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.

Cryonicleech wrote:

tokugawa wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:
Here's how to fit the BT codex into the SM codex:

HQ: Emperor's Children (You gain access to units X, Y, Z and you may take these vows for A, B, C points, your army gains ___ etc)

Then you fit in everything. That's how easy it is.

Catachans are as different from Cadians as Spacewolves are from normal Imperial space marines.

Dark Angels are stupidly easy to fit into the normal Imperial marine codex so I'm not even going to go there.

Here's how to fit the CSM codex into the SM codex:

HQ:
Deamon Prince (You gain access to units X, Y, Z and you lose access to unit A, B, C, your army gains updrades K,T,N,S___ etc)

Chaos Sorcerer(You gain access to psychic powers P,Q,R, you lose access to unit A, B, C, your army gains upgrades K,T,N,S ___ etc)

Then you fit in everything. That's how easy it is.

Summed it up better than I could.

The sad thing is, that's almost what the current Chaos dex looks like.

64mas wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:

tokugawa wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:
Here's how to fit the BT codex into the SM codex:

HQ: Emperor's Children (You gain access to units X, Y, Z and you may take these vows for A, B, C points, your army gains ___ etc)

Then you fit in everything. That's how easy it is.

Catachans are as different from Cadians as Spacewolves are from normal Imperial space marines.

Dark Angels are stupidly easy to fit into the normal Imperial marine codex so I'm not even going to go there.

Here's how to fit the CSM codex into the SM codex:

HQ:
Deamon Prince (You gain access to units X, Y, Z and you lose access to unit A, B, C, your army gains updrades K,T,N,S___ etc)

Chaos Sorcerer(You gain access to psychic powers P,Q,R, you lose access to unit A, B, C, your army gains upgrades K,T,N,S ___ etc)

Then you fit in everything. That's how easy it is.

Summed it up better than I could.

The sad thing is, that's almost what the current Chaos dex looks like.

I also agree but that's neither here nor there.

Vladsimpaler wrote:Sorry to destroy your battleship there.

Don't worry, plenty more where that came from.

There's still enough difference that Black Templar have to warrant their own codex.

What is so different about Praetorians or Catachans that requires an entirely new codex? Codex Marines are a shooting army. Black Templar are an assault army.

I'm asking you to point out the differences between Catachans and Praetorians. If you can point them out for me, I'd be absolutely happy to accept your argument, but I'm afraid that I currently do not see anything so different as to create an entirely new codex.

They dont.. its just people trying to think that their collection of metal guard somehow play differently than plastic stock cadians

The 4th ed codex incorporated all the different IG regiments fairly well as they didnt do anything *different* than one another

Im sorry but different "preferences" for weapons doesnt no constitute a new book

SM, BA, DA and templars all have a totally unique way of fighting and while the newest SM book sorta destroyed the DA uniqueness the fluff doesnt support the changes all that much

Fetterkey wrote:

ph34r wrote:5th edition is fine, but the lack of CA/IA/IA width of rules being encompassed into the sucks. 5th edition would be improved by additional rulebooks, or additional rules rolled into the basic rules. Most CA/IA/IA rules were left out.

I consider that desirable, as it reduces clutter and increases balance. This is similar to how I favor the 5th edition Codex: Space Marines over the 4th edition one, though. The 4th edition Codex was a lot more customizable, but often in silly ways, like the broken Traits system. The 5th edition Codex, on the other hand, is much more balanced while still containing a lot of options.

I would prefer "more options, some are too good, some or too bad" to "less options, some are too good, some are too bad". You will never perfectly balance anything, it is better to preserve options while creating balance than to remove options so that you don't have to worry about balancing them. That is just a lazy attitude. GW probably considered it too confusing for beginning players, to have similar armies have separate organizations.

I disagree that GW FAQs are generally unsatisfactory. Remember that the most recent FAQ was for Codex: Imperial Guard, and it admirably solved every ambiguity or issue I had with the Codex (Valkyrie/Vendetta measurement to model vs. measurement to base, orders to allies, GKTs in Valkyries, mortar/MoO multiple bombardment silliness). I believe that you too found this FAQ satisfactory, or at least said so at the time.

Some FAQs are better, some are worse. IG was one of the better ones. The FAQs still require opponents permission to use.

ph34r wrote:And I hate it. "Do you want to play Planetstrike?" No. "Do you want to play CoD?" No. People don't design their normal armies to play missions where the board is entirely covered in cities or everything deep strikes. I would much rather have books that improved armies for every day play, rather than rules for missions to totally change the game. And, as we saw in 3rd edition, there is no reason that these cannot coexist.

Perhaps the upcoming Missions book will satisfy both of us, then. From what I hear, it sounds like it will be a mix of fun/crazy scenarios and new ways of playing a balanced game. Since missions are currently one of the main weak points of 5th edition, I'll be interested to see what GW offers us in that regard.

I have high hopes for the mission book. It however, does not provide cool rules for armies, but rather for playing the game, and I would rather have expanded rules for armies than for scenarios. As I said before, there is no reason that expanding armies and expanding missions can't coexist.

Cryonicleech wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:Sorry to destroy your battleship there.

Don't worry, plenty more where that came from.

There's still enough difference that Black Templar have to warrant their own codex.

What is so different about Praetorians or Catachans that requires an entirely new codex? Codex Marines are a shooting army. Black Templar are an assault army.

I'm asking you to point out the differences between Catachans and Praetorians. If you can point them out for me, I'd be absolutely happy to accept your argument, but I'm afraid that I currently do not see anything so different as to create an entirely new codex.

Let's see here: The Catachans are complete badasses who specialize in guerilla fighting, stealth and close combat. The grow up on a Deathworld where you're lucky to live to the age of 3. In short, they are an army of John J Rambos.

The Praetorians are more ranged based, and are a much more regimented army. They are fairly fearless, because of their commander's iron will.

At one time, the Catachans DID have their own codex so why shouldn't get their own codex later?

Kirasu wrote:
They dont.. its just people trying to think that their collection of metal guard somehow play differently than plastic stock cadians

The 4th ed codex incorporated all the different IG regiments fairly well as they didnt do anything *different* than one another

Im sorry but different "preferences" for weapons doesnt no constitute a new book

My bs detector is going off.

If you know ANYTHING about Imperial Guard, then you'd know that Catachans are very different compared to the Cadians.

SM, BA, DA and templars all have a totally unique way of fighting and while the newest SM book sorta destroyed the DA uniqueness the fluff doesnt support the changes all that much

Again, my bs detector is going off.

The newest IG book destroyed the Catachan uniqueness but the fluff doesn't support the changes all that much.

The Catachans fight completely different from Cadians.

The Catachans are stealth based and close combat based. Like I said above, an army of Rambo.

The Cadians are the stereotypical modern day army, and fight the enemy head on.

Cryonicleech wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:Sorry to destroy your battleship there.

Don't worry, plenty more where that came from.

There's still enough difference that Black Templar have to warrant their own codex.

What is so different about Praetorians or Catachans that requires an entirely new codex? Codex Marines are a shooting army. Black Templar are an assault army.

I'm asking you to point out the differences between Catachans and Praetorians. If you can point them out for me, I'd be absolutely happy to accept your argument, but I'm afraid that I currently do not see anything so different as to create an entirely new codex.

Um you do realize I was being sarcastic right?

Right?

But what the heck. Catachans are easy, they had a codex. Cats avoided heavy weapons and favored short range stuff like flamers and demo charges. They could all infiltrate, move through woods and see through woods. They had a lower save armor than guard but a better cover save. They lost access to a lot of units like Storm Troopers, and there was a risk that commissars would be killed before the game started.

So basically the 40k commando army.

Praetorians never had a codex but some of the 3.5 traits were obviously meant for them. Close order drill (extra point of I if in base to base) and volley fire come to mind. They are the disciplined gun line army.

So give them rules that as long a squad is arrayed in a line they have +1 if charged and rerolls 1s if they miss. make their officers stubborn. Give them steampunk tanks that are slower than normal but harder to immobilize because of the more reliable tech.

Give them Kroot auxilleries since they like to hire local talent to scout for them.

Give them a legendary combat engineer who improves their cover save and barriers, and a legendary officer who makes squads fearless. And a medic who allows you to recycle dead models.

And that's cribbing off the movie Zulu.

So yeah, any army can be made interesting in the right hands (except Dark Eldar of course, but we all knew that) which is why GW should go back to the WD and PDF army list system rather than give full codexes to a handful of chosen armies.

Vladsimpaler wrote:
The newest IG book destroyed the Catachan uniqueness but the fluff doesn't support the changes all that much.

The Catachans fight completely different from Cadians.

The Catachans are stealth based and close combat based. Like I said above, an army of Rambo.

The Cadians are the stereotypical modern day army, and fight the enemy head on.

You have been just talking about the illusions in your mind.

However,the "uniqueness" you mentioned above, is not support by the most basic rules and background settings at all.

Both catachans and cadians are non-reformed human. Althrough catachans has better combat skills,they are still normal human with better combat skills. Their profiles setting must not conflict with basic background settings. So they cannot be S4, they cannot be T4, they cannot be I5 or A2.

So they are transparently lower than average level of "close combat-based" units. How can you design a "close combat-based" army with such units?

As someone with a hefty BA force I'd be looking forward only to special characters and a themed dreadnought. The existing furioso is dull (and heavy) and there isn't so much as a forgeworld BA dread.

I've got the FW terminator parts on one squad and the Space Hulk terminators, so a blood drop and chalice terminator set wouldn't give me much (I already have 23 terminators, just in case).

Vanguard veterans have served me well for my veteran assault squads that I've filled out with plastics plus molds of the BA wing iconography - again, already able to field 30 jump troops plus 10 jump death company. The foot mobile death company models are still some of the best GW models IMHO. Although the ability to make jump death company without resorting to bitz or free hand painting would be nice for new BA players - my converted jump DC are some of my oldest models and in need of updating. Blinged jump packs for certain!

tokugawa wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:
The newest IG book destroyed the Catachan uniqueness but the fluff doesn't support the changes all that much.

The Catachans fight completely different from Cadians.

The Catachans are stealth based and close combat based. Like I said above, an army of Rambo.

The Cadians are the stereotypical modern day army, and fight the enemy head on.

You have been just talking about the illusions in your mind.

However,the "uniqueness" you mentioned above, is not support by the most basic rules and background settings at all.

Both catachans and cadians are non-reformed human. Althrough catachans has better combat skills,they are still normal human with better combat skills. Their profiles setting must not conflict with basic background settings. So they cannot be S4, they cannot be T4, they cannot be I5 or A2.

So they are transparently lower than average level of "close combat-based" units. How can you design a "close combat-based" army with such units?

Is it really that hard to imagine? WS 4, more close combat options, special units, jungle related rules, special characters, tank variants, BAM sub codex. This is exactly the same as "durr lets make another SM codex!", except this time the basic trooper is actually different than green tactical marine, red tactical marine, blue tactical marine.

I think perhaps this thread would now be best served in a different board...

ph34r wrote:

I disagree that GW FAQs are generally unsatisfactory. Remember that the most recent FAQ was for Codex: Imperial Guard, and it admirably solved every ambiguity or issue I had with the Codex (Valkyrie/Vendetta measurement to model vs. measurement to base, orders to allies, GKTs in Valkyries, mortar/MoO multiple bombardment silliness). I believe that you too found this FAQ satisfactory, or at least said so at the time.

Some FAQs are better, some are worse. IG was one of the better ones. The FAQs still require opponents permission to use.

A lot of people bring up this point about GW FAQs being "optional." In practice I have never seen or heard of anyone who refuses to accept the GW ruling, nor any event that does so.

ph34r wrote:This is exactly the same as "durr lets make another SM codex!", except this time the basic trooper is actually different than green tactical marine, red tactical marine, blue tactical marine.

True, but it's mostly in the other areas of the FOC (HQ, Elites, etc.) that the different Marines get their options.

Vladsimpaler wrote:Dark Angels are stupidly easy to fit into the normal Imperial marine codex so I'm not even going to go there.

But Dark Angels have DEATHWING ASSAULT! No other space marines have this! This makes them very different - so different that their terminators are PAINTED A DIFFERENT COLOR THAN THE REST OF THE ARMY!!! No other space marines do this!!! There is no way you could fit 2 armies that are so clearly different into a single list. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tokugawa wrote:So they are transparently lower than average level of "close combat-based" units. How can you design a "close combat-based" army with such units?

You see, in 40k there are these things called "points"...

Sprues for BA Veterans and Death Company would be welcome.

My answer:

MOAR WIN

Fetterkey wrote:

ph34r wrote:

I disagree that GW FAQs are generally unsatisfactory. Remember that the most recent FAQ was for Codex: Imperial Guard, and it admirably solved every ambiguity or issue I had with the Codex (Valkyrie/Vendetta measurement to model vs. measurement to base, orders to allies, GKTs in Valkyries, mortar/MoO multiple bombardment silliness). I believe that you too found this FAQ satisfactory, or at least said so at the time.

Some FAQs are better, some are worse. IG was one of the better ones. The FAQs still require opponents permission to use.

A lot of people bring up this point about GW FAQs being "optional." In practice I have never seen or heard of anyone who refuses to accept the GW ruling, nor any event that does so.

I've heard of people here on Dakka denounce using the FAQs on occasion. Something that improves the ability of everyone to read the rules should not be optional.