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.

I've heard alot of griping about there being multiple space marine codex. So I had the idea that, what if these were combined into one large codex, with diffferent play styles choices inside of it instead of having a separate one for each. Of course, this would be an expensive codex. So my question is would you prefer the multiple codices, or have a large, unified codex?

I'm ok with separated codices, but other factions would deserve some of that love

You'd best don your asbestos suit and batten down the hatches for the storm of flames headed your way. You see it was OK to cram Orks klans, Eldar craftworlds and Chaos legions all into single books but it's just not acceptable for the poster boys.

tis true, they should put them all in one codex, but im not willing to pay £50 for that codex.

It would have to be at least 600 pages, for all the fluff and variant armies (to be done properly)

The thing is, if GW stopped hiding behind that "We're only a miniature company that happends to make rules for them" it'd be possible to have códices for everyone.

At first, the expense would seem hard on your wallet, but buying a single expensive codex would actually be cheaper than than if you bought all the codices separately.

IMO There should only be 3 SM codeci at most:
The SW codex
The BT codex
And the main SM codex
The codeci were meant to show a difference in structure and only the SW and BT truly have that... and even then they could be folded into a super SM codex pretty easily.

It wouldn't be a problem to integrate SM's so we basically just have C:SM, C:CSM, C: DH/GK.

In all honesty, the differences between most loyalist SM armies are rather hamfisted and flimsy, there simply to justify a different book, not really critical underlying differences. Most differences are less than the differences between their own codex updates. C:SM 4E plays far more differently from C:SM 5E than say, C:BA 5E play from C:SM 5E.

Hell, C:BA and C:SM outright share like 80% of their units and almost all wargear, and most of the rest are simply variants of similar units. Between C:SM and C:BA there are only two units in each book that don't really have a counterpart in the opposite codex. C:SM has Thunderfires and LS Storms, C:BA has Death Company and Stormravens (sanguinary guard are just slightly beefed Vanguard Vets, don't really count).

Even with C:SW, as is they are mostly C:CSM "undivided" but with Counterattack and loyalist equipment and waaayy cheaper. The only unit that C:SW has that doesn't have an identical counterpart or very similar equivalent in C:SM (or C:CSM) is Thunderwolf Cavalry, a rather hamfisted fanfic-y addition.

DA's whole shtick is basically just FoC swapping that other armies already do, other than that they really have nothing truly unique except SC's.

BT's again, primarily just random special rules as with the rest and then can have mixed Scout/Tac squads. Not really something they needed their own book for.


None of these would be very difficult to fold into one book. Most really never should have had their own book in the first place.


Also, to those complaining about having to buy a potentialy $50 book, at the rate codecies have increased in price over the last 4 years we will be there in another 4 years anyway, and it doesn't seem to hurt most other wargames, e.g. Flames of War with $50 operational theater books (e.g. Eastern Front).

Cutting out 4 armies and amalgamating them into a single Loyalist SM book would solve a lot of headaches with books spread over various editions, differing versions of identical wargear, increasingly random new units hamfisted in to maintain "uniqueness", etc.

It would also mean that armies get updated faster. At this point, GW puts out 2-3 books a year, cutting 4 armies from that cycle could mean that GW gets through every army two years faster, maybe even within the span of a single edition. Wouldn't that be nice?

I like the cut of your jib.

SumYungGui wrote:You'd best don your asbestos suit and batten down the hatches for the storm of flames headed your way. You see it was OK to cram Orks klans, Eldar craftworlds and Chaos legions all into single books but it's just not acceptable for the poster boys.

I love how people point towards "Chaos Legions" and "Ork Klans" as "crammed into single books".

They've, since 2nd edition, been single books.

The only one you're even remotely close to having a good example to go on is "Eldar Craftworlds", and even then that book was the size of the old Blood Angels/Dark Angels/Space Wolves/Catachan Codices. And required you to have a parent Codex to work from.

Vaktathi wrote:DA's whole shtick is basically just FoC swapping that other armies already do, other than that they really have nothing truly unique except SC's.

You mean other than the whole "being the first and only Codex that really was just serving as a testbed to see how that FoC swapping that other armies already(which at that time were not published) do" thing?

Yeah. The problem with Dark Angels is they royally fethed up producing it. It was the first attempt for genericizing an army that had a lot of uniqueness going on. It failed miserably, and they corrected the mistakes for Codex: Space Marines.

Dark wrote:I'm ok with separated codices, but other factions would deserve some of that love

I agree with this pretty much. There should be more love for xenos factions (I play orks and nids ) but that doesn't mean that we have to amalgamate other armies.

Kanluwen wrote:
You mean other than the whole "being the first and only Codex that really was just serving as a testbed to see how that FoC swapping that other armies already(which at that time were not published) do" thing?

Yeah. The problem with Dark Angels is they royally fethed up producing it. It was the first attempt for genericizing an army that had a lot of uniqueness going on. It failed miserably, and they corrected the mistakes for Codex: Space Marines.

Ok...but still not really what's wrong with them.

Dark Angels still have always been a rather Codex chapter, far more so than something like the Iron Hands or Raven Guard, their only shtick has been FoC swaps since the 3E reinvention, and in 2E it was basically just SC's to differentiate them. They are, and always have been, just Codex Marines with extra SC's and FoC swaps. That does not a codex make, or at least, really shouldn't. Making them radically different at this point would simply be doing so just for the sake of making them different, and retconning their last 15+ years of background.

Vaktathi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
You mean other than the whole "being the first and only Codex that really was just serving as a testbed to see how that FoC swapping that other armies already(which at that time were not published) do" thing?

Yeah. The problem with Dark Angels is they royally fethed up producing it. It was the first attempt for genericizing an army that had a lot of uniqueness going on. It failed miserably, and they corrected the mistakes for Codex: Space Marines.

Ok...but still not really what's wrong with them.

Dark Angels still have always been a rather Codex chapter, far more so than something like the Iron Hands or Raven Guard, their only shtick has been FoC swaps since the 3E reinvention, and in 2E it was basically just SC's to differentiate them. They are, and always have been, just Codex Marines with extra SC's and FoC swaps. That does not a codex make, or at least, really shouldn't.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Raven Guard are a Codex Chapter. Their "only shtick" is that they excel at guerilla warfare(i.e. hit and run strikes, surgical removal of command assets, hitting assets that are critical to the opponents' war effort, etc) and the commanders have a large amount of individual discretion in how they deploy their forces.
Of those two items the only one that can really be represented in game terms is their excellence of guerilla warfare. Which doesn't require an entire Codex into itself, just a character and a USR.
Iron Hands are a Codex Chapter, whose "only shtick" is that they have the Iron Fathers, strong ties to the Adeptus Mechanicus(which results in a large propensity of bionics, many of which really serve no combat function and are just an aesthetic), and a semi-rigid Clan structure inherent in the makeup of their Companies.
Of those...the only ones that can really be represented are the Iron Fathers and a larger amount of bionics. Both of which, again, do not require an entire Codex into themselves.

Dark Angels, on the other hand, field entire armies made up of units from their Deathwing or Ravenwing forces and do not generally deploy Chaplains(they actually did not have Chaplains during the Horus Heresy, instead having "Brother-Redemptors" who filled the same role and were permanently assigned to individual squads. That, as far as I know, is still true to form for the Dark Angels and their Successors. The Interrogator-Chaplains are not combat personnel, as the loss of Asmodai in the Codex should tell you) onto the field of battle.
The Deathwing and Ravenwing alone is more than enough to set them far apart from the standard Codex Chapters. All they need to do is work at fleshing the indivudal units out more.

Vaktathi wrote:It wouldn't be a problem to integrate SM's so we basically just have C:SM, C:CSM, C: DH/GK.

In all honesty, the differences between most loyalist SM armies are rather hamfisted and flimsy, there simply to justify a different book, not really critical underlying differences. Most differences are less than the differences between their own codex updates. C:SM 4E plays far more differently from C:SM 5E than say, C:BA 5E play from C:SM 5E.

Hell, C:BA and C:SM outright share like 80% of their units and almost all wargear, and most of the rest are simply variants of similar units. Between C:SM and C:BA there are only two units in each book that don't really have a counterpart in the opposite codex. C:SM has Thunderfires and LS Storms, C:BA has Death Company and Stormravens (sanguinary guard are just slightly beefed Vanguard Vets, don't really count).

Even with C:SW, as is they are mostly C:CSM "undivided" but with Counterattack and loyalist equipment and waaayy cheaper. The only unit that C:SW has that doesn't have an identical counterpart or very similar equivalent in C:SM (or C:CSM) is Thunderwolf Cavalry, a rather hamfisted fanfic-y addition.

DA's whole shtick is basically just FoC swapping that other armies already do, other than that they really have nothing truly unique except SC's.

BT's again, primarily just random special rules as with the rest and then can have mixed Scout/Tac squads. Not really something they needed their own book for.


None of these would be very difficult to fold into one book. Most really never should have had their own book in the first place.


Also, to those complaining about having to buy a potentialy $50 book, at the rate codecies have increased in price over the last 4 years we will be there in another 4 years anyway, and it doesn't seem to hurt most other wargames, e.g. Flames of War with $50 operational theater books (e.g. Eastern Front).

Cutting out 4 armies and amalgamating them into a single Loyalist SM book would solve a lot of headaches with books spread over various editions, differing versions of identical wargear, increasingly random new units hamfisted in to maintain "uniqueness", etc.

It would also mean that armies get updated faster. At this point, GW puts out 2-3 books a year, cutting 4 armies from that cycle could mean that GW gets through every army two years faster, maybe even within the span of a single edition. Wouldn't that be nice?

THIS.

It makes logical sense.

At this point GW can not hide behind "we are a model company that just so happens to make rules for them."

This part is another pet peeve of mine:

Vaktathi wrote:Cutting out 4 armies and amalgamating them into a single Loyalist SM book would solve a lot of headaches with books spread over various editions, differing versions of identical wargear, increasingly random new units hamfisted in to maintain "uniqueness", etc.

It would also mean that armies get updated faster. At this point, GW puts out 2-3 books a year, cutting 4 armies from that cycle could mean that GW gets through every army two years faster, maybe even within the span of a single edition. Wouldn't that be nice?

Do you really think that the books are what is keeping them down to "2-3 books a year"?

If you do, you're deluded. The biggest part of the lengthy design cycle for codices, by GW's own admission, is the concept/design phase for the models.

Oooh. Some more Space Marine criticism. Yippee, it's not like this doesn't get old. Fast.
Lets just complain about the pricing too, it's not like that hasn't been done before.


*ahem*
Anyways...

Whilst I can understand your criticism and Space Marines are too dominant, I believe a big ol' Space Marine Codex wouldn't work for several reasons.

The first of which is highlighted by Formosa here:

Formosa wrote:tis true, they should put them all in one codex, but im not willing to pay £50 for that codex.

It would have to be at least 600 pages, for all the fluff and variant armies (to be done properly)

I play Space Wolves, lets say that you combine the 5 £15 codices into one book, therefore costing £75 in theory. I would not pay £75 for a book I will use less than a quarter of.

Secondly, the Space Marine variant Codices are actually more popular than several stand alone Codices; the last poll I saw about this but them above at least Dark Eldar and Necrons.

Thirdly, it's simply not fair on the current variant players to shove them all in one book; it cuts down on variance, would likely appear ham-fisted and would ultimately cost them another £50+.

Fourth, Games Workshop is a business. As a business, this doesn't make sense.

Fifth, Many of these individual Space Marine Codices have existed long before many of other Codices available these days.

Sixth, there are too many variant chapters and too much variance to squeeze them all into one book. I expect 3 books could work:
- Space Marines
- Angels of Death
- Space Wolves and Black Templar (the two most divergent).

However, particularly with the new Codices that further enhances any differences, most Space Marine armies are too different to be shoved into one Codex which tacks on something akin to Chapter Tactics to enable the differences.
With the level of variation there is, it would be far too unwieldy to put them into one Codex IMHO.

I don't deny it; I am a fan of Space Marines, however I'm not a fanboy. I simply think it's unreasonable to try putting them all into one Codex. 3 may work, but 1 Codex is simply not right IMHO and frankly, GW will never do it.

I would actually, if they did a 3 book bit or so see:

"Angels of Death"--Codex Marines(Salamanders, Ultramarines, Fists, etc)+Blood Angels(with a few characters/Chapter Traits they easily are able to be folded into the main book).
"Angels of Vengeance"--'Fleet' based Chapters(Raven Guard, Black Templars, Dark Angels, etc. They all tend towards being heavily individualized, with lots of independence granted to the troops and variations would be quite doable. Black Templars don't get Devastator Squads/Scouts but do get Neophytes and Brothers of the Blade. Things like that, y'know?)
"Angels of Savagery"--The more 'feral'/Clan based Chapters(Iron Hands, Space Wolves, Carcharadons, Storm Wardens, etc) in here.

Kanluwen wrote:
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Participants in this thread need to dial down the hostility. Take a break from posting and get some of that bracing February air.

I just wish they brought back chapter traits. I like the idea of an entire army's mindset being the cause for divergences or special abilities, rather than one guy saying:

"My flamers are better than your flamers because I'm flamey!"

"Hey guys? Um... why aren't you.. like.. charging after you ran all that way to get to your forsworn enemy? And you terminators come with me."

Not sure if this is on topic or not... just my two cents.

Vaktathi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Fascinating Yarn Chap. It's not like I don't have the Angels of Death codex here on my desk, or the 3E and 4E Dark Angels books in reach, along with the various SM codecies. Methinks someone needs to calm down.

Methinks someone needs to realize that they're not getting under my skin nearly as much as they think they are.
You just have no clue what you're talking about.

Raven Guard are a Codex Chapter. Their "only shtick" is that they excel at guerilla warfare(i.e. hit and run strikes, surgical removal of command assets, hitting assets that are critical to the opponents' war effort, etc) and the commanders have a large amount of individual discretion in how they deploy their forces.
Of those two items the only one that can really be represented in game terms is their excellence of guerilla warfare. Which doesn't require an entire Codex into itself, just a character and a USR.

While I agree, there's also a lot more that could be done with it than the simple FoC swaps that DA's offers. All sorts of "guerilla" deployment tricks, outflanking bonuses, hidden deployment, boobytrapping of board pieces, etc. There's just as much if not more that could be done with this chapter than with DA's at this point.

And the only reason we didn't see that much get done with DAs was because they were lazy gits.

Iron Hands are a Codex Chapter, whose "only shtick" is that they have the Iron Fathers, strong ties to the Adeptus Mechanicus(which results in a large propensity of bionics, many of which really serve no combat function and are just an aesthetic), and a semi-rigid Clan structure inherent in the makeup of their Companies.
Of those...the only ones that can really be represented are the Iron Fathers and a larger amount of bionics. Both of which, again, do not require an entire Codex into themselves.

I agree they don't need their own book. Any more than Dark Angels. However their actual structure and operation is far less "codex" than the Dark Angels. Their clan structure is extremely distanced from the Company structure of the Codex Astartes, essentially each operating as mini-chapters, with lots of dreadnoughts, extensive cybernetics even for Space Marines, access to strange and arcane wargear through their ties to the Mechanicus, etc. There's a lot more there that could be used to make a distinct codex than the Dark Angels at this point. If a chapter such as this can make do without its own book, certainly Dark Angels can too.

You mean they operate almost like...*gasp* the Space Wolves?

My God! It's almost like there's already a Codex exactly like how the Iron Hands would play!

Dark Angels, on the other hand, field entire armies made up of units from their Deathwing or Ravenwing forces

The Dark Angels deploy their first and second companies en-masse instead of simply attached to other companies for support more often than other chapters. Oh wow. They don't field "entire armies" as you say. They don't have any more Terminator or Bike units than other chapters, they just deploy them as a whole typically instead of being broken up as support for various operations. It's not like other chapters don't *ever* do this, the Ultramarines did it fighting against the Tyranids.

You're missing the point entirely, but I'm not surprised considering you just seem to want to whine about Space Marines having multiple codices.

The whole thing with the Ultramarines on Macragge was that it was extremely dire circumstances. If it hadn't been defending the polar defense stations against the shock force of an entire bloody Hive Fleet--it never would have happened.

The Dark Angels(and their Successors for that matter) do, however, field the entirety of the Deathwing or Ravenwing on operations as a pretty standard thing.

Given that all that is done to represent this is a simple FoC swap to make these units troops, and that it's replicated in other books already, I'd say their unique gameplay shtick is up.

And I'd say read the copyright/publication dates on those books.

They didn't come along until after the Dark Angels book was already published and had been out for at least a year.

and do not generally deploy Chaplains(they actually did not have Chaplains during the Horus Heresy, instead having "Brother-Redemptors" who filled the same role and were permanently assigned to individual squads. That, as far as I know, is still true to form for the Dark Angels and their Successors.

As I read this, I open up my copy of Angels of Death, 3E Dark Angels, and 4E Dark Angels, and see that they do in fact have a Chaplain entry. It would seem that they do have Chaplains, and no, don't seem to have any special restriction on their use.

And why would there be? The fluff is new, and the authors on Codex: Dark Angels were lazy slobs. They didn't even bother checking the wargear they were writing versus the Space Marines codex being worked on at the same time.

Battle redemptors from pre-heresy days are a more recent development from BL if I'm not mistaken, for something that takes place ten millenia before the current timeline when the Space Marines were an entirely different entity, and have no presence in any of the codex fluff that I can see from their 2E, 3E or 4E books.

Again: Lazy codex authors.
And if you're really trying to use 2nd edition fluff, you're a loon.

The Interrogator-Chaplains are not combat personnel

Um, where are you getting this from? They seem rather very much combat oriented to me, especially with rules that enhance their, and their units, close combat ability when used offensively.

Um, where are you not getting that from? The whole bloody idea of them is that they're INTERROGATORS AND KEEPERS OF THE CHAPTER'S SECRETS.

You don't send those kinds of individuals out on the field, unless the circumstances are so absurdly dire that it necessitates it.
Strike the bloody Interrogator-Chaplain entry from the book, allow squads to get a Brother-Redemptor and voila. You're already getting away from the Codex Marines right there, now aren't you?

The Deathwing and Ravenwing alone is more than enough to set them far apart from the standard Codex Chapters. All they need to do is work at fleshing the indivudal units out more.

How so? With Dark Missiles, Ravencannons, and Angelfists and like they did with BA? Obvious hamfisting of stuff on armies that share 80-90% of their units, wargear, vehicles and special rules just to desperately justify having their own book?

Yes, because clearly the Dark Lances and Dark Darkness of the Dark Eldar Codex is completely non-hamfisted compared to their Craftworld counterparts?

And no. It's really easy to actually think up things for differentiating the Dark Angels from their Codex brothers, provided you're not biased enough to not even bother trying or using a half-assed excuse for a Codex like the Blood Angels one as an example.

Kanluwen wrote:
Do you really think that the books are what is keeping them down to "2-3 books a year"?

If you do, you're deluded. The biggest part of the lengthy design cycle for codices, by GW's own admission, is the concept/design phase for the models.

No, I'm not talking about increasing the number of books per year, I'm talking about cutting out books that would reduce the total number of years required to get every book updated.

Personally I agree, I liked the chapter traits and veteran abilities. It brought a lot to C:SM and C: CSM in their previous renditions. However - those days are gone. While I like a separate codex for DA, SW, BA, BT, and SM and the easy way of subbing in chapter traits via a trade off of the obvious penchant for Smurfs to run away for some more manly trait or ablities, it would be better served to have a main codex for all things SM - I will beg to say that even the extreme variant of GK could be handled under that one codex. The variant of BA could easily be handled through character abilities, SW abilities could be dealt with through characters and perhaps some core troop choice differences. DA could be handled much the same way as could BT.

While the complicated days of yesteryear seem better in retrospect - at least when my codex was the newest. The reduction of codex creep and codex crumbling (as it gets long in the tooth) would benefit all if we were looking at say a 3-year rotation through all versus 4+ year rotation.

Kanluwen wrote:
Methinks someone needs to realize that they're not getting under my skin nearly as much as they think they are.
You just have no clue what you're talking about.

Very obviously I am.

And the only reason we didn't see that much get done with DAs was because they were lazy gits.

Or the fact that just in all honesty they are a standard Codex chapter as their Fluff has proclaimed them to be aside from the way they deploy their 1st and 2nd Companies.

You're missing the point entirely, but I'm not surprised considering you just seem to want to whine about Space Marines having multiple codices.

The whole thing with the Ultramarines on Macragge was that it was extremely dire circumstances. If it hadn't been defending the polar defense stations against the shock force of an entire bloody Hive Fleet--it never would have happened.

The Dark Angels(and their Successors for that matter) do, however, field the entirety of the Deathwing or Ravenwing on operations as a pretty standard thing.

And why does this require a distinct codex? Other chapters do it, other chapters field bikes en-masse at least as often as the DA's do. Why do we need a DA codex specifically to allow them to do that? Why not just slap their SC's in C:SM and that way they don't have to worry about being left behind like they are now, and they can still be portrayed in a perfectly fluffy manner, and other chapters can represent those "dire circumstance" armies as well?

If they share, and always have shared, 90%+ of their units, wargear, and special rules, why do they *NEED* a codex? IG and SM's need different codecies because they share only about a dozen weapons between the two and little else. DE and Eldar need different books because they share almost nothing except Dark/Bright lances and Harlequins. Why do armies that share so much *require* a book to play them, when other books are able to portray *far* more variation within a single book (e.g. Orks, IG)?

And I'd say read the copyright/publication dates on those books.

They didn't come along until after the Dark Angels book was already published and had been out for at least a year.

I understand they are later books, but that doesn't mean that a couple FoC swaps makes a codex when you're sharing 100% of the rest of your weapons, wargear, units and special rules with another book, and always have.

And why would there be? The fluff is new, and the authors on Codex: Dark Angels were lazy slobs. They didn't even bother checking the wargear they were writing versus the Space Marines codex being worked on at the same time.

The fluff is new yes, but for something that happened *ten millenia* before the current timeline and before the standardization under the Codex Astartes. The current codex is rather faithful to the background of the previous books. The DA's, it says right in all of their books, are rather codex chapters whose big difference is the Deathwing and Ravenwing (1st and 2nd companies) being deployed as entire fighting units on their own routinely.

Again: Lazy codex authors.
And if you're really trying to use 2nd edition fluff, you're a loon.

So referencing the official game material for the last 15 years (which hasn't changed almost at all if you have read these three books) for an army is simply "lazy authors" and "me being a loon" but taking a fluff reference from a third party novel written after the latest codex about events ten thousand years under an altogether different Imperium and totally different Chapter organization and crying out that *that* is the true fluff for the current Dark Angels isn't loony?

Um, where are you not getting that from? The whole bloody idea of them is that they're INTERROGATORS AND KEEPERS OF THE CHAPTER'S SECRETS.

By the fact that they are available in an army list, able to lead an army, carry extensive close combat oriented gear, and have offensive close combat oriented rules? How is this not making sense?

You don't send those kinds of individuals out on the field, unless the circumstances are so absurdly dire that it necessitates it.

Except that they are, and always have been, just as liable to lead their troops into battle as any other HQ unit, with plenty of fluff references for it (e.g. Siege of Vraks where they fought the Alpha Legion), and aren't any more restricted than any other HQ?

Strike the bloody Interrogator-Chaplain entry from the book, allow squads to get a Brother-Redemptor and voila. You're already getting away from the Codex Marines right there, now aren't you?

Sure, if you want to base it off a Black Library novel taking from events before a drastic reorganization and ten thousand years previously with no mention of anything in previous 15+ years of fluff or any post heresy events.

And no. It's really easy to actually think up things for differentiating the Dark Angels from their Codex brothers, provided you're not biased enough to not even bother trying or using a half-assed excuse for a Codex like the Blood Angels one as an example.

Such as?

And you'd still be wrong. It takes far more work for them to do Codices like Orks or Eldar than it does for them to do a SM variant.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's true that 80-90% of it isn't copy-paste, but at the same time it isn't cannibalizing sales from other ranges. I can't take my homebrew Ork race and reuse them as Tyranids. I can take my Homebrew SM chapter (and lets face it, most people make homebrew chapters) and use it as basically any SM army, needing to buy few or even no new models, resulting in drastically less sales. This has been endemic with the various SM books recently at my current shop.


Either way, there's still the same gaps and time lapses between SM books as between non-SM books. It certainly doesn't seem like it take them any more or less time to get out a Marine book than any other book.

All the codices would easily fit in C:SM if it wasn't overflowing with ultramarine .
Seriously, all the chapters have one SC except for Ultras, who have 4 if I remember correctly.
Stupid Matt Ward.

Just Dave wrote:Oooh. Some more Space Marine criticism. Yippee, it's not like this doesn't get old. Fast.
Lets just complain about the pricing too, it's not like that hasn't been done before.

The thread wasn't meant for complaining, but to discuss a solution to the codex congestion that the multiple codices cause. I apologize for the confusion.

Would this be lilke a $99 Mega-Codex!?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Would this be lilke a $99 Mega-Codex!?

In all honesty, They could fit something like this in a $30 book if they wanted to, they just don't. A more realistic thought would be $50, but as I pointed out earlier, if Codex prices keep rising at they rate they have been since 2007, they'll all be $50 by 2014 anyway.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Would this be lilke a $99 Mega-Codex!?

I'm not sure how much more expensive it would become (suck at business), but the idea that it would be a unified codex with different playstyle structures and wargear options, with specific chapters listed in these groups. That way you can have your different playstyles, but frees up space for faster codex updates.

The only problem with 7 SM codexes (SM, SW, BA, BT, DA, CSM, DH) is that they have to be updated every so often and because there's so many of them, many armies go for a decade or more without an update.

There's three solutions, IMO.

1) Keep the current SM codexes as-is. But, increase GW's release schedule significantly. This is hard to pull off, but if they do it, I'll be happy!

2) Keep the current SM codexes as-is. But, do the same thing with every other army, expanding them to 5 or 6 codexes from each force. This will mean it's a LONG time between codex updates, but will give everyone a codex eventually.

3) Change how they view the updates to SM codexes. Completely abandon the "core" codex (re-releasing it as codex: Ultramarines). Then, slowly release a codex for each and every SM chapter (like 1 every 3 years). After releasing this codex, never go back and update it. This way, every legion will eventually get a codex, and in 42 years (18 known legions, including traitors but minus the 4 codexes we already have, leaving 14), we'll be able to finally be done with SM once and for all!

Vaktathi wrote:Such as?

Let's see, where to begin...

Let's start with Brother-Redemptors being a squad upgrade, and removing Interrogator-Chaplains period. They removed Asmodai specifically because he had no reason, whatsoever, to be on the battlefield.
We can also go with some sort of "fire discipline" special rule, where Dark Angels Tactical/Terminator Squads get bonuses doing short-range firefights and tactical withdrawls to set up firelanes(which is actually something they've, fluffwise, been adept at since 2E and beyond).

Aiming towards the Deathwing...Plasma weaponry is also another big part of the Dark Angels' background, wherein they've got working examples of Heresy era weapons that the Imperium/Adeptus Mechanicus can only dream of.
A Plasma Cannon upgrade for Terminator Squads wouldn't be entirely out of character, especially since no other Chapter would have it.
Some kind of "Inner Circle"(Remember: Inner Circle does not necessarily mean "high ranking". It's all about loyalty to the Chapter and the hunt for the Fallen) Terminator HQ Squad that is then distributed amongst the Deathwing Terminators would be characterful and, again, uniquely Dark Angels.
A return of the "Hunt the Fallen" rules, but reworked so it doesn't necessarily have to be an enemy HQ(which never made sense when facing Tyranids or Necrons), but necessitates the deployment/designation of a specific objective that has to be secured and that is considered "a clue to the distribution of the Fallen" would, again, be fluffy+unique.

Ravenwing don't really need much done to them to retain the uniquely Dark Angels factor. The only thing I'd do is add in Land Speeder Storms for the Scout Squads(which should be troops or Fast Attack, depending on if they're mounted in a LSS or not) and Scout Bikes as Fast Attack(standard DA) and Troops(Ravenwing force).

There's also the "Ironwing" that could be added in, which was the Predator/Razorback mechanized heavy force that they occasionally field when besieging a known sanctuary of the Fallen.