lynata wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:[...] since the Ultramarines are involved in just about everything that goes down there.

Oh. Well, I'd say this applies to any Space Marine Chapter; If they would only move out when their own worlds are under siege, they'd be pretty useless for the Imperium as a whole.

Maybe, but there's no other chapter that is ubiquitously involved in a specific area like the Ultramarines. They are to the Galactic East what the Cadians are to the Eye of Terror.

Today:

Space Marine
Blood Angels
Black Templars
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Grey Knights
SOB
Imperial Guard
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Tyrannid
Ork
Tau
Necrons

Should be

1 or 2 SM centric codex
1 Imperial Guard/Inquisition codex
Tau
Eldar
Ork
Tyrannid
Dark Eldar
Necrons

While I like the "fluffiness" of each independent SM codex (6 right now) I think they could expand the use of characters to define options. The advantage would be only 1 imperium codex creep instead of 6 incremental changes that add up to OP by the time we hit the 6th "creeper" upgrade. Also taking it down from 14 to 9 codexes would put us on a 3 year rotation of codexes rather than a 5 + year rotation when you figure about every 4 years they update the core rules version and then seem to automatically "reset" their upgrade to (Codex:SM + most out-of-date Xenos + codex: IG)

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Regardless, I don't see how one can argue that forcing more people into the same Codex will increase diversity.

Depends on the amount of overlap, really.
The current situation is a problem insofar as that it takes many, many years for certain armies to get an update - with the fact that another army takes up a full third of all Codices, hence "occupying" development time that might be better served elsewhere. Depending on one's personal opinion. As you said, this is clearly a very emotional topic, and I don't think any of us can claim total impartiality.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Maybe, but there's no other chapter that is ubiquitously involved in a specific area like the Ultramarines. They are to the Galactic East what the Cadians are to the Eye of Terror.

Aye. Of course, one might say that this is just because both the Ultras as well as the Cadians have been the focus of GW's fluff for so many years. But I like to believe that the Ultras in their role as "paragons amongst the Astartes" are much more willing to help out other Imperial worlds due to a certain feeling of responsibility, whereas a lot of other Chapters harbour a much greater sense of independence and may choose to stay uninvolved because they don't feel the need to get their hands dirty for "some puny weakling governor" on a planet far outside their own sphere of influence.

DAaddict wrote:Today:

Space Marine
Blood Angels
Black Templars
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Grey Knights
SOB
Imperial Guard
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Tyrannid
Ork
Tau
Necrons

Should be

1 or 2 SM centric codex
1 Imperial Guard/Inquisition codex
Tau
Eldar
Ork
Tyrannid
Dark Eldar
Necrons

chaos removed

Lynata wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Regardless, I don't see how one can argue that forcing more people into the same Codex will increase diversity.

Depends on the amount of overlap, really.
The current situation is a problem insofar as that it takes many, many years for certain armies to get an update - with the fact that another army takes up a full third of all Codices, hence "occupying" development time that might be better served elsewhere. Depending on one's personal opinion. As you said, this is clearly a very emotional topic, and I don't think any of us can claim total impartiality.

I just had a thought: other than Razorspam, what army builds transition well between different Marine Codices?

I'll take it to a separate thread to avoid OT, but you've made me think, which I thank you for.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:

I played Templars and the difference was quite minor to regular astartes.

Champion
Vows
Mixed Squads
Zealous advance when shot at

I know they're an old codex but several of those things are included in other marine dexs in some form

GK get a chapter champion
Space Wolves can mix terminators with there basic infantry.

Oh look, two of the defining traits of the Black Templars exist in other marine armies, therefore we need to REMOVE THEM! Nevermind that the Brotherhood Champion is a blatant ripoff, just like Loganwing is a blatant ripoff of Deathwing, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

I also think a fair bit, if not the largest part, of the entire issue ultimately boils down to selfishness: those of us who play marines want our own Codices and don't really care about "the others", just as Xenoes players want their faction to become the focus of GWs attention.

Regardless, I don't see how one can argue that forcing more people into the same Codex will increase diversity.

Did you even read my post? I said further down that we live IN THE BEST OF ALL POSIBLE WORLDS (see I can use bold letters too) and that people who spend money on marines is good for the game as a whole because its easy money. If you had to get rid of any though, then it would be the marine options. I collected Templars, I like the idea of an army of chainsword wielding crusaders. But, if you gave them chainswords you could easily make a templars army. I'am not saying get rid of the codex, I'd say I'am impatient about waiting for new Tau/SOB; of course people are selfish about these things. But come on, half the armies are marines, not half dedicated to the Imperial factions, half are specifically marines, and share a huge number of units.

I agree with your last point. Rules really don't concern me, they could bring out EVERY marine chapter like they did in Chapter Approved and I wouldn't bat an eyelash. Its the stopper on new models (how many dreadnought n land raider varients are we on?) that gets annoying. Even the power level isn't particualrly important. I didn't throw 3rd edition guard against 3.5 chaos because I knew I had the better army; I did it because I enjoyed playing an army I liked.

Oops, sorry, I tend to become a tad over-zealous when stuff like this is discussed.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Oops, sorry, I tend to become a tad over-zealous when stuff like this is discussed.

No probs

Lynata wrote: But I like to believe that the Ultras in their role as "paragons amongst the Astartes" are much more willing to help out other Imperial worlds due to a certain feeling of responsibility, whereas a lot of other Chapters harbour a much greater sense of independence and may choose to stay uninvolved because they don't feel the need to get their hands dirty for "some puny weakling governor" on a planet far outside their own sphere of influence.

I agree. I definitely find the Ultramarines to be the most interesting of the published Space Marine Chapters. Which is amusing because many players consider them the most boring.

However, to me, the Ultramarines have a lot of cool quirks to them. First off, they should (theoretically, unless Graham McNeil blunderingly writes about them) be master tacticians and strategists; nearly unrivaled in their ability to fight wars and utilize the combined arms doctrine given their experience with their own PDF units and massive fleets (both the Marine Chapter fleet and the fleets that must exist to carry their PDF contingents).

Second, they are going to be quite well integrated with the human populations of their homeworlds, which probably gives them a rather unique humanity, (even though that nod is usually given to the Salamanders, it is mentioned multiple times in reference to the Ultramarines as well).

But there also seems like there would be a lot of arrogance and pride amongst them given their status and prominence among Chapters. Plus a little bit of the hypocrisy I I hinted at earlier. Makes them a bit more three dimensional to me.

There's a lot of "believability" and depth to the Ultramarines instead of the caricatures that some other Chapters tend to be. I'd kinda like for it to actually be developed, but that's not really the way license fiction works, haha.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Which is amusing because many players consider them the most boring.

It may be because they've been the "poster boys" for so long. Much like the Cadians. The longer something stays in the spotlight, the more tempting it becomes for many people to go for something they consider "less mainstream" - as that's supposed to be cool these days. Also, I suppose the Ultras may not be "badass" enough for a lot of players, ironically because of stuff that should make them more likeable, like their knightly colour scheme or their honourable conduct and generally being amongst the most cooperative Marine Chapters. The Ultras stand for stability, loyalty and respect - and that's what I reckon makes them "uncool" to many. Instead, people flock to Chapters such as the Space Wolves which are oh-so-rebellous and show everyone the finger (and getting away with it), or the dark and brooding Templars who don't care for Codex limitations because they need more power-armoured hands to crush heretic skulls with.

That's just how it looks like to me, though. And I say that whilst actually preferring the Templars to the Ultras; I just have a weak spot for the colour scheme and the Champion bit. Still, I continue to like Ultras. In fact, my very first 40k minis ever were Space Marines, and they were painted in their colours.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:I'd kinda like for it to actually be developed, but that's not really the way license fiction works, haha.

Ah, don't give up hope. Licensed fiction in 40k provides its writers with a large amount of freedoms, and even though I bemoan the effects this has on the consistency of the setting, another result of this is that there's a good chance there is at least one book compatible to your own opinions and preferences. Maybe, given that the Astartes are arguably the most heavily featured 40k "race" in the Black Library, there already is? But if not, fingers crossed; it can only be a matter of time.

Brother Coa wrote:

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

And people wonder why Sisters of Battle get so little love, because of people thinking that women are good in life only for sex and cooking.

Spoiler:

Oh, and before oyu start call women useless remember that you were brought on this world by a women, and show little respect for them.

I love women, they're awesome. But they shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield. I also wouldn't want to see children on a battlefield for similar reasons. It's just a bit..odd. Battles get fought by men, overwealmingly. Yes there were the Amazonians, Bodacia, et al, but in the Western Pantheon that 40k is based, it's men doing the fighting.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Having served in the Marine Corps, I won't lie, I felt that the females brought overall readiness and effectiveness down a lot of the time, but 40K is a tabletop game, not real life. I am pretty vocal about my misgivings regarding the Sisters of Battle, but that stems from disagreements with their fluff and rules, not their gender. In a world not bound by any kind of strict rules of science, I figure women warriors aren't too far out of bounds. The implementation of the Howling Banshees, for example, seems fine to me. I even enjoy it when people create custom female Imperial Guardsmen. Let's try not to be too misogynistic here.

See it's weird, I'm not bothered by female Eldar at all. Maybe it's because of the pyschic-elf vibe, but they seem to transcend gender somehow.
Call it paternalism or reactionism, but a woman in a foxhole is just wrong.

Joey wrote:Yes there were the Amazonians, Bodacia, et al, but in the Western Pantheon that 40k is based, it's men doing the fighting.

Because said pantheon does such a good job at dismissing the fighting women from its perception, amirite? From female Native American warriors to the secretly female soldiers in the US Civil War to today's female U.S. Army soldiers on the front lines. What a slap in the face that the role of the latter isn't more respected and keeps getting played down by officials and civilians alike.
And that's just in case your "western pantheon" is limited to the US, which seems to be the case, given that in many European countries it has become quite accepted to have women do the fighting.

Selective perception is a wonderful thing - allowing preservation of pre-established convictions beyond reason.

Or maybe CNN puts it right: "U.S. apparently not ready for women on the front lines"

Lynata wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Which is amusing because many players consider them the most boring.

It may be because they've been the "poster boys" for so long..

I actually did a rather detai993led writeup on why players dislike the Ultramarines a while back. But people have called Ultramarines boring for almost two decades. Basically back to 1993 and the release of Codex: Ultramarines. Ultramarines were considered boring because their codex lists in 2nd and 3rd Edition had no fancy special units and their original special characters were underwhelming. The idea of hating the Ultramarines for being the GW poster boys was just a side effect of that. GW chose the Ultramarines because they don't require any additional explanation (they are just big guys with big guns in big armor; no ponytails or fangs or hoodie bathrobes).

But yeah, there is also the nature of GW's target demographic to be considered too. It isn't full of Alpha Male types. Sort of the reason Raphael is the favorite ninja turtle of many adolescents because he is rebel. When you get older, you realize Raphael was just an emo whiner and you'd rather be fun to be around and relaxed like Michelangelo, a good leader like Leonardo, or smart like Donatello. But it isn't always like that. I mean, Space Wolves are just silly Space Vikings, but well, there is something fun about that. That aspect makes them too silly for me, but for others that's just the flavor of 40K they like. But, then again, my taste in 40K is weird. I like the character depth of the Ultramarines and would prefer them to be approached seriously, but Orks are my favorite faction for the sheer absurdity of the modeling possibilities.

I'd get rid of Tau and Dark Eldar.

You already have Eldar, so you don't need Dark Eldar.

And Tau are just lame.

kronk wrote:I'd get rid of Tau and Dark Eldar.

You already have Eldar, so you don't need Dark Eldar.

And Tau are just lame.

Not sure if serious...

Joey wrote:
I love women, they're awesome. But they shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield. I also wouldn't want to see children on a battlefield for similar reasons. It's just a bit..odd. Battles get fought by men, overwealmingly. Yes there were the Amazonians, Bodacia, et al, but in the Western Pantheon that 40k is based, it's men doing the fighting.

Yeah but time changed man. Just look at my military, women were once taboo and had to appear like men to fight in wars. In WW2 our entire army was mix with both males and females.
Our modern army is consisted on roughly 1/3 of females, from 33.000 solders there are 11.000 females in our army.

But I must admit, I to fell sad and angry when I see women die in fighting either in video game or movie.

Brother Coa wrote:

Joey wrote:
I love women, they're awesome. But they shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield. I also wouldn't want to see children on a battlefield for similar reasons. It's just a bit..odd. Battles get fought by men, overwealmingly. Yes there were the Amazonians, Bodacia, et al, but in the Western Pantheon that 40k is based, it's men doing the fighting.

Yeah but time changed man. Just look at my military, women were once taboo and had to appear like men to fight in wars. In WW2 our entire army was mix with both males and females.
Our modern army is consisted on roughly 1/3 of females, from 33.000 solders there are 11.000 females in our army.

But I must admit, I to fell sad and angry when I see women die in fighting either in video game or movie.

Yeah but nearly all women are in non-combat roles.
Funnily enough I am indifferent to the casual slaughter of women in videogames. But put them in fatigues and it just looks weird...

Joey wrote:Yeah but nearly all women are in non-combat roles.

Of course. It's a hard fight for the women to find acknowledgement.

After WW2, for example (since Coa brought this up as an example), the Soviet snipers and pilots who managed to kill so many Germans were quietly booted out of military service and forgotten, their formations dissolved, because they weren't needed anymore and apparently did not fit into the conservative worldview of a few armchair generals or politicians. It just seems that in times of need it is okay to use women as soldiers, but in peace it becomes "uncomfortable" for the men who feel their patriarchal role threatened. Quite hypocritical.

And it happened before WW2 as well, by the way. Russia has mobilized and demobilized female fighting formations in WW1 and during the Russian Civil War. Quite the circle, innit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Battalion

And there were also female volunteers during the Spanish Civil war.
Prolly guerilla fighters during nam as well.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Storm Raven should be available for all SM, and other chapters have their own unique vehicle variants too, but don't have codices.

Storm Raven should NOT be available for ANYONE.. SM have the Thunderhawk as their transport/fighter aircraft, not some Land Raider with jet packs and stubby wings.

For an army that specializes in "tactical", only having orbital landers that can carry multiple squads for enormous attack isn't very tactical. Having smaller, more numerous craft that can transport a squad or maybe two, that is tactical.

And I agree they are horrible and ugly, but if we could redesign the model...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:

Joey wrote:
I love women, they're awesome. But they shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield. I also wouldn't want to see children on a battlefield for similar reasons. It's just a bit..odd. Battles get fought by men, overwealmingly. Yes there were the Amazonians, Bodacia, et al, but in the Western Pantheon that 40k is based, it's men doing the fighting.

Yeah but time changed man. Just look at my military, women were once taboo and had to appear like men to fight in wars. In WW2 our entire army was mix with both males and females.
Our modern army is consisted on roughly 1/3 of females, from 33.000 solders there are 11.000 females in our army.

But I must admit, I to fell sad and angry when I see women die in fighting either in video game or movie.

Yeah but nearly all women are in non-combat roles.
Funnily enough I am indifferent to the casual slaughter of women in videogames. But put them in fatigues and it just looks weird...

Example: the Canadian military has allowed women on the front line for about 30 years, yet out of our total ~100,000 members, there are about 300 women on the frontline.

Joey wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

We can't handle trolling of this magnitude!

It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

This board is already misogynistic enough as it is, don't make it worse.

EDIT: And saying "women don't belong on the battlefield" is silly, and just reinforces gender norms.

BobTheChainsaw wrote:

Joey wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

We can't handle trolling of this magnitude!

It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

This board is already misogynistic enough as it is, don't make it worse.

EDIT: And saying "women don't belong on the battlefield" is silly, and just reinforces gender norms.

Counting the seconds until Melissia sees this.

im2randomghgh wrote:

BobTheChainsaw wrote:

Joey wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

We can't handle trolling of this magnitude!

It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

This board is already misogynistic enough as it is, don't make it worse.

EDIT: And saying "women don't belong on the battlefield" is silly, and just reinforces gender norms.

Counting the seconds until Melissia sees this.

Guys, I think instead of feeding the flames, just reporting the post and moving on is probably the best course of action.

Here's the thing, and I'm very hesitant to dive into this argument, but the main problem most people have with females serving in line units is just basic physiology, not psychological or skill based. The average woman just cannot carry the same load, lift the same amount, or maintain the same level of load bearing endurance as the average man. There will be the armchair naysayer who talks about how modern warfare is mostly mechanized, but that person has never been to Afghanistan, lol. The best female Marines I knew when I was on active duty were only as competent at necessary infantry skills as my most mediocre of male Marines. Women can do plenty of jobs in the military with equal skill to males, but line combat units have certain physical requirements. And a 130-140 pound woman isn't going to be able to carry her share of an infantry squad's load, won't be able to carry/drag a full sized wounded male, etc. That makes them liabilities. It isn't about being able to shoot, or able to withstand the rigors of combat. There is so much more to combat than simply being there and returning fire.

This is before you explore readiness issues like pregnancy and the subsequent maternity leave and the time period new mothers are given to get back into PFT shape. All three statuses make a military member non-deployable. I was attached to a unit once that had a female who had been pregnant twice in three years. You can imagine how much training she had actually engaged in with the rest of the unit, lol.

I'm fine with the idea of putting women into roles where they might be exposed to combat. Properly trained, women can operate most vehicle mounted crew served weapons, or shoot back out of a vehicle with a rifle. But the infantry platoon is not a place to play social experiment. Those guys depend on one another for their lives, and if women are going to be introduced into combat units, they need to be held to the exact same physical standards as their male counterparts, which includes readiness (meaning they'd have to give up reproductive rights to stay in such a unit; a male Marine wouldn't be allowed to be on Light Duty for upwards of a year) something which does not happen now, at least in the US military.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Here's the thing, and I'm very hesitant to dive into this argument, but the main problem most people have with females serving in line units is just basic physiology, not psychological or skill based. The average woman just cannot carry the same load, lift the same amount, or maintain the same level of load bearing endurance as the average man. There will be the armchair naysayer who talks about how modern warfare is mostly mechanized, but that person has never been to Afghanistan, lol. The best female Marines I knew when I was on active duty were only as competent at necessary infantry skills as my most mediocre of male Marines. Women can do plenty of jobs in the military with equal skill to males, but line combat units have certain physical requirements. And a 130-140 pound woman isn't going to be able to carry her share of an infantry squad's load, won't be able to carry/drag a full sized wounded male, etc. That makes them liabilities. It isn't about being able to shoot, or able to withstand the rigors of combat. There is so much more to combat than simply being there and returning fire.

This is before you explore readiness issues like pregnancy and the subsequent maternity leave and the time period new mothers are given to get back into PFT shape. All three statuses make a military member non-deployable. I was attached to a unit once that had a female who had been pregnant twice in three years. You can imagine how much training she had actually engaged in with the rest of the unit, lol.

I'm fine with the idea of putting women into roles where they might be exposed to combat. Properly trained, women can operate most vehicle mounted crew served weapons, or shoot back out of a vehicle with a rifle. But the infantry platoon is not a place to play social experiment. Those guys depend on one another for their lives, and if women are going to be introduced into combat units, they need to be held to the exact same physical standards as their male counterparts, which includes readiness (meaning they'd have to give up reproductive rights to stay in such a unit; a male Marine wouldn't be allowed to be on Light Duty for upwards of a year) something which does not happen now, at least in the US military.

While men are more biologically suited to warfare, women are more than capable of most of the tasks we are. The argument about strength is sensible, but at the same time not necessarily right because the fitness testing for marines is all about strength to weight ratio and cardio (running, pushups, pullups) and while the criteria are set slightly lower for women, the fact remains that many of them are stronger than men usually give them credit for. Should they be on the frontline? Yes. Otherwise we'll have to disallow short and lean men from the military and you start to walk a dangerous path at that point. Not that women are lining up to join the military either way. Also, one advantage I am willing to grant we have over women where warfare is involved without exception is the natural instincts, hormones and thought pattern males have: they lend themselves quite well to warfare.

On a related note, something most feminists seem to overlook with pay for physical labour jobs is that a 225 pound man who carries more crates (for this example) per shift than we can count is more productive than a 125 pound woman would be doing the same job, assuming these crates are heavy burdens. Are you going to give more pay to the more productive worker?

Although the physiological advantages of height, strength and endurance are not to be discounted when talking about the effectiveness of soldiers. And the fact that militaries are almost exclusively men means that it isn't so much an advantage for men as a disadvantage for women.

im2randomghgh wrote:
On a related note, something most feminists seem to overlook with pay for physical labour jobs is that a 225 pound man who carries more crates (for this example) per shift than we can count is more productive than a 125 pound woman would be doing the same job, assuming these crates are heavy burdens. Are you going to give more pay to the more productive worker?

Although the physiological advantages of height, strength and endurance are not to be discounted when talking about the effectiveness of soldiers. And the fact that militaries are almost exclusively men means that it isn't so much an advantage for men as a disadvantage for women.

I used to work in a supermarket and plenty of times I was the only guy on shift and therefore the only one who had the physical strength to actually do half the jobs required.
Anyway women in the military is irrelavent. I think SOB could be scrapped and people are free to disagree.

Joey wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
On a related note, something most feminists seem to overlook with pay for physical labour jobs is that a 225 pound man who carries more crates (for this example) per shift than we can count is more productive than a 125 pound woman would be doing the same job, assuming these crates are heavy burdens. Are you going to give more pay to the more productive worker?

Although the physiological advantages of height, strength and endurance are not to be discounted when talking about the effectiveness of soldiers. And the fact that militaries are almost exclusively men means that it isn't so much an advantage for men as a disadvantage for women.

I used to work in a supermarket and plenty of times I was the only guy on shift and therefore the only one who had the physical strength to actually do half the jobs required.
Anyway women in the military is irrelavent. I think SOB could be scrapped and people are free to disagree.

I agree, for much different reasons that are my own but still.

Also, strength is irrelevant for individuals in PA.

Oh boy, here we go again. I reckon it'll take another two to three generations at least until the last vestiges of the medieval Church's efforts to suppress the role of women have been removed.

Yes, men on average are physically stronger. Women on average are better shots, better drivers and better pilots. I'd say that all of these things are important for frontline combat. Ranged weapon accuracy perhaps even moreso than brute strength, at least in these times. And please, nobody act as if every soldier on the front, including tank drivers and whatnot, would carry a 50 kilo backpack all the time. That doesn't even apply to all patrols. Newsflash: the Silver Star was awarded to a female U.S. soldier who killed a number of insurgents whilst storming a trench whilst on patrol. But apparently, according to some people in this thread, she's a lousy soldier and shouldn't be allowed to serve on the front lines, because after all she's a girl, and that's all people have to know to judge someone's value as a warrior. Mankind sure likes to put people into categories; makes everything easier.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/jun/04/TDOPIN02-5-myths-about-women-in-combat-ar-1084330/

But hey, if your country prefers segregation and is too afraid of this, feel free to send your female volunteers away. I'm sure there's a number of industrialized nations whose military would welcome them with open arms, judging by actual qualifications and not by some general biological denominator like gender. And the list of these countries seems to grow with every passing year.

For the record, though, I do advocate the application of same-score requirements. Equality means equality. In position, qualification and salary.

Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder...try not to derail the thread.

I’ve spent quite a bit of time thinking about the topic. The thing about some of the SM sub factions from a codex structure perspective, is that they are largely identical to the Vanilla book except with different SCs, a couple of unique units and a slightly amended FOC charts. There’s no reason why they couldn’t be done via a single book or single add-on book.

From a game design perspective, the current method of having multiple books for variant sub factions is somewhat sloppy as you end up with identical units/upgrades with radical differences in points costs (due to codex creep, different editions, different authors etc).

Personally what I would do is resurrect the “add-on codex” mechanics of third edition except I’d have a single add-on codex for all of the sub factions (SW, BA, BT, DA) instead of 1 for each. Each of the 4 sub factions listed above would get a section in the book detailing fluff, 1-2 pages of army specific rules (such as FOC chart swapping, unit/FOC restrictions, chapter tactics), special characters and unique units. Considering the sub factions don’t have very many “unique units”, the fluff pages would take up more pages than the rules lol.

Additionally, I’d also ensure that Orks, Eldar and Chaos get comparable add-on codices. Similarly, GK and SoB would probably benefit from being collated in a single Inquisition codex (this book would contain “Chapter Approved” style rules for running pure SoB/Inquisition lists).

Yes, I easily take offense when faced with blatant injustice and pointless bias, regardless of whether it is directed against gender, skin colour or country of origin. A side-effect of my globalism ideals.

I offer my apologies for having fallen for that remark earlier, though, and I'll refrain from commenting on that particular topic in this thread from now on.

Lynata wrote:Oh boy, here we go again. I reckon it'll take another two to three generations at least until the last vestiges of the medieval Church's efforts to suppress the role of women have been removed.

Yes, men on average are physically stronger. Women on average are better shots, better drivers and better pilots. I'd say that all of these things are important for frontline combat. Ranged weapon accuracy perhaps even moreso than brute strength, at least in these times. And please, nobody act as if every soldier on the front, including tank drivers and whatnot, would carry a 50 kilo backpack all the time. That doesn't even apply to all patrols. Newsflash: the Silver Star was awarded to a female U.S. soldier who killed a number of insurgents whilst storming a trench whilst on patrol. But apparently, according to some people in this thread, she's a lousy soldier and shouldn't be allowed to serve on the front lines, because after all she's a girl, and that's all people have to know to judge someone's value as a warrior. Mankind sure likes to put people into categories; makes everything easier.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/jun/04/TDOPIN02-5-myths-about-women-in-combat-ar-1084330/

But hey, if your country prefers segregation and is too afraid of this, feel free to send your female volunteers away. I'm sure there's a number of industrialized nations whose military would welcome them with open arms, judging by actual qualifications and not by some general biological denominator like gender. And the list of these countries seems to grow with every passing year.

For the record, though, I do advocate the application of same-score requirements. Equality means equality. In position, qualification and salary.

I'd like to see your source claiming they are better shots, better drivers and better pilots. I can see them being as good as/better than men where driving is involved in a civilian capacity, but I can't see them being better (even, sure) in a less inhibited setting.

Also, you have an individual story of a female soldier storming a trench. Congrats. Want 1,000 such reports of men doing these things? Simo haya? Audie Murphy? Yogendra Singh Yadav? Jack Churchill? Alvin York? Lachhiman Garung ? I think I've made my point.

It is not that I disapprove of women in the military, you would know that if you read my post, it is simply that men are genetically predisposed towards combat because of our having filled the role of hunter in human society since the dawn of homo sapiens. Conversely, women are more subtle in a social setting, and have better colour recognition simply because they needed to be able to spot ripe berries. Evolution.

Let's continue this via private message. Sent you a batch of links.

Sigh at all the GK hate. We're not even overpowered -.-

I think the vast majority (or maybe the vast vocal majority) needs to get over the spam of MEQ.

It sells the best, is usually the coolest, and it wins games. If you hate it so much, tailor to kill it. You dont tailor? Tough luck.

I cant believe how big of a bunch of whiners 40k players have become. I seriously wonder sometimes...

<thread terminated>

Wow. Just...wow. Folks, if you can't have a civil discussion about which fictional armies in a fictional universe set some fictional 38,000 years into the future, you are going to lose your posting privileges.