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.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:1. Wasn't an attack on you, was an attack on DA.

2. Merging them together IS a good idea. They have a ridiculous amount codex for space marines when they only need 3: Codex Space Marines, Codex Chaos Space Marines, and Codex Space Wolves (since their differences are about 10x bigger than any other seperate-codex marine book are).

This is tying up GW writers from updating older codex (See: Necrons, Tau) that are REALLY out-dated , as in 5+ years old.

At this rate, there are likely going to be 4ed Tau armies in 6ed.

1: I play marines. Your comment was aimed at marines in general. Not to mention hyperbolic to the point of lying.

2: While I'm going to sound incredibly biased, Templars are way more out there than the Puppies. As for the fallacy that merging marine books would save time while not reducing the "soul" of the army, you end up with either a bastardised version of the army (kinda like 4th ed Chaos), which is bad, or you keep the same level of special rules, options, wargear etc. as before and end up taking just as long, forcing Marine players to pay for an extra 5 Chapters in the process, which is also bad. As for the updates of older books, I think we can both agree that it'd be smart of GW to give the remaining armies who are in need an errata like the BT/DA one. That way armies wouldn't end up behind quite as badly as some have while allowing GW to take their time making a solid Codex for every army.

1. While there was SOME exaggeration, my statement was not as far out there as you seem to think. Yes, you need a brain to create an army list and yes, you have to choose which weapons to put in squad A to complement squad B, but that's where the tactics end. Once they're on the table, just let the marines do their thing.

With Tau/DE, you need to plan where this unit will go two turns from now to help support this unit and predict your enemy's moves etc.

2. SW are 100x more differenter (sry 4 grmr) Than the black templars. They are ~legion strength, have literally no marine rank/function 100% identical to C:VM and have VASTLY different psychic powers. The similarities end at bolters, power armour and being astartes.

Next to them in divergence from the standard marine dex is BA. Melee-tastic.

Then BT.

Than DA.

Not including GK, of course. Getting assassins=awesome sauce (dislike everything else though)

You guys are laughable...

Sure, from a fluff perspective the armies are different and warrant their own books. This could be said for everyone. Hell, we should get a Codex Dark Angels and a Codex Watchers in the Dark. I mean I don't see any other marine chapter with their own little army of robed iwoks. Do you?

Do you see how stupid that sounds? The fluff, while amazing for each chapter in their own way, can be expanded upon through web postings, articles in WD, imperial armor etc.

None of this matters... what matters are the rules, and when we talk about rules there's not enough different between the books to warrant them existing. The few things that may feel unique aren't unique enough that a little toying with rules couldn't come up with the exact same thing.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I'll keep saying that there's no point in it until someone adresses the point that it won't cut down on time without cutting down on quality.

Quality for who? Marine players? Or 40k?

Do you honestly think this game is better served with 5 marine books with a single page's difference between them outside of fluff? Do you honestly think that new players enjoy having to figure out what random marine chapter the guy across the table is playing today because he was stomped last week using a different one?

Do you honestly think it would take GW 2-3 years to balance the single space marine book if it were done right the first time compared to the 2-3 years we're waiting for each marine book to get released while the designers try and ensure their marine book outshines the marine book before it?

What does a single book solve?

No more codex creep.
No more learning several sets of rules for the same unit.
No more trying to make some random nonsense unit every iteration 5x a revision.

im2randomghgh wrote:
2. SW are 100x more differenter (sry 4 grmr) Than the black templars. They are ~legion strength, have literally no marine rank/function 100% identical to C:VM and have VASTLY different psychic powers. The similarities end at bolters, power armour and being astartes.

Next to them in divergence from the standard marine dex is BA. Melee-tastic.

Then BT.

Than DA.

Not including GK, of course. Getting assassins=awesome sauce (dislike everything else though)

The bolded part, minus the psyker part, describes the Black Templars better than the Space Wolves (and TBH BT psychic powers, being non-existant, are more different anyway). Ranking the BA as more divergent from the Codex Astartes than the Black Templars makes it seem as if you truly don't know what you're talking about. I'd also really like to have a source for the SW being Legion-sized.

The idea space wolves are an intact legion is a fluff point.

They don't have successors like other chapters do. Instead they have companies. And unlike other chapters who make their successors move away and build their own base of operations, all of the companies are located on Fenris.

So when all is said and done, Space Wolves don't have successors and second/third/etc foundings... they have companies.

It's the same thing with the Dark Angels. They have successor chapters when looked at from the outside. On the inside, each successor is lead by a single individual who has a seat on the council and answers directly to Azrael.

Oh, it makes sense then.

Still, one has to consider that the SW was one of the smallest Legions and that it takes a lot of time for them to recover from losses due to the fact that they have one recruiting world. By that standard the Black Templars can be said to be "legion-sized" too. They don't have any successors either and recruit from all over the place.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
2. SW are 100x more differenter (sry 4 grmr) Than the black templars. They are ~legion strength, have literally no marine rank/function 100% identical to C:VM and have VASTLY different psychic powers. The similarities end at bolters, power armour and being astartes.

Next to them in divergence from the standard marine dex is BA. Melee-tastic.

Then BT.

Than DA.

Not including GK, of course. Getting assassins=awesome sauce (dislike everything else though)

The bolded part, minus the psyker part, describes the Black Templars better than the Space Wolves (and TBH BT psychic powers, being non-existant, are more different anyway). Ranking the BA as more divergent from the Codex Astartes than the Black Templars makes it seem as if you truly don't know what you're talking about. I'd also really like to have a source for the SW being Legion-sized.

1. Numbers: even on the wiki it states that the SW are organised into twelve great companies (still) and that each is apprx. the size of a regular chapter=legion.

2. And no, it describes SW WAAAY better. The BT do not have talismans hanging from their necks, do not have 3 kinds of priests in their ranks, do not turn into werewolves, have organised squads rather than packs (see:tribes), do not strip all their armour, fast, then hunt 4 ton prey with their bare hands and do not have a specific arch-enemy (SW-TS, DA-Fallen).

3. Blood Angels DO have more noticeable differences than BT. Black Templars have units with name changes and very, very slight stat changes, whereas the Sanguinary Guard and Death Company have no equivalents. Plus assault marines as troops is SWEET.

The ONLY aspect of divergence of theirs that is more stand-out than that of the blood angels is numbers, which isn't even represented in-game.

Hardly.

The Black Templar are a second founding chapter themselves. So right off the bat they're miniscule compared to the Space Wolves and Dark Angels.

They are also very poorly organized. For starters, they are divided themselves into several smaller fleets (crusades) all of which act independently of each other. But they also compete with each other as well.

Man the Space Marine hate in this thread is awesome.

This comes down to a slippery slope argument. Someone could keep expanding to include Sisters of Battle, because hey they're just marines with some lower stats. Toss Necrons in there, they're all marines with some funny weapons. Combine DE and Eldar. Heck I think we can get the 40K universe down to about 6 codexes.

People like Space Marines, they're super human space soldiers in badass power armor. Some people like the Space Marines with a dark past (DA), some the tragic chapter (BA), some the norse warriors (SW), etc. They've got different backgrounds, different fluff, and different structures. Maybe they aren't super different but people like to play armies that are not the same as the person across the table from them.

GW tried the whole combining thing. The specific chapters got pamphlet sized codexes that just said refer to SM codex for most of the entries. It was a low point because it made them all boring and cookie cutter. Personally I endorse anything that makes the game more diverse and interesting.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Oh, it makes sense then.

Still, one has to consider that the SW was one of the smallest Legions and that it takes a lot of time for them to recover from losses due to the fact that they have one recruiting world. By that standard the Black Templars can be said to be "legion-sized" too. They don't have any successors either and recruit from all over the place.

And BT aren't legion sized, since 6,000 is about half a small legion, or 1/3 of a big one.

And that is not why it takes them so long to recover from losses. It is because they have what is arguably the most selective initiation of any chapter, other than the GK.

And the fact that they have one recruitment world is moot, since most chapters go down to the surface of a planet and recruit one or two children, whereas the SW have a constant supply, since I would expect it is the dream of every male youth on fenris to fight in the Great Wolf's name.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

vonjankmon wrote:Man the Space Marine hate in this thread is awesome.

This comes down to a slippery slope argument. Someone could keep expanding to include Sisters of Battle, because hey they're just marines with some lower stats. Toss Necrons in there, they're all marines with some funny weapons. Combine DE and Eldar. Heck I think we can get the 40K universe down to about 6 codexes.

People like Space Marines, they're super human space soldiers in badass power armor. Some people like the Space Marines with a dark past (DA), some the tragic chapter (BA), some the norse warriors (SW), etc. They've got different backgrounds, different fluff, and different structures. Maybe they aren't super different but people like to play armies that are not the same as the person across the table from them.

GW tried the whole combining thing. The specific chapters got pamphlet sized codexes that just said refer to SM codex for most of the entries. It was a low point because it made them all boring and cookie cutter. Personally I endorse anything that makes the game more diverse and interesting.

Making 7 space marine codexes adds diversity? Hardly. The only reason I have a SM army (IF) is that sometimes I don't want to think and kind of just want to push models across the table without thinking about how it affects the game. If a tac squad gets fired at it's not the end of the world. If someone has a clear shot at my XV8s, however, I have done something wrong.

They are poster boys that require little-no skill to play. That's why six year olds who aren't even paying attention can sometimes beat seasoned players with their itty bitty toys.

Having this many ends up making the rules astartes-tailored.

Also, it prevents them from updating the xenos [also known as the armies that require skill, foresight, and are actually fun to play] codexes (who need it badly).

Vaktathi wrote: I'm not saying they'll go out and buy one right then, however if other armies get updated more than once every 5-12 years, with plastic kits for all or most of their units, or at least actually have kits for all of their units, they might be more popular, rather than Marines which many players already treat as one book that gets an expansion/update every 6-12 months.

The number of SM players who merrily hop from PA codex to PA codex is a little hard to quantify. Acting like it's the majority has no basis of support. The folks in my area stick to one army, for the most part; those that play more than one don't play two Marine variants. Is that representative of everybody? No idea. But neither do you. What's my point? That, if you're a DA player, it really does not, in fact, seem like you get an update every 6-12 months.

If one army gets updates and variants at least every year and has (relatively) cheap kits for all its units, of course it's going to be more popular and sell more than the armies that get updates every decade or half decade and are more expensive with incomplete model lines. Not hard to see.

Again, you're making assumptions about what motivates people to pick a given faction. In your case, it sounds like the answer is how often they're updated. That had nothing at all to do with mine.

With marine books there's also a desire from some to see each one as a completely different faction in terms of sales, which they just aren't, they very often cannibalize each other. The biggest SM player at my current store plays every single marine army, but doesn't actually have models for 6 different marine armies, 80% of his models are just ported from list to list. And he isn't the only one by any means, this is very common.


I personally know more than one person who has dropped 40k because of the slowness of GW in addressing faction books and the lavish attention given to SM's. It's not just on internet forums that this sort of thing exists.

And I suspect we all know what faction most new players start with, no? Let me put it to you this way: GW has been in business for quite a while, and their business is selling hideously over-priced plastic toy soldiers. Like it or not, agree with them or not, they know what they're doing when it comes to maximizing their profits. All the armchair CEOs on the interwebz can rant about their brilliant plan to overhaul 40K, but perfecting the game isn't GW's goal. Making money is.

You run an ice cream parlor. You have six tubs of chocolate and a half-tub of vanilla. The vast majority of your customers order chocolate. If your honest, bottom-line reaction to that is to try to get them to order more vanilla instead, when there's no limit to the amount of chocolate you can supply, remind me never to give you a start-up loan. GW would reinvent the wheel if they thought it made fiscal sense. It obviously doesn't.

im2randomghgh wrote:
They are poster boys that require little-no skill to play. That's why six year olds who aren't even paying attention can sometimes beat seasoned players with their itty bitty toys.

Having this many ends up making the rules astartes-tailored.

Also, it prevents them from updating the xenos [also known as the armies that require skill, foresight, and are actually fun to play] codexes (who need it badly).

This cracked me up, I literally lol'ed for a second. Any T4 3+ save army is forgiving, it's the nature of the beast, and been that way since at least 2nd Ed when I started playing. Takes a truly talented player to make it excellent though. If marines were as good as you make them out to be every power gamer there was would play them. Frankly right now other than SW Razor/Long Fang spam any Marine army is my least feared opponent right now.

Seems like I've been saying this a lot recently but your opinion is not the truth, it could be close but no one is always right and sometimes when everyone disagrees with you it might be time to take a step back and reconsider, everyone else might not be right but never hurts to do a little bit of thinking and questioning of what you assume to be the truth, because you know what they say about assuming.

vonjankmon wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
They are poster boys that require little-no skill to play. That's why six year olds who aren't even paying attention can sometimes beat seasoned players with their itty bitty toys.

Having this many ends up making the rules astartes-tailored.

Also, it prevents them from updating the xenos [also known as the armies that require skill, foresight, and are actually fun to play] codexes (who need it badly).

This cracked me up, I literally lol'ed for a second. Any T4 3+ save army is forgiving, it's the nature of the beast, and been that way since at least 2nd Ed when I started playing. Takes a truly talented player to make it excellent though. If marines were as good as you make them out to be every power gamer there was would play them. Frankly right now other than SW Razor/Long Fang spam any Marine army is my least feared opponent right now.

Seems like I've been saying this a lot recently but your opinion is not the truth, it could be close but no one is always right and sometimes when everyone disagrees with you it might be time to take a step back and reconsider, everyone else might not be right but never hurts to do a little bit of thinking and questioning of what you assume to be the truth, because you know what they say about assuming.

Armies that require more tactics than SM:

DE
Eldar
Tau
Necrons
SoB
Tyranids
CD

Yeah, that's just about all except for IG who just form a gunline and...shoot.

But generally, what do YOU think requires more tactics: an army that can destroy in just about every area, or an army that can only shoot but suck in melee (or vice versa)

im2randomghgh wrote:

vonjankmon wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
They are poster boys that require little-no skill to play. That's why six year olds who aren't even paying attention can sometimes beat seasoned players with their itty bitty toys.

Having this many ends up making the rules astartes-tailored.

Also, it prevents them from updating the xenos [also known as the armies that require skill, foresight, and are actually fun to play] codexes (who need it badly).

This cracked me up, I literally lol'ed for a second. Any T4 3+ save army is forgiving, it's the nature of the beast, and been that way since at least 2nd Ed when I started playing. Takes a truly talented player to make it excellent though. If marines were as good as you make them out to be every power gamer there was would play them. Frankly right now other than SW Razor/Long Fang spam any Marine army is my least feared opponent right now.

Seems like I've been saying this a lot recently but your opinion is not the truth, it could be close but no one is always right and sometimes when everyone disagrees with you it might be time to take a step back and reconsider, everyone else might not be right but never hurts to do a little bit of thinking and questioning of what you assume to be the truth, because you know what they say about assuming.

Armies that require more tactics than SM:

DE
Eldar
Tau
Necrons
SoB
Tyranids
CD

Yeah, that's just about all except for IG who just form a gunline and...shoot.

But generally, what do YOU think requires more tactics: an army that can destroy in just about every area, or an army that can only shoot but suck in melee (or vice versa)

....Necrons don't require much in way of tactics, and if you are not power gaming you can make an SM list that does require tactics and use of your head(drop pods can get interesting), and Nids can pretty much just run across the board and do what the orks do, what it comes down to quite frankly is the player, if the player is waac, then of course they will go as cheesey as possible, and since majority(at least around here) of players around here are SM players then it would only make sense that the same ratio would apply to waac players.

im2randomghgh wrote:
And BT aren't legion sized, since 6,000 is about half a small legion, or 1/3 of a big one.

And guess which Legion is stated to be one of the smallest?

im2randomghgh wrote:1. Numbers: even on the wiki it states that the SW are organised into twelve great companies (still) and that each is apprx. the size of a regular chapter=legion.

The same wiki that stated that Imperator Titans are 150m high?

im2randomghgh wrote:2. And no, it describes SW WAAAY better. The BT do not have talismans hanging from their necks, do not have 3 kinds of priests in their ranks, do not turn into werewolves, have organised squads rather than packs (see:tribes), do not strip all their armour, fast, then hunt 4 ton prey with their bare hands and do not have a specific arch-enemy (SW-TS, DA-Fallen).

They do have talismans, they just don't hang from the neck all the time. Tabards, Templar crosses, incense burners, prayer scrolls etc. They do NOT have "organised squads" any more than the SW do. They form squads in an ad hoc fashion, fighting with those they deem worthy of their respect, rather than in any structured squad. Besides, when you've been busy crusading all over the Galaxy since the Heresy you don't have time for silly stuff like hunting. They do fast pretty often though. As for a nemesis, psykers in general anyone?

im2randomghgh wrote:3. Blood Angels DO have more noticeable differences than BT. Black Templars have units with name changes and very, very slight stat changes, whereas the Sanguinary Guard and Death Company have no equivalents. Plus assault marines as troops is SWEET.

The ONLY aspect of divergence of theirs that is more stand-out than that of the blood angels is numbers, which isn't even represented in-game.

No Devastators*. No librarians*. No organized squads. Too many marines. No companies. No Codex squad markings. No sergeants*. Balls-to-the-walls crazy, without having to go all wulfen or death company to be so*. I marked the ones represented in-game with a *. As for the Sanguinary Guard, they were hand-waved out of thin air for 5th edition, just wait until the Templars get updated in some fashion and I'm sure there'll be Landsknechts or something that smite the unbelievers with their three-handed maces.

I love the "this army requires more skill to play" discussions.

But I'll quickly address your list.

DE - Raider spam...really this requires more skill? I've yet to see a non vehicle spam DE list.
Eldar - I'll agree with you here but honestly only because of how outdated the codex was. In the hey day all you saw was skimmer spam with crazy seer councils that honestly took less skill than ANY other unit in the game to use.
Tau - Gun line same as the IG. The Tau just have to move around a bit more to make it work. I have my Tau army up in my attic because they were to boring, my IG require more skill to use on a high level.
Necrons - SERIOUSLY? I mean really, Necrons? This wasn't a typo right? COME ON.... they're more vanilla than the most Vanilla SM list. I'm assuming this was a typo.
SoB - I'll give you this one, but again more because of the age of the codex, having said that though rhino spam sisters can be really mean and is not the most tactically challenging list ever.
Tyranids - Wardragoon addressed this one, it ain't that hard to hope your Tervi's crap out a boat load of guants and just charge across the board providing living cover for your non LOS requiring Str8 harpoon guns. Nids used to require a lot of skill to play, now the builds that are even reasonably competitive are kind of boring.
CD - Again wow...the army that dominated by basically being able to skip the entire having to cross the board for assault thing? I actually felt bad for Deamon armies once GW realized they made them to powerful and basically began putting a "murder daemons" unit in most of the new codexes. As for tactics... maybe a little but really you drop near what you want to murder and charge in.

Now having said all of that, are there variations of those armies that require a lot of skill to use? Yep there are, just as there are variations of SM that do. Honestly it requires skill to make ANY army play at a high level. You could give a newbie an exact copy of my army and I would take them apart with it because I know all of the ins and out, how to play against an army similar (or in this case the same) and SM aren't any different. If a newbie with an SM army is beating you and your dice didn't take a crap all over the table you may need to rethink how you're playing the game.

Vonjankmon, have you played as/against DE? Because if you did you wouldn't have said what you did.

Have you played as/against Eldar since 2nd edition? Because if you have, you would have said that in 3rd they were o/p because of cannon spam, but since have been a waste of time.

Have you played as/against Necrons since 4th? Because they don't work at all under 1000pts, and they've never been difficult due to just forcing a phase out for all of 5th edition.

SoB, more then most other books, have stood up to the test of time. Of all books out there, theirs likely needs to be updated the least.

Now back on topic... you 2 need to recognize that the game isn't, should not, and can't be balanced around fluff. As soon as they write fluff to try and dictate rules choices they end up ruining the game as is evident with things like Thunderwolf cavalry, priests, and knights.

The rules are what matter, and from a rules perspective the armies just aren't that different.

If we removed silly psycic powers, insanely overpowered long fangs, dreadknights, thunderwolf cavalry, priests, and allowed tactical marines as troops to be upgraded to have terminator armor or jetpacks you're effectively left with SW, BT, DA, GK, and BA all in the same codex from a rules standpoint.

Then just give 1 or 2 special characters to each of the above, 10 pages of fluff dedicated to each of the above, and slap it all in a hardcover book with an additional couple pages of hobby related articles to show all the color options for the main/successors of the above, and you've just solved half of the problems 40k has.

I like Dark Angels, like the Dark Angel fluff, love the Dark Angels model, am actually building a Dark Angel army, but am using the Space Marine codex to do so.

My reasons are more to do with lack of options/overpriced units in the DA 'dex rather than anything else though. If they had a new book with new units/special rules/relatively priced equipment I would switch to the DA book in a heartbeat. As it is, C:SM is just...better than C: DA at the moment.

L. Wrex

If you think Marines are the biggest problem 40K I envy you.

And how would combining all the marine chapters into one fix anything? You wouldn't see more codexes or anything. The limiting factor on new codexes are the models, not the books. They could churn out every book in a year if they wanted, GW just made the decision to release new models with each codex release.

Combining them wouldn't reduce the amount of SM players at all either.

It wouldn't make the game require any more or less skill to play.

I just don't understand what you think it will accomplish other than making you feel good and pissing off a lot of players who enjoy the fluff of different marine armies.

I've played against 4 different DE players now and have played plenty of Eldar armies in 5th. And I'm talking about the armies in 5th Ed, not 3rd, 2nd etc. I mean going all the way back to 3rd edition to try and prove some point about eldar?

*EDIT* This topic falls into the it doesn't affect you so why do you feel the need to ruin everyone elses fun? If you're upset at the rules/armies in 40K take it up with GW, don't take it out on those of us that enjoy a different aspect of the hobby than you happen to.

Nvs wrote:
Have you played as/against Eldar since 2nd edition? Because if you have, you would have said that in 3rd they were o/p because of cannon spam, but since have been a waste of time.

Last time I looked Eldar were top of the pile along with Tau in 4th ed due to how SMF worked.

I've already said what I think it will accomplish...

It will remove a lot of the codex creep problems we see because we won't have developers designing random marine codex 2 in a way so it can outshine random marine codex 1.

It will help focus the rules in a way that doesn't require players to remember a handful of different rules for effectively the same unit while also ensuring that the marines as a whole still feel like marines.

It will ensure that other armies get more regular attention and aren't left entire editions without a codex like DE, who went through 2 editions. Eldar, Tau, and Necrons which are about to go through 1. Black Templars who are about to go through 1. SOB who effectively have gone 2.5 etc.

The idea that the models are what holds up progression on these things is also not true because we had DE released before 75% of the units were available. We have nids that 2 years later still don't have a large number of units. Several of which are considered mainstays in the force. It was said on the news forum that GW will no longer be holding up rules releases for models.

I'm also not here just to piss in your cheerios like you're implying. There is less to gain by keeping marines seperate then there is merging them into a single book. The only thing you suffer losing are a few of the newer things that most people mock marines over (cavalry, knights, priests).

It has already been shown that the majority of identity where rules are concerned either a.) doesn't exist at all in reality, or b.) can be carried over with very little effort.

It would be impossible for GW to lose any identity/character as far as the fluff is concerned simply because the marines are 20 years old.

Now as for you alleging to have played against DE and Eldar in 5th, I can't help but wonder why you tried to say they were thoughtless no-talent armies? You can't run straight ahead with these things and expect anything to come of it. While you can't with marines either (which was alledged by someone else, and not me) it is fair to say that marines would get further blindly running forward then pretty much any other faction in 40k.

Nvs wrote:
It has already been shown that the majority of identity where rules are concerned either a.) doesn't exist at all in reality, or b.) can be carried over with very little effort.

And suppose you wanted to play Grey Knights with your proposed ruleset? Then what? You're stuck with them as an elites choice, forcing you to take stuff that isn't part of the Grey Knights at all. If you attempt to circumvent this there's more rules to fix, more fluff to write in and more development time. You still haven't told us how you'll make sure that the rules don't turn into something like the dreaded CSM 4th ed codex. The only real advantage out of the stuff you've mentioned is that there won't be as much Codex creep. People will still have to remember differences between stuff because there's going to be different rules depending on what Chapter you play, no? Thus you're back to the problem that I posted before: with all the different rules that would be in a merged Codex you're either going to have too few destroying the "soul" of some of the armies or you're going to have the same amount of rules that exist today, which would negate the advantage in development time.

No different rules depending on what chapter you play. There is one set of rules that encompesses everything and it's up to the player to decide if he wants to play his list to win, or wants to play it toward a specific chapter.

Now how do you handle Grey Knights as troops you ask? You take special character 1 which makes a unit of veterans troops and a librarian HQ to make your veterans GK.

And keep in mind that this was done on the fly without any money, motivation, or time on the topic. It was merely to illustrate how easy it could be done.

Nvs wrote:No different rules depending on what chapter you play. There is one set of rules that encompesses everything and it's up to the player to decide if he wants to play his list to win, or wants to play it toward a specific chapter.

Now how do you handle Grey Knights as troops you ask? You take special character 1 which makes a unit of veterans troops and a librarian HQ to make your veterans GK.

And keep in mind that this was done on the fly without any money, motivation, or time on the topic. It was merely to illustrate how easy it could be done.

So in other words: If your Chapter isn't competetive it sucks to be you! Yeah, that's OBVIOUSLY just as good as what we have now...

Well my point is when you look at the Dark Angels Codex compared to Space Marines Codex there is nil for difference aside from interrogator chaplains(since deathwing are just termies with fearless, and ravenwing are just bikers) which tbh aren't worth it to me, now I wouldnt mind if matt ward did the troops in one as long as he stays the feth away from the badass fluff, however the difference between them and a standard codex chapter are pretty much nonexistent at this point.

Wardragoon wrote:Well my point is when you look at the Dark Angels Codex compared to Space Marines Codex there is nil for difference aside from interrogator chaplains(since deathwing are just termies with fearless, and ravenwing are just bikers) which tbh aren't worth it to me, now I wouldnt mind if matt ward did the troops in one as long as he stays the feth away from the badass fluff, however the difference between them and a standard codex chapter are pretty much nonexistent at this point.

As has been repeated several times, that's because the Dark Angels Codex was the testbed for the ideas that would become Codex: Space Marines. If Dark Angels were to be released tomorrow, I have no doubt we'd see a great deal of variance.

Seaward wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:Well my point is when you look at the Dark Angels Codex compared to Space Marines Codex there is nil for difference aside from interrogator chaplains(since deathwing are just termies with fearless, and ravenwing are just bikers) which tbh aren't worth it to me, now I wouldnt mind if matt ward did the troops in one as long as he stays the feth away from the badass fluff, however the difference between them and a standard codex chapter are pretty much nonexistent at this point.

As has been repeated several times, that's because the Dark Angels Codex was the testbed for the ideas that would become Codex: Space Marines. If Dark Angels were to be released tomorrow, I have no doubt we'd see a great deal of variance.

Originally thats fine, but 4e was an opportunity for changing them up which GW did not take, hopefully they do so. But realistically idk how much DA earns GW now so it may not be as proffitable as they like to make a new codex+units as opposed to just throwing them into Codex SM, especially when you look at how people are just using the SM Codex for Dark Angels

vonjankmon wrote:I love the "this army requires more skill to play" discussions.

But I'll quickly address your list.

DE - Raider spam...really this requires more skill? I've yet to see a non vehicle spam DE list.

Eldar - I'll agree with you here but honestly only because of how outdated the codex was. In the hey day all you saw was skimmer spam with crazy seer councils that honestly took less skill than ANY other unit in the game to use.

Tau - Gun line same as the IG. The Tau just have to move around a bit more to make it work. I have my Tau army up in my attic because they were to boring, my IG require more skill to use on a high level.

Necrons - SERIOUSLY? I mean really, Necrons? This wasn't a typo right? COME ON.... they're more vanilla than the most Vanilla SM list. I'm assuming this was a typo.

SoB - I'll give you this one, but again more because of the age of the codex, having said that though rhino spam sisters can be really mean and is not the most tactically challenging list ever.

Tyranids - Wardragoon addressed this one, it ain't that hard to hope your Tervi's crap out a boat load of guants and just charge across the board providing living cover for your non LOS requiring Str8 harpoon guns. Nids used to require a lot of skill to play, now the builds that are even reasonably competitive are kind of boring.

CD - Again wow...the army that dominated by basically being able to skip the entire having to cross the board for assault thing? I actually felt bad for Deamon armies once GW realized they made them to powerful and basically began putting a "murder daemons" unit in most of the new codexes. As for tactics... maybe a little but really you drop near what you want to murder and charge in.

.

DE-Hit-and-run specialized army=tactics. You need to have your heavy units in place to finish off units that were attacked by faster units that have moved on to other units *i know I said units a bunch of times*

Eldar- at least we agree on this

Tau-Gunline? Are you INSANE?!? in a tau army not moving=instant death! a 4+ Sv army may sound vaguely durable, but they aren't. They are basically firing while running away from melee units=never standing still. You need to plan every turn based on which cover is where, where your opponent might move etc.

Necrons-Yes, the most drastically underpowered army in all of WH40K DOES need tactics, how great of you to agree with me. When to teleport, where to teleport etc.

I have won GTs with them, and people are like "WHAT? A necron player just won!" You should see DashofPepper's thing on cron tactics. The march of death just isn't feasible anymore.

SoB-Either way, SM can rhino spam too...

Tyranids-No. They are too weak an army to simply "charge" anymore. If you charge a green blob army, you're going to lose. If you charge a SM (any SM) army, you are going to lose. If you charge Tau, you just wasted a turn on overkill.

CD-They were only ever over-powered in WHFB.

Also, knowing when to use (insert slaaneshi daemon type here) rather than (insert nurgle daemon type here) despite the awesome near-immunity to shooting that nurgle daemons have is harder than most people think. The daemons complement each other well, and learning to use them is an acquired skill.

Since when do Space Wolves number about 12,000?

iproxtaco wrote:Since when do Space Wolves number about 12,000?

Since a looooong time ago. 12 Great Companies x approximately 1,000 Marines per company= around 12,000

iproxtaco wrote:Since when do Space Wolves number about 12,000?

I don't agree with it but apparently each SW great companies number the same as an average chapter.
I don't believe it but hey... go figure...