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 was going through my old codexes the other day and started to read the last Space Marine book. The one that came out in 2004. I was wondering with a few weapons updates like power of machine spirit, cyclone missile launchers, and apothecaries would anyone think of using this book again to keep them more competitive with the newer books i.e., SW, GK & BA. The old book had a lot of things that made it very competitive such as the ability to give terminators tank hunter or furious charge. Also the chapter traits were also fun way to customize a space marine force to the player and make them very competitive. So what are you thoughts?

I'd turn back the clock on them any day, as I play BT and my codex is older than dirt.

GW is moving away from the older style of codex design you can still add flavor to your armies but now you need to field a named HQ.

Jubear wrote:GW is moving away from the older style of codex design you can still add flavor to your armies but now you need to field a named HQ.

I know what GW is moving to, but my question is in your private games would you concider useing the older codex to give the SM players a more equal footing with the newer books. You know a house rule for SM.

I don't see any problem with it. As long as any CSM players are allowed to do the same...

Jubear wrote:GW is moving away from the older style of codex design you can still add flavor to your armies but now you need to field a named HQ.

This is what irritates me about them. If Vulkan doesn't lead every Salamanders force, why is it apparently necessary for him to be present for them to function correctly? Same for the other characters.

As a one-off, non-tournament game? Sure. Otherwise, I'd say you had to play the latest codex.

You can still use some of those rules with Black Templars (for now). I guess we'll see what happens with the next codex. But when it gets here, I'll stop using the current codex and go to it.

Edit: I'm going to miss furious charge on my Lightning Claw Assault Terminators.

Durza wrote:I don't see any problem with it. As long as any CSM players are allowed to do the same...

Jubear wrote:GW is moving away from the older style of codex design you can still add flavor to your armies but now you need to field a named HQ.

This is what irritates me about them. If Vulkan doesn't lead every Salamanders force, why is it apparently necessary for him to be present for them to function correctly? Same for the other characters.

I would encourage CSM players to do exactly that, their current codex is horrible and limits creativitiy. As for you second point I know how you feel I play Deathwing and think it is rediculous that I should have to use a character that never existed before to field my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:As a one-off, non-tournament game? Sure. Otherwise, I'd say you had to play the latest codex.

You can still use some of those rules with Black Templars (for now). I guess we'll see what happens with the next codex. But when it gets here, I'll stop using the current codex and go to it.

Edit: I'm going to miss furious charge on my Lightning Claw Assault Terminators.

So why would you use a codex that you don't like just because it is the most current. I am not giving up on my WH codex. I think it is silly to say "you could use that codex yesterday, but today you have to use this one so we can make another $30 bucks off you". As players I think we have a tendency to lose sight of “the most important rule” and let GW tell us how they think we should enjoy the game.

The only codex I'd let people use the old version of, no questions asked, is the Witchhunters codex.

I'd agree with this.

The WD one was a joke, and if you couldn't get the WD's in question you're a bit stuck..

Current SM Codex is superior Codex.
Chapter Traits was interesting, but easy to break.
The current method of personalizing your army was a compromise between WAACos and lore-lovers. An attempt to add flavor without breaking the game.

Twin-linked flamers don't make a Salamanders list. Lysander isn't needed to run Imperial Fists. As long as you have the proper paint scheme and an appropriately themed FOC, anyone who knows anything about 40K would be able to identify what you're playing.

Brother SRM wrote:The only codex I'd let people use the old version of, no questions asked, is the Witchhunters codex.

really you woul not give the CSM players a leg up

I’d turn back the clock on some of the fluff and also the war gear names. As its getting very silly now.

Durza wrote:I don't see any problem with it. As long as any CSM players are allowed to do the same...

Jubear wrote:GW is moving away from the older style of codex design you can still add flavor to your armies but now you need to field a named HQ.

This is what irritates me about them. If Vulkan doesn't lead every Salamanders force, why is it apparently necessary for him to be present for them to function correctly? Same for the other characters.

Snap! I'm really not keen on the trend of named characters making certain units unlockable as troops and changing the way armies. For me the game is all about the fluff, and I always take it into consideration when building a new army, but conversely I really dislike using named characters. I'd rather build my own HQ & dream up fluff, a wargear loadout and heraldry for it myself, without being penalised in terms of fluffy unit choice. I dont want my army to be led by Cpt. So & so, noble hero of the imperium who everyone has heard of and whose deeds are already cast in stone.

Snap! I'm really not keen on the trend of named characters making certain units unlockable as troops and changing the way armies. For me the game is all about the fluff, and I always take it into consideration when building a new army, but conversely I really dislike using named characters. I'd rather build my own HQ & dream up fluff, a wargear loadout and heraldry for it myself, without being penalised in terms of fluffy unit choice. I dont want my army to be led by Cpt. So & so, noble hero of the imperium who everyone has heard of and whose deeds are already cast in stone.

I agree, as a Death Wing player I used to be able to play an army with a cool HQ now if I want to play my army I have to use a chump that is not really all that good. I also don't like seeing all of the Logan, Drago, Mephiston armies out there. Oh for the days when it was opponents permission to play named characters.

I want all beakie marines that is what i want to do rofl.

I started with 5th ed ig, but i read the last codex ig, and the older space marine codex. I felt like they are just dumbing down the codexes, for i really liked how you could build your own chapter or regiment. Now the current ig codex is pretty lame fluff wise.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I started with 5th ed ig, but i read the last codex ig, and the older space marine codex. I felt like they are just dumbing down the codexes, for i really liked how you could build your own chapter or regiment. Now the current ig codex is pretty lame fluff wise.

Yes it does get boring to see all of the mechanized vet lists these days. I know some people still have foot slogging guard but they are few and far between the band wagon lists. I also agree that they are dumbing down the codexes. GK and BA are good examples of this. There are really no bad units in those books. Gk is even more over the top with almost every model having a power weapon and being S5 with a simple power that almost every unit has. The new books seen to be killing a lot of the strategy of the game with a point, click, destroy, and win mentality behind the writing, ex drago, ghost knights, death co, death co dreads.

Asherian Command wrote:I want all beakie marines that is what i want to do rofl.

Yes, I'd cheerfully go back to beakie helmets, but not so far back as T3 and 4+ saves.

I agree wit the whole point and click game. I run only 3 chimeras in my list. But every time i play gk its like my opponents have no overall strategy and just fumble through the game. And its hard to stop them.

The current rules regarding variant lists are somewhat streamlined over previous editions as an attempt to maintain balance. However with a lack of play testing/rules quality and Matt Ward doing whatever he feels like, there can’t be any sort of adequate balance in the first place.

Therefore, given the current 40k environment, I don’t see a good reason why the old style of variant lists shouldn’t make a return (apart from how disturbing detailed variant list rules written by Matt Ward would be *shudder*).

I started with 3rd Edition Space Marines and I loved it. Cortez my hero!
I want all the good heroes back! I want an Crimson Fist Emperors champion again!

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

Jubear wrote:GW is moving away from the older style of codex design you can still add flavor to your armies but now you need to field a named HQ.

I know what GW is moving to, but my question is in your private games would you concider useing the older codex to give the SM players a more equal footing with the newer books. You know a house rule for SM.

The hilarious part of this is you think Space Marines need a 'leg up' to be equal to newer books.

Yeah I miss the 4th edition codexes. Now it's starting to become more cookie cutter as far as army lists go. I had even started planning an all deepstriking guard army right before they switched to 5th and guard got their new codex. Hopefully 6th will bring back a little variety to the armies.

Deathsadvocate wrote:Yeah I miss the 4th edition codexes. Now it's starting to become more cookie cutter as far as army lists go. I had even started planning an all deepstriking guard army right before they switched to 5th and guard got their new codex. Hopefully 6th will bring back a little variety to the armies.

Hopefully they bring back traits. No one i know of really abused the rules. Plus some of them were awesome. Grey Knight Astrates was funny.

Durza wrote:

Jubear wrote:GW is moving away from the older style of codex design you can still add flavor to your armies but now you need to field a named HQ.

This is what irritates me about them. If Vulkan doesn't lead every Salamanders force, why is it apparently necessary for him to be present for them to function correctly? Same for the other characters.

See, this mindset confuses me. People apparently believe that to play a SM chapter, you have to take the special character. I believe this is false; look at the characters and their bonuses. How many of those bonuses are really needed to represent a specific chapter?

Vulkan makes flamers and meltas better because he literally makes them better, not (just) because the Salamanders have a flame fetish. You can already create a fluffy Salamanders force (which is, by and large, a Codex-adherent chapter) without him.

Khan allows bikes to be taken as Troops and allows units to outflank because that's his preferred tactics, not because that's what every White Scars army does. You can make a fluffy White Scars list without Khan, especially with a regular captain on bike.

Pedro makes Sternguard units scoring because he leads the small, elite force, not because every other Crimson Fist is a Sternguard Vet. You can make a fluffy Crimson Fists force without him (again, since they're a Codex chapter).

Lysander, Shrike, Calgar, etc...none of the special characters are required to add a chapter's flavour to an army. They do add flavour, because they each have specific command styles and so on, but you don't need them to theme an army around a chapter; the Space Marines codex is an incredibly flexible book that allows you to take a variety of army builds *without* needing Chapter rules to represent them.

Cheexsta +1 internets for you.

What people really want is the ability to create cheesy combos.

Every single current chapter in the game could be represented buy just picking fluffy units from codex space marines.

I am sorry SMs players but you already get every advasntage in the hobby easy to paint,idiot proof to play and low model count how many more advantages do you guys want?

The new book gave me 3++ stormshields, assault vehicle land raiders, sternguard, dirt cheap rhinos, the LR Redeemer, rifleman dreads, slightly cheaper predators and a bunch of "Special Characterhammer 40k" choices

I take that as fair trade for:

Nerfing tactical squads
Nerfing tactical terminators directly and indirectly
Nerfing both librarians and chaplains as beatstick HQs (And librarian psychic powers got the bat too.)
Nerfing captains
Nerfing scouts
Nerfing vindicators
Nerfing LRCs
Removal of the 70 point typhoon speeder
Loss of the ability to put terminators in drop pods
Loss of the ability for pods to fire on the turn that they land (This one is not a big deal at all, but it was annoying.)
Loss of the whole trait system which could result in tactical squads behaving...well...a lot like BA and SW troopers.


...Wait...What? Well, at least the new book spams TH/SS, land raiders, metawl bawkses and melta really well.

SOFDC wrote:The new book gave me 3++ stormshields, assault vehicle land raiders, sternguard, dirt cheap rhinos, the LR Redeemer, rifleman dreads, slightly cheaper predators and a bunch of "Special Characterhammer 40k" choices

I take that as fair trade for:

Nerfing tactical squads
Nerfing tactical terminators directly and indirectly
Nerfing both librarians and chaplains as beatstick HQs (And librarian psychic powers got the bat too.)
Nerfing captains
Nerfing scouts
Nerfing vindicators
Nerfing LRCs
Removal of the 70 point typhoon speeder
Loss of the ability to put terminators in drop pods
Loss of the ability for pods to fire on the turn that they land (This one is not a big deal at all, but it was annoying.)
Loss of the whole trait system which could result in tactical squads behaving...well...a lot like BA and SW troopers.


...Wait...What? Well, at least the new book spams TH/SS, land raiders, metawl bawkses and melta really well.

Really? The SM player in our group does this all the time. Why exactly cant it fire the turn it landed?

Its a vehicle that deep struck. When vehicles deep strike they count as moving at cruising speed. So they cant fire the first turn they come in.

Aye. Used to be pods had power of the machine spirit and could thus, fire on arrival. They also went a step further and specified in the drop pod entry that it could fire on the turn of arrival.