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.

mwnciboo wrote:Because they could focus more time on the specialist games and move away from the Core Warhammer and 40k arenas. Blood Bowl 2, Necramunda, Space Crusade 2, etc there is lots of IP they haven't used (and yes Milton games was a joint collaborator Space crusade I am sure GW could cut a deal).

Why would they focus more time on Specialist Games?
Specialist Games is dead in the water. The individuals who actively supported them are no longer at GW or know they'd be shouted down when they try to push forward with new Specialist Games. The most you'll see done with Specialist Games is likely more 'Space Hulk' styled releases--but even then that requires the game to have been essentially a 'two faction' match.

Kanluwen wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:Because they could focus more time on the specialist games and move away from the Core Warhammer and 40k arenas. Blood Bowl 2, Necramunda, Space Crusade 2, etc there is lots of IP they haven't used (and yes Milton games was a joint collaborator Space crusade I am sure GW could cut a deal).

Why would they focus more time on Specialist Games?
Specialist Games is dead in the water. The individuals who actively supported them are no longer at GW or know they'd be shouted down when they try to push forward with new Specialist Games. The most you'll see done with Specialist Games is likely more 'Space Hulk' styled releases--but even then that requires the game to have been essentially a 'two faction' match.

Yer i have to agree:

One GW Exec: 'you know, if we cut a few corners that will lead to a drop in sales of our flagship formats we can really make 10 guys on the internet really happy (but they will still buy their minis off of ebay)''
Top GW Exec 'YOUR FIRED'

iproxtaco wrote:And again, compiling a bunch of army lists into one giant book wont' cut down on development time. In fact, since this plan involves fleshing out MORE marine chapters, it will INCREASE development time.

It will. As vaktathi has said, it would drastically reduce the amount of marketing and development time needed. Re-introduce chapter traits, add in some special characters who give access to different FOC and units, then market it in along with whatever edition it accompanies.
Look at the IG codex. Once Catachans weren't part of it, now they are. Has the development time increased? No. Are people complaining that they can't run Catachans anymore? No, because they can.

Edit: And why would you need to flesh out more Marine chapters? A few paragraphs from the current codices, copy & pasted in to the "Notable Chapters" section, and a character e.g. Dante, Belial, Helbrecht, Logan Grimnar, takes a few days to add, at the most.

TrollPie wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:And again, compiling a bunch of army lists into one giant book wont' cut down on development time. In fact, since this plan involves fleshing out MORE marine chapters, it will INCREASE development time.

It will. As vaktathi has said, it would drastically reduce the amount of marketing and development time needed. Re-introduce chapter traits, add in some special characters who give access to different FOC and units, then market it in along with whatever edition it accompanies.
Look at the IG codex. Once Catachans weren't part of it, now they are. Has the development time increased? No. Are people complaining that they can't run Catachans anymore? No, because they can.

Yes its possible to field plastic catachans.
No they represent just basic IG troopers, nothing different anymore.

TrollPie wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:And again, compiling a bunch of army lists into one giant book wont' cut down on development time. In fact, since this plan involves fleshing out MORE marine chapters, it will INCREASE development time.

It will. As vaktathi has said, it would drastically reduce the amount of marketing and development time needed. Re-introduce chapter traits, add in some special characters who give access to different FOC and units, then market it in along with whatever edition it accompanies.
Look at the IG codex. Once Catachans weren't part of it, now they are. Has the development time increased? No. Are people complaining that they can't run Catachans anymore? No, because they can.

Edit: And why would you need to flesh out more Marine chapters? A few paragraphs from the current codices, copy & pasted in to the "Notable Chapters" section, and a character e.g. Dante, Belial, Helbrecht, Logan Grimnar, takes a few days to add, at the most.

Have you read the Original Post? You may want to. The basic Idea means putting a bunch of army lists into one big book. That doesn't speed up development time. It also means creating a bunch of army lists for new marine chapters, which INCREASES the time taken to refresh marines. You currently have 5 marine books. This would mean having 4 books, with about 10 lists. That's doubling the development cycle time, that's worsening the situation that a lot of players like to moan about.

iproxtaco wrote:

TrollPie wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:And again, compiling a bunch of army lists into one giant book wont' cut down on development time. In fact, since this plan involves fleshing out MORE marine chapters, it will INCREASE development time.

It will. As vaktathi has said, it would drastically reduce the amount of marketing and development time needed. Re-introduce chapter traits, add in some special characters who give access to different FOC and units, then market it in along with whatever edition it accompanies.
Look at the IG codex. Once Catachans weren't part of it, now they are. Has the development time increased? No. Are people complaining that they can't run Catachans anymore? No, because they can.

Edit: And why would you need to flesh out more Marine chapters? A few paragraphs from the current codices, copy & pasted in to the "Notable Chapters" section, and a character e.g. Dante, Belial, Helbrecht, Logan Grimnar, takes a few days to add, at the most.

Have you read the Original Post? You may want to. The basic Idea means putting a bunch of army lists into one big book. That doesn't speed up development time. It also means creating a bunch of army lists for new marine chapters, which INCREASES the time taken to refresh marines. You currently have 5 marine books. This would mean having 4 books, with about 10 lists. That's doubling the development cycle time, that's worsening the situation that a lot of players like to moan about.

I was responding to your post, where you stated that "compiling a bunch of army lists into one giant book wont' cut down on development time". I'm not talking about knocking off one book.

I'm not sure I ever argued that point. My argument still stands. Putting the same army-lists into a big book won't cut development time. The Dark Angels book and the Blood Angels book in one volume will double the time taken to complete that single book, or it will take a significant number of people away from other projects to complete it in the same amount of time as it takes currently.

iproxtaco wrote:I'm not sure I ever argued that point. My argument still stands. Putting the same army-lists into a big book won't cut development time. The Dark Angels book and the Blood Angels book in one volume will double the time taken to complete that single book, or it will take a significant number of people away from other projects to complete it in the same amount of time as it takes currently.

You did argue that point, see the original quote.
And putting two armies in one book will cut down on development time. As I have stated, it will significantly reduce development time. I'm not saying write a double size book, I'm saying write a book that covers and gives a few rules to play several chapters, in the same way the main codex covers Salamanders or White Scars-but with chapter traits added to make it easier to play them. Also, the development and marketing time will be significantly reduced, as vaktathi has said. It will not take longer to write-writing doesn't take up as much of the development time as you seem to think.

So you want to completely cut out most of the content in the current marine books and compile a bunch of chapter traits which won't make for anywhere near as varied an army as is currently possible. So you do that. You're still writing four codices, creating more rules than were previously available for forces that previously had nothing extra. That's also not the OP's original idea, which was just putting a bunch of lists in a book, wildly different lists into the same book, like Raven Guard which are nothing like Space Wolves, and Dark Angles which are nothing like Blood Angels, which will increase development time.

Here's a concept: Use Codex Space Marines as is. Use Codex Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Black Templars as is. Use whichever one works best for your army. The books are already out so there's not much you can really do about it, and GW won't change their release format unless everyone stops buying Marines.

Kanluwen wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:Because they could focus more time on the specialist games and move away from the Core Warhammer and 40k arenas. Blood Bowl 2, Necramunda, Space Crusade 2, etc there is lots of IP they haven't used (and yes Milton games was a joint collaborator Space crusade I am sure GW could cut a deal).

Why would they focus more time on Specialist Games?
Specialist Games is dead in the water. The individuals who actively supported them are no longer at GW or know they'd be shouted down when they try to push forward with new Specialist Games. The most you'll see done with Specialist Games is likely more 'Space Hulk' styled releases--but even then that requires the game to have been essentially a 'two faction' match.

that and many of their specialist games are fine as is.

BFG's rules are pretty solid and there is a great varity of ship models with the ability to convert any ships which don't have one.

It also has one of the few solid campaign rule sets GW has managed to come up with.

iproxtaco wrote:So you want to completely cut out most of the content in the current marine books and compile a bunch of chapter traits which won't make for anywhere near as varied an army as is currently possible. So you do that. You're still writing four codices, creating more rules than were previously available for forces that previously had nothing extra.

The whole point is that you aren't writing four codices.
Each Marine codex shares 80% of their units, and 10% extra are usually re-skinned things that were already available, with a few extra options and rules. Adding special characters and chapter traits that change the FOC and allow units to take extra options (e.g. taking Dante allows assault marines to be taken as troops, add something that allows you to take Baal preds & Death Company etc), and a page dedicated to that chapter's background with them also mentioned elsewhere throughout the book, doesn't take 6 months. It takes 6 hours. People never say that White Scars can't be made with the current ruleset, or Salamanders, or that the Catachan codex should be brought back, and the same could be done to the other Marine codices.

Although Brother SRM is probably right, and this is pointless. Besides, GW has already stated that they'll never pull another codex.

So, in other words, it is ripping most of current army options out and making them a whole lot less customizable. I play Blood Angels, I don't want to take Dante thanks, I'd guess that Black Templars players don't always want to take Helbrecht, and Space Wolves would prefer not to take Grimnar or Blackmane all the time. It's cutting the content of perfectly valid armies to justify some flawed concept of development time.

Well, what about the codices that will come out prior to the 6e release of the rule book?
Those 5e codices will be outdated as soon as the 6e rule book appears.

the latest codices are supposedly written with 6th ed in mind.


this could explain the high cost of Warding Staves in the GK codex if the rumor about characters being able to take all their saves to avoid wounds is true(2+ armor, 2+ ward, 4+ FnP if in a paladin squad )

Well, I basically refer to the 4e Eldar codex and the changes in the 5e making Eldar vehicles quite expensive.

iproxtaco wrote:So, in other words, it is ripping most of current army options out and making them a whole lot less customizable. I play Blood Angels, I don't want to take Dante thanks, I'd guess that Black Templars players don't always want to take Helbrecht, and Space Wolves would prefer not to take Grimnar or Blackmane all the time. It's cutting the content of perfectly valid armies to justify some flawed concept of development time.

I know it wouldn't be perfect. I'm simply saying they could, in theory, put the rest of the Marine codices in one book to cut down on development time while still allowing you to play that army with the main gameplay intact. They did it to Catachans, White Scars players are happy with the way it is for them, they could do it again.

They didn't do it to Catachans.

iproxtaco wrote:So, in other words, it is ripping most of current army options out and making them a whole lot less customizable. I play Blood Angels, I don't want to take Dante thanks, I'd guess that Black Templars players don't always want to take Helbrecht, and Space Wolves would prefer not to take Grimnar or Blackmane all the time. It's cutting the content of perfectly valid armies to justify some flawed concept of development time.

That's based upon the assumption that that's the only way they'd make chapter specific armies possible in a combined codex, which probably isn't all that likely especially considering how much many of those HQ's cost. There are far better ways to make that possible that GW can and has done.

Grey Templar wrote:well, the 6th edition rumors say that the current chaos codex will become Codex: Renagades and they will also release Codex: Chaos Legions which will have cult troops and more deamonic things.

I honestly doubt that'll happen. Sounds like wishlisting to me.

iproxtaco wrote:They didn't do it to Catachans.

Then what happened to Codex: Catachans?
Edit: The 3rd edition one.

TrollPie wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:They didn't do it to Catachans.

Then what happened to Codex: Catachans?
Edit: The 3rd edition one.

It disappeared. Now you can't play Catachans.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:So, in other words, it is ripping most of current army options out and making them a whole lot less customizable. I play Blood Angels, I don't want to take Dante thanks, I'd guess that Black Templars players don't always want to take Helbrecht, and Space Wolves would prefer not to take Grimnar or Blackmane all the time. It's cutting the content of perfectly valid armies to justify some flawed concept of development time.

That's based upon the assumption that that's the only way they'd make chapter specific armies possible in a combined codex, which probably isn't all that likely especially considering how much many of those HQ's cost. There are far better ways to make that possible that GW can and has done.

Example? And don't mean that in a hostile way. I'm all ears to an idea that isn't HQs.

iproxtaco wrote:

TrollPie wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:They didn't do it to Catachans.

Then what happened to Codex: Catachans?
Edit: The 3rd edition one.

It disappeared. Now you can't play Catachans.

With Straken and veterans with forward sentries you can make a pretty good stand in, like how you can make White Scars with all bikers and Kor'sorro Khan.

Key phrase. Stand-in. Catachan players had a whole codex taken away, and now they can only play a stand-in force. Not that it was much of a problem, since I doubt they were at all numerous, and as far as I can see, it didn't garner that much hate. This is entirely different. Marine players make up a significant majority. I would gamble that White Scars players, as with many other internal faction players, would like a dedicated codex.

at the time the Catachan codex was out, you could also sort of do a Catachan army out of the IG codex with the regimental doctrines.


Catachans with the old IG codex had

Jungle Fighters(4+ cover in forest or jungle, no difficult terrain test for forest, infiltrate into forest, could take a heavy flamer instead of a heavy weapon team, and would have flak vests(6+ armor)
Special weapon squads(you would be allowed special Weapon squads)
Hardened Fighters(+1WS, +1A for sentinels)
Warrior Weapons(models with lasguns could swap for a laspistol and a CCW for 2 pts each)
Light infantry(move through cover, infiltrate, instead of a heavy weapon a squad could take a sniper rifle)

iproxtaco wrote:

Example? And don't mean that in a hostile way. I'm all ears to an idea that isn't HQs.

The old Chapter Traits/doctrines systems for example, or they could just something where at army list construction you pick a chapter and it has various bonuses for certain units, wargear additions/changes, and restrictions for the core list based on that. much like the old CSM codex.

Traits,doctrines...

Its all about SC and USR now so why should GW change its course?
6th ed rumors hint at USR levels and SC are better for finecast sale than standard minis with "imaginary" traits/doctrines.

Old CSM was what traitors represent. WARBANDS mostly. Mixed warbands....
Not really a concept for coherent forces. How many "legions" were used and why? Some? a few?
IIRC people choose the "best combo" of rules and we don't want a mix of space marines don't we as the outcome is the same bland
best of 3 or 4. in fluff your favored CSM are rather the minority in a chaos force and no longer acting as legions, often too few to form a single company and instead act as leaders of other mortal chaOs forces.

Gw finally ended the time of subcodices this year, when SW,BA,DA, armageddon(SM,BT), were all moved in the period of time of 4th and 5th ed to full sized books.

GW also seems to have a plan. Look at USR rage. Unused until BA showed up.....

surely the old way of codex-+-index astartes would be preferrable.
But these four are far bigger than 2 codices of 5th ed alone. They contained just the background of each Legio ( 18 ) from pre-heresy to now, both paintschemes and a small list of bullet points to alter your army built from codices to them. it had some specialists too, explained chaplains, librarians/sorcerers, dreads, Land raiders, Predators, the creation of a space marine, cursed founding, etc but still a long way to go to have every unit explained. so codices would need to expand the size for untis, a complete army list, a hobby section greater than 2 paintschemes in a box per legio, explain all the wargear and the rules if not just linking to the rulebook.
what it may provide would be seriously big, covering almost anything and competing in size with the rulebook twice.

most likely too expensive , unwieldy to carry, and browsing through a BRB sized dex and the BRB itself?

Wouldn't we estimate GW's actual design team would axe a lot of things? Look up HH in 5th ed codices, or IG camo schemes/organization in 5th ed, etc.

Once we had codices + wd lists, minidex, etc. 'Then came traits/doctrines. Now is the age of SC/USR.
And GW is happy with this SC = mini to sell, USR =located in the rulebook and may change with an edition without redoing that codex.



Codices exist to sell minis.
To add new kits you have to have free spots, to create more codices easier you have to have basic models and copy&pastable background. So less developement time and marketing ( who said marketing? GW and marketing?? ) are neccessary if you can base
it on existant material plus 2-3 new kits and a few fluff blurbs. Excactly what space marines provide.
- no complete overhaul
- every unit compatible and thus less scultping of different units
- basic wellknown statline, basic rules
- flat surfaces and managable to paint for beginners
- just use existing models and 2-3 new kits and some finecasted ...

I'm a little confused as to all the allegations that combining the books would significantly increase development time. Yes, you're talking about 4 armies, but these 4 armies share 80% of the same units. Really all they'd be doing is playtesting the core units and the smattering of special, unique units in the other codices. This is not 'significantly increased development time.' In fact I doubt it would be increased development time at all. Also the original poster isn't talking about taking all 4 books and putting them together unchanged, that would of course be ridiculous. An abridged version of the fluff in all 4 codices rolled into a new codex for all the loyalist chapters would make the most sense, and then of course the 1 army list at the back for all the core units followed by specialist, Chapter-specific units.

Honestly, it REALLY wouldn't be hard. At all. The only thing about such a release that WOULD be more time consuming is the actual model range, as they'd have to accommodate the iconography of each chapter under 1 release. But again, this isn't hard. BT and DA already have their own upgrade sprues, all they'd need to do is revamp those and sell them alongside the current tac box and grey hunters box, and that's all there is to it.

Vaktathi wrote:If such things can be portayed within a single book, what's the problem with doing the loyalist marines in a single book?

The problem? It can't. Considering how reviled the current CSM Codex is I can assure you that GW would get loads of angry letters if they did the same to loyalists. If anything, the major Chaos Chapters should have books of their own.

The obvious solution for getting everyone the updates they deserve, which GW seems to have moved towards with with the FAQs for 8th ed of WHFB and the FAQ/Errata updates for DA and BT, is to errata the old Codices when they release a new edition so that you're not completely hamstrung by having an old Codex. While the "up to date" armies would still be more powerful, it'd even the playing field substantially. This way the weaker Codices can be updated first without leaving everyone else waiting.


Oh, and no more male bovine droppings like counter-attacking dual-melta acute senses bolter+BP/CC marines for 15 points a pop.

I think the problem is that they've dug themselves into a hole with the Space Marines. They focus half of their books on the marines, because those are what sell best. But of course, the reason they sell best is because they've always focused on them more (I know that sounds like circular logic, just bear with me). Now, with everyone associating 40k immediately with Space Marines, they have no choice but to keep pumping out more and more marine codexes, much to the chagrin of non-SM players. But they have no choice at this point, because too much of their fanbase is wrapped up in marines. Taking the time to do separate Chaos Legion, IG Regiment, or Eldar Craftworld codexes would just take too much manpower away from working on the books that sell the most models. It's a vicious cycle, and something I don't see changing anytime soon.