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.

Discuss.

I agree 100% however i cant help but think the only way GW will do such a nice thing would be.....

Giving it hard cover , and turn it into a semi collector's item like the Rule Book , and sell it for $100

GW will never do this when they can get more money out of doing multiple space marines books.

I wouldn't mind an 'Angels of Death' codex again though, with all the rules for specific chapters.

Im with Mars. Techpriest. an "Angles of Death" codex could have all the chapters with special units and different codex's and then keep the vanilla marines codex.

I think that instead, they should make books for specific chaos legions/factions, instead of taking those options away in the tiny, tiny current edition dex.

Oh I know, Instead, lets put all the Xenos in one book.
Then lets make it £80!

yeah... there is a reason why Codex's are all separate. 1) Cost. 2) It's because I don't want to be forced to buy rules for Blood Angels or Ultramarines if I only want to Play Space Wolves (Terrible example I know but its being fixed).

How would you like it if in order to play your tau you had to buy the Eldar and Nid Codex as well?

It really depends on how different the army is going to be. If the codex is going to be 6 pages thick and just have a few name changes, a universal special rule swap and 2 slightly different units. Then I'd rather have them all togeather.

If your Puppy codex contains an armies worth of new or changed units, completly different special rules and their own structure, then they do warrent their own codex. In that case, I'd want it entirely self contained, rather then a duel codex system.

If there was 'Genaric Xeno Army List' and my Tau codex was 6 pages I don't think I'd mind getting the 6 pg Eldar and 6pg ork codeces aswell.

fatal_GRACE wrote:I think that instead, they should make books for specific chaos legions/factions, instead of taking those options away in the tiny, tiny current edition dex.

Truth.

Anyway, I liked the old Index Astartes series because of the individual rules it gave for each chapter to make them slightly different from each other (not quite space wolves or dark angels different, but a little bit). Those small changes gave a lot of character. In the fist issue of WD I ever picked up, there was an article on the Iron Hands, and how they got an Iron Father who combined Techmarine and Chaplain duties. I thought that was pretty sweet. They definitely need to do some updated rules for stuff like that.

And give my Imperial Fists Stubborn without making me take a special character.

I like each army having its own codex, much more room for fluff, even if GW choose to put bad fluff in some of them.

If all the Space Marines were in one book they would just update that book every other month.

Fine. As long as they all get separate rules ala the last Chaos Codex. And as long as Chaos gets the same thing back again. And, most importantly, as long as it's NOT tied to Special Characters.

I actually really like the sub-army concept as long as there is a big enough difference between the main army and the sub-army. I loved the concept in the Command and Conquer series and I think it works out very well here.

I think the Black Templar and Space Wolves are good examples of what a good sub-army is. They have lots of unique rules and units that a different look at tactics than regular space marines. Blood Angels are alright but could be better, Assault Marines as troops could be done with a special character rule so to me the only real special thing about the Blood Angels are the Death Company. I don't care much for Dark Angels since it comes down to a few named characters and 2 unique(ish) squads. But thats all my opinion and I'm sure people will yell at me about that

Personally I would love to see more sub-army books for other armies of the game. Just about every race can have like two sub-chapters within their own lore already. Of course thats in fantasy land where a codex could be balanced and well done in a few months time. So instead maybe a single book containing sub-armies would work a little bit better

If non-SM stuff sold in sufficient volume that the sales were all relatively flat, then yes, SM could be a single, very large, Codex.

The problem is that GW wouldn't have as many release windows to push NEW!, NEW!!! SM product.

So GW's cost model would go up, and likely would all prices yet again.

Isn't GW expensive enough without creating more cost for us to pay?!?

Everyone else has been getting folded into singular books (eg Catachans->Imperial Guard, Harlequins->Eldar), and Chaos completely lost everything that made them Chaos, so I cannot see why Space Marines deserve to be different. Sure, the usual argument of ``dood, they sell a bajillion units per day, unlike the three units a year for all other armies combined!'' applies, but they would not sell less if they reduced the number of books. Most of the variants use Smurf models anyway, so it is not like they even have a model range (unlike some of the other forces that can be named). Blood/Dark Angels are so similar to Vanilla that there is no reason they could not have been a part of Codex: Ultramarines, alongside the White Scars and Salamanders. Space Wolves and Black Templars are significantly different, but perhaps a second book of `Codex: Legions' could exist. Codex: Space Marines could be all Codex Chapters, Codex: Chaos Space Marines could be their current, generic Renegades, while Codex: Legions could be Space Wolves, Black Templars, World Eaters, Thousand Sons, etc. This way, everyone is happy.

I like Elric's idea of a Codex: Legions, but instead of making it an entire codex (no fluff, pics, random passages from random books, modeling sections,...), they could just have like 2-5 pages of rules for the main legions and chapters to supplement the rules from the Chaos or Marine codex.

And then they could bring back the doctrines system for making your own Chapter, or Iron Warriors Grand Company, or band of renegade mercenaries, or whatever you want. And throw that in the back of the book

yeah, it would mean another $25, but it would add so much more flavor to the different Legions. It would actually make a differance what Legion or Chapter you played besides of their paint job

and yeah, they butchered the Chaos codex

Yes and no.

Dark Angels and Blood Angels both have very little truely unique stuff, and thus should be folded.

Black Templars and Space Wolves should get WD Expansion dexes.

Ashaman wrote:And then they could bring back the doctrines system for making your own Chapter...

Ooh, ok, no. That's a bad idea. Let me explain why.

The problem with the previous Guard 'Dex's Doctrine system and the previous Marine 'Dex's Traits system was that it was an EPIC WIN idea with EPIC FAIL implementation. It was said to be this system where you'd have to give up things or have penalties given to you but you got to choose some extra abilities or units. The problem was that this was a complete illusion - you never gave up anything unless you had to.

Take Restricted Troop Types for Guard as an example. They were Priests, Enginseers, Special Weapon Squads, Rough Riders, Ogryn, Storm Troopers and Ratlings and other than Rough Riders, all of those were useless in the last Codex (and mostly still are in the new one, but that's neither here nor there). If you were never going to take these units - who who was going to? - then you weren't actually giving anything up to take (free) Drop Troops and (free) Close Order Drill.

The last Marine Codex had a similar problem, where the 'Negative Traits' were things you could take to avoid having actual penalties. The 'We Stand Alone' trait was a great example of that, as it was a negative trait that stopped you from taking allies. If you had never planned on taking allies in the first place, then this 'negative' wasn't a negative, it was just a way of getting out of a penalty. There were others, like the no Terminators one (great if you weren't planning on taking Terminators) or the no tanks (fantastic if you were taking a Terminator force with no tanks!).

It was always the illusion of choice. Doctrine systems never made you give up anything as you could just take what you wanted and then be 'penalised' by not being able to take a bunch of stuff you were never actually going to take in the first place.

To make a system like this work, you need to start off with nothing and buy things back, not start off with everything and then lose things when you choose to customise units. You can't make people give up things they weren't going to take anyway. That's why the Doctrine/Trait systems failed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisAsmadi wrote:Black Templars and Space Wolves should get WD Expansion dexes.

WD expansion 'Dexes are lame. They can be stuck in the main book with everyone else, as long as it's a full ruleset.

I agree that all Space Marine chapters should be in one book but I disagree with HBMC that Special Characters should not be used to "unlock" new army types. If you think of special characters as Archetypes, it makes a lot more sense and is acceptable to me. So you have a bike Captain for RW/White Scars, a Terminator Captain for DW, a super Psyker for Blood Angels or Blood Ravens, a super Apothecary for Blood Angels, etc. Black Templars and Space Wolves would be harder but I'm sure they could be integrated.

I absolutely don't want something like the old Chaos codex where my choice of army incredibly limits my choice of units.

Doctrines were bad for all the reasons we've been over a million times. In order for them to potentially work, the doctrine would have to have a positive and a negative for each one. That way, you can't avoid having the negatives by taking something like "We Stand Alone."

Ozymandias wrote:If you think of special characters as Archetypes, it makes a lot more sense and is acceptable to me.

So just include the archetypes. Duh. That way, if you want to play Salamanders, you just play Salamanders - give up Chapter Tactics and replace it with the stuff Salamanders currently get. Easy. Done. You can have your army led by a Chaplain or Librarian or basic Captain now rather than always bringing H'stan to every skirmish.

Special Characters should not shape your force, they should add flavour and/or punch. If you want to bring an archetype, bring an archetype. Why bring a named character? Having to bring Special Characters to play your chosen army is bad enough, but then justifying it with "Just use counts as" (ie. pretend they're something else - more of a representation or archetype) is worse.

I'd like to see all the divergent Chapters in one Codex for ease. Same could be done with Chaos legions, and possibly even Ork Klans.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:If you think of special characters as Archetypes, it makes a lot more sense and is acceptable to me.

So just include the archetypes. Duh. That way, if you want to play Salamanders, you just play Salamanders - give up Chapter Tactics and replace it with the stuff Salamanders currently get. Easy. Done. You can have your army led by a Chaplain or Librarian or basic Captain now rather than always bringing H'stan to every skirmish.

Special Characters should not shape your force, they should add flavour and/or punch. If you want to bring an archetype, bring an archetype. Why bring a named character? Having to bring Special Characters to play your chosen army is bad enough, but then justifying it with "Just use counts as" (ie. pretend they're something else - more of a representation or archetype) is worse.

I'm going too have to agree with this.

I'd love to not have to take Vulkan for my Sallies in order to get his special chapter rules.

He just doesn't seem like a team player, fluff wise. He is off questing for the lost artifacts...yet taking him is the only way for me to create a salamanders army that has fluffier rules?

Gwar! wrote:Oh I know, Instead, lets put all the Xenos in one book.
Then lets make it £80!

yeah... there is a reason why Codex's are all separate. 1) Cost. 2) It's because I don't want to be forced to buy rules for Blood Angels or Ultramarines if I only want to Play Space Wolves (Terrible example I know but its being fixed).

How would you like it if in order to play your tau you had to buy the Eldar and Nid Codex as well?

Good job, you made ABSOLUTELY no sense.

Tau aren't even remotely similar to Tyranids. I mean, come on, you can't honestly tell me that all of the loyalist space marines are so different that they ALL deserve a different codex.

Unless of course Kid Kyoto is referring to any type of space marines, including Chaos, in which case I disagree.

How many truely unique units do Space Wolves have?

(IE - aren't either copies of space marine units, or copies with a single special rule or whatever).

BTs have...

*Champions - which should be available in the main 'dex anyway, because all IF successors have them, not just BTs.
*Combined Squads
*Some random wargear and upgrades.

So yeah, they could be merged pretty easily too (which in the process would allow IF/CF/ect armies to be more true to the fluff).

Runepriests, Wolf Priests, Wolf Guard, Wolf Scouts, Grey Hunters, Blood Claws (and their various forms) and Long Fangs are unique. Some of them bare similarities, like Long Fangs to Dev Squads, but they are different. The only things they share are vehicles, and Wolf Lords are basically just Captains.

There are more similarities between Templars and Codex Marines than there are Space Wolves.

I have the WHFB Army Book from 1st or 2nd edition. Lovely hardback thing with EVERY @#%@#ING army in it. Convenient and educational.

2nd Ed had that with "Codex Army Lists". 3rd Ed had that in the back of the rulebook. The last edition of Fantasy (not Skull Pass) had that as well, and might be the only still-legal list for Chaos Dwarves in existence.

It's a nice way of bringing every list back to square one, but beyond that I think the Codex system works quite well (just wish it was a little faster, maybe 50% or even 100% faster than it is now).

I think in terms of pure game variety, de-emphasizing marines and pushing xenos would be great. In terms of what's good for the hobby, I don't see it happening.

Marines are the core of 40k, as the most dynamic example of the future gothic look and the sheer badassery that is the far future. virtually every veteran hobbiest has a marine force knocking around, and bulk of new players pick a MEQ army to start with.

there is a bit of a chicken and the egg scenario, as people will buy what is promoted, but there is no amount of promotion, support, and releases that would make, say, Tau, as popular as Marines.

I think that having 5 loyalist books is about 2 too many (I like having codex: codex, codex: angels of death, and Codex: non-codex), and there is no reason for the basic marine book to be larger than the chaos book. That all said, it's just not that bad for the hobby. It gives most gamers new rules and models every year, it keeps things fresh, and a player with a marine force knows he'll always have an army with a punchers chance. Outside of a few instances, basic marines have never been a poor army, power wise. In fact, the multiple iterations have allowed GW to make the marines one of the more balanced armies out there.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Runepriests, Wolf Priests, Wolf Guard, Wolf Scouts, Grey Hunters, Blood Claws (and their various forms) and Long Fangs are unique. Some of them bare similarities, like Long Fangs to Dev Squads, but they are different. The only things they share are vehicles, and Wolf Lords are basically just Captains.

There are more similarities between Templars and Codex Marines than there are Space Wolves.

QFT.

If you people want all your armies in one book go play 3rd ed 40k, you'll find all the lists you need at the back of the book.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Runepriests, Wolf Priests, Wolf Guard, Wolf Scouts, Grey Hunters, Blood Claws (and their various forms) and Long Fangs are unique. Some of them bare similarities, like Long Fangs to Dev Squads, but they are different. The only things they share are vehicles, and Wolf Lords are basically just Captains.

There are more similarities between Templars and Codex Marines than there are Space Wolves.

Took a look at a friend's space wolf dex...

*Rune Priests are not unique, they're just renamed Librarians.
*Wolf Priests would be covered by a stronger Apothecary HQ choice, same as Corbulo/Sanguinary Priests would be.
*Wolf Guard are just renamed Vet Sergents/Command Squads.
*Grey Hunters are just footslogging Assault squads, who would be covered by merging BAs in anyway.
*Long Fangs are just Devs with a special rule.

However, I will give you Wolf Scouts and Blood Claws as true uniques, and Leman Russ Exterminators as unique in space marine terms (eg, this is the only space marine dex they're in, even if they're shared with Guard).

Incidentally...

Dark Angel Uniques:
*Samael

Blood Angel Uniques:
*Corbulo
*Death Company
*Baal Preds
*Arguably Death Company/Furioso Dreads, but I don't think they count because now the base dex can have two 2 DCCW dreads anyway, so it's not unique.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ooh, ok, no. That's a bad idea. Let me explain why.

The problem with the previous Guard 'Dex's Doctrine system and the previous Marine 'Dex's Traits system was that it was an EPIC WIN idea with EPIC FAIL implementation. It was said to be this system where you'd have to give up things or have penalties given to you but you got to choose some extra abilities or units. The problem was that this was a complete illusion - you never gave up anything unless you had to.

Take Restricted Troop Types for Guard as an example. They were Priests, Enginseers, Special Weapon Squads, Rough Riders, Ogryn, Storm Troopers and Ratlings and other than Rough Riders, all of those were useless in the last Codex (and mostly still are in the new one, but that's neither here nor there). If you were never going to take these units - who who was going to? - then you weren't actually giving anything up to take (free) Drop Troops and (free) Close Order Drill.

The last Marine Codex had a similar problem, where the 'Negative Traits' were things you could take to avoid having actual penalties. The 'We Stand Alone' trait was a great example of that, as it was a negative trait that stopped you from taking allies. If you had never planned on taking allies in the first place, then this 'negative' wasn't a negative, it was just a way of getting out of a penalty. There were others, like the no Terminators one (great if you weren't planning on taking Terminators) or the no tanks (fantastic if you were taking a Terminator force with no tanks!).

It was always the illusion of choice. Doctrine systems never made you give up anything as you could just take what you wanted and then be 'penalised' by not being able to take a bunch of stuff you were never actually going to take in the first place.

To make a system like this work, you need to start off with nothing and buy things back, not start off with everything and then lose things when you choose to customise units. You can't make people give up things they weren't going to take anyway. That's why the Doctrine/Trait systems failed.

Unless some people were crazy and used the Trait that the Crimson Fists had to make them seem more fluffy and hardcore, you know the one that gave you one less of everything not troops.