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.

That would require GW to stop groping its Astartes realdolls long enough to pay attention to something else

I really wish they would. I really do.

You know how much I love the Inquisition. And how much I want to see more Tau fluff.

But alas, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Melissia wrote:Good job That's kinda what I'm doing. I plan on using DKoK models for my veterans, and Cadians for my regulars.

Though it's a pain to be able to afford all those models.

When I finish my Tyranids, Im going to finish my IG. But was planning on using the DKoK for my unit of Rough Riders. Those models are to awesome looking. The entire DKoK model like look pretty badass. But I settled on the Rough Riders.

The idea of individual Codexs is a nice idea, but GW I dont think would take the time to keep all of them up to date and you would run into either conflicts or outdated entries. It would just become a mess. Like poor Black Templar and Target Priority.

IE, we'd have no real difference between now and if theyw ere added in, except we'd have more choices instead of less.

I like melissia's idea of a supplement like notable imperial guard regiments. and had rules/fluff for them all that would be cool.

sebster wrote:Because they'd rather focus on producing interests units within the standard codex, then prop up mediocre codex design with special sub-list rules.

Yes.

IHEARTLARGEBLASTTEMPLATES wrote:Hmm very true makes sense, but could they not do both?

No. At least, not without making a logistical nightmare out of everything (aka 3rd ed).

If you want a different or fluffy army, you don't need a separate codex. There is plenty in the codex as-is that allows you to do strange stuff without needing to explain rules out of a White Dwarf of a gagillion little codecies to people.

GW has been working hard to streamline things over the past few years. Going back to things in the past would be taking a step backwards.

hmm well i was just thinking if they will do it for every god damn space marine chapter they could do something similar for guard.

There was once a time when Cadians, Catachans, Elysians, and Steel Legion all had separate army lists. Then the previous Guard codex came out with sufficient options to cover every single one of them adequately in just one book. That's really nice because then you don't get regiments suffering from Dark Angel syndrome and you don't clog the devolpment pipeline with another half dozen Imperial armies.

Ailaros wrote:GW has been working hard to streamline things over the past few years. Going back to things in the past would be taking a step backwards.

IF they were really working hard on that objective they'd have combined the loyalist marines into Codex: Space Marines.

You can't do many IG armies with the fifth edition C:IG book. It's a great book and arguably better than the previous one, but it's still not perfect. Options for WS4 guardsmen would have been nice, at least WS4 veterans.

Working hard does not mean always successful.

Throwing dozens of chapter approveds, white dwarf articles, and random PDF's from all over the place and throwing them into a single codex that makes heavy use of universal special rules sounds like a sign of success to me.

I know there are those who don't like this, but they can go back to playing 2nd and 3rd eds. Just because the streets were literally paved with gold and the grass was literally greener back in 1998 doesn't mean we all miss it...

Ailaros wrote:Just because the streets were literally paved with gold and the grass was literally greener back in 1998 doesn't mean we all miss it...

Did I say the old codex was better, and have I ever said third edition is better than fifth? No and no. I have consistently said the opposite, in both cases, that the new codex is better.

But better is not perfect. It still lacks many of the options people loved in the previous codex, even if it has many more.

I think it comes down to 3 reasons.

First: There is not enough will (perhaps through a perception that players don't have enough interest) to make different regiments, as GW figures players will continue to play lists the same way regardless. Also, through observation of what sells.

Second: With the new codex, GW probably assumed players could play different armies, based on their regiment, just by using available choices. The add on characters, more or no commissars, vehicle squadrons, psyker squads, lots of vets or none, etc. Sort of how a basic codex SM or CSM player can build quite a few different styles of armies.

Finally: I can't help but notice that they really only seem to want to support Cadians as their IG line. Let's be honest, 99% of IG armies are made up of Cadians; even old metal ones. Players always seem to give the same reason too; "They look the most like real army soldiers." GW is moving to the almost-all plastic model lines. It is costly, and space prohibitive, to maintain molds and everything else for so many models. It is in their interest (I'm guessing) to reduce the IG line to only 1 regiment. Remember, this was their reason for dropping the griffon and exterminator. Perhaps, with enough demand, they could produce 'regimental sprues' like the newer marine chapter sprues. If customers buy Cadians then Cadians are what they are going to produce.

Just some thoughts.

Melissia wrote:The difference is not always there to begin with.

Yes, Blood Angels have a separate book . Bully for them. It was unnecessary, as looking at the lists, at least 22 units are essentially the same unit, not even renamed (if you're lucky they're repriced or have a few different options). They might as well be a sub-list in my eyes. That's 22 out of 30-- now aren't you special?

Yes, Space Wolves have a separate book. Coolio. They're a bit more different from codex Marines, but at least 10 units are nearly identical. Black Templars, 10 units identical (out of 18). Dark Angels, 13 (out of 20), though both of the latter suffer from outdated rules to a varied amount.

So yes. I understand the difference between a sublist and a standalone codex. There isn't very much of one, when looking at fifth edition Marine codices.

So you don't understand the difference. Because the difference is that seperate codex comes with it's own model range, it's own special units, and yes, it's own codex; whereas a sub-list says 'use the regular codex but move this unit from FA into troops, and give everything furious charge'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:One could say the same for Space Marine codices, too. But arguably the Guard has much more variance (there's far more worlds that produce Guard, and thus far more cultures that produce them).

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that there are loads and loads of marine players, and far fewer IG players. The division of marines into multiple codices is necessary, because the alternative is to have around half of all players using the exact same ruleset.

No such thing is necessary with IG.

Well, Vostroyans and Steel Legion are both cost-prohibitive, and they happen to be pretty fluffy as mechanized veterans, with carapace armor for the Vostroyans. I guess you're kind of forced into playing them fluffy if you want to keep any money in your wallet...

I don't really have a problem with the Guard codex and how it handles different regiments. I'd rather my Catachans didn't have 6+ armor saves and abilities that only work in trees.

Brother SRM wrote:I don't really have a problem with the Guard codex and how it handles different regiments. I'd rather my Catachans didn't have 6+ armor saves and abilities that only work in trees.

maybe they could make it a bit more balanced but that the idea.

Brettila wrote:
Finally: I can't help but notice that they really only seem to want to support Cadians as their IG line. Let's be honest, 99% of IG armies are made up of Cadians; even old metal ones. Players always seem to give the same reason too; "They look the most like real army soldiers." GW is moving to the almost-all plastic model lines. It is costly, and space prohibitive, to maintain molds and everything else for so many models. It is in their interest (I'm guessing) to reduce the IG line to only 1 regiment. Remember, this was their reason for dropping the griffon and exterminator. Perhaps, with enough demand, they could produce 'regimental sprues' like the newer marine chapter sprues. If customers buy Cadians then Cadians are what they are going to produce.

I disagree for the most part. Prior to the release of the "3rd Edition" IG codex, we have 4 Guardsman, and only one of them had Cadians and it was only 2 squads mixed in with Mordians. I saw them more then anything else.

I personally collected Vahallans. And if GW was interested in going with straight Cadians, why not discontinue all other models? IE Stop selling them. Yeah you have to pay more but you still have the option for the Vostryans, Valhallans, Tallaran and several others. Like with Space Marines focusing on Ultramarines all the time they have choosen Cadians. Partially because their storyline tied to the Cadian Gate and everything involving that region. It makes the most sense. They mention the others much like Space Marines do in their codex.


I