None, leave it as it is.
Wolves, Blood Angels, Grey Knights and Dark Angels are too distinct from Space Marines.
The amount of pages you would have to include in the Codex would make the book too impractical to carry around and you're better of having them with a separate codex.
over all I think most of the SM dexes are fairly distinct now and can be left as is. the one 'Dex I think could be rolled into C:SM is CA. the DAsIMHO struggle the most to carve out a distinct and independant niche for themselves. I'm hoping GW'll eventually manage to pull it off. they need to do something, IMHO to really make it pop, as the real things going for them are "well our 1st company uses terminators, and we use a lot of bikes"
Kangodo wrote: None, leave it as it is.
Wolves, Blood Angels, Grey Knights and Dark Angels are too distinct from Space Marines.
The amount of pages you would have to include in the Codex would make the book too impractical to carry around and you're better of having them with a separate codex.
Inquisition (except the vanilla Daemonhunters Inquisitor) into Adepta Sororitas (I understand Inquisition was also part of Grey Knights, but lets have Adepta Sororitas not get the butt end of the deal and give them some additional toys as well, as long as the GKs keep their Assassins)
I am sick and tired of GW splitting the contents of a £20 codex into two £30 codexes each.
YES I KNOW it makes sense fluffwise to keep these things separate (and also gameplay wise, with the whole allies thing and all), as there was a time when assassins were part of the IG dex before they were moved over to GKs. But frankly...IG is a vast and versatile army even without assassins, and GKs stripped off their Inquisitors AND assassins make for a very drab and boring codex, almost like 3rd edition Necrons.
And if the Sisters finally get their own hardcover codex with the Inquisition in it, I'll be a happy kid.
Right now, GW has a mental patient as their creative director.
Astra Millitarum and Military Tempetus. All in all, they could have the MT bits in a separate section of the book.
like the AM warlord traits and the MT traits would be separate and of course require taking X unit over the other. the AM codex practically has 2/3rds of the MT stuff in it anyways.
Shove all those SM in there, I mean you can represent all four chaos gods, and every single legion with "one book", your "distinct styles" Mean jack squat.
I'd say Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels could all reasonably be folded into C:SM with minimal effort. Fundamentally, you can set most of their special rules as a "Chapter Tactics" deal, cover their unique units in the same way Crusader Squads are covered for BT's (e.g. only available to army with X chapter tactics), etc. Most of these armies "unique" things are just weapon or USR swaps as opposed to truly unique units anyway (e.g. Baal pred vs normal pred), often with fewer differences between their "mundane" variant than between different codex iterations of themselves.
The bigger problem would be having a gigantic character section, but I don't think that's really much of a problem.
Could very easily be done.
I'd like to see Chaos as one army again, that'd be neat.
As noted the "Temptestus Scions" (read: Latin gibberish for Stormtroopers) didn't needs its own book and doesn't function well as its own book and could easily be made part of C:IG. Besides, IA12 does the "Stormtroopers as Troops" thing better.
Personally, I think I'm okay with how they're doing it now. The only three Marine armies that actually have their own books now are really fairly distinct from one another in terms of flavor and army style, enough so that I think they deserve their own books. Maybe I'm just biased as a Wolves player, but I feel it worth pointing out that the Wolves are almost a rogue chapter themselves - not only do they have the different names for things, but their entire chapter structure is fairly different compared to everyone else. Wolf Scouts are distinguished veterans instead of low-ranked initiates, there's a greater emphasis on squad mates being like members of a pack (Wolves can't combat squad because of it), and there are units that represent what happens when all but one member of a squad is gone - the Lone Wolf.
Again, I'm probably biased, but I'm of the opinion that the three extra Marine books are fine as is. *Maybe* the Dark Angels could be folded in with rules for changing the FOC (allowing Terminators or Bikes as troops, respectively; IIRC the White Scars already have the latter), but the Blood Angels and Space Wolves follow pretty different paths compared to the rest of the Marine armies.
Codex Astartes - contains all Space Marine Chapters that adhere to the Codex:Astartes
Codex: Space Marines - contains all Space Marine Chapters that do not (eg Space Wolves)
Codex: Hunters - combines SoB, GK, Inquisition, and Assassins
Codex: Imperial Guard - combines AM and MT Codex: Chaos - combines Chaos Daemons and Chaos Space Marines as well as including rules for Traitor Guard.
Codex: Eldar - contains Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar, Corsair Eldar, Harlequins, and Exodite.
Codex: Tech Xenos (or something) - Necrons and Tau
Codex: Hordes (or something) - Tyranids and Orks
Of course this means that the codicies (codii?) would have to be a bit bigger, but it groups nicely. IMO. Which isn't worth much.
Added: I think they should drop codex:sm entirely and make just the deviant codexes. I think the UM will figure out how to make it work with one of the other books. BT can have the entire vanilla book to themselves.
The space marine codex would be bigger than the BRB with SW, DA and BA added. I don't want to carry a 200 page book with 75% useless information on top of the BRB to games. How would it make any sense to start cramming more stuff into what is already by far the largest and most expensive codex? Has anyone actually looked at the amount of unique units and war gear in the 3 other marine codexes? I think GK codex should've been beefed up instead of stripped down to the bare bones and all space marine codexes should stay the way they are. I don't want my army to be a 4 page afterthought in a giant tome with a bunch of info I don't need or want to pay for.
I don't have a problem with excess codexes, especially since the vanilla marine codex is as diverse and I, and I suspect a lot of non-marine players, wish their codex was.
I'd have no problem at all with more marine codexes, though personally I'd want a Cadia or Mordian codex first.
Toofast wrote: The space marine codex would be bigger than the BRB with SW, DA and BA added.
Hardly, it might add a couple dozen extra pages to something that's insultingly thin for $50.
Additionally, you might as well get $50 out of the book, other companies release $50 hardbacks with twice the page count. I've got a 3 year old full color Flames of War book here with probably two or three dozen different armies from half a dozen nations here, and was $50.
I don't want to carry a 200 page book with 75% useless information on top of the BRB to games
Maybe 25%? Most of the stuff is very minor variants.
Also, nobody is going to feel bad for you having to deal with more content and access to more stuff. That's, quite frankly, a silly argument.
How would it make any sense to start cramming more stuff into what is already by far the largest and most expensive codex? Has anyone actually looked at the amount of unique units and war gear in the 3 other marine codexes?
Yeah, most of the variants are exceedingly minor, being primarily weapon and/or USR swaps/additions.
Happyjew wrote: Codex Astartes - contains all Space Marine Chapters that adhere to the Codex:Astartes
Codex: Space Marines - contains all Space Marine Chapters that do not (eg Space Wolves)
Codex: Hunters - combines SoB, GK, Inquisition, and Assassins
Codex: Imperial Guard - combines AM and MT Codex: Chaos - combines Chaos Daemons and Chaos Space Marines as well as including rules for Traitor Guard.
Codex: Eldar - contains Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar, Corsair Eldar, Harlequins, and Exodite.
Codex: Tech Xenos (or something) - Necrons and Tau
Codex: Hordes (or something) - Tyranids and Orks
Of course this means that the codicies (codii?) would have to be a bit bigger, but it groups nicely. IMO. Which isn't worth much.
Interesting grouping. It'd at least be a new idea. Also, I'd like the ability to play a couple different marines. I love my DA, especially the fluff, but wouldn't knock the idea of trying out some CF or BT tactics.
Also, I feel like DA are different, at least as much as BA or SW, but I wouldn't throw out the idea of at least throwing DA into some other SM codex so I can try out their tactics.
changerofways wrote: Lots of people keep going on about how unique DASW and BA are from the other SM but I have yet to see someone say why.
Those things have been explained many times before.
You could always open up a Blood Angels-codex and see for yourself?
My Codex, at the moment, is around 100 pages.
How do you suggest we add this to the Codex: Space Marines?
With chapter tactics the newest SW has bundled some very, very different legions into the same codex.
It just leads me to think people want to feel like a special star and have their Space Marine Legion have its own Codex.
Leads me to believe someone is just jealous because he can't be a special star with his two unique units.
changerofways wrote: Lots of people keep going on about how unique DASW and BA are from the other SM but I have yet to see someone say why.
Those things have been explained many times before.
You could always open up a Blood Angels-codex and see for yourself?
My Codex, at the moment, is around 100 pages.
How do you suggest we add this to the Codex: Space Marines?
With chapter tactics the newest SW has bundled some very, very different legions into the same codex.
It just leads me to think people want to feel like a special star and have their Space Marine Legion have its own Codex.
Leads me to believe someone is just jealous because he can't be a special star with his two unique units.
Like the rest, cut the fluff, combine options that are simply sidegrades.
Maybe this is just because I have lot of armies, but I'd like to see the following
Codex: Astartes. Contains the rules and information for all Space Marine Chapters and making your own. DA, BA, SW and BT have all their unique units included like the BT stuff in the current codex, unlocked by Chapter Tactics
Codex: Imperium. IG, Inquisition, GK, Sisters and Assassins
Codex: Chaos. CSM, Demons, and full traitor guard rules. Includes Legion and Warband rules.
Codex: Ancient Enemies. Necrons, Eldar and DE
Codex: Rising Threat. Nids, Tau and Orks
Each of these would be about double the size of a current book, but there would also be softback 'just the rules' versions available.
changerofways wrote: Lots of people keep going on about how unique DASW and BA are from the other SM but I have yet to see someone say why.
With chapter tactics the newest SW has bundled some very, very different legions into the same codex.
It just leads me to think people want to feel like a special star and have their Space Marine Legion have its own Codex.
Logan and his sleigh
Bjorn
Ulrik
Ragnar
Murderfang
Shield dread
Scouts are elites
Blood claw and wolf guard bikes have totally different Stat lines and weapon options from C:SM bikes
Jump pack troops have different stats from C:SM TWC Harald
Canis
Helfrost weapons
Frost axes/swords
USRs Warlord traits
Psychic powers
FOCs/formations
Relics
Now multiply that by 3. How many pages are we up to there? If you think SW, BA and DA only differ from C:SM in USRs and a couple pieces of war gear you obviously haven't read any of the codexes. Nearly every Stat line from C:SM is different for SW. Now maybe you can tell me how they could be incorporated into C:SM without adding tons of pages.
I don't think there's really an issue as far as current codexes being to many. What needs to stop is publishing these one unit codex just to pad their pockets.
I could get behind a Codex: Imperium. While there's something to be said about keeping IG in its own book (with MT), there are good reason to have either a combined Guard book with an Imperium book (Sisters, GK, Inq, maybe Mechanicus), or just throw it all in together, which help cover some in between faction like Arbites and other fun, fluffy stuff.
Definitely all loyalist marines in one book (two tops, divergent and non divergent), then give Chaos some more love.
The rest of the factions can keep their books, as they're all suitably different.
I love reading there threads.
I have the opposite opinion, I feel there should be more.
Example:
Codex: Space Marines/Ultra-Marines followed be Supplements [Released in rapid succession as part of the ordinal release, like once a week.]
>Salamanders
>Iron Hands
>Space Wolves
>Blood Angels
ect.
Each having there own unique Units and Rules
That and I have to ask, what is wrong with BA/DA/SW each having there own, if you don't want them and are not going to but them, why does it matter.
Anpu42 wrote: I love reading there threads.
I have the opposite opinion, I feel there should be more.
Example:
Codex: Space Marines/Ultra-Marines followed be Supplements [Released in rapid succession as part of the ordinal release, like once a week.]
>Salamanders
>Iron Hands
>Space Wolves
>Blood Angels
ect.
Each having there own unique Units and Rules
That and I have to ask, what is wrong with BA/DA/SW each having there own, if you don't want them and are not going to but them, why does it matter.
What's wrong with each Traitor legion having a codex?
What's wrong with each chaos god having a codex?
What's wrong with a Traitor IG codex?
Might as well go full ridiculous and have a codex for every major regiment, every craftworld, every ork clan, every dark eldar kabal, every necron tomb world, every tau sept, and every tyranid hive fleet.
Only when there are 100+ fully developed faction with their own book, unique units, special characters, and snowflake rules and wargear will be the game be complete.
But of course, that's silly. Most of those things can be represented just fine using the existing books. Making the right unit selections, modelling appropriately, given them a sweet ass paint job, and writing up some cool fluff for your force does most of the job of representing nearly every sub faction you can imagine.
So why should a handful of marine factions require their own books when they all use the same structure, the same wargear, the same vehicles, and the same end goals?
Because it causes unnecessary bloat, is a burden on the players remembering details about the different marine chapters, is costly to collect, takes up significantly more development time, slowing down everything else, and becomes far more difficult to balance.
All of which could be achieved by a well done combined loyalist marine book and chaos marine book. You'd have to flex your imagination a little more, and maybe use things like paint and conversions to make your army as unique as you want it, but it would work fine.
Rules are far from the only or best thing to make a faction feel unique.
I think that all of the Space Marines, with the possible exception of Grey Knights (who could well end up in an Ordo book of their own as part of a larger project).
The same basic units and wargear would be drawn upon as a base, and each Chapter would then have 4-5 pages of specific rules, wargear and special units to accurately reflect that Chapter's traits on the battlefield.
Chaos could get something similar, in fact so could Orks, Guard, Eldar, even Necrons (different dynasties).
changerofways wrote: Lots of people keep going on about how unique DASW and BA are from the other SM but I have yet to see someone say why.
With chapter tactics the newest SW has bundled some very, very different legions into the same codex.
It just leads me to think people want to feel like a special star and have their Space Marine Legion have its own Codex.
Logan and his sleigh
Bjorn
Ulrik
Ragnar
Murderfang
Shield dread
Scouts are elites
Blood claw and wolf guard bikes have totally different Stat lines and weapon options from C:SM bikes
Jump pack troops have different stats from C:SM TWC Harald
Canis
Helfrost weapons
Frost axes/swords
USRs Warlord traits
Psychic powers
FOCs/formations
Relics
Now multiply that by 3. How many pages are we up to there? If you think SW, BA and DA only differ from C:SM in USRs and a couple pieces of war gear you obviously haven't read any of the codexes. Nearly every Stat line from C:SM is different for SW. Now maybe you can tell me how they could be incorporated into C:SM without adding tons of pages.
Lets see: Cut the Psychic Powers, Shield dread is wargear, Frost weapons can be cut, just power weapons + 1 or instead they can upgrade from power weapon for +X points, can cut the relics, FoC/Formations cut, Bloodclaws are just scouts in power armor, and can upgrade to jump packs, Elite scouts are cut, TWC are a unique unit option, helfrost is a unique chapter weapon.
Blacksails wrote: Might as well go full ridiculous and have a codex for every major regiment, every craftworld, every ork clan, every dark eldar kabal, every necron tomb world, every tau sept, and every tyranid hive fleet.
Only when there are 100+ fully developed faction with their own book, unique units, special characters, and snowflake rules and wargear will be the game be complete.
But of course, that's silly. Most of those things can be represented just fine using the existing books. Making the right unit selections, modelling appropriately, given them a sweet ass paint job, and writing up some cool fluff for your force does most of the job of representing nearly every sub faction you can imagine.
So why should a handful of marine factions require their own books when they all use the same structure, the same wargear, the same vehicles, and the same end goals?
Because it causes unnecessary bloat, is a burden on the players remembering details about the different marine chapters, is costly to collect, takes up significantly more development time, slowing down everything else, and becomes far more difficult to balance.
All of which could be achieved by a well done combined loyalist marine book and chaos marine book. You'd have to flex your imagination a little more, and maybe use things like paint and conversions to make your army as unique as you want it, but it would work fine.
Rules are far from the only or best thing to make a faction feel unique.
Well first of all, you are the first person to ever, EVER give me a reason when I have asked, I don't agree with some of it, but thnk you once more.
This is sort of a snarky reply: The not knowing all of the rules of the "Other Codexes" things does hold water for me, I find more than half of the players I deal with do not know the rules of their own Codex let alone others. End Snarkyness
Personally I feel we have the right about of Codexs out there.
Truly the only ones out there that could benefit [and a lot don't think about who it would benefit] are:
>Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines and Traitor Guard
>Inquisition & Sisters
Most others would cause confusion or Book Size increase.
Lets look at the Eldar/Dark Eldar you have two choices
1] Marginalize a lot of units and make some units unavailable to one army without a specific HQ or Formation.
2] Break the book into 3 Sections, One for Eldar, One for Dark Eldar and one for Units available to both.
Both have their Pros, but is mostly Cons to either approach.
Well first of all, you are the first person to ever, EVER give me a reason when I have asked, I don't agree with some of it, but thnk you once more.
Glad I could be of some help.
This is sort of a snarky reply: The not knowing all of the rules of the "Other Codexes" things does hold water for me, I find more than half of the players I deal with do not know the rules of their own Codex let alone others. End Snarkyness
I wouldn't call that snarky at all. Pretty standard if you ask me.
Then again, if most players don't know the basic rules of half the codices already, just imagine their shock when they face faction X for the first time.
Admittedly, its not the strongest counter argument, but its a factor for some players.
Point is, more isn't more. More often than not, less is more.
Personally I feel we have the right about of Codexs out there.
Truly the only ones out there that could benefit [and a lot don't think about who it would benefit] are:
>Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines and Traitor Guard
>Inquisition & Sisters
Most others would cause confusion or Book Size increase.
Lets look at the Eldar/Dark Eldar you have two choices
1] Marginalize a lot of units and make some units unavailable to one army without a specific HQ or Formation.
2] Break the book into 3 Sections, One for Eldar, One for Dark Eldar and one for Units available to both.
Both have their Pros, but is mostly Cons to either approach.
Most of those changes are sensible, but I'd try and avoid creating more books than we already have. Merging marines would open up options for factions that could use a little more diversity.
changerofways wrote: Lots of people keep going on about how unique DASW and BA are from the other SM but I have yet to see someone say why.
Those things have been explained many times before.
You could always open up a Blood Angels-codex and see for yourself?
My Codex, at the moment, is around 100 pages.
How do you suggest we add this to the Codex: Space Marines?
With chapter tactics the newest SW has bundled some very, very different legions into the same codex.
It just leads me to think people want to feel like a special star and have their Space Marine Legion have its own Codex.
Leads me to believe someone is just jealous because he can't be a special star with his two unique units.
Like the rest, cut the fluff, combine options that are simply sidegrades.
Ah, that is a good point. I was just thinking along the lines of rules. Certainly it benefits a faction's fluff to have its own codex!
But then should not every warband chapter and legion have a codex as an end goal for GW? That is a lot of books!
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Lets see: Cut the Psychic Powers, Shield dread is wargear, Frost weapons can be cut, just power weapons + 1 or instead they can upgrade from power weapon for +X points, can cut the relics, FoC/Formations cut, Bloodclaws are just scouts in power armor, and can upgrade to jump packs, Elite scouts are cut, TWC are a unique unit option, helfrost is a unique chapter weapon.
People are never going to be happy about having their army hacked apart to fit in as a few pages in another book. 10 pages are dedicated to special characters' rules alone in the SW codex. 2 pages to units that are completely unique in the TWC and Fenrisian Wolf units.
It would also get very convoluted if you actually tried to bundle SW without losing a whole heap of their rules in to C:SM. You say Blood Claws are just scouts in power armour with a few tweaks.
But rules wise, you actually have to say:
Blood Claws: Instead of initiating new members in to the Scouts like other chapters, Space Wolves initiate new members in to a Blood Claws due to the impetuous and headstrong of Space Wolf recruits learning to deal with the flaws in their newly implanted geneseed. Because of this, Space Wolves modify the typical Scout squad. They do not have Scout armour or Boltguns, but have Power Armour and Close Combat Weapons instead. They lose the following special rules: Infiltrate, Move Through Cover, Scout. Instead, they gain the special rules Acute Senses, Counter Attack and Rage. Instead of being able to only add 5 additional members, they may add up to 10 additional Blood Claws.
The weapon options are also completely different.
Then you have to go on to explain that SW don't get bikes, they get Blood Claw Bikes... which are Scout bikes but again with a list of differences. Then that Blood Claw Assault Marines have -1 Ws and Bs but gain Rage. (actually to be honest I never liked BC bikes, it always made more sense that GH would be on the bikes, but that's a discussion for another day).
Basically, to integrate SW in to C:SM, they either have to lose a lot of character or they have to be confusing and convoluted rules that take up a lot of space in the Codex.
Possible? Sure. Desirable? I don't think so.
Now, if you had of asked me way back in 3rd edition, should SW be rolled in to C:SM, I would have said yes (actually I still would have been mildly unhappy because they did have a book in 2nd edition too, but they were a lot more similar back then and rolling them in would have been much easier, 3rd edition was in general an edition that made me unhappy but I would have been more satisfied to see SW go in to C:SM for the sake of simplicity in an edition that overall was simplifying the game for the better).
Paradigm wrote: You could include Blood Claws/GH in the same way as the Crusader Squad, just have separate units unlocked by Chapter Tactics.
You could do a lot of things, I'm certainly not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying any way you slice it, it's going to take up a lot of extra pages and/or be a hacked down version (even if you throw the fluff in to a separate book and just keep the rules, it's still going to be like that IMO)
Personally, I'd have no problem with a 250+ page book that covered all the Marine chapters. Yes, it'd be expensive, but could include everything from the other books without watering it down.
Paradigm wrote: Personally, I'd have no problem with a 250+ page book that covered all the Marine chapters. Yes, it'd be expensive, but could include everything from the other books without watering it down.
I wouldn't mind it if:
a) Its price were reflective of its worth. Given that current codices are already overpriced, I don't think GW are capable of releasing a book that actually costs what it's worth. Instead, I feel like I'd be paying premium for a whole heap of junk I don't want or use.
b) I felt it would actually let GW focus on other armies. I just tend to think it wouldn't. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think if GW put the effort in to making a 250 page C:SM which was a nice quality product and not watered down at all, they'd still spend a couple of months each year trying to promote it just like the spend a couple of months each year on the various SM codices at the moment.
"Regimental" and "Order" (Chapter) Tacitcs for AM/Guard and Sororitas - huge thing not to have done.
Chaos Renegades - recent rebel Chapters, Guard etc, Lost and the Damned
Chaos Legions - the original Legions with full lists and Chapter Tactics to represent them
Eldar - as is
Dark Eldar - as is
Tau - as is
Orks - as is - but again have Clan Tactics
Necrons - as is
Daemons - as is
leaves room for
Adeptus Mechanicus
Xenos Empires - new smaller races and mecenaries to add as Allies etc
jreilly89 wrote: Maybe someone can explain to me, but why are CSM and Daemons separate codices? Were they always separate or did they used to be one?
Also, I still think an Angels codex would be fun, but I want to be a special star and keep my own DA codex.
They used to be together, each legion and god had specific rules and rules and daemon rules for princes was far more flexible.
And then we got cut down so hard that 'generic' would fit the 4th edition codex. The fact people still want their unique snowflake codex but balk at some other dex getting addition's is laughable.
A lot of the chapter-specific units could be genericized when folded into a combined SM codex. A unit of "Monstrous Cavalry" available to all chapters, or perhaps unlocked by taking the "Feral" Chapter Tactic or some such, would allow SW their special toys without being dead weight for everyone else, and it would add more toys to build the other 997 chapters that currently don't have their special snowflake codex.
lord_blackfang wrote: A lot of the chapter-specific units could be genericized when folded into a combined SM codex. A unit of "Monstrous Cavalry" available to all chapters, or perhaps unlocked by taking the "Feral" Chapter Tactic or some such, would allow SW their special toys without being dead weight for everyone else, and it would add more toys to build the other 997 chapters that currently don't have their special snowflake codex.
The beauty of Space Marines (or anything in sci fi wargaming to be honest), you can make any of those other 997 chapters and use one of the codices for one of the existing chapters. There's nothing saying that if you want to make your own chapter you MUST use C:SM. I've seen plenty of homebrews use SW rules.
jreilly89 wrote: Maybe someone can explain to me, but why are CSM and Daemons separate codices? Were they always separate or did they used to be one?
Also, I still think an Angels codex would be fun, but I want to be a special star and keep my own DA codex.
They used to be together, each legion and god had specific rules and rules and daemon rules for princes was far more flexible.
And then we got cut down so hard that 'generic' would fit the 4th edition codex. The fact people still want their unique snowflake codex but balk at some other dex getting addition's is laughable.
I don't think people are really "balking" at it.
IMO there can be as many or as few codices as you want. You could wrap all of the Imperium in to a single book if you wanted, you could just write a single book for all armies and do away with separate codices completely.
The important question is what is going to get how much attention. SW, BA and DA are already all their own codices. At this point it would take more effort for GW to put them in to a single book than to leave them separate unless they cut a lot of the character that makes those chapters unique.
"Regimental" and "Order" (Chapter) Tacitcs for AM/Guard and Sororitas - huge thing not to have done.
Chaos Renegades - recent rebel Chapters, Guard etc, Lost and the Damned
Chaos Legions - the original Legions with full lists and Chapter Tactics to represent them
Eldar - as is
Dark Eldar - as is
Tau - as is
Orks - as is - but again have Clan Tactics
Necrons - as is
Daemons - as is
leaves room for
Adeptus Mechanicus
Xenos Empires - new smaller races and mecenaries to add as Allies etc
Sounds good to me, but all races should get a variant of chapter tactics.
I see the biggest use with an all Space Marine Codex will be the marginalizing of every Space Marne Chapters.
Everything will become watered down to the point that we might as well just get rid of chapters all together. Space Marines might as well become a giant Multicolored mass of Power Armored Plastic.
Anpu42 wrote: I see the biggest use with an all Space Marine Codex will be the marginalizing of every Space Marne Chapters.
Everything will become watered down to the point that we might as well just get rid of chapters all together. Space Marines might as well become a giant Multicolored mass of Power Armored Plastic.
I highly doubt that. Given that the CSM codex is supposed to cover every legion, every warband, every new renegade, every chaos god, and everything between, and somehow manages to not collapse into "a giant Multicolored mass of Power Armored Plastic", the C:SM would do just fine. It might need a couple dozen extra pages, but when has that ever stopped GW?
Anpu42 wrote: I see the biggest use with an all Space Marine Codex will be the marginalizing of every Space Marne Chapters.
Everything will become watered down to the point that we might as well just get rid of chapters all together. Space Marines might as well become a giant Multicolored mass of Power Armored Plastic.
I highly doubt that. Given that the CSM codex is supposed to cover every legion, every warband, every new renegade, every chaos god, and everything between, and somehow manages to not collapse into "a giant Multicolored mass of Power Armored Plastic", the C:SM would do just fine. It might need a couple dozen extra pages, but when has that ever stopped GW?
Spoiler:
To be honest CSM are just a conglomeration of mixed mashed marginalized units with no real focus. The codex has what...2 builds that are worth anything, look at it and then think about what C:{All}SM would look like.
Codex: Chaos Maries should have been.
>Codex: Space Marines
>Codex: Knorne
>Codex: Nurgle
>Codex: Slannish
>Codex: Teznch
But GW did not do that, that is no reason to punish everyone else for their mistake for a bland flavorless Codex
changerofways wrote: Lots of people keep going on about how unique DASW and BA are from the other SM but I have yet to see someone say why.
With chapter tactics the newest SW has bundled some very, very different legions into the same codex.
It just leads me to think people want to feel like a special star and have their Space Marine Legion have its own Codex.
Logan and his sleigh
Bjorn
Ulrik
Ragnar
Murderfang
Shield dread
Scouts are elites
Blood claw and wolf guard bikes have totally different Stat lines and weapon options from C:SM bikes
Jump pack troops have different stats from C:SM TWC Harald
Canis
Helfrost weapons
Frost axes/swords
USRs Warlord traits
Psychic powers
FOCs/formations
Relics
Now multiply that by 3. How many pages are we up to there? If you think SW, BA and DA only differ from C:SM in USRs and a couple pieces of war gear you obviously haven't read any of the codexes. Nearly every Stat line from C:SM is different for SW. Now maybe you can tell me how they could be incorporated into C:SM without adding tons of pages.
Lets see: Cut the Psychic Powers, Shield dread is wargear, Frost weapons can be cut, just power weapons + 1 or instead they can upgrade from power weapon for +X points, can cut the relics, FoC/Formations cut, Bloodclaws are just scouts in power armor, and can upgrade to jump packs, Elite scouts are cut, TWC are a unique unit option, helfrost is a unique chapter weapon.
Oh ok, so just cut 95% of what makes them space wolves and turn them into grey space marines. Yes, that makes perfect sense and I'm sure every space wolves player would be thrilled about it. /sarcasm
The psychic powers have been a major part of SW since 5th. Blood claws are not scouts in power armor, they have totally different Stat lines and war gear options. Once again, have you even read the SW codex or are you just pulling stuff out your a--? You just proved everyone's point for them, you could not incorporate space wolves into C:SM without either adding 40 pages just for space wolves or removing everything that makes them a unique faction to begin with.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Lets see: Cut the Psychic Powers, Shield dread is wargear, Frost weapons can be cut, just power weapons + 1 or instead they can upgrade from power weapon for +X points, can cut the relics, FoC/Formations cut, Bloodclaws are just scouts in power armor, and can upgrade to jump packs, Elite scouts are cut, TWC are a unique unit option, helfrost is a unique chapter weapon.
Cut, cut, cut, cut and cut.
And you still wonder why people dislike the idea of combining codices?
You ask them to cut everything.
To either delay a new codex for a year or have Space Marines redone when they are just a year old.
You ask people to carry around a 250pg book of which they can ignore 75%
And you ask people to pay nearly double the amount of money for stuff they don't need.
And why? Because you don't like it that they have a separate Codex?
How about we put the Chaos Marines in the Space Marine-Codex and just cut their special units and use a Chapter Trait for their Marks? That would be even easier than adding Blood Angels to the Codex: Space Marines!
Anpu42 wrote: I see the biggest use with an all Space Marine Codex will be the marginalizing of every Space Marne Chapters.
Everything will become watered down to the point that we might as well just get rid of chapters all together. Space Marines might as well become a giant Multicolored mass of Power Armored Plastic.
Would this be any different than what every other race currently deals with?
Why is that marines are so special and unique that they need a book for 1000 dudes in power armour, otherwise you'd consider them a multicolored mass of power armour?
There is far more to creating a unique and flavourful marine army than a handful of special rules or wargear. A combined marine book done well would not marginalize marines, if anything, it would open more opportunities for DIY chapters that can dip into more resources from the same book.
Anpu42 wrote: I see the biggest use with an all Space Marine Codex will be the marginalizing of every Space Marne Chapters.
Everything will become watered down to the point that we might as well just get rid of chapters all together. Space Marines might as well become a giant Multicolored mass of Power Armored Plastic.
Would this be any different than what every other race currently deals with?
Why is that marines are so special and unique that they need a book for 1000 dudes in power armour, otherwise you'd consider them a multicolored mass of power armour?
There is far more to creating a unique and flavourful marine army than a handful of special rules or wargear. A combined marine book done well would not marginalize marines, if anything, it would open more opportunities for DIY chapters that can dip into more resources from the same book.
I am arguing against the Marginalizing of ANY Codex.
Them taking away the Black Templar, Craft World Eldar and Squats were some of the biggest mistakes they ever made. At least they are putting out Mini-Dexs now.
And yes Space Marines are special, they are the core of the game. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space, Black Templars Space Marines are what got most of my local group into playing the game. Not Orks, Nids or even Eldar.
I am arguing against the Marginalizing of ANY Codex.
Them taking away the Black Templar, Craft World Eldar and Squats were some of the biggest mistakes they ever made. At least they are putting out Mini-Dexs now.
And yes Space Marines are special, they are the core of the game. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space, Black Templars Space Marines are what got most of my local group into playing the game. Not Orks, Nids or even Eldar.
A properly done Big Book of Marines wouldn't marginalize any chapter though. Really, all the chapters could be represented easily by some special rules a la Chapter Tactics, a small handful of special characters (no more than three), and a special unit or two. Everything else is shared/common between them.
I don't think rolling in BT was a huge mistake. Rather, it was a good move marred by sub standard execution, which is a common theme for GW.
As for marines being the core of the game, they're certainly the best seller. Its a bit circular though, as pushing more and more marines will sell more marines, which in turn causes them to push more marines to sell more marines. Also, don't confuse your group for any sort of universal truth. My old group had a singular marine player out of a dozen. We had some 5 IG players though.
I don't really think marines are so special as to merit a book for each marginally different chapter.
the removal of a seperate BTs codex, I'm not sure was a mistake, so much as a "hard choice" I think ultimatly GW made the decision because the financials for the codex just wheren't there. basicly it wasn't cost effective to produce a new BT codex.
So the idea is we roll them all into a 250+ Page book that will cost $100, and then one has to shell out another $100 for the main rulebook before buying a model.
And yes the Black Templar was a bad choice and now most Black Templar players have either dropped out or are now using "Count As" rules because shoving them into Codex: Space Marines.
Now saying that if they did it I would probably not Stop playing my Space Wolves, I have been playing them since before Codexs were a thing, but now that they have had them out and made them almost nothing like Space Marines it would ruin the game for many of us.
Anpu42 wrote: I see the biggest use with an all Space Marine Codex will be the marginalizing of every Space Marne Chapters.
Everything will become watered down to the point that we might as well just get rid of chapters all together. Space Marines might as well become a giant Multicolored mass of Power Armored Plastic.
Whereas at the moment GW have to keep coming up with increasingly silly "Unique" units and characters to make them "wolffy" or "Blood Guns firing Blood bullets which explode into blood explosions" just to try and make them actually different.
Most Astartes are not and have not been especially different - even Space Wolves in the original incarnation (Book of the Astronomican) were just Marines with a different colour scheme.
A good well thought out those Chapters that don;t follow the Codex as well as one covering the Codex Chapers (as is) could cover the different chapters but not mean we have to suffer all the recent crap stuff.
Lets look at this in a way that won't Marginalize them for some of the units.
Wolf Lord: Just make him a Chapter Master, but to make him a Space Wolf he looses Orbital Bombardment. Now he needs a point cost or add Special Rule to pay for the loss of Orbital Bombardment. Has accesses to Special Wargear that is only available to those who take Chapter Tactics: Space Wolves.
Space Wolf Dreadnaught: Some Space Wolf only Weapons and Rules including the Axe and Shield.
Grey Hunters: Just make them a Tactical Squad, There Chapter Tactics: Space Wolves Removes the use of Heavy Weapons, Adds a second Special Weapon, now has access to the Stormwolf as a Dedicated Transport. The also loose there Sargent and now must buy one, also the can buy a Power Weapon and a Plasma Pistol.
Wolf Scouts: Just make them Wolf Scouts, but they are 1st moved to an Elite Slot and then given the Space Marine Stateline. Then add the ability for 2 of them to take Plasma Pistols or Power Weapons and the ability to take a Special or Heavy Weapon and no Accessed to the Land Speeder Storm.
Blood Claws: There is nothing equivalent, so they would need to be added.
Skyclaws: Take Assault Marines -1 to multiple stats, remove the Sargent and then give the option to by him back, then add the ability to take a Power Weapon.
Swift Claws: See Skyclaws
Thunderwolf Calvary: Must Add.
Fenrisian Wolves: Must Add
Long Fangs: Just make them Devastators, but can only have 2-6 Models, one can be made a WGPL including the option for Terminator Armor.
A couple of those options will just add clunky rules for TFG/WAAC players to manipulate and make things worse than they are now.
The other option is to make them Grey Marines like the rest.
Anpu42 wrote: Lets look at this in a way that won't Marginalize them for some of the units.
Wolf Lord: Just make him a Chapter Master, but to make him a Space Wolf he looses Orbital Bombardment. Now he needs a point cost or add Special Rule to pay for the loss of Orbital Bombardment. Has accesses to Special Wargear that is only available to those who take Chapter Tactics: Space Wolves.
Space Wolf Dreadnaught: Some Space Wolf only Weapons and Rules including the Axe and Shield.
Grey Hunters: Just make them a Tactical Squad, There Chapter Tactics: Space Wolves Removes the use of Heavy Weapons, Adds a second Special Weapon, now has access to the Stormwolf as a Dedicated Transport. The also loose there Sargent and now must buy one, also the can buy a Power Weapon and a Plasma Pistol.
Wolf Scouts: Just make them Wolf Scouts, but they are 1st moved to an Elite Slot and then given the Space Marine Stateline. Then add the ability for 2 of them to take Plasma Pistols or Power Weapons and the ability to take a Special or Heavy Weapon and no Accessed to the Land Speeder Storm.
Blood Claws: There is nothing equivalent, so they would need to be added.
Skyclaws: Take Assault Marines -1 to multiple stats, remove the Sargent and then give the option to by him back, then add the ability to take a Power Weapon.
Swift Claws: See Skyclaws
Thunderwolf Calvary: Must Add.
Fenrisian Wolves: Must Add
Long Fangs: Just make them Devastators, but can only have 2-6 Models, one can be made a WGPL including the option for Terminator Armor.
A couple of those options will just add clunky rules for TFG/WAAC players to manipulate and make things worse than they are now.
The other option is to make them Grey Marines like the rest.
Or alternatively you just make units that will work for SW and other non codex Chapters:
Why exactly does the Wolf Lord not get orbital bombardment and could not be represented by a Chapter Master?
Just give some extra close Combat options for the Dreadnought which would allow the more Specalist /silly variants
Grey Hunters - just give non Codex Tac mariens option for CC weapon
Skyclaws and Blood Calws - just give a option for Jump packs to scouts
Thunderwolf Cavalry and Fenersian Wolves - another example foGW trying to think up stuff to make the Codex unique - just give a Feral beast / Riding beast option for non Codex marines
Long Fangs - Devestators - option to upgrade to Veterans
Chapter Tactics for the various non Codex Chapters
Don't forget the third option: Let them remain a Codex of their own
Why try to add clunky rules and bend things as much as possible in the first place? Instead of explaining how we could add Space Wolves to the Codex: Space Marines by adding overly complicated rules, removing special things and changing unique rules we would be better off discussing why the hell we would merge them in the first place. Merging those with the original Codex is not only inconvenient for Space Wolves-players, but also for other Space Marine players.
And that is just for one Codex! The same goes for Grey Knights and Dark Angels. My army of Blood Angels would give the same amount of issues: 17 unique entries and tons of special rules and weapons, combined with a gigantic amount of lore. Simply saying that we can remove those things is nothing more than a big "feth you!" to people that play those armies. And why? Because some people feel offended because they have a separate Codex.
But ignoring all that: People have still failed to give a good reason as to why they should be merged.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Lets see: Cut the Psychic Powers, Shield dread is wargear, Frost weapons can be cut, just power weapons + 1 or instead they can upgrade from power weapon for +X points, can cut the relics, FoC/Formations cut, Bloodclaws are just scouts in power armor, and can upgrade to jump packs, Elite scouts are cut, TWC are a unique unit option, helfrost is a unique chapter weapon.
Cut, cut, cut, cut and cut.
And you still wonder why people dislike the idea of combining codices?
You ask them to cut everything.
To either delay a new codex for a year or have Space Marines redone when they are just a year old.
You ask people to carry around a 250pg book of which they can ignore 75%
And you ask people to pay nearly double the amount of money for stuff they don't need.
And why? Because you don't like it that they have a separate Codex?
How about we put the Chaos Marines in the Space Marine-Codex and just cut their special units and use a Chapter Trait for their Marks? That would be even easier than adding Blood Angels to the Codex: Space Marines!
I've already had CSM cut down, maybe if SM players felt it too they'd start crying out for changes.
Anpu42 wrote: Lets look at this in a way that won't Marginalize them for some of the units.
Wolf Lord: Just make him a Chapter Master, but to make him a Space Wolf he looses Orbital Bombardment. Now he needs a point cost or add Special Rule to pay for the loss of Orbital Bombardment. Has accesses to Special Wargear that is only available to those who take Chapter Tactics: Space Wolves.
Space Wolf Dreadnaught: Some Space Wolf only Weapons and Rules including the Axe and Shield.
Grey Hunters: Just make them a Tactical Squad, There Chapter Tactics: Space Wolves Removes the use of Heavy Weapons, Adds a second Special Weapon, now has access to the Stormwolf as a Dedicated Transport. The also loose there Sargent and now must buy one, also the can buy a Power Weapon and a Plasma Pistol.
Wolf Scouts: Just make them Wolf Scouts, but they are 1st moved to an Elite Slot and then given the Space Marine Stateline. Then add the ability for 2 of them to take Plasma Pistols or Power Weapons and the ability to take a Special or Heavy Weapon and no Accessed to the Land Speeder Storm.
Blood Claws: There is nothing equivalent, so they would need to be added.
Skyclaws: Take Assault Marines -1 to multiple stats, remove the Sargent and then give the option to by him back, then add the ability to take a Power Weapon.
Swift Claws: See Skyclaws
Thunderwolf Calvary: Must Add.
Fenrisian Wolves: Must Add
Long Fangs: Just make them Devastators, but can only have 2-6 Models, one can be made a WGPL including the option for Terminator Armor.
A couple of those options will just add clunky rules for TFG/WAAC players to manipulate and make things worse than they are now.
The other option is to make them Grey Marines like the rest.
Or alternatively you just make units that will work for SW and other non codex Chapters:
Why exactly does the Wolf Lord not get orbital bombardment and could not be represented by a Chapter Master?
>He does not have it as an option.
Just give some extra close Combat options for the Dreadnought which would allow the more Specialist /silly variants
>Which just adds more rules to an already bloated book once you roll in Blood Angels and Dark Angels.
Grey Hunters - just give non Codex Tac Marines option for CC weapon.
>But then they become Tactical Marines, which they are NOT!
Skyclaws and Blood Claws - just give a option for Jump packs to scouts
>So take away there Power Armor?
Thunderwolf Cavalry and Fenrisian Wolves - another example to GW trying to think up stuff to make the Codex unique - just give a Feral beast / Riding beast option for non Codex marines
>Yah…Vulcan riding a giant Fire Breathing Salamander. [Well that actually sound kind of cool]
Long Fangs - Devastators - option to upgrade to Veterans
>They are not Devastators
Chapter Tactics for the various non Codex Chapters
>Well I would love all of the surviving founding Chapters to get there own Dex of some sort.
Have you ever read any of the Codex: Space Wolves Books?
Put all the Space Marines in one codex and give them different chapter tactics, wargear options, and a few special rules and characters. Most of the new supplemental codices have like a page or two of rules. Compiling them all together has worked fine in the past before. The different SM Chapters aren't even that distinct:
BA: Death Company (assault marines with some special rules cause they're crazy), Sanguinary Guard, Baal and Furioso upgrades to existing units
SW: can take big squads of marines with pistols and CC's but nobody actually does cause they suck, Fenrisian Wolves, Wolf Riders, Lone Wolves (weaker versions of HQ's that don't join squads and have a different place on the force org chart)
DA: upgrades to bikes and termies plus alternate org options
BT: Can put scouts and normal marines in 1 squad with CC's and pistols
Other than that, it's the same blokes in power armor, the same vehicles, and the same HQ's with different names and a couple different wargear options.
And half the time people play these chapters as vanilla marines, because the vanilla codex is more competitive and balanced better.
So after adding a small list of special rules for chapters, a small list of chapter specific upgrades to existing units, and a small list of chapter specific special characters, there are maybe three or four unique units left to give rules to. So everything they're now covering in three or four different codices, they could cover in as many pages in a vanilla SM codex. Making all these different codices for practically identical armies saps time and energy away from other, more unique armies that actually need their own books.
Daemons and CSM being put in the same category as all the SM codices isn't really a fair comparison. At least Chaos Daemons and CSM have very different stats and fight very differently from each other. It'd be difficult to cram all those different units and rules into one codex. It's not like the different chapters, where they all have a huge amount of shared units between codices with literally the exact same rules copy pasted. A much better comparison would be the Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter codices. I don't think each CSM faction needs its own codex either, and again they're all nearly identical. Again, each Legion should just have a few unique special rules, wargear options, and special characters.
As a rule of thumb, if the majority of units in a codex are copy pasted, it should go.
But hey, we all know the multiplicity of codices is nothing but a cash grab by GW.
Chapter Tactics, some special rules and wargear-options isn't going to work in these cases!
It makes it too complicated and it would remove too many stuff.
And again another post without refusing to start by giving a good reason as to why they'd need a merge in the first place!
The different SM Chapters aren't even that distinct:
That settles it. You've never read their codices.
Someone actually tried to make a 'Blood Angel Detachment' that would fix many things, it was messy and had a dozen benefits and restrictions. Unreadable and unplayable.
But hey, we all know the multiplicity of codices is nothing but a cash grab by GW.
How so? At the moment a GK-player can buy a $50 Codex and a Space Marine player can buy the $60 Codex.
If they were all bundled both had to buy a $80 Codex.
I haven't seen a single convincing reason for why 3 chapters with tons of unique fluff, units, stats, relics, psychic powers and war gear options should be crammed into 1 book that's already expensive and bloated. Nobody wants to answer that question because there is no logical answer to it. Your argument is "because space marines have too many different books." If one of those chapters was severely underrepresented in the player base that might be a good argument. The 20 people who play SW, BA and DA in my local group and don't want to have 75% of their rules, special units and fluff stripped away and carry a $100, 250 page codex to every game just because you're butthurt prove that's not an issue. Templars got rolled in because not very many people played them compared to the other 3 and they had far less differences from C:SM. C:SM is already too bloated, adding more chapters that are different from C:SM in almost every unit entry is the opposite of a solution. It would cause a player backlash like we haven't seen since the spots fiasco and cost GW money just in codex sales. Not to mention the limited edition stuff like wolf guard SW codex that they wouldn't be able to do. I'm sorry but "because space marines suck and I hate them" is not a valid, logical reason to roll them all into one book the size of Moby dick.
I agree that not all SM should be rolled into one book.
That said, how much does DA lose by being merged into Codex Space Marines?
Inner Circle. Grim Resolve, and Deathwing Assault get rolled into Chapter Tactics: Dark Angels. Deathwing Knights/Ravenwing Black Knights are added with a similar clause as Crusader Squads.
BA are a similar situation. Make "Lucifer Engines" (or whatever they are called) a special rule and a part of Chapter Tactics. Add what, 3 units? that can only be taken in a Blood Angels Detachment.
Space Wolves and Grey Knights are really the only Space Marine armies that do not adhere to the Codex Astartes, and I could see being justified into having their own codex.
Of course, we could always go the other way. Codex: Ultramarins Codex: Salamanders Codex: Iyanden Codex: Ulthwe Codex: Thousand Sons Codex Traitor Guard Codex: Cadia Codex: Farsight Enclave etc.
From a background perspective, the only one army in the franchise that "deserves" more than one Codex is the Imperial Guard, as its regiments are way more diverse from one another than the various Marine Chapters. In cruel irony, however, the IG remains locked into a single book, whereas Space Marines have several.
Financially, it seems sound, as Space Marines supposedly form the majority of the playerbase - by a large margin. One could argue that this is merely the result of GW's focus on Marines, and that ultimately the resulting lack of variety actually ends up hurting the game, but that doesn't change that I can at least see why GW would choose this path. And it fits to what has been their modus operandi for decades.
Just don't try to argue based on fluff or rules. As mentioned above, other armies feature a much greater diversity, and individual special rules or units could easily be "patched in" via GW's new supplements approach (see Clan Raukaan). If they are actually necessary to begin with. I'd argue that GW's practice of retroactively piling new units on top of existing armies does not automatically make them part of its core (arguably they were quite fine before too), just like I believe that people who love an army for its rules rather than its fluff/style/looks are "doing it wrong" (but that may simply be because I do not understand competitiveness in tabletop gaming at all).
All marines into one Dex. Tbh, I don't buy the "It would take sooo many rules to make them comparable" argument. A lot of "unique" wargear is stuff that either isn't much different from the Codex variants or should be accessible to Codex marines anyway.
What could be done is to eliminate all the special units as is. Instead, give more options to the Codex entries to allow people to upgrade into something comparable. Ex. Upgrade Bikers with beast mounts to represent TWC and give bikers in general access to the melee weapons list.
Add in a few character entries, Chapter tactics to buff certain styles of play and you have a Codex that really allows the player to make their own chapter.
I think GW's master plan is to split the armies into so many separate volumes that players have to switch to digital copies due to the impracticality of carrying so many books. They probably hope that once people do this, they'll get more codexes because there's no additional carry weight, and end up buying more armies. Additionally, they'll keep raising the prices, but they'll have no business expense for the distribution of digital editions.
So to that I say that I like having a physical book, because with care, it'll outlive the rules in it, while electronics have a set lifespan.
I think some of the current books need to be combined, but it needs to be done carefully. I would be perfectly fine with a book containing more than one faction. They could even save a few pages by combining the Wargear lists, and it doesn't mean they would have to stop being separate factions like they were in their separate books.
Inquisition would be complimented well by Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle. They are all extremely unique, and rather small compared to other factions. It also would make sense as the Grey Knights are the militant branch of the Ordo Malleus, while the Sisters of Battle are the Militant Branch of the Ordo Hereticus. The volume could have 2 sewn in ribbon bookmarks that could be used to separate the three factions, or for quick reference to certain units.
Guard should be put back in one volume (Astra Militarum & Militarum Tempestus) There isn't enough there to warrant separate volumes.
Chaos Space Marines and Daemons could compliment well. A Chaos player wouldn't have to buy a second book just to use the summoning powers his units already have.
The loyalist Space Marines are a little more tricky. Many of the differences can be taken care of in the Chapter Tactics. However, Each faction's unique HQs and other units (specifically Space Wolves units) add up to a really long book. I'd make it a 2 volume codex with all of them in there.
I haven't seen enough of the Xenos races to say what would be the best balance for them.
What I'd like best would be for all of the fluff to be taken out of the codexes. The Core rulebook was split into 3 volumes, one of which being only fluff. Put the factions' fluff into their own book(s). I'm tired of wearing out the book's spine flipping through the fluff pages to get to my rules.
Yes let's combine as many books as possible. That way everyone can take a bigger, more expensive book with stuff they don't necessarily need or want to every game. Nobody wins, yayyy! I'm all for separating the fluff and rules but that would also come with a higher production cost and higher price unless they made the books available separately (which from 7th BRB we know will never happen). I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why less books with more cost and bloat is somehow a good thing.
TheCustomLime wrote:Add in a few character entries, Chapter tactics to buff certain styles of play and you have a Codex that really allows the player to make their own chapter.
Yeah, something like Chapter Traits in the 4E Marine 'dex, or the Regimental Doctrines from the 3E Guard 'dex - it'd also make it more interesting for people creating their own Chapters. Customisation is always good. The official Chapters would simply have a hard-locked set of Traits, exactly like the official Guard regiments listed in the 3E 'dex.
ForeverARookie wrote:while the Sisters of Battle are the Militant Branch of the Ordo Hereticus
Not anymore.
Also, I can't really see how a few SC and special units from BA, DA and SW would necessitate "a second volume", but throwing GK and SoB - two armies that do not share a single common unit, to say nothing of the special rules - together makes perfect sense. Not to mention the fluff that would have to be sacrificed to save space, compared to every Marine Chapter's background being 50% general copypasta about the Horus Heresy.
Given how the last Codex that had the Sisters share space with a second army ended up, I'm not sure you're going to find a lot of fans for the idea of a book with three armies.
Also, it's my opinion that the Inquisition should remain a supplemental add-on for every Imperial army, necessitating it to stand apart from other lists. They do need ISTs and the Deathwatch, though - I have no idea why GW chose to leave those out from their minidex.
Toofast wrote:Yes let's combine as many books as possible. That way everyone can take a bigger, more expensive book with stuff they don't necessarily need or want to every game. Nobody wins, yayyy!
To be fair, a "Codex Imperialis" - which already existed once - would at least make sure that every army is updated at the same time, and you'd only need a single book wherever you play. Nobody would get the idea of separating the different classes of a P&P RPG into separate books - it's not mandatory to do so for a tabletop wargame either. I guess it depends on whether we want to focus on a single army or what may be better for the game as a whole.
Toofast wrote: Yes let's combine as many books as possible. That way everyone can take a bigger, more expensive book with stuff they don't necessarily need or want to every game. Nobody wins, yayyy! I'm all for separating the fluff and rules but that would also come with a higher production cost and higher price unless they made the books available separately (which from 7th BRB we know will never happen). I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why less books with more cost and bloat is somehow a good thing.
GW will raise the prices regardless of what they do with the codexes. To field what was in the current Grey Knight Codex I purchased new for $33, I would have to buy the new Grey Knight Codex for $50, the Inquisition Codex for $25, and the Assassins Codex for $20. And there is a "limited edition" Grey Knight Codex for $110.
$95 (or $155) for what I could previously field for $33. My costs tripled because of the unneeded splitting of my codex. Splitting the codexes is one of GW's ways of trying to hide their price hikes. If they'd left everything in the Grey Knight Codex and tried to charge $155 for it, every single Grey Knight/Inquisition player would have sold their army because there is no universe in which that price is acceptable.
I've always bought the official models and books, but doing things the honest way is much harder when GW is pulling this sort of crap, all of the books can be found online for free, and China has almost perfected all of the GW models and is selling them for a fraction of the cost.
We aren't talking about splitting the current codexes. We are talking about combining existing codexes. In this case, SW, BA, and DA have had their own books for the entire history of the game. I do take issue with them splitting things up the way they did with GK. GK is not a 150 page $60 codex already full of bloat. There was no reason to split up what was already the thinnest codex with the least amount of units (other than sob) except for a blatant cash grab. There is a big difference between putting inquisition in GK and putting SW in C:SM.
martin74 wrote: Grey Knights, Inquisition, and Sisters of Battle should be one codex.
GK are for ordo malleus
SoB are for ordo hereticus
Overwach for ordo xenos ( in most times)
these sould be the 3 codexes, like the old times that were deamonhunders and wichhunters
Toofast wrote: We aren't talking about splitting the current codexes. We are talking about combining existing codexes. In this case, SW, BA, and DA have had their own books for the entire history of the game. I do take issue with them splitting things up the way they did with GK. GK is not a 150 page $60 codex already full of bloat. There was no reason to split up what was already the thinnest codex with the least amount of units (other than sob) except for a blatant cash grab. There is a big difference between putting inquisition in GK and putting SW in C:SM.
You make good points, and I'd like to see each army having a fair shake. I said the Space Marines were a touchy subject because they are the most numerous and have the most similarities. You are correct that the Space Wolves break the mold, which is why I put it towards the end with the more tentative ideas.
Fewer books means fewer updates. They could release a handful of new codexes whenever they make a new edition of the core rules so all of the armies are on the same page, instead of piecemealing it out so one faction is always overpowered and another is always underpowered.
martin74 wrote: Grey Knights, Inquisition, and Sisters of Battle should be one codex.
GK are for ordo malleus
SoB are for ordo hereticus
Overwach for ordo xenos ( in most times)
these sould be the 3 codexes, like the old times that were deamonhunders and wichhunters
SoB are independent of Ordo Hereticus and were shoehorned into witch hunters.
martin74 wrote: Grey Knights, Inquisition, and Sisters of Battle should be one codex.
GK are for ordo malleus
SoB are for ordo hereticus
Overwach for ordo xenos ( in most times)
these sould be the 3 codexes, like the old times that were deamonhunders and wichhunters
SoB are independent of Ordo Hereticus and were shoehorned into witch hunters.
but they got same objectives so are very close together, and so inqustors from hereticus could be in their codex
it makes more sense than last GK codex, whith has all 3 ordos whith the GK
Mr Morden wrote: Or alternatively you just make units that will work for SW and other non codex Chapters:
Why exactly does the Wolf Lord not get orbital bombardment and could not be represented by a Chapter Master?
Just give some extra close Combat options for the Dreadnought which would allow the more Specalist /silly variants
Grey Hunters - just give non Codex Tac mariens option for CC weapon
Skyclaws and Blood Calws - just give a option for Jump packs to scouts
Thunderwolf Cavalry and Fenersian Wolves - another example foGW trying to think up stuff to make the Codex unique - just give a Feral beast / Riding beast option for non Codex marines
Long Fangs - Devestators - option to upgrade to Veterans
Chapter Tactics for the various non Codex Chapters
I'm sorry but that would totally suck. Your suggestions either suck, do not represent the uniqueness of Space Wolves (purely from a rules perspective without even considering fluff) or would have to be much more cumbersome than you are suggesting.
The problem I'm seeing is that people are butthurt that SW get attention. That's not the way I look at it. The way I look at it, if you want to play a Space Marine chapter that is more focused on close assault, has less of the "codex astartes" structure and is more feral in nature, then you use the SW rules. You don't have to call yourself Space Wolves, you don't have to be a furry. The rules exist as another option to the basic C:SM style.
Now, if your opposition is that the uniqueness shouldn't exist at all, ok, I can get down with that.... but it should have been done in 3rd edition, not now.
If your opposition is that GW should spend more time focusing on the Xenos, I agree. I'd be happy to see the same level attention given to all Xenos. But those other Marine codices exist because they are popular and because GW love to push their marines. The SW release was only a 3 week release, the Orks were a 6 week release. If GW are only dedicating 6 weeks worth of releases a year to other Space Marine chapters, I don't really have a big problem with that.
Paradigm wrote: Maybe this is just because I have lot of armies, but I'd like to see the following
Codex: Astartes. Contains the rules and information for all Space Marine Chapters and making your own. DA, BA, SW and BT have all their unique units included like the BT stuff in the current codex, unlocked by Chapter Tactics
Codex: Imperium. IG, Inquisition, GK, Sisters and Assassins
Codex: Chaos. CSM, Demons, and full traitor guard rules. Includes Legion and Warband rules.
Codex: Ancient Enemies. Necrons, Eldar and DE
Codex: Rising Threat. Nids, Tau and Orks
Each of these would be about double the size of a current book, but there would also be softback 'just the rules' versions available.
I'd love to have a Codex Astartes. I wonder, has GW ever experimented with releasing any kind of book or supplement that allowed players to make their own factions/rules? It's something that roleplaying franchises sometimes do.
martin74 wrote: Grey Knights, Inquisition, and Sisters of Battle should be one codex.
GK are for ordo malleus
SoB are for ordo hereticus
Overwach for ordo xenos ( in most times)
these sould be the 3 codexes, like the old times that were deamonhunders and wichhunters
SoB are independent of Ordo Hereticus and were shoehorned into witch hunters.
but they got same objectives so are very close together, and so inqustors from hereticus could be in their codex
it makes more sense than last GK codex, whith has all 3 ordos whith the GK
except their objectives aren't that similer, the Ordo Hereticis, serves to hunt down ehretics and witches within the Imperium, the SoBs are the millitant arm of the church. VERY VERY goals.
Mr Morden wrote: Or alternatively you just make units that will work for SW and other non codex Chapters:
Why exactly does the Wolf Lord not get orbital bombardment and could not be represented by a Chapter Master?
Just give some extra close Combat options for the Dreadnought which would allow the more Specalist /silly variants
Grey Hunters - just give non Codex Tac mariens option for CC weapon
Skyclaws and Blood Calws - just give a option for Jump packs to scouts
Thunderwolf Cavalry and Fenersian Wolves - another example foGW trying to think up stuff to make the Codex unique - just give a Feral beast / Riding beast option for non Codex marines
Long Fangs - Devestators - option to upgrade to Veterans
Chapter Tactics for the various non Codex Chapters
I'm sorry but that would totally suck. Your suggestions either suck, do not represent the uniqueness of Space Wolves (purely from a rules perspective without even considering fluff) or would have to be much more cumbersome than you are suggesting.
The problem I'm seeing is that people are butthurt that SW get attention. That's not the way I look at it. The way I look at it, if you want to play a Space Marine chapter that is more focused on close assault, has less of the "codex astartes" structure and is more feral in nature, then you use the SW rules. You don't have to call yourself Space Wolves, you don't have to be a furry. The rules exist as another option to the basic C:SM style.
Now, if your opposition is that the uniqueness shouldn't exist at all, ok, I can get down with that.... but it should have been done in 3rd edition, not now.
If your opposition is that GW should spend more time focusing on the Xenos, I agree. I'd be happy to see the same level attention given to all Xenos. But those other Marine codices exist because they are popular and because GW love to push their marines. The SW release was only a 3 week release, the Orks were a 6 week release. If GW are only dedicating 6 weeks worth of releases a year to other Space Marine chapters, I don't really have a big problem with that.
Seems to me that YOUR butthurt that people are suggesting your special snowflake chapter isn't really so special. And it's not. SW's have wolves (which they ride on occasionally), Rune Priests instead of Librarians (ooh, such uniqueness!), and more than the usual number of pistols close combat weapons. Other than that, they're marines. They have statlines full of 4's, wear 3+ power armour, have ATSKNF, and use all the same guns. You gush about how totes original they are, but you don't back it up with anything about why the SW's RULES are so unique, special, and completely different from vanilla marines. Come on. Give us some examples. How do his suggestions "purely from rules perspective and without even considering the fluff" (yeah right) not represent the "uniqueness" of the Space Wolves and are "lame" (a well reasoned and objective argument if ever I heard one).
Wow, people are SO attached to their special snowflake chapters. Come on. Give us SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of why they're so unique, RULES WISE. Don't mention the fluff. Not even once. A special rule that effects the whole army (Black Rage) is really easy to add. It takes a single short paragraph. A vehicle upgrade, a CC upgrade option, or letting a unit or character take a mount is really easy to add. It's just one more line of text to the unit. An alternate force org chart is really easy to add, it takes up half a page at most. Presto, an assault oriented Space Marine chapter that don't play by the rules. The current (5th ed) Space Wolf Codex is 96 PAGES LONG and has fewer options than vanilla marines!
And no, SW, BA, and DA have NOT had their own codices since the dawn of time. Armies of the Imperium used to be one codex. The special snowflake chapters often lapsed out of date for several editions. Space Wolves have had a grand total of 3 codices in 7 editions. Dark Angels have also had 3. Blood Angels have had 4. They're players got by fine without an updated codex. Most of the more unique units weren't even in the old codices, they're new editions that were pulled from the same place that GW pulled Kaldor Draigo. But they've still gotten more love and care than Necrons or Dark Eldar did for ages, or SoB's get right now, and those are MAIN FREAKING ARMIES that actually have unique and distinct statlines and rules that no other army can replicate.
And yes, I HAVE read the DA, SW, and BA codices. I've read the old ones, I've read the chapter approved ones, and I've read SOME of the current bloated ones. Their "uniqueness" is lost on me, because I don't have a mad crush on them.
Lastly, saying that combining codices somehow means we're demanding a price hike is horse . When I got into this hobby, codices were $25 each. Now they're pushing $60. It's not because there are more rules to actually play the game; they're just spread out over more pages. It's not material costs; the online versions cost practically as much. GW raises prices because they want to, not because they have to.
ForeverARookie wrote: Fewer books means fewer updates. They could release a handful of new codexes whenever they make a new edition of the core rules so all of the armies are on the same page, instead of piecemealing it out so one faction is always overpowered and another is always underpowered.
All armies not being on the same page is because of the way GW releases codices. If you just give the additional chapters smaller release windows (which we've already seen, SW were a 3 week window vs Orks a 6 week window and now GK a 1 week window) then you can still fit more factions in to a year as if you had one big release window for the "Big Book of Marine".
That's something I was arguing a while back when this was being discussed last time, I'd be happy to keep all the other supplement codices and just reduce the release window for them. So you could have, say, a 6 week release window where we get the DA, BA and SW all at once, or a 2 week release window for each of them spread across a couple of years.
Mr Morden wrote: Or alternatively you just make units that will work for SW and other non codex Chapters:
Why exactly does the Wolf Lord not get orbital bombardment and could not be represented by a Chapter Master?
Just give some extra close Combat options for the Dreadnought which would allow the more Specalist /silly variants
Grey Hunters - just give non Codex Tac mariens option for CC weapon
Skyclaws and Blood Calws - just give a option for Jump packs to scouts
Thunderwolf Cavalry and Fenersian Wolves - another example foGW trying to think up stuff to make the Codex unique - just give a Feral beast / Riding beast option for non Codex marines
Long Fangs - Devestators - option to upgrade to Veterans
Chapter Tactics for the various non Codex Chapters
I'm sorry but that would totally suck. Your suggestions either suck, do not represent the uniqueness of Space Wolves (purely from a rules perspective without even considering fluff) or would have to be much more cumbersome than you are suggesting.
The problem I'm seeing is that people are butthurt that SW get attention. That's not the way I look at it. The way I look at it, if you want to play a Space Marine chapter that is more focused on close assault, has less of the "codex astartes" structure and is more feral in nature, then you use the SW rules. You don't have to call yourself Space Wolves, you don't have to be a furry. The rules exist as another option to the basic C:SM style.
Now, if your opposition is that the uniqueness shouldn't exist at all, ok, I can get down with that.... but it should have been done in 3rd edition, not now.
If your opposition is that GW should spend more time focusing on the Xenos, I agree. I'd be happy to see the same level attention given to all Xenos. But those other Marine codices exist because they are popular and because GW love to push their marines. The SW release was only a 3 week release, the Orks were a 6 week release. If GW are only dedicating 6 weeks worth of releases a year to other Space Marine chapters, I don't really have a big problem with that.
What is the difference between a tac squad with +1 A and a Grey Hunter squad? Or Biker units with the ability to take wolf mounts and TWC?
fallinq wrote: Seems to me that YOUR butthurt that people are suggesting your special snowflake chapter isn't really so special. And it's not. SW's have wolves (which they ride on occasionally), Rune Priests instead of Librarians (ooh, such uniqueness!), and more than the usual number of pistols close combat weapons. Other than that, they're marines. They have statlines full of 4's, wear 3+ power armour, have ATSKNF, and use all the same guns. You gush about how totes original they are, but you don't back it up with anything about why the SW's RULES are so unique, special, and completely different from vanilla marines. Come on. Give us some examples. How do his suggestions "purely from rules perspective and without even considering the fluff" (yeah right) not represent the "uniqueness" of the Space Wolves and are "lame" (a well reasoned and objective argument if ever I heard one).
Wow, you really took my criticisms hard, sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Give us SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of why they're so unique, RULES WISE.
That's mostly what I have been doing?
GH - They're Tacticals, but they're not "tacticals", they're close ranged focused. They achieve this by having access to CCW AND having counter attack AND having different weapon options.
BC - They replace scouts... but they're not scouts, they are cheap assault units. They achieve this by differing from scouts by having PA instead of Scout armour AND not having any scout special rules AND having rage AND having weapon options that are assault focused instead of the more shooty options of scouts AND having access to typical PA marine transport options.
The point is, if you try and roll SW in to C:SM, you remove a lot of the rules-wise uniqueness OR you have to add a LOT of content to maintain that uniqueness.
The Space Wolves rules don't just represent the "special snowflake" fluff of the Space Wolves. They represent ANY Space Marine chapter that you want to be close assault focused, more feral, less focused on the codex astartes. That's why I said your suggestions "do not represent the uniqueness of Space Wolves (purely from a rules perspective without even considering fluff)".
What they have unique cannot be summed up in Chapter Tactics and that's a GOOD thing. They let you play Space Marines in a different way regardless of whether you want to paste the SW fluff and SW models on top.
And no, SW, BA, and DA have NOT had their own codices since the dawn of time. Armies of the Imperium used to be one codex. The special snowflake chapters often lapsed out of date for several editions. Space Wolves have had a grand total of 3 codices in 7 editions. Dark Angels have also had 3. Blood Angels have had 4.
I never said they existed since the dawn of time, that must have been someone else. My first SW Codex I believe was 1993, so over 20 years ago. Also, your numbers are wrong, Space Wolves have had a grand total of 4 codices in the 6 editions they have been around, I wasn't collecting in the RT days but I believe they got their unique characters at the end of RT. Orks have actually had the exact same number of codices in that time. I don't collect DA but I believe they have had 4 as well counting Angels of Death from 2nd.
Most of the more unique units weren't even in the old codices, they're new editions that were pulled from the same place that GW pulled Kaldor Draigo.
Yes. and I explicitly stated I would be fine with them being bundled in to the C:SMback in 3rd edition before they genuinely became unique. Back then, they could have easily bundled up in C:SM with a few special rules and a Blood Claws being a unique unit.
But they've still gotten more love and care than Necrons or Dark Eldar did for ages, or SoB's get right now, and those are MAIN FREAKING ARMIES that actually have unique and distinct statlines and rules that no other army can replicate.
Necrons have gotten 2 codices in a little over 10 years, about 1 per 5 years. SW have gotten 4 in a little over 20 years, about 1 per 5 years. DE have had 3 in a little over 15 years, about 1 per 5 years.
DE are due for a new codex, it's currently 4 years old. Necrons are also due for a new codex, they are 3 years old. The SW codex was 5 years old when it was recently replaced. SW aren't getting more attention than those other armies, they were the oldest Codex so they got a new one, Blood Angels are now the oldest codex.
Sisters of battle, yes, GW have pretty much relegated them to the halls of "not a real army".
And yes, I HAVE read the DA, SW, and BA codices. I've read the old ones, I've read the chapter approved ones, and I've read SOME of the current bloated ones. Their "uniqueness" is lost on me, because I don't have a mad crush on them.
If their uniqueness is lost on you then I feel you haven't actually read the rules or comprehended how they behave differently on the table top (at least the times when GW didn't totally bugger up the balance and make things like Long Fang armies a viable tactic).
Lastly, saying that combining codices somehow means we're demanding a price hike is horse . When I got into this hobby, codices were $25 each. Now they're pushing $60. It's not because there are more rules to actually play the game; they're just spread out over more pages. It's not material costs; the online versions cost practically as much. GW raises prices because they want to, not because they have to.
I never said that by combining we are demanding a price hike. I just think the reality of it is, if you actually keep as much of the rules as you can and create a fething huge big book of Space Marines it is...
a) Going to cost a feth load, a Space Marine player is going to end up with a higher price of entry.
b) Not actually going to let GW focus on the Xenos any more than they already do. This can be equally as well achieved simply by shortening the release window of satellite chapters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: What is the difference between a tac squad with +1 A and a Grey Hunter squad? Or Biker units with the ability to take wolf mounts and TWC?
Counter Attack, weapon options, having a WGPL instead of a Vet Sarge. Though the bigger difference comes with BC, who are a different stat line, different points cost, have rage, different weapon options and a larger unit size.
Biker units able to take wolf mounts? Close combat focused weapon options. Other than that you could sum up the differences by creating a TWC wargear option with +1S, +1T, +1W, +3A and +1Ld. But as I've said, it's not that you CAN'T shoehorn Space Wolves in to C:SM, it's that it's very convoluted to do it.
Earlier someone suggested "Well Blood Claws are just scouts", but to actually keep BC the way they are, you'd have to say:
Blood Claws: Instead of initiating new members in to the Scouts like other chapters, Space Wolves initiate new members in to a Blood Claws due to the impetuous and headstrong nature of Space Wolf recruits learning to deal with the flaws in their newly implanted geneseed. Because of this, Space Wolves modify the typical Scout squad. They do not have Scout armour or Boltguns, but have Power Armour and Close Combat Weapons instead. They lose the following special rules: Infiltrate, Move Through Cover, Scout. Instead, they gain the special rules Acute Senses, Counter Attack and Rage. Instead of being able to only add 5 additional members, they may add up to 10 additional Blood Claws.
The weapon options are also completely different.
At the end of the day, we could sum up any troop in the game by it's differences to a base profile. Orks are just Space Marines with -2 Bs, -2Ini, +1A, -1Ld and a 6+ save, with different special rules and different weapon options.
Anything CAN be done, I am simply questioning the merit of doing it.
fallinq wrote: Seems to me that YOUR butthurt that people are suggesting your special snowflake chapter isn't really so special. And it's not. SW's have wolves (which they ride on occasionally), Rune Priests instead of Librarians (ooh, such uniqueness!), and more than the usual number of pistols close combat weapons. Other than that, they're marines. They have statlines full of 4's, wear 3+ power armour, have ATSKNF, and use all the same guns. You gush about how totes original they are, but you don't back it up with anything about why the SW's RULES are so unique, special, and completely different from vanilla marines. Come on. Give us some examples. How do his suggestions "purely from rules perspective and without even considering the fluff" (yeah right) not represent the "uniqueness" of the Space Wolves and are "lame" (a well reasoned and objective argument if ever I heard one).
Wow, you really took my criticisms hard, sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Give us SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of why they're so unique, RULES WISE.
That's mostly what I have been doing?
GH - They're Tacticals, but they're not "tacticals", they're close ranged focused. They achieve this by having access to CCW AND having counter attack AND having different weapon options.
Tactical marines can now take CCWs and two SWs. Space Wolf chapter tactics now confer counter attack. Bam, same unit within the Codex. It's an option all Marines should have anyway.
BC - They replace scouts... but they're not scouts, they are cheap assault units. They achieve this by differing from scouts by having PA instead of Scout armour AND not having any scout special rules AND having rage AND having weapon options that are assault focused instead of the more shooty options of scouts AND having access to typical PA marine transport options.
Actually this I agree with. That's why you just have them be Assault Marines. Maybe have a new option that allows you to take WS: 3/BS: 3 AM with a -2 ppm cost to represent chapters that emulate Space Wolf training. Honestly I think that a -1 to their leadership would be more appropriate since new Marines do have a lot of training under their belt.
The point is, if you try and roll SW in to C:SM, you remove a lot of the rules-wise uniqueness OR you have to add a LOT of content to maintain that uniqueness.
The Space Wolves rules don't just represent the "special snowflake" fluff of the Space Wolves. They represent ANY Space Marine chapter that you want to be close assault focused, more feral, less focused on the codex astartes. That's why I said your suggestions "do not represent the uniqueness of Space Wolves (purely from a rules perspective without even considering fluff)".
What they have unique cannot be summed up in Chapter Tactics and that's a GOOD thing. They let you play Space Marines in a different way regardless of whether you want to paste the SW fluff and SW models on top.
Space Wolves differ (Much like the other variant chapters) by having war gear options that should be available in the vanilla codex, a few extra special rules and small stat changes. They are not unique. If you ran an Ultramarine army with Space Wolf rules would it play much differently? Maybe they wouldn't suck as bad in CC but it'd be the same army. Rules don't make an army. The player does.
a) Going to cost a feth load, a Space Marine player is going to end up with a higher price of entry.
b) Not actually going to let GW focus on the Xenos any more than they already do. This can be equally as well achieved simply by shortening the release window of satellite chapters.
A non issue unless they staple all of the current rules into the book. And GW doesn't focus on Xenos at all. They just suck more at balancing them.
Counter Attack, weapon options, having a WGPL instead of a Vet Sarge. Though the bigger difference comes with BC, who are a different stat line, different points cost, have rage, different weapon options and a larger unit size.
Biker units able to take wolf mounts? Close combat focused weapon options. Other than that you could sum up the differences by creating a TWC wargear option with +1S, +1T, +1W, +3A and +1Ld. But as I've said, it's not that you CAN'T shoehorn Space Wolves in to C:SM, it's that it's very convoluted to do it.
Didn't WG lose the ability to mix armor with their unit or is that just for whole squads of them? Either way, just cut the option for TDA or have it be a choice for all Veterans with/without the Space Wolf chapter tactic.
I don't think having an overall "Beast Mount" option would be convoluted. Just add the option to the Special Wargear list. I personally think that all Marine bikers should have access to melee weapons but that's just me. Have the option in the Chapter Tactic? Maybe that'd be too complex.
I am tiring of this discussion, so I'm just going to repeat this:
Anything CAN be done, I am simply questioning the merit of doing it.
I could see the merit of doing it back in 3rd edition, that edition was basically the big ol' edition of simplification. Now that the satellite chapters are more unique, I just don't see where the advantage is in cramming them all in to one big book and/or removing a lot of what makes them unique.
Anpu42 wrote: Have you ever read any of the Codex: Space Wolves Books?
Actually I have both a Space Wolves army and every Codex ever produced for them including that for RT/ 1st edition where they formed the centrepiece of a campaign. Which ones do you have?
We are not GW and so its not going to happen - I laid out what I would like to see - but that's not going to happen - instead we are going to have increasingly fragmented and poorly put together "codexes" / date slates whatever that have very little that's good and much that's shoddy, rushed and thrown together.
The Chaos Legions and Imperial Guard Regiments in particular deserve better treatment and are far far far more divergent than the various Marine Chpaters that are painted different colours and have a couple of unusual units...............The recent expansions of the Dark and Blood Angels Codexes forced GW to make many "unique" units which many people, including me find awful with blood guns and blood missiles firing blood at enemy to coat them in blood - its like the Simpsons episode where one of the kids is drawing a robot made of guns firing guns that shoot more guns at the enemy I honestly think that this is what GW is now trying to achieve and target.....
I could see the merit of doing it back in 3rd edition, that edition was basically the big ol' edition of simplification Now that the satellite chapters are more unique, I just don't see where the advantage is in cramming them all in to one big book and/or removing a lot of what makes them unique
Because you would spend less time making slightly different marines with slightly different rules with silly names and more time revamping or creating new armies.
Yes we all know Space Marines sell - but its somewhat of a catch 22 - they sell partly because they are so dominant so they make more and increase their dominance etc etc. Only the spiky versions get a bit of a shafting for...reasons
Dark Eldar relaunch was a triumph and sold really well? but now we just get Dark Angels and Blood Angels in particular who really did not need a separate codex and had the really silly stuff crowbarred in.
I could see the merit of doing it back in 3rd edition, that edition was basically the big ol' edition of simplification Now that the satellite chapters are more unique, I just don't see where the advantage is in cramming them all in to one big book and/or removing a lot of what makes them unique
Because you would spend less time making slightly different marines with slightly different rules with silly names and more time revamping or creating new armies.
With the way GW currently release books, I don't think it really matters. I mentioned it previously, but SW had a 3 week launch vs 6 weeks for Orks. GK appear to only be having a 1 week release.
If there's no need to have a big long release then it seems GW are fine giving them shorter releases.
They're just pumping out codices like mad anyway, the oldest Codex is just over 4 years old (BA), the next is a bit under 4 years (DE) and then the next is not even 3 years old (necrons). Only 3 more codices before the oldest codex in 40k's lineup is only a mere 2 and a half years old (assuming it takes them about 6 months to release the remaining 3 codices).
Yes we all know Space Marines sell - but its somewhat of a catch 22 - they sell partly because they are so dominant so they make more and increase their dominance etc etc. Only the spiky versions get a bit of a shafting for...reasons
Yes, I know, I'm just being realistic in thinking that it's not going to change. Even if they wrap SM in to 1 codex, it's going to be a fething huge codex and they are still going to spend a couple of months each year promoting it over the Xenos.
Dark Eldar relaunch was a triumph and sold really well? but now we just get Dark Angels and Blood Angels in particular who really did not need a separate codex and had the really silly stuff crowbarred in.
It was? I wasn't aware it was that awesome. I do remember the numbers for the 5th ed Space Wolf codex coming up in the legal issues with Chapterhouse and noticing that they were quite large compared to other releases in the same time frame.
I just don't see where the advantage is in cramming them all in to one big book and/or removing a lot of what makes them unique.
Provides a single source for all marine players to draw resources from, is much better for DIY chapters, offers more codex slots/time devoted to other codices, is easier to balance, lessens the potential impact of one flavour of marine being better than any others, is cheaper for codex collectors, and generally opens up more total options for all marine chapters.
Instead of only Blood Angels getting access to a fast attack predator tank, all chapters can now bring a predator in their fast attack slot. This doesn't make Blood Angels any less Blood Angel-y, it just gives all chapters more options for killing the enemies of the Emperor. Instead of only Space Wolves getting access to the baby Caestus Ram, all chapters have the option for a middle of the road gunship or troop transport. It doesn't make the Space Wolves any less Space Wolfy, it just gives more options to all the other marine chapters.
I could see the merit of doing it back in 3rd edition, that edition was basically the big ol' edition of simplification Now that the satellite chapters are more unique, I just don't see where the advantage is in cramming them all in to one big book and/or removing a lot of what makes them unique
Because you would spend less time making slightly different marines with slightly different rules with silly names and more time revamping or creating new armies.
With the way GW currently release books, I don't think it really matters. I mentioned it previously, but SW had a 3 week launch vs 6 weeks for Orks. GK appear to only be having a 1 week release.
If there's no need to have a big long release then it seems GW are fine giving them shorter releases.
They're just pumping out codices like mad anyway, the oldest Codex is just over 4 years old (BA), the next is a bit under 4 years (DE) and then the next is not even 3 years old (necrons). Only 3 more codices before the oldest codex in 40k's lineup is only a mere 2 and a half years old (assuming it takes them about 6 months to release the remaining 3 codices).
Yes we all know Space Marines sell - but its somewhat of a catch 22 - they sell partly because they are so dominant so they make more and increase their dominance etc etc. Only the spiky versions get a bit of a shafting for...reasons
Yes, I know, I'm just being realistic in thinking that it's not going to change. Even if they wrap SM in to 1 codex, it's going to be a fething huge codex and they are still going to spend a couple of months each year promoting it over the Xenos.
Dark Eldar relaunch was a triumph and sold really well? but now we just get Dark Angels and Blood Angels in particular who really did not need a separate codex and had the really silly stuff crowbarred in.
It was? I wasn't aware it was that awesome. I do remember the numbers for the 5th ed Space Wolf codex coming up in the legal issues with Chapterhouse and noticing that they were quite large compared to other releases in the same time frame.
Well Dark Eldar were languishing forgotten and the new release made sure that they had lovely new models and for what I understand sold extremely well.
I was never proposing one codex for Marines but two - one for the "Codex" chapters and one for everyone else. So the current one as is and then have a second one with all the odds and sods.............
Yeah its just wish listing but isn't that what forums are for ? GW are just going to keep making smaller and smaller Codexs covering smaller and smaller aspects - FFS they did one for a single company of two Chapters and data slates etc to give back the content already in previous Codexes. Sad really.....................
Paradigm wrote: Maybe this is just because I have lot of armies, but I'd like to see the following
Codex: Astartes. Contains the rules and information for all Space Marine Chapters and making your own. DA, BA, SW and BT have all their unique units included like the BT stuff in the current codex, unlocked by Chapter Tactics
Codex: Imperium. IG, Inquisition, GK, Sisters and Assassins
Codex: Chaos. CSM, Demons, and full traitor guard rules. Includes Legion and Warband rules.
Codex: Ancient Enemies. Necrons, Eldar and DE
Codex: Rising Threat. Nids, Tau and Orks
Each of these would be about double the size of a current book, but there would also be softback 'just the rules' versions available.
I'd love to have a Codex Astartes. I wonder, has GW ever experimented with releasing any kind of book or supplement that allowed players to make their own factions/rules? It's something that roleplaying franchises sometimes do.
There are two ways that could turn out - either there is genuine flexibility in the system and it opens up lots of new cheese/opbs, or they tone it down to prevent this and the end result is pretty "meh".
Personally I think they should go for it anyway still
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I am tiring of this discussion, so I'm just going to repeat this:
Anything CAN be done, I am simply questioning the merit of doing it.
I could see the merit of doing it back in 3rd edition, that edition was basically the big ol' edition of simplification. Now that the satellite chapters are more unique, I just don't see where the advantage is in cramming them all in to one big book and/or removing a lot of what makes them unique.
This. I think a lot of people are annoyed that other people get goodies they don't. Which is fine I guess, but I don't think it's nessesarily very healthy to advocate making other peoples' hobbies less enjoyable simply "because". You could roll every single codex into one if you really wanted to, and it wouldn't even be that big. But there's an entire hobby behind the rules, you can't ignore that just because you don't like red/grey/wolfy space marines.
Oh come on guys... The marine codecies need to be left alone. I think dark eldar and eldar need to be rolled in together. Millitarum tempestus and Astra militarium need to be rolled togrther, inquisition and assassins need to go back to Grey knights, daemons need to join csm, and we need to just drop necrons all together. That's all. Not jking
This. I think a lot of people are annoyed that other people get goodies they don't. Which is fine I guess, but I don't think it's nessesarily very healthy to advocate making other peoples' hobbies less enjoyable simply "because
Not really and even then it would work both ways - lots of people get goodies - others don't which is fine because some do?
I honestly believe you could make 2 nice fat Marine Codex - one Codex and one "others" and have plenty of fluff and fun units - what we are getting now is supplements covering a single company, unit or even person - fragmentation and exploitation of the fluff.
Lets look at the Orks - there was no reason not to have the Gaz and Ork Codexes as one except price gouging.
A decent non codex Chapters would be great - it would likely even work fir renegade Chapters:
You just need the rules for the oddities - rampaging Assaulty Dreadnoughts - that's good for Wolves and Blood Angels, even Khorne touched renegades
Riding Beasts - good for not just Wolves but other unusual mounts
Snipers and Scouts that are not just aspirants but veterans - cool for Raven Guard and similar
Assault options for Tac units - again cool for Wolves, Blood Angels and Renegades
Not really and even then it would work both ways - lots of people get goodies - others don't which is fine because some do?
If someone gets something special that you like, you simply ask for it yourself. Demanding that they take his special thing away because you don't have it too is just.. childish.
So what do we need to hear in this thread: 1) A good reason as to why they should do such a thing. 2) A good explanation as to how you will include FOUR full codices into one book without removing fluff, without removing rules and still have it be a maximum of 150 pages.
I'd avoid calling people's opinions and reasons as childish.
Further, there have been plenty of good reasons. You just happen to not like it.
Besides, who says each chapter needs to keep every single special rule, character, and other little details? I'm fairly certain Salamander players, or any other chapter are getting along just fine with completely unique, flavourful armies without needing a book replete with redundant special rules and units.
Its not about removing anything, its about sharing it with all the other chapters in a reasonable manner. Hardly childish.
To lend some context to my earlier remark about all SM sharing a codex, I would point out that I would remove absolutely nothing from the other marine books. Everything from Thunderwolf Cavalry to Death Company to Black Knights would still have unit entries in full. The only parts 'removed' would be the superfluous three Tactical/Assault/Devastator ect entries that are copied across three different books, which makes the value worse for anyone who has more than one SM army. One of the reasons I probably won't buy the new BA/DA book is that I feel no need to pay for copies of rules I already own.
Putting it all in one large book with every type of marine fully represented would be better value for a lot of players, which is why GW will never do it.
I just don't see where the advantage is in cramming them all in to one big book and/or removing a lot of what makes them unique.
Provides a single source for all marine players to draw resources from, I'd argue that's not much of a benefit.
is much better for DIY chapters,Are we talking about specific chapter creation rules or simply using the rules of an existing chapter to create your own? If it's the latter, I don't see how it makes much difference. There's nothing stopping you using any of the additional codices for your homebrew chapter
offers more codex slots/time devoted to other codices,I mentioned this earlier, GW are happy to reduce release windows for armies like SW vs armies like Orks, they can easily keep all the individual codices and just reduce the release windows for them so that it doesn't take more time away from other armies. You also have the fact we are nearing the point where all codices will be less than 2.5 years old anyway. GW are already thrashing 40k so much that I don't think it's of benefit, I'm wondering where GW will go once they re-release the last 3 remaining 5th ed codices.
is easier to balance, lessens the potential impact of one flavour of marine being better than any others,Possibly true, but GW balance is roulette, even within a big SM book there's going to be chapters that are obviously better than others. It does reduce the chance that one chapter has been updated for the new edition and others haven't (which was the case with SW up until a couple of weeks ago and is still the case with BA). But given the balance roulette we play at the moment I'm not really sure I see it as a big benefit to balance to roll them all in to one
is cheaper for codex collectors,These people still exist with GW's current prices? I used to collect army books (not so much codices), but since the more recent price hikes I think the number of codex collectors would be near insignificant. I think it's of far greater benefit to keep a low price of entry vs lower price for the insane people who insist on codex collecting when regular codices are $50 a pop anyway and collectors codices are massively more expensive.
and generally opens up more total options for all marine chapters.
Instead of only Blood Angels getting access to a fast attack predator tank, all chapters can now bring a predator in their fast attack slot. This doesn't make Blood Angels any less Blood Angel-y, it just gives all chapters more options for killing the enemies of the Emperor. Instead of only Space Wolves getting access to the baby Caestus Ram, all chapters have the option for a middle of the road gunship or troop transport. It doesn't make the Space Wolves any less Space Wolfy, it just gives more options to all the other marine chapters.
So you want any chapter to just be able to select from whatever lists of units from whatever chapter they like? That's an interesting prospect, allowing vanilla marines to take Blood Claws and the like, but I do think this would open up the possibility of even less balance because you could just pick the best things from each chapter to make your "homebrew" chapter.
Not really and even then it would work both ways - lots of people get goodies - others don't which is fine because some do?
If someone gets something special that you like, you simply ask for it yourself.
Demanding that they take his special thing away because you don't have it too is just.. childish.
So what do we need to hear in this thread:
1) A good reason as to why they should do such a thing.
2) A good explanation as to how you will include FOUR full codices into one book without removing fluff, without removing rules and still have it be a maximum of 150 pages.
As I have said several times - two books for Marines and no problem at all. You might simplify rules here and there but it will give more options for more players........
Is the Current Blood Missile firing blood guns and wolves riding wolves riding Wolf ships really fluff that's worth keeping /expanding upon?
I agree Skink. At least on some points. Given GW's current inability to price things appropriately and at anything resembling balance what we would end up with in a "Roll-in" would be a horribly expensive book with most of the options gone/useless penalizing the variant chapter/vanilla players in equal measure as they have to take crap that wouldn't fit into their chapter thematic wise to stay competitive or pay obscene prices to get their units back from the data slate fairy.
However, on principle I think it should be done. If this were a more competent company a "Build your own Chapter" codex would be great for everyone. Maybe have supplements for the popular marine books that add formations/new options/scenarios etc. But right now given GW's insanity I think the current way of doing things is best.
TheCustomLime wrote: I agree Skink. At least on some points. Given GW's current inability to price things appropriately and at anything resembling balance what we would end up with in a "Roll-in" would be a horribly expensive book with most of the options gone/useless penalizing the variant chapter/vanilla players in equal measure as they have to take crap that wouldn't fit into their chapter thematic wise to stay competitive or pay obscene prices to get their units back from the data slate fairy.
However, on principle I think it should be done. If this were a more competent company a "Build your own Chapter" codex would be great for everyone. Maybe have supplements for the popular marine books that add formations/new options/scenarios etc. But right now given GW's insanity I think the current way of doing things is best.
On principle, I think 40k as a whole needs to be rewritten completely and I'd be more than happy to see them roll codices together to make that happen. Of course I don't think it will happen and I don't want them rolled in to one purely so I have to buy yet another book that's even more expensive
"Build your own Chapter" is a nice thought, I'm not really sure how it'd work in practice. Didn't we have this several editions ago? I think it was during one of my hiatuses from 40k. I remember the "build your own hive fleet" from one of the old Tyranid codices was cool, but in practice there were some options that were just flat out better than others, leading to a lot of biomorphs that were auto-takes and a lot that you'd never touch.
I feel those sorts of "build your own army" things are actually quite hard to balance, though I'm definitely open to the idea if it can be balanced.
The whole point is very quickly becoming moot though. We are so close to having all armies with 6th/7th codices printed within the past 2 and a half years, so it hardly seems necessary for GW to roll SM in to one to focus on the other armies... they are almost all done anyway. Space Wolves were the last army that was left out of the flier game and the remaining codices are just ones that need small tweaks to bring them in line with 6th/7th rules.
I'm really interested and concerned to see what GW do once these last 3 forces are done.
Is slightly off topic, but 'build your own chapter tactics' would be easy to implement. Take a bunch of USRs and maybe some other options (like +1 Ccw or the like) and put in two lists, major and minor. A Cheaper can have two minor or one major trait.
This is kind of like the 4th ed one worked, but without the 'drawbacks' choice, as a) it was unbalanced in many ways and b) none of the current one have them
Blacksails wrote: I'd avoid calling people's opinions and reasons as childish.
Why not?
Let's say I see that DCM-tag in your name and I want it too.
I can either make sure I get it or I can demand that they remove your tag.
Which one would you call the mature thing to do?
Further, there have been plenty of good reasons. You just happen to not like it.
Well, maybe I need new glasses but all I see are people trying to bend reality in order to fit those rules in one single Codex.
So again: Make a list of good reasons/benefits to merging the Codices.
Besides, who says each chapter needs to keep every single special rule, character, and other little details? I'm fairly certain Salamander players, or any other chapter are getting along just fine with completely unique, flavourful armies without needing a book replete with redundant special rules and units.
Who says that? How about nearly everyone that plays those Chapters?
You keep missing the point! Whether you think they deserve to have their own Codex or not: They now have it. So if you wish to remove everything they have, you better have a good reason.
Its not about removing anything, its about sharing it with all the other chapters in a reasonable manner. Hardly childish.
So you want BA to share Death Company, Furioso Dreads, Troop-ASM, Sanguinary Guard, Sanguinary Priests, Fast Tanks, Infernus Pistols and Hand Flamers with everyone?
How envious..
Mr Morden wrote: Is the Current Blood Missile firing blood guns and wolves riding wolves riding Wolf ships really fluff that's worth keeping /expanding upon?
Yes, I am not willing to trade in an entire Codex because it might make a few people happy if that means every BA-player is told to feth off.
Combining Codices might have been a good idea 16 years ago.
But you cannot support an entire Faction for 16 years with their own Codex and then suddenly remove all the lore and rules for those ten players that like even more customisation with their home-brew Chapters.
As a BT player, anyone who argues that the current state of the BT in C:SM is fine is going to have to argue rather well in order to convice me that they're not deluded. I'm not saying it'd be impossible to fold Chapters into the Vanilla book, but the way it's been done so far has been a giant scrotum kick to an army that was already down for the count.
es, I am not willing to trade in an entire Codex because it might make a few people happy if that means every BA-player is told to feth off.
Combining Codices might have been a good idea 16 years ago.
But you cannot support an entire Faction for 16 years with their own Codex and then suddenly remove all the lore and rules for those ten players that like even more customisation with their home-brew Chapters.
Right so in your world its either a massively indulgent and badly written full length Codex or nothing. As we have dicussed at length you can make plenty of generic rules for non Codex chapters in their own book to give lots of options FFS but I guess thats not enough............you want to keep all your blood guns firing blood missiles that are pretty much the same as normal missile but just called blood missiles. and this impreves the game and background how exactly............
The new Blood Angels Codex will almost certainly be gutted anyway ........
How is it indulgent and badly written? Because you say so?
I do need 100 pages to contain all the fluff and the unique entries, we've needed that for the last 16 years.
And it's not going to change because some people are butthurt that they don't have their own Codex.
Yes, it's completely possible to merge them by taking four books, ruining them and having only one book left.
I am sure that all the Grey Knight, Space Wolves, Dark Angels and Blood Angel-players would happily have their Codex ruined just so you can be happy that GW screwed them.
About Blood Missiles: They are actually AP1 compared to Stormstrike Missiles and lack the Concussive-rule.
And what Blood Guns are you talking about? Because I am talking about the other 17 unique-entries we have.
Seems quite clear you don't even know what is in the Codex.
But even if you were right: Why not?
Why should I have to buy the Codex: Space Marines when I didn't have to do such a thing in the last 16 years?
Dante, Gabriel Seth, Astorath, Sanguinor, Mephiston, Tycho, Sanguinary Guard, Corbulo, Lemartes, Furioso, Death Company-Dread.
And then we have the elite-Chaplains, Reclusiarchs, Sanguinary Priests and Assault squads.
The Codex then continues with loads of special rules and wargear.
And it starts with dozens and dozens of pages with stories and fluff.
You cannot merge four of those things in a single Codex without giving them gigantic cuts and there is no sensible reason to do such a thing.
Kangodo wrote: How is it indulgent and badly written? Because you say so?
I do need 100 pages to contain all the fluff and the unique entries, we've needed that for the last 16 years.
And it's not going to change because some people are butthurt that they don't have their own Codex.
Yes, it's completely possible to merge them by taking four books, ruining them and having only one book left.
I am sure that all the Grey Knight, Space Wolves, Dark Angels and Blood Angel-players would happily have their Codex ruined just so you can be happy that GW screwed them.
About Blood Missiles: They are actually AP1 compared to Stormstrike Missiles and lack the Concussive-rule.
And what Blood Guns are you talking about? Because I am talking about the other 17 unique-entries we have.
Seems quite clear you don't even know what is in the Codex.
But even if you were right: Why not?
Why should I have to buy the Codex: Space Marines when I didn't have to do such a thing in the last 16 years?
Dante, Gabriel Seth, Astorath, Sanguinor, Mephiston, Tycho, Sanguinary Guard, Corbulo, Lemartes, Furioso, Death Company-Dread.
And then we have the elite-Chaplains, Reclusiarchs, Sanguinary Priests and Assault squads.
The Codex then continues with loads of special rules and wargear.
And it starts with dozens and dozens of pages with stories and fluff.
You cannot merge four of those things in a single Codex without giving them gigantic cuts and there is no sensible reason to do such a thing.
Hey - you know what forgot it - if you think the Blood Angels revised fluff s good fine - enjoy your life
Yes I have the bloody codex and yes I know whats in it - but I did not realise it was so damn perfect that it can never be improved - my mistake
I do need 100 pages to contain all the fluff and the unique entries, we've needed that for the last 16 years.
Lies and misinformation - I have the pevious Codexes and there is not that much fluff - check your facts.
I think there's way too much bad blood between people who want it rolled in to one and people who don't.
To the people who are throwing around terms like "special snowflake". YES, we do want something unique. I don't crap on people who want their army to be unique, be it an Ork clan or a CSM legion or an Eldar craftworld.
There's an argument to be made for simplification, I totally agree, but there's no need to get huffy about people who do want to keep the unique rules that go along with their army. The satellite chapters are NOT just "SM with a few small changes", they are "SM with a lot of small changes and some considerable ones". Even just the special characters, there's 22 special characters between BA, DA and SW. I don't want to see any of them cut even if I don't like them all because I dislike arbitrary cutting of things.
But yes, way too much animosity surrounding this topic.
Especially since at this point it means very little, given that GW are very close to having all codices updated and we are only 3 months in to 7th edition. The only way I can see GW going from here is adding more and more expansions to more armies rather than consolidating.
I don't really see a reason to have a super mega space marine codex. It's not very practical, GW has no incentive and it would probably piss off a lot of marine players.
It would be nice to see more non-imperial supplements/codices.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think there's way too much bad blood between people who want it rolled in to one and people who don't.
That's what you get when you have a Codex for 16 years and people think it should be removed 'because of reasons'.
Even just the special characters, there's 22 special characters between BA, DA and SW.
Are you only counting the HQ's?
Because I count at least 14 unique 'units' in Blood Angels alone. They would all need their own entry.
Mr Morden wrote: Hey - you know what forgot it - if you think the Blood Angels revised fluff s good fine - enjoy your life
Yes I have the bloody codex and yes I know whats in it - but I did not realise it was so damn perfect that it can never be improved - my mistake
That is absolutely not what I said! There is surely room for new stuff and improvements.
But how are you going to do that if they need to cut 75% of all stuff because someone thinks it's a good idea to have them merged with three other Codices?
Are you sure you have the Codex? Because then you'd know that Bloodstrike Missiles are actually different and that there is no such thing as 'blood guns'.
And whether or not the current fluff is good is just a matter of opinion, so not a reason to cut the codex in half (or in a quarter).
Lies and misinformation - I have the pevious Codexes and there is not that much fluff - check your facts.
Perhaps you would like to count the pages that are merely pictures and subtract them from the total amount of pages?
I personally think we should cut down on big codices and have minidexes, and then a fluff book for anyone interested, similar to the current rulebook.
So you could just buy the rules if that's all you wanted, or you could just buy the fluff. They'd also be smaller, easier to carry and just plain nice, and you could then justify owning more of them because the cost would be dropped.
Since I've seen a lot of people arguing it for SM, I have to ask: what makes CSM so special that each god should be split into four codices? Other than the main four, I don't see much difference between Sons of Horus and Alpha Legions. I feel these could be equally given the same amount of attention as chapter tactics in SM. I still think a combining of Daemon and CSM would be great, even a Khorne/Nurgle codex and a Tzeentch/Slaanesh codex. I think it's freaking stupid I can read all about Nurgle marines and Typhus, but hey! I can't take Plagubearers because they're not in the same fething codex.
I am genuinely curious though, what makes CSM deserve their own individual codices?
jreilly89 wrote: Since I've seen a lot of people arguing it for SM, I have to ask: what makes CSM so special that each god should be split into four codices? Other than the main four, I don't see much difference between Sons of Horus and Alpha Legions. I feel these could be equally given the same amount of attention as chapter tactics in SM. I still think a combining of Daemon and CSM would be great, even a Khorne/Nurgle codex and a Tzeentch/Slaanesh codex. I think it's freaking stupid I can read all about Nurgle marines and Typhus, but hey! I can't take Plagubearers because they're not in the same fething codex.
I am genuinely curious though, what makes CSM deserve their own individual codices?
You mean the varied daemon weapons, Daemon Engines that would drastically be different between gods, the varied tactics that would come from rogue psykers/rogue traitors, the new inventions created by the Dark Mechanicus, the Horus Heresy Era weaponry that would still be in peak condition (CSM still use Reaper Cannons, come on they should have some HH stuff besides the CRAPPY STUFF!), Daemons of different gods, Gigantic mutations of monsters, potent sigils of blood and bone, flame and fear, drastically different weapons between cult legions and people who serve them.
Not to mention the fact that Chaos Lords should be able to become Psykers (They aren't CAPTAINS!) they worship and use the warp and don't care for structure like SM.
Heck tactics and gear loadout being different for the basic troops would make sense because they aren't using a standardized template between each other as Space Marines is, Troops of nurgle would have plague spewers and bolts loaded with plagues that explode upon hitting the enemy, while the Khorne don't care, but they use more powerful melee weapons with bolters to try and tear the flesh from the enemy and make them bleed.
I mean really, unlike Space Marines even the basic RHINO would potentially be different between gods, with Tzeentch Rhino's flickering in and out of reality and getting it's troops into position, with Nurgle's bloated pus covered Rhino's belching forth plague and bile and making it hard to see it, while coating the enemy in filth.
Kangodo wrote:Are you only counting the HQ's?
Because I count at least 14 unique 'units' in Blood Angels alone. They would all need their own entry.
Every time I see the word "need" in this context it makes me think of the Imperial Guard. Apparently chainmail-wielding feral worlders with swords and laspistols can keep sharing their army list entry with flak-equipped, professionally drilled Cadian lasgunners. But Space Marines are so special, they "need" separate entries and separate books.
I can perfectly understand scepticism towards losing one's own book - but objectively, less codices should make for a better release schedule and focus on part of the design studio, and it seems so very obvious with 40k where we should start cutting down.
And as I said previously, GW's new trend with supplements would allow affected fans to retain a possibility for new fluff or new special units and characters. Perhaps even for more Chapters than now, considering that these supplements might take far less time to write than a proper Codex.
A single Codex per main army, with supplements for subgroups (Chapters, Regiments, Craftworlds, ...). The most obvious approach.
Not that I'd expect GW to follow it anytime soon; all of this is really just fans talking about hot air.
jreilly89 wrote: Since I've seen a lot of people arguing it for SM, I have to ask: what makes CSM so special that each god should be split into four codices? Other than the main four, I don't see much difference between Sons of Horus and Alpha Legions. I feel these could be equally given the same amount of attention as chapter tactics in SM. I still think a combining of Daemon and CSM would be great, even a Khorne/Nurgle codex and a Tzeentch/Slaanesh codex. I think it's freaking stupid I can read all about Nurgle marines and Typhus, but hey! I can't take Plagubearers because they're not in the same fething codex.
I am genuinely curious though, what makes CSM deserve their own individual codices?
You mean the varied daemon weapons, Daemon Engines that would drastically be different between gods, the varied tactics that would come from rogue psykers/rogue traitors, the new inventions created by the Dark Mechanicus, the Horus Heresy Era weaponry that would still be in peak condition (CSM still use Reaper Cannons, come on they should have some HH stuff besides the CRAPPY STUFF!), Daemons of different gods, Gigantic mutations of monsters, potent sigils of blood and bone, flame and fear, drastically different weapons between cult legions and people who serve them.
Not to mention the fact that Chaos Lords should be able to become Psykers (They aren't CAPTAINS!) they worship and use the warp and don't care for structure like SM.
Heck tactics and gear loadout being different for the basic troops would make sense because they aren't using a standardized template between each other as Space Marines is, Troops of nurgle would have plague spewers and bolts loaded with plagues that explode upon hitting the enemy, while the Khorne don't care, but they use more powerful melee weapons with bolters to try and tear the flesh from the enemy and make them bleed.
I mean really, unlike Space Marines even the basic RHINO would potentially be different between gods, with Tzeentch Rhino's flickering in and out of reality and getting it's troops into position, with Nurgle's bloated pus covered Rhino's belching forth plague and bile and making it hard to see it, while coating the enemy in filth.
Sure, and I'd be all over that. I also think CSM should have access to more than ONE Land Raider variation (I mean, seriously). That being said, as it is, each god doesn't need its own codex, as there really isn't enough units to justify it. If they gave them a lot of unique units, especially as you said various god vehicles and weapons, then I would absolutely buy a Codex: Nurgle. But as it stands, I don't see any reason why CSM players are crying for DA and BA to get rolled into SM, when mono god armies don't really have enough units to stand on their own
jreilly89 wrote: Since I've seen a lot of people arguing it for SM, I have to ask: what makes CSM so special that each god should be split into four codices? Other than the main four, I don't see much difference between Sons of Horus and Alpha Legions. I feel these could be equally given the same amount of attention as chapter tactics in SM. I still think a combining of Daemon and CSM would be great, even a Khorne/Nurgle codex and a Tzeentch/Slaanesh codex. I think it's freaking stupid I can read all about Nurgle marines and Typhus, but hey! I can't take Plagubearers because they're not in the same fething codex.
I am genuinely curious though, what makes CSM deserve their own individual codices?
You mean the varied daemon weapons, Daemon Engines that would drastically be different between gods, the varied tactics that would come from rogue psykers/rogue traitors, the new inventions created by the Dark Mechanicus, the Horus Heresy Era weaponry that would still be in peak condition (CSM still use Reaper Cannons, come on they should have some HH stuff besides the CRAPPY STUFF!), Daemons of different gods, Gigantic mutations of monsters, potent sigils of blood and bone, flame and fear, drastically different weapons between cult legions and people who serve them.
Not to mention the fact that Chaos Lords should be able to become Psykers (They aren't CAPTAINS!) they worship and use the warp and don't care for structure like SM.
Heck tactics and gear loadout being different for the basic troops would make sense because they aren't using a standardized template between each other as Space Marines is, Troops of nurgle would have plague spewers and bolts loaded with plagues that explode upon hitting the enemy, while the Khorne don't care, but they use more powerful melee weapons with bolters to try and tear the flesh from the enemy and make them bleed.
I mean really, unlike Space Marines even the basic RHINO would potentially be different between gods, with Tzeentch Rhino's flickering in and out of reality and getting it's troops into position, with Nurgle's bloated pus covered Rhino's belching forth plague and bile and making it hard to see it, while coating the enemy in filth.
Sure, and I'd be all over that. I also think CSM should have access to more than ONE Land Raider variation (I mean, seriously). That being said, as it is, each god doesn't need its own codex, as there really isn't enough units to justify it. If they gave them a lot of unique units, especially as you said various god vehicles and weapons, then I would absolutely buy a Codex: Nurgle. But as it stands, I don't see any reason why CSM players are crying for DA and BA to get rolled into SM, when mono god armies don't really have enough units to stand on their own
... So a chapter that barely uses slightly different tactics and looks "BA" with another army that's base tactics is something any army could do "DA", and those that had to have new and newer units just to justify it "SW" would be lesser in content then that? All of these armies that had to have constant new stuff to justify things would be more then armies that would require actual new units, but at the same time new units that would have different sorts of units beyond "Oh hey we have 'HELFROST WEAPONS NOW'
I'm going to have to echo Lynata. There's hardly a need for a dozen special characters and exclusive access to some variant units to define a chapter.
Besides, for the people claiming the dozen odd 'unique' units to BA, how many of those are characters, and how many could easily be included in a big book of marine to help increase diversity for all chapters? I can assure you that giving Librarian Dreads, or Angry dreads with claws isn't going to make any less BA, rather, it opens up options for every other chapter.
Also, yes, hand flamers and Inferno pistols should absolutely be common wargear for all chapters.
Really, a chapter can be perfectly flavourful and unique with 0-3 special characters, one or two exclusive units (Death Company and Sang Guard for BA, as an example), and some special rules to cover the tweaks (giving fast to tanks, red thirst), and now you have a simplified chapter that can fit on a page in the army list section, and 5 pages in the fluff/description section.
True, there is no need for those things! They could do with 0-3 Special Characters. But they already have those things - 8 Special Characters and 5 special units - so you can't just take it all away.
And no. You can't have our Infernus Pistol. Want it too? Play Sisters, Inquisition or Blood Angels. Want Hand Flamers? Play an army that has them. Do you want Psychic Dreads? Play an army that has them.
Really, a chapter can be perfectly flavourful and unique with 0-3 special characters, one or two exclusive units (Death Company and Sang Guard for BA, as an example), and some special rules to cover the tweaks (giving fast to tanks, red thirst), and now you have a simplified chapter that can fit on a page in the army list section, and 5 pages in the fluff/description section.
And what do you suggest we do with the other 5 special characters? What do we do with the other 3 exclusive units and the wargear? How do we deal with the elite-Chaplains or Troop-Assault Marines? How do you suggest we implement the Dedicated Transport-Land Raiders? Or how about the rules? Hell, you would need an entire page to describe their 'Chapter Trait'. "Ooh, let's just give everything to everyone and tell Blood Angel-players to suck it!" does not sound like a good business-idea.
So in short: These four Codices are keeping their own book and they are not going to change anything because it's a terrible idea and you should feel bad for even thinking about it.
Kangodo wrote:But they already have those things - 8 Special Characters and 5 special units - so you can't just take it all away.
Are you sure? They did so before.
Special Characters could become normal Captains and Chapter Masters etc, special units could become vanilla codex units with a Chapter Traits-based special rule to set them apart.
The Chapters didn't start out this way, too. This is really just stuff that has retroactively been piled on them over the years. Have you ever read the 2E Codex Angels of Death, for example? That book was so thin, GW had to reprint the origin of the Space Marines twice to fill the pages. In the end, it becomes a question of whether you'd want to fix a mistake that has been made decades ago, or if you're fine with continuing to go down a path that sabotages the IP's potential for more variety and a more equal approach to supporting the different armies.
In my opinion, a more unified approach to the Space Marines would also have homebrewed and alternate official Chapters become more popular. Yeah, the table in your FLGS or local club might still feature 50% Marines, but at least you may start seeing a few more colours once they are all made to appear interesting.
Having SW, DA and BA merged is a bit much. I'd have just 1 Codex: Other Marines, and have them all in there.
If Grey Knights are that special, have them in with Inquisitors AND the Sisters, fluff-be-damned.
changerofways wrote: Lots of people keep going on about how unique DASW and BA are from the other SM but I have yet to see someone say why.
With chapter tactics the newest SW has bundled some very, very different legions into the same codex.
It just leads me to think people want to feel like a special star and have their Space Marine Legion have its own Codex.
Space Wolves have zero units in common with Codex: Space Marines aside from the dreadnoughts and tanks. Literally all of their infantry units are different, all the way from Scouts to Devastators (Long Fangs).
Don't get me wrong. The Space Wolves have gotten so awful with wolf sleds to wolf cavalry to clown shoe flyers that I'd not shed a single tear if they were to disappear from the universe entirely. But it's an entirely different army than Codex: Space Marines, so including them in the book would be basically just adding the entire contents of Codex: Space Wolves to Codex: Space Marines.
The Blood Angels and Dark Angels, on the other hand, could probably have been folded into C:SM with their own Chapter Tactics and one or two unique entries each (Death Company). But then GW would miss out on all that sweet monies selling the additional books.
BrotherOfBone wrote: I personally think we should cut down on big codices and have minidexes, and then a fluff book for anyone interested, similar to the current rulebook.
So you could just buy the rules if that's all you wanted, or you could just buy the fluff. They'd also be smaller, easier to carry and just plain nice, and you could then justify owning more of them because the cost would be dropped.
I think it would be an amazing idea to include a minidex, similar to the mini rulebook, in the army boxes.
As for the codex, they should stay the same. Why and how would making a giant dictionary sized marine book every be useful? Oh you want to play marines? Here, buy this +$150 codex that is 400 pages long. Lug that thing around and have fun flipping through it every time your opponent asks you a question. That would just be terrible. Why change things when they work?
changerofways wrote: Lots of people keep going on about how unique DASW and BA are from the other SM but I have yet to see someone say why.
With chapter tactics the newest SW has bundled some very, very different legions into the same codex.
It just leads me to think people want to feel like a special star and have their Space Marine Legion have its own Codex.
Space Wolves have zero units in common with Codex: Space Marines aside from the dreadnoughts and tanks. Literally all of their infantry units are different, all the way from Scouts to Devastators (Long Fangs).
Don't get me wrong. The Space Wolves have gotten so awful with wolf sleds to wolf cavalry to clown shoe flyers that I'd not shed a single tear if they were to disappear from the universe entirely. But it's an entirely different army than Codex: Space Marines, so including them in the book would be basically just adding the entire contents of Codex: Space Wolves to Codex: Space Marines.
The Blood Angels and Dark Angels, on the other hand, could probably have been folded into C:SM with their own Chapter Tactics and one or two unique entries each (Death Company). But then GW would miss out on all that sweet monies selling the additional books.
All they are mostly the same units with slightly different names and wargear options.
Kangodo wrote: True, there is no need for those things! They could do with 0-3 Special Characters.
But they already have those things - 8 Special Characters and 5 special units - so you can't just take it all away.
And no. You can't have our Infernus Pistol. Want it too? Play Sisters, Inquisition or Blood Angels.
Want Hand Flamers? Play an army that has them.
Do you want Psychic Dreads? Play an army that has them.
Really, a chapter can be perfectly flavourful and unique with 0-3 special characters, one or two exclusive units (Death Company and Sang Guard for BA, as an example), and some special rules to cover the tweaks (giving fast to tanks, red thirst), and now you have a simplified chapter that can fit on a page in the army list section, and 5 pages in the fluff/description section.
And what do you suggest we do with the other 5 special characters?
What do we do with the other 3 exclusive units and the wargear?
How do we deal with the elite-Chaplains or Troop-Assault Marines?
How do you suggest we implement the Dedicated Transport-Land Raiders?
Or how about the rules? Hell, you would need an entire page to describe their 'Chapter Trait'.
"Ooh, let's just give everything to everyone and tell Blood Angel-players to suck it!" does not sound like a good business-idea.
So in short: These four Codices are keeping their own book and they are not going to change anything because it's a terrible idea and you should feel bad for even thinking about it.
Or we could see these "differences" for what they are, FoC/USR/Wargear swaps in most cases, many of which may not survive a new codex iteration in the first place. Elites Chaplains are unique to the 5E BA codex. They weren't anything special in any other iteration of the BA's and may not be in a new BA book. Death Company are as different from each other iteration from themselves as they are form any other unit. Etc.
It's not at all a terrible idea, it's only a terrible idea if you're glued to exactly what exists now as the puritanical definition of what defines the army, in which case you're likely to be disappointed by a new codex anyway.
@Veteran Sergeant: Again. Because people refuse to read it. 14 unique units!
And that would actually be better for Games Workshop. Because for every 40 euro they would lose on a BA-sale, they would gain at least 15 on every Space Marine-player (including BA-players) that have to buy a bloated book with units they don't give a damn about.
Lynata wrote: Are you sure? They did so before. Special Characters could become normal Captains and Chapter Masters etc, special units could become vanilla codex units with a Chapter Traits-based special rule to set them apart.
How? How are you going to turn Captain Tycho or Chapter Master Gabriel Seth into a regular Captain/Chapter Master without throwing all of their rules out of the window? So you are saying Sanguinary Guard could become a vanilla-unit with just some special rules for the BA-Chapter Tactic? That has got to be the worst idea on the internet so far. And I've seen some crazy ideas on /b/..
The Chapters didn't start out this way, too. This is really just stuff that has retroactively been piled on them over the years. Have you ever read the 2E Codex Angels of Death, for example? That book was so thin, GW had to reprint the origin of the Space Marines twice to fill the pages. In the end, it becomes a question of whether you'd want to fix a mistake that has been made decades ago, or if you're fine with continuing to go down a path that sabotages the IP's potential for more variety and a more equal approach to supporting the different armies.
Which is why this 'merging' would have been a good idea 16 years ago, but not now. Not any more. How is it a mistake and how is it sabotaging the IP?
In my opinion, a more unified approach to the Space Marines would also have homebrewed and alternate official Chapters become more popular. Yeah, the table in your FLGS or local club might still feature 50% Marines, but at least you may start seeing a few more colours once they are all made to appear interesting.
Vaktathi wrote: It's not at all a terrible idea, it's only a terrible idea if you're glued to exactly what exists now as the puritanical definition of what defines the army, in which case you're likely to be disappointed by a new codex anyway.
No, it's a terrible idea if you have been playing an army with its own separate Codex for 16 years and someone suddenly thinks it's a good idea to remove your entire Codex from the game because 'they feel like its a good idea'. For the last years we've had dozens of threads where people are discussing how awesome it would be to have additional Supplements for Chapters and how Chaos Marines and Imperial Guard would be even more awesome if they had more Codices. And here we are, talking about how we should just cram everything in one book because some people are jealous because they don't have their own book. If you want more variation in the C:SM-book, you should try clicking that link I posted.
Commander Dante
Chapter Master Gabriel Seth
Astorath the Grim
The Sanguinor
Mephiston
Captain Tycho
Death Company Tycho
Reclusiarch
Sanguinary Guard
Furioso Dreadnought
Furioso Librarian
Sanguinary Priest
Brother Corbulo
Death Company
Lemartes, Guardian of the Lost
Death Company Dreadnought
Baal Predator
Commander Dante
Chapter Master Gabriel Seth
Astorath the Grim
The Sanguinor
Mephiston
Captain Tycho
Death Company Tycho
Reclusiarch
Sanguinary Guard
Furioso Dreadnought
Furioso Librarian
Sanguinary Priest
Brother Corbulo
Death Company
Lemartes, Guardian of the Lost
Death Company Dreadnought
Baal Predator
How would you change each and one of them?
Baal Predator
Wargear options, FoC change if used in a blood angel detachment
Furioso Dreadnought
Ironclad Dreadnought options
Furioso Librarian
Venerable upgrade for Ironclad Dreadnought (Why is this unique to BA anyways)
Death Company Dreadnought
X point upgrade for dreadnoughts in a BA detachment
Sanguinary Guard
Honour guard wargear options: Jump pack.
The rest of the SC's could come in their respective BA supplement, with Death Company being a unique Unit, along with sanguinary priests.
No, it's a terrible idea if you have been playing an army with its own separate Codex for 16 years and someone suddenly thinks it's a good idea to remove your entire Codex from the game because 'they feel like its a good idea'.
They're not removing it, they're folding into another army that's 80%+ identical.
For the last years we've had dozens of threads where people are discussing how awesome it would be to have additional Supplements for Chapters and how Chaos Marines and Imperial Guard would be even more awesome if they had more Codices.
Both of which arguably have far more claim...and yet don't. Either way, not the point. They have one codex and make do.
And here we are, talking about how we should just cram everything in one book because some people are jealous because they don't have their own book.
Or because having so many marine books crowds out other possible releases by taking development resources and release pipeline and heavily contributes to the fact that GW consistently has codex books lagging two editions behind just to have slightly different loyalist marines.
Commander Dante
Chapter Master Gabriel Seth
Astorath the Grim
The Sanguinor
Mephiston
Captain Tycho
Death Company Tycho
Reclusiarch
Sanguinary Guard
Furioso Dreadnought
Furioso Librarian
Sanguinary Priest
Brother Corbulo
Death Company
Lemartes, Guardian of the Lost
Death Company Dreadnought
Baal Predator
How would you change each and one of them?
The special characters can be ported over as is, let's ignore them.
Reclusiarch - Chaplain. Done.
Furioso Dreadnought - previous to it's current WS6 incarnation it was just a dread with a 2nd CCW. That's it. Now it's an Ironclad with higher WS and a couple different wargear options. Could easily just say "armies using BA chapter tactics may take X options on Ironclad dreads"
Sanguinary Priest - again, another unit that currently works much differently than previous incarnations and may come out very differently again regardless. Is basically an independent bubble Apothecary, could be ported over any number of ways "Apothecaries taken with BA chapter tactics may be taken independently as IC's"
Death Company Dreadnought - Basically a dread with Daemonic Possession and WS5.
Baal Predator - simple weapon swap "Predators in an army with BA chapter tactics may instead take the following weapons options...." done.
Death Company - given how radically different every incarnation of this unit has been between each BA codex, almost anything could be done with it.
Sanguinary Guard - Honor Guard with jump packs and MC'd weapons.
Blood Angels already have an Honour Guard and they are entirely different from Sanguinary Guard. BA-Honour Guard is also completely different from SM-Honour Guard. They are three entirely different units.
The rest of the SC's could come in their respective BA supplement, with Death Company being a unique Unit, along with sanguinary priests.
So in short they should rip up the book, force BA-players to buy the Codex: Space Marines and then try to make up for the complete rape of the Codex by bringing out another 50 dollar Supplement that tries to make up for their mistakes?
This might be a weird question.. But did a Blood Angel-player steal your lunch money or something? Because I wouldn't even wish this to my worst enemies.
Vaktathi wrote: They're not removing it, they're folding into another army that's 80%+ identical.
60%, maximum. And that is enough reason to continue with a separate Codex as they did in the last 16 years.
Both of which arguably have far more claim...and yet don't. Either way, not the point. They have one codex and make do.
And they should have their own book; not take away the Codices of other armies.
Reclusiarch - Chaplain. Done.
Blood Angels already have Chaplains, they are Elites. As for the rest, see above. You would have to put so many additional rules and exceptions, just for one army. Now imagine doing that four times! And why? Because we still haven't heard a good reason.
Anpu42 wrote: And all of that Marginalizes yet another chapter like the Black Templars.
When literally everything that made them different is still there?
Besides, BT haven't been marginalized, they have access to a greater array of units and weapons and options than ever before, still retain their "unique" troops unit and some special rules. They lost some things, but who's to say they'd have retained them in a new codex either? Very little from that 4E era survived intact.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Baal Predator Wargear options, FoC change if used in a blood angel detachment
So we need different Wargear, a FoC-change and addition of the Fast and Scouts-rule ánd other options.
Might as well be a different unit-entry.
Scout and FoC change may not survive and didn't exist before. They're not a defining feature of the unit. The defining feature of the Baal is its weapons.
Furioso Dreadnought Different wargear, different options and additional rules as well as different profile and Furioso Librarian?
Again, not huge numbers of different options. We've got an almost identical statline and unit type, they could be homogenized very easily unless one is just so stuck to the specifics of the 5E book that anything else will disappoint, in which case it's also very likely a new BA codex will disappoint.
(Why is this unique to BA anyways)
Because Blood Angels are Blood Angels and not Codex: Space Marines.
Might as well ask why Monoliths are unique to Necrons.
Because Monoliths, unlike Dreadnoughts, are not in common usage by Space Marine chapters. We're talking about modifications to a common platform sharing the vast majority of stats and weapons and rules.
Death Company Dreadnought With a change to their Battlefield Role, different wargear, different rules and different profile?
Once again, we're talking about very slight differences that may or may not survive intact as-is anyway.
Sanguinary Guard Blood Angels already have an Honour Guard and they are entirely different from Sanguinary Guard
BA-Honour Guard is also completely different from SM-Honour Guard..
Yes, completely different...except that they share a statline, weapon types, and armor save, and differ primarily in a couple extraneous wargear options most people don't bother to take.
So in short they should rip up the book, force BA-players to buy the Codex: Space Marines and then try to make up for the complete rape of the Codex by bringing out another 50 dollar Supplement that tries to make up for their mistakes?
Anpu42 wrote: And all of that Marginalizes yet another chapter like the Black Templars.
When literally everything that made them different is still there?
Besides, BT haven't been marginalized, they have access to a greater array of units and weapons and options than ever before, still retain their "unique" troops unit and some special rules. They lost some things, but who's to say they'd have retained them in a new codex either? Very little from that 4E era survived intact.
This might not mean a lot to some, but Listen to the Pre-6th edition Black Templar Players vs. the new ones.
The Old: "I am Playing my Black Templars using [C: SM, enter Chapter or Space Wolves]"
New: Wait as far as I know there are no new ones or at least I have not seen one.
I have yet to meet a Single Back Templar Player using Chapter Tactics: Black Templars
BrotherOfBone wrote: I personally think we should cut down on big codices and have minidexes, and then a fluff book for anyone interested, similar to the current rulebook.
So you could just buy the rules if that's all you wanted, or you could just buy the fluff. They'd also be smaller, easier to carry and just plain nice, and you could then justify owning more of them because the cost would be dropped.
I think it would be an amazing idea to include a minidex, similar to the mini rulebook, in the army boxes.
As for the codex, they should stay the same. Why and how would making a giant dictionary sized marine book every be useful? Oh you want to play marines? Here, buy this +$150 codex that is 400 pages long. Lug that thing around and have fun flipping through it every time your opponent asks you a question. That would just be terrible. Why change things when they work?
I love how the people who complain loudest about GW's policies are the people who advocate the stupidest policies of all. Combining all the marine dexes into one would a)as you say, jack up the price of said codex b)Piss an aweful lot of people off and c)Drastically reduce the variety and bredth of the lore.
It's fine to be annoyed that your own faction/regiment hasn't gotten some love, but claiming that huge numbers - possible a majority? - of hobbyists should have their hobby crippled just "because", doesn't sit well with me.
It's the logical equivilent of me being annoyed that there are no guard mini-dexes...and yet there are not one, but TWO eldar codexes! And there are probably as many eldar combined as there are in a single regiment of guard, plus they have a suppliment AS WELL! GW must just hate the Imperial Guard I guess, or they hate getting my money. See, internet hate is easy when you know how
Not going to happen. Simple enough?
This change would:
a) Charge at least 50% of their playerbase more without gaining any benefits.
b) Do nothing to increase the quality or release rate of Xenos-Codices.
c) Do not give them a lot more profit, since there is a limit to how expensive they can make a Codex.
d) Piss of a gigantic portion of the players.
And why? So players can still decide not to make homebrewn Chapters just like they haven't been doing that in the last years despite there being so many options already available.
Not going to happen. Simple enough?
This change would:
a) Charge at least 50% of their playerbase more without gaining any benefits.
b) Do nothing to increase the quality or release rate of Xenos-Codices.
c) Do not give them a lot more profit, since there is a limit to how expensive they can make a Codex.
d) Piss of a gigantic portion of the players.
And why? So players can still decide not to make homebrewn Chapters just like they haven't been doing that in the last years despite there being so many options already available.
A and C contradict each other, and they would gain more through supplements, also unlike him I don't particularly care about homebrew chapters.
Vaktathi wrote: They're not removing it, they're folding into another army that's 80%+ identical.
60%, maximum. And that is enough reason to continue with a separate Codex as they did in the last 16 years.
Except you could fold them in without losing any of their functionality...that means they really don't need their own book. Or they could be done as a supplemental book, which wouldn't be the first time they were done that way.
And they should have their own book; not take away the Codices of other armies.
And how many core codex books are we going to print when GW can't keep pace with the one's we've got?
Blood Angels already have Chaplains, they are Elites.
Reclusiarch is just a Chaplain rank. Previously the Reclusiarch was the W2 chaplain in the 4E SM books and the Master of Sanctity was the W3 Chaplain. Again, hung up on specifics of one edition.
You would have to put so many additional rules and exceptions, just for one army.
Now imagine doing that four times! And why? Because we still haven't heard a good reason.
So we don't have armies spread over three editions because we have to make room for 3-4 extra marine books in the marketing release pipeline?
I find it very simple why it should not happen. Look at this thread and some of the reactions.
It would only please a small number of people.
Reduce over all sales. [I know it would for me, I currently own all of the available Hard Copies of Marine Codex's]
A lot of us would not be happy with it.
It would only cause even more confusion and fights over rules.
Vaktathi wrote: They're not removing it, they're folding into another army that's 80%+ identical.
60%, maximum. And that is enough reason to continue with a separate Codex as they did in the last 16 years.
Except you could fold them in without losing any of their functionality...that means they really don't need their own book. Or they could be done as a supplemental book, which wouldn't be the first time they were done that way.
Answer me this - why don't gw roll *all* the armies into one army book? There would be no loss of functionality or fluff, the only reason *not* to do it is GW's money-grabbing ways, right?
Anpu42 wrote: It would only cause even more confusion and fights over rules.
Not that I care about this debate, since I know that GW isn't going to do this, but wouldn't this measure make the Marine rules more streamlined, and this easier to process? There would of course be some initial confusion as people got used to the new codex, but that's true of every update.
Vaktathi wrote: So we don't have armies spread over three editions because we have to make room for 3-4 extra marine books in the marketing release pipeline?
Who cares? In 6 or so months we'll have all codices up to date. If the extra marine codices are so similar to the main SM codex, they can just have smaller windows in the marketing release pipeline... as we've already seen GW are happy to be flexible on it for different armies.
I, for one, think 3-4 marine codices are better than either 1 marine codex which is confusing because you're shoving so much crap in to them (I already hate navigating GW codices, I don't really want another 30 entries that I'm not allowed to use to make it even harder to navigate) OR 1 marine codex which is a watered down version of the 3-4 codices.
The only downside I'm seeing is shelf space in physical stores, of which I really don't give a damn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu42 wrote: I find it very simple why it should not happen. Look at this thread and some of the reactions.
It would only please a small number of people.
Reduce over all sales. [I know it would for me, I currently own all of the available Hard Copies of Marine Codex's]
A lot of us would not be happy with it.
It would only cause even more confusion and fights over rules.
Yep, I agree with you here. The last sentence is obviously dependent on different things, but everything other than your last sentence I agree with.
Removing things is bad. That's basically how I feel. It pissed me off that my IG lost their special characters, it pissed me off they lost their artillery tanks (even though, yes, I know I can buy an IA to continue to use them, it still pissed me off they aren't in the codex). Those things being removed pissed me off more than having the Hydra/Wyvern/Taurox added in made me happy.
The only way I could get behind removing things is if GW were rewriting the entire rules system to be more streamlined, in which case I do feel things would benefit greatly from being consolidated like they were back when GW last rewrote the rules from scratch.
-Codex Adherant and make you own chapter in one book
-Non Codex Adherant Chapters, including GK, SW,BT, BA etc
- Codex Imperium - Guard, Sisters,Knights
-Chaos Deamons, Legions, Warbands, Renegades, Traitor Guard
-Codex Eldar - Eldar, Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Exodites
Codex Tyranids, Hive fleet Nids
Codex Orks, Ork Clan lists, Ork Pirates
Codex Necrons
Codex Tau
I think this covers it.
Would be nice to have them as hard back but also in a sleave like the main rule book.
Really i wish they would sell something like a ring binder to put the army rules into.
As such they could then sell the folders ( with limited edition artwork) polywrapped codexes which are pre punched, or in a soft cover with perfs on it. They could also then sell the dividers.
That way it would encourage people to 'collect' the rules.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Who cares? In 6 or so months we'll have all codices up to date.
We'll may or may not have all armies out of 5th edition. As seen by the new 7E books, there's a radical difference in force org theory that other armies are missing out on, as well as formations and integrated LoW's.
If the extra marine codices are so similar to the main SM codex, they can just have smaller windows in the marketing release pipeline... as we've already seen GW are happy to be flexible on it for different armies.
That's a big maybe, and either way, adds significantly to the release pipeline.
I, for one, think 3-4 marine codices are better than either 1 marine codex which is confusing because you're shoving so much crap in to them (I already hate navigating GW codices, I don't really want another 30 entries that I'm not allowed to use to make it even harder to navigate) OR 1 marine codex which is a watered down version of the 3-4 codices.
This would be a problem of execution, not something inherent to combining the marine books. We've had other books manage it, we see other games manage to fit many armies coherently into single books, what makes Space Marines so different here?
Answer me this - why don't gw roll *all* the armies into one army book? There would be no loss of functionality or fluff, the only reason *not* to do it is GW's money-grabbing ways, right?
I know I'm answering an obvious troll response, but here goes anyways.
They could, actually. Releasing a book with all the armies in a single book, divided by faction, could very well be a thing. It'd be rules only, of course, but yeah. In fact, let's go one step further, and make it a PDF online. Let's make it free, too.
Anything is doable when you put your mind to it. GW likes money, so they charge for faction books. Other companies don't require you to, but often offer a nice, hardbound copy of the rules with bonus fluff for half the cost of a GW codex.
The argument for marines is that they're virtually identical, in the grand scheme of things, yet had different codices historically, so we still have them now.
For all those pointing at BT as a reason not to roll in marines, the problem is not with the idea, with the execution. Of course, GW would likely mess up some sort of combined book, but its not like they won't mess up a stand alone book either.
Besides, all these unique unit entries in BA are just wargear options that could easily be added for all other marines. Even most of the ICs could be done away with, and be used with appropriate wargear selection from a standard character.
The discussion is moot anyways, its not like anyone is going to convince a BA, DA, or SW player they'd be better off without a standalone book. The merits of combining are for the game as a whole.
Answer me this - why don't gw roll *all* the armies into one army book? There would be no loss of functionality or fluff, the only reason *not* to do it is GW's money-grabbing ways, right?
I know I'm answering an obvious troll response, but here goes anyways.
They could, actually. Releasing a book with all the armies in a single book, divided by faction, could very well be a thing. It'd be rules only, of course, but yeah. In fact, let's go one step further, and make it a PDF online. Let's make it free, too.
Anything is doable when you put your mind to it. GW likes money, so they charge for faction books. Other companies don't require you to, but often offer a nice, hardbound copy of the rules with bonus fluff for half the cost of a GW codex.
The argument for marines is that they're virtually identical, in the grand scheme of things, yet had different codices historically, so we still have them now.
For all those pointing at BT as a reason not to roll in marines, the problem is not with the idea, with the execution. Of course, GW would likely mess up some sort of combined book, but its not like they won't mess up a stand alone book either.
Besides, all these unique unit entries in BA are just wargear options that could easily be added for all other marines. Even most of the ICs could be done away with, and be used with appropriate wargear selection from a standard character.
The discussion is moot anyways, its not like anyone is going to convince a BA, DA, or SW player they'd be better off without a standalone book. The merits of combining are for the game as a whole.
Firstly, I've reported your "troll" comment. Please don't preface a post with such obvious flamebait again or I shall simply report and not bother responding next time.
So you want to remove the idea of codexes as collectables then? If you regard them as nothing more than a collection of rules then yeah, they probably should be free. Personally I enjoy codexes, I like that the rules and the fluff are intertwined - it makes the rules seem like a natural extention of the fluff rather than just abstract data, that's not to say I don't think there's no issues with codexes as they stand (this is not the thread to dicuss these problems), but the entire premise of your argument is that codexes should be nothing more than a dispassionate list of stat values and special rules, and you haven't, as far as I can see, even done us the courtesy of stating this.
Also, you've *still* not actually spelt out why you think codexes should be scrapped, other than that you think they should all be cheaper/free anyway. So here's a hypothetical question - assuming GW carries on roughly on its current codex/suppliment route, what do you think should happen and why?
I have explained why I think codices should be *combined*. Perhaps you can read through the thread and find where I, and others, have explained the reasoning behind this?
You'll notice I also mentioned that companies who do offer free rules, generally also offer nice collectible books with fluff. The same could be done with GW. But to answer your original question about combining, yes, it absolutely could be done.
There is no one right way to offer rules to customers. In fact, a combination or options is preferable. Which means, you could have one giant file with everything on it, and then have a series of nice books with pictures and what not.
Blacksails wrote: The argument for marines is that they're virtually identical, in the grand scheme of things, yet had different codices historically, so we still have them now.
They WERE virtually identical, 16 years ago.
In the meantime they became so different that merging SW, GK, DA or BA would make as much sense as merging Codex: CSM
Besides, all these unique unit entries in BA are just wargear options that could easily be added for all other marines. Even most of the ICs could be done away with, and be used with appropriate wargear selection from a standard character.
So in other words: Remove their special characters and give every unique wargear to everyone else.
Great idea. Not.
The discussion is moot anyways, its not like anyone is going to convince a BA, DA, or SW player they'd be better off without a standalone book. The merits of combining are for the game as a whole.
And how exactly is this a merit for the game as a whole?
Because half of the SM-players don't need an even bigger book and the other half will be upset when you remove their Codex.
And you would force both groups of players to buy a book at increased cost filled with stuff they don't care about.
People were less upset with Black Templars being added because everyone thought they would get a supplement for the lost stuff.
Now, a year later, that supplement still isn't there.
Kangodo wrote: @Veteran Sergeant:
Again.
Because people refuse to read it.
14 unique units!
It's not 14 unique units unless you're counting Special Characters. Most of the differentiations are superficial, at best, and could easily be folded into the Codex: Space Marines entries just like was done with the Black Templars. But aside from the Death Company and the Librarian Dreadnoughts, what massive differences are there? Sanguinary Priests get absorbed into command squads as apothecaries (those of us who remember freestanding apothecaries in C:SM armies request you cry us a river). Then they add one line to a handful of vehicles about "armies with Chapter Tactics: Blood Angels can take x for y points." We're talking about a half page of extra rules, at most.
I'm not saying all of the players would like the idea of their book disappearing, but let's be realistic, every codex change is unpopular with somebody, lol.
The Blood Angels are a Codex Chapter. They can easily fit into Codex Space Marines, if we're just talking theoretical. Heck, they belong there far more than the Black Templars did. But it's not about what makes sense, it's all about dolla dolla bills ya'all. So in that regard, you need not worry your pretty little heart, because Codex: Blood Angels isn't going anywhere.
They WERE virtually identical, 16 years ago.
In the meantime they became so different that merging SW, GK, DA or BA would make as much sense as merging Codex: CSM
First, I wouldn't merge GK in. They can be in another book for Inq and other Imperial agents. Prior to this SW book, they could have fairly easily been rolled. The changes aren't half as big as you're making them out to be. Which makes sense, seeing as you're a marine player, you're obviously going to think your book is immutable and sacred.
So in other words: Remove their special characters and give every unique wargear to everyone else.
Great idea. Not.
Do you have a point to make? Maybe explain? Provide a counter reason? Otherwise, the written equivalent of plugging your ears and shouting "nanananana" isn't productive for a discussion.
And how exactly is this a merit for the game as a whole?
Because half of the SM-players don't need an even bigger book and the other half will be upset when you remove their Codex.
And you would force both groups of players to buy a book at increased cost filled with stuff they don't care about.
First, the boo wouldn't be that much bigger. There would be streamlining, in this fictional world where GW wouldn't want to milk their customers for every last penny. With streamlining comes more option with less space taken up. We already see this in books where units are fit into smaller spaces, both in the fluff section and army rules. The same is easily done for marines, all of whom share nearly identical wargear. Second, if we're talking about a GW capable of writing quality rules, I'll also make another crazy assumption, and state that the book wouldn't be more expensive, or at least not so much more that players would be upset, especially when you consider all the additions.
Stop thinking of it as buying an additional book and think of it as an edition update, which you'd buy a new book for anyways. Now, obviously GW as it stands wouldn't do any of this for very obvious reasons, but then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place if certain assumptions weren't made.
As for benefiting the game as a whole, well I've already explained the merits earlier in this thread, so you can go back and read them there. You didn't like them there, so I don't expect you to like them now. Instead, maybe provide some counter reasons that aren't pointing out the history of the codices.
People were less upset with Black Templars being added because everyone thought they would get a supplement for the lost stuff.
Now, a year later, that supplement still isn't there.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Who cares? In 6 or so months we'll have all codices up to date.
We'll may or may not have all armies out of 5th edition. As seen by the new 7E books, there's a radical difference in force org theory that other armies are missing out on, as well as formations and integrated LoW's.
How fast do you want them recycling codices? If it takes them less than 2.5 years between codices, IMO that's getting too fast.
That's a big maybe, and either way, adds significantly to the release pipeline.
GK only added 1 week to the release pipeline. SW only added 3 while Orks added 6 (from memory).
This would be a problem of execution, not something inherent to combining the marine books. We've had other books manage it, we see other games manage to fit many armies coherently into single books, what makes Space Marines so different here?
Well I'm not sure what we're comparing to so I can't specifically say what the "difference" is. But to me a huge significant thing is that SW, BA, DA already have codices, and have had for a long time.
A big book of Space Marine COULD have been done well... back in 3rd edition. That was the best time to do it, all the marine chapters were very similar and SW/BA/DA only amounted to supplements anyway so could have easily just been included in the main book. I can't remember DA and BA, but back in 2nd SW were very simply Space Marines with a few minor mods that could be summed up in a paragraph or two and add Blood Claws as a unique unit and you're good to go. That's no longer the case.
To roll them in now, it'd either be monolithic or you'll be cutting down on what we already have. Sure, we may not need 22 special characters (which is how many SW, BA and DA have combined). But the fact is we DO have 22 special characters, many of which have models. You're going to have to go a long way to convincing me cutting things we already have is a good option.
Never creating them in the first place? Sure. That's fine. Cutting them? Not nearly the same.
If you don't cut things and just go with the monolithic codex, well, as I mentioned, I'd rather just have 4 separate codices than 1 monolithic one, if for no other reason that it's a pain to navigate through a bunch of entries you can't use. I'd be happy if they all released in a single 2 month release window, but I'd still rather have them separate. Of course GW would probably rather spread them out more so that they have a constant influx of SM marketing material.
Blacksails wrote: Which makes sense, seeing as you're a marine player, you're obviously going to think your book is immutable and sacred.
Yeah, it's quite irritating if someone thinks that GW should just remove my secondary army.
I also think that it is ridiculous to merge four (or three) Codices so a handful of people have even more options for their homebrewed Chapters.
Hardly anyone does it and they already have enough options.
Of course, as a non-Marine player, you probably don't give a gak about their Codices and the players.
Do you have a point to make? Maybe explain? Provide a counter reason? Otherwise, the written equivalent of plugging your ears and shouting "nanananana" isn't productive for a discussion.
Is there a discussion here?
Because so far it are just walls of text explaining how we can rape the book by merging things and having a couple of additional paragraphs for each and every unit to make this possible.
We have yet to see a valid reason that actually outweighs all the cons.
Now, obviously GW as it stands wouldn't do any of this for very obvious reasons
Exactly, I am glad they are smart enough to refrain from doing such a thing.
You didn't like them there, so I don't expect you to like them now. Instead, maybe provide some counter reasons that aren't pointing out the history of the codices.
1) It would make the Codex ridiculously large.
2) It would make the Codex too expensive.
3) Unless they remove most of the things that players like, in which case the flaw of the idea is quite obvious.
4) It would include a lot of nonsense that most players don't care about, like other Factions.
5) It would ruin the uniqueness of those armies and upset their players.
Kangodo wrote: Yeah, it's quite irritating if someone thinks that GW should just remove my secondary army.
I also think that it is ridiculous to merge four (or three) Codices so a handful of people have even more options for their homebrewed Chapters.
Why is it irritating that someone dare think codices could be combined? In a thread asking that question, no less. Are personally offended I hold this opinion? It sounds like you're getting a little emotional about this purely theoretical discussion, of which, we all know nothing will come. Your book is safe from my evil clutches.
Its not just homebrewed. If I had a Salamander army, I'd have more option too. I'd have tanks in my FA slot, I'd have hand flamers and inferno pistols. I'd have librarian dreads. All of which are incredibly flavourful additions.
Hardly anyone does it and they already have enough options.
Do you have numbers to back this up? Even a cursory glance at Bolter and Chainsword will tell you there is a dedicated community of people who do just that. I'd hardly call it "Hardly anyone".
Of course, as a non-Marine player, you probably don't give a gak about their Codices and the players.
I very much give a gak. I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth and make assumptions about me. I look at the different flavour of marines and think they could easily fit in a book from a game design perspective. There really isn't anything remarkably different about them as factions deserving of their own book. Combining them frees up developer time for other codices, supplements, expansions, campaigns, and other stuff.
Is there a discussion here?
There is, you're just constructively adding to it.
Because so far it are just walls of text explaining how we can rape the book by merging things and having a couple of additional paragraphs for each and every unit to make this possible.
We have yet to see a valid reason that actually outweighs all the cons.
No, you just don't like the reasons. Don't confuse a valid reason for one you dislike because the status quo suits you just fine. Change is scary, and with GW, highly unpredictable and often times a bad thing. If any other company was writing the rules for 40k, they could very easily do a combined book. There would be cutting from the BA, and DA, and SW, but those are acceptable to me to open marines to everyone that much more. Most of the cutting would come from paring down the characters and the fluff sections, but ideally there'd be a more diverse spread of which marines appear in the fluff than is currently displayed.
1) It would make the Codex ridiculously large.
Not really. You're making the assumption that we'd have to include the BA book wholesale. As I mentioned above, there would be cuts, but it could fit rather nicely. The book would be bigger, but not nearly as big as what you're implying.
2) It would make the Codex too expensive.
With GW, sure. With a reasonable company and sensible pricing, no. Then again, paying $60 for a codex now is pretty absurd. If anything, you could keep it the same cost for a normal book ($60), but then make it worth the value by having that much more in the book.
3) Unless they remove most of the things that players like, in which case the flaw of the idea is quite obvious.
As a BA player yourself, you're obviously more concerned with the damage done to BA, but miss out on the opportunities afforded to everyone by having a singular source for all things loyalist marine. In my head version, you'd lose out on a number of characters, but make up for by having an expanded wargear selection so you could make these characters again with wargear, minus some special rules.
4) It would include a lot of nonsense that most players don't care about, like other Factions.
Not your strongest point. The same could be said about the current C:SM, but I don't think Ultramarine players are upset that Salamanders and White Scars appear in the book alongside them.
5) It would ruin the uniqueness of those armies and upset their players.
No, it would ruin the exclusivity of those chapters. Don't confuse being unique for being exclusive. You could make the same army you currently do (minus some specific characters), with the difference that another marine chapter could use wargear previously not available to them. It doesn't make your army any less unique, and frankly, if your concept of uniqueness is based solely on the rules for that chapter, I'd suggest you open up a little and realize that a paint job, conversions, and model selection will play a bigger role in making your army unique and play distinctly.
So what exactly are the benefits?
One source book for all things loyalist/power armour. No redundancy across books. More variety for all marine players. A cheaper method to collect/own rules for multiple chapters. Easier to balance. More time afforded to developers for other projects. Streamlined rules.
I understand that you dislike my idea, but I think you need to get less emotional about it. Trust me, I'm not going to GWHQ any time soon and holding the place hostage until they combine marine books.
jreilly89 wrote: Since I've seen a lot of people arguing it for SM, I have to ask: what makes CSM so special that each god should be split into four codices? Other than the main four, I don't see much difference between Sons of Horus and Alpha Legions. I feel these could be equally given the same amount of attention as chapter tactics in SM. I still think a combining of Daemon and CSM would be great, even a Khorne/Nurgle codex and a Tzeentch/Slaanesh codex. I think it's freaking stupid I can read all about Nurgle marines and Typhus, but hey! I can't take Plagubearers because they're not in the same fething codex.
I am genuinely curious though, what makes CSM deserve their own individual codices?
You mean the varied daemon weapons, Daemon Engines that would drastically be different between gods, the varied tactics that would come from rogue psykers/rogue traitors, the new inventions created by the Dark Mechanicus, the Horus Heresy Era weaponry that would still be in peak condition (CSM still use Reaper Cannons, come on they should have some HH stuff besides the CRAPPY STUFF!), Daemons of different gods, Gigantic mutations of monsters, potent sigils of blood and bone, flame and fear, drastically different weapons between cult legions and people who serve them.
Not to mention the fact that Chaos Lords should be able to become Psykers (They aren't CAPTAINS!) they worship and use the warp and don't care for structure like SM.
Heck tactics and gear loadout being different for the basic troops would make sense because they aren't using a standardized template between each other as Space Marines is, Troops of nurgle would have plague spewers and bolts loaded with plagues that explode upon hitting the enemy, while the Khorne don't care, but they use more powerful melee weapons with bolters to try and tear the flesh from the enemy and make them bleed.
I mean really, unlike Space Marines even the basic RHINO would potentially be different between gods, with Tzeentch Rhino's flickering in and out of reality and getting it's troops into position, with Nurgle's bloated pus covered Rhino's belching forth plague and bile and making it hard to see it, while coating the enemy in filth.
Sure, and I'd be all over that. I also think CSM should have access to more than ONE Land Raider variation (I mean, seriously). That being said, as it is, each god doesn't need its own codex, as there really isn't enough units to justify it. If they gave them a lot of unique units, especially as you said various god vehicles and weapons, then I would absolutely buy a Codex: Nurgle. But as it stands, I don't see any reason why CSM players are crying for DA and BA to get rolled into SM, when mono god armies don't really have enough units to stand on their own
... So a chapter that barely uses slightly different tactics and looks "BA" with another army that's base tactics is something any army could do "DA", and those that had to have new and newer units just to justify it "SW" would be lesser in content then that? All of these armies that had to have constant new stuff to justify things would be more then armies that would require actual new units, but at the same time new units that would have different sorts of units beyond "Oh hey we have 'HELFROST WEAPONS NOW'
I just have to ask you if your trolling me.
I'm not intentionally trying to troll you, and I'd ask you not to insult my integrity, sir. My point was just that I see a lot of players rarely run mono god lists and usually play undivided. Most BA or DA players play only that chapter, they don't play SW colors and use Ultramarines tactics.
Like I said, I would love more Chaos units, especially unique ones, but when every god can use a Defiler, Daemon Prince, and a non-god specific vehicle, each god having their own codex doesn't make sense to me. I'm not trying to anyone, I just don't see why people think DA could be so easily rolled into SM with a few minor rules changes, but don't have any evidence to support a Codex: Nurgle.
P.S. To be fair, I am legitimately curious and not trying to flame. Second, I would LOVE a Codex: Nurgle, as I just got Typhus in the mail
Kangodo wrote: Yeah, it's quite irritating if someone thinks that GW should just remove my secondary army.
I also think that it is ridiculous to merge four (or three) Codices so a handful of people have even more options for their homebrewed Chapters.
Why is it irritating that someone dare think codices could be combined? In a thread asking that question, no less. Are personally offended I hold this opinion? It sounds like you're getting a little emotional about this purely theoretical discussion, of which, we all know nothing will come. Your book is safe from my evil clutches.
Its not just homebrewed. If I had a Salamander army, I'd have more option too. I'd have tanks in my FA slot, I'd have hand flamers and inferno pistols. I'd have librarian dreads. All of which are incredibly flavourful additions.
Hardly anyone does it and they already have enough options.
Do you have numbers to back this up? Even a cursory glance at Bolter and Chainsword will tell you there is a dedicated community of people who do just that. I'd hardly call it "Hardly anyone".
Of course, as a non-Marine player, you probably don't give a gak about their Codices and the players.
I very much give a gak. I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth and make assumptions about me. I look at the different flavour of marines and think they could easily fit in a book from a game design perspective. There really isn't anything remarkably different about them as factions deserving of their own book. Combining them frees up developer time for other codices, supplements, expansions, campaigns, and other stuff.
Is there a discussion here?
There is, you're just constructively adding to it.
Because so far it are just walls of text explaining how we can rape the book by merging things and having a couple of additional paragraphs for each and every unit to make this possible.
We have yet to see a valid reason that actually outweighs all the cons.
No, you just don't like the reasons. Don't confuse a valid reason for one you dislike because the status quo suits you just fine. Change is scary, and with GW, highly unpredictable and often times a bad thing. If any other company was writing the rules for 40k, they could very easily do a combined book. There would be cutting from the BA, and DA, and SW, but those are acceptable to me to open marines to everyone that much more. Most of the cutting would come from paring down the characters and the fluff sections, but ideally there'd be a more diverse spread of which marines appear in the fluff than is currently displayed.
1) It would make the Codex ridiculously large.
Not really. You're making the assumption that we'd have to include the BA book wholesale. As I mentioned above, there would be cuts, but it could fit rather nicely. The book would be bigger, but not nearly as big as what you're implying.
2) It would make the Codex too expensive.
With GW, sure. With a reasonable company and sensible pricing, no. Then again, paying $60 for a codex now is pretty absurd. If anything, you could keep it the same cost for a normal book ($60), but then make it worth the value by having that much more in the book.
3) Unless they remove most of the things that players like, in which case the flaw of the idea is quite obvious.
As a BA player yourself, you're obviously more concerned with the damage done to BA, but miss out on the opportunities afforded to everyone by having a singular source for all things loyalist marine. In my head version, you'd lose out on a number of characters, but make up for by having an expanded wargear selection so you could make these characters again with wargear, minus some special rules.
4) It would include a lot of nonsense that most players don't care about, like other Factions.
Not your strongest point. The same could be said about the current C:SM, but I don't think Ultramarine players are upset that Salamanders and White Scars appear in the book alongside them.
5) It would ruin the uniqueness of those armies and upset their players.
No, it would ruin the exclusivity of those chapters. Don't confuse being unique for being exclusive. You could make the same army you currently do (minus some specific characters), with the difference that another marine chapter could use wargear previously not available to them. It doesn't make your army any less unique, and frankly, if your concept of uniqueness is based solely on the rules for that chapter, I'd suggest you open up a little and realize that a paint job, conversions, and model selection will play a bigger role in making your army unique and play distinctly.
So what exactly are the benefits?
One source book for all things loyalist/power armour. No redundancy across books. More variety for all marine players. A cheaper method to collect/own rules for multiple chapters. Easier to balance. More time afforded to developers for other projects. Streamlined rules.
I understand that you dislike my idea, but I think you need to get less emotional about it. Trust me, I'm not going to GWHQ any time soon and holding the place hostage until they combine marine books.
And Then there will be no differences at all between Chapters. Everything would be a mix and match system for TFG/WAAC Gamer to abuse the system.
That much variety can be bad. A lot of new player will look at ALL the choices and be so overwhelmed he/she will not know what to do. At least with the BA/DA/SM/SW when they look at the book they will have a choice.
And Then there will be no differences at all between Chapters. Everything would be a mix and match system for TFG/WAAC Gamer to abuse the system.
We already have Unbound. Somebody who wants to abuse the rules will find a way anyways. Putting the rules in one book instead of four isn't going to be noticeable in how people break the game.
That much variety can be bad. A lot of new player will look at ALL the choices and be so overwhelmed he/she will not know what to do. At least with the BA/DA/SM/SW when they look at the book they will have a choice.
But they already have that much variety. Its just in four books with a whole lot of redundancy. A new player will already be overwhelmed by the choices and differences between the different marine books. I know I was mightily confused by four different marine books and the little list of special rules they all had.
Blacksails wrote: Why is it irritating that someone dare think codices could be combined? In a thread asking that question, no less. Are personally offended I hold this opinion? It sounds like you're getting a little emotional about this purely theoretical discussion, of which, we all know nothing will come. Your book is safe from my evil clutches.
And I am glad for that. It's just alarming that the majority of people voting have no idea what those Codices contain and are blind to the fact as to how terrible a merge would be.
Its not just homebrewed. If I had a Salamander army, I'd have more option too. I'd have tanks in my FA slot, I'd have hand flamers and inferno pistols. I'd have librarian dreads. All of which are incredibly flavourful additions.
And if we added C:CSM you'd have Baleflamers, still a bad idea though quite flavourful. Different armies have different rules and wargear. It's something we have to live with. Technically they could merge BA with Necrons, doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Even when it would give other armies to all their lovely wargear and units.
There really isn't anything remarkably different about them as factions deserving of their own book. Combining them frees up developer time for other codices, supplements, expansions, campaigns, and other stuff.
Except that there is enough difference, which is why they have their own book to begin with. Ignoring the part where it wouldn't free up developer time at all, are you suggesting that they should just put less effort in Codices you don't play?
There would be cutting from the BA, and DA, and SW, but those are acceptable to me
But would it be acceptable to the people that actually play those armies?
Not really. You're making the assumption that we'd have to include the BA book wholesale. As I mentioned above, there would be cuts, but it could fit rather nicely. The book would be bigger, but not nearly as big as what you're implying.
Codex: Blood Angels is around 100 pages, I guess SW and DA are the same. Codex: Space Marines are 180 pages. That are 480 pages! Without the duplicate stuff probably around 400 to 425. How much do you suggest they cut? Is it any wonder people feel offended when someone suggests they would cut at least half of their Codex?
One source book for all things loyalist/power armour. No redundancy across books. More variety for all marine players. A cheaper method to collect/own rules for multiple chapters. Easier to balance. More time afforded to developers for other projects. Streamlined rules.
So in short. One book for all Loyalist armies: Which only matters if you actually play multiple loyalist armies. No redundancy across books: Why is that a bad thing? It really doesn't hurt the game if Tactical Marines are present in multiple books. More variety: Giving everything to everyone is a bad idea if you ask me. Cheaper: Only cheaper if you care about it, otherwise it's more expensive. Easier to balance: If that is achieved by giving everything to everyone, that's a bad idea. Other companies know this and don't do that. More time for other projects: So? Why are my Necrons more important than my Blood Angels? They are both an independent Codex. Streamlined rules: From the dictionary: "Streamlined: lacking anything extra.".. Yeah, no thanks.
So what it comes down to is: Because we want all their goodies and they should spend less time on Blood Angels because I don't think they deserve their own Codex.
Blood angels player and it saddens me i have to turn on my brothers here, but assuming it is done properly and without botching rules/SC's/units and retaining a bit of fluff, i dont honestly see a reason not to. I honestly feel as if all allied marines could be in a single dex easily enough. If done right. They could have the base wargear and units that every faction has, then separate sections for each chapter that includes SC's, fluff, and special units/wargear. I honestly feel that every first founding chapter deserves a section like this. The BA section would give a page or two of fluff, then a special wargear list, and half or quarter page of rules per SC/unit that is available only to BA chapter tactics. Think if you took the codex, cut and shortened the rules for all 14 unique units, and put them in the book as well as including the "Blood Angels special rules" section of page 23 and renamed it to Chapter Tactics: Blood Angels. Heck you then color code the entries in the Army List to each specific chapter that unlocks them to avoid confusion. I feel if it was done in a way similar to this it would be done well enough to help each founding chapter develop their own playstyle, keep the originality of all the existing codices and make it so that those players are still happy. I despise the idea of them becoming a supplement; it would be like asking for the price of your codex to be doubled. I could see paying a bit more (no more than 60$ but it would be a good bit thicker if this was done). I would be satisfied with it if it were done that way.
Sadly the real world GW isnt able to grant this diversity to the marine codex we do have and i shudder to imagine what mess we would get if they did roll the marines into a single dex.
Blacksails wrote: But they already have that much variety. Its just in four books with a whole lot of redundancy. A new player will already be overwhelmed by the choices and differences between the different marine books. I know I was mightily confused by four different marine books and the little list of special rules they all had.
For most new players they are 4 different Armies when they are in the store that all have different colored armor. If they know anything about the game they are making their choices based purely on Fluff. If they don't they are going to go for the coolest looking army in their opinion.
Now imagine you are a new player picking up the current Codex: Space Marines, there is a lot to absorb. What Characters can you take, what happens if you don't want to play Black Templars, but like Crusader Squads? For many new players the concept of "If it is not viable, why was I giving an option?"
Now Toss on Dark Angels Veteran Squads, Wolf Guard, Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, Thunderwolf Cavalry, Fenrisian Wolves, Sanguinary Guard, Deathwing Terminators, and Long Fangs.
I feel like we should roll all marine codex into one... And then do away with every other codex. They just vanish. Don't exist. Cause people keep saying 'marine players obviously don't want this with their sacred codex' so how about your forced to be a marine player cause your crappy army doesn't even have a book?
1) It would make the Codex ridiculously large.
2) It would make the Codex too expensive.
Given that you're already paying the price for a 200 page book, you might as well get one.
Having a "big" book is the most absurd complaint I've ever heard, especially for the prices we're paying. For the same price Flames of War gives me two dozen army lists for 4 or 5 different nations and 200+ pages of material and background.
Why would you *not* want a giant book of Marine awesomeness like that?
4) It would include a lot of nonsense that most players don't care about, like other Factions.
Oh noes, more content, not that! Please, this holds no water.
If nothing else, now you don't have to pay another $50 for your opponents rules.
And this is assuming you aren't buying those other codex books in the first place for reference.
5) It would ruin the uniqueness of those armies and upset their players.
Only if executed badly. Granted GW has a history of this, but it's not guaranteed.
Anpu42 wrote: And all of that Marginalizes yet another chapter like the Black Templars.
When literally everything that made them different is still there?
Besides, BT haven't been marginalized, they have access to a greater array of units and weapons and options than ever before, still retain their "unique" troops unit and some special rules. They lost some things, but who's to say they'd have retained them in a new codex either? Very little from that 4E era survived intact.
This might not mean a lot to some, but Listen to the Pre-6th edition Black Templar Players vs. the new ones.
The Old: "I am Playing my Black Templars using [C: SM, enter Chapter or Space Wolves]"
New: Wait as far as I know there are no new ones or at least I have not seen one.
I have yet to meet a Single Back Templar Player using Chapter Tactics: Black Templars
People aren't using those Chapter Tactics because close combat kind of sucks in 7e. Also, I started playing Templars after 6e for what it's worth.
Kangodo, I have an honest non-sarcastic question for you. If Blood Angels were rolled into Codex: Space Marines with the suggestions Blacksails made, would the army feel any different? They'd still functionally have the same units but they wouldn't be called "Sanguinary guard". They would be Honor Guard with jump packs.
People aren't using those Chapter Tactics because close combat kind of sucks in 7e. Also, I started playing Templars after 6e for what it's worth.
And what Codex were they using with the attitude "When You Pull It From My Cold Dead Hand!" until Codex: Space Marine 6th Edition came out?
Their old one, I have dealt with one who begged everyone to just let him use his old one.
TheCustomLime wrote: Kangodo, I have an honest non-sarcastic question for you. If Blood Angels were rolled into Codex: Space Marines with the suggestions Blacksails made, would the army feel any different? They'd still functionally have the same units but they wouldn't be called "Sanguinary guard". They would be Honor Guard with jump packs.
So I would lose my Honour Guard ánd my Sanguinary Guard because they are now a different unit that only functions the same.
They'd have to delete all the Sanguinary Guard-fluff and replace it with what?
And yes, looking at how they handled Black Templars it would certainly make the army feel different.
You should spend a day on MMO-C and ask people how they'd feel if everything had the same abilities with only a few distinctions.
They are really not the same, they are as alike to Space Marines as Chaos Marines are.
Vaktathi wrote: Given that you're already paying the price for a 200 page book, you might as well get one.
Having a "big" book is the most absurd complaint I've ever heard, especially for the prices we're paying. For the same price Flames of War gives me two dozen army lists for 4 or 5 different nations and 200+ pages of material and background.
Why would you *not* want a giant book of Marine awesomeness like that?
Because we all know that a 300 page Codex: Space Marines would go for at least 100 dollar I'm scared to think how much they would charge for the Limited Edition!
Oh noes, more content, not that! Please, this holds no water.
Why not? If people cared about content from other armies, they would've bought other codices. How many players do that?
Only if executed badly. Granted GW has a history of this, but it's not guaranteed.
Well, it's not 100% guaranteed, but we all know GW
I should have stepped away from this earlier, and I will now. Kangodo, its been fun. You can sleep easy tonight knowing your BA book will still exist in the morning.
I just don't feel like debating this any further with someone who very clearly is hard set in maintaining the status quo. I've outlined my points enough.
Oh, and your example about merging BA and Necrons was pretty comical. Got a chuckle.
Anpu42 wrote: And all of that Marginalizes yet another chapter like the Black Templars.
When literally everything that made them different is still there?
Besides, BT haven't been marginalized, they have access to a greater array of units and weapons and options than ever before, still retain their "unique" troops unit and some special rules. They lost some things, but who's to say they'd have retained them in a new codex either? Very little from that 4E era survived intact.
So if Khorne Berzerkers were to lose Furious Charge and WS5 but gained Fear, as well as Khorne players getting access to Sorcerers with Mark of Khorne then that'd be fine, because the number of options expanded and they still got some sort of special rule, so they should just shut up? The loss of the Vow system, the castration of the Emperor's Champion and the axing of Righteous Zeal really hurt the book.
When an upgrade from 4th edition to 6th edition is arguably a nerf, the army in question is probably marginalized.
Were the Imperial Knights in the novels, or were they made up for their Codex?
If its the latter, I think they should have been added to the Grey Knight Codex. They're basically the Super-heavy vehicle version of a Dreadknight. They would have given Grey Knights the new unit everyone wanted, counterballencing the lost units. Mechanically they would have given Grey Knights some long range firepower with anti-vehicle and anti-infantry options. The only thing missing would be an anti-air option.
And if they were combined, other armies could still take the Imperial Knights without a Grey Knight detachment simply by GW putting a 1-3 Imperial Knight formation, being as formations act as separate detachments of their own.
If GW had released the Imperial Knights as new units for the new Grey Knight Codex instead of making them a separate codex, not only would there not be the amount of complaining about the update, but it would also encourage Grey Knight Players to all buy the new giant model. For non-Grey Knight players, they'd have to buy the model and a codex anyway, so this way they're buying the book for the same price, but are getting the rules for a whole other faction as well, not just the Imperial Knights.
ForeverARookie wrote: Were the Imperial Knights in the novels, or were they made up for their Codex?
If its the latter, I think they should have been added to the Grey Knight Codex. They're basically the Super-heavy vehicle version of a Dreadknight. They would have given Grey Knights the new unit everyone wanted, counterballencing the lost units. Mechanically they would have given Grey Knights some long range firepower with anti-vehicle and anti-infantry options. The only thing missing would be an anti-air option.
And if they were combined, other armies could still take the Imperial Knights without a Grey Knight detachment simply by GW putting a 1-3 Imperial Knight formation, being as formations act as separate detachments of their own.
If GW had released the Imperial Knights as new units for the new Grey Knight Codex instead of making them a separate codex, not only would there not be the amount of complaining about the update, but it would also encourage Grey Knight Players to all buy the new giant model. For non-Grey Knight players, they'd have to buy the model and a codex anyway, so this way they're buying the book for the same price, but are getting the rules for a whole other faction as well, not just the Imperial Knights.
Knights have been around for what, two decades now? they were in Epic before they got into 40k, and there were 5 options there i believe, not the two (three if you count weapon changes) in the codex/FW.
"Us" is all Imperial factions.
"Them" is all Chaos and Renegade factions.
"Those Things" is all Xenos factions, including mercenary Xeno factions that you read about in fluff but never see on the table because their entire race resides on a single planet the IoM could wipe out in, like, six and a half minutes if, you know, they ever got around to it.
I don't want any of the major books merged at this point. Ba and DA could have been put in the big Marine book before their 5th and 6th Ed books respectively, but weren't, and it is too late for them now.
I want Militarum Tempestus and Codex Inquisition to be merged into one book though. No real reason for separate IG Stormtroopers when they are in the IG book, but making them Inq Stormtroopers would open up some options for them.
Every time one of these threads show up it turns into the same thing. People wanting Space Marines to be rolled into one because they have to many books.
I would put money that if tomorrow they came out with every one of the remaining Codex's and then it was announced that in 3 months a new Space Marine Codex was going to come out there would outrage that Space Marine's were getting all of the love.
I think most all of them should be combined in some way. However, I think some parts should be separated out more.
Most of the army fluff, for example, hasn't changed since 2nd/3rd edition. It doesn't make sense for it to become obsolete and need rewriting every time there is a minor tweak to the game rules. Having separate standalone background (fluff only) books would allow those books to last longer, and be of much better quality, without interfering with the upkeep of rules.
Similarly, the basic units for each army, and their beastery entries, haven't changed much since 3rd edition. These should probably be together in the rulebook so that all players are familiar with them (and could actually play a basic game without needing a codex).
Army specific special characters and special units should probably be in their own book with the latest army lists. These could be combined, OR they could just be made smaller and updated more frequently.
GW could still bring out an army 'catalogue' each year, to highlight new releases (and old fluff). With lots of colour photos and copypasta (which is basically what they have now). Call it what it is, I'm sure some people will still buy it.
MajorWesJanson wrote: I don't want any of the major books merged at this point. Ba and DA could have been put in the big Marine book before their 5th and 6th Ed books respectively, but weren't, and it is too late for them now.
I want Militarum Tempestus and Codex Inquisition to be merged into one book though. No real reason for separate IG Stormtroopers when they are in the IG book, but making them Inq Stormtroopers would open up some options for them.
I was really disappointed in the Tempestus book. I really would have been way happier with just the option to take stormtroopers as troops in the IG book. It also didn't help that they didn't fix the primary problems with stormtroopers (crappy statline and staying power coupled with absurdly short ranged and S3 guns and still paying out the nose for AP3) and the Tempestus Scions book fluff read like Harry Potter Torture Porn ("yes 'arry, lets go blast your best friend in the 'ead to prove your loyalty to the 'eadmaster!")
A. the 
. When I got into this hobby, codices were $25 each. Now they're pushing $60. It's not because there are more rules to actually play the game; they're just spread out over more pages. It's not material costs; the online versions cost practically as much. 
I used to collect army books (not so much codices), but since the more recent price hikes I think the number of codex collectors would be near insignificant. I think it's of far greater benefit to keep a low price of entry vs lower price for the insane people who insist on codex collecting when regular codices are $50 a pop anyway and collectors codices are massively more expensive.
anyone, I just don't see why people think 
