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.

Kanluwen wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:I think your all missing my point. Its not too encourage band wagoning. Its to create diversity. At the moment (as i already said) your either a vanilla marine, or one of the other 4.

And the thing you're missing is that lumping everything into one book isn't going to "create diversity".

No, the thing he's missing is that cutting down on the number of SM codices doesn't automatically translate into a whole bunch of people playing xenos.

I'll say it for about the third time in this thread: Games Workshop pushes what sells. Humans are the most popular race chosen in any RPG that has them - not because there aren't enough non-humans around, but because people like what they can relate to. Space Marines are Humans+. They're always going to be the most popular for people entering the hobby, and it's not because GW goes out of their way to make them so.

You take Space Marines down to one book, and people don't suddenly realize that they love Eldar. Nor do new players suddenly stop being attracted to the ease of assembly, ease of painting, the Mary Sueism of the fluff, or the general look of Space Marines. Instead, you just get the vast majority of 40K players using one book rather than one of five.

It's not going to happen. GW's a business. They're going to make as much money as they can, and they know that Space Marines are their moneymakers.

@ Seaward, Marines are also the one thing GW can claim is remotely actually theirs. Marines pretty much define the GW aesthetic nowadays.

Platuan4th wrote:@ Seaward, Marines are also the one thing GW can claim is remotely actually theirs. Marines pretty much define the GW aesthetic nowadays.

That and green-skinned Orks.

Wouldn't be hard to do.
Wouldn't be hard to balance.
And wouldn't take the same time as 5 different books.

If GW only had one rules writer perhaps you'd have a point. But they don't. Matt Ward could take a year to do the Marine book if he wanted while the others worked on the rest.

Since before 5th edition books none of the books offered much in the way of diversity as it was, and most could have been mirrored with a little more variety in unit layout and FOC swaps through special characters I see no reason they couldn't have done this.

Of course now with 5th and the whacked out crazy things they've added, now the books that once had nothing to offer are slightly more diverse. I believe this is the point the DA players have repeatedly tried to make.

Back in third, ravenwing and deathwing alone made DA stand out among all the competition. It means nothing now of course, but that's because their book hasn't been updated for all intents and purposes since. The 4th edition book may as well be called a 2nd edition book along the same lines as the Dark Eldar codex update back in 2002ish.

But no, I see no harm in putting all the marines in a single book and having a single set of rules for players to choose if they want to play to a specific type of chapter or just make a generalist list.

But at the same time, I'd love to see what whacked out crazy stuff that has no point of being in the game they come out with for the DA after we see things like Priests, Dreadknights, and Wolf Cavalry.

Nvs wrote:
But no, I see no harm in putting all the marines in a single book and having a single set of rules for players to choose if they want to play to a specific type of chapter or just make a generalist list.

It would hurt GW's bottom line, which is the only thing that matters in this discussion.

Only really through codex sales, which I'd wager aren't GW's primary sellers to begin with.

The players would still buy the models. Heck, may even sell more models as a player who plays Dark Angels may decide he wants a unit of grey knight terminators for his next game.

But it's not worth arguing really, we all know GW wouldn't do it.

I'm building a Dark Angel army at the moment. I'm using the C:SM 'dex. I do, however, think it'd be a mighty bloody shame for the 1st Legion and all the history and lore built up over the editions to get reduced to half a page in a Codex: Ultramarines book.

L. Wrex

I be quite happy to see a new Dark Angel Codex and figures - but not next - I'd rather see Necrons, Sisters of Battle (and Silence?) and the Mechanicus first. but thats unlikely.

If ithe DA codex can be as good as the Dark Eldar Codex that would be great as I enjoyed the fluff there which built nicely on the older codexes. I personally did not like the Grey Knights version and I think its a shame that the Sistser codex is likely a WD only one (if thats true) as again it will be the fluff that is lost sadly.

Sisters really don't have that much fluff. It hasn't been developed much since 2nd. Unfortunately, neither has Dark Angels either.

But yea, the fluff would be an enormous loss. I would hope GW would figure out they have a website at some point and actually make use of it by posting a lot of the backstory for the armies they support.

Make it so the codex fluff is there primarily to move the story line forward for the armies between updates as opposed to just rehashing the same old stuff.

And yea, some ultra sinister terminators in robes and some more detailed robed marines would make an amazing addition to the marine line imo.

Something akin to these:
http://www.coolminiornot.com/browse/page/1/submitter/Semi

Nvs wrote: Unfortunately, neither has Dark Angels either.

What?

Dark Angels had a big change of fluff that happened between 3rd and 4th ed books.

2 Masters died and were replaced(3rd ed had Belial and Sammael still as Masters of the 3rd and 4th respectively, Gabriel was still Master of the 2nd).

3 entire Chapters were added to the list of successors.

There was NO mention of the Ravenwing even having a Jetbike pre-4th ed book. Before that, it was a Bike or a Land Speeder.

Nvs wrote:Sisters really don't have that much fluff. It hasn't been developed much since 2nd. Unfortunately, neither has Dark Angels either.

You are kidding right?
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Dark_Angels
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Adepta_Sororitas
And thats just what has been added to Lexicanum....

But yea, the fluff would be an enormous loss. I would hope GW would figure out they have a website at some point and actually make use of it by posting a lot of the backstory for the armies they support.

Theres no way they would do this. Thats what the Black Library is for, and Codexii for that matter.

Make it so the codex fluff is there primarily to move the story line forward for the armies between updates as opposed to just rehashing the same old stuff.

The Imperium has been around for 10,000 years and the Dark Angles are the 1st Legion, you think their history doesnt matter to them?
O thats right, it pretty much all they think about (i only mean in terms of the Fallen and their status as the Unforgiven).

So stick to the general theme of adding another paragraph to the story of the chapter's organization with every revision routine?

I question if you people even read posts or jump straight to trolling.

I mean you discredit the idea of putting the general lore online and then remark about the following comment completely out of context because you discredited the lead-in? /bravo.

And I didn't say they don't have a lot of fluff... I said that it hasn't changed much over the past 10 years or so. Which is somewhat fine considering most of the 40k universe is stagnant. But this is also the typical complaint with the 40k universe too.

Nvs wrote:So stick to the general theme of adding another paragraph to the story of the chapter's organization with every revision routine?

I question if you people even read posts or jump straight to trolling.

I mean you discredit the idea of putting the general lore online and then remark about the following comment completely out of context because you discredited the lead-in? /bravo.

And I didn't say they don't have a lot of fluff... I said that it hasn't changed much over the past 10 years or so. Which is somewhat fine considering most of the 40k universe is stagnant. But this is also the typical complaint with the 40k universe too.

No, i discredited the idea that GW would put the lore online. Lexicanum is not affiliated with GW AFAIK.
The fact that the lore hasnt changed isnt a bad thing. Do you mean to say retcons are good?

Nope. Not a fan of the Dark Angels. I'd like to see a new Codex supplement with nothing but special HQ characters for Space Marines like the ones already in the Space Marine main Codex. I think that was a nice, simple solution that enabled multiple Chapters to be covered with one book, and adding new options to represent other Chapters is a nice middleground kind of option.

Jimsolo wrote:Nope. Not a fan of the Dark Angels. I'd like to see a new Codex supplement with nothing but special HQ characters for Space Marines like the ones already in the Space Marine main Codex. I think that was a nice, simple solution that enabled multiple Chapters to be covered with one book, and adding new options to represent other Chapters is a nice middleground kind of option.

But why?

If you do a "mini-release" anyhow, there's no harm done in adding a few pages of fluff, adopting basic Space Marine units, and whip up a list/FoC that is a bit more "Dark Angels", ideally with some spiffy new unit that gets a new mini.

It is beyond me that people who admit to not even like Dark Angels bother about how they are they released. What does it matter to you? I can honestly see no reason to do them in one back beyond some misguided and unfounded sense of "symmetry" that tries, for some unfathomable reason, to impose the "in-game" fluff of who is fighting who (or not) in 40K on the production schedule of what GW actually produces.

Nvs wrote:
Since before 5th edition books none of the books offered much in the way of diversity as it was, and most could have been mirrored with a little more variety in unit layout and FOC swaps through special characters I see no reason they couldn't have done this.

Again, look at the Black Templars. No sergeants, no devastators, no Librarians, vows, army-wide "I HATE YOU!" rule, fearless in CC, only guys with LRC until everyone else got it, Emperor's Champion etc. Do you really want GW to make Helbrecht and Grimaldus SCs in the vanilla Codex and have them change the FOC and army wide rules so that the above stayed true?

Regarding the "they have more than one writer" part: Guess what? They don't work on the same Codex! While Mat Ward (*shudder*) works on the Marine armies, Kelly and Cruddace are labouring along, trying to bring you your coveted Xenos Codex.

I think they should, because with a new codex would come new models, and you've got to admit, deathwing models with the level of detail of GK or DC would be awesome!

But before that, IH need a new, separate codex! Because they are even more unloved by GW! D:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Nvs wrote:
Since before 5th edition books none of the books offered much in the way of diversity as it was, and most could have been mirrored with a little more variety in unit layout and FOC swaps through special characters I see no reason they couldn't have done this.

Again, look at the Black Templars. No sergeants, no devastators, no Librarians, vows, army-wide "I HATE YOU!" rule, fearless in CC, only guys with LRC until everyone else got it, Emperor's Champion etc. Do you really want GW to make Helbrecht and Grimaldus SCs in the vanilla Codex and have them change the FOC and army wide rules so that the above stayed true?

Regarding the "they have more than one writer" part: Guess what? They don't work on the same Codex! While Mat Ward (*shudder*) works on the Marine armies, Kelly and Cruddace are labouring along, trying to bring you your coveted Xenos Codex.

As I said, there’s no real reason to put those limitations on the Marines as far as the rules are concerned. If the player wants to play as Black Templar then the player can choose to follow the fiction as laid out by GW and build their army list to that ideal. If they want to play Black Templar fighting along side a small unit of X, the codex would also allow it.
I’m a firm believer of the rules and the fluff should be separate. Otherwise you’ll never have a balanced game and always run into issues where one codex’s sole purpose is to outshine the codex that came before it. The framework is all that’s needed to get the rules done. Let the players choose the specifics they want to play toward etc.

As for your second remark… that’s kind of the point. Instead of one person working on black templar, another working on grey knights, and a third working on space wolves all at the same time, you’d instead have one working on the space marine compilation, another working on non-marine codex 1, and another working on non-marine codex 2.

And the benefit to doing it this way is you don’t have the issues of crazy whacked out rules/units coming out simply so X outshines Y by providing Z.

Nvs wrote:

As I said, there’s no real reason to put those limitations on the Marines as far as the rules are concerned. If the player wants to play as Black Templar then the player can choose to follow the fiction as laid out by GW and build their army list to that ideal. If they want to play Black Templar fighting along side a small unit of X, the codex would also allow it.
I’m a firm believer of the rules and the fluff should be separate. Otherwise you’ll never have a balanced game and always run into issues where one codex’s sole purpose is to outshine the codex that came before it. The framework is all that’s needed to get the rules done. Let the players choose the specifics they want to play toward etc.

As for your second remark… that’s kind of the point. Instead of one person working on black templar, another working on grey knights, and a third working on space wolves all at the same time, you’d instead have one working on the space marine compilation, another working on non-marine codex 1, and another working on non-marine codex 2.

And the benefit to doing it this way is you don’t have the issues of crazy whacked out rules/units coming out simply so X outshines Y by providing Z.

Good idea. By the same token, I think merging Eldar and Dark Eldar would work wonders to reduce the amount of books. Players could opt to play fluffy or perhaps play a small Coven alongside some Aspect Warriors. Thinking of it, Tau could also be put into the same book. Players would just have to play it fluffy and not move their skimmers as fast as they could and perhaps even IG if the player just ignores that skimmers are skimmers (Valkyrie excepted) and moves their Falcons around as Count-as Leman Russ.


Honestly, you say that fluff and rules should be seperate. Why then is it so difficult for you to accept that things like Dark Angels and Blood Angels are simply different armies in the Game with a unique aesthetic of their one, and each with a different (and sufficiently large) player-base, even if, in the fluff, they may have a connection as coming from the same broad faction of the in-fluff universe the game is set in?

Kanluwen wrote:

Omegus wrote:Plague Marines are quite different from regular marines. They are riddled with disease and are extremely difficult to kill (T5, FNP), and use unique grenades using various plagues/diseases/toxins of Barbarus/etc.

So defensive and offensive grenades, T5 and a built in Apothecary.

Bam. Finished. Death Guard army is entirely viable.

Your logic is a bit flawed if you're going to ridicule a unit with five attributes (we forgot the close combat weapon :p) that make it different from a standard Space Marine and suggest that the difference is thusly not at all pronounced. The problems people are expressing with the Dark Angels mostly seem to concern the fact that theirs is an army that, mostly, is not markedly set apart from Space Marines and only has (off the top of my head) three unique units to it? Deathwing, Ravenwing, Company Veterans... I'm not a top dog when it comes to Ravenwing, but Deathwing might as well just be Terminators granted fearlessness (at the expense of Combat Tactics, as suggested) as a chapter tactic. Veterans, imo, are outmoded by Sternguard/Vanguard anyway.

Seaward wrote:
No, the thing he's missing is that cutting down on the number of SM codices doesn't automatically translate into a whole bunch of people playing xenos.

I'll say it for about the third time in this thread: Games Workshop pushes what sells.

And the thing your missing, is that by diversity I meant in space marine chapters, not xenos. 4th ed codex allowed this, 5th ed, not at all

Toastedandy wrote:

Seaward wrote:
No, the thing he's missing is that cutting down on the number of SM codices doesn't automatically translate into a whole bunch of people playing xenos.

I'll say it for about the third time in this thread: Games Workshop pushes what sells.

And the thing your missing, is that by diversity I meant in space marine chapters, not xenos. 4th ed codex allowed this, 5th ed, not at all

So the multiple Marine Codexii dont allow diversity now?

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:

Seaward wrote:
No, the thing he's missing is that cutting down on the number of SM codices doesn't automatically translate into a whole bunch of people playing xenos.

I'll say it for about the third time in this thread: Games Workshop pushes what sells.

And the thing your missing, is that by diversity I meant in space marine chapters, not xenos. 4th ed codex allowed this, 5th ed, not at all

So the multiple Marine Codexii dont allow diversity now?

Nope. Well, a little, but not on the scale of 4th ed marines

Toastedandy wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:

Seaward wrote:
No, the thing he's missing is that cutting down on the number of SM codices doesn't automatically translate into a whole bunch of people playing xenos.

I'll say it for about the third time in this thread: Games Workshop pushes what sells.

And the thing your missing, is that by diversity I meant in space marine chapters, not xenos. 4th ed codex allowed this, 5th ed, not at all

So the multiple Marine Codexii dont allow diversity now?

Nope. Well, a little, but not on the scale of 4th ed marines

And what exactly was so great about 4th Marines that you think means all Marines should be in one giant, uselessly complex Codex?

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:

Seaward wrote:
No, the thing he's missing is that cutting down on the number of SM codices doesn't automatically translate into a whole bunch of people playing xenos.

I'll say it for about the third time in this thread: Games Workshop pushes what sells.

And the thing your missing, is that by diversity I meant in space marine chapters, not xenos. 4th ed codex allowed this, 5th ed, not at all

So the multiple Marine Codexii dont allow diversity now?

Nope. Well, a little, but not on the scale of 4th ed marines

And what exactly was so great about 4th Marines that you think means all Marines should be in one giant, uselessly complex Codex?

Read it and find out

Zweischneid wrote:

Nvs wrote:

As I said, there’s no real reason to put those limitations on the Marines as far as the rules are concerned. If the player wants to play as Black Templar then the player can choose to follow the fiction as laid out by GW and build their army list to that ideal. If they want to play Black Templar fighting along side a small unit of X, the codex would also allow it.
I’m a firm believer of the rules and the fluff should be separate. Otherwise you’ll never have a balanced game and always run into issues where one codex’s sole purpose is to outshine the codex that came before it. The framework is all that’s needed to get the rules done. Let the players choose the specifics they want to play toward etc.

As for your second remark… that’s kind of the point. Instead of one person working on black templar, another working on grey knights, and a third working on space wolves all at the same time, you’d instead have one working on the space marine compilation, another working on non-marine codex 1, and another working on non-marine codex 2.

And the benefit to doing it this way is you don’t have the issues of crazy whacked out rules/units coming out simply so X outshines Y by providing Z.

Good idea. By the same token, I think merging Eldar and Dark Eldar would work wonders to reduce the amount of books. Players could opt to play fluffy or perhaps play a small Coven alongside some Aspect Warriors. Thinking of it, Tau could also be put into the same book. Players would just have to play it fluffy and not move their skimmers as fast as they could and perhaps even IG if the player just ignores that skimmers are skimmers (Valkyrie excepted) and moves their Falcons around as Count-as Leman Russ.


Honestly, you say that fluff and rules should be seperate. Why then is it so difficult for you to accept that things like Dark Angels and Blood Angels are simply different armies in the Game with a unique aesthetic of their one, and each with a different (and sufficiently large) player-base, even if, in the fluff, they may have a connection as coming from the same broad faction of the in-fluff universe the game is set in?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole

Henners91 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Omegus wrote:Plague Marines are quite different from regular marines. They are riddled with disease and are extremely difficult to kill (T5, FNP), and use unique grenades using various plagues/diseases/toxins of Barbarus/etc.

So defensive and offensive grenades, T5 and a built in Apothecary.

Bam. Finished. Death Guard army is entirely viable.

Your logic is a bit flawed if you're going to ridicule a unit with five attributes (we forgot the close combat weapon :p) that make it different from a standard Space Marine and suggest that the difference is thusly not at all pronounced.

Your logic is just as flawed if you think that five special rules associated with a special character couldn't make Plague Marines work within C: SM.

On another note, the 'toxins of Barbarus' are exclusive to the Death Guard. Not the Plague Marines as a whole. All Death Guard are Plague Marines, but not all Plague Marines are Death Guard.

The problems people are expressing with the Dark Angels mostly seem to concern the fact that theirs is an army that, mostly, is not markedly set apart from Space Marines and only has (off the top of my head) three unique units to it? Deathwing, Ravenwing, Company Veterans... I'm not a top dog when it comes to Ravenwing, but Deathwing might as well just be Terminators granted fearlessness (at the expense of Combat Tactics, as suggested) as a chapter tactic.

And once again, when Codex: Dark Angels was done many of these "unique" units did not exist. Sternguard, Vanguard, Thunderfire Cannons, Land Raider Redeemers--none of them were in C: SM. Blood Angels, during the timeframe of Dark Angels receiving their codex, had all of four 'unique units'(Death Company, Furioso Dreadnoughts, Baal Predators, and 'Honor Guard'--which wasn't really that unique though).

And yet, now look at C: BA. How far have they gone from simply being a book the thickness of an instruction manual to a full blown Codex?
It all once again hails back to the design methodology that was being garnered at the time. Dark Angels was them trying to do fully independent Codex, with no reliance upon C: SM. They didn't WANT you to have to refer to two different books and your book being invalidated if the one it relies upon is redone.

Veterans, imo, are outmoded by Sternguard/Vanguard anyway.

This proves you need to actually read the book again. Company Veterans are not Sternguard/Vanguard in any way, shape, or form. The role they have isn't similar, with Company Veterans mostly being a ranged unit with the capability to take a CC loadout.
They're not even similar to SG/VG in a fluff capacity.

They should get one but in 6 edition with the Black Templars.

Kanluwen wrote:
This proves you need to actually read the book again. Company Veterans are not Sternguard/Vanguard in any way, shape, or form. The role they have isn't similar, with Company Veterans mostly being a ranged unit with the capability to take a CC loadout.
They're not even similar to SG/VG in a fluff capacity.

They look like CSM Chosen more than anything. The fact that they aren't Sternguard/Vanguard vets has little to do with DA's vets really being different in a fluff capacity than Sternguard/Vanguard vets just not having been invented yet. The DA Company Vets are closer to Sternguard vets than the old 3E/4E C:SM Veterans ever were.

Nvs wrote:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole

From Wikidictionary:
"Hyperbole is an exaggeration that, while not intended to be taken literally, still describes a situation or image.

Examples: "I have been waiting for hours for the end of your 'short' coffee break." is a hyperbole"