Switch Theme:

Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
Astra Militarum
Adepta Sororitas
Adeptus Mechanicus
Chaos Space marines
Chaos Daemons
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Orks
T'au
Tyranids
Genestealers cult
Adeptus Custodes
Space Marine chapters standalone codex
Harlequins
Inquisition
Imperial knights/chaos knights
Greyknights
I would keep every standalone codex
Death Guard
Thousand Sons

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Merge all Loyalist Marines, minus Grey Knights together

Merge all Chaos Marines together

Merge Imperial and Chaos Knights together

Make Grey Knights, Genestealer Cults, Harlequins, and Custodes smaller supplementary lists primarily designed to be used as allies


Haha Inquisition codex Good one.

If we're merging the Chaos and Imperial Knights together with different detachment rules, then put Dark Mechanicus into the Mechanicus codex.
   
Made in us
Strangely Beautiful Daemonette of Slaanesh





 Jidmah wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
By one simplification (and other factors are equal and cows are spherical) bloat = factions times complexity, but some people have noted - you only deal with so many factions in a specific game. Therefore, there exists some factor in that equation:

Bloat = Number of Factions X (F)*Complexity of One Faction

I disagree with this equation because I don't think additional factions necessarily add bloat. If GW decided to bring back squats today, it probably wouldn't affect many of my games, since someone would have to pick up that army and play it against me first. At worst, there are these two or three games where I run into every trap and gotcha that army has, but afterwards it's not that much an increase to the stuff I need to know. Heck, after almost four years I still forget that marines have auspex scan.
To me, bloat is stuff that is everything layered onto the the basic rules that I need to play a regular game. I think the maximum amount of bloat that is tolerable is basic rules + codex + codex expansion. Anything beyond that is annoying. For example, in 8th I had games where I needed the core rules+CA(mission)+codex+vigilus(SSAG)+SotB+index(Warboss on Warbiker)+FW book. That's too much.


The equation is a gross oversimplification(F might be like 12) but even if you only have to keep track of two armies I'd still say each adds *some* in the sense that each one starts crowding design space if the various armies are to remain distinctive and things have to get more gimmicky to keep things unique. It's like how everyone was understandably aggrieved about Marines stepping on their armies' toes because they needed so many toys - well, now some of the new armies are getting toys past that.

It does suggest that somehow the number of codexes does factor somehow into the complexity of each rather than its own independent factor. Maybe it's logarithmic as the design space is pushed outwards in different directions.

Multibook bloat is a special kind of awful, though, I'll agree; Maybe time-to-lookup needs to be a factor. Maybe there's a Grand Unified Bloat Theory equation in here somewhere.

Someone do correct me if I'm wrong on this, because this might be nostalgia goggles; I can't seem to find the page in Google - but I recall when all White Scars needed was a page in White Dwarf. One page on top of C:SM. It said they could take Bikes as troops, limited Dreadnoughts to 0-1, and few other things, yet still resulted in distinctive White Scars armies. I'd be in favor of as many armies and supplements as you could possibly imagine if the rules for them took only a couple of pages.

I think there is truth to this. In the book of rust we see similar armies to that white dwarf page, and they seem perfectly fine with 3-4 pages. There really is no need to blow up the space marine chapters as much as they are now.


Yeah, and it basically exists as a feels-bad for everyone else who isn't Space Marines, and a catch 22 for the game; they can't really remove it until 10th... and adding that treatment to every subfaction in the game would be catastrophically bloaty.

 the_scotsman wrote:
"here's this faction that we've turned into a gigantic uber-customizable metagolem of infinite customizability, you can have them in a car on the ground in a plane, in every conceivable playstyle that exists in the game, every single represented aesthetic, ninety-trillion different armor marks and styles, historical inspirations, every color in the rainbow, every race and culture of humanity...

...but you CANT make them ladies. that is the sacred line across which we must throw our bodies and souls! Space Marines can be every conceivable configuration of 'your dudes' imaginable, SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT IMAGINE THEM AS YOUR DUDETTES!"
 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




How do you do marines on 3-4 pages, when all factions need two stratagem pages, one page of relics, one page of warlord traits and then a page each for any special character and unit they have. Even chapters like CF would need at least 5 pages, and if a chapter has multiple special units and characters, like lets say the DA, it is impossible to do them without a separate codex. And that is not counting any art pages, which GW just loves to put in to books for what ever reasons.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

ClockworkZion wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
Merge all Loyalist Marines, minus Grey Knights together

Merge all Chaos Marines together

Merge Imperial and Chaos Knights together

Make Grey Knights, Genestealer Cults, Harlequins, and Custodes smaller supplementary lists primarily designed to be used as allies


Haha Inquisition codex Good one.

If we're merging the Chaos and Imperial Knights together with different detachment rules, then put Dark Mechanicus into the Mechanicus codex.


Sounds good to me!
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Karol wrote:
How do you do marines on 3-4 pages, when all factions need two stratagem pages, one page of relics, one page of warlord traits and then a page each for any special character and unit they have. Even chapters like CF would need at least 5 pages, and if a chapter has multiple special units and characters, like lets say the DA, it is impossible to do them without a separate codex. And that is not counting any art pages, which GW just loves to put in to books for what ever reasons.


Non-loyalist "supplements" are somehow fine with just one page of stratagems, and most chapters have a maximum of two unique datasheets, which usually fit onto one page.

Chapters like DA or SW are the exception, not the norm.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Bloodthirsty Bloodletter





It honestly sounds like you all just want to go back to the 4th edition state of things.
And for that to never change (no new models/factions/units for anyone).


 
   
Made in us
Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






 ClockworkZion wrote:

If we're merging the Chaos and Imperial Knights together with different detachment rules, then put Dark Mechanicus into the Mechanicus codex.


I think that's a great idea. Reducing Codex Bloat by putting the smaller Chaos factions as a variant in each book. So Dark Mechanicus as part of the Mechanicus Codex and Traitor Guard as part of the Astra Militarum Codex. It also makes it easier if you want to keep your existing army but swap out some rules and strategems and suddenly you're a Chaos Faction and ready to stomp your friends Imperial army then let the galaxy burn.
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

That's a terrible idea. Simply adding "Dark" to the Mechanicus does not make Dark Mechanicus a thing.

Same thing with "Traitor" to Guard.
   
Made in us
Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






Certainly! I'm not saying slap a different faction keyword on there and call it a day.

What I'm suggesting is if they share a common pool of models why not why not put both their rules in the same codex instead of two different codex's?
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







Because then you're adding "bloat" to the books in question if you only intend to play one side of the coin.

Not to mention that you effectively halve the amount of room for background material for either side of the split.

It might - might - work for Knights, solely due to how few units there are. We've got no idea what the roster for a Studio-designed Traitor Guard version of R&H would contain, let alone what any implementation of Dark Mechanicus would look like, so making a claim about a "common pool of models" is currently unfounded.

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Astra Militarum is the only one I'd remove

The just don't synch with the theme and fluff in any way. Basically a honey trap for historical wargamers that doesn't fit into the universe any better than adding X-Wings or Napoleonic figures would.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Dysartes wrote:
Because then you're adding "bloat" to the books in question if you only intend to play one side of the coin.

Not to mention that you effectively halve the amount of room for background material for either side of the split.

It might - might - work for Knights, solely due to how few units there are. We've got no idea what the roster for a Studio-designed Traitor Guard version of R&H would contain, let alone what any implementation of Dark Mechanicus would look like, so making a claim about a "common pool of models" is currently unfounded.


This is only a problem if you assume that the "Codex" model where all rules content and all fluff content that are ever going to be published must fit in one giant hardcover. If you move to digital rules and sell the "but my art book!" people art books the rules would be better (since GW could change small things over time instead of having to do massive lump-sum changes for the sake of changes, and they'd have a much greater ability to course-correct if they screwed up) and the art books would be better (since they'd have to put new art in each art book, nobody would want to buy an art book if it's 90% the same as the last one the way the Codexes are).

(Yes, this is a pipe dream, GW have decided to die on the "must sell hardbacks!" hill and nobody's got the momentum to push them off it, and even if they did get their heads out of their asses the rest of this presumes that they'd have the ability and willingness to course-correct instead of making giant lumps of update and running away from the explosion, and that they'd actually make artbooks of new content instead of continuing to recycle things.)

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





Siegfriedfr wrote:
Hello,

If you wanted to refocus the game on fewer codex, which ones would you drop as standalone and mix with others.

Multiple choice poll !

keep in mind that the question is not about MODELS - which can be repurposed into existing factions - it's about FACTION/CODEX



Sm subfactions. I have no idea why each single chapter needs to have its own special rules fsr in excess of any other faction, and also its just terrible design, balance, and is literally the highest souce of stacking free random rules and book bloat in the game by definition.

After that:
Cut IK and CK. Ik become Admech LoW, CK become LoW from some chaos faction. This gets rid of all LoW armies, and two factions that aren't seriously designed to be standalone and most exist so that anyone can ally a Lord of War and everyone will buy one.
Cut DG and TSons. For the same reason as SM consolidation, no reason that these two legions are more special than say Black Legion or Alpha Legion or something.
Return Inquisitors and Assassins to SoB and GK as Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters. This also deletes two things that should never have been factions and exist only to be allies. While I would personally appreciate a total consolidation of inquisition forces because it would save me money on books and I hate buying codecies, I acquiesce that this probably wouldn't work since it would still basically be 3 separate armies.
Combine SoS and Custodes into Talons. There's not a good reason for them to be separate, and they were initially sold together as Talons in the box set anyway.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Kanluwen wrote:
That's a terrible idea. Simply adding "Dark" to the Mechanicus does not make Dark Mechanicus a thing.

Same thing with "Traitor" to Guard.

Spoken Like someone that has no clue about the armies he is talking about.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





A lot of what you'd give Dark Mechanicus could just as easily be in the CSM codex - like the Lord Discordant could have easily been a Dark Mech model with just a slightly different design on the rider.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Sm subfactions. I have no idea why each single chapter needs to have its own special rules fsr in excess of any other faction, and also its just terrible design, balance, and is literally the highest souce of stacking free random rules and book bloat in the game by definition.

After that:
Cut IK and CK. Ik become Admech LoW, CK become LoW from some chaos faction. This gets rid of all LoW armies, and two factions that aren't seriously designed to be standalone and most exist so that anyone can ally a Lord of War and everyone will buy one.
Cut DG and TSons. For the same reason as SM consolidation, no reason that these two legions are more special than say Black Legion or Alpha Legion or something.
Return Inquisitors and Assassins to SoB and GK as Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters. This also deletes two things that should never have been factions and exist only to be allies. While I would personally appreciate a total consolidation of inquisition forces because it would save me money on books and I hate buying codecies, I acquiesce that this probably wouldn't work since it would still basically be 3 separate armies.
Combine SoS and Custodes into Talons. There's not a good reason for them to be separate, and they were initially sold together as Talons in the box set anyway.


if you do it for CSM making a Codex Inquisition is possible as well
just like chose an Inquisitor as Warlord and you get everything, take a GK/SoB Warlord, get only those units and the others count as allied

now that there are Keywords and Detachments in the game and this should not be a problem at all

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Fixing knights really isn't that hard though.

IIRC these guy from 30k were ground troops that were meant to protect the feet of titans.

If you build on that idea, you could create an army with low offense/high defense infantry units focused on defending knights and some vehicles whose primary function is to repair/rearm/refuel a knight. Shift armingers to heavy support, add an option for HQs similar to Canis Rex that can pilot a knight an turn it into a character and disembark when destroyed.

That's what? An infantry set that builds into two variants, two vehicles and a character or two. Bonus points for adding Solaria as a named character.

As a result, either some armingers with supporting infantry and vehicles could be played at low levels, without breaking the game for those who just want to bring a single knight.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/14 08:57:24


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





Not exactly speaking from the heart here since I think Knights are stupid, but if I was the type of person to be drawn to the army where you play a full army of big robots, I'd be pretty miffed if the solution to my army not working is "no, you need to play one big robot and a bunch of troops like everyone else". IMO the moment you introduce foot soldiers for IK is the moment IK ceases to justify itself as an army and should just be an imperial auxiliary.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Arachnofiend wrote:
Not exactly speaking from the heart here since I think Knights are stupid, but if I was the type of person to be drawn to the army where you play a full army of big robots, I'd be pretty miffed if the solution to my army not working is "no, you need to play one big robot and a bunch of troops like everyone else". IMO the moment you introduce foot soldiers for IK is the moment IK ceases to justify itself as an army and should just be an imperial auxiliary.


This is when I think they would start to be a interesting army, and with some creative rules could be one of the most interesting ones.
They are also supposed to have all those soldiers and support, as 40k imperium is by design very idealistic in its little kingdoms and seperate forces ideas. No one can control enough forces to pose a threat on there own is a big theme that this enhances.
It also could seperate them better from chaos knights in how they run, and how the forces act on the table with minimum effort from the design studio who are 4 or 5 years behind any meta ideas in the game.

Realistically, I think they don’t pull other units in to function right is entirely so they can sell minis later if they come up with some.
So these factions are left in weird limbo states until someone cares in design, even if the rules team has a bunch of good ideas.

Knights killed the game here as well, I think they sold well on Rule of Cool but a lot of players felt they just killed what was left fun in the game, it take till 9th to scrape back any interest passed a few test games. Or store copy of 7th I don’t think even got opened. I also look at 8th and 9th rules and think a great deal of them where trying to fix that mistake by GW.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I voted for removing Knights, Harlequins, Custodes, Inquisition, Ynarri and SM supplements. In the case of the SM supplements I'd just merge them either in to the main SM Codex or one general SM supplement. Harlequins work just fine as a unit entry for CWE and DE, IMO. Custodes and Knights feel like they don't really fit into regular 40k games, though I could see both being units you could include in other armies. Make a Custodian Guard squad an Elite choice for Imperial armies, for example, and make the Knight the Ad Mech/CSM superheavy. Inquisition and Ynarri barely feel like factions at all so it's not even like you'd be removing them by doing some similar consolidation with their tiny number of units.

In general I think the game has become unwieldy to the point that some factions could do with being reduced or removed for the benefit of the game. I'd also like to see GW be a bit more creative with how the keyword system works. You can easily represent Dark Mechanicum or Traitor Guard with a few twaeks to keywords and a few strats, warlord traits and relics within the main Codices for those armies.

Karol wrote:How do you do marines on 3-4 pages, when all factions need two stratagem pages, one page of relics, one page of warlord traits and then a page each for any special character and unit they have. Even chapters like CF would need at least 5 pages, and if a chapter has multiple special units and characters, like lets say the DA, it is impossible to do them without a separate codex. And that is not counting any art pages, which GW just loves to put in to books for what ever reasons.


There's no need for the supplements chapters to get 6 warlord traits, a psychic discipline, 12 relics/special issue wargears and a whole host of unique strats. Every other subfaction gets along fine with no sub-faction psychic discipline and 1 of each of the others. SM getting more is just yet another example of the kind of thing that GW does that annoys Xenos players and I think you'd do just fine as, say, a BA player with a reduced selection of relics etc and the current roster of units, with perhaps 1-2 of the special characters removed.

Kanluwen wrote:That's a terrible idea. Simply adding "Dark" to the Mechanicus does not make Dark Mechanicus a thing.

Same thing with "Traitor" to Guard.


Why not? At the scale 40k plays there's not really any major difference between a regular Guard unit and a traitor one. Same with Dark Mechanicum. Ad Mech stuff is already massively weird and esoteric so a little bit of background info in the Codex pointing out that the Dark Mechanicum use warp lasers instead of neutron lasers but the effects are basically the same in game is all you need. That's how things used to be done and it was fine. You don't need bespoke rules for absolutely everything and GW's insistence that you do is one of the main reasons we have as much bloat as we do.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Arachnofiend wrote:
Not exactly speaking from the heart here since I think Knights are stupid, but if I was the type of person to be drawn to the army where you play a full army of big robots, I'd be pretty miffed if the solution to my army not working is "no, you need to play one big robot and a bunch of troops like everyone else". IMO the moment you introduce foot soldiers for IK is the moment IK ceases to justify itself as an army and should just be an imperial auxiliary.


The point was that everything is centered around supporting the big robot and can't function by itself, which is rather different from just bringing a knight along as a standalone LoW.
In any case, it would just be a second archetype to just bringing all big robots, which works rather fine at higher point levels.
At 500 points bringing a single knight will never function ever.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 13:37:28


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

When it comes to removing books, I would think it would make the most sense to merge armies that share pools of units.

For example, it makes sense to combine most SM armies because a Rhino is a Rhino is a Rhino. You've got some differences in units (which can usually be solved by just locking a few units to particular SM subfactions, in the same way special characters are) but most of the units are shared between different books. There are a couple of exceptions (GKs and SWs being the main ones, to the best of my knowledge) but at the very least is seems that most SM subfactions aren't sufficiently different to warrant their own books.

To my mind it makes decidedly less sense to merge the Eldar factions as they have a shared pool of 0 units. There is not a single unit in the Eldar line that is available to Dark Eldar or Harlequins. Hence, I'm not sure what combining them would really accomplish. With SMs, you're saving yourself from printing the same profiles for Rhinos, Razorbacks, Predators, Drednoughts etc. in 12 different books. If you combine Eldar, you're going to have to print the exact same amount of stuff because nothing is shared. The only possible reason I can think of would be if you wanted the Eldar factions to go full-Ynnari, yet it seems GW is rather hoping that their playerbase has forgotten Ynnari even exist, given how little support they've received (even by the standards of Eldar).

I would also like to see Knights, Chaos Knights, Fliers and Lords of War restricted to games above 2000pts. But then, I'm of the opinion that 40k's mode of play should focus on different game sizes, rather than matched play, narrative and 'do whatever the hell you want'.

Honestly, though, I think if you want to trim down the game you should look not only at which books can potentially be removed but at what can be removed from all books. Stratagems, for example, represent an ungodly amount of bloat and would be an ideal place to trim some fat. Many of them should be wargear or unit abilities anyway, and the rest just turn 40k into a CCG.


 Nurglitch wrote:

Sure. My point was that a Knight, Errant, Crusader, whatever, doesn't work like 500pts of infantry. When you cause wounds on the infantry the size of the unit might shrink, they might lose weapons, they might lose attacks, they might even lose more wounds/models. When you cause wounds on the knight, nothing else happens. You might vaguely degrade its movement and ability to hit, but that's about it. A Knight is a single, boring brick of a unit. Its a similar problem with monsters and vehicles are whatever else writ large that even the little damage-track gently degrading the Knight's profile doesn't really fix.

You see, in Space Marine 2nd edition Titans had a diagram chunking them into parts, and if you were attacking them you got to aim at their various parts. You could attack their weapons, their legs, their reactors, their heads, and their carapaces. The heads were the best protected, and a good headshot would kill a Titan. But those heads tended to have 1+ armour saving throws, so unless you had a weapon with a -1 AP you needed to hit them in the weapons or reactor. So having a Warlord Titan facing a company of Land Raiders, roughly equivalent points values, was actually interesting because those Lascannons had a -2 AP, and while the Warlord could remove Land Raiders from the board, they could likewise hobble and defang it in turn.


This has always been one of my core issues with Knights. They're just such unbelievably boring models to play against because there's never any sense of achievement or progress. There's no impression that it's some sort of epic battle. You're just shooting a 500pt brick until it finally falls over.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

Slipspace wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's a terrible idea. Simply adding "Dark" to the Mechanicus does not make Dark Mechanicus a thing.

Same thing with "Traitor" to Guard.

Why not? At the scale 40k plays there's not really any major difference between a regular Guard unit and a traitor one.

Well for one thing, a "traitor Guard" unit won't tend to be from one of the Big Named ones. Cadians turned traitor tended to have a fairly short lifespan between the Ordos Cadia, Adeptus Arbites, or the Interior Guard...and that's at an individual level, not at the regimental level.
You'd be seeing things more at the level of Conscripts for the most part.

Same with Dark Mechanicum. Ad Mech stuff is already massively weird and esoteric so a little bit of background info in the Codex pointing out that the Dark Mechanicum use warp lasers instead of neutron lasers but the effects are basically the same in game is all you need. That's how things used to be done and it was fine. You don't need bespoke rules for absolutely everything and GW's insistence that you do is one of the main reasons we have as much bloat as we do.

Dark Mechanicum isn't about "preserving technology" like the Mechanicus is. The Dark Mechanicum is about pushing technology beyond the boundaries of reality. They're blending daemons and the Warp with machines and humanity itself, with a goal that we don't really know about...but we do have examples of Dark Mechanicum designs.
Spoiler:






Then there's the Lord-Discordant and Warpsmith, both of which have ties to the Dark Mechanicum that are as yet unexplained.

The TLDR answer is that it isn't as simple as "warp lasers" or whatever garbage. They're distinctive entities.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Kanluwen wrote:
Slipspace wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's a terrible idea. Simply adding "Dark" to the Mechanicus does not make Dark Mechanicus a thing.

Same thing with "Traitor" to Guard.

Why not? At the scale 40k plays there's not really any major difference between a regular Guard unit and a traitor one.

Well for one thing, a "traitor Guard" unit won't tend to be from one of the Big Named ones. Cadians turned traitor tended to have a fairly short lifespan between the Ordos Cadia, Adeptus Arbites, or the Interior Guard...and that's at an individual level, not at the regimental level.
You'd be seeing things more at the level of Conscripts for the most part...


So do two different sets of regiment traits.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter







Arachnofiend wrote:Not exactly speaking from the heart here since I think Knights are stupid, but if I was the type of person to be drawn to the army where you play a full army of big robots, I'd be pretty miffed if the solution to my army not working is "no, you need to play one big robot and a bunch of troops like everyone else". IMO the moment you introduce foot soldiers for IK is the moment IK ceases to justify itself as an army and should just be an imperial auxiliary.


It doesn't justify itself because it doesn't have foot soldiers and exists to be an auxiliary so any imperial/chaos player can just grab and ally in a knight.

Also, not every desire for list building needs to be accounted for. Thats why there was a force org. Go play battletech or titanicus if you want to have a whole army of big robots; imperial knights as a standalone army dont belong in 40k, and have a drastically outsized effect on rules and mechanics as the game has to bend around the idea that an amy might just have no infantry, only have Lords of War, and be 5 models.

kodos wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Sm subfactions. I have no idea why each single chapter needs to have its own special rules fsr in excess of any other faction, and also its just terrible design, balance, and is literally the highest souce of stacking free random rules and book bloat in the game by definition.

After that:
Cut IK and CK. Ik become Admech LoW, CK become LoW from some chaos faction. This gets rid of all LoW armies, and two factions that aren't seriously designed to be standalone and most exist so that anyone can ally a Lord of War and everyone will buy one.
Cut DG and TSons. For the same reason as SM consolidation, no reason that these two legions are more special than say Black Legion or Alpha Legion or something.
Return Inquisitors and Assassins to SoB and GK as Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters. This also deletes two things that should never have been factions and exist only to be allies. While I would personally appreciate a total consolidation of inquisition forces because it would save me money on books and I hate buying codecies, I acquiesce that this probably wouldn't work since it would still basically be 3 separate armies.
Combine SoS and Custodes into Talons. There's not a good reason for them to be separate, and they were initially sold together as Talons in the box set anyway.


if you do it for CSM making a Codex Inquisition is possible as well
just like chose an Inquisitor as Warlord and you get everything, take a GK/SoB Warlord, get only those units and the others count as allied

now that there are Keywords and Detachments in the game and this should not be a problem at all


The overlap between SoB, GK, and DW would be inquisitors, acolytes, assassins, rhinos, and maybe land raiders. It would be three separate armies in one book, since almost all the units can't be fielded together. [Which, as mentioned, I would still appreciate, since it means I would only have to buy one book, but its more logically split].

Ignoring the fact that CSM were historically all one faction as recently as 7th, the overlap would be most of the line, and addressed by a single clause of "can take cult unit as troops" like it was in the past.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






 Kanluwen wrote:

Well for one thing, a "traitor Guard" unit won't tend to be from one of the Big Named ones. Cadians turned traitor tended to have a fairly short lifespan between the Ordos Cadia, Adeptus Arbites, or the Interior Guard...and that's at an individual level, not at the regimental level.
You'd be seeing things more at the level of Conscripts for the most part.

I seem to remember Renegade Militia Squads having better profiles than Conscripts. I don't think anyone is suggesting we simply put [Chaos][Cadians] in the book, instead putting an additional Regimental Doctrine for Traitor Guard ala Renegade & Heretics in the Guard book. That would also be an improvement over being stuck with Legends status. They could also include a variant of custom Regiment Doctrine if a player wanted to model their Traitor Guard army after a famous one that serves Chaos such as the Tyrant's Legion or the Spire Guard.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/14 15:32:58


 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

The overlap between SoB, GK, and DW would be inquisitors, acolytes, assassins, rhinos, and maybe land raiders. It would be three separate armies in one book, since almost all the units can't be fielded together. [Which, as mentioned, I would still appreciate, since it means I would only have to buy one book, but its more logically split].

Ignoring the fact that CSM were historically all one faction as recently as 7th, the overlap would be most of the line, and addressed by a single clause of "can take cult unit as troops" like it was in the past.


Well, Codex CSM 3.5 is still the best one regarding how to get the individual Armies into one book and I started playing Thousand Sons as an individual army in 3rd, a time were the only army with access to cultists were Alpha Legion
and the only real problem are DeathWatch as they were never anything but single Kill Teams added to other lists and are now their own army

Inquisitor as Warlord, Scions are Troops, SoB Warlord and SoB are Troops, GK Warlord and GK are Troops, DW Warlord and DW are Troops. This is half a page of rules for each faction.

Might be not as rich as a Codex for each one but still possible, the same with AM+IK, CSM+DG+TS, SM

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Look with DG and TS...

how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?

How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?

Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.

It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.

Xeno, you literally can't even spell C-H-A-O-S. Forgive me if I don't think you're knowledge on the Legions is any better.

I have serious dyslexia later in the day. Seriously though. IDGAF about any snowflake chapters and legions. All they do is take away from the traditionalists. Which makes the game boring.

Blood angels make the assualt armies
DA takes all the terminators.

Like why should DA termiantors be better than Ultras ones?
Why should TS rubrics be better than BL?

They shouldn't be. It is dumb. All they have done is restrict your ability to customize your army to your liking. I have literally 0 idea how anyone could disagree with that.

1ksons Rubrics are better because they're the original, real McCoys. Same reason a real Colt 1911 is better than some Norinco knockoff. And DA terminators are better than Ultramarines terminators because DA specialize in terminators, Ultramarines don't specialize in anything. They're generalists. As in generic. Same for Abigail and his cronies.

This ofc is nonsense. DA and Ultras terms are literally identical in ability. They just dress different. The might have different tactics or use different weapons...but there is 0 reason they should be able to take more damage with the exact same armor. Or shoot better with the exact same storm bolter. "generalist" is also a loaded and stupid term. Every space marine is a master in all aspects of war. It is their job. This includes CSM to so don't think I am being unfair.

All these specialist codex have done is made huge swaths of the regular CSM and SM codex unplayable Competitively. Which is very very dumb. It is a poor design. To upset the masses - to appease the snowflakes.

So you just want to make every chapter Ultramarines and every Legion Black Legion? No thanks. Because the last three CSM codexes have done everything they can to do just that. I'll gladly go back to the restrictions on what units and marks each Legion can use like we had in 3.5 and Traitor Legions if it means that the Legions stop being just a grey flavorless paste and regain their identities.

Surely there is a middle ground that can be met in a single codex with a slight bonus for flavor.

We don't need an alpha legion, deathgaurd, TS codex to make that happen. Same for marines.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:

Well for one thing, a "traitor Guard" unit won't tend to be from one of the Big Named ones. Cadians turned traitor tended to have a fairly short lifespan between the Ordos Cadia, Adeptus Arbites, or the Interior Guard...and that's at an individual level, not at the regimental level.
You'd be seeing things more at the level of Conscripts for the most part.

I seem to remember Renegade Militia Squads having better profiles than Conscripts.

Yeah, and the Militia Squads were supposed to be trained troops from a garrison planetside if we're talking about Vraks.

Additionally it's worth remembering that when it came to FW's lists? They did a far better job working on Guard than GW themselves have for at least a decade now.
I don't think anyone is suggesting we simply put [Chaos][Cadians] in the book, instead putting an additional Regimental Doctrine for Traitor Guard ala Renegade & Heretics in the Guard book.

Which amounts to the same thing in the end.

If you're so, so, so fanatically desperate for "Traitor Guard ala Renegades & Heretics"? Give Codex: Chaos Space Marines the ability to take a detachment as an allied contingent. No Ordo Tempestus, no Officio Prefectus, no Psykana, no Navy, no Auxilia. Just straight Guardsmen with a regiment added to them--all housed in the CSM book, not the Guard book.
That would also be an improvement over being stuck with Legends status. They could also include a variant of custom Regiment Doctrine if a player wanted to model their Traitor Guard army after a famous one that serves Chaos such as the Tyrant's Legion or the Spire Guard.

Spire Guard, assuming you're referencing Magnus' thing, is long dead.
Tyrant's Legion was basically just a Guard army with some Marines thrown in.

Legends status means they're still in the game. The game != tourney scene/matched play only.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Fold Daemons into a Chaos Codex, or their reliant Chapter codex, ala 1kSons - Zeench.

Fold Inquisition into GK, fold GSC into Nids. This is too simple. But it will never happen, because I and others like fluff.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: