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.

Either have all the SM codices condensed in one book, or give the other armies the same treatment.

If BA, DA, SW, and BT get their own books, then so should World Eaters, Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children and Death Guard.

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

And people wonder why Sisters of Battle get so little love, because of people thinking that women are good in life only for sex and cooking.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Either have all the SM codices condensed in one book, or give the other armies the same treatment.

If BA, DA, SW, and BT get their own books, then so should World Eaters, Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children and Death Guard.

Why? These warbands are just a wild bunch of madmen. No discipline, no coherency nothing to codify...
And how many legionaires are left at all?


I think a good number of codices to have would be: 12.

Lynata wrote:As a side question: The worlds of Ultramar are not the entire Segmentum, are they? I mean, Valhalla and Catachan are located there as well, and certainly both regiments are not subject to the Ultramarines.

They don't technically rule anything except the Realm of Ultramar, but they more or less run the show in that part of the galaxy, at least that's what the fluff has suggested since the Ultramarines are involved in just about everything that goes down there. That may just be laziness on the part of GW though. "Oh hey, Galactic East? Okay, the Ultramarines." Unless it involves getting destroyed, then they just make up some kind of now-defunct Space Marine Chapter or Imperial World that the Ultramarines have to bail out, or avenge, haha. It seems that even when other Chapters get involved in that realm, it is usually under the nominal supervision of the Ultramarines. It would be interesting if GW every intelligently explored just how powerful and influential the Ultramarines seem to be, something that walks the line that delineates the limitations a Chapter is supposed to have. I actually kind of like the fact that it makes the Ultramarines, the ultimate upholders of the Codex Astartes, the slightest bit hypocritical. But I fear they'd give the story to Graham McNeil and he'd dick it all up like he did all the rest of his Ultramarines novels and stories.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

We can't handle trolling of this magnitude!

It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

Having served in the Marine Corps, I won't lie, I felt that the females brought overall readiness and effectiveness down a lot of the time, but 40K is a tabletop game, not real life. I am pretty vocal about my misgivings regarding the Sisters of Battle, but that stems from disagreements with their fluff and rules, not their gender. In a world not bound by any kind of strict rules of science, I figure women warriors aren't too far out of bounds. The implementation of the Howling Banshees, for example, seems fine to me. I even enjoy it when people create custom female Imperial Guardsmen. Let's try not to be too misogynistic here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Either have all the SM codices condensed in one book, or give the other armies the same treatment.

If BA, DA, SW, and BT get their own books, then so should World Eaters, Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children and Death Guard.

If Chaos Marines had ever sold as well as normal Space Marines, then they probably would have their own Codex books. But I think that is the fault of GW. They were always a bit too over the top with Chaos Marines. The more that Chaos got expanded on, the more cartoonish it got. And that cartoonishness is a draw for a lot of players, but I think for the most part, it is a turnoff for the greater playing public. When I had a Chaos army years ago, it was Alpha Legion, and these days, if I were to resurrect it, I would probably do a Pre-Heresy themed force (or Alpha Legion again). The whole "spikes and horns" thing tends to make Chaos models look kinda silly. Chaos needed to be dark and sinister, not outlandish and goofy. I mean, everybody loves the classic Rogue Trader era Noise Marine, but few people actually want to play that army.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:[...] since the Ultramarines are involved in just about everything that goes down there.

Oh. Well, I'd say this applies to any Space Marine Chapter; If they would only move out when their own worlds are under siege, they'd be pretty useless for the Imperium as a whole.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

I played Templars and the difference was quite minor to regular astartes.

Champion
Vows
Mixed Squads
Zealous advance when shot at

I know they're an old codex but several of those things are included in other marine dexs in some form

GK get a chapter champion
Space Wolves can mix terminators with there basic infantry.

Oh look, two of the defining traits of the Black Templars exist in other marine armies, therefore we need to REMOVE THEM! Nevermind that the Brotherhood Champion is a blatant ripoff, just like Loganwing is a blatant ripoff of Deathwing, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

I also think a fair bit, if not the largest part, of the entire issue ultimately boils down to selfishness: those of us who play marines want our own Codices and don't really care about "the others", just as Xenoes players want their faction to become the focus of GWs attention.

Regardless, I don't see how one can argue that forcing more people into the same Codex will increase diversity.

Lynata wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:[...] since the Ultramarines are involved in just about everything that goes down there.

Oh. Well, I'd say this applies to any Space Marine Chapter; If they would only move out when their own worlds are under siege, they'd be pretty useless for the Imperium as a whole.

Maybe, but there's no other chapter that is ubiquitously involved in a specific area like the Ultramarines. They are to the Galactic East what the Cadians are to the Eye of Terror.

Today:

Space Marine
Blood Angels
Black Templars
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Grey Knights
SOB
Imperial Guard
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Tyrannid
Ork
Tau
Necrons

Should be

1 or 2 SM centric codex
1 Imperial Guard/Inquisition codex
Tau
Eldar
Ork
Tyrannid
Dark Eldar
Necrons

While I like the "fluffiness" of each independent SM codex (6 right now) I think they could expand the use of characters to define options. The advantage would be only 1 imperium codex creep instead of 6 incremental changes that add up to OP by the time we hit the 6th "creeper" upgrade. Also taking it down from 14 to 9 codexes would put us on a 3 year rotation of codexes rather than a 5 + year rotation when you figure about every 4 years they update the core rules version and then seem to automatically "reset" their upgrade to (Codex:SM + most out-of-date Xenos + codex: IG)

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Regardless, I don't see how one can argue that forcing more people into the same Codex will increase diversity.

Depends on the amount of overlap, really.
The current situation is a problem insofar as that it takes many, many years for certain armies to get an update - with the fact that another army takes up a full third of all Codices, hence "occupying" development time that might be better served elsewhere. Depending on one's personal opinion. As you said, this is clearly a very emotional topic, and I don't think any of us can claim total impartiality.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Maybe, but there's no other chapter that is ubiquitously involved in a specific area like the Ultramarines. They are to the Galactic East what the Cadians are to the Eye of Terror.

Aye. Of course, one might say that this is just because both the Ultras as well as the Cadians have been the focus of GW's fluff for so many years. But I like to believe that the Ultras in their role as "paragons amongst the Astartes" are much more willing to help out other Imperial worlds due to a certain feeling of responsibility, whereas a lot of other Chapters harbour a much greater sense of independence and may choose to stay uninvolved because they don't feel the need to get their hands dirty for "some puny weakling governor" on a planet far outside their own sphere of influence.

DAaddict wrote:Today:

Space Marine
Blood Angels
Black Templars
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Grey Knights
SOB
Imperial Guard
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Tyrannid
Ork
Tau
Necrons

Should be

1 or 2 SM centric codex
1 Imperial Guard/Inquisition codex
Tau
Eldar
Ork
Tyrannid
Dark Eldar
Necrons

chaos removed

Lynata wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Regardless, I don't see how one can argue that forcing more people into the same Codex will increase diversity.

Depends on the amount of overlap, really.
The current situation is a problem insofar as that it takes many, many years for certain armies to get an update - with the fact that another army takes up a full third of all Codices, hence "occupying" development time that might be better served elsewhere. Depending on one's personal opinion. As you said, this is clearly a very emotional topic, and I don't think any of us can claim total impartiality.

I just had a thought: other than Razorspam, what army builds transition well between different Marine Codices?

I'll take it to a separate thread to avoid OT, but you've made me think, which I thank you for.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:

I played Templars and the difference was quite minor to regular astartes.

Champion
Vows
Mixed Squads
Zealous advance when shot at

I know they're an old codex but several of those things are included in other marine dexs in some form

GK get a chapter champion
Space Wolves can mix terminators with there basic infantry.

Oh look, two of the defining traits of the Black Templars exist in other marine armies, therefore we need to REMOVE THEM! Nevermind that the Brotherhood Champion is a blatant ripoff, just like Loganwing is a blatant ripoff of Deathwing, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

I also think a fair bit, if not the largest part, of the entire issue ultimately boils down to selfishness: those of us who play marines want our own Codices and don't really care about "the others", just as Xenoes players want their faction to become the focus of GWs attention.

Regardless, I don't see how one can argue that forcing more people into the same Codex will increase diversity.

Did you even read my post? I said further down that we live IN THE BEST OF ALL POSIBLE WORLDS (see I can use bold letters too) and that people who spend money on marines is good for the game as a whole because its easy money. If you had to get rid of any though, then it would be the marine options. I collected Templars, I like the idea of an army of chainsword wielding crusaders. But, if you gave them chainswords you could easily make a templars army. I'am not saying get rid of the codex, I'd say I'am impatient about waiting for new Tau/SOB; of course people are selfish about these things. But come on, half the armies are marines, not half dedicated to the Imperial factions, half are specifically marines, and share a huge number of units.

I agree with your last point. Rules really don't concern me, they could bring out EVERY marine chapter like they did in Chapter Approved and I wouldn't bat an eyelash. Its the stopper on new models (how many dreadnought n land raider varients are we on?) that gets annoying. Even the power level isn't particualrly important. I didn't throw 3rd edition guard against 3.5 chaos because I knew I had the better army; I did it because I enjoyed playing an army I liked.

Oops, sorry, I tend to become a tad over-zealous when stuff like this is discussed.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Oops, sorry, I tend to become a tad over-zealous when stuff like this is discussed.

No probs

Lynata wrote: But I like to believe that the Ultras in their role as "paragons amongst the Astartes" are much more willing to help out other Imperial worlds due to a certain feeling of responsibility, whereas a lot of other Chapters harbour a much greater sense of independence and may choose to stay uninvolved because they don't feel the need to get their hands dirty for "some puny weakling governor" on a planet far outside their own sphere of influence.

I agree. I definitely find the Ultramarines to be the most interesting of the published Space Marine Chapters. Which is amusing because many players consider them the most boring.

However, to me, the Ultramarines have a lot of cool quirks to them. First off, they should (theoretically, unless Graham McNeil blunderingly writes about them) be master tacticians and strategists; nearly unrivaled in their ability to fight wars and utilize the combined arms doctrine given their experience with their own PDF units and massive fleets (both the Marine Chapter fleet and the fleets that must exist to carry their PDF contingents).

Second, they are going to be quite well integrated with the human populations of their homeworlds, which probably gives them a rather unique humanity, (even though that nod is usually given to the Salamanders, it is mentioned multiple times in reference to the Ultramarines as well).

But there also seems like there would be a lot of arrogance and pride amongst them given their status and prominence among Chapters. Plus a little bit of the hypocrisy I I hinted at earlier. Makes them a bit more three dimensional to me.

There's a lot of "believability" and depth to the Ultramarines instead of the caricatures that some other Chapters tend to be. I'd kinda like for it to actually be developed, but that's not really the way license fiction works, haha.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Which is amusing because many players consider them the most boring.

It may be because they've been the "poster boys" for so long. Much like the Cadians. The longer something stays in the spotlight, the more tempting it becomes for many people to go for something they consider "less mainstream" - as that's supposed to be cool these days. Also, I suppose the Ultras may not be "badass" enough for a lot of players, ironically because of stuff that should make them more likeable, like their knightly colour scheme or their honourable conduct and generally being amongst the most cooperative Marine Chapters. The Ultras stand for stability, loyalty and respect - and that's what I reckon makes them "uncool" to many. Instead, people flock to Chapters such as the Space Wolves which are oh-so-rebellous and show everyone the finger (and getting away with it), or the dark and brooding Templars who don't care for Codex limitations because they need more power-armoured hands to crush heretic skulls with.

That's just how it looks like to me, though. And I say that whilst actually preferring the Templars to the Ultras; I just have a weak spot for the colour scheme and the Champion bit. Still, I continue to like Ultras. In fact, my very first 40k minis ever were Space Marines, and they were painted in their colours.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:I'd kinda like for it to actually be developed, but that's not really the way license fiction works, haha.

Ah, don't give up hope. Licensed fiction in 40k provides its writers with a large amount of freedoms, and even though I bemoan the effects this has on the consistency of the setting, another result of this is that there's a good chance there is at least one book compatible to your own opinions and preferences. Maybe, given that the Astartes are arguably the most heavily featured 40k "race" in the Black Library, there already is? But if not, fingers crossed; it can only be a matter of time.

Brother Coa wrote:

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

And people wonder why Sisters of Battle get so little love, because of people thinking that women are good in life only for sex and cooking.

Spoiler:

Oh, and before oyu start call women useless remember that you were brought on this world by a women, and show little respect for them.

I love women, they're awesome. But they shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield. I also wouldn't want to see children on a battlefield for similar reasons. It's just a bit..odd. Battles get fought by men, overwealmingly. Yes there were the Amazonians, Bodacia, et al, but in the Western Pantheon that 40k is based, it's men doing the fighting.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Having served in the Marine Corps, I won't lie, I felt that the females brought overall readiness and effectiveness down a lot of the time, but 40K is a tabletop game, not real life. I am pretty vocal about my misgivings regarding the Sisters of Battle, but that stems from disagreements with their fluff and rules, not their gender. In a world not bound by any kind of strict rules of science, I figure women warriors aren't too far out of bounds. The implementation of the Howling Banshees, for example, seems fine to me. I even enjoy it when people create custom female Imperial Guardsmen. Let's try not to be too misogynistic here.

See it's weird, I'm not bothered by female Eldar at all. Maybe it's because of the pyschic-elf vibe, but they seem to transcend gender somehow.
Call it paternalism or reactionism, but a woman in a foxhole is just wrong.

Joey wrote:Yes there were the Amazonians, Bodacia, et al, but in the Western Pantheon that 40k is based, it's men doing the fighting.

Because said pantheon does such a good job at dismissing the fighting women from its perception, amirite? From female Native American warriors to the secretly female soldiers in the US Civil War to today's female U.S. Army soldiers on the front lines. What a slap in the face that the role of the latter isn't more respected and keeps getting played down by officials and civilians alike.
And that's just in case your "western pantheon" is limited to the US, which seems to be the case, given that in many European countries it has become quite accepted to have women do the fighting.

Selective perception is a wonderful thing - allowing preservation of pre-established convictions beyond reason.

Or maybe CNN puts it right: "U.S. apparently not ready for women on the front lines"

Lynata wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Which is amusing because many players consider them the most boring.

It may be because they've been the "poster boys" for so long..

I actually did a rather detai993led writeup on why players dislike the Ultramarines a while back. But people have called Ultramarines boring for almost two decades. Basically back to 1993 and the release of Codex: Ultramarines. Ultramarines were considered boring because their codex lists in 2nd and 3rd Edition had no fancy special units and their original special characters were underwhelming. The idea of hating the Ultramarines for being the GW poster boys was just a side effect of that. GW chose the Ultramarines because they don't require any additional explanation (they are just big guys with big guns in big armor; no ponytails or fangs or hoodie bathrobes).

But yeah, there is also the nature of GW's target demographic to be considered too. It isn't full of Alpha Male types. Sort of the reason Raphael is the favorite ninja turtle of many adolescents because he is rebel. When you get older, you realize Raphael was just an emo whiner and you'd rather be fun to be around and relaxed like Michelangelo, a good leader like Leonardo, or smart like Donatello. But it isn't always like that. I mean, Space Wolves are just silly Space Vikings, but well, there is something fun about that. That aspect makes them too silly for me, but for others that's just the flavor of 40K they like. But, then again, my taste in 40K is weird. I like the character depth of the Ultramarines and would prefer them to be approached seriously, but Orks are my favorite faction for the sheer absurdity of the modeling possibilities.

I'd get rid of Tau and Dark Eldar.

You already have Eldar, so you don't need Dark Eldar.

And Tau are just lame.

kronk wrote:I'd get rid of Tau and Dark Eldar.

You already have Eldar, so you don't need Dark Eldar.

And Tau are just lame.

Not sure if serious...

Joey wrote:
I love women, they're awesome. But they shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield. I also wouldn't want to see children on a battlefield for similar reasons. It's just a bit..odd. Battles get fought by men, overwealmingly. Yes there were the Amazonians, Bodacia, et al, but in the Western Pantheon that 40k is based, it's men doing the fighting.

Yeah but time changed man. Just look at my military, women were once taboo and had to appear like men to fight in wars. In WW2 our entire army was mix with both males and females.
Our modern army is consisted on roughly 1/3 of females, from 33.000 solders there are 11.000 females in our army.

But I must admit, I to fell sad and angry when I see women die in fighting either in video game or movie.

Brother Coa wrote:

Joey wrote:
I love women, they're awesome. But they shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield. I also wouldn't want to see children on a battlefield for similar reasons. It's just a bit..odd. Battles get fought by men, overwealmingly. Yes there were the Amazonians, Bodacia, et al, but in the Western Pantheon that 40k is based, it's men doing the fighting.

Yeah but time changed man. Just look at my military, women were once taboo and had to appear like men to fight in wars. In WW2 our entire army was mix with both males and females.
Our modern army is consisted on roughly 1/3 of females, from 33.000 solders there are 11.000 females in our army.

But I must admit, I to fell sad and angry when I see women die in fighting either in video game or movie.

Yeah but nearly all women are in non-combat roles.
Funnily enough I am indifferent to the casual slaughter of women in videogames. But put them in fatigues and it just looks weird...

Joey wrote:Yeah but nearly all women are in non-combat roles.

Of course. It's a hard fight for the women to find acknowledgement.

After WW2, for example (since Coa brought this up as an example), the Soviet snipers and pilots who managed to kill so many Germans were quietly booted out of military service and forgotten, their formations dissolved, because they weren't needed anymore and apparently did not fit into the conservative worldview of a few armchair generals or politicians. It just seems that in times of need it is okay to use women as soldiers, but in peace it becomes "uncomfortable" for the men who feel their patriarchal role threatened. Quite hypocritical.

And it happened before WW2 as well, by the way. Russia has mobilized and demobilized female fighting formations in WW1 and during the Russian Civil War. Quite the circle, innit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Battalion

And there were also female volunteers during the Spanish Civil war.
Prolly guerilla fighters during nam as well.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Storm Raven should be available for all SM, and other chapters have their own unique vehicle variants too, but don't have codices.

Storm Raven should NOT be available for ANYONE.. SM have the Thunderhawk as their transport/fighter aircraft, not some Land Raider with jet packs and stubby wings.

For an army that specializes in "tactical", only having orbital landers that can carry multiple squads for enormous attack isn't very tactical. Having smaller, more numerous craft that can transport a squad or maybe two, that is tactical.

And I agree they are horrible and ugly, but if we could redesign the model...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:

Joey wrote:
I love women, they're awesome. But they shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield. I also wouldn't want to see children on a battlefield for similar reasons. It's just a bit..odd. Battles get fought by men, overwealmingly. Yes there were the Amazonians, Bodacia, et al, but in the Western Pantheon that 40k is based, it's men doing the fighting.

Yeah but time changed man. Just look at my military, women were once taboo and had to appear like men to fight in wars. In WW2 our entire army was mix with both males and females.
Our modern army is consisted on roughly 1/3 of females, from 33.000 solders there are 11.000 females in our army.

But I must admit, I to fell sad and angry when I see women die in fighting either in video game or movie.

Yeah but nearly all women are in non-combat roles.
Funnily enough I am indifferent to the casual slaughter of women in videogames. But put them in fatigues and it just looks weird...

Example: the Canadian military has allowed women on the front line for about 30 years, yet out of our total ~100,000 members, there are about 300 women on the frontline.

Joey wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

We can't handle trolling of this magnitude!

It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

This board is already misogynistic enough as it is, don't make it worse.

EDIT: And saying "women don't belong on the battlefield" is silly, and just reinforces gender norms.

BobTheChainsaw wrote:

Joey wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

We can't handle trolling of this magnitude!

It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

This board is already misogynistic enough as it is, don't make it worse.

EDIT: And saying "women don't belong on the battlefield" is silly, and just reinforces gender norms.

Counting the seconds until Melissia sees this.

im2randomghgh wrote:

BobTheChainsaw wrote:

Joey wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
There is no need whatsoever for SOB in 40k.
Women should be making sandwiches for the soldiers' return, not fighting.

We can't handle trolling of this magnitude!

It's not trolling. I want women in my TT game like I want piss in my beer.

This board is already misogynistic enough as it is, don't make it worse.

EDIT: And saying "women don't belong on the battlefield" is silly, and just reinforces gender norms.

Counting the seconds until Melissia sees this.

Guys, I think instead of feeding the flames, just reporting the post and moving on is probably the best course of action.

Here's the thing, and I'm very hesitant to dive into this argument, but the main problem most people have with females serving in line units is just basic physiology, not psychological or skill based. The average woman just cannot carry the same load, lift the same amount, or maintain the same level of load bearing endurance as the average man. There will be the armchair naysayer who talks about how modern warfare is mostly mechanized, but that person has never been to Afghanistan, lol. The best female Marines I knew when I was on active duty were only as competent at necessary infantry skills as my most mediocre of male Marines. Women can do plenty of jobs in the military with equal skill to males, but line combat units have certain physical requirements. And a 130-140 pound woman isn't going to be able to carry her share of an infantry squad's load, won't be able to carry/drag a full sized wounded male, etc. That makes them liabilities. It isn't about being able to shoot, or able to withstand the rigors of combat. There is so much more to combat than simply being there and returning fire.

This is before you explore readiness issues like pregnancy and the subsequent maternity leave and the time period new mothers are given to get back into PFT shape. All three statuses make a military member non-deployable. I was attached to a unit once that had a female who had been pregnant twice in three years. You can imagine how much training she had actually engaged in with the rest of the unit, lol.

I'm fine with the idea of putting women into roles where they might be exposed to combat. Properly trained, women can operate most vehicle mounted crew served weapons, or shoot back out of a vehicle with a rifle. But the infantry platoon is not a place to play social experiment. Those guys depend on one another for their lives, and if women are going to be introduced into combat units, they need to be held to the exact same physical standards as their male counterparts, which includes readiness (meaning they'd have to give up reproductive rights to stay in such a unit; a male Marine wouldn't be allowed to be on Light Duty for upwards of a year) something which does not happen now, at least in the US military.