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.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Totally doable, and of course the great Chaos 3.5 provides the template providing both a huge array of options while also placing limitations on their usage.

GW won't do it because GW likes to sell you as many $50 books as possible. But could it be done? Absolutely.

3.5 didn't have 5 additional armies worth of units though did it? It was just CSM with some Daemons.
Death Guard were a unit and a character, not 17 units plus the crossover CSM units like Land Raiders.
Base CSM have around 40 units if my maths is right and I think I'm missing some characters or something. And by my estimation half of those units didn't exist in 3rd. So even just going by basic CSM standards, the unit options have almost doubled and you think that adding five more Codexes worth of units and rules into an already large army is a good idea.

Remember when the Chaos Index fit all those armies into a book half the size of the 9th ed Space Marine one? I remember. I bet there was a lot of consolidation that could have been done on top of that too.

 Gert wrote:
You have absolutely no right to ever complain about balance again my dude because you've proposed the least balanced thing since 7th Ed Ynarri Scatterbike spam.

Hyperbole much? Set limits as 3.5 did. Meaningful ones . . . not boneheaded ones like Rule of Three.

Edit: Or just change the format of datasheets. Grimdark Future describes an army in like . . . 2 pages. It's not sorcery.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Remember when the Chaos Index fit all those armies into a book half the size of the 9th ed Space Marine one? I remember. I bet there was a lot of consolidation that could have been done on top of that too.

I also remember the 8th Indexes being worse than 7th Ed. It literally killed 40k in our group because the rules were so bland. Don't get me wrong subfaction stuff and the massive proliferation of Strategems got annoying when I started back up towards the end of 8th and into 9th but I would never go back to 8th Ed Index days.
Also, the Index didn't fit all that stuff because most of the Death Guard stuff wasn't out, more units got added to CSM in 9th, Chaos Knights weren't a thing, and as small as they are, WE weren't a thing either. I have long been a proponent of splitting Marines into Primaris and Firstborn books because of the unwieldy nature of the army as it stands.

Hyperbole much? Set limits as 3.5 did. Meaningful ones . . . not boneheaded ones like Rule of Three.

If you have to add huge restrictions to stop certain combos, then just make the various factions different Codexes. CSM players can still take Cult Marines, Daemons, and a Knight in their army thanks to the various Chaos ally mechanics.
The current way of things might be irritating for those who want to play all the Chaos armies but that's not most people and dumping a massive tome for people who only want to play Death Guard or Chaos Knights isn't a valid solution IMO.

I won't comment on the Grimdark Future stuff because I don't know anything about it.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Remember when the Chaos Index fit all those armies into a book half the size of the 9th ed Space Marine one? I remember. I bet there was a lot of consolidation that could have been done on top of that too.

I also remember the 8th Indexes being worse than 7th Ed. It literally killed 40k in our group because the rules were so bland. Don't get me wrong subfaction stuff and the massive proliferation of Strategems got annoying when I started back up towards the end of 8th and into 9th but I would never go back to 8th Ed Index days.
Also, the Index didn't fit all that stuff because most of the Death Guard stuff wasn't out, more units got added to CSM in 9th, Chaos Knights weren't a thing, and as small as they are, WE weren't a thing either. I have long been a proponent of splitting Marines into Primaris and Firstborn books because of the unwieldy nature of the army as it stands.

Not liking it doesn't make its doing impossible. And as for Index 8th YMMV. For many people the accessible Index format was part of what brought them back into the game after sitting out 7th (or longer).

Btw, quick counting using the 10th ed points value lists gives a nice view into quick consolidation opportunities. The World Eaters list has a total of 23 units. Some of which are:

Rhino
Land Raider
Defiler
Predator Destructor
Predator Annihilator
Forgefiend
Maulerfiend
Hellbrute
Helldrake
Chaos Spawn
Daemon Prince
Daemon Prince with wings

At a glance making more than half of the WE units shared across CSM, DG, TS and presumably any upcoming EC book. Not to mention Terminators, Lords, and other potentially easy consolidations to be had.

 Gert wrote:

Hyperbole much? Set limits as 3.5 did. Meaningful ones . . . not boneheaded ones like Rule of Three.

If you have to add huge restrictions to stop certain combos, then just make the various factions different Codexes. CSM players can still take Cult Marines, Daemons, and a Knight in their army thanks to the various Chaos ally mechanics.
The current way of things might be irritating for those who want to play all the Chaos armies but that's not most people and dumping a massive tome for people who only want to play Death Guard or Chaos Knights isn't a valid solution IMO.

I won't comment on the Grimdark Future stuff because I don't know anything about it.

Why write rules when we can sell you more $50 books! You're GWs favorite kind of customer!

Grimdark Future is a easy way to get 40k models on the table using an AA format. It's not as crunchy as I'd prefer, but it's fun. It's also a fantastic example of brevity, and a great example of the possibilities for lowering page count by changing formats.

Yeah but those are "potential" units. It is like saying the GK have more unit options then 3, because GW added rhinos, storm ravens and other marine flyers to the codex.

A WE player is not going to take a predator, for some reason split in to two separate options, because it is a bad unit.

EC to be a real functioning army would have to have its own gimmik or set of special rules that work with each other. What ever those could be , besides sonic weapons, I do not know as I don't know much about EC.
Then the classic GW 2 characters 2 troops (normal+chaff), 1 fast, 1 heavy, 1 elite unit +big kit should happen. Everything else would be a bonus and based on how much the studio likes the EC and how much they think they would save, if the DT invested time and resources in to the army. If The DT decided yes and got a green light, then sky is the limit. Special terminator, more rank and file characters, maybe an extra heavy unit or a legion vehicle or a "legion" terrain model.

As for detachments for cult stuff I expect most of them to have an index one, a what ever is special elite in the army one, a " more demons" one, one build around the codex chaff and then maybe one build around one of the books special character.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Btw, quick counting using the 10th ed points value lists gives a nice view into quick consolidation opportunities. The World Eaters list has a total of 23 units. Some of which are:

At a glance making more than half of the WE units shared across CSM, DG, TS and presumably any upcoming EC book. Not to mention Terminators, Lords, and other potentially easy consolidations to be had.

So that leaves:
44 CSM units
47 Daemon units
10 Chaos Knights units
18 Death Guard units
10 Tsons units
9 World Eaters units

That is a grand total of 138 datasheets which doesn't include things like detachments and army rules or background and also doesn't account for range expansion in the future, including the inevitable EC units which will likely sit around 10 more units added in. I don't know about you but I consider 138 unique datasheets to be a fairly unwieldy amount, especially when they are categorised as they are above. This isn't the HH Legion list where 90% of an army's units are all the same (except WE and Tsons who have both been done dirty by GW) with only a couple of unique units and characters.
The best solution is to do 40k Chaos the same way as AoS but I don't see that happening.

Why write rules when we can sell you more $50 books! You're GWs favorite kind of customer!

Why have a massive book with way too much stuff that you have to set so many restrictions on armies that it defeats the purpose of having the book be like that in the first place?
Why should I have to lug around a massive book to play World Eaters when I'm not going to use 90% of the content in that book?

Death Guard can't take the Forgefiend, Maulerfiend, or Heldrake.

Also being overlooked is that all those units listed there are actually distinct from book to book. A Death Guard Daemon Prince gives FNP to DG units, a Thousand Sons Daemon Prince gives a TSons unit stealth and Precision on their attacks as well as cabal points. etc.

 Gert wrote:

Why have a massive book with way too much stuff that you have to set so many restrictions on armies that it defeats the purpose of having the book be like that in the first place?
Why should I have to lug around a massive book to play World Eaters when I'm not going to use 90% of the content in that book?

Because that is how GW writes rules. People said marines are bloated, but most of the bloat was the 10000 cpts and Lt versions. Why can't it be single entry for a hero with the option to "buy bike/termintor/gravis/jump packs" etc for X point, then weapons for Y pts and for Z pts make him a cpt and for Z+pts make him a chapter master.Do the same for chaplains, librarians etc and suddenly the marine codex is half the size. Especialy if stuff like speeders, tanks that are the same tank with just a different turret etc become the same option too. I am mind blown that GW doesn't structure their books this way instead of claiming that phobos marine X and Y are two different units, instead of a different weapon load out. But I guess then they would have to bring back regular points.

^Exactly. Just change the format.

Also bring back the bold concept of paying for upgrades.

 Gert wrote:

10 Chaos Knights units

3 units with different weapon combinations...

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Btw, quick counting using the 10th ed points value lists gives a nice view into quick consolidation opportunities. The World Eaters list has a total of 23 units. Some of which are:

At a glance making more than half of the WE units shared across CSM, DG, TS and presumably any upcoming EC book. Not to mention Terminators, Lords, and other potentially easy consolidations to be had.

So that leaves:
44 CSM units
47 Daemon units
10 Chaos Knights units
18 Death Guard units
10 Tsons units
9 World Eaters units

That is a grand total of 138 datasheets which doesn't include things like detachments and army rules or background and also doesn't account for range expansion in the future, including the inevitable EC units which will likely sit around 10 more units added in. I don't know about you but I consider 138 unique datasheets to be a fairly unwieldy amount, especially when they are categorised as they are above. This isn't the HH Legion list where 90% of an army's units are all the same (except WE and Tsons who have both been done dirty by GW) with only a couple of unique units and characters.
The best solution is to do 40k Chaos the same way as AoS but I don't see that happening.

There's 115 distinct units in the Liber Hereticus, though that's misleading, because 3 of those units are Legion Centurions, who are always taken as one of the several Legion Consuls options (in my experience). Subtracting those 3 (so 112) but adding the various Consul types available for each (16 for power armour Centurions, 10 each for each of the Terminator armored versions) gets us 148 units, all in one book. And that number grows even more when you consider that Jump Packs and bikes are equipment options, rather than unique units unto themselves.

So, yeah, it can be done, just with a different format, as others have said.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Btw, quick counting using the 10th ed points value lists gives a nice view into quick consolidation opportunities. The World Eaters list has a total of 23 units. Some of which are:

At a glance making more than half of the WE units shared across CSM, DG, TS and presumably any upcoming EC book. Not to mention Terminators, Lords, and other potentially easy consolidations to be had.

So that leaves:
44 CSM units
47 Daemon units
10 Chaos Knights units
18 Death Guard units
10 Tsons units
9 World Eaters units

That is a grand total of 138 datasheets which doesn't include things like detachments and army rules or background and also doesn't account for range expansion in the future, including the inevitable EC units which will likely sit around 10 more units added in. I don't know about you but I consider 138 unique datasheets to be a fairly unwieldy amount, especially when they are categorised as they are above. This isn't the HH Legion list where 90% of an army's units are all the same (except WE and Tsons who have both been done dirty by GW) with only a couple of unique units and characters.
The best solution is to do 40k Chaos the same way as AoS but I don't see that happening.

There's 115 distinct units in the Liber Hereticus, though that's misleading, because 3 of those units are Legion Centurions, who are always taken as one of the several Legion Consuls options (in my experience). Subtracting those 3 (so 112) but adding the various Consul types available for each (16 for power armour Centurions, 10 each for each of the Terminator armored versions) gets us 148 units, all in one book. And that number grows even more when you consider that Jump Packs and bikes are equipment options, rather than unique units unto themselves.

So, yeah, it can be done, just with a different format, as others have said.

Worth noting that while the Liber is way more space efficient than any modern 40K codex, it could still be trimmed down noticeably.

Combining the various Sicarians (like the predator entry), as well as the various iterations of praetors, centurians, and command squads are good places to start. Despoilers and Tacticals could be rolled together again. Destroyers could occupy a single entry. These changes alone would be about a 10% reduction in entries, and there are others that could be paired down as well.

They have some instances of consolidation in 10th.

The wraithknight for example. Were it in a knight list each weapon combination would be different unit (imperial knights are just a few chassis with locked weapon options).

You can take 5 distinct loadouts on that model each.

But they don't want you taking more than 3 so they're not separate. Which causes its own issues (dual wraith cannon should be far more expensive than sword and shield).

Yeah, but that is eldar. GW kills itself trying to give multiple load outs to WK or Autarchs. They do not do it for other factions. Eldar issues are always win more issues. While for armies like CSM or DG, the issues often are of the my army was designed for an edition that no longer exists or exists only in the mind of the designer or the designer really doesn't like my faction.

Karol wrote:
Yeah, but that is eldar. GW kills itself trying to give multiple load outs to WK or Autarchs. They do not do it for other factions. Eldar issues are always win more issues. While for armies like CSM or DG, the issues often are of the my army was designed for an edition that no longer exists or exists only in the mind of the designer or the designer really doesn't like my faction.

CSM are top tier in the current edition...
And DG after the buff are in a perfect spot to compete

Karol wrote:
Yeah, but that is eldar. GW kills itself trying to give multiple load outs to WK or Autarchs. They do not do it for other factions. Eldar issues are always win more issues. While for armies like CSM or DG, the issues often are of the my army was designed for an edition that no longer exists or exists only in the mind of the designer or the designer really doesn't like my faction.

given the eldar have for 30 years had squads with very little or no variation at all, while marines have had characters that can be customised to the extreme - terminator armour, gravis armour, phobos, jump packs, bikes, power weapons, fists, claws, hammers, pistols, plasma flamer combi etc for decades, you argument is ridiculous. It's so patently absurd that it sounds like trolling. Because you've chosen the one thing pretty much no one would argue - that eldar are the 'customisation' faction for 40k...

one character in the eldar army list now has some of the variety that marine characters got for decades and you cry the sky is falling. That's the height of privilege.

This is all I'm hearing from you: https://media.giphy.com/media/Cipj5jNsyTcxG/giphy.gif

Well, yeah, Karol hates Eldar. This isn't news.