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.

As long as it isn't an Imperium army, then sure.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
But even if you look at what Imperial armies there are:
- Vanilla Marines
- SW
- BA
- BT
- DA
- GK
- SoB
- IG

5/8 are fething Marines!

Six out of eight. C:GK does count as a Marine codex. Grey Knights are Space Marines. They're on the fething cover. The codex is named after them.

Similar with people who exclude C:CSM from the overall count of marines. Chaos Whinyboy McSpikypants Marines are still Marines in the lore. Heretic space marines are still space marines. Which makes it as 7 Space Marine codices compared to 9 non-Space Marine codices. This despite the fact that GW makes Space Marines in to a relatively insignificant part of he lore

 Backspacehacker wrote:

I think a much more effective approach to this is to do something like they do with vulkan, you get chapter tactics. As much as i want to see salamanders, crimson fists, ect ect, have their own codex, most of them would be the same with a few rules changed. Also ultramarines have a codex, its the SM codex haha that is their codex.

Chapter tactics (or other similar assignable Chapter traits) are a great idea, tying them to special characters is however a horrible idea.

Aaaaaannnd people have started referring to factions in this thread as "we".

I figure this one has come to its logical closure point, haha.

Notice how that's not an Ork statue outside GW HQ?

Then there's this interview with Dan Abnett.

Thirdly, if 70% (made-up number) of the player base plays one faction, would it not, for the sake of the so-oft cherished diversity, be better to have said players split over multiple, different books rather than everyone playing the same thing? It sure as hell makes more sense than splitting 8% (again, made-up number) of the player base over multiple books.

Thirdly, if 70% (made-up number) of the player base plays one faction, would it not, for the sake of the so-oft cherished diversity, be better to have said players split over multiple, different books rather than everyone playing the same thing? It sure as hell makes more sense than splitting 8% (again, made-up number) of the player base over multiple books.

Seeing as if the books were done with the entire ability to play multiple types of "Chapters" in one book, they wouldn't all be playing the same thing now would it.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Aaaaaannnd people have started referring to factions in this thread as "we".

I figure this one has come to its logical closure point, haha.

I was actually starting to get warmed up, but yes, you're right.

 Arcani wrote:
The only fething reason that there is more than one Marine codex is that GW thinks with its wallet, and its working. How many marine players are there, at least 60% of all 40k is loyalist marines, 65% if you count Chaos in.

If GW had any business sense they'd actually update their codices, SM and otherwise. More updates, more book sales.

Personally I don't really care all that much whether SM books were coalesced into a single one, other than that it'd be annoying to haul around because it'd be so big - basically the size of the hardcover BRB. And as such clumsy to use in the end, probably, due to such a huge number of units, special characters and chapter-specific rules.

I also wouldn't mind Traitor Legion codices, though those could've simply been done in the CSM codex by going into more detail. They chose not to, so it's not gonna happen. Nor is the SM "merger", as clearly evidenced by the DA codex.

As for the Xenos codices, why would we need more, even assuming GW would actually keep them as well as the factions we already ahve up to date? More isn't always better. It's quite possible that they don't have any ideas they think would work as a new army. Someone listed a few xenos possibilities. But how many have even heard of those? I haven't. Well, except the Genestealer Cults in passing. Would I be interested in them? Probably not. As it is the only xenos I have interest in are the Orks, the rest I couldn't care less about. Which doesn't mean that I'd think they don't deserve up to date codices, because they do, but so do the Imperials. Though currently only SoB and BT are in a "hurry" to get a new Codex, IG and now with the new DA codex all the SM chapters seem to be doing fine.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Thirdly, if 70% (made-up number) of the player base plays one faction, would it not, for the sake of the so-oft cherished diversity, be better to have said players split over multiple, different books rather than everyone playing the same thing? It sure as hell makes more sense than splitting 8% (again, made-up number) of the player base over multiple books.

Seeing as if the books were done with the entire ability to play multiple types of "Chapters" in one book, they wouldn't all be playing the same thing now would it.

In order for that to work, you'd either need a ridiculous amount of options, à la CSM 3.5 (which was a convoluted mess) or you'd have to axe a whole lot of options, which is a pretty interesting way of keeping diversity (and, again, ask the current CSM players how they feel about losing options). The current Vanilla Codex is already pretty huge. Adding more to it won't solve anything.

Besides, the current issue isn't that GW can't keep up, but rather that they won't, as that'd create unrealistic expectations from the shareholders. Releasing all of their "safe cards" at once would be economic suicide.

In order for that to work, you'd either need a ridiculous amount of options, à la CSM 3.5 (which was a convoluted mess) or you'd have to axe a whole lot of options, which is a pretty interesting way of keeping diversity (and, again, ask the current CSM players how they feel about losing options). The current Vanilla Codex is already pretty huge. Adding more to it won't solve anything.

Everyone says 3.5 was convoluted, but it was really quite simple. Also I had my entire army squatted upon the shift to 4.0. So seeing entire armies of SM get more and more for each chapter, Where upon you could literally play chaos legion better with them, along with the fact that SM players complain about 3.5 and say we never should have those options again... Bit of Sour Grapes for me I suppose.

They could easily fit more in if they cut down the full pages dedicated to a unit, and condensed them down. Fluff options in the front, with stats for the "Same" types of units after.

Also it is the space marines that are keeping GW afloat in the recession. So it may be a choice between a load of marine codexes and some xenos , or no codex's at all

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Everyone says 3.5 was convoluted, but it was really quite simple. Also I had my entire army squatted upon the shift to 4.0. So seeing entire armies of SM get more and more for each chapter, Where upon you could literally play chaos legion better with them, along with the fact that SM players complain about 3.5 and say we never should have those options again... Bit of Sour Grapes for me I suppose.

They could easily fit more in if they cut down the full pages dedicated to a unit, and condensed them down. Fluff options in the front, with stats for the "Same" types of units after.

TBH they shouldn't have squatted/removed entire armies from the CSM book the way they did (I'm assuming you're talking about IW?), but the result from them doing that should, if anything, be an argument in favour of never doing it again.

And "condense" often comes awfully close to "remove stuff". What exactly would you condense? I'm not sure I understand your suggestion.

Cant believe its 5 pages in and no one pointed out that the current hardback codex prices is what, £30? And general consensus is that its a tad too much correct? It's all well and good saying "roll all marines into 1 it'll be fine". Maybe it would, but its still going to make the codex bigger (even if it isnt the 500page monster joked about). Point is can you imagine how much they would charge for a bigger codex?

Yep, but that would stop every other person being a marine player, so that there is more diversity in the armies we get to play against

in all seriousness, GW should make mini-dexes anyway.

They were already going to raise the price anyway, not like that'll make much of a difference.

I would say no, it takes them 10 years to update some of the current factions.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Everyone says 3.5 was convoluted, but it was really quite simple. Also I had my entire army squatted upon the shift to 4.0. So seeing entire armies of SM get more and more for each chapter, Where upon you could literally play chaos legion better with them, along with the fact that SM players complain about 3.5 and say we never should have those options again... Bit of Sour Grapes for me I suppose.

They could easily fit more in if they cut down the full pages dedicated to a unit, and condensed them down. Fluff options in the front, with stats for the "Same" types of units after.

TBH they shouldn't have squatted/removed entire armies from the CSM book the way they did (I'm assuming you're talking about IW?), but the result from them doing that should, if anything, be an argument in favour of never doing it again.

And "condense" often comes awfully close to "remove stuff". What exactly would you condense? I'm not sure I understand your suggestion.

Condense the fluff pages down. You don't need separate pages for each and every type of Space marine unit. First you condense the common units (Tacticals, assault, devestators, scouts, the vehicles, etc) then you give fluff for what's different. (Black templar crusader units, grey hunters, blah blah). They successfully did it in the HH Betrayal book, I suggest taking a look, it's nice.

Also no, I didn't have IW. I had Slaanesh, blastmaster predator tanks and dreadnoughts, slaanesh daemons, a few cult units, chaos lord sorcerer, and a few more things of that nature.

More Xenos? Not sure if doesn't know GW, or just delirious. That is all WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP.

P.S. Why not zoidberg?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Thirdly, if 70% (made-up number) of the player base plays one faction, would it not, for the sake of the so-oft cherished diversity, be better to have said players split over multiple, different books rather than everyone playing the same thing? It sure as hell makes more sense than splitting 8% (again, made-up number) of the player base over multiple books.

They're not playing different stuff, they're all playing the same thing with a different paint scheme and have one or two special rules replaced across all the squads. With only a few specific units as exceptions you could make a Space Marine codex and then state that you had to choose a chapter. "Space Wolves all get Counter Attack and Accute Senses", and so on. It would be important not to present a specific chapter and keep it chapter neutral, though.

Regardless of this, making more content and promotions for dominating faction is a short-term investment, and that is all GW is about. It has nothing to do with a recession as someone else put it, but quick dividends. If it actually was about the hobby we'd see more proof-reading, better erratas, and intentional compensations to move the player base away from homogenisation. We'd also see a bit more specialized content being actively promoted in stores to get the old bastards that already got their complete army to expand inside the same company.
Essentially, you're actually cutting your own profit potential per customer by getting them on the road of Space Marines as it is because it's too easy to start a new army. If you go from Eldar to Dark Eldar you need a lot of new models. If you go from Grey Knights to Chaos Space Marines you need less new models but still a lot. If you go from Space Wolves to Blood Angels you need to come up with an excuse for why they are all so cold, but you don't need new models. It is, on the other hand, easier to sell an army to someone with the promise of "if you don't like it, there's a bunchload of others to choose from at the cost of a codex".

Thus all these Marine codexes are being harmful to the hobby.

P.S. There are no Space Slaan/Lizardmen because Myrmidia commited genocide on them a couple of thousand years back in order to save themselves (and accidentally a couple of future Imperial sectors as well). Granted, the story left plenty of room for them to exist, but not as a faction.