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.

This thought occured to me in another thread about the Grey Knights.

Does anything else think there's a ridiculous number of Codices for this game, and that more than two or three are actually redundant?

-Daemon Hunters + Witch Hunters = Codex: Inquisition. Add in the Ordo Xenos and you can build an army of specialists with lots of neat tricks and abilities that can be geared to fight nearly any other army in game. I can't figure why these armies are separate to begin with. I know they hunt different things, but keeping them separate seems silly.

-Chaos Daemons + Chaos Space Marines = Codex: Chaos. They already have a lot of the same abilities, units, and models running under different names. Why these two armies are separate I don't know.

-I love space marines, but stop the SM spam. Dark Angels and Blood Angels are nearly the exact same thing to the Codex chapters as they stand now, except of a few special abilites that can be added through ICs:

Belial of the Deathwing: Replaces combat tactics with Master of the Death Wing (Terminators are now scoring units and may be taken as troop choices. All Terminator suits now have the Death Wing Assault special rule). Do the same for Sammael if you want to run a Ravenwing army.

Dante, Chapter Master of the Blood Angels: Replaces combat tactics with The Curse (If Dante is included in your army you may select a single Tactical, or Assault Marine squad to become a Death Company Squad. The Death Company Squad receives the Black Rage special rule, but is no longer scoring). Dante allows you to take Assault Marine Squads as troop choices.

Bam. No more need for separate codices for either Dark Angels or the Blood Angels. The Furioso Dreadnought is pretty much the Ironclad anyway, and the Baal Predator's weapons can just be made options for a standard Predator. Black Templars and Space Wolves are more tricky, but even if they're kept separate, we've already removed two redundant Codices.

That's 16 Codices knocked down to 12.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the # of codices out there.
I could see a Codex:Inquisition being feasible. I mean, rumor is that GW is discussing that already, anyway. Even then, I wouldn't want it if the different elements within it couldn't be mix & matched.

Lumping CSM and Daemons would be a horrible idea. Aside from the fact that they're both Chaos, they're entirely different armies.
Using that reasoning, we could have Codex: Imperium with both of the Imperial armies and (IG & SM) and Codex: Eldar with Eldar and Dark Eldar. There wouldn't be much difference.

No. I'm all for every army having its own codex (even the SM variants).

Eric

I think the OP is right. There are too many overlapping codices, and not enough that actually create the variation in gameplay that different armies are supposed to have.

Guess it depends on what you are after from the game. I figure you have three possible backgrounds for people in this hobby: the board/strategy gamer, the painter, and the fluff/RPG gamer (fluffer? )

I can see where the OP is coming from: cheaper, more streamlined, less confusing rules and crossover.

But realize there is a HUGE chunk of the population that have an RPG/fluff background. Look back at second edition D&D: hundreds of books covering thousands of rules, topics, cultures, etc.

You are right, from a gameplay standpoint these books don't add a ton.

But that only addresses 1/3rd of the populations interests.

People love the fluff, they want unique armies, unique models, backstory, art, etc. It may be good for the GAME, but not necessarily for the HOBBY.

I love the different codex's, the different models, and the opportunity to scratch build stuff. A lot of people do. GW can make more money this way, and I'm fine with it.

Now you can argue that BL books, homebrew, and DIY chapters/clans/etc. should take care of that...but you would be wrong, I think. Look at an RPG, a basic rule book SHOULD handle everything, and novels should give us enough ideas for the rest, but GURPS and D&D do so well because of the variety and support. Heck, Gurps is barely a system at all anymore, just hundreds of redundant support books.

In conclusion, I contend that there is a significant portion of the population is at least as interested in unique and well supported armies, models, and fluff as they are in streamlined and competitive rules and armies with clearly defined and unique roles. Personally, I would miss the variety.

CSM and Daemons were the same codex before they made Daemons their own army, and it was a great codex. The fact that they removed all the cool daemon stuff from the CSM codex still makes me angry. But i do agree that most of the Space Marine codices should be combined into one main book. There are just way too much space marine books with the same crap in them.

What the OP says +1.

More codeci means that it will take longer to update each and everyone. It may mean that people buy more models due to more armies around.

@MagickalMemories: I think your point is pretty exaggerated. Combining divergent chapters of one army into one codex, especially if they ain't that different from each other (mostly same statline, same weapons, same units) is nothing like combining eldar and dark eldar in one codex (which have only a similar statlines and similar weapons...).

riplikash wrote:In conclusion, I contend that there is a significant portion of the population is at least as interested in unique and well supported armies, models, and fluff as they are in streamlined and competitive rules and armies with clearly defined and unique roles. Personally, I would miss the variety.

I feel that it's exactly the splitting of the various codeci that is killing the variety. There are numerous codeci out there that cover different chapters of the space marines (Space Wolves, Black Templar, Dark Angels and Blood Angels) which are not that wildly different. It would be bad, there we agree, if the backround got cut down to a few pages when be put together in one codex. But that does not necessarily have to be the case.

And tell me where there was an increase in variety after splitting up chaos and daemons?

Greets
Schepp himself

Simple GW Logic:

This Idea = Less Codicies.
Less Codicies = Less Profit.
Less Profit = Bad.

Therefore: This Idea = Bad.

This is a FOR-profit organization. More products will prob. sell more as the price is lower than if they were to have less products (which means higher costs for the consumer).

At least that's a simplified way I would view GW's stance on this idea.

Its all about more money,but I'd like it if they did'nt make as many of them.

The only reason I would support this is due to the fact that GW obviously can't support the number of codices they have. If they supported them properly, then the more the merrier.

However, having 20 poorly supported codices is inferior to 10 well supported codices IMO.

I remarked in another thread that less books is better-- that definitely holds true for Codices. Right now, I think there are probably slightly too many Codices in the game. A unified Inquisition book would be a good first step, as would a unified Chaos book, preferably with more detailed Chaos Marine options as well. I'll be interested to see what the new Blood Angels Codex looks like. It's possible that it will have some new and interesting direction for the army that will make the book seem more justified. I currently consider Blood Angels to be somewhat marginal, but like the potential of them having their own Codex.

Sanctjud wrote:Simple GW Logic:

This Idea = Less Codicies.
Less Codicies = Less Profit.
Less Profit = Bad.

Therefore: This Idea = Bad.

This is a FOR-profit organization. More products will prob. sell more as the price is lower than if they were to have less products (which means higher costs for the consumer).

At least that's a simplified way I would view GW's stance on this idea.

I would disagree. I'm not gonna go commenting on peoples opinion on which codices go or stay or if any go at all, but there is another way this can be looked at.

The way 40k is now, several armies are near dead, or might as well be. How often do you see a Daemon Hunters, Witch Hunters, Chaos Daemons, or a Dark Eldar army? I have seen them, but I'll tell you there don't seem to be that many.

GW could gain profit by consolidating the models together into group codices like an Inquisition Codex, or by folding the models into a more popular army (Chaos Daemons and CSM). This change would need to be pushed a certain way for it to work however. Done wrong and you're probably right and GW would lose money, but if the change is made in certain ways they can boost the sales of models that don't sell that much right now by making them available for play to other more common armies. I'm certainly mire likely to buy your nice Grey Knights models if they became an Elites choice for a Space Marine army than I am with them as a separate army (Just an example).

There is a tipping point where too few armies is too few, and too many is too many. I'm not going to go and buy some models even if I like them, if it means I have to build a new army to play them. Consolidating various units and models that might go well together into a single army is more likely to boost their sales than decrease them.

-1

Why? I like to take a standard force along with me and pit it against as many types of army as I can, so more codexes means more challenges. I also agree with the people that play a certain way for fluff reasons (I'm one), and a lesser combined codex would invariably lead to a drop out in the standard and quantity of said fluff... I'm also sadistic enough to love the fact that the 'history' of 40k is so muddled and contradicted - the time of the Heresy et al is in effect a time of myth, and therefore open to corruption.

Give me more... Legion codexes, Craftworld lists, Demi(sqt)urg, Klan lists and anything else that sounds like it could use fleshing out.

More might not always be better, but less is always worse when it comes to choice. Lists will always rise and fall in popularity, that's not enough of a reason to get rid.

Sanctjud wrote:Simple GW Logic:

This Idea = Less Codicies.
Less Codicies = Less Profit.
Less Profit = Bad.

Therefore: This Idea = Bad.

This is a FOR-profit organization. More products will prob. sell more as the price is lower than if they were to have less products (which means higher costs for the consumer).

At least that's a simplified way I would view GW's stance on this idea.

This model is the US car industry and PC industry. Apple pared its product lines and focused on a few items and rode the wave of profitability. The US makers are now dropping brands left and right in an effort to return to profitability. Having lots of products with minute differences only confuses the consumer. See "The Tyranny of Choice" and consider how choice virtually requires a large income to sustain happiness. Apply that to GW's increasingly frequent price rises and costs as their various products ebb and flow in the marketplace.

This is a brand new and exciting idea, please tell me more.

KevlarPaperclips wrote:CSM and Daemons were the same codex before they made Daemons their own army, and it was a great codex.

That isn't exactly true.
I mean, they DID have specific Daemon types in the codex, but you could not run an all Demon army at that time. So, really, you had CSM with demonic support... which they still have (but with generic Demons).
It WAS a great codex, but it also fell prey to the fact that, if you wanted to be competetive, you had to build a certain type of army (Herohammer).

The way 40k is now, several armies are near dead, or might as well be. How often do you see a Daemon Hunters, Witch Hunters, Chaos Daemons, or a Dark Eldar army? I have seen them, but I'll tell you there don't seem to be that many.

So, what you did was choose 3 armies using outdated codices and one that doesn't function well until you hit the 1750 point (or so) range, and use that as proof? Come on.

That just isn't a wise line of thought.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

The way 40k is now, several armies are near dead, or might as well be. How often do you see a Daemon Hunters, Witch Hunters, Chaos Daemons, or a Dark Eldar army? I have seen them, but I'll tell you there don't seem to be that many.

So, what you did was choose 3 armies using outdated codices and one that doesn't function well until you hit the 1750 point (or so) range, and use that as proof? Come on.

You can't deny that these armies don't appear that much. There is likely a reason their Codices are outdated, two even. They aren't popular compared to other armies, and there are too many codices to update! If given the choice between updating IG or Chaos Daemons, of course they'll choose IG, because IG makes more money. Thus the least popular armies get left in the dust as the more popular armies keep getting attention, which makes them even less successful.

Just because you fold the Daemons and CSM into a single codex doesn't mean you can't run an all daemon army. Its as easy as designing the army list to allow all CSM, all Daemons, or a mix.

Like I said. Such a change as combining codices and folding some into others would need to be done right. As I see it, the current build of 40k suffers from over saturation. There are too many armies to balance and update. I agree that if the Chaos Daemons were completely removed it would be bad and reduce variety. None of us want that. But increasing variety doesn't mean we have to flood the game with a new army! Folding less popular armies or multiple armies into a united Codex doesn't have to work that way. We can cut a codex, combine it with another, and keep the units more or less the same by balancing them into the game as part of another army. One less codex to update, and pure Chaos Daemons might become more common build because they are now part of a more popular army encouraging players to try them more.

EDIT: Of course I guess this is a double edged sword. Removing popular armies entirely is a bad idea. But if all we do us continually update the same armies with new units and options eventually we just get bloated army lists that become unwieldy. I think the ones I specifically mentioned could be done without that being a problem, but there certainly could come a point where if you want to expand the game you'd have to add a new army or risk the ones you already have suffer from being too big. Still, I'd like to see a decrease in redundant armies. I just don't see why we need 5 flavors of space marines, 2 flavors of Chaos, and 2 flavors of Inqusition.

Witchhunters: I have 4 in my gaming group. Of those 4, one I LOVE playing against. Hard to beat in good hands. I see them much.

Daemonhunters: sprinkled in other armies. 2 players in my gaming group I know of. One is for the fluff and painting, the other is for fun but competitive, sprikled IG in them.

Daemons: 7-8 of them? On and off, most love the win big/lose big aspect.

Dark Eldar: I've only seen 2, 1 I have only seen once and in ramshakle form and the other is a beast of a list, the traditional WWP army.

As for my comment about "This Idea = bad" was only joking there.

To those who seem to think it, combining the extra codices shouldn't get rid of the variety and stuff in the game. In fact, I think it would leave more free time for GW dex writers to come up with original ideas instead of doing SM after SM (daemons doesn't count, since they were simply ripped out of CSM and fleshed out with sawdust). Furthermore it would give more time to expand on the current underdeveloped stuff like Xenos.

LordofHats wrote:
You can't deny that these armies don't appear that much. There is likely a reason their Codices are outdated, two even. They aren't popular compared to other armies, and there are too many codices to update! If given the choice between updating IG or Chaos Daemons, of course they'll choose IG, because IG makes more money. Thus the least popular armies get left in the dust as the more popular armies keep getting attention, which makes them even less successful.

Actually, I *can* deny that. Maybe you don't see them but, with the exception of Dark Eldar, I see them almost weekly. When the new DE codex comes out, if it's as good as I expect, I will probably start seeing them. the only reason you don't see DE much is because the codex bites (IMO).

LordofHats wrote:Just because you fold the Daemons and CSM into a single codex doesn't mean you can't run an all daemon army. Its as easy as designing the army list to allow all CSM, all Daemons, or a mix.

This goes against GW's stated goals of 1 army = 1 codex.

LordofHats wrote:Like I said. Such a change as combining codices and folding some into others would need to be done right. As I see it, the current build of 40k suffers from over saturation. There are too many armies to balance and update. I agree that if the Chaos Daemons were completely removed it would be bad and reduce variety. None of us want that. But increasing variety doesn't mean we have to flood the game with a new army! Folding less popular armies or multiple armies into a united Codex doesn't have to work that way. We can cut a codex, combine it with another, and keep the units more or less the same by balancing them into the game as part of another army. One less codex to update, and pure Chaos Daemons might become more common build because they are now part of a more popular army encouraging players to try them more.

I disagree with this entirely. How can "too much" choice be a bad thing? I personally LOVE that I have such a large range of models and armies to choose from. In fact, I'd like to see a few more:
LatD
Cults (Genestealer, Chaos, etc)
Squats/Demiurg (a man can wish)
Hrud

That's just off of the top of my head.

I also hope to see the rumored Chaos expansions that are geared towards individual Gods.

LordofHats wrote:EDIT: Of course I guess this is a double edged sword. Removing popular armies entirely is a bad idea. But if all we do us continually update the same armies with new units and options eventually we just get bloated army lists that become unwieldy. I think the ones I specifically mentioned could be done without that being a problem, but there certainly could come a point where if you want to expand the game you'd have to add a new army or risk the ones you already have suffer from being too big. Still, I'd like to see a decrease in redundant armies. I just don't see why we need 5 flavors of space marines, 2 flavors of Chaos, and 2 flavors of Inqusition.

Why do we "need" those?
Well, need is a subjective word. We don't NEED anything from 40K. Gaming is not a true need.

In the context you intended it, however:
Why do we need them? I, for one, enjoy knowing that I can represent any flavor of SM I want, rather than having to rely on one Codex to choose from. I mean, if you combined all the current SM choices into one codex and included all of the unit choices specific to each army, you're probably looking at a 250 - 300 page codex.
No thanks.

Why multiple flavors of Inquisition? Last I checked, there WERE multiple flavors of the inquisition... and each one was structured and operated differently. Again, 200+ page codex. Talk about bloat.

As for Chaos... CSM and demons are not the same army. Why lump them together? They work differently, act differently, and play differently. Aside from the "Chaos" part, they're nothing alike.

The current codex structure is a big pain to navigate now, with some information in the front half & the rest in the back haf. Trying to pull that off with a 200, 250, 300+ page codex would just be aggrivating.


Eric

I think more supported codices are fine.
I think having codices without support is not.

Whether than means giving either more support or having less codices, I think it should happen.

Less codices would be better IMO. There's no reason they can't have separate force list sections for specific space marine chapters, for example, within one codex.

MagickalMemories wrote:This goes against GW's stated goals of 1 army = 1 codex.

Is folding the two into one army not one army? The Dark Angels Codex and the Space Wolves codex already allow you to field nothing but Terminators, and the Dark Angels dex allows you to field nothing but bikes and fast attack, as does C:SM. Same principle. One army can be deployed in more than one way if the list is designed to allow it.

I disagree with this entirely. How can "too much" choice be a bad thing?

The Video Game Crash of 1983
Voting (Nations with more elections have drastically lower turnout than nations with fewer)
Basic principle of Supply and Demand seems applicable

Saturation, ie, too many choices, is bad. So is too few choices. I think there are too many armies, several of them redundant. Making matters worse is the need for updates, updates to redundant codices that actually don't offer any real variety. Dark Angels and Blood Angels are a hey penny from having the same army list as vanilla marines. They've only added special rules that can be summed up on two or three pieces of paper through IC's. That's what sets them apart, and imo, its not worthy of giving them their own codex when they're otherwise identicle.
t

Why do we "need" those?
Well, need is a subjective word. We don't NEED anything from 40K. Gaming is not a true need.

Rephrase. I don't know why we have so many different flavors.

200 Pages? I can put the Dark Angels and the Blood angels into C:SM with 3 extra pages, and two less codices. Many of the Daemon units are already listed in the CSM dex with Summoned in front of their names. And just because they play differently, doesn't mean they can't be combined and still offer their different styles of play (Though I do admit that my main reason for wanting them combined is simplifying the army list down to fewer codices, and these two can be combined easily).

I don't know if it's a fact (would need a survey for this), but I think that armies with older codeci aren't played as often as newer updated ones. If some of you live in a gaming environment that has multiple daemonhunters/witchhunters/dark eldar players then consider yourself lucky.

And it's not a given that fewer codeci means dumping down and restricting army and unit choices.

Greets
Schepp himself

Looking at the Inquisition Codices, I will compare thier Choices:

HQ:
Daemon Hunters:
Brother-Captain/Grand Master Guy
Witch Hunters:
Cannoness
Priest
Both:
Inquisitor Lord and Retinue.

So, We are talking maybe 1 HQ chice extra, each, plus any special Characters. If you made it so that you need to take certain HQ units to take certain units, it would eliminate "Throw Together" armies.

Elites:
Daemon Hunters:
Terminators
Daemon Hosts
Witch Hunters:
Repentias
Arco-Flaggellants.
Both:
Inquisitors
Assassins

Again, combining them would not "Overstuff" the codex. There would only be 2 new units over either of the old Codices, and two of them are limited by whether you take a cannonnes or Brother-Captain.

Troops:
Daemon Hunters:
Grey Knights
Witch Hunters:
Sisters of Battle
Both:
Storm Troopers

I am senseing a pattern here.

Fast:
Daemon Hunters:
Deepstriking Grey Knights
Witch Hunters:
Seraphims
Both:
Nothing.

I think that, If anything, This section could benefit from a few more options.

Heavy:
Daemon Hunters:
Dreadnaught
Land Raider
Grey Knight Heavy Weapon Squad
Witch Hunters:
Penitant Engine
Immolator
Exorcist
Sisters Heavy Weapon Squad

This would mean only 3 more Heavy Support Choices than Witch Hunters.

All told, a combined Codex would gain only 8 units more than a seperate codex. The new Tyranids gain a similar number, IG gained a almost as many in tanks alone, and Space Marines only a few less. So I do not think a combined codex would run out of Space.

I like the variety of armies that are out there, BUT do think that 40k could be deflated some. Mostly what happens in my area is people like to jump on the bandwagon and play the most up to date army. As was stated before if you have less codices it is easier to update the ones you have. The only problem i have is that i also like the fluff would probably be put on the back burner if all the redundant armies were to be combined. I like the backstory of the armies they put into the codices and would be sad to see them lack if combined.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also just to point out why dont xenos armies have multiple codices like SMs do. Orks for example COULD have 6+ codices with all the different clans.

First remember that JERVIS JOHNSON intentionally wrote the Dark Angel codex to suck, it's like an exercise in reverse broken. Second remember that Grey Knights are an awesome ally and were never intended to be strong as a stand alone army.

G

Tyyr wrote:This is a brand new and exciting idea, please tell me more.

QFT.

I did not equate "rolling them into one codex" as "rolling them into one army." I thought you were adding multiple codices into one codex, not one army. My apologies for misunderstanding.

In that case, I no longer dislike the idea. I abhor it.

Obviously, neither of us will convince the other why his opinion is better, and that's fine. Just wanted you to know I have no plans of arguing it with you. "Live and let live" and all that. : )

Take care.

Eric

The only problem I have with so many different Ciodexes is the strain it puts on my shoulder carrying my bag into the FLGS.

In 2012 there will be 2 codexes..

Marines

And

Not Marines.