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.

Seeing how well received have been index, with the "I have rules for this army that I don't own so... why no buy a small force, just to use them?"

I think, if you put a good price for the product, people will be willing to spend a little more for a much bigger array of options.

From the perspective of a guy with a serious spontaneous spending habit, if I bought a book for my one army and had rules for several others inside it, I would probably end up buying more models. If I have to buy a book shelf to house every individual sub factions codex, I would be less inclined to buy another army.
Is 40k getting the AoS treatment where all the unit information is in a pdf on the product page of the website?

Chopxsticks wrote:
From the perspective of a guy with a serious spontaneous spending habit, if I bought a book for my one army and had rules for several others inside it, I would probably end up buying more models. If I have to buy a book shelf to house every individual sub factions codex, I would be less inclined to buy another army.
Is 40k getting the AoS treatment where all the unit information is in a pdf on the product page of the website?

new units will get their stats in a data card, so DA players who use Primaris Marines won't nesscarily have to buy codex spaceMarines to use the new Primaris stuff.

Chopxsticks wrote:
From the perspective of a guy with a serious spontaneous spending habit, if I bought a book for my one army and had rules for several others inside it, I would probably end up buying more models. If I have to buy a book shelf to house every individual sub factions codex, I would be less inclined to buy another army.
Is 40k getting the AoS treatment where all the unit information is in a pdf on the product page of the website?

as a guy that has pretty much every army except nids im stoked

Again I think the sheer size of a potential combined Codex is a big mark against it. AoS does have two combined Chaos books. But neither has anywhere near the number of units that even a vanilla SM Codex would(quick count of the non Primaris and SC vanilla entries in the index comes to sixty two units, compared to twenty five including SC in Disiples of Tzeentch). Sure the Index books are great basic rules compilations. But they are sorely lacking in every other area covered by a traditional Codex.

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Again I think the sheer size of a potential combined Codex is a big mark against it. AoS does have two combined Chaos books. But neither has anywhere near the number of units that even a vanilla SM Codex would(quick count of the non Primaris and SC vanilla entries in the index comes to sixty two units, compared to twenty five including SC in Disiples of Tzeentch). Sure the Index books are great basic rules compilations. But they are sorely lacking in every other area covered by a traditional Codex.

Codex: Primaris, Codex: Compliant Chapters, Codex: Deviant Chapters

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Again I think the sheer size of a potential combined Codex is a big mark against it. AoS does have two combined Chaos books. But neither has anywhere near the number of units that even a vanilla SM Codex would(quick count of the non Primaris and SC vanilla entries in the index comes to sixty two units, compared to twenty five including SC in Disiples of Tzeentch). Sure the Index books are great basic rules compilations. But they are sorely lacking in every other area covered by a traditional Codex.

Codex: Primaris, Codex: Compliant Chapters, Codex: Deviant Chapters

Id be down for that.

 Galas wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Im talking about the merits/downsides of each approach rather than what I think is likely. If I had to guess Id bet on a Primaris-only codex in the next month or two followed by a Primaris-Vanilla combo dex next year.

But that can be said about everything... why have a Dark Angels Codex when you can split in in Deathwing and Ravenkwing? What if GW wants to change just the datasleets of Deathwing, should players that only play Ravenwing buy a new complete Dark Angels Codex?

This has been my point since the beginning. It is true of every unit, because not everyone owns one of everything.

As for the size of the codex, a great deal of that can be dealt with with good formatting. There really aren't that many named Primaris units yet, so it isn't like the book suddenly becomes gigantic with them included. I see GW discontinuing some kits anyway. They are already hurting for shelf space.

So when we get to the Astra Militarum will we have Codex: Trooper Jenkins and Codex: Trooper Jenkins' Lasgun?

maybe they'll bring out these cheap intro 'dexes then do the big expensive campaign-type books & have free pdfs for any unit that changes? As i understand it, all new boxes will have the data sheets inside.

 Ghaz wrote:
So when we get to the Astra Militarum will we have Codex: Trooper Jenkins and Codex: Trooper Jenkins' Lasgun?

I believe it will be Codex: Guardsman Squad, Codex: Chimera, Codex: Commissar, etc. Either that or Codex: Imperium.

Codex: Codex is what I'm waiting for.

They could do a callback to a classic and release Codex: Citadel Dice.

The guy flicking his dice with his thumb is my hero.

Yeah, these April Fools jokes never get tiring!

If Gillamonster is editing the codex astartes because it sucks now, why would GW even bother splitting things up into chapters that are or not compliant with the codex which is currently being altered?

Of course I also wonder why non-compliant translates to lack of access to relic type stuff (cataphractii/tartaros armor, contemptors...etc etc) and not an actual restructuring like SW typically have (but not really when you get down to it). Non-compliant just means no new stuff and more of its less efficient equivalents.

They need to just do a $60 book. Change the fluff on compliant/non-cpmpliant to not actually matter (becaise it doesn't anymore). Give UM some more new UM only stuff. Create a generic astartes army list and then just like the 3rd edition books of old, codex specific books add some specific stuff and that is all.Basically make it like the HH red books.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
. Create a generic astartes army list and then just like the 3rd edition books of old, codex specific books add some specific stuff and that is all.Basically make it like the HH red books.

I would rather something akin to 4th edition's Trait system, to be honest. Do away with Chapter-specific lists entirely (because we've had examples in the fluff of even Ultramarine companies fighting differently to the Chapter norm, depending on the situation and who's in charge) and just let people tailor their own armies to suit their chosen fluff the way they feel works best.

 insaniak wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
. Create a generic astartes army list and then just like the 3rd edition books of old, codex specific books add some specific stuff and that is all.Basically make it like the HH red books.

I would rather something akin to 4th edition's Trait system, to be honest. Do away with Chapter-specific lists entirely (because we've had examples in the fluff of even Ultramarine companies fighting differently to the Chapter norm, depending on the situation and who's in charge) and just let people tailor their own armies to suit their chosen fluff the way they feel works best.

They did that with Kharadron Overlords and it works quite well. In fact taking the setup they have and porting it to 40k marines would work perfectly.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
. Create a generic astartes army list and then just like the 3rd edition books of old, codex specific books add some specific stuff and that is all.Basically make it like the HH red books.

I would rather something akin to 4th edition's Trait system, to be honest. Do away with Chapter-specific lists entirely (because we've had examples in the fluff of even Ultramarine companies fighting differently to the Chapter norm, depending on the situation and who's in charge) and just let people tailor their own armies to suit their chosen fluff the way they feel works best.

They did that with Kharadron Overlords and it works quite well. In fact taking the setup they have and porting it to 40k marines would work perfectly.

Mind giving a run-down of what the Kharadon stuff is like?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Mind giving a run-down of what the Kharadon stuff is like?

Sure thing! It may very well be relevant to a future Marine Codex.

For starters, it falls under a category of allegiance, which essentially means that you only get the benefits if everything in your army in Kharadron. In 40k this would mean the benefits only apply if the whole army is Space Marines.

There are three categories of six traits each and you get one trait out of each category (essentially a big, medium, and small trait), allowing you to customize your force based on what traits you pick.

However, there is another option of going with a specific Sky Port. If you do this then the traits you get are set and you can't customize them, but you get an extra benefit on top of the traits you have. In 40k terms, this would mean your codex chapters of Ultramarines, Salamanders, Iron Hands, etc would have fixed traits but would also get an extra side-benefit for taking that restriction.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Mind giving a run-down of what the Kharadon stuff is like?

Sure thing! It may very well be relevant to a future Marine Codex.

For starters, it falls under a category of allegiance, which essentially means that you only get the benefits if everything in your army in Kharadron. In 40k this would mean the benefits only apply if the whole army is Space Marines.

There are three categories of six traits each and you get one trait out of each category (essentially a big, medium, and small trait), allowing you to customize your force based on what traits you pick.

However, there is another option of going with a specific Sky Port. If you do this then the traits you get are set and you can't customize them, but you get an extra benefit on top of the traits you have. In 40k terms, this would mean your codex chapters of Ultramarines, Salamanders, Iron Hands, etc would have fixed traits but would also get an extra side-benefit for taking that restriction.

Each Kharadron port-city (equivalent to Chapter or regiment) has its own interpretation of their society's code of conduct. They do this by choosing one particular trait to emphasise from each of the three trait types: Artycle, Amendment, Footnote (described as big, medium, & small above) and as Ninth said, they only apply if the entire army has the Kharadron keyword. I personally would expect this to be detachment based in 40k though, not least because AoS doesn't have detachments.
There are six of each trait type available to all cities, with some named major ports having unique traits as well as the option of a bonus footnote from a restricted list. The trait types each affect how the army plays on the battlefield; only one affects army composition and even then it just allows an extra rare artefact to be taken:
The Artycles have army-wide always-on effects and range from morale re-rolls if you're in certain parts of the battlefield to fixed value "runs" for the ships.
Amendments tend to have things that affect deployment or are otherwise one-shot but don't need to be activated like being able to run and shoot in the first turn.
Footnotes, the third type, are all one-shot effects roughly equivalent to a Warlord Trait in power level (indeed, one of the Warlord traits available to an Admiral is to take an extra Footnote) like a bonus to heal a ship, or to (nearly) auto-pass a Morale check.

 insaniak wrote:
I would rather something akin to 4th edition's Trait system, to be honest. Do away with Chapter-specific lists entirely (because we've had examples in the fluff of even Ultramarine companies fighting differently to the Chapter norm, depending on the situation and who's in charge) and just let people tailor their own armies to suit their chosen fluff the way they feel works best.

The problem with the Traits system from 4th Ed, which was also the problem with the Doctrine system the Guard had, is that the downsides weren't downsides, so you were getting bonuses for free.

For instance, one Trait that the Marines could take was "No Allies". Well, if you never intended on taking allies (and back then allies meant Inquisition/GKs/SoBs and that's it), then it wasn't really a downside. Same for Doctrines. You lost the ability to take a bunch of units (Ogryn, Sanctioned Psykers, Ratlings, etc.) but if you never intended to bring those units then you weren't really losing anything.

The same thing happened with the 3.5 Codex. Iron Warriors have to give up 2 slots they were never going to use in the first place? Oh no!!!

Really like the new dreadnought, not sold on the tank though.

I'm praying that Tallarn rules are going to be in the guard codex, maybe even some plastic models sometime but that's very wishful thinking!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I would rather something akin to 4th edition's Trait system, to be honest. Do away with Chapter-specific lists entirely (because we've had examples in the fluff of even Ultramarine companies fighting differently to the Chapter norm, depending on the situation and who's in charge) and just let people tailor their own armies to suit their chosen fluff the way they feel works best.

The problem with the Traits system from 4th Ed, which was also the problem with the Doctrine system the Guard had, is that the downsides weren't downsides, so you were getting bonuses for free.

For instance, one Trait that the Marines could take was "No Allies". Well, if you never intended on taking allies (and back then allies meant Inquisition/GKs/SoBs and that's it), then it wasn't really a downside. Same for Doctrines. You lost the ability to take a bunch of units (Ogryn, Sanctioned Psykers, Ratlings, etc.) but if you never intended to bring those units then you weren't really losing anything.

The same thing happened with the 3.5 Codex. Iron Warriors have to give up 2 slots they were never going to use in the first place? Oh no!!!

This was what I just post in other thread about chapter tactics. If you give those kind of bonus, you can do it in two ways:

-You put those bonuses point costs, but being a army wide rule thats quite difficult.
-You put downsides to the upsides. But those downsides should be relevant.

For example, if you give a 100% Khorne army +2 attacks but they lose -1 BS... that isn't really relevant. If they are a meele army that is just broken. Or even worse. "Your units have +2 attacks but you can't use this list of ranged based units". If you didn't had planed to use ranged units from the beginning, that is just +2 free attacks to all of your units.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I would rather something akin to 4th edition's Trait system, to be honest. Do away with Chapter-specific lists entirely (because we've had examples in the fluff of even Ultramarine companies fighting differently to the Chapter norm, depending on the situation and who's in charge) and just let people tailor their own armies to suit their chosen fluff the way they feel works best.

The problem with the Traits system from 4th Ed, which was also the problem with the Doctrine system the Guard had, is that the downsides weren't downsides, so you were getting bonuses for free.

For instance, one Trait that the Marines could take was "No Allies". Well, if you never intended on taking allies (and back then allies meant Inquisition/GKs/SoBs and that's it), then it wasn't really a downside. Same for Doctrines. You lost the ability to take a bunch of units (Ogryn, Sanctioned Psykers, Ratlings, etc.) but if you never intended to bring those units then you weren't really losing anything.

The same thing happened with the 3.5 Codex. Iron Warriors have to give up 2 slots they were never going to use in the first place? Oh no!!!

Pretty much this.

Had all the traits been equal, and the same of the downsides, it could've worked.

But when you get a decent bonus, and then take 'I can't claim cover saves', something Marines didn't traditionally rely on....well.

So until they can get that balance spot on, I think they're better left out,

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I would rather something akin to 4th edition's Trait system, to be honest. Do away with Chapter-specific lists entirely (because we've had examples in the fluff of even Ultramarine companies fighting differently to the Chapter norm, depending on the situation and who's in charge) and just let people tailor their own armies to suit their chosen fluff the way they feel works best.

The problem with the Traits system from 4th Ed, which was also the problem with the Doctrine system the Guard had, is that the downsides weren't downsides, so you were getting bonuses for free.

For instance, one Trait that the Marines could take was "No Allies". Well, if you never intended on taking allies (and back then allies meant Inquisition/GKs/SoBs and that's it), then it wasn't really a downside. Same for Doctrines. You lost the ability to take a bunch of units (Ogryn, Sanctioned Psykers, Ratlings, etc.) but if you never intended to bring those units then you weren't really losing anything.

The same thing happened with the 3.5 Codex. Iron Warriors have to give up 2 slots they were never going to use in the first place? Oh no!!!

Pretty much this.

Had all the traits been equal, and the same of the downsides, it could've worked.

But when you get a decent bonus, and then take 'I can't claim cover saves', something Marines didn't traditionally rely on....well.

So until they can get that balance spot on, I think they're better left out,

Which is why I said something like it, rather than that exact system...

Sorry if this is already adressed in other post, but since they are technically Space Marines too...

Start Collecting! Chaos Marines is out of stock on the website... could it have been a mistake? I guess so, but I'd like to see a SC! for bot 1K Sons and DG...

Is there is any indication about new Chaos products coming on July?

CMLR wrote:
Sorry if this is already adressed in other post, but since they are technically Space Marines too...

Start Collecting! Chaos Marines is out of stock on the website... could it have been a mistake? I guess so, but I'd like to see a SC! for bot 1K Sons and DG...

Is there is any indication about new Chaos products coming on July?

Temporarily Out of Stock or No Longer Available?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

CMLR wrote:
Sorry if this is already adressed in other post, but since they are technically Space Marines too...

Start Collecting! Chaos Marines is out of stock on the website... could it have been a mistake? I guess so, but I'd like to see a SC! for bot 1K Sons and DG...

Is there is any indication about new Chaos products coming on July?

Temporarily Out of Stock or No Longer Available?

*Sold Out Online/No Longer Available Online

CMLR wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

CMLR wrote:
Sorry if this is already adressed in other post, but since they are technically Space Marines too...

Start Collecting! Chaos Marines is out of stock on the website... could it have been a mistake? I guess so, but I'd like to see a SC! for bot 1K Sons and DG...

Is there is any indication about new Chaos products coming on July?

Temporarily Out of Stock or No Longer Available?

*Sold Out Online/No Longer Available Online

Ooo, there very well might be some fire with that smoke. Hopefully they redo the basic Chaos Space Marine kit.