Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 17:25:38


Post by: Siegfriedfr


Hello,

If you wanted to refocus the game on fewer codex, which ones would you drop as standalone and mix with others.

Multiple choice poll !

keep in mind that the question is not about MODELS - which can be repurposed into existing factions - it's about FACTION/CODEX



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 17:28:48


Post by: G00fySmiley


you seem to have left out the one i think most people would vote for the most, imperial knights/traitor knights. i don't hate them or not want to play against them/as them but its hard to balance missions and such around a faction where fielding 4-5 models only is the norm


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 17:35:12


Post by: Thairne


The only thing that needs trimming is Space Marines.
Not removal, mind you, but the amount of rules and models is insane.
Neither xenos nor Chaos need anything removed since they're the only counterpart to the buttload if Imperial armies... which are made up by a whole lot of SM.
Every other army has some niche or some purpose or playstyle they fill.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 17:36:28


Post by: Unit1126PLL


wow, what a gakky poll.

This leaves out most of the actual options (like trimming some of the SM chapters down to a single codex to treat them like IG regiments)


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 17:37:30


Post by: Gadzilla666


Siegfriedfr wrote:
Hello,

If you had to reset 40k completely, and needed to refocus the game on fewer factions, which ones would you drop ?

My personal choice would be to remove chaos space marines and demons, to leave more room for Xenos factions, which i find more interesting than all the "evil space marines" that i think fits better in the 30k narrative.

I'd remove every faction played by people who actually think "Age of Sigmaring" 40k is a good idea. So in your case: every single Xenos. Every, single, one.

Let the galaxy BURN.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 17:39:20


Post by: Deadnight


Bye bye eldar....


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 17:44:50


Post by: Xenomancers


You left out a bunch armies.

Harlequins probably first to remove. Just give them 1 entry in the CWE codex and treat them like an aspect. Just like thy used to.

Custodians - No need for such an army. They are just more space marine space marines. Just stop supporting this stupid army that never should have been an army.

Deathwatch...remove...just make a few unit entries that can be taken as allies...

Daemons...just blend with CSM.

Sisters of battle...Just blend with an inquisition faction - put greyknights in this codex also.



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 17:47:01


Post by: Rihgu


 G00fySmiley wrote:
you seem to have left out the one i think most people would vote for the most, imperial knights/traitor knights. i don't hate them or not want to play against them/as them but its hard to balance missions and such around a faction where fielding 4-5 models only is the norm


AoS doesn't have as much of a problem with this. Ogors, and Sons of Behemat have special rules to help hold/take objectives, although their actual board presence is a little low.


To truly AoSify 40k, we'd have to remove some under-selling, unpopular factions that don't add a whole lot to the setting. The only Tomb Kings analogue I can think of is Ynnari, which are an almost pointless fluff addition in the grand scheme of things and can be represented by special characters taken by Aeldari factions anyways.

Bretonnia was effectively "a different flavor of humans" to the Empire, so looks like we drop... Black Templar? They seem the least popular/least updated of the Space Marines.

Then we add World Eaters, expand... trying to think of a Sylvaneth analogue in 40k... Kroot? and we already have a poster child faction a la Stormcast Eternals so I dunno what to do for them.

Also, the idea that AoS "refocused the game on fewer factions" when it in actuality split the game into a hundred mini-factions, and almost immediately added 3 "new" ones (Khorne Bloodbound, Stormcast, and Sylvaneth were very early additions) for the 2 they lost... seems silly. They net gained +1 right from the get-go even if you ignore the mini-faction split.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 17:47:15


Post by: Gert


The biggest issue would be ending the 40k universe in the first place. Blowing up the Old World is easy enough, 1 planet. 40k is a whole galaxy.

40k also has the problem where 13/35 of the factions are some variety of SM and SM get 50% of the releases each edition. There isn't a balance between Imperium/Chaos/Xenos releases. GW can't do anything too radical with the story because of the "guidelines" they set out for themselves.
In AoS the releases are split fairly evenly between the Grand Alliances as a whole and then factions individually. The only faction that hasn't got new models at all on the release of their Battle Tome was Cities of Sigmar but even then the new witch hunter duo is apparently for CoS. The story for AoS has a rocky start but now they've found their feet, GW has been knocking it out of the park with both new and returning characters shaking up the story. The setting having technically limitless possibility thanks to the inherently magical/infinite nature of the Mortal Realms means that pretty much anything goes.
"My Stormcast all consider themselves Non-Binary because none remember their past lives enough to assign themselves a gender."
"My Daughters of Khaine view Morathi as a false prophet and still fight for Sigmar."
etc.
You're given some building blocks on the generic background but it makes it a point to say that the general ideas don't apply everywhere i.e. Aqshy is the Realm of Fire but isn't just volcanoes and lava pits, it has sweltering jungles and frozen mountain ranges.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 17:58:05


Post by: Karol


 Thairne wrote:
The only thing that needs trimming is Space Marines.
Not removal, mind you, but the amount of rules and models is insane.
Neither xenos nor Chaos need anything removed since they're the only counterpart to the buttload if Imperial armies... which are made up by a whole lot of SM.
Every other army has some niche or some purpose or playstyle they fill.


How is it suppose to work then. DG and 1ksons, and possibly other cult legion armies having their own codex, while a SW or GK player should play different coloured ultramarines?

I wouldn't want to see any faction removed. Unless it is something like GW coming out with it at the start of an edition and saying, this is the last edition when we are going to have a separate eldar, dark elder, harlequin codex, after this edition they will have one book. 3 years is more or less enough for people who want to have fun with their army to have fun, and those who want to sell to sell their army.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 17:58:23


Post by: AnomanderRake


The problem with faction bloat to me is more that GW takes things that were once in another book and tries to split them off into their own standalone Codex without giving them enough content to actually run them as a standalone Codex. I'd rather do Knights as Mechanicum models (and expand the Mechanicum book some so you can use them as Dark Mechanicum), put the Inquisition books back together rather than trying to make the Inquisition, Orders Militant, Stormtroopers, and Assassins all standalone Codexes, put Daemons back in CSM, go back to 3.5e-style Legion appendixes for CSM, etc. rather than straight-up deleting anything.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:03:19


Post by: Sim-Life


Space Marines without hesitation. For an organisation that is semi-mythical to most of the Imperium at large they seem to turn up for a car park brawl. They also take the focus away from the true front liners of the Imperium without whom the whole thing would collapse. So Space Marines, Grey Knights, Custodes and Death Watch all get axed. Maybe a squad of basic tactical guys get put in as a squad of 3 as an expensive IG HQ choice but thats it.

Harlequins get cut and are represented in the Dark Eldar/Eldar book.

Chaos Marines stay because they're the big scary power army guys to make the IG look like the underdog. Daemons cut down to the basic types and greater daemons and back in the CSM book where they belong. No "supplemental" books for sub-factions.

All Imperial non-Astartes factions consolidated into one book and a bunch of units cut. So it should be about the size of the current Space Marine codex in the end with enough to run mono-faction armies if people want. The factions are generally represent by their iconic units. So Imperial Guard fulfill the tanks and bodies requirements, Sisters the elite, disciplined units and melee stuff, AdMech provide support buffs, Inquisition leadership and specialist roles etc.

Knights of all types gone.

Genestealer Cults gets a bunch of units cut and shoved into the Tyranid book. Generally late stage invasion stuff.

So thats us down to like 9 books?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:05:34


Post by: Yarium


So, I voted, but I think a different approach should be taken rather than "here's the line, and everything below it is dead".

Let's imagine that GW goes nearly belly-up for some reason or another. They need to drop huge swathes of their product line - the more the better. What armies should remain, and how should they be adjusted?

I'd say the most simplest way of moving forward again would be to focus on the Imperium/Others dynamic. That is to say, Imperium should make up half the game. With that said, ideally you want to fill in a matrix of "usually does everything on N+" and "Imerpium / Other".

So with that in mind, here's what I would do:

Imperium:
2+ : Space Marines
3+ : Admech
4+ : Astra Militarum

Other:
2+ : Chaos Space Marines
3+ : Necrons
4+ : Orks

And there you have it. Space Marines and Chaos are your elite factions, each one almost always succeeding at what they do, Admech and Necrons are your "crazy high tech" forces, and Astra Militarum and Orks are your "bodies for days, because you can't trust them alone".


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:13:59


Post by: Stormonu


I'd fold every marine chapter down to one ruleset. That'd mean making these just run off space marine rules:

- Primaris
- Deathwatch
- Grey Knight (they'd become an elite slot, terminators only)
- Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Black Templars, etc.

Chaos space marines would be similarly folded into one rule set.

I'd also dump Knights, Superheavies, Custodes (they'd just become a mercenary slot, like assassins) and Inquisition (again a slot that can be added to any Imperial faction).

Dark Eldar, Corsairs, Harlequins and Ynarri would all be folded into a single Eldar book/faction.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:16:01


Post by: Pyroalchi


Just to understand the question as the OP mentioned it's not about removing models:
Are we talking about codexes fusing together or being outright removed or is this about the lore?

Codex wise I could see the three Eldar Factions fusing into one, some SM books going back into their "parent book", maybe (!) Greyknights and sisters fusing into one codex as well as (another maybe) Imperial Guard and either Admech or Sisters. Mind you I don't imply that the mentioned factions are not cool codexes on their own, but I think you could put them together into one book, if you insist on reducing the number of codizes.

Lore Wise: I would stay with none should be removed. All bring something to the table that adds to the flavor of the setting.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:22:27


Post by: Gert


Chaos works better in AoS because it's clearly split along the God alignments and with StD in the middle. All StD forces can be God aligned or you can specifically go for the stuff in each God book or you can mix and match with mortals and demons in the same books.
For amalgamated books I would say:

Imperium
Astartes - All the Chapter rules and some of the special rules. Sadly most of if not all the Firstborn stuff would have to be axed to fit this in.
Admech - Mix the Knights and Admech together keeping the ability to run Knights as their own army maybe stick Dark Mech.
Orders Militant - Deathwatch, Grey Knights, SoB, Inquisition plus Assassins maybe. Can take Inquisitorial units in the army but don't have to. No mix and matching Chambers or Ordos within the same detachment.
Astra Militarum - Keep it the same TBH. Maybe put Brood Brothers/Chaos/Gue'vesa style in there as a reg doctrine restricting unit options but allowing mixed forces or something.

Chaos
In the Perfect World, we'd have the God-marked Legions fleshed out to their AoS counterparts. From there carbon copy the AoS style books. EZ.

Xenos
Aeldari - Stick them pointy ears together. Work it the same way as Orders Militant. Select a subtype and get unit options and special rules.
Necrons - Keep em' the same.
Orks - ^ see above.
T'au - ^ see above.
Nid's - ^ see above.
GSC - Distinct enough from Nid's and AM to get their own book. Maybe flesh it out a bit to justify them.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:24:09


Post by: Galas


 Sim-Life wrote:
Space Marines without hesitation. For an organisation that is semi-mythical to most of the Imperium at large they seem to turn up for a car park brawl. They also take the focus away from the true front liners of the Imperium without whom the whole thing would collapse. So Space Marines, Grey Knights, Custodes and Death Watch all get axed. Maybe a squad of basic tactical guys get put in as a squad of 3 as an expensive IG HQ choice but thats it.

Harlequins get cut and are represented in the Dark Eldar/Eldar book.

Chaos Marines stay because they're the big scary power army guys to make the IG look like the underdog. Daemons cut down to the basic types and greater daemons and back in the CSM book where they belong. No "supplemental" books for sub-factions.

All Imperial non-Astartes factions consolidated into one book and a bunch of units cut. So it should be about the size of the current Space Marine codex in the end. The factions are generally represent by their iconic units. So Imperial Guard fulfill the tanks and bodies requirements, Sisters the elite, disciplined units and melee stuff, AdMech provide support buffs, Inquisition leadership and specialist roles etc.

Knights of all types gone.

Genestealer Cults gets a bunch of units cut and shoved into the Tyranid book. Generally late stage invasion stuff.

So thats us down to like 9 books?


What an horrible wargame universe this would be, TBH.

Another thread for space marine haters and imperial guard fanboys, nothing to see there.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:26:35


Post by: Jidmah


Assuming no one would lose rules for their beloved collection...

Knights, Inquisition, Assassins and other random imperial stuff is long overdue for just getting rolled into a "Agents of the Imperium" book.

On the same note, Ynnari and Harlequins could be rolled into a book that can be added to either aeldari faction.

No more codex: five datasheets.

Last, but not least, just make Space Marines a codex just as complex and variable as the other "big" codices: Eldar, Orks, CSM, Nids, Tau...
So a chapter like blood angels would be no more than a chapter trait, a single psychic power and warlord trait, as well as 6-8 stratagems, plus maybe a special character or two.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:30:16


Post by: Kanluwen


Guard. Without an unequivocal doubt.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:31:50


Post by: Karol


That would be a litteral down rank from having a big set of rules to having practicaly nothing. No one, who plays and mains such a faction, would agree to something like that happening. And if marines being the core seller for GW, there is little chance of that ever happening.



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:38:11


Post by: JNAProductions


 Thairne wrote:
The only thing that needs trimming is Space Marines.
Not removal, mind you, but the amount of rules and models is insane.
Neither xenos nor Chaos need anything removed since they're the only counterpart to the buttload if Imperial armies... which are made up by a whole lot of SM.
Every other army has some niche or some purpose or playstyle they fill.
Echoing this.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:40:41


Post by: Gnarlly


Adeptus Custodes: The Emperor's personal bodyguard should stay on Terra; why are they now fighting battles across the galaxy? This is an army that should never have been created. A couple models for collectors, sure, but not an entire faction.

Tau: This faction never seemed to fit into 40k for me. Maybe not "grimdark" enough for my tastes.

Space Marine chapters: I didn't mind when chapters like Salamanders, Iron Hands, and White Scars were "Codex" chapters that were included in the Space Marines Codex. But with each now getting its own supplement on top of the original Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels it has gotten a bit ridiculous.

Also, GW really needs to get on with separating Primaris from old Marines. The number of datasheets in the Space Marines Codex is now absurd. This is an inevitable change that has been hanging over 40k for the last several years. Just do it GW, you know you want to sell Space Marine players two books: Primaris and old/vintage/retro/firstborn/whatever you call them Space Marines.

Harlequins and Ynnari: Just merge them into the Eldar Codex. That book would still end up with a lot less datasheets than the Space Marines Codex.

Genestealer Cults: Merge with Tyranids, as 2nd edition had them together.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:42:05


Post by: Xenomancers


I agree - space marines should be condensed.

I really don't know what to do with BA/SW/DA if they are allowed to keep being so snowflake just but those 3 in one codex - GK should just be put into an Inquisition codex.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:43:40


Post by: Sim-Life


 Galas wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Space Marines without hesitation. For an organisation that is semi-mythical to most of the Imperium at large they seem to turn up for a car park brawl. They also take the focus away from the true front liners of the Imperium without whom the whole thing would collapse. So Space Marines, Grey Knights, Custodes and Death Watch all get axed. Maybe a squad of basic tactical guys get put in as a squad of 3 as an expensive IG HQ choice but thats it.

Harlequins get cut and are represented in the Dark Eldar/Eldar book.

Chaos Marines stay because they're the big scary power army guys to make the IG look like the underdog. Daemons cut down to the basic types and greater daemons and back in the CSM book where they belong. No "supplemental" books for sub-factions.

All Imperial non-Astartes factions consolidated into one book and a bunch of units cut. So it should be about the size of the current Space Marine codex in the end. The factions are generally represent by their iconic units. So Imperial Guard fulfill the tanks and bodies requirements, Sisters the elite, disciplined units and melee stuff, AdMech provide support buffs, Inquisition leadership and specialist roles etc.

Knights of all types gone.

Genestealer Cults gets a bunch of units cut and shoved into the Tyranid book. Generally late stage invasion stuff.

So thats us down to like 9 books?


What an horrible wargame universe this would be, TBH.


Why?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:45:18


Post by: Altima


I'd like to see Chaos smooshed into an uber faction where you'd have warriors of chaos (CSM and their toys), daemons of chaos, and mortals of chaos (traitor guard, beastmen/cultist mutants, dark mechanicus) that you can take solo or mix 'n match, along with devotions to one of the chaos gods or the entire pantheon.

So while it would technically be a slimming down of factions, within the greater Chaos faction itself, players would have a tremendous amount of flexibility on how to build their army.

And yes, Space Marines should be scaled down to one codex. There's absolutely no reason for each of their subfactions to receive their own books when every other army's subfactions can fit in their own book. If this results in a reduction in uniqueness for space marines, it's healthier for the game. If the astartes were any other faction, there would also be an argument in including Grey Knights/Deathwatch in their number for flavor.



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 18:49:31


Post by: Siegfriedfr


What i would do :

Imperium : 3 codex
- SM is one single codex, and each chapter (including DW and BT) get specific army rules, relics, HQ etc. oldmarines become "legend" units and are removed as a product. for the purpose of WYSIWYG, players can use oldmarines as primaris.
- Astra unchanged
- Knights are removed from the 40k ruleset and have their own "superheavy game"
- Sisters, Greyknights and inquisition are one single Ecclesiarchy codex
- minor imperium factions/units (assassins, SoS, custodes) gets free downloadable rules/points and are considered as IMPERIUM mercenaries detachments
- Custodes FW units are not supported in 40K

Chaos: 1 codex
- Demons are removed as a standalone codex. A trimmed down selection of demons become available in the CSM codex.
- CSM get one single codex, similarly to SM, with specific army-rules and army-specific units (4 main heretic Primarchs (Mortarion, Magnus, Angron, Fulgrim), one for Be'lakor, 1 for Chaos united). also, khorne and slaanesh CSM get an expanded range of marine-type models (marines, terminators, some specialists, and characters/HQ/Primarchs) to match DG/TS

Eldar : 1 codex
- Eldar become one codex including 2 factions : Craftworlds and Drukhari. Harlequins become "mercenary" units for both factions, and Ynnari is the faction that allows to create mixed lists of both main factions

Xenos: 5 codex
- Tyranids unchanged
- GSC unchanged
- Orks unchanged
- Necrons unchanged
- T'au unchanged


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 19:06:04


Post by: waefre_1


 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with faction bloat to me is more that GW takes things that were once in another book and tries to split them off into their own standalone Codex without giving them enough content to actually run them as a standalone Codex. I'd rather do Knights as Mechanicum models (and expand the Mechanicum book some so you can use them as Dark Mechanicum), put the Inquisition books back together rather than trying to make the Inquisition, Orders Militant, Stormtroopers, and Assassins all standalone Codexes, put Daemons back in CSM, go back to 3.5e-style Legion appendixes for CSM, etc. rather than straight-up deleting anything.

Hard agree. I voted for Harlequins/Custodes (amongst others) not because I think the game would be better off without them, but because GW does not seem to feel the need to expand these forces out into full-blown factions (which they shouldn't for lore reasons) and there is room in other codices (or prospective codices) to keep the individual units around in some form.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 19:21:32


Post by: yukishiro1


Knights don't belong in the game, but they're here, so they're not going anywhere.

I don't think faction bloat is actually a problem 40k really suffers from. Every faction except Quins and maybe the Knight factions have reasonably complete army ranges. Inquisition etc aren't real factions, they're just little list additions; in the case of the Inquisition, they do need to find a way to make taking the non-Inquisitor elements of the faction viable.

The problem with bloat in 40k isn't really the number of factions, it's rules bloat within the factions.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 19:21:45


Post by: Tycho


 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with faction bloat to me is more that GW takes things that were once in another book and tries to split them off into their own standalone Codex without giving them enough content to actually run them as a standalone Codex. I'd rather do Knights as Mechanicum models (and expand the Mechanicum book some so you can use them as Dark Mechanicum), put the Inquisition books back together rather than trying to make the Inquisition, Orders Militant, Stormtroopers, and Assassins all standalone Codexes, put Daemons back in CSM, go back to 3.5e-style Legion appendixes for CSM, etc. rather than straight-up deleting anything.


I'm of a similar mind. I don't know that I would fully cut anything from the game, but there are quite a lot of books that should really be rolled back into other books. Harely's and anything Ynnari should probably just be a few extra options in the Craftworld book. Custodes, could probably be in the Marine book (along with continuing to trim the "Marine Fat" a bit), Deathwatch, Inquisition, and possibly even Grey Knights could get rolled into a 3.5 style "Witch Hunters" book.

I like the idea of combining CSM and Demons into one book, but would the resulting book be even thicker than the current marine one? For me that seems like a really complicated book, but I'd be for it if it could be pulled off.

Would also probably take the Knights codex, split it in half, and put the "Questor Mechanicus" units in the Mechanicus codex, and the Imperialis units in the IG book maybe?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 19:25:00


Post by: xeen


I would not get rid of any faction at this point, that is unfair to people who bought the models. We are stuck with what we have.

What I would like (at least for chaos) is they make one book that is Armies of Chaos, which includes inside it a codex for CSM (legions and renegades), TS, DG, WE, EC, Daemons, lost and the damned, and chaos knights. Then when they want to update the chaos factions they just need to update one book. I would even pay more money for it. They could probably do this for imperial/eldar factions to but Chaos is the one it put the most thought into.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 19:29:01


Post by: PenitentJake


I voted.

I think the keep'em all option would get more votes if it didn't include the negative "I like bloat" that couldn't be resisted by the poll's designer.

It's the only option in the list that contains built in ridicule and judgement.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 20:14:05


Post by: Sim-Life


 xeen wrote:
I would not get rid of any faction at this point, that is unfair to people who bought the models. We are stuck with what we have.



Why? Didn't stop GW squatting Squats, Brets, Tomb Kings etc. I could see them dropping Harlequins, Knights, Custodes, Grey Knights, Sisters Of Silence, Inquisition, Ynarri etc without much fuss.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 20:14:18


Post by: jeff white


I like the poll.

Imho SoB should be part of an inquisition codex, but otherwise I voted with the most popular selections.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 20:41:49


Post by: Infidel305


1 codex for all space marines and dump some of the named troops to a general "Captain" "LT" etc.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 21:47:10


Post by: Horla


T’au for me. They look like something from the wrong universe, still can’t understand how they made it into the game.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/07 23:44:32


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Custodes, Knights (both flavours), Harlis (put 'em in the other two Eldar books), Daemons (put 'em in the other Chaos books).

And Tau. Because of course the Tau.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 00:01:19


Post by: ccs


I wouldn't drop factions so much as consolidate some of the books.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 00:28:49


Post by: Arbitrator


Non-Grey Knight Marine Chapters and Harlequins (put them back into the D/Eldar codexes).

Either expand Grey Knights with Inquisition units again or turn them into a SM supplement.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 00:50:17


Post by: Semper


I thin consolidating books is better. Put Inquisiton, SOB and GK into the same Codex.

Whack Custodes, SOS and Assassins into the same dex.

Get rid of all the Marine dexes, put them into one. Same with DG, TS and CSM.

Stick daemons into the CSM dex like days of old.

Stick Knights together (both Chaos and Loyal variants).

Keep dexes the same price.

As for permanently getting rid of a faction. I'd say none entirely. You can mitigate some, lie the space marine factions but i'd not entirely remove any.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 00:54:10


Post by: Argive


Interesting.
I diditn realise Inquisition has a codex. Was this a WD index ?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 01:04:55


Post by: Hellebore


The Crusade rules show us how many real factions there are:

Imperium
Chaos
Orks
Tyranids
Necrons
Eldar
Tau

Which is obviously broken up by species (and ideology in the case of chaos).



I think you could break down the existing books into between 1-3 books per faction:

Imperium
Marines
Imperial agents (inquisitors, assassins, grey knights, sisters, custodes etc)
Imperial armies (Admech, guard, knights)

Chaos
Marines
daemons
renegades (cultists, rebels, knights)


That leaves the remaining 5 to have between 1 and 3 codexes per faction.

imo they could all have at least 2:

Eldar
craftworlds
drukhari

orks
waaagh the orks
Odd mobz (freebootaz, feral orks, speed freaks etc)

tyranids
hive fleets
genestealer cults (with rules for cults from the other organic factions - even chaos)

necrons
dynasties
the enslaved (old crons controlled by ctan shards)


tau
empire
Auxilliaries (kroot and other aliens/humans)





Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 01:13:03


Post by: PenitentJake


For those suggesting consolidations involving Inquisition:

Sororitas go with Hereticus
Death Watch go with Xenos
Grey Knights go with Malleus

So you can add the Inquisition Ordo into the appropriate dex (fail because if you like all flavours of Inquisition, you need 3 books)

OR you could put all six factions in one book, which would be fairly large book, but probably not more sheets than Marines, so probably doable.

Those are the only options that really make sense, because they are the only solutions that solve ALL of the Inq/ Chamber Militant issues.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 01:41:27


Post by: Void__Dragon


 Gnarlly wrote:
Adeptus Custodes: The Emperor's personal bodyguard should stay on Terra; why are they now fighting battles across the galaxy? This is an army that should never have been created. A couple models for collectors, sure, but not an entire faction.


To justify the mind-bogglingly insane cost to create and maintain them. Guilliman getting them off their lazy asses and actually doing something beyond standing next to a big chair for ten thousand years is one of the better parts of the new lore and it is laughable to suggest that there is any justifiable reason for them to be glorified garden gnomes in the palace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Well financially it would ruin Games Workshop and you'd have to be deluded to argue otherwise.

People like Marines more than Guard my man.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 06:48:29


Post by: Blackie


Amazing, the only codex that I would remove is also the only one missing in the pool.

I'd remove Codex Space Marines, keeping only 4-5 standalone chapters. Each with just 25-30% of shared units, basically vehicles.

Then maybe I'd remove Codexes Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights, spreading their datasheets into other imperium and chaos codexes.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 07:23:34


Post by: Karol


PenitentJake wrote:
For those suggesting consolidations involving Inquisition:

Sororitas go with Hereticus
Death Watch go with Xenos
Grey Knights go with Malleus

So you can add the Inquisition Ordo into the appropriate dex (fail because if you like all flavours of Inquisition, you need 3 books)

OR you could put all six factions in one book, which would be fairly large book, but probably not more sheets than Marines, so probably doable.

Those are the only options that really make sense, because they are the only solutions that solve ALL of the Inq/ Chamber Militant issues.


Or leave DW, SoB and GK alone, and leave the inquisition stuff for the BL or maybe give them a unit entry that can be put in to any imperial army. Having GK,SoB and DW in the same book would more or less invalidate the majority of the armies. Why take GK or DW, when SoB have just more point efficient units? Why ask for DW or GK to be improved, when the counter argument is always going to be, inquisition codex is fine, just play with more SoB units.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 07:30:10


Post by: Sim-Life


 Void__Dragon wrote:
[


Well financially it would ruin Games Workshop and you'd have to be deluded to argue otherwise.

People like Marines more than Guard my man.


So? That wasn't the question.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 07:36:05


Post by: Karol


 Sim-Life wrote:


So? That wasn't the question.


Because , as the local saying goes, it is different to squat an army which isn't half of all your armies and one that is. . Something like GK or Harlequins are not the same as Space marines. As JS said quantity, at some breach point becomes quality. And for GW marines are the highest quality thing they have.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 07:42:05


Post by: NinthMusketeer


The only codex I would actually consider dropping, as in pull it and the contents from the game entirely, would be imp/chaos knights. Pretty self explanatory. But I would rather they get rolled into other 'dexes.

ccs wrote:
I wouldn't drop factions so much as consolidate some of the books.
I do imagine this is a large sentiment. I seriously doubt anyone is suggesting, for example, that SW, BA, DA get removed from the game.

I think GK and Inquisition should have stayed together, and I don't think it would be out of line to roll Custodes, Sisters of Silence and Assassins in there as well. An 'Agents of the Imperium' Codex could cover all of them. Imperial Knights could go into both that and AdMech. Chaos Knights could go into both CSM and DarkMech.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 08:01:23


Post by: Sim-Life


Karol wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


So? That wasn't the question.


Because , as the local saying goes, it is different to squat an army which isn't half of all your armies and one that is. . Something like GK or Harlequins are not the same as Space marines. As JS said quantity, at some breach point becomes quality. And for GW marines are the highest quality thing they have.


But why would axing space marines as an army make the game worse? Ignoring stuff like financial sense or popularity. What do space marines do for the game or setting?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 08:04:15


Post by: Karol


Yeah and then the design of an army would go something like this. Why take strikes, when SoB squads are cheaper and more point efficient? Want to run paladins or termintors? Custodes have better ones, including ones on jetbikes.

Want to play mono GK anyway, good luck getting any model or rules updates, because GW will be doing stuff for custodes and SoB, because they are new and fresh. So maybe you will get a character ever 3 years. Better hope it is really game breaking to carry the entire list.



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 08:04:41


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Sim-Life wrote:
 xeen wrote:
I would not get rid of any faction at this point, that is unfair to people who bought the models. We are stuck with what we have.



Why? Didn't stop GW squatting Squats, Brets, Tomb Kings etc. I could see them dropping Harlequins, Knights, Custodes, Grey Knights, Sisters Of Silence, Inquisition, Ynarri etc without much fuss.


considering we allready lost 3 factions for 40k recently, factions mind you that were longer around f.e. than ynari (and better background to boot, looking at corsairs) or are supposedly the mainline for said faction( cue R&H) i don't think we need to remove more factions.
There's an argument to be made to consolidate Harlequins and ynnari, but consolidate in a correct way and not just taking over 1 entry each and then call it a job done, like gw does like to do.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 08:09:12


Post by: KingmanHighborn


Custodes and Greyknights should be no more than one off choices in the Inquisition. Knights and Knight like units shouldn't be seen above 2000 points and even then as a 'you can have only one' kind of deal.




Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 08:17:07


Post by: Jidmah


Karol wrote:
Yeah and then the design of an army would go something like this. Why take strikes, when SoB squads are cheaper and more point efficient? Want to run paladins or termintors? Custodes have better ones, including ones on jetbikes.

Want to play mono GK anyway, good luck getting any model or rules updates, because GW will be doing stuff for custodes and SoB, because they are new and fresh. So maybe you will get a character ever 3 years. Better hope it is really game breaking to carry the entire list.



In they first real stand-alone codex GK, Inquisition and assassins were all part of one army. While it was a bit ham-fisted, it provided the army as a whole with much more tools than they have now.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 08:37:08


Post by: Karol


Yes. And from what I have been told, it was one of the worse codex GW ever made, to a point where GW itself said that they never ment to have it played as a stand alone codex.

I have seen a pdf of the book. High cost units with melee options and the only way to get them in to range being a land raider, no razorbacks or rhinos. Strikes with str 6 weapons that didn't even ignore saves save for the leader, but zero chance to actually get in to melee range. Terminators costs as if they had 3 or 4 wounds each, same str 6 weapons, that actually did ignore saves, existing in a world where a terminator had the life expectancy of a guardsman.

Even the OP 5th ed GK codex, from what I have seen, had its best builds based around spaming vehicles, cheap inqusitorial stuff, and the only GK stuff in those lists were 6 dreadnoughts and maybe something like a Draigo. No strikes, no termintors. And the other build they had was described as a noob stomper, good only vs people who fell for the play what you want slogan. If GK improvement were to mean, the army would turn in to a spam of 3 model squads and ton of vehicles, then I say thank you to that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Custodes and Greyknights should be no more than one off choices in the Inquisition. Knights and Knight like units shouldn't be seen above 2000 points and even then as a 'you can have only one' kind of deal.




Then what are people suppose to do that play those armies? You can use one squad, and lets hope it is good, and now to play you need to buy another army.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 08:49:18


Post by: kirotheavenger


Space Marines are pretty fundemental to the 40k setting.

Gamewise, they provide heavy armoured infantry which are pretty fundamental to this sort of diesel punk grimdark setting that 40k is.

If you were to completely reset 40k, ignoring all existing collections, one could argue that Space Marines should be reduced to a sub-faction, not dissimilar to Tempestus are now. To represent their small strike force nature.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 08:49:27


Post by: Jidmah


Karol wrote:
Even the OP 5th ed GK codex, from what I have seen, had its best builds based around spaming vehicles, cheap inqusitorial stuff, and the only GK stuff in those lists were 6 dreadnoughts and maybe something like a Draigo. No strikes, no termintors. And the other build they had was described as a noob stomper, good only vs people who fell for the play what you want slogan. If GK improvement were to mean, the army would turn in to a spam of 3 model squads and ton of vehicles, then I say thank you to that.


That's how all 5th edition codices were. If they were lucky.

Then what are people suppose to do that play those armies? You can use one squad, and lets hope it is good, and now to play you need to buy another army.

This is nothing but a mind game. IMO no one should be losing support for their models unless there is a magic genie which will somehow fix all the problems stemming from squatting stuff.
Losing non-model rules shouldn't be a problem, so toning down all the Space Marine chapters to gain the same support as chaos legions get could actually be a good change.

Putting the Ordo Malleus back with the GK also seems like an all upside change. You barely see inquisition anywhere and they fit well thematically.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 09:05:41


Post by: AngryAngel80


Necrons, just because I hate them, sorry necron players, I'm sure I still love you.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 09:12:45


Post by: Cybtroll


I don't think reducing the faction number by itself will be inherently positive. I get that maybe you can reduce bloat and get a better balance in the system, but you can do that without having to sacrifice standalone codexes.

I know that the hearsay usually is "there are too many faction" "the game is too complex to be balanced" and similar bullshits.
It's false. If my company (which is slightly smaller than GW) can sell and maintain a software with more than 10 million of lines of code without crashes, there is not reason a game system can't do the same (also we are held accountable at much higher standards).


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 09:13:18


Post by: Sim-Life


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Space Marines are pretty fundemental to the 40k setting.

Gamewise, they provide heavy armoured infantry which are pretty fundamental to this sort of diesel punk grimdark setting that 40k is.

If you were to completely reset 40k, ignoring all existing collections, one could argue that Space Marines should be reduced to a sub-faction, not dissimilar to Tempestus are now. To represent their small strike force nature.


They were fundamental in 40k because of the Horus Heresy but thats where their role in the setting ended for the most part. Most of the planets in the Imperium will never be set foot upon by a space marine. Many citizens of the Imperium think they're literal angels. Even most Guardsmen will never see one. They're figures of myth and legend and that is far more interesting than them being an army of Space Super Heroes driving Tonka toy vehicles.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 09:27:28


Post by: Blackie


We can't know if removing SM will get GW bankrupt, it might even be the exact opposite. Lots of those who buy marines are hobbists/gamers that want to get big deals thanks to starter sets or constantly supported armies that receive new releases pretty often.

Maybe if a xeno, chaos or brand new faction becomes the new GW posterboys, while SM got removed, people will buy it even more than marines. And all those who only have marines are now in the need of buying a whole new army . Big win for GW .


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 09:49:43


Post by: kirotheavenger


 Sim-Life wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Space Marines are pretty fundemental to the 40k setting.

Gamewise, they provide heavy armoured infantry which are pretty fundamental to this sort of diesel punk grimdark setting that 40k is.

If you were to completely reset 40k, ignoring all existing collections, one could argue that Space Marines should be reduced to a sub-faction, not dissimilar to Tempestus are now. To represent their small strike force nature.


They were fundamental in 40k because of the Horus Heresy but thats where their role in the setting ended for the most part. Most of the planets in the Imperium will never be set foot upon by a space marine. Many citizens of the Imperium think they're literal angels. Even most Guardsmen will never see one. They're figures of myth and legend and that is far more interesting than them being an army of Space Super Heroes driving Tonka toy vehicles.

I know that within the setting, Space Marines are pretty niche units.
What I meant was that Space Marines are hugely fundemental to the setting for outside observers. It'd be like removing the Enterprise and asking if Star Trek was really any different. It's just one ship in a whole galaxy, right? Or removing Jedi from Star Wars, there were only like 2 in the original trilogy, they won't be missed.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 10:11:04


Post by: Jidmah


 Cybtroll wrote:
I don't think reducing the faction number by itself will be inherently positive. I get that maybe you can reduce bloat and get a better balance in the system, but you can do that without having to sacrifice standalone codexes.

I know that the hearsay usually is "there are too many faction" "the game is too complex to be balanced" and similar bullshits.
It's false. If my company (which is slightly smaller than GW) can sell and maintain a software with more than 10 million of lines of code without crashes, there is not reason a game system can't do the same (also we are held accountable at much higher standards).


True, true. *A company* could surely handle this many factions, most people just don't trust GW to do it

But you do have a point. During matches there is always the same number of factions.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 10:19:26


Post by: Eldarsif


I think the biggest trimming that can be done is to sunset some of the old units like in the Space Marine codex. It's a codex so big that it literally trips over itself. The book is currently rather awkward in its number of units.

Otherwise I'd love to see some unification like we've seen in AoS.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 10:33:21


Post by: BroodSpawn


People still throw angry noise at GW for removing the Squats.
Removing models / units from the Marine range in general for the sake of 'streamlining' will cause just as much rage, if not more.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 10:40:42


Post by: kirotheavenger


I think that's why GW chickened out from removing Firstborn, which has led to this ridiculous ballooning of Space Marine units to the point there's 2-3 units at least competing for each army role.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 10:53:05


Post by: Crispy78


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think that's why GW chickened out from removing Firstborn, which has led to this ridiculous ballooning of Space Marine units to the point there's 2-3 units at least competing for each army role.


It doesn't help that there's an insane amount of duplication in the HQ section, where every separate sculpt appears to have its own entry.

Instead of just having, say, Primaris Lieutenant - which may be armed with weapons A, B, C, X, Y, Z... You have distinct entries for Primaris Lieutenant With Bolt Gun, Primaris Lieutenant With Pistol And Sword, Primaris Lieutenant Pointing At Enemy, Primaris Lieutenant Scratching His Arse and so on...


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 10:53:49


Post by: Eldarsif


They wouldn't have to remove the range. Could still sell it as some collectible range for people to paint and collect. Just remove them from the codex. Hell, they could throw all the sunset units into their own codex for posterity.

The thing is GW isn't going to "stop" making miniatures for their own ranges and if anything it feels like they've ramped up production on certain ranges that just can't really handle it.

That or they start to make clear distinctions between the different "factions". Firstborn buffers can only buff firstborn marines, and primaris buffers can only buff primaris marines. Just to get away from this endless combinational nightmare they are sinking into.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 11:59:07


Post by: Sim-Life


 kirotheavenger wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Space Marines are pretty fundemental to the 40k setting.

Gamewise, they provide heavy armoured infantry which are pretty fundamental to this sort of diesel punk grimdark setting that 40k is.

If you were to completely reset 40k, ignoring all existing collections, one could argue that Space Marines should be reduced to a sub-faction, not dissimilar to Tempestus are now. To represent their small strike force nature.


They were fundamental in 40k because of the Horus Heresy but thats where their role in the setting ended for the most part. Most of the planets in the Imperium will never be set foot upon by a space marine. Many citizens of the Imperium think they're literal angels. Even most Guardsmen will never see one. They're figures of myth and legend and that is far more interesting than them being an army of Space Super Heroes driving Tonka toy vehicles.

I know that within the setting, Space Marines are pretty niche units.
What I meant was that Space Marines are hugely fundemental to the setting for outside observers. It'd be like removing the Enterprise and asking if Star Trek was really any different. It's just one ship in a whole galaxy, right? Or removing Jedi from Star Wars, there were only like 2 in the original trilogy, they won't be missed.


You also know that many Star Trek and Star Wars productions have been popular without the titular "trademarks" of the franchise right? Deep Space Nine and Voyager immediately spring to mind for Star Trek. I don't know Star Wars that well but I don't think the TIE Fighter games featured Jedi particularly heavily and more recently and very notably The Mandalorian doesn't seem to focus very heavily on Jedi stuff outside of Green Gizmo. I could be wrong about that though as like I said, I'm not into Star Wars.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 12:04:02


Post by: Blackie


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Or removing Jedi from Star Wars, there were only like 2 in the original trilogy, they won't be missed.


Best star wars released in the last 38 years, Rogue One, had no Jedi in it and I definitely not missed them .


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 12:13:31


Post by: carldooley


If admech and darkmech can be run from a consolidated book, and eldar, craftworld, dark eldar, etc can be consolidated, why not Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 12:26:13


Post by: Tiberias


None, absolutely none. All this talk about rules bloat and faction bloat is just pure hypocrisy. It basically always boils down to: remove the factions I don't play or don't like, cause my faction doesn't get enough releases.

If GW had only ever made 4 factions, or suddenly removed some factions, the same people would be complaining that there are not enough factions and diversity.

The only real problem is that GW does not give the same support to each faction. They have the means to do it, but primarily focus on big releases for space marines instead because they are their cash cow.

How about appreciating that 40k is a setting with a plethora of awsome and unique factions to choose from.
I wouldn't want to play a game where the factions are streamlined to flavours of space marine, orks, eldar and chaos.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 12:33:40


Post by: kirotheavenger


Telling individual stories without Space Marines, in a similar vein to Rogue One or Mandalorian, is absolutely fine. Indeed, this is already done and it's great.
But I don't think you could write them out of the lore and game and expect that not to turn a lot of people off.

I think trimming factions to remove some the massive skew in 40k would be beneficial.

Knights should definitely go - at least in their capacity as a stand-alone army of Super Heavies appropriate to use in "normal" size games.

Custodes can also go. Similar to the Knights though, leaving them as a sub-faction designed to include a small detachment amongst another army would be fine.

I also think Harlequins should go, they're one datasheet that have been stretched into an entire faction and it just doesn't go far enough.
You could fully commit to a Harlequin faction in the same way as Deathguard but even then I think they'd be too similar to the existing Eldar factions. So I think it'd best to condense them back into the Eldar codex like they used to be, as essentially another Aspect.

But where factions fit within the general framework of the game and are distinct enough to feel different I see no reason why they should be removed. What needs to be removed is all stuff within factions, like strategems and excessive special rules.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 12:38:33


Post by: the_scotsman


welp, looks like its time for this thread again, where a bunch of people get together and complain that a faction that got 15 seconds of attention 5 years ago doesn't deserve to exist at all (but ofc the faction that has as many boltgun weapons as Tau has fething ranged weapons is A-OK no problems here)


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 12:39:45


Post by: kirotheavenger


 the_scotsman wrote:
welp, looks like its time for this thread again, where a bunch of people get together and complain that a faction that got 15 seconds of attention 5 years ago doesn't deserve to exist at all (but ofc the faction that has as many boltgun weapons as Tau has fething ranged weapons is A-OK no problems here)

I don't know if it suits your grand standing or not but you'll notice removing the excessive Space Marines is leading the poll by some margin...


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 12:46:55


Post by: PenitentJake


Karol wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
For those suggesting consolidations involving Inquisition:

Sororitas go with Hereticus
Death Watch go with Xenos
Grey Knights go with Malleus

So you can add the Inquisition Ordo into the appropriate dex (fail because if you like all flavours of Inquisition, you need 3 books)

OR you could put all six factions in one book, which would be fairly large book, but probably not more sheets than Marines, so probably doable.

Those are the only options that really make sense, because they are the only solutions that solve ALL of the Inq/ Chamber Militant issues.


Or leave DW, SoB and GK alone, and leave the inquisition stuff for the BL or maybe give them a unit entry that can be put in to any imperial army. Having GK,SoB and DW in the same book would more or less invalidate the majority of the armies. Why take GK or DW, when SoB have just more point efficient units? Why ask for DW or GK to be improved, when the counter argument is always going to be, inquisition codex is fine, just play with more SoB units.


Oh yeah, for sure. Remember, I don't actually advocate consolidating or removing any of the dexes; I was just responding to folks who were suggesting incomplete solutions, because if they started playing in 8th or later, they might not actually know which army is the chamber militant of which order.

My solution to the Inquisition is to actually add an Imperial Agents codex. This would not only solve the Inquisition, it would also handle Rogue Traders, Assassins and maybe some unaligned units. Not only that, the potential for Inquisition related Crusade content is, quite frankly, the coolest potential content that might never get made this edition.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 12:48:43


Post by: the_scotsman


 kirotheavenger wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
welp, looks like its time for this thread again, where a bunch of people get together and complain that a faction that got 15 seconds of attention 5 years ago doesn't deserve to exist at all (but ofc the faction that has as many boltgun weapons as Tau has fething ranged weapons is A-OK no problems here)

I don't know if it suits your grand standing or not but you'll notice removing the excessive Space Marines is leading the poll by some margin...


Sure, but every other post is 'remove harlequins'. Why? Whose space are we taking up? Are harlequins not more distinct to eldar (don't wear armor, don't use guns, completely different suite of characters, only vehicle is a Dark Eldar transport/Eldar gunboat, jetbikes have different weapon loadouts+two riders) than ANY variant space marine is to normal space marines?

Death Guard and CSM are less distinct than Harlequins and Eldar. Harlequins vs Eldar is more like the distinction between Daemons and CSM.

Since their initial launch two editions ago, Harlequins have taken the following out of everyone else's release schedule:

-one codex book in 8th edition.

That's it. Total. Ever. That's all the upkeep of the harlequin range that has ever been necessary for anything.

Meanwhile you've all had to sit and wait through 3 marine codexes, 12 supplements, and 3x more plastic kit releases than the entire sisters of battle range.

You didnt even have to suffer our inclusion in a fething PA book, we snuck into a white dwarf and were grateful for the recognition of our continued existence.

Knights, meanwhile, just a reminder, 3 codexes, 2 upgrade kits, 3 new kits, several box games, and a whole slew of forgeworld releases.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 12:54:07


Post by: Tiberias


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Telling individual stories without Space Marines, in a similar vein to Rogue One or Mandalorian, is absolutely fine. Indeed, this is already done and it's great.
But I don't think you could write them out of the lore and game and expect that not to turn a lot of people off.

I think trimming factions to remove some the massive skew in 40k would be beneficial.

Knights should definitely go - at least in their capacity as a stand-alone army of Super Heavies appropriate to use in "normal" size games.

Custodes can also go. Similar to the Knights though, leaving them as a sub-faction designed to include a small detachment amongst another army would be fine.

I also think Harlequins should go, they're one datasheet that have been stretched into an entire faction and it just doesn't go far enough.
You could fully commit to a Harlequin faction in the same way as Deathguard but even then I think they'd be too similar to the existing Eldar factions. So I think it'd best to condense them back into the Eldar codex like they used to be, as essentially another Aspect.

But where factions fit within the general framework of the game and are distinct enough to feel different I see no reason why they should be removed. What needs to be removed is all stuff within factions, like strategems and excessive special rules.


Couldn't disagree more, especially about harlequins. They are a living example of how you can make a faction interesting both regarding rules and lore, even though they have fewer kits than most armies. They play distinct from other factions and while they have very few kits, those that they have are really good.

I don't think knights should go, but I will be the first to grant that their release has created problems regarding scale in 40k. Walkers that big were mostly reserved for apoc and the castellan managed to shape the meta for quite some time. I still think they can have a place though, given their rules are written competently.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 12:58:31


Post by: the_scotsman


....just give them some freaking infantry units already, with the knights. Release some knight world peasants and make them the 40k equivalent of Brettonians. its amazing how much more bearable just including the 'big dreadnought thing' mini-knight made them to play against in 9th edition.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 14:43:49


Post by: Kanluwen


 the_scotsman wrote:
....just give them some freaking infantry units already, with the knights. Release some knight world peasants and make them the 40k equivalent of Brettonians. its amazing how much more bearable just including the 'big dreadnought thing' mini-knight made them to play against in 9th edition.

I don't think simply adding infantry would solve it.

Pulling a bit from Battletech, having the Knights pulling a zellbrigen system could go a long way towards balancing some of their problematic areas at lower levels.
Taking advantage of the Combat Patrol etc markups for missions could go another way, simply disallowing Lords of War from them outside of specific Open/Narrative missions would be another good option.

Hell, treating Knights and other LOWs as pseudo-Endless Spells could be an interesting option too.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 14:46:29


Post by: Jidmah


 Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, treating Knights and other LOWs as pseudo-Endless Spells could be an interesting option too.


Can you explain this for people who only buy endless spells as conversion bits for 40k terrain?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 15:02:55


Post by: Kanluwen


 Jidmah wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, treating Knights and other LOWs as pseudo-Endless Spells could be an interesting option too.


Can you explain this for people who only buy endless spells as conversion bits for 40k terrain?

You purchase Endless Spells as part of your army and then cast them during the game. They persist until unbound by an enemy Wizard (or in AOS3, Priests can do it too), the spell crosses the edge of the battlefield when it is moved, or if the spell has a set expiration condition on its warscroll card.

Additionally, it is treated as a friendly model for all rules purposes(you'd think that a heckin' giant purple orb of DOOM! would terrify you at all times, but nah!) and they activated before either army at the start of a turn.

When unbound/removed, they could be cast again but we don't need that for Knights/LOWs. Having them start off the field and effectively be played out of sequence could be a good balancing act.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 15:54:35


Post by: Sim-Life


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Telling individual stories without Space Marines, in a similar vein to Rogue One or Mandalorian, is absolutely fine. Indeed, this is already done and it's great.
But I don't think you could write them out of the lore and game and expect that not to turn a lot of people off.



I didn't say write them out of the lore. I said they should be the semi-mythical literal angels of death that the lore presents them as. Not the participators in every pub brawl within a 1000 system radius that they currently are. And the topic isn't "what can we trim to make people happy and makes financial sense". It was simply "what would you trim"?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 16:06:16


Post by: Xenomancers


 the_scotsman wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
welp, looks like its time for this thread again, where a bunch of people get together and complain that a faction that got 15 seconds of attention 5 years ago doesn't deserve to exist at all (but ofc the faction that has as many boltgun weapons as Tau has fething ranged weapons is A-OK no problems here)

I don't know if it suits your grand standing or not but you'll notice removing the excessive Space Marines is leading the poll by some margin...


Sure, but every other post is 'remove harlequins'. Why? Whose space are we taking up? Are harlequins not more distinct to eldar (don't wear armor, don't use guns, completely different suite of characters, only vehicle is a Dark Eldar transport/Eldar gunboat, jetbikes have different weapon loadouts+two riders) than ANY variant space marine is to normal space marines?

Death Guard and CSM are less distinct than Harlequins and Eldar. Harlequins vs Eldar is more like the distinction between Daemons and CSM.

Since their initial launch two editions ago, Harlequins have taken the following out of everyone else's release schedule:

-one codex book in 8th edition.

That's it. Total. Ever. That's all the upkeep of the harlequin range that has ever been necessary for anything.

Meanwhile you've all had to sit and wait through 3 marine codexes, 12 supplements, and 3x more plastic kit releases than the entire sisters of battle range.

You didnt even have to suffer our inclusion in a fething PA book, we snuck into a white dwarf and were grateful for the recognition of our continued existence.

Knights, meanwhile, just a reminder, 3 codexes, 2 upgrade kits, 3 new kits, several box games, and a whole slew of forgeworld releases.

Disagree. Quinns and DG are both very indistinct from elder and CSM. Harlequins are just like another aspect warrior of the eldar - though it is more like an affliction than a path (in fact that is what they used to be). DG are literally just CSM. Nether deserves their own codex. ESP not before their parent codex comes out.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 16:36:50


Post by: Jidmah


 Kanluwen wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, treating Knights and other LOWs as pseudo-Endless Spells could be an interesting option too.


Can you explain this for people who only buy endless spells as conversion bits for 40k terrain?

You purchase Endless Spells as part of your army and then cast them during the game. They persist until unbound by an enemy Wizard (or in AOS3, Priests can do it too), the spell crosses the edge of the battlefield when it is moved, or if the spell has a set expiration condition on its warscroll card.

Additionally, it is treated as a friendly model for all rules purposes(you'd think that a heckin' giant purple orb of DOOM! would terrify you at all times, but nah!) and they activated before either army at the start of a turn.

When unbound/removed, they could be cast again but we don't need that for Knights/LOWs. Having them start off the field and effectively be played out of sequence could be a good balancing act.


So, you mean that LoW are supposed to be kind of uncontrollable environmental effects that might leave the battle early?

Sounds interesting for narrative games, but I'm not convinced for matched play.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 16:40:11


Post by: Kanluwen


Matched Play is effectively its own subgame at this point, and tourney organizers make crap up anyways. Let them figure it out--it is not my problem to have to figure out how to balance for a subgame where people crow about how list-building is a "skill".


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 16:56:22


Post by: Sim-Life


 Jidmah wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, treating Knights and other LOWs as pseudo-Endless Spells could be an interesting option too.


Can you explain this for people who only buy endless spells as conversion bits for 40k terrain?

You purchase Endless Spells as part of your army and then cast them during the game. They persist until unbound by an enemy Wizard (or in AOS3, Priests can do it too), the spell crosses the edge of the battlefield when it is moved, or if the spell has a set expiration condition on its warscroll card.

Additionally, it is treated as a friendly model for all rules purposes(you'd think that a heckin' giant purple orb of DOOM! would terrify you at all times, but nah!) and they activated before either army at the start of a turn.

When unbound/removed, they could be cast again but we don't need that for Knights/LOWs. Having them start off the field and effectively be played out of sequence could be a good balancing act.


So, you mean that LoW are supposed to be kind of uncontrollable environmental effects that might leave the battle early?

Sounds interesting for narrative games, but I'm not convinced for matched play.


Reminds me of a mission from Dawn Of War where a Titan's volcano cannon has been broken off and it keeps firing off in intervals and forms a trench on the map that runs down the centre so you have to time moving units through it to get to the enemy base.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 18:09:54


Post by: ccs


 Kanluwen wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, treating Knights and other LOWs as pseudo-Endless Spells could be an interesting option too.


Can you explain this for people who only buy endless spells as conversion bits for 40k terrain?

You purchase Endless Spells as part of your army and then cast them during the game. They persist until unbound by an enemy Wizard (or in AOS3, Priests can do it too), the spell crosses the edge of the battlefield when it is moved, or if the spell has a set expiration condition on its warscroll card.

Additionally, it is treated as a friendly model for all rules purposes(you'd think that a heckin' giant purple orb of DOOM! would terrify you at all times, but nah!) and they activated before either army at the start of a turn.

When unbound/removed, they could be cast again but we don't need that for Knights/LOWs. Having them start off the field and effectively be played out of sequence could be a good balancing act.


This idea married to 40k LoW sounds like really bad game design. You are clearly the type of talent GW s looking for. :(


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 18:16:48


Post by: the_scotsman


ccs wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, treating Knights and other LOWs as pseudo-Endless Spells could be an interesting option too.


Can you explain this for people who only buy endless spells as conversion bits for 40k terrain?

You purchase Endless Spells as part of your army and then cast them during the game. They persist until unbound by an enemy Wizard (or in AOS3, Priests can do it too), the spell crosses the edge of the battlefield when it is moved, or if the spell has a set expiration condition on its warscroll card.

Additionally, it is treated as a friendly model for all rules purposes(you'd think that a heckin' giant purple orb of DOOM! would terrify you at all times, but nah!) and they activated before either army at the start of a turn.

When unbound/removed, they could be cast again but we don't need that for Knights/LOWs. Having them start off the field and effectively be played out of sequence could be a good balancing act.


This idea married to 40k LoW sounds like really bad game design. You are clearly the type of talent GW s looking for. :(


Why?

The idea that more powerful elements that won't ordinarily work on the battlefield scale of 40k like artillery/orbital strikes, flyers and superheavies MUST be balanced such that a standard TAC list can and will be able to destroy them has seemed to cause a lot of problems.

Those elements being only available at certain times during the game, making them delayed assets or unreliable assets, would seem to make much more sense from a narrative coherence standpoint.

Certainly that's how planes have been handled in every world war 2 game I've ever played. The idea that your little platoon of infantry and tanks without specialized anti-aircraft weaponry will be able to fire at and destroy enemy air support or else that air support will infinitely circle around the battlefield, shooting something every single turn like a very very fast tank that ignores all terrain is just...silly.

Typically, you've got units whose job it is to improve their performance or reliability (spotters) that follow the rules for infantry and can be targeted by everything at your opponent's disposal, and destroying them is a way of indirectly destroying/impeding the plane or offmap artillery, but you rarely actually destroy or damage the plane as it comes in for a run unless you've both included anti-aircraft specialized weaponry or emplacements and you get fairly lucky.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 18:33:36


Post by: AnomanderRake


 the_scotsman wrote:
...Why?

The idea that more powerful elements that won't ordinarily work on the battlefield scale of 40k like artillery/orbital strikes, flyers and superheavies MUST be balanced such that a standard TAC list can and will be able to destroy them has seemed to cause a lot of problems.

Those elements being only available at certain times during the game, making them delayed assets or unreliable assets, would seem to make much more sense from a narrative coherence standpoint.

Certainly that's how planes have been handled in every world war 2 game I've ever played. The idea that your little platoon of infantry and tanks without specialized anti-aircraft weaponry will be able to fire at and destroy enemy air support or else that air support will infinitely circle around the battlefield, shooting something every single turn like a very very fast tank that ignores all terrain is just...silly.

Typically, you've got units whose job it is to improve their performance or reliability (spotters) that follow the rules for infantry and can be targeted by everything at your opponent's disposal, and destroying them is a way of indirectly destroying/impeding the plane or offmap artillery, but you rarely actually destroy or damage the plane as it comes in for a run unless you've both included anti-aircraft specialized weaponry or emplacements and you get fairly lucky.


The problem I usually have with these kinds of suggestions is that unlike in a WWII game the line between "too big for Warhammer" and "not too big for Warhammer" is often incredibly arbitrary. Why is a Valkyrie out of scale but a Falcon isn't? Why is a Malcador out of scale but a Land Raider isn't? Personally I think it'd be better to actually go to the time and effort of integrating the big things into the game rather than saying "they're not well-integrated into the game, delete them."


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 18:36:11


Post by: Nurglitch


I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 18:46:45


Post by: Xenomancers


 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 18:56:27


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 19:04:54


Post by: Kanluwen


The most interesting part is that GW actually has a fairly simple way of balancing out Knights and other LoWs, if the points levels really do not function for them:

Battle Size.
We have the Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught "Battle Size" listings.
500,1000, 2000, and 3000 points respectively.
Disallowing Lords of War at Combat Patrol and Incursion levels shouldn't be super difficult to get people to accept one would think.



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 21:06:22


Post by: Stormonu


 Void__Dragon wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
Adeptus Custodes: The Emperor's personal bodyguard should stay on Terra; why are they now fighting battles across the galaxy? This is an army that should never have been created. A couple models for collectors, sure, but not an entire faction.


To justify the mind-bogglingly insane cost to create and maintain them. Guilliman getting them off their lazy asses and actually doing something beyond standing next to a big chair for ten thousand years is one of the better parts of the new lore and it is laughable to suggest that there is any justifiable reason for them to be glorified garden gnomes in the palace.



But that’s like sending the Secret Service over to Afghanistan to fight terrorists instead of keeping them home to protect the president…


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 21:14:23


Post by: PenitentJake


 Jidmah wrote:


Can you explain this for people who only buy endless spells as conversion bits for 40k terrain?


Yeah, I want the floating slaanesh face on a knight- not sure if it's the right size. Might have to go full on titan, and that's too rich for my wallet.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/08 21:29:56


Post by: Tiberias


 Stormonu wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
Adeptus Custodes: The Emperor's personal bodyguard should stay on Terra; why are they now fighting battles across the galaxy? This is an army that should never have been created. A couple models for collectors, sure, but not an entire faction.


To justify the mind-bogglingly insane cost to create and maintain them. Guilliman getting them off their lazy asses and actually doing something beyond standing next to a big chair for ten thousand years is one of the better parts of the new lore and it is laughable to suggest that there is any justifiable reason for them to be glorified garden gnomes in the palace.



But that’s like sending the Secret Service over to Afghanistan to fight terrorists instead of keeping them home to protect the president…


Oh how I love these analogies, at least get the lore straight. Even in the 30k novels the custodes were meant to be a lot more than bodyguards or gloryfied sentries. And the new lore definitively clarifies that they have not been doing feth-all for the last ten thousand years. But hey, let's just squat an entire faction that not only sells very well, but is also quite beginner friendly based on lacking knowledge of 40k lore.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 06:26:23


Post by: Jidmah


 Sim-Life wrote:
Reminds me of a mission from Dawn Of War where a Titan's volcano cannon has been broken off and it keeps firing off in intervals and forms a trench on the map that runs down the centre so you have to time moving units through it to get to the enemy base.


I remember that mission as well, it was awesome.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 06:28:23


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Jidmah wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Reminds me of a mission from Dawn Of War where a Titan's volcano cannon has been broken off and it keeps firing off in intervals and forms a trench on the map that runs down the centre so you have to time moving units through it to get to the enemy base.


I remember that mission as well, it was awesome.


Like most of Dark Crusade much more awesome if you're playing Eldar. Very frustrating for slower armies.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 06:28:49


Post by: Jidmah


 Kanluwen wrote:
The most interesting part is that GW actually has a fairly simple way of balancing out Knights and other LoWs, if the points levels really do not function for them:

Battle Size.
We have the Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught "Battle Size" listings.
500,1000, 2000, and 3000 points respectively.
Disallowing Lords of War at Combat Patrol and Incursion levels shouldn't be super difficult to get people to accept one would think.



Lords of War are disallowed for combat patrol unless you are playing knights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Reminds me of a mission from Dawn Of War where a Titan's volcano cannon has been broken off and it keeps firing off in intervals and forms a trench on the map that runs down the centre so you have to time moving units through it to get to the enemy base.


I remember that mission as well, it was awesome.


Like most of Dark Crusade much more awesome if you're playing Eldar. Very frustrating for slower armies.


I never played anything but orks


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 06:49:33


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.


Well, that's not true. Due to the vehicle mechanic (and Knights from 6Edition on) as well as bad balance the game didn't really work below 1000 points. I had the first enjoyable 500points games in 9th edition, since there are missions that actually consider that low point value for the first time and not just: well, do the same as with 2000points but play on 4x4 instead of 6x4. And since everything can hurt everything the problem of skew isn't that bad anymore.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 07:31:28


Post by: ccs


 Jidmah wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
The most interesting part is that GW actually has a fairly simple way of balancing out Knights and other LoWs, if the points levels really do not function for them:

Battle Size.
We have the Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught "Battle Size" listings.
500,1000, 2000, and 3000 points respectively.
Disallowing Lords of War at Combat Patrol and Incursion levels shouldn't be super difficult to get people to accept one would think.



Lords of War are disallowed for combat patrol unless you are playing knights.


Yea, because that makes a whole bunch of sense. You ca play these LoW (knights) - but not those others (Baneblades, etc).
Yes, yes, I get it. Knights a faction with their own codex & you can't disappoint that portion of customers...


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 07:34:06


Post by: Jidmah


ccs wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
The most interesting part is that GW actually has a fairly simple way of balancing out Knights and other LoWs, if the points levels really do not function for them:

Battle Size.
We have the Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught "Battle Size" listings.
500,1000, 2000, and 3000 points respectively.
Disallowing Lords of War at Combat Patrol and Incursion levels shouldn't be super difficult to get people to accept one would think.



Lords of War are disallowed for combat patrol unless you are playing knights.


Yea, because that makes a whole bunch of sense. You ca play these LoW (knights) - but not those others (Baneblades, etc).
Yes, yes, I get it. Knights a faction with their own codex & you can't disappoint that portion of customers...


There is a difference between being allowed to put a real army on the board and supporting it with a LoW and allowing a knight player to auto-lose the game

Unless they spam armingers (which are LoW only in name), knights have almost no chance of winning a combat patrol game.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 10:00:00


Post by: Jarms48


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
wow, what a gakky poll.

This leaves out most of the actual options (like trimming some of the SM chapters down to a single codex to treat them like IG regiments)


OMG yes, this. Do we really need like 12 marine codexes?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 10:39:12


Post by: Blackie


Yes we do, since GW decided that some SM chapters are actual armies with several unique datasheets and several dedicated kits.

Generic IG regiments, drukhari obsessions, ork klans, necron dynasties, etc... don't have anything dedicated barring maybe a single named character or two.

The word "need" is a strong one. For someone we definitely don't need multiple SM books, but for others the game would still be amazing with no SM at all and for them we wouldn't need even ONE SM codex .


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 12:54:11


Post by: vipoid


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Reminds me of a mission from Dawn Of War where a Titan's volcano cannon has been broken off and it keeps firing off in intervals and forms a trench on the map that runs down the centre so you have to time moving units through it to get to the enemy base.


I remember that mission as well, it was awesome.


Like most of Dark Crusade much more awesome if you're playing Eldar. Very frustrating for slower armies.


Eh, I found it a pain regardless of which faction I was playing because the game had such awful pathing.

Try to send a few tanks across but they instead stop in the middle for what I can only assume to be a mating ritual.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 13:39:46


Post by: Voss


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.



No it isn't. I'll let you in on an open secret that's been true for most editions of both warhammer 40k and Fantasy: The studio generally plays smaller games than the 'community' does. For most of 3rd and later editions 40k, the studio played at 1500 points. The push to 1750, 1850, and 2000 points came from players. Both people who wanted to get more of their toys on the table, and for events.

It's one of the big reasons overpowered unit spam was never addressed. In their 'home' games FOC+ a few choice additions was normal, without another 500 points to blow solely on killer units. The games are designed to be far more low key than they are in the wild, and ivory tower game design kept a lot of problems areas neglected. Meanwhile, players pushed for point sizes that magnified the ignored problems.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 14:02:53


Post by: stroller


I have no interest in "narrowing/trimming" the game in this way. I'd rather see a wider range of opponents.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 14:24:33


Post by: Karol


Voss 798865 11144580 wrote:

No it isn't. I'll let you in on an open secret that's been true for most editions of both warhammer 40k and Fantasy: The studio generally plays smaller games than the 'community' does. For most of 3rd and later editions 40k, the studio played at 1500 points. The push to 1750, 1850, and 2000 points came from players. Both people who wanted to get more of their toys on the table, and for events.

It's one of the big reasons overpowered unit spam was never addressed. In their 'home' games FOC+ a few choice additions was normal, without another 500 points to blow solely on killer units. The games are designed to be far more low key than they are in the wild, and ivory tower game design kept a lot of problems areas neglected. Meanwhile, players pushed for point sizes that magnified the ignored problems.


I played in two editions, and out of the things it tought me, one is that the Studio has no idea about how, why and by whom the game is played. The fact that GW designers after 20+ years of working at the studio dare to say that they weren't expecting players to do something, shows that perfectly.

It is like some companies that sell industrial spirtus at gas stations pretending that they do not know for what it is used, and I can tell you that it ain't a lot of removing of paint from windows.


Go tell a player, whose basic army compotents cost around 1700pts, that the game should be played at 1000 or 1500.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 15:05:23


Post by: BroodSpawn


Karol wrote:
Voss 798865 11144580 wrote:

No it isn't. I'll let you in on an open secret that's been true for most editions of both warhammer 40k and Fantasy: The studio generally plays smaller games than the 'community' does. For most of 3rd and later editions 40k, the studio played at 1500 points. The push to 1750, 1850, and 2000 points came from players. Both people who wanted to get more of their toys on the table, and for events.

It's one of the big reasons overpowered unit spam was never addressed. In their 'home' games FOC+ a few choice additions was normal, without another 500 points to blow solely on killer units. The games are designed to be far more low key than they are in the wild, and ivory tower game design kept a lot of problems areas neglected. Meanwhile, players pushed for point sizes that magnified the ignored problems.


I played in two editions, and out of the things it tought me, one is that the Studio has no idea about how, why and by whom the game is played. The fact that GW designers after 20+ years of working at the studio dare to say that they weren't expecting players to do something, shows that perfectly.

It is like some companies that sell industrial spirtus at gas stations pretending that they do not know for what it is used, and I can tell you that it ain't a lot of removing of paint from windows.


Go tell a player, whose basic army compotents cost around 1700pts, that the game should be played at 1000 or 1500.


What army has a basic component that demands 1700pts invested into it outside of (maybe) Knights running 3 big boys?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 15:37:44


Post by: carldooley


 vipoid wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Reminds me of a mission from Dawn Of War where a Titan's volcano cannon has been broken off and it keeps firing off in intervals and forms a trench on the map that runs down the centre so you have to time moving units through it to get to the enemy base.


I remember that mission as well, it was awesome.


Like most of Dark Crusade much more awesome if you're playing Eldar. Very frustrating for slower armies.


Eh, I found it a pain regardless of which faction I was playing because the game had such awful pathing.

Try to send a few tanks across but they instead stop in the middle for what I can only assume to be a mating ritual.


This just means that people never played as Tau. My entire force bypassed that trench with their jump packs.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 16:01:18


Post by: SiLKY


I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.

Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 16:03:15


Post by: waefre_1


 Blackie wrote:
Yes we do, since GW decided that some SM chapters are actual armies with several unique datasheets and several dedicated kits.

Generic IG regiments, drukhari obsessions, ork klans, necron dynasties, etc... don't have anything dedicated barring maybe a single named character or two.

The word "need" is a strong one. For someone we definitely don't need multiple SM books, but for others the game would still be amazing with no SM at all and for them we wouldn't need even ONE SM codex .

Those datasheets and kits could be folded into the main SM codex with little effort, though.

As for other factions having that, that is
a) not true (thinking of IG: see Death Korps, Elysians, Tallarn (special Death Riders), Tempestus Scions (currently folded back into the main 'dex, if haphazardly))
b) entirely the result of GW choosing to make things that way. As gets brought up in every Space Marine thread, GW did not need to give SM extra goodies that they don't give to other faction. You'd need to come up with a solid argument as to why that is justified and should be continued before "Well, it's the way GW does things" becomes a valid point.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 16:14:04


Post by: Spectral Ceramite


Didn't bother reading all, cause is irrelevant...


Remove none...why would you dilute the diversity?


Arguments will be like focus more time, can be better other factions, more resources devoted, faction not played much etc etc... fuk that, they need all and will consolidate what have and expand apon... (not to mention they have a lot of models can redo for a faction for money...though I collect all inquistor models...I'm not biased at all)

Bloody insane to remove factions or races...You all complain to much and need to open a tissue factory it seems...

Any negative energy devoted to diminish the game needs to be expunded...



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 16:22:18


Post by: Xenomancers


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.

Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.

How are they any different aesthetically from dire avengers / striking scorpions/ and fire dragons? Who deliberately have different aesthetics. Quinn's getting their own book 6-7 years ago hey literally just made up a story and units to make it happen...could equally have done the same with "Dire Avenger shrines" codex and it would have made equal sense.

I agree with the marines. There should only be 1 space marine codex. The only space marine force that is somewhat worthy of their own book would be GK - but that should just be a combined book with all inquisition.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 17:44:54


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Xenomancers wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points...


Exactly. That's the point. NOW the game is designed to only work at 2,000pts. Go back to 3rd-7th and it used to be a lot more scalable.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 18:11:15


Post by: Pointer5


I'll get back to the poll question and say none of the books should be removed. The game points scaling is not the problem. The size of GW total company is the problem. We don't have enough people, enough manufacturing capabilities, or money to set the first up. It's time GW steps up and starts being the premier company at what they do. Their should be a major manufacturing and distribution center in the USA. They should also be a major manufacturing and distribution center in Australia. That should help stop the crazy pricing in South East Asia. Once done GW could put out multiple codexes every month and it would take pressure of English and Chinese production.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 18:41:00


Post by: SiLKY


 Xenomancers wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.

Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.

How are they any different aesthetically from dire avengers / striking scorpions/ and fire dragons? Who deliberately have different aesthetics. Quinn's getting their own book 6-7 years ago hey literally just made up a story and units to make it happen...could equally have done the same with "Dire Avenger shrines" codex and it would have made equal sense.

I agree with the marines. There should only be 1 space marine codex. The only space marine force that is somewhat worthy of their own book would be GK - but that should just be a combined book with all inquisition.



Dire avengers, striking scorpions and fire dragons are all part of the Craftworlds is the biggest reason for starters, secondly those three share very big similarities to each other than they do to Harlequins. The armor designs of the three playable aeldari factions have very distinct silhouettes, Drukhari have sharper edges and tighter armor, Craftworld are sleek and rounded, and Harlequins sit in between. GW has also been fiddling with the idea of Harlequins having it's own faction since 3rd edition but for whatever reason didn't come into fruition until 7th.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 18:48:03


Post by: Shadow Walker


Voted for SM Chapters, Knights/Chaos Knights, Harlequins, Deathguard, ATS and Inquisition.



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 20:20:35


Post by: PenitentJake


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points...


Exactly. That's the point. NOW the game is designed to only work at 2,000pts. Go back to 3rd-7th and it used to be a lot more scalable.


Could someone please direct me to the 500 point missions in any BRB than 9th? How about the 3000 point missions? Were there supplements for any of those editions that included missions and rules for 500 point games? Could you tell me which rules in any edition other than 9th differentiate play at 500 points, or 1k, or 2k or 3k? I can't speak intelligently about 6th or 7th because for those editions my two favourite factions we in cold storage, but in every other edition, I'm pretty sure that there were no variations written into the rules to accommodate game size.

While it is true that some armies have a hard time at low point value, the people who want to play at those point values aren't choosing those armies when they do. And THAT isn't an issue of game design- it's a matter of some forces not being appropriate for some battles from both a fluff and mechanics point of view. Would a House of Knights be sent to squash 30 Cultists, 10 Chaos Marines and a Lord?

In order for you to say a game is DESIGNED to work at different sizes, you have to be able to point to the rules that indicate what should be done differently at different game sizes. A range so limited that all units fall in the same general power scale isn't a feature of the games design- it is a limitation imposed upon the model range because the designers know their game can't work with models of vastly different power levels point values.

If a game DOES include rules that indicate what should be done differently at different game sizes, you can't say it wasn't designed to work at different sizes. You can argue that from your point of view it doesn't work as well is it is supposed to; you could even argue that a ruleset which includes zero design features created specifically to accommodate battles of different sizes can be made to do so based on inherent characteristics, or limitations of the model range. But none of that is the same as talking about what the game was DESIGNED to do.

A matched player may not SEE the design features of 9th which encourage games of all sizes, because the Mission pack designed to be used by matched players doesn't include as many of those features- the GT mission pack pack includes missions for only 2/4 game sizes, and has no built-in support for escalation. That is not GW's fault. It is not 40K's fault. In fact, I don't think it's anyone's fault- people who like pick up games and like playing in such a way that victory is the primary purpose of the game are going to gravitate to the style of play that supports that. I'm not blaming anyone for preferring competitive play- it is a valid choice, those who make that choice are as important to the community and the long term survival of the game as anyone else.

But to deny that there is a way of playing the game where you by two books (BRB + Codex) plus one box of models (CP Box) and put it on the table against an opponent who did the exact same thing, with mechanics written specifically to facilitate that army's growth a unit or two at a time until it reaches EPIC size is just factually incorrect. Whether YOU choose to play that way, for whatever valid reasons you might have is a separate issue.

Similarly, to pretend that such a way to play existed in previous editions when it explicitly did not is also factually incorrect, whether or not YOU were able to make it work.



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 20:25:05


Post by: Xenomancers


Pointer5 wrote:
I'll get back to the poll question and say none of the books should be removed. The game points scaling is not the problem. The size of GW total company is the problem. We don't have enough people, enough manufacturing capabilities, or money to set the first up. It's time GW steps up and starts being the premier company at what they do. Their should be a major manufacturing and distribution center in the USA. They should also be a major manufacturing and distribution center in Australia. That should help stop the crazy pricing in South East Asia. Once done GW could put out multiple codexes every month and it would take pressure of English and Chinese production.

You are correct but I believe GW believes it is in their best interst to keep the game more exclusive. I feel they fear (and rightly so) the US interest in the game would end up with them losing control of their game (their baby).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.

Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.

How are they any different aesthetically from dire avengers / striking scorpions/ and fire dragons? Who deliberately have different aesthetics. Quinn's getting their own book 6-7 years ago hey literally just made up a story and units to make it happen...could equally have done the same with "Dire Avenger shrines" codex and it would have made equal sense.

I agree with the marines. There should only be 1 space marine codex. The only space marine force that is somewhat worthy of their own book would be GK - but that should just be a combined book with all inquisition.



Dire avengers, striking scorpions and fire dragons are all part of the Craftworlds is the biggest reason for starters, secondly those three share very big similarities to each other than they do to Harlequins. The armor designs of the three playable aeldari factions have very distinct silhouettes, Drukhari have sharper edges and tighter armor, Craftworld are sleek and rounded, and Harlequins sit in between. GW has also been fiddling with the idea of Harlequins having it's own faction since 3rd edition but for whatever reason didn't come into fruition until 7th.

Are you aware that harlequins used to be part of craftworlds as well?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 20:33:30


Post by: BrianDavion


non, I don't see less codices as a good thing. and I wish people would stop making polls like this.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 21:24:39


Post by: Jarms48


 Blackie wrote:
Yes we do, since GW decided that some SM chapters are actual armies with several unique datasheets and several dedicated kits.

Generic IG regiments, drukhari obsessions, ork klans, necron dynasties, etc... don't have anything dedicated barring maybe a single named character or two.

The word "need" is a strong one. For someone we definitely don't need multiple SM books, but for others the game would still be amazing with no SM at all and for them we wouldn't need even ONE SM codex .


You could do it over less books. Have a generic codex space marines. Have a codex Founding Chapters with all the unique datasheets and rules, basically like the FW compendium, then have a codex Successor Chapters for any unique datasheets and rules they have. There we go, just condensed 12 books into 3.

Guard could totally have multiple codexes if GW put more effort into them. There was a time when we had hundreds of additional datasheets supplied by FW. In 3rd edition we had codex Catachan, codex Eye of Terror which featured Cadians, codex Armageddon which featured the Steel Legion, we had the Chapter Approved Armoured Company, and we had the first Imperial Armour book. In 5th edition we had Siege of Vraks which introduced DKOK and Renegades & Heretics, the Talos campaign which introduced the Elysians, and the 2nd Edition of Imperial Armour 1.

Any army given enough support could have multiple codexes.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/09 22:30:22


Post by: AnomanderRake


Jarms48 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Yes we do, since GW decided that some SM chapters are actual armies with several unique datasheets and several dedicated kits.

Generic IG regiments, drukhari obsessions, ork klans, necron dynasties, etc... don't have anything dedicated barring maybe a single named character or two.

The word "need" is a strong one. For someone we definitely don't need multiple SM books, but for others the game would still be amazing with no SM at all and for them we wouldn't need even ONE SM codex .


You could do it over less books. Have a generic codex space marines. Have a codex Founding Chapters with all the unique datasheets and rules, basically like the FW compendium, then have a codex Successor Chapters for any unique datasheets and rules they have. There we go, just condensed 12 books into 3.

Guard could totally have multiple codexes if GW put more effort into them. There was a time when we had hundreds of additional datasheets supplied by FW. In 3rd edition we had codex Catachan, codex Eye of Terror which featured Cadians, codex Armageddon which featured the Steel Legion, we had the Chapter Approved Armoured Company, and we had the first Imperial Armour book. In 5th edition we had Siege of Vraks which introduced DKOK and Renegades & Heretics, the Talos campaign which introduced the Elysians, and the 2nd Edition of Imperial Armour 1.

Any army given enough support could have multiple codexes.


Go down to 1. Organize it like CSM 3.5. Write the core list, and then put "appendixes" at the end of the book with Legion-specific content.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 00:36:06


Post by: SiLKY


 Xenomancers wrote:
Pointer5 wrote:
I'll get back to the poll question and say none of the books should be removed. The game points scaling is not the problem. The size of GW total company is the problem. We don't have enough people, enough manufacturing capabilities, or money to set the first up. It's time GW steps up and starts being the premier company at what they do. Their should be a major manufacturing and distribution center in the USA. They should also be a major manufacturing and distribution center in Australia. That should help stop the crazy pricing in South East Asia. Once done GW could put out multiple codexes every month and it would take pressure of English and Chinese production.

You are correct but I believe GW believes it is in their best interst to keep the game more exclusive. I feel they fear (and rightly so) the US interest in the game would end up with them losing control of their game (their baby).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.

Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.

How are they any different aesthetically from dire avengers / striking scorpions/ and fire dragons? Who deliberately have different aesthetics. Quinn's getting their own book 6-7 years ago hey literally just made up a story and units to make it happen...could equally have done the same with "Dire Avenger shrines" codex and it would have made equal sense.

I agree with the marines. There should only be 1 space marine codex. The only space marine force that is somewhat worthy of their own book would be GK - but that should just be a combined book with all inquisition.



Dire avengers, striking scorpions and fire dragons are all part of the Craftworlds is the biggest reason for starters, secondly those three share very big similarities to each other than they do to Harlequins. The armor designs of the three playable aeldari factions have very distinct silhouettes, Drukhari have sharper edges and tighter armor, Craftworld are sleek and rounded, and Harlequins sit in between. GW has also been fiddling with the idea of Harlequins having it's own faction since 3rd edition but for whatever reason didn't come into fruition until 7th.

Are you aware that harlequins used to be part of craftworlds as well?


Yes, what's your point, they were also in the Dark Eldar codex. Death Guard and 1k Sons were in the Chaos codex too, should we merge those back into the CSM codex?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 01:25:35


Post by: Hellebore


Harlequins were also their own army list before the eldar craftworlds had one in 1st ed, so it's pretty irrelevant what's happened previously.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 12:32:10


Post by: Nurglitch


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.

Sure. My point was that a Knight, Errant, Crusader, whatever, doesn't work like 500pts of infantry. When you cause wounds on the infantry the size of the unit might shrink, they might lose weapons, they might lose attacks, they might even lose more wounds/models. When you cause wounds on the knight, nothing else happens. You might vaguely degrade its movement and ability to hit, but that's about it. A Knight is a single, boring brick of a unit. Its a similar problem with monsters and vehicles are whatever else writ large that even the little damage-track gently degrading the Knight's profile doesn't really fix.

You see, in Space Marine 2nd edition Titans had a diagram chunking them into parts, and if you were attacking them you got to aim at their various parts. You could attack their weapons, their legs, their reactors, their heads, and their carapaces. The heads were the best protected, and a good headshot would kill a Titan. But those heads tended to have 1+ armour saving throws, so unless you had a weapon with a -1 AP you needed to hit them in the weapons or reactor. So having a Warlord Titan facing a company of Land Raiders, roughly equivalent points values, was actually interesting because those Lascannons had a -2 AP, and while the Warlord could remove Land Raiders from the board, they could likewise hobble and defang it in turn.

Pretty much nobody played 900pts vs 900pts in Epic Space Marine (2nd ed), unless you were learning and the basic box came with enough Land Raiders to form a company and a Warlord Titan. But 900pts of Titan was an interesting proposition because it behaved just like a unit made up of several models. It wouldn't be too hard to divide up a Knight into separate models, like legs, ion shield, right arm, left arm, etc. Likewise other big chunks like Baneblades and Wraithknights would benefit from having bits that could be attacked separately.

Until then, dropping Knights (and all super-heavies really) would be great. It's not like players don't have Apocalypse for their super-heavy battles.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 13:11:16


Post by: ccs


 Jidmah wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
The most interesting part is that GW actually has a fairly simple way of balancing out Knights and other LoWs, if the points levels really do not function for them:

Battle Size.
We have the Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught "Battle Size" listings.
500,1000, 2000, and 3000 points respectively.
Disallowing Lords of War at Combat Patrol and Incursion levels shouldn't be super difficult to get people to accept one would think.



Lords of War are disallowed for combat patrol unless you are playing knights.


Yea, because that makes a whole bunch of sense. You ca play these LoW (knights) - but not those others (Baneblades, etc).
Yes, yes, I get it. Knights a faction with their own codex & you can't disappoint that portion of customers...


There is a difference between being allowed to put a real army on the board and supporting it with a LoW and allowing a knight player to auto-lose the game


How viable it is concerning winning/losing has nothing to do with it for me. It's "Why can that guy bring a Knight, but I can't bring a ____ {some other LoW - assuming it firs pts/PL}??


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 13:38:25


Post by: Quasistellar


I honestly don't understand this poll, unless it's (more than likely) a thinly veiled jab at space marines or Knights or something.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 13:45:49


Post by: Jidmah


Are being difficult on purpose?

The sole reason for this rule is that knight players aren't locked out an entire game mode because the picked the wrong army. They have no real chance of interacting with the game in a meaningful way at that level and neither person will likely get a good game out of it, but they can still try.

500 point games work because people are forced to bring a single combat patrol and can't just pick a spearhead or vanguard to skew their list into something the other player might not be able to handle.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 13:52:35


Post by: Xenomancers


 Hellebore wrote:
Harlequins were also their own army list before the eldar craftworlds had one in 1st ed, so it's pretty irrelevant what's happened previously.

First eddition...LOL. What army is the same as it was back in first edition? Back when Gardians had lasguns? The game evolved into something and took shape. Then they unshaped it.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 18:12:43


Post by: Racerguy180


SiLKY wrote:
Yes, what's your point, they were also in the Dark Eldar codex. Death Guard and 1k Sons were in the Chaos codex too, should we merge those back into the CSM codex?

Put them back in and give them the supplement treatment.



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 18:43:42


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


If there should be a consolidation I'd like Chaos to just have 5 different Codizes:
Nurgle
Khorne
Slaanesh
Tzeentch
Undivided

Each of these has rules for all the relevant CSM, Renegades, Traitor Guard, Cultists, marked Knights, Daemons, Dark Mechanicum and what have you. But for that to do the fluff justice GW would have to abandon the no models no rules policy.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 19:08:50


Post by: Xenomancers


 SiLKY wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Pointer5 wrote:
I'll get back to the poll question and say none of the books should be removed. The game points scaling is not the problem. The size of GW total company is the problem. We don't have enough people, enough manufacturing capabilities, or money to set the first up. It's time GW steps up and starts being the premier company at what they do. Their should be a major manufacturing and distribution center in the USA. They should also be a major manufacturing and distribution center in Australia. That should help stop the crazy pricing in South East Asia. Once done GW could put out multiple codexes every month and it would take pressure of English and Chinese production.

You are correct but I believe GW believes it is in their best interst to keep the game more exclusive. I feel they fear (and rightly so) the US interest in the game would end up with them losing control of their game (their baby).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.

Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.

How are they any different aesthetically from dire avengers / striking scorpions/ and fire dragons? Who deliberately have different aesthetics. Quinn's getting their own book 6-7 years ago hey literally just made up a story and units to make it happen...could equally have done the same with "Dire Avenger shrines" codex and it would have made equal sense.

I agree with the marines. There should only be 1 space marine codex. The only space marine force that is somewhat worthy of their own book would be GK - but that should just be a combined book with all inquisition.



Dire avengers, striking scorpions and fire dragons are all part of the Craftworlds is the biggest reason for starters, secondly those three share very big similarities to each other than they do to Harlequins. The armor designs of the three playable aeldari factions have very distinct silhouettes, Drukhari have sharper edges and tighter armor, Craftworld are sleek and rounded, and Harlequins sit in between. GW has also been fiddling with the idea of Harlequins having it's own faction since 3rd edition but for whatever reason didn't come into fruition until 7th.

Are you aware that harlequins used to be part of craftworlds as well?


Yes, what's your point, they were also in the Dark Eldar codex. Death Guard and 1k Sons were in the Chaos codex too, should we merge those back into the CSM codex?

yes - we should imo.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 19:15:37


Post by: Lord Damocles


Merge all Loyalist Marines, minus Grey Knights together

Merge all Chaos Marines together

Merge Imperial and Chaos Knights together

Make Grey Knights, Genestealer Cults, Harlequins, and Custodes smaller supplementary lists primarily designed to be used as allies


Haha Inquisition codex Good one.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 19:15:37


Post by: BrianDavion


 Xenomancers wrote:
 SiLKY wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Pointer5 wrote:
I'll get back to the poll question and say none of the books should be removed. The game points scaling is not the problem. The size of GW total company is the problem. We don't have enough people, enough manufacturing capabilities, or money to set the first up. It's time GW steps up and starts being the premier company at what they do. Their should be a major manufacturing and distribution center in the USA. They should also be a major manufacturing and distribution center in Australia. That should help stop the crazy pricing in South East Asia. Once done GW could put out multiple codexes every month and it would take pressure of English and Chinese production.

You are correct but I believe GW believes it is in their best interst to keep the game more exclusive. I feel they fear (and rightly so) the US interest in the game would end up with them losing control of their game (their baby).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.

Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.

How are they any different aesthetically from dire avengers / striking scorpions/ and fire dragons? Who deliberately have different aesthetics. Quinn's getting their own book 6-7 years ago hey literally just made up a story and units to make it happen...could equally have done the same with "Dire Avenger shrines" codex and it would have made equal sense.

I agree with the marines. There should only be 1 space marine codex. The only space marine force that is somewhat worthy of their own book would be GK - but that should just be a combined book with all inquisition.



Dire avengers, striking scorpions and fire dragons are all part of the Craftworlds is the biggest reason for starters, secondly those three share very big similarities to each other than they do to Harlequins. The armor designs of the three playable aeldari factions have very distinct silhouettes, Drukhari have sharper edges and tighter armor, Craftworld are sleek and rounded, and Harlequins sit in between. GW has also been fiddling with the idea of Harlequins having it's own faction since 3rd edition but for whatever reason didn't come into fruition until 7th.

Are you aware that harlequins used to be part of craftworlds as well?


Yes, what's your point, they were also in the Dark Eldar codex. Death Guard and 1k Sons were in the Chaos codex too, should we merge those back into the CSM codex?

yes - we should imo.



that might work for 1K sons but if you looked at codex death guard they have eneugh unique datasheets that'd be a problem


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 19:26:58


Post by: Arachnofiend


KSons got their own book first of the CSM legions because you can't actually run a real KSons army with the CSM book with the vast majority of CSM units dusted and unusable. If any Space Marines need their own book its them.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 19:33:51


Post by: Lord Damocles


 Arachnofiend wrote:
KSons got their own book first of the CSM legions because you can't actually run a real KSons army with the CSM book with the vast majority of CSM units dusted and unusable. If any Space Marines need their own book its them.

I guess that's why TS couldn't be done in the 3.5 book either.

...wait...


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 19:36:42


Post by: Xenomancers


Look with DG and TS...

how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?

How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?

Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.

It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 19:39:40


Post by: Arachnofiend


 Xenomancers wrote:
Look with DG and TS...

how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?

How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?

Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.

DG and TS don't have any infantry that aren't plagued or dusted/psykers, is the difference. The Scourged have CSM, and Havocs, and Raptors and all that, Thousand Sons don't and shouldn't. There's a degree of subtraction there that the loyalist chapters with their own codexes have never had to deal with.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 19:46:44


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Xenomancers wrote:
Look with DG and TS...

how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?

How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?

Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.

It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.

Xeno, you literally can't even spell C-H-A-O-S. Forgive me if I don't think you're knowledge on the Legions is any better.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 19:47:08


Post by: Xenomancers


 Arachnofiend wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Look with DG and TS...

how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?

How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?

Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.

DG and TS don't have any infantry that aren't plagued or dusted/psykers, is the difference. The Scourged have CSM, and Havocs, and Raptors and all that, Thousand Sons don't and shouldn't. There's a degree of subtraction there that the loyalist chapters with their own codexes have never had to deal with.

If you wanted to build an army following those rules to forge your own narrative you could. All the DG and TS codex have done is make it so a more traditional CSM wont include rubrics or plague marines. All of the unique units should just be accessible by standard CSM.





Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 19:50:46


Post by: JNAProductions


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Look with DG and TS...

how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?

How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?

Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.

DG and TS don't have any infantry that aren't plagued or dusted/psykers, is the difference. The Scourged have CSM, and Havocs, and Raptors and all that, Thousand Sons don't and shouldn't. There's a degree of subtraction there that the loyalist chapters with their own codexes have never had to deal with.

If you wanted to build an army following those rules to forge your own narrative you could. All the DG and TS codex have done is make it so a more traditional CSM wont include rubrics or plague marines. All of the unique units should just be accessible by standard CSM.



They're still in the Dex, you know. The base CSM one.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 19:51:38


Post by: Arachnofiend


Cult Marines are just as accessible to other legions as they always have been... the most permissible rules for them has always been "if you're the appropriate legion they're troops, otherwise they're elites". There's just never been a time when the two defensively oriented cult marines are worth anything without obsec.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 19:52:56


Post by: Xenomancers


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Look with DG and TS...

how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?

How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?

Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.

It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.

Xeno, you literally can't even spell C-H-A-O-S. Forgive me if I don't think you're knowledge on the Legions is any better.

I have serious dyslexia later in the day. Seriously though. IDGAF about any snowflake chapters and legions. All they do is take away from the traditionalists. Which makes the game boring.

Blood angels make the assualt armies
DA takes all the terminators.

Like why should DA termiantors be better than Ultras ones?
Why should TS rubrics be better than BL?

They shouldn't be. It is dumb. All they have done is restrict your ability to customize your army to your liking. I have literally 0 idea how anyone could disagree with that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
Cult Marines are just as accessible to other legions as they always have been... the most permissible rules for them has always been "if you're the appropriate legion they're troops, otherwise they're elites". There's just never been a time when the two defensively oriented cult marines are worth anything without obsec.

OFC they are - but they have worse rules. OFC rules is what were are talking about. We are talking about codex.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 20:04:08


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Look with DG and TS...

how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?

How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?

Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.

It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.

Xeno, you literally can't even spell C-H-A-O-S. Forgive me if I don't think you're knowledge on the Legions is any better.

I have serious dyslexia later in the day. Seriously though. IDGAF about any snowflake chapters and legions. All they do is take away from the traditionalists. Which makes the game boring.

Blood angels make the assualt armies
DA takes all the terminators.

Like why should DA termiantors be better than Ultras ones?
Why should TS rubrics be better than BL?

They shouldn't be. It is dumb. All they have done is restrict your ability to customize your army to your liking. I have literally 0 idea how anyone could disagree with that.

1ksons Rubrics are better because they're the original, real McCoys. Same reason a real Colt 1911 is better than some Norinco knockoff. And DA terminators are better than Ultramarines terminators because DA specialize in terminators, Ultramarines don't specialize in anything. They're generalists. As in generic. Same for Abigail and his cronies.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 20:28:15


Post by: Xenomancers


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Look with DG and TS...

how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?

How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?

Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.

It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.

Xeno, you literally can't even spell C-H-A-O-S. Forgive me if I don't think you're knowledge on the Legions is any better.

I have serious dyslexia later in the day. Seriously though. IDGAF about any snowflake chapters and legions. All they do is take away from the traditionalists. Which makes the game boring.

Blood angels make the assualt armies
DA takes all the terminators.

Like why should DA termiantors be better than Ultras ones?
Why should TS rubrics be better than BL?

They shouldn't be. It is dumb. All they have done is restrict your ability to customize your army to your liking. I have literally 0 idea how anyone could disagree with that.

1ksons Rubrics are better because they're the original, real McCoys. Same reason a real Colt 1911 is better than some Norinco knockoff. And DA terminators are better than Ultramarines terminators because DA specialize in terminators, Ultramarines don't specialize in anything. They're generalists. As in generic. Same for Abigail and his cronies.

This ofc is nonsense. DA and Ultras terms are literally identical in ability. They just dress different. The might have different tactics or use different weapons...but there is 0 reason they should be able to take more damage with the exact same armor. Or shoot better with the exact same storm bolter. "generalist" is also a loaded and stupid term. Every space marine is a master in all aspects of war. It is their job. This includes CSM to so don't think I am being unfair.

All these specialist codex have done is made huge swaths of the regular CSM and SM codex unplayable Competitively. Which is very very dumb. It is a poor design. To upset the masses - to appease the snowflakes.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 21:10:36


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Look with DG and TS...

how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?

How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?

Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.

It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.

Xeno, you literally can't even spell C-H-A-O-S. Forgive me if I don't think you're knowledge on the Legions is any better.

I have serious dyslexia later in the day. Seriously though. IDGAF about any snowflake chapters and legions. All they do is take away from the traditionalists. Which makes the game boring.

Blood angels make the assualt armies
DA takes all the terminators.

Like why should DA termiantors be better than Ultras ones?
Why should TS rubrics be better than BL?

They shouldn't be. It is dumb. All they have done is restrict your ability to customize your army to your liking. I have literally 0 idea how anyone could disagree with that.

1ksons Rubrics are better because they're the original, real McCoys. Same reason a real Colt 1911 is better than some Norinco knockoff. And DA terminators are better than Ultramarines terminators because DA specialize in terminators, Ultramarines don't specialize in anything. They're generalists. As in generic. Same for Abigail and his cronies.

This ofc is nonsense. DA and Ultras terms are literally identical in ability. They just dress different. The might have different tactics or use different weapons...but there is 0 reason they should be able to take more damage with the exact same armor. Or shoot better with the exact same storm bolter. "generalist" is also a loaded and stupid term. Every space marine is a master in all aspects of war. It is their job. This includes CSM to so don't think I am being unfair.

All these specialist codex have done is made huge swaths of the regular CSM and SM codex unplayable Competitively. Which is very very dumb. It is a poor design. To upset the masses - to appease the snowflakes.

So you just want to make every chapter Ultramarines and every Legion Black Legion? No thanks. Because the last three CSM codexes have done everything they can to do just that. I'll gladly go back to the restrictions on what units and marks each Legion can use like we had in 3.5 and Traitor Legions if it means that the Legions stop being just a grey flavorless paste and regain their identities.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 22:04:36


Post by: sidewinderscott


no changes. the more there are the greater the choice. I like playing elite armys like custodies or knights but also play tau and space wolfs. It is to each their own.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/10 22:22:37


Post by: CEO Kasen


By one simplification (and other factors are equal and cows are spherical) bloat = factions times complexity, but some people have noted - you only deal with so many factions in a specific game. Therefore, there exists some factor in that equation:

Bloat = Number of Factions X (F)*Complexity of One Faction

Such that the complexity of a given faction is weightier than the sheer number that are there, except in that some factions are squeezed to weirder and weirder places by the design space of the limited game engine. While I wouldn't oppose the removal of supplements (Because that just begs for everyone to get similar treatment, and that would multiply N by too much) or sub-sub-factions or whatever, at this point I think it is probably more valuable to reduce the complexity of each faction - especially the number of extraneous stratagems and blanket rules on each faction (Especially the weird turn-cycling ones like Doctrines, Command Protocols, Etc.) than it is to reduce the number of factions

Someone do correct me if I'm wrong on this, because this might be nostalgia goggles; I can't seem to find the page in Google - but I recall when all White Scars needed was a page in White Dwarf. One page on top of C:SM. It said they could take Bikes as troops, limited Dreadnoughts to 0-1, and few other things, yet still resulted in distinctive White Scars armies. I'd be in favor of as many armies and supplements as you could possibly imagine if the rules for them took only a couple of pages.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/11 06:12:25


Post by: Jidmah


 CEO Kasen wrote:
By one simplification (and other factors are equal and cows are spherical) bloat = factions times complexity, but some people have noted - you only deal with so many factions in a specific game. Therefore, there exists some factor in that equation:

Bloat = Number of Factions X (F)*Complexity of One Faction

I disagree with this equation because I don't think additional factions necessarily add bloat. If GW decided to bring back squats today, it probably wouldn't affect many of my games, since someone would have to pick up that army and play it against me first. At worst, there are these two or three games where I run into every trap and gotcha that army has, but afterwards it's not that much an increase to the stuff I need to know. Heck, after almost four years I still forget that marines have auspex scan.
To me, bloat is stuff that is everything layered onto the the basic rules that I need to play a regular game. I think the maximum amount of bloat that is tolerable is basic rules + codex + codex expansion. Anything beyond that is annoying. For example, in 8th I had games where I needed the core rules+CA(mission)+codex+vigilus(SSAG)+SotB+index(Warboss on Warbiker)+FW book. That's too much.

Someone do correct me if I'm wrong on this, because this might be nostalgia goggles; I can't seem to find the page in Google - but I recall when all White Scars needed was a page in White Dwarf. One page on top of C:SM. It said they could take Bikes as troops, limited Dreadnoughts to 0-1, and few other things, yet still resulted in distinctive White Scars armies. I'd be in favor of as many armies and supplements as you could possibly imagine if the rules for them took only a couple of pages.

I think there is truth to this. In the book of rust we see similar armies to that white dwarf page, and they seem perfectly fine with 3-4 pages. There really is no need to blow up the space marine chapters as much as they are now.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/11 06:32:05


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Lord Damocles wrote:
Merge all Loyalist Marines, minus Grey Knights together

Merge all Chaos Marines together

Merge Imperial and Chaos Knights together

Make Grey Knights, Genestealer Cults, Harlequins, and Custodes smaller supplementary lists primarily designed to be used as allies


Haha Inquisition codex Good one.

If we're merging the Chaos and Imperial Knights together with different detachment rules, then put Dark Mechanicus into the Mechanicus codex.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/11 06:50:39


Post by: CEO Kasen


 Jidmah wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
By one simplification (and other factors are equal and cows are spherical) bloat = factions times complexity, but some people have noted - you only deal with so many factions in a specific game. Therefore, there exists some factor in that equation:

Bloat = Number of Factions X (F)*Complexity of One Faction

I disagree with this equation because I don't think additional factions necessarily add bloat. If GW decided to bring back squats today, it probably wouldn't affect many of my games, since someone would have to pick up that army and play it against me first. At worst, there are these two or three games where I run into every trap and gotcha that army has, but afterwards it's not that much an increase to the stuff I need to know. Heck, after almost four years I still forget that marines have auspex scan.
To me, bloat is stuff that is everything layered onto the the basic rules that I need to play a regular game. I think the maximum amount of bloat that is tolerable is basic rules + codex + codex expansion. Anything beyond that is annoying. For example, in 8th I had games where I needed the core rules+CA(mission)+codex+vigilus(SSAG)+SotB+index(Warboss on Warbiker)+FW book. That's too much.


The equation is a gross oversimplification(F might be like 12) but even if you only have to keep track of two armies I'd still say each adds *some* in the sense that each one starts crowding design space if the various armies are to remain distinctive and things have to get more gimmicky to keep things unique. It's like how everyone was understandably aggrieved about Marines stepping on their armies' toes because they needed so many toys - well, now some of the new armies are getting toys past that.

It does suggest that somehow the number of codexes does factor somehow into the complexity of each rather than its own independent factor. Maybe it's logarithmic as the design space is pushed outwards in different directions.

Multibook bloat is a special kind of awful, though, I'll agree; Maybe time-to-lookup needs to be a factor. Maybe there's a Grand Unified Bloat Theory equation in here somewhere.

Someone do correct me if I'm wrong on this, because this might be nostalgia goggles; I can't seem to find the page in Google - but I recall when all White Scars needed was a page in White Dwarf. One page on top of C:SM. It said they could take Bikes as troops, limited Dreadnoughts to 0-1, and few other things, yet still resulted in distinctive White Scars armies. I'd be in favor of as many armies and supplements as you could possibly imagine if the rules for them took only a couple of pages.

I think there is truth to this. In the book of rust we see similar armies to that white dwarf page, and they seem perfectly fine with 3-4 pages. There really is no need to blow up the space marine chapters as much as they are now.


Yeah, and it basically exists as a feels-bad for everyone else who isn't Space Marines, and a catch 22 for the game; they can't really remove it until 10th... and adding that treatment to every subfaction in the game would be catastrophically bloaty.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/11 06:57:43


Post by: Karol


How do you do marines on 3-4 pages, when all factions need two stratagem pages, one page of relics, one page of warlord traits and then a page each for any special character and unit they have. Even chapters like CF would need at least 5 pages, and if a chapter has multiple special units and characters, like lets say the DA, it is impossible to do them without a separate codex. And that is not counting any art pages, which GW just loves to put in to books for what ever reasons.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/11 07:01:30


Post by: Racerguy180


ClockworkZion wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
Merge all Loyalist Marines, minus Grey Knights together

Merge all Chaos Marines together

Merge Imperial and Chaos Knights together

Make Grey Knights, Genestealer Cults, Harlequins, and Custodes smaller supplementary lists primarily designed to be used as allies


Haha Inquisition codex Good one.

If we're merging the Chaos and Imperial Knights together with different detachment rules, then put Dark Mechanicus into the Mechanicus codex.


Sounds good to me!


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/11 07:24:39


Post by: Jidmah


Karol wrote:
How do you do marines on 3-4 pages, when all factions need two stratagem pages, one page of relics, one page of warlord traits and then a page each for any special character and unit they have. Even chapters like CF would need at least 5 pages, and if a chapter has multiple special units and characters, like lets say the DA, it is impossible to do them without a separate codex. And that is not counting any art pages, which GW just loves to put in to books for what ever reasons.


Non-loyalist "supplements" are somehow fine with just one page of stratagems, and most chapters have a maximum of two unique datasheets, which usually fit onto one page.

Chapters like DA or SW are the exception, not the norm.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/11 10:50:10


Post by: BroodSpawn


It honestly sounds like you all just want to go back to the 4th edition state of things.
And for that to never change (no new models/factions/units for anyone).



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 04:06:12


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 ClockworkZion wrote:

If we're merging the Chaos and Imperial Knights together with different detachment rules, then put Dark Mechanicus into the Mechanicus codex.


I think that's a great idea. Reducing Codex Bloat by putting the smaller Chaos factions as a variant in each book. So Dark Mechanicus as part of the Mechanicus Codex and Traitor Guard as part of the Astra Militarum Codex. It also makes it easier if you want to keep your existing army but swap out some rules and strategems and suddenly you're a Chaos Faction and ready to stomp your friends Imperial army then let the galaxy burn.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 04:08:42


Post by: Kanluwen


That's a terrible idea. Simply adding "Dark" to the Mechanicus does not make Dark Mechanicus a thing.

Same thing with "Traitor" to Guard.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 04:47:50


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Certainly! I'm not saying slap a different faction keyword on there and call it a day.

What I'm suggesting is if they share a common pool of models why not why not put both their rules in the same codex instead of two different codex's?


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 05:37:40


Post by: Dysartes


Because then you're adding "bloat" to the books in question if you only intend to play one side of the coin.

Not to mention that you effectively halve the amount of room for background material for either side of the split.

It might - might - work for Knights, solely due to how few units there are. We've got no idea what the roster for a Studio-designed Traitor Guard version of R&H would contain, let alone what any implementation of Dark Mechanicus would look like, so making a claim about a "common pool of models" is currently unfounded.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 05:41:26


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Astra Militarum is the only one I'd remove

The just don't synch with the theme and fluff in any way. Basically a honey trap for historical wargamers that doesn't fit into the universe any better than adding X-Wings or Napoleonic figures would.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 05:52:31


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Dysartes wrote:
Because then you're adding "bloat" to the books in question if you only intend to play one side of the coin.

Not to mention that you effectively halve the amount of room for background material for either side of the split.

It might - might - work for Knights, solely due to how few units there are. We've got no idea what the roster for a Studio-designed Traitor Guard version of R&H would contain, let alone what any implementation of Dark Mechanicus would look like, so making a claim about a "common pool of models" is currently unfounded.


This is only a problem if you assume that the "Codex" model where all rules content and all fluff content that are ever going to be published must fit in one giant hardcover. If you move to digital rules and sell the "but my art book!" people art books the rules would be better (since GW could change small things over time instead of having to do massive lump-sum changes for the sake of changes, and they'd have a much greater ability to course-correct if they screwed up) and the art books would be better (since they'd have to put new art in each art book, nobody would want to buy an art book if it's 90% the same as the last one the way the Codexes are).

(Yes, this is a pipe dream, GW have decided to die on the "must sell hardbacks!" hill and nobody's got the momentum to push them off it, and even if they did get their heads out of their asses the rest of this presumes that they'd have the ability and willingness to course-correct instead of making giant lumps of update and running away from the explosion, and that they'd actually make artbooks of new content instead of continuing to recycle things.)


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 05:54:33


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Siegfriedfr wrote:
Hello,

If you wanted to refocus the game on fewer codex, which ones would you drop as standalone and mix with others.

Multiple choice poll !

keep in mind that the question is not about MODELS - which can be repurposed into existing factions - it's about FACTION/CODEX



Sm subfactions. I have no idea why each single chapter needs to have its own special rules fsr in excess of any other faction, and also its just terrible design, balance, and is literally the highest souce of stacking free random rules and book bloat in the game by definition.

After that:
Cut IK and CK. Ik become Admech LoW, CK become LoW from some chaos faction. This gets rid of all LoW armies, and two factions that aren't seriously designed to be standalone and most exist so that anyone can ally a Lord of War and everyone will buy one.
Cut DG and TSons. For the same reason as SM consolidation, no reason that these two legions are more special than say Black Legion or Alpha Legion or something.
Return Inquisitors and Assassins to SoB and GK as Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters. This also deletes two things that should never have been factions and exist only to be allies. While I would personally appreciate a total consolidation of inquisition forces because it would save me money on books and I hate buying codecies, I acquiesce that this probably wouldn't work since it would still basically be 3 separate armies.
Combine SoS and Custodes into Talons. There's not a good reason for them to be separate, and they were initially sold together as Talons in the box set anyway.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 07:31:34


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Kanluwen wrote:
That's a terrible idea. Simply adding "Dark" to the Mechanicus does not make Dark Mechanicus a thing.

Same thing with "Traitor" to Guard.

Spoken Like someone that has no clue about the armies he is talking about.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 07:59:44


Post by: Arachnofiend


A lot of what you'd give Dark Mechanicus could just as easily be in the CSM codex - like the Lord Discordant could have easily been a Dark Mech model with just a slightly different design on the rider.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 08:03:07


Post by: kodos


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Sm subfactions. I have no idea why each single chapter needs to have its own special rules fsr in excess of any other faction, and also its just terrible design, balance, and is literally the highest souce of stacking free random rules and book bloat in the game by definition.

After that:
Cut IK and CK. Ik become Admech LoW, CK become LoW from some chaos faction. This gets rid of all LoW armies, and two factions that aren't seriously designed to be standalone and most exist so that anyone can ally a Lord of War and everyone will buy one.
Cut DG and TSons. For the same reason as SM consolidation, no reason that these two legions are more special than say Black Legion or Alpha Legion or something.
Return Inquisitors and Assassins to SoB and GK as Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters. This also deletes two things that should never have been factions and exist only to be allies. While I would personally appreciate a total consolidation of inquisition forces because it would save me money on books and I hate buying codecies, I acquiesce that this probably wouldn't work since it would still basically be 3 separate armies.
Combine SoS and Custodes into Talons. There's not a good reason for them to be separate, and they were initially sold together as Talons in the box set anyway.


if you do it for CSM making a Codex Inquisition is possible as well
just like chose an Inquisitor as Warlord and you get everything, take a GK/SoB Warlord, get only those units and the others count as allied

now that there are Keywords and Detachments in the game and this should not be a problem at all


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 08:53:52


Post by: Jidmah


Fixing knights really isn't that hard though.

IIRC these guy from 30k were ground troops that were meant to protect the feet of titans.

If you build on that idea, you could create an army with low offense/high defense infantry units focused on defending knights and some vehicles whose primary function is to repair/rearm/refuel a knight. Shift armingers to heavy support, add an option for HQs similar to Canis Rex that can pilot a knight an turn it into a character and disembark when destroyed.

That's what? An infantry set that builds into two variants, two vehicles and a character or two. Bonus points for adding Solaria as a named character.

As a result, either some armingers with supporting infantry and vehicles could be played at low levels, without breaking the game for those who just want to bring a single knight.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 09:33:12


Post by: Arachnofiend


Not exactly speaking from the heart here since I think Knights are stupid, but if I was the type of person to be drawn to the army where you play a full army of big robots, I'd be pretty miffed if the solution to my army not working is "no, you need to play one big robot and a bunch of troops like everyone else". IMO the moment you introduce foot soldiers for IK is the moment IK ceases to justify itself as an army and should just be an imperial auxiliary.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 10:19:47


Post by: Apple fox


 Arachnofiend wrote:
Not exactly speaking from the heart here since I think Knights are stupid, but if I was the type of person to be drawn to the army where you play a full army of big robots, I'd be pretty miffed if the solution to my army not working is "no, you need to play one big robot and a bunch of troops like everyone else". IMO the moment you introduce foot soldiers for IK is the moment IK ceases to justify itself as an army and should just be an imperial auxiliary.


This is when I think they would start to be a interesting army, and with some creative rules could be one of the most interesting ones.
They are also supposed to have all those soldiers and support, as 40k imperium is by design very idealistic in its little kingdoms and seperate forces ideas. No one can control enough forces to pose a threat on there own is a big theme that this enhances.
It also could seperate them better from chaos knights in how they run, and how the forces act on the table with minimum effort from the design studio who are 4 or 5 years behind any meta ideas in the game.

Realistically, I think they don’t pull other units in to function right is entirely so they can sell minis later if they come up with some.
So these factions are left in weird limbo states until someone cares in design, even if the rules team has a bunch of good ideas.

Knights killed the game here as well, I think they sold well on Rule of Cool but a lot of players felt they just killed what was left fun in the game, it take till 9th to scrape back any interest passed a few test games. Or store copy of 7th I don’t think even got opened. I also look at 8th and 9th rules and think a great deal of them where trying to fix that mistake by GW.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 13:22:01


Post by: Slipspace


I voted for removing Knights, Harlequins, Custodes, Inquisition, Ynarri and SM supplements. In the case of the SM supplements I'd just merge them either in to the main SM Codex or one general SM supplement. Harlequins work just fine as a unit entry for CWE and DE, IMO. Custodes and Knights feel like they don't really fit into regular 40k games, though I could see both being units you could include in other armies. Make a Custodian Guard squad an Elite choice for Imperial armies, for example, and make the Knight the Ad Mech/CSM superheavy. Inquisition and Ynarri barely feel like factions at all so it's not even like you'd be removing them by doing some similar consolidation with their tiny number of units.

In general I think the game has become unwieldy to the point that some factions could do with being reduced or removed for the benefit of the game. I'd also like to see GW be a bit more creative with how the keyword system works. You can easily represent Dark Mechanicum or Traitor Guard with a few twaeks to keywords and a few strats, warlord traits and relics within the main Codices for those armies.

Karol wrote:How do you do marines on 3-4 pages, when all factions need two stratagem pages, one page of relics, one page of warlord traits and then a page each for any special character and unit they have. Even chapters like CF would need at least 5 pages, and if a chapter has multiple special units and characters, like lets say the DA, it is impossible to do them without a separate codex. And that is not counting any art pages, which GW just loves to put in to books for what ever reasons.


There's no need for the supplements chapters to get 6 warlord traits, a psychic discipline, 12 relics/special issue wargears and a whole host of unique strats. Every other subfaction gets along fine with no sub-faction psychic discipline and 1 of each of the others. SM getting more is just yet another example of the kind of thing that GW does that annoys Xenos players and I think you'd do just fine as, say, a BA player with a reduced selection of relics etc and the current roster of units, with perhaps 1-2 of the special characters removed.

Kanluwen wrote:That's a terrible idea. Simply adding "Dark" to the Mechanicus does not make Dark Mechanicus a thing.

Same thing with "Traitor" to Guard.


Why not? At the scale 40k plays there's not really any major difference between a regular Guard unit and a traitor one. Same with Dark Mechanicum. Ad Mech stuff is already massively weird and esoteric so a little bit of background info in the Codex pointing out that the Dark Mechanicum use warp lasers instead of neutron lasers but the effects are basically the same in game is all you need. That's how things used to be done and it was fine. You don't need bespoke rules for absolutely everything and GW's insistence that you do is one of the main reasons we have as much bloat as we do.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 13:36:49


Post by: Jidmah


 Arachnofiend wrote:
Not exactly speaking from the heart here since I think Knights are stupid, but if I was the type of person to be drawn to the army where you play a full army of big robots, I'd be pretty miffed if the solution to my army not working is "no, you need to play one big robot and a bunch of troops like everyone else". IMO the moment you introduce foot soldiers for IK is the moment IK ceases to justify itself as an army and should just be an imperial auxiliary.


The point was that everything is centered around supporting the big robot and can't function by itself, which is rather different from just bringing a knight along as a standalone LoW.
In any case, it would just be a second archetype to just bringing all big robots, which works rather fine at higher point levels.
At 500 points bringing a single knight will never function ever.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 14:43:40


Post by: vipoid


When it comes to removing books, I would think it would make the most sense to merge armies that share pools of units.

For example, it makes sense to combine most SM armies because a Rhino is a Rhino is a Rhino. You've got some differences in units (which can usually be solved by just locking a few units to particular SM subfactions, in the same way special characters are) but most of the units are shared between different books. There are a couple of exceptions (GKs and SWs being the main ones, to the best of my knowledge) but at the very least is seems that most SM subfactions aren't sufficiently different to warrant their own books.

To my mind it makes decidedly less sense to merge the Eldar factions as they have a shared pool of 0 units. There is not a single unit in the Eldar line that is available to Dark Eldar or Harlequins. Hence, I'm not sure what combining them would really accomplish. With SMs, you're saving yourself from printing the same profiles for Rhinos, Razorbacks, Predators, Drednoughts etc. in 12 different books. If you combine Eldar, you're going to have to print the exact same amount of stuff because nothing is shared. The only possible reason I can think of would be if you wanted the Eldar factions to go full-Ynnari, yet it seems GW is rather hoping that their playerbase has forgotten Ynnari even exist, given how little support they've received (even by the standards of Eldar).

I would also like to see Knights, Chaos Knights, Fliers and Lords of War restricted to games above 2000pts. But then, I'm of the opinion that 40k's mode of play should focus on different game sizes, rather than matched play, narrative and 'do whatever the hell you want'.

Honestly, though, I think if you want to trim down the game you should look not only at which books can potentially be removed but at what can be removed from all books. Stratagems, for example, represent an ungodly amount of bloat and would be an ideal place to trim some fat. Many of them should be wargear or unit abilities anyway, and the rest just turn 40k into a CCG.


 Nurglitch wrote:

Sure. My point was that a Knight, Errant, Crusader, whatever, doesn't work like 500pts of infantry. When you cause wounds on the infantry the size of the unit might shrink, they might lose weapons, they might lose attacks, they might even lose more wounds/models. When you cause wounds on the knight, nothing else happens. You might vaguely degrade its movement and ability to hit, but that's about it. A Knight is a single, boring brick of a unit. Its a similar problem with monsters and vehicles are whatever else writ large that even the little damage-track gently degrading the Knight's profile doesn't really fix.

You see, in Space Marine 2nd edition Titans had a diagram chunking them into parts, and if you were attacking them you got to aim at their various parts. You could attack their weapons, their legs, their reactors, their heads, and their carapaces. The heads were the best protected, and a good headshot would kill a Titan. But those heads tended to have 1+ armour saving throws, so unless you had a weapon with a -1 AP you needed to hit them in the weapons or reactor. So having a Warlord Titan facing a company of Land Raiders, roughly equivalent points values, was actually interesting because those Lascannons had a -2 AP, and while the Warlord could remove Land Raiders from the board, they could likewise hobble and defang it in turn.


This has always been one of my core issues with Knights. They're just such unbelievably boring models to play against because there's never any sense of achievement or progress. There's no impression that it's some sort of epic battle. You're just shooting a 500pt brick until it finally falls over.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 15:00:41


Post by: Kanluwen


Slipspace wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's a terrible idea. Simply adding "Dark" to the Mechanicus does not make Dark Mechanicus a thing.

Same thing with "Traitor" to Guard.

Why not? At the scale 40k plays there's not really any major difference between a regular Guard unit and a traitor one.

Well for one thing, a "traitor Guard" unit won't tend to be from one of the Big Named ones. Cadians turned traitor tended to have a fairly short lifespan between the Ordos Cadia, Adeptus Arbites, or the Interior Guard...and that's at an individual level, not at the regimental level.
You'd be seeing things more at the level of Conscripts for the most part.

Same with Dark Mechanicum. Ad Mech stuff is already massively weird and esoteric so a little bit of background info in the Codex pointing out that the Dark Mechanicum use warp lasers instead of neutron lasers but the effects are basically the same in game is all you need. That's how things used to be done and it was fine. You don't need bespoke rules for absolutely everything and GW's insistence that you do is one of the main reasons we have as much bloat as we do.

Dark Mechanicum isn't about "preserving technology" like the Mechanicus is. The Dark Mechanicum is about pushing technology beyond the boundaries of reality. They're blending daemons and the Warp with machines and humanity itself, with a goal that we don't really know about...but we do have examples of Dark Mechanicum designs.
Spoiler:






Then there's the Lord-Discordant and Warpsmith, both of which have ties to the Dark Mechanicum that are as yet unexplained.

The TLDR answer is that it isn't as simple as "warp lasers" or whatever garbage. They're distinctive entities.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 15:11:30


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Kanluwen wrote:
Slipspace wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's a terrible idea. Simply adding "Dark" to the Mechanicus does not make Dark Mechanicus a thing.

Same thing with "Traitor" to Guard.

Why not? At the scale 40k plays there's not really any major difference between a regular Guard unit and a traitor one.

Well for one thing, a "traitor Guard" unit won't tend to be from one of the Big Named ones. Cadians turned traitor tended to have a fairly short lifespan between the Ordos Cadia, Adeptus Arbites, or the Interior Guard...and that's at an individual level, not at the regimental level.
You'd be seeing things more at the level of Conscripts for the most part...


So do two different sets of regiment traits.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 15:12:02


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine




Arachnofiend wrote:Not exactly speaking from the heart here since I think Knights are stupid, but if I was the type of person to be drawn to the army where you play a full army of big robots, I'd be pretty miffed if the solution to my army not working is "no, you need to play one big robot and a bunch of troops like everyone else". IMO the moment you introduce foot soldiers for IK is the moment IK ceases to justify itself as an army and should just be an imperial auxiliary.


It doesn't justify itself because it doesn't have foot soldiers and exists to be an auxiliary so any imperial/chaos player can just grab and ally in a knight.

Also, not every desire for list building needs to be accounted for. Thats why there was a force org. Go play battletech or titanicus if you want to have a whole army of big robots; imperial knights as a standalone army dont belong in 40k, and have a drastically outsized effect on rules and mechanics as the game has to bend around the idea that an amy might just have no infantry, only have Lords of War, and be 5 models.

kodos wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Sm subfactions. I have no idea why each single chapter needs to have its own special rules fsr in excess of any other faction, and also its just terrible design, balance, and is literally the highest souce of stacking free random rules and book bloat in the game by definition.

After that:
Cut IK and CK. Ik become Admech LoW, CK become LoW from some chaos faction. This gets rid of all LoW armies, and two factions that aren't seriously designed to be standalone and most exist so that anyone can ally a Lord of War and everyone will buy one.
Cut DG and TSons. For the same reason as SM consolidation, no reason that these two legions are more special than say Black Legion or Alpha Legion or something.
Return Inquisitors and Assassins to SoB and GK as Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters. This also deletes two things that should never have been factions and exist only to be allies. While I would personally appreciate a total consolidation of inquisition forces because it would save me money on books and I hate buying codecies, I acquiesce that this probably wouldn't work since it would still basically be 3 separate armies.
Combine SoS and Custodes into Talons. There's not a good reason for them to be separate, and they were initially sold together as Talons in the box set anyway.


if you do it for CSM making a Codex Inquisition is possible as well
just like chose an Inquisitor as Warlord and you get everything, take a GK/SoB Warlord, get only those units and the others count as allied

now that there are Keywords and Detachments in the game and this should not be a problem at all


The overlap between SoB, GK, and DW would be inquisitors, acolytes, assassins, rhinos, and maybe land raiders. It would be three separate armies in one book, since almost all the units can't be fielded together. [Which, as mentioned, I would still appreciate, since it means I would only have to buy one book, but its more logically split].

Ignoring the fact that CSM were historically all one faction as recently as 7th, the overlap would be most of the line, and addressed by a single clause of "can take cult unit as troops" like it was in the past.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 15:32:16


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 Kanluwen wrote:

Well for one thing, a "traitor Guard" unit won't tend to be from one of the Big Named ones. Cadians turned traitor tended to have a fairly short lifespan between the Ordos Cadia, Adeptus Arbites, or the Interior Guard...and that's at an individual level, not at the regimental level.
You'd be seeing things more at the level of Conscripts for the most part.

I seem to remember Renegade Militia Squads having better profiles than Conscripts. I don't think anyone is suggesting we simply put [Chaos][Cadians] in the book, instead putting an additional Regimental Doctrine for Traitor Guard ala Renegade & Heretics in the Guard book. That would also be an improvement over being stuck with Legends status. They could also include a variant of custom Regiment Doctrine if a player wanted to model their Traitor Guard army after a famous one that serves Chaos such as the Tyrant's Legion or the Spire Guard.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 17:03:29


Post by: kodos


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

The overlap between SoB, GK, and DW would be inquisitors, acolytes, assassins, rhinos, and maybe land raiders. It would be three separate armies in one book, since almost all the units can't be fielded together. [Which, as mentioned, I would still appreciate, since it means I would only have to buy one book, but its more logically split].

Ignoring the fact that CSM were historically all one faction as recently as 7th, the overlap would be most of the line, and addressed by a single clause of "can take cult unit as troops" like it was in the past.


Well, Codex CSM 3.5 is still the best one regarding how to get the individual Armies into one book and I started playing Thousand Sons as an individual army in 3rd, a time were the only army with access to cultists were Alpha Legion
and the only real problem are DeathWatch as they were never anything but single Kill Teams added to other lists and are now their own army

Inquisitor as Warlord, Scions are Troops, SoB Warlord and SoB are Troops, GK Warlord and GK are Troops, DW Warlord and DW are Troops. This is half a page of rules for each faction.

Might be not as rich as a Codex for each one but still possible, the same with AM+IK, CSM+DG+TS, SM


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 17:13:59


Post by: Xenomancers


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Look with DG and TS...

how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?

How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?

Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.

It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.

Xeno, you literally can't even spell C-H-A-O-S. Forgive me if I don't think you're knowledge on the Legions is any better.

I have serious dyslexia later in the day. Seriously though. IDGAF about any snowflake chapters and legions. All they do is take away from the traditionalists. Which makes the game boring.

Blood angels make the assualt armies
DA takes all the terminators.

Like why should DA termiantors be better than Ultras ones?
Why should TS rubrics be better than BL?

They shouldn't be. It is dumb. All they have done is restrict your ability to customize your army to your liking. I have literally 0 idea how anyone could disagree with that.

1ksons Rubrics are better because they're the original, real McCoys. Same reason a real Colt 1911 is better than some Norinco knockoff. And DA terminators are better than Ultramarines terminators because DA specialize in terminators, Ultramarines don't specialize in anything. They're generalists. As in generic. Same for Abigail and his cronies.

This ofc is nonsense. DA and Ultras terms are literally identical in ability. They just dress different. The might have different tactics or use different weapons...but there is 0 reason they should be able to take more damage with the exact same armor. Or shoot better with the exact same storm bolter. "generalist" is also a loaded and stupid term. Every space marine is a master in all aspects of war. It is their job. This includes CSM to so don't think I am being unfair.

All these specialist codex have done is made huge swaths of the regular CSM and SM codex unplayable Competitively. Which is very very dumb. It is a poor design. To upset the masses - to appease the snowflakes.

So you just want to make every chapter Ultramarines and every Legion Black Legion? No thanks. Because the last three CSM codexes have done everything they can to do just that. I'll gladly go back to the restrictions on what units and marks each Legion can use like we had in 3.5 and Traitor Legions if it means that the Legions stop being just a grey flavorless paste and regain their identities.

Surely there is a middle ground that can be met in a single codex with a slight bonus for flavor.

We don't need an alpha legion, deathgaurd, TS codex to make that happen. Same for marines.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 18:03:11


Post by: Kanluwen


 The Red Hobbit wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:

Well for one thing, a "traitor Guard" unit won't tend to be from one of the Big Named ones. Cadians turned traitor tended to have a fairly short lifespan between the Ordos Cadia, Adeptus Arbites, or the Interior Guard...and that's at an individual level, not at the regimental level.
You'd be seeing things more at the level of Conscripts for the most part.

I seem to remember Renegade Militia Squads having better profiles than Conscripts.

Yeah, and the Militia Squads were supposed to be trained troops from a garrison planetside if we're talking about Vraks.

Additionally it's worth remembering that when it came to FW's lists? They did a far better job working on Guard than GW themselves have for at least a decade now.
I don't think anyone is suggesting we simply put [Chaos][Cadians] in the book, instead putting an additional Regimental Doctrine for Traitor Guard ala Renegade & Heretics in the Guard book.

Which amounts to the same thing in the end.

If you're so, so, so fanatically desperate for "Traitor Guard ala Renegades & Heretics"? Give Codex: Chaos Space Marines the ability to take a detachment as an allied contingent. No Ordo Tempestus, no Officio Prefectus, no Psykana, no Navy, no Auxilia. Just straight Guardsmen with a regiment added to them--all housed in the CSM book, not the Guard book.
That would also be an improvement over being stuck with Legends status. They could also include a variant of custom Regiment Doctrine if a player wanted to model their Traitor Guard army after a famous one that serves Chaos such as the Tyrant's Legion or the Spire Guard.

Spire Guard, assuming you're referencing Magnus' thing, is long dead.
Tyrant's Legion was basically just a Guard army with some Marines thrown in.

Legends status means they're still in the game. The game != tourney scene/matched play only.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 18:15:02


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Fold Daemons into a Chaos Codex, or their reliant Chapter codex, ala 1kSons - Zeench.

Fold Inquisition into GK, fold GSC into Nids. This is too simple. But it will never happen, because I and others like fluff.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 19:23:26


Post by: Tiberias


I say make more codices. Give me codex black templars back, give me codex world eaters, emperors children and dark mechanicus. Just write them competently and I'm happy. It's never going to happen though, especially the "writing them competently" part, but GW removing whole armies won't be happening either....so it's all just wishful thinking anyway.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 19:44:13


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 Kanluwen wrote:

If you're so, so, so fanatically desperate for "Traitor Guard ala Renegades & Heretics"? Give Codex: Chaos Space Marines the ability to take a detachment as an allied contingent. No Ordo Tempestus, no Officio Prefectus, no Psykana, no Navy, no Auxilia. Just straight Guardsmen with a regiment added to them--all housed in the CSM book, not the Guard book.

Fanatically desperate? That is some impressive hyperbole in response to a suggestion, where did all that resentment come from? In response I'd like to say I like your suggestion of putting Traitor Guard into the CSM book and I find it to be perfectly reasonable.
Spire Guard, assuming you're referencing Magnus' thing, is long dead.
Tyrant's Legion was basically just a Guard army with some Marines thrown in.
With Spire Guard it doesn't really matter if they're gone or not. If someone wants to play as [insert SM Chapter] that is long dead or disbanded I and many others would have no problem playing against them since 40k allows you to create your own stories with your guys.

Now if Tyrant's Legion is basically just a Guard army well sounds like a great reason to toss them in the Renegades & Heretics section of a future Guard book
Legends status means they're still in the game. The game != tourney scene/matched play only.
I'm more interested in Garagehammer than Tournaments myself. Legends status also means no further support. Traitor Guard and PDF are a very common enemy in the lore and I'm sure people would enjoy having future rules for them even if it's just a sliver of the Guard or the CSM codex.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 20:07:14


Post by: Kanluwen


Where does my resentment come from?

Guard have been diluted down from an interesting, professional faction to basically just "Allies for Other Armies". GSC can take Guard as part of their Detachments, Guard got severe nerfs because of Marine players taking them as cheap bodies, etc, etc.

Stop asking for Chaos Guard. Stop asking for Dark Mechanicus. Stop asking for things that you don't deserve nor need. CSM are slated to get a rework. It's happening. We don't know when, we don't know how, we don't know what. The biggest and most important thing so far was reworking core model kits and that already happened.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 20:08:08


Post by: Siegfriedfr


Tiberias wrote:
I say make more codices. Give me codex black templars back, give me codex world eaters, emperors children and dark mechanicus. Just write them competently and I'm happy. It's never going to happen though, especially the "writing them competently" part, but GW removing whole armies won't be happening either....so it's all just wishful thinking anyway.


You re missing the point entirely. No one is asking to remove "factions".

You don't need an entire codex for one faction if you trim down the fat.

Less codex = better internal balance = less possible codex creep.

That's the point


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 20:13:11


Post by: Kanluwen


Siegfriedfr wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
I say make more codices. Give me codex black templars back, give me codex world eaters, emperors children and dark mechanicus. Just write them competently and I'm happy. It's never going to happen though, especially the "writing them competently" part, but GW removing whole armies won't be happening either....so it's all just wishful thinking anyway.


You re missing the point entirely. No one is asking to remove "factions".

They literally have been. That's the entire discussion on Knights every single time they get brought up. That's the discussion on Harlequins.

You don't need an entire codex for one faction if you trim down the fat.

Less codex = better internal balance = less possible codex creep.

That's the point

This is nonsense posting at its finest.

Frankly, if you want "better internal balance"?

You take the time and actively attempt to make things work outside of just "trimming the fat". Every single faction should get a supplement series of books, whether it's actual named subfactions or specific kinds of setups or whatever. Necrons could have used a series of supplements on their Big Name Dynasties, AdMech could have used their Big Name Forge Worlds, Drukhari could have used a series dedicated to the Wych Cults, Haemonculi Covens, and Kabalite Warriors. Tyranids could get a series dedicated to the stages of an invasion, etc etc.

At least one named character per book and you actually have something (gasp) unique and interesting!

Bonus points: we might trim the fat of some of the community that does nothing but complain about the "price of entry" when they confuse mandatory items(codices) for non-mandatory items(expanded rules+lore plus named characters for specific subfactions).


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 20:26:21


Post by: Tiberias


Siegfriedfr wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
I say make more codices. Give me codex black templars back, give me codex world eaters, emperors children and dark mechanicus. Just write them competently and I'm happy. It's never going to happen though, especially the "writing them competently" part, but GW removing whole armies won't be happening either....so it's all just wishful thinking anyway.


You re missing the point entirely. No one is asking to remove "factions".

You don't need an entire codex for one faction if you trim down the fat.

Less codex = better internal balance = less possible codex creep.

That's the point


I don't think I'm missing the point. People literally have been talking about removing factions in this thread and not only knights.

Also, less codex=better internal balance=less codex creep is BS in my opinion. You can have diversity in codices and still write them competently.
Power creep has nothing to do at all with the total number of factions and codices. Power creep can still happen with fewer codices if the rules writers aren't conservative and smart with inflating stats and rules.

I've said it before these threads basically boil down to either "I'm pissed my faction doesn't get as much releases as marine subsections, therefore delete faction xyz so my faction can have more releases" or "yeah, let's just remove that faction I don't like and don't play".
It's just pure hypocrisy and not about "removing rules bloat".


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 20:34:43


Post by: Arachnofiend


There is not even remotely enough production time for every faction to get the amount of support Space Marines get. Factions already get their main books delayed so Space Marines can get more support


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 20:41:13


Post by: Tiberias


 Arachnofiend wrote:
There is not even remotely enough production time for every faction to get the amount of support Space Marines get. Factions already get their main books delayed so Space Marines can get more support


Says who? Especially when moving to a digital ruleset and maybe only releasing the lore for a faction in print.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 20:49:31


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Kanluwen wrote:
Where does my resentment come from?

Guard have been diluted down from an interesting, professional faction to basically just "Allies for Other Armies". GSC can take Guard as part of their Detachments, Guard got severe nerfs because of Marine players taking them as cheap bodies, etc, etc.

Stop asking for Chaos Guard. Stop asking for Dark Mechanicus. Stop asking for things that you don't deserve nor need. CSM are slated to get a rework. It's happening. We don't know when, we don't know how, we don't know what. The biggest and most important thing so far was reworking core model kits and that already happened.


Hahajajaja .
"
Because my faction got fethed up yours doesn't deserve to exist!"


Gotta be one of the best takes of dakka period and shows a truly great charachter of the poster.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 21:14:05


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Yeah it's a shame to see. I understand the passion for the Guard but all the hate and discontent blistering around it is beyond my ken.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 21:19:14


Post by: Kanluwen


No hate or discontent. Just irritation at the obnoxiousness of some who feel they deserve just because they had an army before to have an army again.

My Wood Elves lost 100+ models when Cities of Sigmar dropped. I got over it. Renegades and Heretics players have repeatedly had it suggested to them that they start proxying them as Guard if they're able to...but nah. They need their army. They deserve their army.

Life isn't fair. I'm sorry you lost your army, I really am--but that doesn't mean you should get to just be another variation of Guard or clogging up the book for another faction.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 21:34:52


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Oh I've never played Traitor Guard, well, outside of Blackstone Fortress and those are some sharply dressed models! But I am fully in support of a faction that is incredibly common in the lore receiving a bit of rules to play with.

Even if it comes at the great expense of a whopping 4 pages of rules in a Guard codex detailing some Chaos themed Regimental traits.

Have a nice day!


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 21:52:12


Post by: Kanluwen


But therein lies the rub:

Why should a whole other faction(traditionally tied to Chaos Space Marines, mind you) be in someone else's book?

"Traitor Guard" covers a whole lot of stuff. It's not just Spikey Guard.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/14 21:53:50


Post by: Tiberias


 Kanluwen wrote:
No hate or discontent. Just irritation at the obnoxiousness of some who feel they deserve just because they had an army before to have an army again.

My Wood Elves lost 100+ models when Cities of Sigmar dropped. I got over it. Renegades and Heretics players have repeatedly had it suggested to them that they start proxying them as Guard if they're able to...but nah. They need their army. They deserve their army.

Life isn't fair. I'm sorry you lost your army, I really am--but that doesn't mean you should get to just be another variation of Guard or clogging up the book for another faction.


So you're pissed at people wanting traitor guard because life isn't fair and GW screwed over multiple fantasy factions with that AOS garbage? That's a mature stance to take....
Like I said, it's never really about "removing bloat" and "slimming down the game". It's basically always resentment of GWs idiocy projected onto other hobbyists.
Cause if I lost my army because GW made some dumb ass decision, you can't have a new one!


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/15 11:29:02


Post by: BrianDavion


Tiberias wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
No hate or discontent. Just irritation at the obnoxiousness of some who feel they deserve just because they had an army before to have an army again.

My Wood Elves lost 100+ models when Cities of Sigmar dropped. I got over it. Renegades and Heretics players have repeatedly had it suggested to them that they start proxying them as Guard if they're able to...but nah. They need their army. They deserve their army.

Life isn't fair. I'm sorry you lost your army, I really am--but that doesn't mean you should get to just be another variation of Guard or clogging up the book for another faction.


So you're pissed at people wanting traitor guard because life isn't fair and GW screwed over multiple fantasy factions with that AOS garbage? That's a mature stance to take....
Like I said, it's never really about "removing bloat" and "slimming down the game". It's basically always resentment of GWs idiocy projected onto other hobbyists.
Cause if I lost my army because GW made some dumb ass decision, you can't have a new one!


pretty much. most of the "dur remove the bloat" arguement is driven by that I suspect. resentment over things lsot and a feeling that "if GW removes some armies, my army will see more stuff!"
frankly, I wish the mods would make a point of just locking these types of threads. they're more tiresome then female space marine threads and are typically less constructive and less polite.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/15 11:38:16


Post by: Kanluwen


Tiberias wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
No hate or discontent. Just irritation at the obnoxiousness of some who feel they deserve just because they had an army before to have an army again.

My Wood Elves lost 100+ models when Cities of Sigmar dropped. I got over it. Renegades and Heretics players have repeatedly had it suggested to them that they start proxying them as Guard if they're able to...but nah. They need their army. They deserve their army.

Life isn't fair. I'm sorry you lost your army, I really am--but that doesn't mean you should get to just be another variation of Guard or clogging up the book for another faction.


So you're pissed at people wanting traitor guard because life isn't fair and GW screwed over multiple fantasy factions with that AOS garbage? That's a mature stance to take....
Like I said, it's never really about "removing bloat" and "slimming down the game". It's basically always resentment of GWs idiocy projected onto other hobbyists.
Cause if I lost my army because GW made some dumb ass decision, you can't have a new one!

Yeah, no. I'm "pissed at people" constantly spamming threads with the concept and insisting that the things be jammed in where they are unnecessary especially when it comes to Guard, an army that really needs a head to toe rework but likely will never receive one because they stupidly tied GSC to them.

It's more likely than not at this juncture that Traitor Guard are coming in some way, shape, or form. There's been a rumor for basically all of 40k 8E that World Eaters and Emperor's Children are going to get bumped out of the CSM book into their own standalones. If that happens? It's extremely likely that some of that space will be taken up by Traitor Guard.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/15 12:11:45


Post by: Siegfriedfr


BrianDavion wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
No hate or discontent. Just irritation at the obnoxiousness of some who feel they deserve just because they had an army before to have an army again.

My Wood Elves lost 100+ models when Cities of Sigmar dropped. I got over it. Renegades and Heretics players have repeatedly had it suggested to them that they start proxying them as Guard if they're able to...but nah. They need their army. They deserve their army.

Life isn't fair. I'm sorry you lost your army, I really am--but that doesn't mean you should get to just be another variation of Guard or clogging up the book for another faction.


So you're pissed at people wanting traitor guard because life isn't fair and GW screwed over multiple fantasy factions with that AOS garbage? That's a mature stance to take....
Like I said, it's never really about "removing bloat" and "slimming down the game". It's basically always resentment of GWs idiocy projected onto other hobbyists.
Cause if I lost my army because GW made some dumb ass decision, you can't have a new one!


pretty much. most of the "dur remove the bloat" arguement is driven by that I suspect. resentment over things lsot and a feeling that "if GW removes some armies, my army will see more stuff!"
frankly, I wish the mods would make a point of just locking these types of threads. they're more tiresome then female space marine threads and are typically less constructive and less polite.


I wish the mods closed any kind of thread that calls for Traitor Guard, Dark Mechanicus, or whichever new faction should gets added/ supported.

Those threads gets more timesome than the weekly DKOK threads, are based on a minority of people's desires, and are typically less constructive and polite.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/15 12:28:39


Post by: Not Online!!!


Siegfriedfr wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
No hate or discontent. Just irritation at the obnoxiousness of some who feel they deserve just because they had an army before to have an army again.

My Wood Elves lost 100+ models when Cities of Sigmar dropped. I got over it. Renegades and Heretics players have repeatedly had it suggested to them that they start proxying them as Guard if they're able to...but nah. They need their army. They deserve their army.

Life isn't fair. I'm sorry you lost your army, I really am--but that doesn't mean you should get to just be another variation of Guard or clogging up the book for another faction.


So you're pissed at people wanting traitor guard because life isn't fair and GW screwed over multiple fantasy factions with that AOS garbage? That's a mature stance to take....
Like I said, it's never really about "removing bloat" and "slimming down the game". It's basically always resentment of GWs idiocy projected onto other hobbyists.
Cause if I lost my army because GW made some dumb ass decision, you can't have a new one!


pretty much. most of the "dur remove the bloat" arguement is driven by that I suspect. resentment over things lsot and a feeling that "if GW removes some armies, my army will see more stuff!"
frankly, I wish the mods would make a point of just locking these types of threads. they're more tiresome then female space marine threads and are typically less constructive and less polite.


I wish the mods closed any kind of thread that calls for Traitor Guard, Dark Mechanicus, or whichever new faction should gets added/ supported.

Those threads gets more timesome than the weekly DKOK threads, are based on a minority of people's desires, and are typically less constructive and polite.


Another uninformed person determining what other peoples should like.

Also "new" lmao.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:

Yeah, no. I'm "pissed at people" constantly spamming threads with the concept and insisting that the things be jammed in where they are unnecessary especially when it comes to Guard, an army that really needs a head to toe rework but likely will never receive one because they stupidly tied GSC to them.

It's more likely than not at this juncture that Traitor Guard are coming in some way, shape, or form. There's been a rumor for basically all of 40k 8E that World Eaters and Emperor's Children are going to get bumped out of the CSM book into their own standalones. If that happens? It's extremely likely that some of that space will be taken up by Traitor Guard.



Why should guard be less likely to recieve a total rework if they are tied together with "broodbrothers". That's pretty backwards way of looking at it.



Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/15 14:37:30


Post by: Slipspace


 Kanluwen wrote:
Slipspace wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's a terrible idea. Simply adding "Dark" to the Mechanicus does not make Dark Mechanicus a thing.

Same thing with "Traitor" to Guard.

Why not? At the scale 40k plays there's not really any major difference between a regular Guard unit and a traitor one.

Well for one thing, a "traitor Guard" unit won't tend to be from one of the Big Named ones. Cadians turned traitor tended to have a fairly short lifespan between the Ordos Cadia, Adeptus Arbites, or the Interior Guard...and that's at an individual level, not at the regimental level.
You'd be seeing things more at the level of Conscripts for the most part.


One of the things I'd also advocate GW to do is stop giving us rules tied so directly to regiments/chapters etc. Just because Cadians get the re-roll 1s rule, doesn't mean it has to be tied exclusively to them. Just have a generic trait called "Born Soldiers" or whatever and you get Cadian-style troops without any of the extra baggage associated with them.

This is exactly what I meant when I mentioned bespoke rules for everything. You don't need to format and present the rules in the way GW does and you can provide more flexibility without increasing bloat by allowing more freedom for people to choose sub-faction traits. So maybe the traitor regiment isn't Cadian, but they are from a similarly militaristic background as Cadians, or they're from a deathworld like Catachans so it would make perfect sense to use that trait to represent them. Or are we to believe that only Catachans grow big and strong, out of all the millions of Guard regiments?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Same with Dark Mechanicum. Ad Mech stuff is already massively weird and esoteric so a little bit of background info in the Codex pointing out that the Dark Mechanicum use warp lasers instead of neutron lasers but the effects are basically the same in game is all you need. That's how things used to be done and it was fine. You don't need bespoke rules for absolutely everything and GW's insistence that you do is one of the main reasons we have as much bloat as we do.

Dark Mechanicum isn't about "preserving technology" like the Mechanicus is. The Dark Mechanicum is about pushing technology beyond the boundaries of reality. They're blending daemons and the Warp with machines and humanity itself, with a goal that we don't really know about...but we do have examples of Dark Mechanicum designs.
Spoiler:






Then there's the Lord-Discordant and Warpsmith, both of which have ties to the Dark Mechanicum that are as yet unexplained.

The TLDR answer is that it isn't as simple as "warp lasers" or whatever garbage. They're distinctive entities.


Again, at the scale of 40k how distinctive do they need to be? AdMech are weird, Dark Mechanicum are weird, and ont he tabletop they can be functionally identical while having different descriptions in the lore as to what their weapons and equipment does. We already have that with Bright and Dark Lances and it works fine.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/15 15:00:05


Post by: Kanluwen


Slipspace wrote:

One of the things I'd also advocate GW to do is stop giving us rules tied so directly to regiments/chapters etc. Just because Cadians get the re-roll 1s rule, doesn't mean it has to be tied exclusively to them. Just have a generic trait called "Born Soldiers" or whatever and you get Cadian-style troops without any of the extra baggage associated with them.

This is exactly what I meant when I mentioned bespoke rules for everything. You don't need to format and present the rules in the way GW does and you can provide more flexibility without increasing bloat by allowing more freedom for people to choose sub-faction traits. So maybe the traitor regiment isn't Cadian, but they are from a similarly militaristic background as Cadians, or they're from a deathworld like Catachans so it would make perfect sense to use that trait to represent them. Or are we to believe that only Catachans grow big and strong, out of all the millions of Guard regiments?

What you're talking about is what we got via The Greater Good. No armies, at the launch of 8E, had rules like that in their codices proper.
Some of them are not duplicated 1 for 1, but that's what makes the special named factions special.

The point you missed, in any regards, is that there's zero benefit to cramming in "just add "traitor" to it!". Chaos Knights are the perfect example of what could have been a lazy as hell thing that benefitted greatly from not just having "traitor" keywords thrown into their book.

Again, at the scale of 40k how distinctive do they need to be? AdMech are weird, Dark Mechanicum are weird, and on the tabletop they can be functionally identical while having different descriptions in the lore as to what their weapons and equipment does. We already have that with Bright and Dark Lances and it works fine.

What you're trying to do isn't as simple as "these two factions both have lasers".

One faction might use a piece of technoarcana that can fire a laser at a tank.
The other uses a daemon-infused construct that runs and punches the tank with a gauntlet that unleashes a tear in the fabric of reality to go through the tank's hull.

They are not the same in terms of what they field, in terms of what they use for technology, or anything beyond "Mechanic" is in their names and the fact that they act as a priesthood of sorts centered around technology. From what we know, the Dark Mechanicum don't even have Skitarii equivalents instead relying upon slaves and "donations" of traitor soldiery from the various entities that they provide and maintain wargear for.


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/15 15:04:01


Post by: kodos


on the scale of 40k, having 1 Marine list and write in the fluff that UM like a mix of everything while WS like to have everything mounted (transports/bikes) and RG uses mostly jump troops
not even needing any special rules to get things done


the main reason for all does additional rules/supplements was because the original FOC did not allow to make such special armies, but now having more than one FOC and Keywords


The main difference between AdMech and Dark Mechanicum would be that the one can take Imperium and the other Chaos units as allied units
this is one sentence in the book,"chose to bei either AdMech and add the Imperium Keyword or Dark Mechanicum and add the Chaos Keyword to all units in the book"
(and the same for Guard)


Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll) @ 2021/06/15 15:55:57


Post by: catbarf


I've always liked games where you have a core set of 'universal' troops, and then a combination of:
-Subfaction-specific units
-Additional options for 'generic' units
-Army-wide traits

And those define your subfaction. It works great in Horus Heresy and it's sort of what GW did with Marine supplements; seems a natural fit for Dark Mechanicum or traitor Guard.