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.

White Scars have a unique feel to the army. They are based of Mongols and I think they kind of deserve their own codex. Is there a reason for White Scars not to have their own codex? Please do not give the reason: Their is enough Marine Books, just put them in the Vanilla Marine book or something to that effect.
Here's an e.g. from Lexicanum of their fluff:
The White Scars are the fifth Space Marine Legion of the First Founding. Their Primarch is Jaghatai Khan. During the Horus Heresy the White Scars remained loyal to the Emperor, after which they reorganized and split into Chapters. Drawing on the tribal savagery of their homeworld, the White Scars practice a highly mobile method of warfare, tearing into their enemies with lightning-quick attacks and vanishing before a response can be made. A unique formation within the Chapter are the Souldrinkers, Space Marine veterans that excel in close combat. These Marines are armed with power-swords and refractor fields and bear their own distinctive shoulder badges and honour banners. Another formation are the Cobra Squads, comprised of regular members of the Chapter's companies that have been equipped with jump packs.

If not, what about for 6th edition having a White Scars/Space Wolf book because they pratice very similar Shamanistic belief systems.

Similar belief systems doesn't mean similar tactics. I would say that they really aren't different enough from the normal Codex Astartes to warrant their own book, but they are far more divergent than the Dark Angels, so why not?

My opinion would be that if the C:SM can facilitate the army with little more than a few extra rules, they should be in the C:SM. I don't think the White Scars are really different enough to need much more than something to benefit Fast Attack units, so they should stay in the normal Codex.

Nope. They're still technically Codex-adherent and can be represented fine with C:SM.

I just noticed that you "excluded" this argument. That's like saying "Agree with me and don't tell me the solid reason why it's a bad idea."

Blood Angels are also a Codex chapter. Just saying.

Either way, I don't think that arguing from a background-perspective is a good line of thinking either for or against a new Codex. That is clearly not the rationale behind it and the background will in any case either by made (Black Templars, also a little-fleshed-out Codex-chapter before they got their own book) or changed (see recent changes/expansion to Space Wolves, Blood Angels) to fit.

GW doesn't work from the background to add stuff to the game. They add stuff to the game and add/change/adapt background to sell it.

rockerbikie wrote:White Scars have a unique feel to the army. They are based of Mongols and I think they kind of deserve their own codex. Is there a reason for White Scars not to have their own codex? Please do not give the reason: Their is enough Marine Books, just put them in the Vanilla Marine book or something to that effect.

Why not? Because aside just from some Mongol ethnicity, and a preference for Biker troops which the current book already perfectly portrays, they aren't substantially different enough to warrant their own codex. Souldrinkers can be perfectly well portrayed by Vanguard Vets and Cobra Squads by Assault Marines, and simply taking a bike for your captain allows bikes as troops.


And yes, "there are already enough marine books" is a pretty good argument here. If the Catachan Jungle Fighters, Tallarn Desert Fighters, Death Korps Siege Regiments, Cadian Shock Troops, Mordian Iron Guard, Vostroyan Firstborn, Valhallans, Tanith First and Only, Elysian Drop Troops, and billions of other IG regiments which differ much more from each other than most Marine chapters do can all fit within one book, or at worst, one book and a couple Imperial Armour lists, with the same going for all the varied Ork clans/tribes/etc and Eldar Craftworlds and Chaos Traitor Legions, it's hard to see a need for a codex just for, yet another, relatively Codex-adherent Space Marine chapter.

Vaktathi wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:White Scars have a unique feel to the army. They are based of Mongols and I think they kind of deserve their own codex. Is there a reason for White Scars not to have their own codex? Please do not give the reason: Their is enough Marine Books, just put them in the Vanilla Marine book or something to that effect.

Why not? Because aside just from some Mongol ethnicity, and a preference for Biker troops which the current book already perfectly portrays, they aren't substantially different enough to warrant their own codex. Souldrinkers can be perfectly well portrayed by Vanguard Vets and Cobra Squads by Assault Marines, and simply taking a bike for your captain allows bikes as troops.


And yes, "there are already enough marine books" is a pretty good argument here. If the Catachan Jungle Fighters, Tallarn Desert Fighters, Death Korps Siege Regiments, Cadian Shock Troops, Mordian Iron Guard, Vostroyan Firstborn, Valhallans, Tanith First and Only, Elysian Drop Troops, and billions of other IG regiments which differ much more from each other than most Marine chapters do can all fit within one book, or at worst, one book and a couple Imperial Armour lists, with the same going for all the varied Ork clans/tribes/etc and Eldar Craftworlds and Chaos Traitor Legions, it's hard to see a need for a codex just for, yet another, relatively Codex-adherent Space Marine chapter.

Death Krieg deserves their own codex.

Vaktathi wrote:

And yes, "there are already enough marine books" is a pretty good argument here. If the Catachan Jungle Fighters, Tallarn Desert Fighters, Death Korps Siege Regiments, Cadian Shock Troops, Mordian Iron Guard, Vostroyan Firstborn, Valhallans, Tanith First and Only, Elysian Drop Troops, and billions of other IG regiments which differ much more from each other than most Marine chapters do can all fit within one book, or at worst, one book and a couple Imperial Armour lists, with the same going for all the varied Ork clans/tribes/etc and Eldar Craftworlds and Chaos Traitor Legions, it's hard to see a need for a codex just for, yet another, relatively Codex-adherent Space Marine chapter.

Again, faulty logic based on background. Diversity in the gaming scene isn't the number of books available, but the distribution of players across these books.

If your "average" 40k community, in a simplified example, would exist of 100 gamers in a 40K game consisting of 5 different armies, which are distributed as follows...

Space Marines: 40
Imperial Guard: 20
Orks: 10
Eldar: 10
Chaos Marines: 20

... then, as a gaming company, you should probably release a second Space Marines Codex (and consider merging Orks & Eldar if you only have the capacity to support 5 Codexes for the game) to get a more even spread in the player-base across the armies you provide, and thus a more diversified gaming-experience for the players themselves.

Internal factions in the background don't play a role in this, other than having material to work with IF you need to make/split books to address an imbalance in the player-base.

Zweischneid wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

And yes, "there are already enough marine books" is a pretty good argument here. If the Catachan Jungle Fighters, Tallarn Desert Fighters, Death Korps Siege Regiments, Cadian Shock Troops, Mordian Iron Guard, Vostroyan Firstborn, Valhallans, Tanith First and Only, Elysian Drop Troops, and billions of other IG regiments which differ much more from each other than most Marine chapters do can all fit within one book, or at worst, one book and a couple Imperial Armour lists, with the same going for all the varied Ork clans/tribes/etc and Eldar Craftworlds and Chaos Traitor Legions, it's hard to see a need for a codex just for, yet another, relatively Codex-adherent Space Marine chapter.

Again, faulty logic based on background. Diversity in the gaming scene isn't the number of books available, but the distribution of players across these books.

If your "average" 40k community, in a simplified example, would exist of 100 gamers in a 40K game consisting of 5 different armies, which are distributed as follows...

Space Marines: 40
Imperial Guard: 20
Orks: 10
Eldar: 10
Chaos Marines: 20

... then, as a gaming company, you should probably release a second Space Marines Codex (and consider merging Orks & Eldar if you only have the capacity to support 5 Codexes for the game) to get a more even spread in the player-base across the armies you provide, and thus a more diversified gaming-experience for the players themselves.

Internal factions in the background don't play a role in this, other than having material to work with IF you need to make/split books to address an imbalance in the player-base.

This is assuming those numbers are accurate. That said, it's not taking into account that marine codex's often cannibalize sales from each other, something many store owners will tell you but GW never seems to have caught on to, and that another codex release for what is a rather codex-adherent chapter that's likely just a couple FoC swaps and a couple characters is going to generate enough sales to offset the development efforts, production costs, marketing pipeline time (remember, each codex release means another has to wait 4-7 months), etc, and isn't simply going to draw players from existing armies.

If another loyalist marine book must be made, White Scars are probably not the army for it. Unless you're going to radically redesign them, there's not much to create an entirely new product line around.

I would argue that more players play SM because of GW's preferential treatment rather than Gw give them preferential treatment because more people play them, at least to start with. Now it's just

Step 1: New player picks SM because they're a good starting force and have the most options.
Step 2: GW releases more SM stuff because they will get more money.
Step 3: Repeat Step 1.

Indeed, when you can basically choose from multiple book and lists anytime you want to play as long as you make your own color scheme, have a fully fleshed out line with almost all plastic kits and everything is always available, the models are designed to be easy to paint and assemble and it's cheaper than most other armies, it's hard not to go with Space Marines whether they are your first choice or not.

I've seen many players go that route after looking at the cost of an Ork, DE or Imperial Guard army. When you look at a book like Tyranids and half the models are metal/finecast, and many of the most popular units don't even *have* kits, then regardless of power level, the increased cost and lack of models is going to divert people away from the army.

Vaktathi wrote:Indeed, when you can basically choose from multiple book and lists anytime you want to play as long as you make your own color scheme, have a fully fleshed out line with almost all plastic kits and everything is always available, the models are designed to be easy to paint and assemble and it's cheaper than most other armies, it's hard not to go with Space Marines whether they are your first choice or not.

I've seen many players go that route after looking at the cost of an Ork, DE or Imperial Guard army.

Which is odd, given that the point to cost ratio from space marine, to say DE are about the same. Once you factor in common wargear choices the only thing that really beats out DE by a wide margin as far as paying for points goes is land raiders, and even then it's not much.

For instance, 10 wyches cost 29 bucks. They are 100 points bythemselves. Give them 2 wargears, a hekkatrix, and a agoniser and that goes all the way up to 150. That's one of the better examples of getting alot of points for money, but still, it's worth mentioning.

Though, Orks and IG are hands down, alongside SoB the three most expensive armies BY FAR, no one really comes that close. Lots of low point models with VERY few high point models = headache.

Vaktathi wrote:
This is assuming those numbers are accurate. That said, it's not taking into account that marine codex's often cannibalize sales from each other, something many store owners will tell you but GW never seems to have caught on to, and that another codex release for what is a rather codex-adherent chapter that's likely just a couple FoC swaps and a couple characters is going to generate enough sales to offset the development efforts, production costs, marketing pipeline time (remember, each codex release means another has to wait 4-7 months), etc, and isn't simply going to draw players from existing armies.

1. Those numbers are certainly not correct. They are randombly picked. But I can assure you that player-distribution across the currently available Codexes is not even, thus there is reason to split some (notably Space Marines) and reasons to perhaps discontinue or merge others.

2. Cannibalizing sales isn't a bad thing. iPhone purposfully cannibalized iPod sales as it included a free player. It was one of the key ingredients to its success as it didn't scare off existing iPod-users. Similar things are likely true with Space Marines. If you can bring existing people on-board for the latest release with offering them low buy-ins due to cannibalization, all the better.

3. That one Codex-for-on-Codex argument doesn't work. Relevant isn't the release slot, but the investment into developing a miniature line. The Dark Eldar release had more models released than ALL 5th Edition Space Marine books together. They cannot possibly do a Dark Eldar style release ever half-year. Or even every year. The "spring"-release of, most recently, Marine armies has always been a comparably smaller release. If they had not released Blood Angels or Grey Knights, it wouldn't have equalled another Dark Eldar-style release. It simply would have equalled on net-Codex less in the range and the miniature-investment on those two releases was very low (but the yield probably just as high as "high-investment" releases like Dark Eldar).

I do not think that White Scars need their own codex, but then again, I don't feel like Blood Angels or Dark Angels really need a new codex. They could have been lumped into C:SM. In fact, something I've been talking to my roommate about lately that I thought would be a better way of doing things is to do just this. You could have HQ choice determine if you have the special unit available to you or if you were a 'vanilla' marine. Cuts down on the number of codices, keeps BA and DA in line power-wise with vanilla SM, and speeds up the codex release cycle for everyone.

Only problem is that you really can't do that with SW, BT, GK, or SoB, because there are too many fundamental differences in basic unit structure.

Zweischneid wrote:
1. Those numbers are certainly not correct. They are randombly picked. But I can assure you that player-distribution across the currently available Codexes is not even, thus there is reason to split some (notably Space Marines) and reasons to perhaps discontinue or merge others.

While I agree to an extent, we already have more than enough splits for SM's.

2. Cannibalizing sales isn't a bad thing. iPhone purposfully cannibalized iPod sales as it included a free player. It was one of the key ingredients to its success as it didn't scare off existing iPod-users. Similar things are likely true with Space Marines. If you can bring existing people on-board for the latest release with offering them low buy-ins due to cannibalization, all the better.

When you're coming out with an entirely new product that needs certain key features for success, sure. When you're making essentially a variant of that product that otherwise shares 80/90%+ of its content, that's a bad thing. The iPhone was, in many cases, an iPod replacement or an evolution of the iPod, existing customers wouldn't care but you probably weren't going to get as many new iPod customers. Codex: White Scars is not a replacement or an evolution for another marine codex in terms of sales and the intent of the product, but in many ways would be used like one, hence bad cannibalization. You're basically adding another book that's competing for roughly the same players using the same mini's as 5 other books.

3. That one Codex-for-on-Codex argument doesn't work. Relevant isn't the release slot, but the investment into developing a miniature line.

Release slot is relevant, it pushes back any other releases by a significant amount of time. Even when GW has products ready, they aren't going to release them back to back, they release an army and give it time to shine and for shelves to clear, then release another book. That takes 4-7 months typically.

The miniature line in this case is already developed aside from Characters, but given that the intent is to sell miniatures, if you're not selling anything new, all you're really doing is just adding another book for existing kits of which there are already plenty.

Is a new book that shares the overwhelming vast majority of its units and options, even moreso than most other books, with C:SM, really going to generate new sales, or will it more likely simply be a codex hopper book that people with existing armies switch to because it's better than C:SM?

They cannot possibly do a Dark Eldar style release ever half-year. Or even every year. The "spring"-release of, most recently, Marine armies has always been a comparably smaller release. If they had not released Blood Angels or Grey Knights, it wouldn't have equalled another Dark Eldar-style release. It simply would have equalled on net-Codex less in the range and the miniature-investment on those two releases was very low (but the yield probably just as high as "high-investment" releases like Dark Eldar).

Right, but again there's still release timeline your adding, making getting through *all* the armies take longer and a nigh impossible task within a single edition, for what basically would amount to a 1-page rules addition to C:SM.

daedalus wrote:I do not think that White Scars need their own codex, but then again, I don't feel like Blood Angels or Dark Angels really need a new codex. They could have been lumped into C:SM. In fact, something I've been talking to my roommate about lately that I thought would be a better way of doing things is to do just this. You could have HQ choice determine if you have the special unit available to you or if you were a 'vanilla' marine. Cuts down on the number of codices, keeps BA and DA in line power-wise with vanilla SM, and speeds up the codex release cycle for everyone.

Only problem is that you really can't do that with SW, BT, GK, or SoB, because there are too many fundamental differences in basic unit structure.

You could easily do it with SW. Get rid of the silly stuff like thunderwolves that they shouldn't have anyway, and they aren't that much different. Tactical squads add a CCW and acute senses and counter attack for x points, etc.

Same thing with BT. Emperor's champion is a SC, tac squads can add scouts for x points.

GK are about the only ones you really can't do it with. Not sure why you listed SoB as the arent even marines.

lledwey wrote:

You could easily do it with SW. Get rid of the silly stuff like thunderwolves that they shouldn't have anyway, and they aren't that much different. Tactical squads add a CCW and acute senses and counter attack for x points, etc.

Well, I've never been a big fan of removing ANY options. You should always give, but be very weary of taking away. Wolf Guard would be a bit cumbersome to add, not to mention that they have a lot of extra wargear. They'd probably be doable, but harder than the Angels. It's also worth mention that you'd have to add some bulky provision for SW "Tac Squads" to be able to take a second special weapon, and that they'd get it for free. Little things, like that.

Same thing with BT. Emperor's champion is a SC, tac squads can add scouts for x points.

This I'll give you. I was a little concerned they might have other things that wouldn't translate as well, as I don't know their elite choices that well.

GK are about the only ones you really can't do it with. Not sure why you listed SoB as the arent even marines.

SoB were added mostly for completeness sake. I mean, they use some of the same vehicles, and are more similar to marines than, say, IG are.

Because that is what Biker Captains and Mounted Khan do. Let you have a White Scar style list with a core of bikes.

Absolutely. There aren't nearly enough SM-varient codexes already.

daedalus wrote:I do not think that White Scars need their own codex, but then again, I don't feel like Blood Angels or Dark Angels really need a new codex. They could have been lumped into C:SM. In fact, something I've been talking to my roommate about lately that I thought would be a better way of doing things is to do just this. You could have HQ choice determine if you have the special unit available to you or if you were a 'vanilla' marine. Cuts down on the number of codices, keeps BA and DA in line power-wise with vanilla SM, and speeds up the codex release cycle for everyone.

Only problem is that you really can't do that with SW, BT, GK, or SoB, because there are too many fundamental differences in basic unit structure.

lledwey wrote:You could easily do it with SW. Get rid of the silly stuff like thunderwolves that they shouldn't have anyway, and they aren't that much different. Tactical squads add a CCW and acute senses and counter attack for x points, etc.

Disagreed. It's not just the units, but the special wargear and various rules (like non-teleporting Terminators, Scouts as elites, no Chapter Tactcs, etc). You could work it into C:SM but it would be much clunkier than just giving them a supplement or Codex. C:SM should be renamed "Codex: Astartes" or something, and specifically cover chapters that adhere closely to the Codex Astartes.

daedalus wrote: It's also worth mention that you'd have to add some bulky provision for SW "Tac Squads" to be able to take a second special weapon, and that they'd get it for free. Little things, like that

Probably not, that's one of the things that's rather broken about them, that they don't have to pay for a second weapon, there's no good balance reason for it, and it's exactly the type of little options that change from codex to codex. Notice they didn't get free/discounted weapons in any of their previous books.


Honestly, most of the stuff could be done by "you take Chapter Package X for Y points and gain the following army wide special rules instead of the generic Space Marine special rules. The following units gain/lose the following rules and wargear for Z points, no longer have access to units A/B/C, may take extra E/F/G" Easily able to be fit on a single page.

It would be interesting to see what they would do with a full Codex for the White Scar's if they do that sense I use them as the base for my Space Marine force.

Simply put. No.

The Vanilla rines Dex need the trait system from 4th edition back, then you can "flavour" your chapters.

Karnac wrote:Simply put. No.

The Vanilla rines Dex need the trait system from 4th edition back, then you can "flavour" your chapters.

This. Then we could do away with Dark Angels (whom aren't divergent enough) and Black Templars (Whom aren't divergent enough AND aren't even first-founding) codices, thus cutting back on production time for even MORE marine codices, reducing the likeliness of uber-cheese to try and make them super-different by making them OP in some aspect, and makign room for more non-marine releases.

This is Warhammer 40k, not Space Marine 40k.

No, they don't need their own book. GW has a hard enough time updating the books they already make.

*Edit*
I'd prefer GW to drop the Codex: Specific Chapter crap. Way too many books to service throughout the life cycle of a 40K edition. Codex: Battle Company and Codex: All the Other Variants?

The Sw are far different in that they don't teleport, they have slightly better Artificer armour and Force Weapons, and have Cavalry, as well as the 2 bonus HQs.

Drak Angels maybe.

Blood Angels have Red Thirst, Black Rage, Stormravens, Deep SXtriking Land Raiders, Fast Vehicles.

Black Templars mix in scout type guys with regular guys in units, and hve vows, not to mention the compulsary Emperor's Champion.

Grey Knights are completely different.


Scars can easily be represented by Biker Caps. Raven Guard by Scout Squads and Shrike. Sallies by Vulkan and HF and MM. Fists can be represented by Kantor or Lysander.

Zweischneid wrote:Blood Angels are also a Codex chapter. Just saying.

Either way, I don't think that arguing from a background-perspective is a good line of thinking either for or against a new Codex. That is clearly not the rationale behind it and the background will in any case either by made (Black Templars, also a little-fleshed-out Codex-chapter before they got their own book) or changed (see recent changes/expansion to Space Wolves, Blood Angels) to fit.

GW doesn't work from the background to add stuff to the game. They add stuff to the game and add/change/adapt background to sell it.

Oly they have the red thirst

A single special rule is no reason for an entire new codex.

Durza wrote:A single special rule is no reason for an entire new codex.

Exactly. And the DA/BT (and MAYBE even BA) stuff can be done by Special Characters and army-wide traits/rules, like the 4th ed codex had.

BA do have unique things. Fast Rhino variants, Red Thrist, DoA, Stormravens in particular.

Deadshot wrote:BA do have unique things. Fast Rhino variants, Red Thrist, DoA, Stormravens in particular.

Some of which isn't unique, some of it only originated with the latest book, most of it is tack-on rules to existing units, and all of it could be encompassed in a combined codex.