Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First off, forgive us if this has been posted before.

But second off, do you think it would be cool if GW did separate codicies for different guard types like they do for SM chapters? You know, Codex Chatachans, Codex Vostroyans, and so forth. I think that would be rockin'.

Well, I think they should abandon the codicies and go to a 'ravening hordes' format, then put out a very limited selection of army books (one for SMs, one for Chaos, one for all eldar, etc.), then focus on campaign and scenarios instead of army lists, but that's just me...

No.

If there are significant enough differences between different armies, then by all means include them in the same book, but I don't want a Codex: [Random Planet] any more than a I want a Codex: World Eaters.

A Craftworld-esqe book, in that it's a book detailing different lists, same way as a Codex: Traitor Legions would be awesome, but not a book for each damned planet.

BYE

For pity's sakes: IG aren't Spaz Marins!

And besides, GW did do separate Catachan and Armageddon lists back in 3E.

For IG, if it is written properly, one 5E Codex will be enough to rule them all.

Respectfully it won’t be written properly. While in other forces this is ok, from GW experience I’d proffer they won’t be able to do it. They are going to try to hammer in two completely different types of forces-troop heavy units and mechanized units. As we’ve seen with the Tau dex, they are necessarily very good at it.

To the scenario specific variant. After Armageddon, and 13th I’ll never buy a scenario book or play a scenario list again (HEAR THAT GW!). My LATD list is dead and I am still CENSORED about that.

Either multiple lists aka craftworld, or 2 dexes would be perfect.

Codex troopy: focus on troop lists, mayhaps with some access to vehicles ina limited context. Specialize in horde, infiltrators, or drop troop contexts. Perfect for the rumored platoon format. Mayhaps with valkyries/vultures. Good for GW sales

Codex treadhead. Tanks tanks tanks. Lots of different variant tanks representing the full panopoly of available guard forces. Specialized tanker wargear as well. Mechanized troops. Pick commander Rommel and have greater access to tanks than 3 heavy support. It’s a dream I have. Could include scout platoons composed of chimeras/sentinels or something different to represent scout companies.

Absolutely not. Why? People will cry.

Because either they will continue to support all those nice new individual codexes (PM me if I did it wrong and you care so I can tell you I don't) into the future and blow their 4-6 year revamp sked for the codexes into a 8-10 year rotation, or they will just pull them later, prob. with the excuse thay they cannot suppor tso many codexes, and then people will be left with these tailored armies that can't hardly be used under any other street legal rules set in the game.

So in the end, people will cry, and they have enough to spill tears over as it its. If the could Craftworld it, I'd be all for it. But I don't see it happening.

No.
I'm dead set against any more imperial codices coming out than have to. We already have 8 of the blasted things. That's more than all the other factions combined.
I'd much rather all the space marine books were combined into one, and I would be incedibly annoyed at further bloating of the release schedule with more imperials.
You've already got the lions share of plastics (marines), the lions share of metals (marines, variant gaurd, witch hunters), the most adaptable codices (only armies able to ally outside of apocolypse) the lions share of the release schedule and the fluff written primarily from your perspective.
The only thing worse than all of that is the sheer number of imperial players who thing that this is not only fair, but also that they need MOAR!
The game would be infinitely better off with more diversity between factions, not diversity within factions.

Lessee the IG have radically different models (Tallarn, Cadians x2, Catachans, Modians, Praetorians, Vorastrians (or whataver), Valhallans AND old Imperial Army) to represent the same unit.

They get 1 codex.

The SM have the same models but if you paint them a different color you can use a different codex.

This is GW logic.

I think that GW is showing increasingly more ability to work multiple list archytpes into a single codex without using back of the book lists, doctrines, traits, or sub codices. The oft cited example is the eldar book. You can build:
Biel Tan: Aspect heavy mechanized
uthwe: Eldravatar guardian horde
Saim Hain: Jetbikes, jetbikes, jetbike!
Alaitoc: Pathfinders, warwalkers, whatever else
Iyanden: Wraithguard aren't horrible anymore! and can be troops!

Not all of the choices are completely organic and none are as flexible as in Codex: Craftworld Eldar, but none are sickly overpowered either.

So, I think GW can do it in one book.

Perhaps a "thinnie" codex for 8 to 10 bucks might be cool, like the old "Codex: Catachans."

I keep hoping they'll get rid of the Marine variant codecies or at least get it to the point of Codex: Codex Marines (or nearly so) and Codex: Not Codex Marines. So, no, I don't want multiple IG codexes.

I'd much rather see special characters unlook different force orgs and/or different unit entries (IG Light Infantry Platoon, IG Drop Infantry Platoon, etc.). Maybe even key options to the company command.

The Commander may purchase one option:
Drop Troops +20 points
Light Infantry +15 points
etc.
and then each Platoon can (or must) buy the option for twice the Comannd Squad's price.

no way should they make more then one for guard cause i dont feel like paying 25 bucks a book more then once an army.

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully it won’t be written properly. While in other forces this is ok, from GW experience I’d proffer they won’t be able to do it. They are going to try to hammer in two completely different types of forces-troop heavy units and mechanized units. As we’ve seen with the Tau dex, they are necessarily very good at it.

"they are necessarily very good at it"???

First, make the Platoons form the core structure and charge an average of 4-6 pts per model (base & "doctrine"), with reasonable wapons costs. Then, make Chimeras cheap enough (~40 pts each), and have Russes, Demolishers, Basilisks, and Hellhounds all available in Squadrons of 1-3. You can then do both, and they'll be fine.

Da Boss wrote:I'm dead set against any more imperial codices coming out than have to. We already have 8 of the blasted things. That's more than all the other factions combined.

OTOH, IIRC, SM do sell more than all of the factions combined...

Polonius wrote:I think that GW is showing increasingly more ability to work multiple list archytpes into a single codex without using back of the book lists, doctrines, traits, or sub codices. The oft cited example is the eldar book.

I generally agree GW is getting better, and the Chao Marine books really show this. The Eldar book suffers from not doing a particularly good job for Biel-Tan, being more Guard-like than Marine-like so I'd like that redone. The Chaos Marine book is nearly perfect, aside from Possessed not being Troops. Having locked themselves into having multiple SM books back in 2E, and then exacerbating things in 3E (split BA/DA) and 4E (BT), the current SM books, OTOH, are doing the right thing by narrowing the focus and options in each one.

Commissar Molotov wrote:Perhaps a "thinnie" codex for 8 to 10 bucks might be cool, like the old "Codex: Catachans."

In 3E we got the "Codex: Assassins" pamphlet for FREE in WD. Ahh, good times!

The problem with multiple codices; nobody buys them. At my hobby shop it is to find someone that owns the codex for their main force. I don't know how many people play Tau, Imperial Guard, Orks, Eldar who don't have the codex for it, they just make a few lists with their buddy's 'dex then walk around with those lists of multiple points, they would thumb through it a few times to get a general handle on the rules, but not actually buy the damn thing. Fortunately, we have enough gamers of most of the armies that someone always have one of all the Codexes. So there would be even fewer people with codices that they need, and to top that all off, most of what would be needed could easily fit into one codex, just hack off all of that oh so superfluous junk in the back which is neither useful info or entertaining fluff. Yes, we know, we can paint the different bits of the Cadian model different collors, which seems to be the only model that gets different treatments, despite the fact that Catachans and Armagedon models are still very popular.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think that GW is showing increasingly more ability to work multiple list archytpes into a single codex without using back of the book lists, doctrines, traits, or sub codices. The oft cited example is the eldar book.

I generally agree GW is getting better, and the Chao Marine books really show this. The Eldar book suffers from not doing a particularly good job for Biel-Tan, being more Guard-like than Marine-like so I'd like that redone. The Chaos Marine book is nearly perfect, aside from Possessed not being Troops. Having locked themselves into having multiple SM books back in 2E, and then exacerbating things in 3E (split BA/DA) and 4E (BT), the current SM books, OTOH, are doing the right thing by narrowing the focus and options in each one.

I think the eldar codex represents Biel-Tan better than the chaos codex represents Alpha Legion or Iron Warriors.

That aside, I don't see multiple IG codices being necessary unless they screw up the first one. The models for the different armies are varied, but they still use the same equipment, and the variety of tactics and skills that each army specializes in shouldn't be too different to have all of them represented.
The same is true for Space Marines really, but if GW knows they'll get more money from having different codices then what are you going to do?

Really, the current guard codex does a fine job of representing them, it's just the internal and external balance that really needs to be worked on.
I think more then anything GW needs a Lost and Damned codex. The players with that army are the ones who can't actually play the game right now, unless they proxy everything. Not that this is likely to happen.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I generally agree GW is getting better, and the Chao Marine books really show this.

'This, is why you epic fail,' Yoda, a casual gamer.

BYE

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully it won’t be written properly.

This is essentially true of all GW codex releases of the past decade.

JohnHwangDD: Do you not think that might be a bit of a circular, self fullfilling bit of prophecy there?
Space Marines are selling well, therefore we will make more! Less releases for other factions, they are selling less, make less! Etc.
After years of sitting on an incomplete ork range and only now seeing it get finished I have to say that way of doing things can make your customer base very deeply unhappy.
And I am not your stereotypical grumpy gamer. I'm a TO, I go around to cons helping out, I've started gaming clubs and introduced huge amounts of people to the game. But when GW treat me like an afterthought, I'm not as likely to push for them, and I change to other games.

Oh, I'm sure GW would love to see non-SM sell at SM levels. Most of my stuff is non-SM. But someone's buying it - I just don't know who.

It would sell...if people played IG.

IG is actually a reasonably popular Army, Nofasse, probably more than Eldar and Tyranids (in my area and time at least). The thing is, most people just don't use or expand their IG army because they are so difficult to use, pretty static, cumbersome to move, and take a long time to finish painting. The question here is if multiple codices are necessary or "cool" for the IG. Everything GW makes sells... to some extent. Although I have met more people half my age who have played Duke Nukem (the original side scroller) than who play Dark Eldar, the army still sells codices, models, and their accessories. So justifying its existance, from a gamer's perspective, just because it sells isn't a good way of going about the subject.

There are lots of IG players out there, and Apoc really juiced them. The problem with IG is that they suffer in terms of being a static horde with a rather dated Codex. IG is one of these armies that you see a lot more in friendlies, rather than competition.

I love IG, but their codex pains me. So much unique/fluffy units but so few that actually work :(

Do stand a chance against most armies, IG lists have to be as lean as possible, and even then they are still very static (and lets not even talk about Kill Points).


Doctrines by in most part are a failure. Yes they allow for "variety" but only at the cost of any "viability". There are some good ones, but are far out weighed by the bad ones (imho). In an 1850 list, I spend about 25pts on doctrines.


As for multiple codex? How about they write *one* *good* codex before talking about multiple. You will see a LOT more variety in IG if there was a codex that allow for some.

Hell no. I'm still waiting for GW to reign in their rules and tighten them up by dropping all the crap they can't support and focusing back onto the core armies they already have issues with even getting one dex out per rule version. So I sure as heck don't want them putting out more crap to bloat their system and destroy yet another decent codex by not doing because they are trying to pimp some other side Dex.

Cut the BA/DA/BT/SW Dex's, the supposed upcoming alternate 4 Chaos God Dex's, this idea, and any other divergent splinter force crap Dex and try to get all of the Codecies out for the core armies this time arounf, okay GW? For once I would like to play a version of 40k whose rules are up-to-date as well as all of the Codecies I am playing against and with. Geesh, now thats a cool idea and until that happens no new rules, races or off-shoots should appear.

Just my 2 cents

There's no reason the system:
X points/squad
+A points/squad: Deepstrike!
+B points/squad: Chimera!
+C points/squad: Cameleoine!
........

couldn't be balanced. As long as the people who make it have brains.

Then that allows you to combine things in ways GW didn't expect. Thus allowing you to make your own cool armies.

Da Boss wrote:JohnHwangDD: Do you not think that might be a bit of a circular, self fullfilling bit of prophecy there?
Space Marines are selling well, therefore we will make more! Less releases for other factions, they are selling less, make less! Etc.
...
But when GW treat me like an afterthought, I'm not as likely to push for them, and I change to other games.

A-friggin'-men.

BillTheManiac wrote:As long as the people who make it have brains.

I think this is the issue with GW. 'Course, my Guard is currently in the closet until the next 'dex comes out, at which time I'll decide if they see the table, or if I stick with games that have actual tactics (WHF, Empire: Total War, etc).

On the topic, though, I think what is fair is fair. Space Marines have....5 codicies? SM core (which is cool, but I'm pretty sure it only does Codex Astartes-doctrine armies), Blood Angels (really mad Space Marines who are supposed to follow the Codex Astartes), Dark Angels (who do have specialist units worthy of their own list in Deathwing and Ravenwing, but are by and large a Codex Astartes force), Space Wolves (they are so different they do deserve their own 'dex), and Black Templars (who are...well, aren't they also Codex armies with a few special rules?).

Frankly, I think that Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and the Templars could be collected into one codex, if not folded into the main SM codex. If you're really focusing on the differences, you could prolly get Deathwing, Ravenwing, Wolves, and Templars into their own dex.

Instead, Games Workshop does the typical thing where they support Marines above all else. What's the difference between an Ultramarines unit and a Dark Angels (non-Wings) unit? Green paint and emo-ness. Difference between UM and Blood Angels? Red paint and anger management problems. UM and Templars? Black-and-white paint, and a lack of scouts and a brain. I may be greatly oversimplifying things in my pissy rant, but still.

Evidently, Games Workshop thinks that a Mechanized Infantry company, a Drop Troops company, and an Infantry company play the same way. I might not be a GT-winning Guard player (are there any, actually?), but I'm fairly sure they don't play the same way.

Again, I may be just angrily ranting here, but if GW is going to make a 'dex for a Chapter whose only difference is red paint and PMS, then I don't see how it's that much of a stretch that a Guard army (or armies) who fights completely different from the Guard standard wouldn't also get their own dex.

Right off the bat, I can see the "Main" 'dex covering "cannon fodder" armies, heavy infantry (Grenadiers/Stormtroopers), light infantry (Tanith First-and-Only), and any other "normal" infantry-based army. An "Armored" 'dex would cover Mechanized and Armored units, and a "Specialist" one to cover specialties (Engineers, Drop Troops, Ogryns, Skitarri, etc).

That way, the armies would be actually different, and not just, "Paint red, gain Furious Charge" or whatever.

End rant.

i dont think they would and they shouldnt.

On Ogiwan's Comment : I agree, but with an amendment; isn't that why we're supposed to have different armies and races altogether? A major portion of the proposed rules I have been seeing is to make any one specific army more like another specific army with no regard to tactics or character, using dice crunching formulas that assume all units will engage and should only engage out in the open with no range or objects between them. This is, of course, the preferable way to do a number crunch. This only results in armies playing the same, but essentially being the same. If three guardsmen play the same as one marine.... where is my variety? I pretty much should just get a 40mm base and put three guardsmen on it and call it a marine. -yawn- Boring, so very boring.

Work towards armies with actual flavor, races well defined, encourage tactics... oh wait, that would alienate most of the people who are getting into 40k, the modern video game generation....

NO.

I mean, by all means have future releases if necessary, but there's no reason why 90% of it can't be in one book. They're fat enough now. Catachans... well, you could always just use the original if you're determined to play jungle maps all of the time.

Also what HBMC said.

....so, 90% of the Imperial Guard can be in one book, but not 90% of the Space Marines?