So, catching up with different factions/codexes and whatnot, and I notice that factions like world eaters, deathguard, and whatnot have codex when I never would have imagined they'd have enough of their own units/stuff to warrant a codex, so that got me thinking.

Orks have a lot of clans, I know they're all kinda been blended into a generic "gorka morka" clan, but GW could revitalize the blood axes, evil suns, goffs, snakebites, bad moons, and other clans into their own codex if they wanted to. What do you think? Should they?

I don't play Orks, and I'm not super knowledgeable about their lore, so I'll leave it to Ork players to say whether or not they feel separate books would be an improvement.

But I will say that I thought the game was more interesting for everybody but Marines and Chaos back in 9th when subfactions meant something for the other factions in the game.

Dex splitting does provide design space and incentive to model subfaction specific units, and the Ork range might be large enough that subfaction specific units are all that's left to add. It does come with some drawbacks too: a common complaint from folks is that dex splitting leads often leads to core unit exclusions.

I've seen little evidence that Orks Klans are so different as to make separate Codexes a good way to express the faction. It is not like the Four Chosen Chaos Legions who have very strong thematic elements and long standing unique units that make them operate differently from the other Legions.

Either EVERY faction should get Supplements based on subfactions, or none should.

I'm in the latter camp-have robust generic and customizable rules, not lots of bespoke and unchanging rules.

No. Definitely not. We don't need to waste paper making it more expensive to get your ork rules in one place.

If anything, there should be fewer books out there. All loyalist marines other than Grey Knights and maybe Death Watch can be pretty easily rolled into a single marine 'dex.

Daemons should be rolled in with their god's specialist marines in god-specific books, and those books should *probably* have access most of the generic CSM units. Not letting Death Guard take predators or World Eaters take havocs feels like a hollow attempt to justify splitting them out into their own books.

A 5th chaos undivided book can house the rest of the CSM and provide detachments for themes that aren't tied to one specific god. So your generic chaos champions/mutation detachment, your veterans of the long war, your generic brand chaos worshippers, etc.

While GW continues to favorite marine chapters people will continue to ask for their own subtraction books.

For Orks I would see speed freaks, beast Boyz and freebootaz as separate books rather than one per clan. But even then, there are trillions of bad moons and 1000 blood angels so the idea is not ridiculous.

If I were condensing them all down I'd do them by species faction:

Codex imperium
Marines, sisters, mech, guard, agents

Codex Orks
Speed freaks, beast Boyz, freebootaz, clans

Codex Tyranids
Vanguard, invasion, cults

Codex tau
Cadre, Kroot, auxiliaries

Codex chaos
Daemons, cultists, marine cultists

Codex necrons
Slaves of the ctan, dynasties reborn, flayer cult, destroyer cult

Codex Eldar
Craftworlds, corsairs, exodites, ynnari, Harlequins

Codex votann
Leagues, the diaspora, ironkin

Codex Scum and villainy
Dark Eldar, alien mercenaries, rebel marines



Otherwise I'd do a codex for each subheading.

The thing that irritates me about the marine codexes is that they're not even subfactions - they're SUB sub factions. Codex Dark angels is the equivalent of codex alaitoc shadow scorpion shrine. Or codex cadians - that would at least represent fighting forces of a size not removable with one good capital ship barrage.

Imperium is the faction, marines are one arm of imperial forces and one chapter is but one part of that.

There's no fluff reason why any of the Kult Legions shouldn't have access to most stuff from the CSM Codex, so splitting them already comes with downsides. It was ridiculous in earlier editions when CSM threw away their Drop Pods and Speeders when joining Chaos, it's even more ridiculous when DG throws away their Chosen, Possessed and Vindicators.

Also, Ork tribes and Waaaghs often appear with mixed Klans and at the same time any Klan uses any unit. Putting all the buggies into Evil Suns, all the Beast Snaggas into Snakebites, all Lootas to Deathskullz and all Kommandos to Blood Axes would just leave 6 Ork factions that are worse off than before and with restrictions that are against the fluff.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
There's no fluff reason why any of the Kult Legions shouldn't have access to most stuff from the CSM Codex, so splitting them already comes with downsides. It was ridiculous in earlier editions when CSM threw away their Drop Pods and Speeders when joining Chaos, it's even more ridiculous when DG throws away their Chosen, Possessed and Vindicators.

Well, there's actually pretty darn good fluff reason for the Thousand Sons.

That said, I would have to imagine that - if we're to believe the fluff - all Chaos Legions should be able to field much more in terms of Primaris tech, what with all the raiding and looting.

 BorderCountess wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
There's no fluff reason why any of the Kult Legions shouldn't have access to most stuff from the CSM Codex, so splitting them already comes with downsides. It was ridiculous in earlier editions when CSM threw away their Drop Pods and Speeders when joining Chaos, it's even more ridiculous when DG throws away their Chosen, Possessed and Vindicators.

Well, there's actually pretty darn good fluff reason for the Thousand Sons.

That said, I would have to imagine that - if we're to believe the fluff - all Chaos Legions should be able to field much more in terms of Primaris tech, what with all the raiding and looting.

I like to imagine that the repulsor has keyless ignition with stop/start and the poor chaos guys have got so used to driving manual with a key, they cant figure out how to start it.

 BorderCountess wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
There's no fluff reason why any of the Kult Legions shouldn't have access to most stuff from the CSM Codex, so splitting them already comes with downsides. It was ridiculous in earlier editions when CSM threw away their Drop Pods and Speeders when joining Chaos, it's even more ridiculous when DG throws away their Chosen, Possessed and Vindicators.

Well, there's actually pretty darn good fluff reason for the Thousand Sons.

And yet, Thousand Sons USED TO have access to a greater range of units than they do now. Curious...

It…depends.

First and foremost, the background has long established that any size of Ork force can be comprised of different Clans. They’re just not as separated as other variants in the game.

It’s common for one Clan to be dominant though, so with 40K being a snapshot, there’s nowt wrong with just fielding a single Clan.

The next question is how distinct would they be in the board? Going back to 1st and 2nd Ed, Clan allegiance mostly influenced unit upgrade options. The Boyz themselves didn’t tend to have fancy rules.

With that in mind? I don’t think that approach provides sufficient distinction in modern 40K.

So how to add sufficient distinction, especially in a system with no FoC? Do we limit or exclude certain units from different Clans? Provide special rules to encourage certain builds for each Clan?

BanjoJohn wrote:
I never would have imagined they'd have enough of their own units/stuff to warrant a codex,

GW have added and subdivided things to pad them out into codex size, along with a move over the years/decades from warband structures to chapter structures.

Orks don't have any clan specific units - they are like eldar in the sense that one clan may like bikes more but all clans have bikes, etc.

You can generally make any style of Ork army out of the book with little issue. The various detachments cover the general vibe of each klan well enough that it doesn't require additional codexes. There's also no Klan specific units, only units that klans prefer. For example there's no reason that you couldn't take warbikers, or a big mek, or flash gitz in any given klan, but each Klan will prefer to have more or less of those units.

If there was a Klan that had its bespoke units, and played so drastically different from the rest of them, and couldn't be built out of the regular book, then they'd need their own codex. But for now it's fine in one book.

Pepperidge Farms remembers when Black Templars didn't have any super special unique snowflake units either...

Other than the Crusader. And their Ablative Wound Scouts. Before that, they were a paint scheme rather than a variant Chapter.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Other than the Crusader. And their Ablative Wound Scouts. Before that, they were a paint scheme rather than a variant Chapter.

To be fair, if you go back far enough all marines were the same, just with different paintjobs.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It…depends.

First and foremost, the background has long established that any size of Ork force can be comprised of different Clans. They’re just not as separated as other variants in the game.

It’s common for one Clan to be dominant though, so with 40K being a snapshot, there’s nowt wrong with just fielding a single Clan.

The next question is how distinct would they be in the board? Going back to 1st and 2nd Ed, Clan allegiance mostly influenced unit upgrade options. The Boyz themselves didn’t tend to have fancy rules.

With that in mind? I don’t think that approach provides sufficient distinction in modern 40K.

So how to add sufficient distinction, especially in a system with no FoC? Do we limit or exclude certain units from different Clans? Provide special rules to encourage certain builds for each Clan?

I'm a hybrid choice. I don't think Orks lend themselves to the mono subfaction as well as others - I think the orc subfactions should have some bespoke units (Black, Lootas, Beast, etc) and I think your Warlord faction should do some juggling as he's better/happier commanding some units than others. Just making up an example here - but say your In-Their-Face Goff warlord doesn't really have the right instincts for Lootas - so if your warlord is Goff then boyz and nobz type stuff get frenzied while the Flash Git and Loota types are already demoralized by having a leader who doesn't value them - what that means in the rules I don't know, but the theme was what I was after.

Every subfaction of every faction should have some minor variations for theme. A Blood Skulls WAAAGH should play different than a Bad Moons, than a Snakebite and so on. But that doesn't mean it should be done by lifting and dropping Space Marine Chapter rules onto Orks or Nids just because it may work for Necrons or Tau.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Either EVERY faction should get Supplements based on subfactions, or none should.

I'm in the latter camp-have robust generic and customizable rules, not lots of bespoke and unchanging rules.

This.

Especially when the 'bespoke' rules are 50 different variations of 'Sustained Hits' and 'fight after dying' stratagems, just with increasingly silly names.

 vipoid wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Either EVERY faction should get Supplements based on subfactions, or none should.

I'm in the latter camp-have robust generic and customizable rules, not lots of bespoke and unchanging rules.

This.

Especially when the 'bespoke' rules are 50 different variations of 'Sustained Hits' and 'fight after dying' stratagems, just with increasingly silly names.

That's not an arguement for or against anything but kicking GW in the pants until they finally take advantage of their USR + Keyword system. They could do so much more with that than they do.

A.T. wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
I never would have imagined they'd have enough of their own units/stuff to warrant a codex,

GW have added and subdivided things to pad them out into codex size, along with a move over the years/decades from warband structures to chapter structures.

Orks don't have any clan specific units - they are like eldar in the sense that one clan may like bikes more but all clans have bikes, etc.

Back in 2nd edition, was the last time I remember clans being a big deal, there were "clan units". Evil Suns were the only real warbike unit. Snakebites were the only unit able to ride boars. Goffs were the only ones with Scarboys. New units could be invented/created based on their differences.


I will say, off the top of my head the "Blood Axe" clan is the one clan I could see getting its own list/codex because of all the access to human equipment and human auxiliary/mercenary units that they should have access to. Blood Axe boys with bolters, Imperial Rhinos, Land Raiders, and human merc units who are basically the equivalent of guard platoons, but some differences could be made.

Why would you want to have to buy a second book to play your faction?

 LunarSol wrote:
Why would you want to have to buy a second book to play your faction?

Because marines do, so it's a good idea /s.

 Hellebore wrote:
While GW continues to favorite marine chapters people will continue to ask for their own subtraction books.

For Orks I would see speed freaks, beast Boyz and freebootaz as separate books rather than one per clan. But even then, there are trillions of bad moons and 1000 blood angels so the idea is not ridiculous.

If I were condensing them all down I'd do them by species faction:

Codex imperium
Marines, sisters, mech, guard, agents

Codex Orks
Speed freaks, beast Boyz, freebootaz, clans

Codex Tyranids
Vanguard, invasion, cults

Codex tau
Cadre, Kroot, auxiliaries

Codex chaos
Daemons, cultists, marine cultists

Codex necrons
Slaves of the ctan, dynasties reborn, flayer cult, destroyer cult

Codex Eldar
Craftworlds, corsairs, exodites, ynnari, Harlequins

Codex votann
Leagues, the diaspora, ironkin

Codex Scum and villainy
Dark Eldar, alien mercenaries, rebel marines



Otherwise I'd do a codex for each subheading.

The thing that irritates me about the marine codexes is that they're not even subfactions - they're SUB sub factions. Codex Dark angels is the equivalent of codex alaitoc shadow scorpion shrine. Or codex cadians - that would at least represent fighting forces of a size not removable with one good capital ship barrage.

Imperium is the faction, marines are one arm of imperial forces and one chapter is but one part of that.

FWIW, GW treats the game as having 4 factions:

Space Marines
Imperium
Chaos
Xenos

Splitting the sub factions under those headers makes the divide make a lot more sense.

In particular, seeing Chaos Legions divided out makes a lot more sense when you realize its more making a codex for each god rather than just the marines now.

Honestly, it's weird to me when marine players defend having their faction split up into so many books, and extra weird when other people want their own army to be treated the same way. Like, the Blood Angels codex is a handful of datasheets and a detachment. And half those datasheets are just +1 versions of generic units.

I absolutely do not want eldar to get that treatment. We don't need to spend an extra $50 for Codex Supplement: Ulthwe so that we can have slightly more expensive guardians with the deepstrike rule. And we certainly don't need bespoke Black Guardian kits that you have to buy to use them. You can just... give units rules that fit their fluff and accept that your dudes don't need to be more extra special-er than the other subfaction's dudes.

The only exception I would make is a grot revolution book. Give me Da Red Gobbo! It would be too much fun to turn down.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Honestly, it's weird to me when marine players defend having their faction split up into so many books, and extra weird when other people want their own army to be treated the same way. Like, the Blood Angels codex is a handful of datasheets and a detachment. And half those datasheets are just +1 versions of generic units.

I absolutely do not want eldar to get that treatment. We don't need to spend an extra $50 for Codex Supplement: Ulthwe so that we can have slightly more expensive guardians with the deepstrike rule. And we certainly don't need bespoke Black Guardian kits that you have to buy to use them. You can just... give units rules that fit their fluff and accept that your dudes don't need to be more extra special-er than the other subfaction's dudes.

Becuse it results in a huge amount of miniature support they don't otherwise get. Marines can draw from a huge catalogue of miniatures for all sorts of things because they invest in making all sorts of units for each sub faction. There are 2 autarch models.

Becuse it results in more fluff and background support. Every additional marine codex adds to marines as a whole across all aspects of the hobby, not just an army list.

Army rules are just one small part of the greater general support it offers

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Honestly, it's weird to me when marine players defend having their faction split up into so many books, and extra weird when other people want their own army to be treated the same way. Like, the Blood Angels codex is a handful of datasheets and a detachment. And half those datasheets are just +1 versions of generic units.

I absolutely do not want eldar to get that treatment. We don't need to spend an extra $50 for Codex Supplement: Ulthwe so that we can have slightly more expensive guardians with the deepstrike rule. And we certainly don't need bespoke Black Guardian kits that you have to buy to use them. You can just... give units rules that fit their fluff and accept that your dudes don't need to be more extra special-er than the other subfaction's dudes.

I'm technically kinda on your side with this, but I thought this was worthy of discussing because I saw a post about the Exodite Eldar and people wanting a codex for them. I think loyalist marines could be wrapped into one codex, I think all chaos (all 4 gods and undivided and demons and chaos marines and chaos traitor guard) could be one codex, all eldar could be one codex. I think GSC could be put back in the same codex as tyranids. And oh I dunno, but I would do a lot of consolidating.

But I got thinking, Orks do technically have a bunch of internal factions, ork clans, they had a lot of flavor and seperate miniatures in 2nd edition, many of those minis still were used in 3rd-4th, so why not see if anyone else would want new lists/units exploring those clans?

Definitely agree with Wyldhunt - even though they go back as far as the idea of codices, the decision to make individual marine books was a mistake and remains a mistake.

Dudeface wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Why would you want to have to buy a second book to play your faction?

Because marines do, so it's a good idea /s.

Not just Marines did/do. GSC have had to buy Guard. Ynnari, anyone using Imperial Agents, etc.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Why would you want to have to buy a second book to play your faction?

Because marines do, so it's a good idea /s.

Not just Marines did/do. GSC have had to buy Guard. Ynnari, anyone using Imperial Agents, etc.

Ynarri datasheets are now in the Eldar codex, correct? Generally speaking I think that's a preferable trend. Brood Brothers could definitely just be in the GSC dex for example. Agents I have.... ideas on, but as unique design space its not the worth thing to exist (even if it was implemented terribly).

 LunarSol wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Why would you want to have to buy a second book to play your faction?

Because marines do, so it's a good idea /s.

Not just Marines did/do. GSC have had to buy Guard. Ynnari, anyone using Imperial Agents, etc.

Ynarri datasheets are now in the Eldar codex, correct? Generally speaking I think that's a preferable trend. Brood Brothers could definitely just be in the GSC dex for example. Agents I have.... ideas on, but as unique design space its not the worth thing to exist (even if it was implemented terribly).

Ynarri were? always in the Eldar codex but you had to get the Dark Eldar codex for the full benefit. I'm of a split opinion. If I played all the (sub)factions in the book, I'd want them all combined into one slightly cheaper book. If I only played one subfaction like Aeldari but not Ynarri, I'd be a little annoyed at having to buy a bigger codex with higher price.

Breton wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Ynarri datasheets are now in the Eldar codex, correct? Generally speaking I think that's a preferable trend. Brood Brothers could definitely just be in the GSC dex for example. Agents I have.... ideas on, but as unique design space its not the worth thing to exist (even if it was implemented terribly).

Ynarri were? always in the Eldar codex but you had to get the Dark Eldar codex for the full benefit. I'm of a split opinion. If I played all the (sub)factions in the book, I'd want them all combined into one slightly cheaper book. If I only played one subfaction like Aeldari but not Ynarri, I'd be a little annoyed at having to buy a bigger codex with higher price.

Right, that's why I said now. The new Eldar Codex has the Drukhari datasheets in it now. Definitely a trend I'd like to see continue.

I don't know, I miss when Ynnari could be any combination of Eldar (barring a few excluded units).

Now they're just another Craftworld subfaction with all the flavour carefully stamped out. In a book that's already eaten Harlequins and Corsairs. Plus a third of the DE codex.

Though, at this point, I'm of a mind that we should just feed the entire DE codex to the Craftworld one and put them out of their misery.

I have mixed feelings about this as an Ork player. On one hand, I can see this is as a way to flesh out klanz a bit more than what our book currently covers and a potential way to reflect further nuances than some of the stereotypical depictions for how the Klanz work (e.g. Evil Sunz are all bikerz/speed freeks, or all Blood Axes are kommandos) and maybe even get a special character or two for each klan since we've lost quite a few in the transition to having only plastic models. However, given how poorly GW's track record is in terms of doing spin off subfactions in the past, even when it was just subfactions within the Ork codex, there were some clear "haves and have-nots".

People overwhelmingly played Deffskullz in 8th because they had the best subfaction rules across all models, whereas Blood Axes were barely seen since it was the most situational and it didn't really fit their fluff either of being the most tactical.

I remember the old WAAAAGH! forum having fan codices for each klan and I think what worked the most was that they went outside the box and made adjustments to existing units that better suited to the Klan's prediliction for certain types of warfare without literally making them just spam one type of Ork unit. This included allowing Meganobz to swap our their Power Klaws and Kombi Weapons for Heavier, Snazzier guns for Bad Moons and proper Looted vehicle rules for Blood Axes. This was alongside changes in the FOC and new wargear for HQ models.

However, with GW's current design philosophy of "no model, no rules", this is basically never going to happen and they have a tendency to have to make entirely new units to justify the subfaction (e.g. look at 8-bound being introduced instead of giving devourers or red butchers). I would really rather avoid more bloat and Ork armies are typically ecletic enough in a WAAAGH! that having only one Klan in a fight is pretty rare, so I think differentiating the type of army with detachments is better for now and a lot of the issue for adequeate representation of certain armies (e.g. Speed Freeks) is more due to the weakness of datasheets for units like buggies/bikes than anything else. The main things we're missing for Orks at the moment is an Armoured Krumpany style detachment or a Grot Revolution one, though those are largely due to lack of model support since FW has been gutted ruleswise. Would love to see grot snipers and more grot oriented units.

Basically, I don't want a marine subfaction knock off situation all over the place where GW gives half-hearted support and then forgets to properly support it until they just cut their losses and fold them back into the main book again anyways. The 2nd WAAAGH! Ghazghkull supplement remains to this day one of the worst Ork codex add-ons in the entirety of Orks rules in 40k.

I do think it could be worthwhile to split Orks into two different dexes:

* Blood Axe Klan
* All the rest

This would give more design freedom for game devs for giving further distinction to Blood Axes, who imitate Imperial war machines and tactics, from the rest of the Orkoids, who, IIRC, treat the "umie lovin, drillin and paradin" Blood Axes with suspicion

This way, I could also get Tin Boyz back, as well as rules for looted Imperial vehicles in Blood Axe lists

Why wouldn't any other Klan have looted vehicles?!

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Why wouldn't any other Klan have looted vehicles?!

Because looted vehicles have always been exclusive to Blood Axes.

Just as we've always been at war with Eurasia.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Why wouldn't any other Klan have looted vehicles?!

I'm just writing conjecture, but, the blood axes probably repair/restore vehicles that might have been damaged/destroyed, to the point where its basically the same function as the original vehicle, where as other clans would be more likely to take the husk of the vehicle and convert it into something like a battle wagon or a trukk or some other ork vehicle.

The only Subfaction book of Orks I'd want is Grot Revolution.
Give us Grot HQs, Grot Tanks, big guns, Grot Infantry with proper guns, Snotlings as swarm units, pump waggons and all the Red Gobbos.

 tauist wrote:
I do think it could be worthwhile to split Orks into two different dexes:

* Blood Axe Klan
* All the rest

This would give more design freedom for game devs for giving further distinction to Blood Axes, who imitate Imperial war machines and tactics, from the rest of the Orkoids, who, IIRC, treat the "umie lovin, drillin and paradin" Blood Axes with suspicion

This way, I could also get Tin Boyz back, as well as rules for looted Imperial vehicles in Blood Axe lists

I don't think it should be a hard split. I think this part should be like the Space Marines - a core Codex with Clan Supplements - including special Bosses, and a few other characters, some units, and some rules to flip and flop army design around between a little and a lot depending on the Clan.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The only Subfaction book of Orks I'd want is Grot Revolution.
Give us Grot HQs, Grot Tanks, big guns, Grot Infantry with proper guns, Snotlings as swarm units, pump waggons and all the Red Gobbos.

This makes the most sense.

Obviously not.

There should be crusade rules for every clan. No one else gives a damn about playing anything but the most powerful army bonus anyways.

 Jidmah wrote:
Obviously not.

There should be crusade rules for every clan. No one else gives a damn about playing anything but the most powerful army bonus anyways.

Additional miniature support and fiction/merch are also a part of being a separate faction. The amount of choice marines have to model exactly what they want using a dozen model lines is unparrelleled. Having even half of that in other factions would be awesome and imo absolutely fair.

There's no reason that variant models and variant rules should necessarily be linked though.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
There's no reason that variant models and variant rules should necessarily be linked though.

It would be more accurate to say there's no GOOD reason, but GW definitely considers there to be reasons.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
There's no reason that variant models and variant rules should necessarily be linked though.

It would be more accurate to say there's no GOOD reason, but GW definitely considers there to be reasons.

Framing any of these discussions based on what GW would/will do is pointless - they're never going to be swayed by any argument presented here, and are always going to go with whichever course of action wrings the most cash out of the game/setting/players.

We should want and demand more than that.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Obviously not.

There should be crusade rules for every clan. No one else gives a damn about playing anything but the most powerful army bonus anyways.

Additional miniature support and fiction/merch are also a part of being a separate faction. The amount of choice marines have to model exactly what they want using a dozen model lines is unparrelleled. Having even half of that in other factions would be awesome and imo absolutely fair.

GW essentially just tricked marine players into thinking that having buy three books is a privilege, when the real gain is just not being able to put units with the <Blood Angels> keyword in the same army as units with the <Dark Angels> keyword.

Today competitive marine players have painted their Sanguine Guard, Deathwing Terminators and Thunderwolf Cavalry in the same paint scheme as their Guilliman, so they can have the best army for the current meta.

Space Marine chapters aren't extra choices, they are extra restrictions.
More models are extra choices.

 Jidmah wrote:


GW essentially just tricked marine players into thinking that having buy three books is a privilege, when the real gain is just not being able to put units with the <Blood Angels> keyword in the same army as units with the <Dark Angels> keyword.

Today competitive marine players have painted their Sanguine Guard, Deathwing Terminators and Thunderwolf Cavalry in the same paint scheme as their Guilliman, so they can have the best army for the current meta.

Space Marine chapters aren't extra choices, they are extra restrictions.
More models are extra choices.

I don't have the Marine dex or any of the supplements, so I can't say for sure, but there are things in this post which aren't consistent with the way I've understood the rules based on Warcom and Forum posts.

IF your army includes only base SM units that are not restricted by a supplement, you can call them whatever you want and use any SM detachment- even the ones from the supplements. So in this case, YES, different factions DO provide more options for detachments, but fewer options for models.

IF your army includes modelss of a specific subfaction, it can use regular SM detachments as well as those from its own supplement. But it can't use SM models forbidden by its own supplement, nor can it use subfaction models of other subfactions. In this case, it's possible that the number of models you get access to for choosing your subfaction may be smaller than the number of models you are prevented from using, but it's by no means a guarantee.

So your example of Deathwing Termies, Sanguinary Guard and Thunderwolves working together with Guilliman is thing that, as I understand it, can't happen. And in truth, fluffwise, it probably shouldn't.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


GW essentially just tricked marine players into thinking that having buy three books is a privilege, when the real gain is just not being able to put units with the <Blood Angels> keyword in the same army as units with the <Dark Angels> keyword.

Today competitive marine players have painted their Sanguine Guard, Deathwing Terminators and Thunderwolf Cavalry in the same paint scheme as their Guilliman, so they can have the best army for the current meta.

Space Marine chapters aren't extra choices, they are extra restrictions.
More models are extra choices.

I don't have the Marine dex or any of the supplements, so I can't say for sure, but there are things in this post which aren't consistent with the way I've understood the rules based on Warcom and Forum posts.

IF your army includes only base SM units that are not restricted by a supplement, you can call them whatever you want and use any SM detachment- even the ones from the supplements. So in this case, YES, different factions DO provide more options for detachments, but fewer options for models.

IF your army includes modelss of a specific subfaction, it can use regular SM detachments as well as those from its own supplement. But it can't use SM models forbidden by its own supplement, nor can it use subfaction models of other subfactions. In this case, it's possible that the number of models you get access to for choosing your subfaction may be smaller than the number of models you are prevented from using, but it's by no means a guarantee.

So your example of Deathwing Termies, Sanguinary Guard and Thunderwolves working together with Guilliman is thing that, as I understand it, can't happen. And in truth, fluffwise, it probably shouldn't.

If you are meta chasing and don’t want to repaint everything, you can share a paint scheme, and just use the allowed units in one specific list.

So you have purple painted guiliman, TWC, sang guard, intercessors, inceptors. You can only use one of the fist 3 in any given list, but the last 2 are universal. Going purple keeps them from having to paint blue, grey and red versions of them as the meta shfts.

 Nevelon wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


GW essentially just tricked marine players into thinking that having buy three books is a privilege, when the real gain is just not being able to put units with the <Blood Angels> keyword in the same army as units with the <Dark Angels> keyword.

Today competitive marine players have painted their Sanguine Guard, Deathwing Terminators and Thunderwolf Cavalry in the same paint scheme as their Guilliman, so they can have the best army for the current meta.

Space Marine chapters aren't extra choices, they are extra restrictions.
More models are extra choices.

I don't have the Marine dex or any of the supplements, so I can't say for sure, but there are things in this post which aren't consistent with the way I've understood the rules based on Warcom and Forum posts.

IF your army includes only base SM units that are not restricted by a supplement, you can call them whatever you want and use any SM detachment- even the ones from the supplements. So in this case, YES, different factions DO provide more options for detachments, but fewer options for models.

IF your army includes modelss of a specific subfaction, it can use regular SM detachments as well as those from its own supplement. But it can't use SM models forbidden by its own supplement, nor can it use subfaction models of other subfactions. In this case, it's possible that the number of models you get access to for choosing your subfaction may be smaller than the number of models you are prevented from using, but it's by no means a guarantee.

So your example of Deathwing Termies, Sanguinary Guard and Thunderwolves working together with Guilliman is thing that, as I understand it, can't happen. And in truth, fluffwise, it probably shouldn't.

If you are meta chasing and don’t want to repaint everything, you can share a paint scheme, and just use the allowed units in one specific list.

So you have purple painted guiliman, TWC, sang guard, intercessors, inceptors. You can only use one of the fist 3 in any given list, but the last 2 are universal. Going purple keeps them from having to paint blue, grey and red versions of them as the meta shfts.

Or I could have a blue Guillman, SW grey TWC, red Sang Guard & Intercessors etc of ??? Color and get the exact same rules effect....

ccs wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


GW essentially just tricked marine players into thinking that having buy three books is a privilege, when the real gain is just not being able to put units with the <Blood Angels> keyword in the same army as units with the <Dark Angels> keyword.

Today competitive marine players have painted their Sanguine Guard, Deathwing Terminators and Thunderwolf Cavalry in the same paint scheme as their Guilliman, so they can have the best army for the current meta.

Space Marine chapters aren't extra choices, they are extra restrictions.
More models are extra choices.

I don't have the Marine dex or any of the supplements, so I can't say for sure, but there are things in this post which aren't consistent with the way I've understood the rules based on Warcom and Forum posts.

IF your army includes only base SM units that are not restricted by a supplement, you can call them whatever you want and use any SM detachment- even the ones from the supplements. So in this case, YES, different factions DO provide more options for detachments, but fewer options for models.

IF your army includes modelss of a specific subfaction, it can use regular SM detachments as well as those from its own supplement. But it can't use SM models forbidden by its own supplement, nor can it use subfaction models of other subfactions. In this case, it's possible that the number of models you get access to for choosing your subfaction may be smaller than the number of models you are prevented from using, but it's by no means a guarantee.

So your example of Deathwing Termies, Sanguinary Guard and Thunderwolves working together with Guilliman is thing that, as I understand it, can't happen. And in truth, fluffwise, it probably shouldn't.

If you are meta chasing and don’t want to repaint everything, you can share a paint scheme, and just use the allowed units in one specific list.

So you have purple painted guiliman, TWC, sang guard, intercessors, inceptors. You can only use one of the fist 3 in any given list, but the last 2 are universal. Going purple keeps them from having to paint blue, grey and red versions of them as the meta shfts.

Or I could have a blue Guillman, SW grey TWC, red Sang Guard & Intercessors etc of ??? Color and get the exact same rules effect....

Rules wise, yes. But aesthetically it’s nice to have your army look coherent.

 Nevelon wrote:
[/spoiler]

ccs wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


GW essentially just tricked marine players into thinking that having buy three books is a privilege, when the real gain is just not being able to put units with the <Blood Angels> keyword in the same army as units with the <Dark Angels> keyword.

Today competitive marine players have painted their Sanguine Guard, Deathwing Terminators and Thunderwolf Cavalry in the same paint scheme as their Guilliman, so they can have the best army for the current meta.

Space Marine chapters aren't extra choices, they are extra restrictions.
More models are extra choices.

I don't have the Marine dex or any of the supplements, so I can't say for sure, but there are things in this post which aren't consistent with the way I've understood the rules based on Warcom and Forum posts.

IF your army includes only base SM units that are not restricted by a supplement, you can call them whatever you want and use any SM detachment- even the ones from the supplements. So in this case, YES, different factions DO provide more options for detachments, but fewer options for models.

IF your army includes modelss of a specific subfaction, it can use regular SM detachments as well as those from its own supplement. But it can't use SM models forbidden by its own supplement, nor can it use subfaction models of other subfactions. In this case, it's possible that the number of models you get access to for choosing your subfaction may be smaller than the number of models you are prevented from using, but it's by no means a guarantee.

So your example of Deathwing Termies, Sanguinary Guard and Thunderwolves working together with Guilliman is thing that, as I understand it, can't happen. And in truth, fluffwise, it probably shouldn't.

[spoiler]

If you are meta chasing and don’t want to repaint everything, you can share a paint scheme, and just use the allowed units in one specific list.

So you have purple painted guiliman, TWC, sang guard, intercessors, inceptors. You can only use one of the fist 3 in any given list, but the last 2 are universal. Going purple keeps them from having to paint blue, grey and red versions of them as the meta shfts.

Or I could have a blue Guillman, SW grey TWC, red Sang Guard & Intercessors etc of ??? Color and get the exact same rules effect....

Rules wise, yes. But aesthetically it’s nice to have your army look coherent.

Maybe that works for you, but I think painting faction specific items some other color just to chase the Meta looks stupid.
I'd simply rather field mixed paintjobs & tell you it represents a joint operation.

Yeah I'd rather have/allow multi-faction marine armies/combined arms or whatever instead of painting them all to look the same. Kinda makes sense anyways too since you're supposed to more commonly see multiple smaller chapter/companies in the same engagement instead of more than one company of the same chapter.

I just paint my Ultras blue and leave other chapter specific stuff to other players. Meta be damned. But I’m just a casual.

Just giving some insight on why people paint chapter special units in non-chapter schemes.

I'll paint everything black with a silver arm no matter what chapter its from, but that's kind of the point of the Deathwatch.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'll paint everything black with a silver arm no matter what chapter its from, but that's kind of the point of the Deathwatch.

Spoiler:

Beautiful painting, but the idea of every marine being drafted into the deathwatch is kinda funny hehe. "Sorry Marneus, the deathwatch needs you, you too Dante and Azrael.Logar, believe it or not, deathwatch"

BanjoJohn wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I'll paint everything black with a silver arm no matter what chapter its from, but that's kind of the point of the Deathwatch.

Spoiler:

Beautiful painting, but the idea of every marine being drafted into the deathwatch is kinda funny hehe. "Sorry Marneus, the deathwatch needs you, you too Dante and Azrael.Logar, believe it or not, deathwatch"

I just tell people that Leandros keeps catching Guilliman with Yvrainne.

Also always fond of the mission briefings. "Men, today's mission will be lead by Captain RuffRuff, so I hope you've all been practicing your howls"

 Jidmah wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Obviously not.

There should be crusade rules for every clan. No one else gives a damn about playing anything but the most powerful army bonus anyways.

Additional miniature support and fiction/merch are also a part of being a separate faction. The amount of choice marines have to model exactly what they want using a dozen model lines is unparrelleled. Having even half of that in other factions would be awesome and imo absolutely fair.

GW essentially just tricked marine players into thinking that having buy three books is a privilege, when the real gain is just not being able to put units with the <Blood Angels> keyword in the same army as units with the <Dark Angels> keyword.

Today competitive marine players have painted their Sanguine Guard, Deathwing Terminators and Thunderwolf Cavalry in the same paint scheme as their Guilliman, so they can have the best army for the current meta.

Space Marine chapters aren't extra choices, they are extra restrictions.
More models are extra choices.

They are extra choices that come with extra restrictions.

But the point is GW only create the kind of variety of models marines have when they also have factions to go with them. Whether they should is a separate question.

Those extra models offer not just different play options, but conversion and creativity options. More miniature options that can be used by all factions that use that kind of model. You have unparalleled customisation no other faction has. And with HH an entire game devoted to providing EVEN MORE options.

Whether you use sanguinary guard as that unit, or just the models to mode some cool unit if your own, the mere presence of the models gives you more than their absence.

ccs wrote:
Maybe that works for you, but I think painting faction specific items some other color just to chase the Meta looks stupid.
I'd simply rather field mixed paintjobs & tell you it represents a joint operation.

First of all, you are pretty much the opposite of a competitive player. Which is absolutely fine and probably even a more happy place to be. In competitive games, miniatures are just game pieces, neither them nor the game being played is trying to represent any part of the lore.

Second, especially larger events require your army to be painted in a coherent paint scheme in order for your army to be considered as fully painted. This was introduced to prevent people from fielding an incoherent mess of borrowed unit and last minute ebay purchases. The consequences might be anything from losing points to you being forced to remove those units.

Third, it isn't just to chase the meta. If you already own thousands of points of red marines, why would you rebuy/reprint, rebuild and repaint all those units just because you want to try some wolf marines or green/black/white marines for a change? No one else is rebuying their entire army for adding a small handful of highly specialized units either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
But the point is GW only create the kind of variety of models marines have when they also have factions to go with them.

That's clearly not the case. We had these subfactions for all armies in the past and it did not change the fact that marines still got significantly more models than anyone else.

In any case, this thread's question is not whether there should more models, but if there should be be separate codices. The answer is no. More codices do not generate more releases - if you don't believe me, just check the releases for the three legions split off the CSM codex compared to the CSM codex itself. There is no reason to believe that GW would handle orks any different.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Why wouldn't any other Klan have looted vehicles?!

They would, but they'd be Orky vehicles (buckets of tin made from scraps with 'uge amounts o dakka). For Blood Axes, you could basically use imperial vehicles as is, same stats etc

I would personally like to see Blood Axes kind of like GSC, in the sense that they can have IG militia and imperial vehicles. Other Ork clans would never be into apeing the IoM, much less be interested in using their vehicles as-is.

This is why I see Blood Axes as the most divergent of all Ork clans. In my headcanon Blood Axes have as much common with IG as they have with Orks. This is unique, and their stats, army lists / strats / etc should reflect that

When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

What if my Marines don't have a colour? What if they are just Grey?

Kidding aside, I don't understand why the don't just create a detachment with a special character and and a statline for looted vehicles and plop it in white Dwarf
Problem solved.... ish!

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What if my Marines don't have a colour? What if they are just Grey?

Put down the Shard of the Monolith and step away from the Relictors!

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Kidding aside, I don't understand why the don't just create a detachment with a special character and and a statline for looted vehicles and plop it in white Dwarf
Problem solved.... ish!

No Model No Rules

 Jidmah wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
But the point is GW only create the kind of variety of models marines have when they also have factions to go with them.

That's clearly not the case. We had these subfactions for all armies in the past and it did not change the fact that marines still got significantly more models than anyone else.

In any case, this thread's question is not whether there should more models, but if there should be be separate codices. The answer is no. More codices do not generate more releases - if you don't believe me, just check the releases for the three legions split off the CSM codex compared to the CSM codex itself. There is no reason to believe that GW would handle orks any different.

Thats entirely disingenuous, GW doesn't release codexes without models. Thats like trying to say if someone asked if they should release new models but denying that includes bases for them to go on.

The op never said they were specifically looking for GW to act in a way contrary to their SOP and release just a book with nothing else. Why would you assume that's what they meant? They literally started with commenting on factions with small model counts getting codexes and then asking if Orks should do the same.

Nothing about that implies they specifically were requesting GW release a book with rules and nothing else.

GW releases books with model lines.

As for marines. 2nd Ed had 3 codexes covering 4 chapters with unique units, and it expanded from there. There has never been an edition with codex books where marines weren't represented by multiple unique unit lines and generic crossover units.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

I dont want Goffs, Bad Moonz, Evil Sunz or Snakebites to have bespoked dexes, as they are more like each other than Blood Axes. I dont GAF about ork fluff past ere we go era, its all lies and wrong

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

You missed the intermediary stage where Orks get new stuff, so Blood Axes should get those as well as their extra guff.

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

You missed the intermediary stage where Orks get new stuff, so Blood Axes should get those as well as their extra guff.

And why that's "circular" or even bad. How awful that people can make more than one viable army with the same models.

Rather than by Clans I would prefer:

Orks
Beast Snagga Orks
Feral Orks
Kult of Speed Orks
Blitz Brigade Orks
Stompa Mob (Maybe)

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

You missed the intermediary stage where Orks get new stuff, so Blood Axes should get those as well as their extra guff.

And why that's "circular" or even bad. How awful that people can make more than one viable army with the same models.

Because why would you ever bring a list from the core codex? Which again is a recurring problem marines face.

The second you have a 2nd £35 or whatever book with more stuff in to choose from it's by extension better by default. If you want to be a special snowflake subfaction, it has to come with some downsides, yet apparently that's not acceptable.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

You missed the intermediary stage where Orks get new stuff, so Blood Axes should get those as well as their extra guff.

And why that's "circular" or even bad. How awful that people can make more than one viable army with the same models.

Because why would you ever bring a list from the core codex? Which again is a recurring problem marines face.

The second you have a 2nd £35 or whatever book with more stuff in to choose from it's by extension better by default. If you want to be a special snowflake subfaction, it has to come with some downsides, yet apparently that's not acceptable.

Because you can't make 2,000 points - and definitely not a good 2,000 points out of a Primarch, 6 Special Terminator Squads, 4 characters most of whom can't join the Terminators, and an airplane?

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

You missed the intermediary stage where Orks get new stuff, so Blood Axes should get those as well as their extra guff.

And why that's "circular" or even bad. How awful that people can make more than one viable army with the same models.

Because why would you ever bring a list from the core codex? Which again is a recurring problem marines face.

The second you have a 2nd £35 or whatever book with more stuff in to choose from it's by extension better by default. If you want to be a special snowflake subfaction, it has to come with some downsides, yet apparently that's not acceptable.

Because you can't make 2,000 points - and definitely not a good 2,000 points out of a Primarch, 6 Special Terminator Squads, 4 characters most of whom can't join the Terminators, and an airplane?

So how about in return for gaining those units they lose some others? Maybe they don't get access to the new wave of releases? How about you don't just have them as codex space marines + more stuff for no downsides.

If anything, 40k should have fewer codexes, not more. None of the Loyalist Marines (except maybe Grey Knights), are special enough to deserve their own codex. The likes of Death Guard and World Eaters should just have their god's demons and do away with the demon codex. Larger codexes with great customization > smaller codexes with worse customization. It makes keeping track of things easier, it make balance easier, at this point, all of these extra codexes are a major cash grab that makes other Marine/Xenos players feel miffed.

This makes no sense. You want to have to buy 6 books to use your Ork army?

 Gibblets wrote:
This makes no sense. You want to have to buy 6 books to use your Ork army?

No, they want 2 books to use their ork army. One for the core units shared across all clans and a wealth of rules, then a subfaction book on top with extra gubbins and they'd assume more units and kits.

"Marines +1" is a boogeyman I dearly wish would go away.

I think the codex: supplement should only be used if the army is very different from the core lists.

If it's just a named character he can stay in the core book, but radically different forces like Deathwatch should have their own books.

For Orks, if you wanted to incorporate all the FW resin and have a Rebel Grot Army, I could see them as a Supplement Codex, where they could use bits from the parent codex, but the rest of the army is radically different.

marines having more books than anyone else is a tradition which is as old as 40k having army books. even in 2nd edition, the three special boy chapters had their own books (and hell, the space wolves book even came out before the ultramarines codex). space marine exceptionalism is a core part of 40k's identity

 Hellebore wrote:
Thats entirely disingenuous, GW doesn't release codexes without models. Thats like trying to say if someone asked if they should release new models but denying that includes bases for them to go on.

The op never said they were specifically looking for GW to act in a way contrary to their SOP and release just a book with nothing else. Why would you assume that's what they meant? They literally started with commenting on factions with small model counts getting codexes and then asking if Orks should do the same.

Nothing about that implies they specifically were requesting GW release a book with rules and nothing else.

GW releases books with model lines.

You're overlooking the precedent Games Workshop has set with Death Guard, Thousand Sons, World Eaters, and soon, Emperor’s Children.

Getting your own codex primarily means a significant loss of options, in exchange for—at most—eight exclusive units and a handful of characters. Once a faction's codex is fully released, most editions see little more than a single additional character going forward.

Even if GW completely disregarded the lore, where Ork clans frequently unite towards a common goal, and instead followed the Loyalist Marine approach, what would be the result of splitting them into separate codices? Buggies would no longer fight alongside Beast Snaggas, and neither could be in the same army as Kommandos or Stormboyz.

This benefits Ork players in no way. Orks are one of the best-supported model ranges in 40K, even the current edition added two units, a character, and a Black Library tie-in. And it's one of the weakest in history. GW’s design and production capacity isn’t suddenly going to expand to release more models than they already do, nor will there be a surge of new Ork players to justify it.

Ultimately, you’re advocating for paying more money just to limit which units can be fielded together in the same army.

As for marines. 2nd Ed had 3 codexes covering 4 chapters with unique units, and it expanded from there. There has never been an edition with codex books where marines weren't represented by multiple unique unit lines and generic crossover units.

That's just a euphemism for saying they went nearly a decade with barely anything worthwhile, only for all their infantry to be replaced by Primaris.

I’d much rather get a full wave of Ork releases every edition, thank you very much.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
"Marines +1" is a boogeyman I dearly wish would go away.

I'm interpreting this as thinking it's something you don't think exists, when it very clearly does.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
For Orks, if you wanted to incorporate all the FW resin

I've got bad news for you...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
"Marines +1" is a boogeyman I dearly wish would go away.

It's clearly not a boogeyman when GW explicitly addressed this problem in their last balance dataslate.

 Jidmah wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
"Marines +1" is a boogeyman I dearly wish would go away.

It's clearly not a boogeyman when GW explicitly addressed this problem in their last balance dataslate.

I appreciated their effort but it was a bit of a plaster imo, I'm not sure bumping up the army rule quite cut the mustard vs having 4 extra detachments and half a dozen units extra to pick from sadly.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
have a Rebel Grot Army, I could see them as a Supplement Codex, where they could use bits from the parent codex, but the rest of the army is radically different.

Honestly, rebel gretchin should either be an internal faction like beastsnaggas or speed freeks with detachment support, or they could do their own thing like Gloomspire Gitz in AoS which has its own datasheets for kanz and mek guns.

Supplements are just the worst of both worlds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
I appreciated their effort but it was a bit of a plaster imo, I'm not sure bumping up the army rule quite cut the mustard vs having 4 extra detachments and half a dozen units extra to pick from sadly.

I didn't say they solved the problem

But I fully agree with you. They realized that demon allies and Ynnari are something you can't balance, but they still try to do so for marine chapters.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Thats entirely disingenuous, GW doesn't release codexes without models. Thats like trying to say if someone asked if they should release new models but denying that includes bases for them to go on.

The op never said they were specifically looking for GW to act in a way contrary to their SOP and release just a book with nothing else. Why would you assume that's what they meant? They literally started with commenting on factions with small model counts getting codexes and then asking if Orks should do the same.

Nothing about that implies they specifically were requesting GW release a book with rules and nothing else.

GW releases books with model lines.

You're overlooking the precedent Games Workshop has set with Death Guard, Thousand Sons, World Eaters, and soon, Emperor’s Children.

Getting your own codex primarily means a significant loss of options, in exchange for—at most—eight exclusive units and a handful of characters. Once a faction's codex is fully released, most editions see little more than a single additional character going forward.

Even if GW completely disregarded the lore, where Ork clans frequently unite towards a common goal, and instead followed the Loyalist Marine approach, what would be the result of splitting them into separate codices? Buggies would no longer fight alongside Beast Snaggas, and neither could be in the same army as Kommandos or Stormboyz.

This benefits Ork players in no way. Orks are one of the best-supported model ranges in 40K, even the current edition added two units, a character, and a Black Library tie-in. And it's one of the weakest in history. GW’s design and production capacity isn’t suddenly going to expand to release more models than they already do, nor will there be a surge of new Ork players to justify it.

Ultimately, you’re advocating for paying more money just to limit which units can be fielded together in the same army.

As for marines. 2nd Ed had 3 codexes covering 4 chapters with unique units, and it expanded from there. There has never been an edition with codex books where marines weren't represented by multiple unique unit lines and generic crossover units.

That's just a euphemism for saying they went nearly a decade with barely anything worthwhile, only for all their infantry to be replaced by Primaris.

I’d much rather get a full wave of Ork releases every edition, thank you very much.

I'd start out with the Marine Supplement paradigm - each subfaction gets a book - but I'd change the way the book works. Instead of trying to force mono-subfaction which isn't really how Orks work - I'd have the supplement do the datasheet swapping and/or other Push-me-pull-you rules. If you are Deathskulls, don't use the Main Codex datasheet for Lootas, and a handful of others, use these upgraded ones - then replace this handful of sheets with these downgraded ones to represent your mob command structure favoring and disfavoring certain units. Also here's a few Dets, and potentially a universal Stratagem for your your army as long as your warlord is (subfaction) type of thing

Breton wrote:

I'd start out with the Marine Supplement paradigm - each subfaction gets a book - but I'd change the way the book works. Instead of trying to force mono-subfaction which isn't really how Orks work - I'd have the supplement do the datasheet swapping and/or other Push-me-pull-you rules. If you are Deathskulls, don't use the Main Codex datasheet for Lootas, and a handful of others, use these upgraded ones - then replace this handful of sheets with these downgraded ones to represent your mob command structure favoring and disfavoring certain units. Also here's a few Dets, and potentially a universal Stratagem for your your army as long as your warlord is (subfaction) type of thing

OK, there's a lot to unpack here. Let me see if I follow this correctly: Orks don't necessarily work in mono subfactions, so you'd give them a mono subfaction supplement.

To represent the fact that they were a mono subfaction force (but aren't really), you'd rewrite, say 25% of the Codex in the supplement. This would be to encourage taking units that better fit the subfactions theme, by making them better at the expense of making another chunk of the Codex worse.

So if we replicate for all the klans, we still don't have any real reason to take the book you've written supplements for, since regardless of what theme you want to run, theres an additional £35 book to do it better.

To add to that you've now more than doubled the amount of playtesting and balance issues that can arise from the faction as each unit potentially has 7-8 of the same datasheet. This is ignoring that a Goffs sqighog is now magically a worse profile for no reason.

I can see this is better in the context of someone who is a dedicated deffskullz player now has their curated orks +1 subfaction. They are however now paying twice and destabilising the faction, or if rolled out to all factions, the entire game, for the pleasure.

It's a lot simpler, safer and easier to just... not.

It also screws over any player who doesn't want to go all in on their subfaction's flanderization.

Want a Blood Axe armoured company? Well too bad loser! Blood Axes are the Kommando subfaction now.

Want to play Blood Angels 1st Company? Well get used to just being inferior to Dark Angels for no reason chump!

...or occasionally causes the exact opposite 'um akshully, Raven Guard have always been known for spamming Assault Centurions...'

As I said earlier, Orks klans are melting pots and Ork Waaagh are even moreso, often comprised of multiple klans coming together.

There's no real reason that klans would specifically not use certain units. To use Bad Moonz as an example, the super wealthy Klan that is for some reason associated most with all shooting armies:

Having all that money and wanting to show off could lend you to getting a really big and loud shoota, or an extra-killy power klaw, or suping up your warbike, or buy a stormboy pack, or tricking out your favourite Squighog with a load of fancy bioniks, or you invest into a Mek and they build you a Stompa.

There isn't a reason for you to exclude any units from the codex from a Bad Moonz army, and there's no real unit that you would add outside of a special character like Nazdreg. Ergo, there's no need to split the faction.

The exception to this is Blood Axes, who have a different way of playing the game than other Ork klans. However this is fixed with a detachment, and doesn't need anything else to get the Blood Axe feeling.

If you really want to differentiate Blood Axes further than what the detachment already has, just play AM or GSC and paint them green.

Although a 'counts as GSC' Digga army does sound cool now I think of it.

Bloodaxes aren't that different from other clans in terms of units, though. The main difference between clans is how they approach things.

The novel "Warboss" does a great job at portraying the difference between goff, evil sun and bloodaxe leadership as the three warbosses attack the same city to prove they are worthy of leading the Waaagh!

The goff warboss uses gargants and stompas to shoot a hole into the city wall and then charge through it. The evil suns race through an artillery killing field and then have a mek short-circuit a hangar door. The bloodaxes dig tunnels into the sewers.

Despite their different approaches, all of them end up in the city and slaughter the 'umies in their preferred way. In the end, all three of them still join an all-out brawl with an eldar avatar and imperial troops.

Bloodaxes aren't particularly known for looted tanks at all. They are known for adapting imperial tactics and gear, as well as their sneaky and "cowardly" behavior. The one story about them infiltrating an imperial army base with looted tanks is just a result of that behavior.

Their primary units are stormboyz and kommadoz. Stormboyz are usually young orks which still believe in discipline, orderly ranks and other weird things - naturally blood axes imitating imperials tend to stick with the stormboyz much longer than other clans.
9th edition's codex explicitly told us that there are bloodaxe beastsnaggas which have less of an anti-technology mindset and from novels we know that there are bloodaxe trukkboyz, buggies, bommers, nobz, MANz, burnas, deff dreads, lootas, meks and weirdboyz. There is little reason to believe that they don't have access to everything else as well.

I meant that Blood Axes are different in the sense that they're more organised, dish out orders, and generally ape other armies rather than the classic Ork Horde would.

As we both said, all the models and units are the same, it's just a different play style.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I meant that Blood Axes are different in the sense that they're more organised, dish out orders, and generally ape other armies rather than the classic Ork Horde would.

As we both said, all the models and units are the same, it's just a different play style.

So in conclusion, this could likely be handled inside of the ork codex with a simple set of detachment/equivalent rules by the sounds of it.

I vastly prefer the detachment system where you have a variety of rules you can decide what best applies to the force you want to build. I think for marines, the second faction keyword largely works well and wouldn't hate to see other named characters get similar keywords.

I don't think much is added by forcibly dividing books up though. Most of the marine subfactions really don't need it, but it gives GW a way to release new marine content multiple times an edition and to cover past overreaches.

I mean, would Orks be more fun if the Beast Snagga models had a Snakebites keyword that locked you out of the rest of the vehicles with the Speed Freaks keyword that couldn't be taken if you had Ghaz in your army? That's the reality being asked for and not one I think is nearly as interesting as the one created by good, well rounded detachments that can take anything, but encourage different parts of the range.

 LunarSol wrote:
I mean, would Orks be more fun if the Beast Snagga models had a Snakebites keyword...

It would probably be more fun if they were savage orks, and didn't actually have a generally higher tech level than 'regular' orks and didn't duplicate a bunch of existing units unnecessarily

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I mean, would Orks be more fun if the Beast Snagga models had a Snakebites keyword...

It would probably be more fun if they were savage orks, and didn't actually have a generally higher tech level than 'regular' orks and didn't duplicate a bunch of existing units unnecessarily

I'm not sure I'm following what's more fun about this?

That’s feral ORKS and has been done before, didn’t like it. Beasts snaggas are new and that’s no bad thing. They fit in well and the idea of them from any klan is clever, they can be painted an modelled etc however you like. Great for conversions etc

As for the main topic, no, they don’t need supplements nor would be appropriate. And it’s a direction GW is moving away from this edition too thank god. As everyone else said, it’s not how klans work.

Now, I would love to see some klan specific upgrade kits like marines get. That would be cool.

Dudeface wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I meant that Blood Axes are different in the sense that they're more organised, dish out orders, and generally ape other armies rather than the classic Ork Horde would.

As we both said, all the models and units are the same, it's just a different play style.

So in conclusion, this could likely be handled inside of the ork codex with a simple set of detachment/equivalent rules by the sounds of it.

Or by releasing a detachment giving them and orky version of another army's army rules.