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.

GW has published a number of codices that offer many different ways of organizing an army. The idea has waxed and waned, with some books offering only one list possibility and others offering several. As far as the idea of books that essentially offer more than one army list, should this be done at all, and if so, what is your favorite way of doing it?

One Codex, One List: Such as the Eldar codex, where there's one list and every army follows it.

HQ List Variants: Such as the Blood Angels and Ork codices, where different HQ choices have a small effect on the way your army's org chart is distributed, but basically, one list per codex.

HQ Auxiliary Lists: Such as the Tau and Old Dark Eldar codices, where certain HQ choices fundamentally alter the composition of a list, while still keeping the same units and basic rules.

Multiple Lists: Such as the old Chaos Marines codex, which just included a number of distinctive different army lists, some of which included units from other codices.

I would like to be able to run lists where i can take the entire army in a drastically way e.g. marine bike army