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.

With the new ally rules, do you think that each of the chaos God's should get their own codexes? Like a codex for Khorne, nurgle, slannesh and that other guy...?

Any one specific codex would be too limiting.

There is not enough divergence to warrant multiple codexes.

So no, I do not think individual codexes are needed.

You couldn't be bothered to look up the name of the "other guy" before you made this thread?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Any one specific codex would be too limiting.

There is not enough divergence to warrant multiple codexes.

So no, I do not think individual codexes are needed.

Yes because there was a big enough difference between Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Black templar...

The differences between the chaos dex's are far more numerable alone compared to the loyalists.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Any one specific codex would be too limiting.

There is not enough divergence to warrant multiple codexes.

So no, I do not think individual codexes are needed.

Yes because there was a big enough difference between Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Black templar...

The differences between the chaos dex's are far more numerable alone compared to the loyalists.

the SM, and BA have totally different troops choices, the BA can not take a bike captain and have bike troops, the BA can not have Scoring Sternguard squads... Etc.

I could go on, but the differences between the Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Black templar codexes are very different and that would be tough to condense into one codex.

The same can not be said of the Chaos codex, as they made one book for all four gods.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Any one specific codex would be too limiting.

There is not enough divergence to warrant multiple codexes.

So no, I do not think individual codexes are needed.

Yes because there was a big enough difference between Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Black templar...

The differences between the chaos dex's are far more numerable alone compared to the loyalists.

the SM, and BA have totally different troops choices, the BA can not take a bike captain and have bike troops, the BA can not have Scoring Sternguard squads... Etc.

I could go on, but the differences between the Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Black templar codexes are very different and that would be tough to condense into one codex.

The same can not be said of the Chaos codex, as they made one book for all four gods.

Thanks for the laugh, really needed that.

Considering how many options there could be that could be added to a chaos mono-god/legion dex, while most of the loyalists are at best minor changes that could be done in a single codex. It's just so silly for anyone to actually believe that loyalists deserve it over chaos.

 DeathReaper wrote:
the SM, and BA have totally different troops choices,

Yeah man, because there is no difference between Plague Marines Noise Marines. THEY'RE LIKE THE SAME UNIT-

 DeathReaper wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Any one specific codex would be too limiting.

There is not enough divergence to warrant multiple codexes.

So no, I do not think individual codexes are needed.

Yes because there was a big enough difference between Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Black templar...

The differences between the chaos dex's are far more numerable alone compared to the loyalists.

the SM, and BA have totally different troops choices, the BA can not take a bike captain and have bike troops, the BA can not have Scoring Sternguard squads... Etc.

I could go on, but the differences between the Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Black templar codexes are very different and that would be tough to condense into one codex.

The same can not be said of the Chaos codex, as they made one book for all four gods.

Maybe they have those different options to warrant their own codex not the other way around? They wanted to give them their own codex so they made some specific units/rules for them. Chaos marines really have a lot more differences going for them but I don't know if doing mono-god codexes would work too well without restricting the options too much. But like I said, they could invent new rules and options like they did for all the separate loyalist dexes

 DeathReaper wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Any one specific codex would be too limiting.

There is not enough divergence to warrant multiple codexes.

So no, I do not think individual codexes are needed.

Yes because there was a big enough difference between Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Black templar...

The differences between the chaos dex's are far more numerable alone compared to the loyalists.

the SM, and BA have totally different troops choices, the BA can not take a bike captain and have bike troops, the BA can not have Scoring Sternguard squads... Etc.

I could go on, but the differences between the Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Black templar codexes are very different and that would be tough to condense into one codex.

The same can not be said of the Chaos codex, as they made one book for all four gods.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

Chaos have easily enough to warrant different codex's, and certainly more then said marines.

The Chaos codex just came out, finalized, printed, and shipped. Why is this question being asked?

Yeah. But it would defeat the point.

You play loyalists if you want a mainly uniform army. You play Chaos if you want to mix it up.

If all you want to do with Chaos is switch to "red" instead "blue" and "For the Blood God" instead "For the Emperor", you might as well use a loyalist codex. The differences would be negligible.

The whole appeal of Chaos Marines is that you can mix and match and try to build synergy from diversity, rather than spam uniformity.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Yeah. But it would defeat the point.

You play loyalists if you want a mainly uniform army. You play Chaos if you want to mix it up.

If all you want to do with Chaos is switch to "red" instead "blue" and "For the Blood God" instead "For the Emperor", you might as well use a loyalist codex. The differences would be negligible.

The whole appeal of Chaos Marines is that you can mix and match and try to build synergy from diversity, rather than spam uniformity.

Have to disagree here... There certainly are a lot of players who mix up all units from all legions, but if you ask me there are more players out there that want to play specific legions, but are often forced to divert from their preferred choice to keep the army playable.

And really, how can anyone seriously say that the differences between the chaos legions are smaller than the differences between the loyalist legions (BA, SW, DA etc etc)? Good laugh that

 Requiem wrote:


And really, how can anyone seriously say that the differences between the chaos legions are smaller than the differences between the loyalist legions (BA, SW, DA etc etc)? Good laugh that

I am not sure "difference" is a criteria in that.

Books get printed depending on the number of players that play it.

If 30.000 people play Blood Angels, 10.000 people play Dark Angels and 2.000 people play Eldar and Tyranids, than Blood Angels should probably be broken into 3 distinct books (e.g. Codex: Blood Angels, Codex: Flesh Tearers, Codex: Lamenters or some such), Dark Angels should stay as they are and Eldar fused with Tyranids into one book.



That said, difference in the "in-game" fluff or not (which don't matter to "out-of-game-business" anyhow), they roughly all strike to a distinct niche/theme.

Blood Angels have their Vampire thing running, which is obviously extremely popular.
Space Wolves hit the Vikings/Savage/Werewolfs vibe
Black Templars the Knights/Crusader vibe
CSM broadly grab the "evil" with spikes and tentacles niche.

By and large, I would assume the corner the Blood Angels or Space Wolves occupy in popular culture to carry more weight than the one Chaos Space Marines do.

If it were not for fan-nostaliga, some CSM like Thousand Sons could probably be scrapped entirely, since Necrons sort of hog their Ancient-Egypt niche better than they do.

On the other hand no one does pestilence better than nurgle. Nothing says angry like Khorne (except for angry marines of course). You catch my drift. They could definitely break up the codex in the future if they wanted to. I could see a death guard codex or a world eaters codex for sure.. The 'vanilla' dex could then be black legion mainly (like ultra's are for the loyalists)

 Zweischneid wrote:
[That said, difference in the "in-game" fluff or not (which don't matter to "out-of-game-business" anyhow), they roughly all strike to a distinct niche/theme.

Blood Angels have their Vampire thing running, which is obviously extremely popular.
Space Wolves hit the Vikings/Savage/Werewolfs vibe
Black Templars the Knights/Crusader vibe
CSM broadly grab the "evil" with spikes and tentacles niche.

By and large, I would assume the corner the Blood Angels or Space Wolves occupy in popular culture to carry more weight than the one Chaos Space Marines do.

If it were not for fan-nostaliga, some CSM like Thousand Sons could probably be scrapped entirely, since Necrons sort of hog their Ancient-Egypt niche better than they do.

That assumes that people only ever liked a particular Chapter/Legion/Xenos race because they occupy a particularly space in popular culture or trope. Some people may actually like the Blood Angels or Space Wolves based on their own merits, rather than just because they're vampires or werewolf vikings IN SPAAAACE. In the case of Chaos, its a relatively unique and diverse aspect of the 40k lore, beyond being just evil marines with spikes attached.

 Ronin wrote:


That assumes that people only ever liked a particular Chapter/Legion/Xenos race because they occupy a particularly space in popular culture or trope. Some people may actually like the Blood Angels or Space Wolves based on their own merits, rather than just because they're vampires or werewolf vikings IN SPAAAACE. In the case of Chaos, its a relatively unique and diverse aspect of the 40k lore, beyond being just evil marines with spikes attached.

I am not trying to presume why some people like or do not like certain armies.

I am just saying that GW does not start from the fluff to make miniatures or armies, but the other way around. They are a miniatures company, which they repeatedly claim. They start with (a) the miniatures, than they add (b) the rules and in the end they add (c) the fluff.

Trying to "reason" your way up backwards on what should or should not have rules (much less miniatures) from the very last tail-end that is the fluff is looking at it the wrong way IF you are talking about things like GW's business/design decisions such as whether or not they should add (or discontinue) a certain army in their portfolio.

If GW would create new armies from the logic of their own background, they would only ever shift their current customers around, i.e. those that already know their fluff. They don't. They want NEW customers. Thus they look at the lively historic WWI/WWII models scene and add an army like IG. They look at the popularity of Vampires (which were already fly in the 1980s and 1990s) and add a Vampire-themed army.

It doesn't even matter much whether 40Ks "vampire-themed-army" turned out to be "Vampire-Space-Marines" or "Vampire-Eldar" or whatever. Now, that they've settled, they are obviously stuck with their choice. But if it had gone the other way back in 1989 or whenever, they fluff would've turned out differently to match.

I don't think the chaos need 1 codex per god. Splitting the codex would be one of those absolute car crash divorces, with many arguments about who get's the obliterators and who doesn't get the mutilators...

Nurgle - I want oblits cause...they're chunky!
Tzeentch - I want them as their guns are brilliant tools - you've got a horde? I''ve a gun for that. You've got a vehicle? I've a gun for that. All I have to do is take them and I can say I foresaw what you wanted to do and planned for it...
Slaanesh - I want them for their guns cause great pain for the enemy...and If I can't shoehorn the words transcendent agony into my argument while I'm here I may as well give up...
Khorne - Why the FETH do I get the **"%%^& MUTILATORS???!

We may as well have 18 founding marine codex's and 1 Codex Xeno's....

why wouldn't some entries be shared across the codexes? Look at al the similar entries in loyalist dexes

Was attempting humour

If they were to split the book they'd have to have any non denominational chaos unit in every book.
If they turned them into entirely new armies then I'd be all for it, but I'm still scared of what happened in 3rd ed. Vanilla marines had a nice codex and the Space Wolves got an iou of a codex where most of the entries said 'see codex space marines'.
Blood angels got the PDF heresy for 4th...

On reflection I'm surprised GW haven't done this yet. Now you have to buy a generic chaos codex then buy the 'god' upgrade...

I would like to see WD lists with minor changes to mess with the FOC.

Something similar to: if you're Lord is unmarked and has a jump pack, raptors are troops. Or raptors are scoring.. or take an additional fast choice, but one less heavy.

Basically mix in some of the minor tweaks the 3.5 dex did to make Night Lord, Iron Warrior, and other evil marines happy.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Any one specific codex would be too limiting.

There is not enough divergence to warrant multiple codexes.

So no, I do not think individual codexes are needed.

The forces of Chaos don't have enough divergence to warrant multiple codex's?

For loyalist SM's where almost all the differences are hamfisted FoC and weapon swaps, they totally need individual coded books... but the mortal incarnation of the realm of *CHAOS* are just too uniform for that?




I'm not saying Chaos needs multiple books, but how on earth they're somehow less divergent or less in need than loyalist SM's is...ridiculous. The World Eaters and Thousand Sons for instance, are far more distinct than all the differences between the BA's/DA's/SW's and BT's *combined*, to say nothing of the Death Guard, Iron Warriors, Night Lords, Emperor's Children, etc.

DeathReaper wrote:
the SM, and BA have totally different troops choices, the BA can not take a bike captain and have bike troops, the BA can not have Scoring Sternguard squads... Etc.

We're talking simple FoC swaps here, they all do that internally already, adding a couple page addendums to expand that is just too hard?

I could go on, but the differences between the Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Black templar codexes are very different and that would be tough to condense into one codex.

Not really, you can fit them all (army list differences at least if not all the unique characters) onto two pages at most if doing it in the style of the 3.5E CSM book. They all share 85%+ of their units/weapons/special rules anyway.

Want to play Space Wolves? Well, then your army loses Special rules A, B, C and gains X, Y, Z, the following units statlines are reduced to WS3 BS3 and gain Special Rule #76 and these other units get Special Rule #77 instead. DA's? Your terminators gain X USR and pay +25pts per unit, may be taken as troops. Bikes gain USR Y and cost +3ppm. See page #153 for additional characters.

The same can not be said of the Chaos codex, as they made one book for all four gods.

Rather poorly, though they did manage it rather well once, and could use the same template for loyalist books.

BlaxicanX wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
the SM, and BA have totally different troops choices,

Yeah man, because there is no difference between Plague Marines Noise Marines. THEY'RE LIKE THE SAME UNIT-

Neither of them are troops choices...

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
The Chaos codex just came out, finalized, printed, and shipped. Why is this question being asked?

100% this.
It would be tough to condense all the marines into one codex.

The same can not be said of the Chaos codex, as they made one book for all four gods as they made one book for the whole CSM force.

If I were in charge of either I'd make a single list for Space Marines and a single list for Chaos Marines, with a section at the back of both detailing any unique units, special characters, and limitations available if you want to take a specific variant. I'd much prefer more versatile Codexes to more Codexes...

 DeathReaper wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
the SM, and BA have totally different troops choices,

Yeah man, because there is no difference between Plague Marines Noise Marines. THEY'RE LIKE THE SAME UNIT-

Neither of them are troops choices...

Why is simple FoC organization all that matters in what deserves its own book? That seems like a fairly irrelevant .

On top of that historically have been troops and can be made troops in the current book.

100% this.
It would be tough to condense all the marines into one codex.

The same can not be said of the Chaos codex, as they made one book for all four gods as they made one book for the whole CSM force.

or rather, they just functionally already did to them what could just as easily could be done with the loyalist marines...

All the models and rules are there to keep it fluffy. Maybe not competitive, but still fluffy. There are suitable "counts as" characters to cover most legions/warbands. Because for some of us, having fun is more important.

Hmmm... a seperate codex for each chaos god.... and then what.... a codex for each of the undivided legions?

So you'd all be fine with paying $400 for the rules to use your chaos army?

 DeffDred wrote:
Hmmm... a seperate codex for each chaos god.... and then what.... a codex for each of the undivided legions?

So you'd all be fine with paying $400 for the rules to use your chaos army?

that assumes you'd need all the books to play one's chaos army (which is ridiculous, do loyalists players need all 6 loyalist books?) or that you'd need a distinct codex for every single legion as opposed to just a couple of books.

And at the rate of increase in codex prices in the last 6 years, we'll be at $400 books in about a decade either way (I'm not actually exaggerating there, they've been averaging a 20% increase per year).

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Ronin wrote:


That assumes that people only ever liked a particular Chapter/Legion/Xenos race because they occupy a particularly space in popular culture or trope. Some people may actually like the Blood Angels or Space Wolves based on their own merits, rather than just because they're vampires or werewolf vikings IN SPAAAACE. In the case of Chaos, its a relatively unique and diverse aspect of the 40k lore, beyond being just evil marines with spikes attached.

I am not trying to presume why some people like or do not like certain armies.

I am just saying that GW does not start from the fluff to make miniatures or armies, but the other way around. They are a miniatures company, which they repeatedly claim. They start with (a) the miniatures, than they add (b) the rules and in the end they add (c) the fluff.

Trying to "reason" your way up backwards on what should or should not have rules (much less miniatures) from the very last tail-end that is the fluff is looking at it the wrong way IF you are talking about things like GW's business/design decisions such as whether or not they should add (or discontinue) a certain army in their portfolio.

If GW would create new armies from the logic of their own background, they would only ever shift their current customers around, i.e. those that already know their fluff. They don't. They want NEW customers. Thus they look at the lively historic WWI/WWII models scene and add an army like IG. They look at the popularity of Vampires (which were already fly in the 1980s and 1990s) and add a Vampire-themed army.

It doesn't even matter much whether 40Ks "vampire-themed-army" turned out to be "Vampire-Space-Marines" or "Vampire-Eldar" or whatever. Now, that they've settled, they are obviously stuck with their choice. But if it had gone the other way back in 1989 or whenever, they fluff would've turned out differently to match.

You realize they did start with the fluff, because in the original dex it was pure Ultramarines, up until the book "Angels of Darkness" That gave multiple loyalist chapters their own special rules, than they began to release various "Spin-off codex" that had at best one or two different looking models.

At least get your knowledge of history straight.

The whole appeal of Chaos Marines is that you can mix and match and try to build synergy from diversity, rather than spam uniformity.

Not everyone of us enjoys being codex: Black Legion, I started with the 3.5 dex when we didn't have such synergy, and had the ability to make perfect mono lists.

100% this.
It would be tough to condense all the marines into one codex.

Seeing as they forced an attempt at diversity only in the 4th to 5th edition (Take a look at their earlier codex's, they used to be Supplements to the Main Marine Codex). Not to mention most of them could easily be folded into codex space marines still.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
Hmmm... a seperate codex for each chaos god.... and then what.... a codex for each of the undivided legions?

So you'd all be fine with paying $400 for the rules to use your chaos army?

that assumes you'd need all the books to play one's chaos army (which is ridiculous, do loyalists players need all 6 loyalist books?) or that you'd need a distinct codex for every single legion as opposed to just a couple of books.

And at the rate of increase in codex prices in the last 6 years, we'll be at $400 books in about a decade either way (I'm not actually exaggerating there, they've been averaging a 20% increase per year).

I was refering to the allies suggestion that the OP made.

As posted above me... once upon a time space marines did require several books to play specific chapters.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Any one specific codex would be too limiting.

There is not enough divergence to warrant multiple codexes.

So no, I do not think individual codexes are needed.

Yes because there was a big enough difference between Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Black templar...

The differences between the chaos dex's are far more numerable alone compared to the loyalists.

the SM, and BA have totally different troops choices, the BA can not take a bike captain and have bike troops, the BA can not have Scoring Sternguard squads... Etc.

I could go on, but the differences between the Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Black templar codexes are very different and that would be tough to condense into one codex.

The same can not be said of the Chaos codex, as they made one book for all four gods.

there wasnt enough of a difference before they started making separate codexes for BA, SW, DA. Until they started making more books for them, BA were just "red marines."
sadly the chaos codex still feels like a jumbled together circus. You can have a few different colored very different play style units with no unity or coheaseon. The really could have split the book up into a few different codexes.

I am not sure that there should be one book for each god though.