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:
Furthermore, GW releases Marines because they sell. People seem to be under the impression that the number of Xenos players would skyrocket if the Marines were folded into one book. This just won't happen unless people jump ship from the Marine Codex because it sucks, in which case someone else's army will have had to suffer in order to please you.

This.

The usual armchair game designers bring this up every single time anything remotely similar to this topic comes up, and frankly, their inability to see that it's simply never going to happen has gone from amusing to annoying. They're not going to merge down into one Space Marine codex. They're not going to push fewer Marine releases. I've used this analogy time and time again, but you guys are basically doing the equivalent of telling McDonald's to only sell one type of hamburger, so that they can focus on expanding the Filet-o-Fish.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If the complaint is that Marines are too similar, how is merging them into one book where you make everything "weapon swaps" going to help?

Nobody is saying that it's going to help that, or that it should. We're saying that, given that this is in fact the case, why do we need so many disparate books to portray them when they share so much and so much of their variation simply boils down to additional special rules (Marines+1 Hooray!), wargear swaps, or FoC swaps.

Furthermore, GW releases Marines because they sell. People seem to be under the impression that the number of Xenos players would skyrocket if the Marines were folded into one book. This just won't happen unless people jump ship from the Marine Codex because it sucks, in which case someone else's army will have had to suffer in order to please you.

And if Xenos armies had full model lines with plastic kits for most units, didn't cost half again as much as SM armies to buy, and didn't have to wait 5-12 years for updates and featured in marketing materials as something other than marine fodder their sales wouldn't increase at all?

SM's are popular because GW has gone out of their way to make them as easy to get into as possible. SM armies are generally noticeably cheaper to buy with a smaller time investment to build and paint than non-SM armies and have fully fleshed out model lines while many non-SM armies have some of their most popular units going without models.

are you seriously going to assert that these things have nothing to do with marine popularity and if rectified to some extent wouldn't result in increased non-SM army sales?

I think the real issue is that the current Space Wolves, Grey Knights and to a lesser extent Blood Angels Codices are so damn good. We could use a Xenos Codex up there with the Wolves so that some bandwagon-jumpers start playing Xenos instead.

It's infinitely easier to bandwagon with marines given that, as long as you aren't painting your marines exactly as Space Wolves or Ultramarines or Dark Angels, you can pretty much use whatever book you feel like. Don't like playing C:SM anymore? Play C:BA, you won't need to change much. It's a lot harder to bandwagon hop from Tyranids to Tau or Dark Eldar. Granted, it doesn't help that C:BA and C:SW are basically C:SM+1 and are really really powerful, but bandwagon hopping in generaly is just easier with marines armies because you have at least 5 (or up to 7 if you like) books to hop from without having to change too much.

Seaward wrote:

but you guys are basically doing the equivalent of telling McDonald's to only sell one type of hamburger, so that they can focus on expanding the Filet-o-Fish.

Not a great analogy, noobdy is asking them to stop supporting other products (rather just combine them as they cannibalize each other and other armies anyway), but I'll counter with if fillet-o-fish were $0.49 and available at all locations (which it's not) with all the options hamburgers have, they'd likely be a hell of a lot more popular.

Vaktathi wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Furthermore, GW releases Marines because they sell. People seem to be under the impression that the number of Xenos players would skyrocket if the Marines were folded into one book. This just won't happen unless people jump ship from the Marine Codex because it sucks, in which case someone else's army will have had to suffer in order to please you.

And if Xenos armies had full model lines with plastic kits for most units, didn't cost half again as much as SM armies to buy, and didn't have to wait 5-12 years for updates and featured in marketing materials as something other than marine fodder their sales wouldn't increase at all?

SM's are popular because GW has gone out of their way to make them as easy to get into as possible. SM armies are generally noticeably cheaper to buy with a smaller time investment to build and paint than non-SM armies and have fully fleshed out model lines while many non-SM armies have some of their most popular units going without models.

are you seriously going to assert that these things have nothing to do with marine popularity and if rectified to some extent wouldn't result in increased non-SM army sales?

Seaward wrote:

but you guys are basically doing the equivalent of telling McDonald's to only sell one type of hamburger, so that they can focus on expanding the Filet-o-Fish.

Not a great analogy, noobdy is asking them to stop supporting other products (rather just combine them as they cannibalize each other and other armies anyway), but I'll counter with if fillet-o-fish were $0.49 and available at all locations (which it's not) with all the options hamburgers have, they'd likely be a hell of a lot more popular.

Tell that to Long John Silver's.

Businesses sell to demand. You can try and create demand, but it's far easier to simply supply what's already being demanded. Find a niche and fill it.

Space Marine codices and models sell. There's absolutely no reason for GW to shoot themselves in the foot by slashing their potential Space Marine profits by rolling everything up into one codex, in an effort to convince people that they really do like space elves just as much or more. You can theorycraft all you want, but there's zero chance that they're going to take the single codex approach, and you know it; why keep harping on endlessly about it?

Seaward wrote:
Tell that to Long John Silver's.

Businesses sell to demand. You can try and create demand, but it's far easier to simply supply what's already being demanded. Find a niche and fill it.

Space Marine codices and models sell. There's absolutely no reason for GW to shoot themselves in the foot by slashing their potential Space Marine profits by rolling everything up into one codex, in an effort to convince people that they really do like space elves just as much or more. You can theorycraft all you want, but there's zero chance that they're going to take the single codex approach, and you know it; why keep harping on endlessly about it?

Because it's slowly killing this game for many people?

Rolling SM's into one book in and of itself isn't going to make other armies attractive, what it's going to do is mean that other armies won't take as long to update, since you don't need to be devoting 28-50 months of release pipeline time and marketing efforts for 7 armies to what effectively might as well be 3 armies and 12-21 months of release pipeline time instead, which will help make it possible to get to all the armies within the span of a single edition and keep armies from being two editions out of date.

That's what would likely have an impact on non-SM army sales. You aren't taking anything away from the SM crowd, it's all still there, just in one book instead of 5, and then you've got more time and resources available, especially sales and marketing resources, to help support the other armies after the big giant happy marine release each edition.

It'll also help cut down on creep and the consistent one-upsmanship of SM armies over one another, and you won't have the silly issues of multiple profiles for assault cannons, thunder hammers, PotMS, etc existing for years.


Also, expecting GW's current scheme to be accurately responding to market pressures is a bit much. This is the company that *borrowed* money to pay dividends in a down year after all simply to double Mr.Kirby's yearly income, opens stores in the middle of nowhere and then has to shut them all down because they don't generate sales while they leave huge metro areas like Portland, San Diego, etc all without a GW presesence aside from a couple of independents, and routinely fails to deliver opening day merchandise to distributors. Business savvy is not what makes GW what it is.

I'm not saying GW should do anything to support marines less, just differently. One book doesn't mean less support for marine or that marines lose anything, it just means one book that contains everything instead of multiple books where 80% of the content is copy-pasta. It's hard not to acknlowdge that so much Marine stuff basically amounts to trivial differences to justify their own book for its own sake, often an intertia decision from a pet project of the early 90's (e.g. Space Wolves...). In many ways, it makes good business sense as it also cuts down cannibalization of marine armies from each other.

Many people already treat loyalist marines as one big book, might as well just make it one.

Vaktathi wrote:
Rolling SM's into one book in and of itself isn't going to make other armies attractive, what it's going to do is mean that other armies won't take as long to update, since you don't need to be devoting 28-50 months of release pipeline time and marketing efforts for 7 armies to what effectively might as well be 3 armies and 12-21 months of release pipeline time instead, which will help make it possible to get to all the armies within the span of a single edition and keep armies from being two editions out of date.

Rolling SM's into one book will mean that all those players who now play armies from 5 different books, many of which have more players following them than most Xenos-books, well all converge on a SINGLE Codex which will unit the vast majority of 40K players in a single book. That would kill diversty in the game as sure as the sun rises in the morning. Worst idea ever.

And "update" cycles are irrelevant. If you like a release, you'll play it. If not, you don't. This misguided sense of entitlement among some of the older players that everything that has at some point been released "deserves" an new edition/Codex at some point is frankly irritating to the highest order. What other wargame is there even outside GW that will allow you to legally use rules over 10 years old and models over 20 years old in a lively and thriving gaming-scene? Most non-GW games I've ever started have been defunct within 5 years or so anyhow. GW has by far the best "longlivety" of any game-line anyhow. Be glad for what it is.

GW will refresh older model-lines with new updates if they think it's worthwhile. But people should really get off the expectation that "their" army has some intrinsic "right" or "entitlement" for an update. They don't.

White Scars = Raven wing

Eldrad40k wrote:White Scars = Raven wing

No.

Zweischneid wrote:
Rolling SM's into one book will mean that all those players who now play armies from 5 different books, many of which have more players following them than most Xenos-books

Without any data to support that, it's a vague assertion at best. I think it'd be hard to argue that BT or DA are as popular as Eldar or Orks for example, much less moreso.

, well all converge on a SINGLE Codex which will unit the vast majority of 40K players in a single book. That would kill diversty in the game as sure as the sun rises in the morning.

If it's got everything the other books did, what diversity is lost?

It's not like these armies are super diverse anyway. C:BA outright shares 80% of it's non-SC units, with most of the rest being variations on existing units (e.g. dreads/predators/etc), with C:SM.

And "update" cycles are irrelevant. If you like a release, you'll play it. If not, you don't.

Not true at all, if it costs half again as much as a marine army or doesn't have a complete model line or you think it won't be supported as well as another, you may go with a marine army instead. I've seen people *not* start a xenos army and go with marines for those very reasons. Just last week saw a guy go with BA's over IG because of the cost and because several of the units he wanted to use he'd have to kitbash or buy from FW. I remember a now GK player having started Tyranids but switch to GK's because it was cheaper to build the entire GK army than finish out the Tyranids and there weren't models for Tervigons or Mycetic Spores.

This misguided sense of entitlement among some of the older players that everything that has at some point been released "deserves" an new edition/Codex at some point is frankly irritating to the highest order.

And you think armies being an edition or even two out of date has nothing to do with poor sales? Really? Because having played this game for years in multiple metro areas I've seen it first hand. There's a reason GW flip-flopped on it's FAQ policy and went back and updated the BT/DA wargear, because sales literally plummeted as a result of the wargear/rules creep and it was an easy-insta fix for sales (I've seen more DA and BT armies since the FAQ update than in the preceding two years). Granted it was a special circumstances case, but it shows the point.

What other wargame is there even outside GW that will allow you to legally use rules over 10 years old in a lively and thriving gaming-scene?

I'm struggling to come up with a wargame outside of GW's that lets active products go over 10 years without an update.

Without the staggered Marine releases I find it hard to beleive that GW could keep all the non-Marine armies going. As you say, Marine armies share a many models between them; this means that the effort going into updating, for example, Dark Angels, isn't nearly as big as the update of the Tau. When combined with the fact that multiple Marine releases boosts sales, one could argue that the great profit per pound invested in the multiple Marine Codices is what is letting GW keep all their armies in the first place. By the way, the current Black Templars Codex is 6 years old, the Blood Angels had a WD Codex before they got a new one, the Space Wolves had a 3rd edition Codex, as did the Grey Knights. Xenos players aren't the only ones who get to wait (shocking, I know).

As a closing note, GW seems to finally have caught up with the times; if the BT/DA FAQs and the WHFB FAQs at the start of 8th is anything to judge by, they're not gonna let the remaining 4th ed Codices remain 2 editions behind.

Vaktathi wrote:
Because it's slowly killing this game for many people?

I might redirect you to your own words on assumptions such as this..

Vaktathi wrote:

Without any data to support that, it's a vague assertion at best.

Zweischneid wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:
Because it's slowly killing this game for many people?

I might redirect you to your own words on assumptions such as this..

Vaktathi wrote:

Without any data to support that, it's a vague assertion at best.

My comment was a subjective personal statement of which similar comments have been echoed on these boards quite often and in this very thread (e.g. Arandmoor's statement on the previous page for example), not an assertion about sales numbers and army popularity. They don't equate in the way you're trying to equate them here...

Vaktathi wrote:Because it's slowly killing this game for many people?

Which is something GW couldn't care less about. They don't want you to sit on one army and be happy; they want you constantly buying. That's how they stay in business. One Space Marine book would kill a huge portion of their revenue, because it means a Space Marine player goes shopping once every four years, and is then done until the next version. They want that Space Marine player hopping from vanilla to Space Wolves to Blood Angels to Grey Knights as the successive codices are released, because it makes them far, far more money than what they make from the far smaller percentage of players who decide they want to give Dark Eldar a shot.

That's what would likely have an impact on non-SM army sales. You aren't taking anything away from the SM crowd, it's all still there, just in one book instead of 5, and then you've got more time and resources available, especially sales and marketing resources, to help support the other armies after the big giant happy marine release each edition.

No, it won't. You guys keep saying it's totally doable to just use Special Characters to represent all the rules in the variant codices, but I have yet to see anybody actually show us an example - largely because it is not in fact doable.

It'll also help cut down on creep and the consistent one-upsmanship of SM armies over one another, and you won't have the silly issues of multiple profiles for assault cannons, thunder hammers, PotMS, etc existing for years.

See above. GW wants codex creep.

I'm not saying GW should do anything to support marines less, just differently. One book doesn't mean less support for marine or that marines lose anything, it just means one book that contains everything instead of multiple books where 80% of the content is copy-pasta. It's hard not to acknlowdge that so much Marine stuff basically amounts to trivial differences to justify their own book for its own sake, often an intertia decision from a pet project of the early 90's (e.g. Space Wolves...). In many ways, it makes good business sense as it also cuts down cannibalization of marine armies from each other.

A Blood Angel Tactical Marine is the same as a Space Marine Tactical Marine, so there's no real difference between the codices? Sorry, but this has to be one of the stupidest arguments you guys make. Grey Knights play far differently from vanilla Marines; Blood Angels also play wildly differently, and Space Wolves do to quite an extent, too. They share a lot of units, but the way those units are organized, and the rules they're subject to, are quite a bit different. You say that can all be rolled into one book, I say it can't. You want to prove me wrong? Start with the Blood Angels codex. It needs FC/FNP apothecaries, Assault Marines as troops, Furioso Dreads, Stormravens, Baal Predators, DoA, BA psychic powers, Chaplains moved from HQ to Elite, Death Company, Dante, Mephiston, the Sanguinor, Astorath, Gabriel Seth, Tycho, Sanguinary Guard, Infernus Pistols, Angelus Boltguns, and Glaives Encarmine.

Just for a start. I'll be interested to see what SCs you come up with that provide all of that without simply cramming the BA codex into the SM book.

I think the best solution would be for Ward to write all codeces. Then they would all OP, but the impact would be less. Then someone else does the fluff.

Deadshot wrote:I think the best solution would be for Ward to write all codeces. Then they would all OP, but the impact would be less. Then someone else does the fluff.

Yeah, because IG and SW aren't OP either...

IMO, I think we are pretty much at our max capacity for Space Marine Codexes. I think they came up with enough Unique Ideas for BA and SW, and I think they will do it with BT as well. I'm not quite sure what they are going to do with Dark Angels though.

Deadshot wrote:I think the best solution would be for Ward to write all codeces. Then they would all OP, but the impact would be less. Then someone else does the fluff.

Not sure how you arrive by that, but the worst balance, poorest rules and most abusive, over-powere/bad-rules awards in 5th goes to IG (Cruddace) and Space Wolves (Kelly). If Ward had indeed written all 5th Edition books, balance would indeed be far superiour today.

We would also have been spared the mindboggling boredom of reading IG and the cackling loony-toon-madness of black-hole-chucking freaks that Dark Eldar suddenly became.

SilverMK2 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why stop at merging the Space Marine Codices? Why not merge the Eldar and Dark Eldar? They're both the same race after all!

Wow, that one didn't take long to crop up.

Have a cookie.

And yes, E and DE have similar playstyles and are the same race, but they are remarkably different armies with completely different units, weapons and so on.

When you get down to brass tacks: they're really not. The biggest difference lies in a few special rules(Combat Drugs, etc for Dark Eldar) and the appearance of their more bizarre units(Wraithlords v. Talos)--if created as a "generic entry" which can be upgraded as you see fit, those models can be used to either example.

Anyways, as per normal I'll just leave this here...

Kanluwen wrote:Traits were and still are terrible for representing Chapters. They're fine for representing Companies or "Mary Sue" forces--but by their very nature they will not necessarily be expansive enough to showcase those forces which we have descriptions of. Heck, if you do it right you could maybe give generic characters a 'Trait' system which lets them influence how their army list is built with a trade-off list.

Characters are a good way to add flavor, given that characters are characters for a reason--namely that they have done something 'heroic'. They have a set history, they have set ways of operating, etc.

Ideally, if Games Workshop were calling me and saying "Hey Kan, make a good way for us to stop making Chapter Codices"...I'd reply with "Okay, but it'll still be more than one book and I want to do the same thing with Chaos."

Why would I say that?

Because cramming a practically innumerable setup for Chapters into one book is ridiculous.

My 'Ideal Setup' is this:
Book I: "Angels of Death". This will be your "Codex" Chapters. Your Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists, Ultramarines and their Successors, etc. Two or three "major" characters for each of the Chapters outlined within, with a small "Chapter" section of unique weapons and/or units or formations associated with those characters.

Book II: "Savage Faith". This will be your "non-Codex" Chapters which focus mostly on close combat. Your Blood Angels and their Successors, the Space Wolves, and the Black Templars. Again, follow the setup of the above.

Book III: "Angels of Wrath". This will be your "Close to but Not Quite" Codex Chapters. Iron Hands,White Scars, and both the Raven Guard and Dark Angels along with their Successors. Same setup in regards to characters, formations, etc.

And here you go for Chaos:

Kanluwen wrote:I wouldn't give Daemons their own book, frankly. But I would have some overlap going on I guess.

It's kind of hard to really divvy Chaos up well without going silly.

Ideally, I'd do this:
Book I: "Servants of the Dark God". 'Generic' Undivided forces--Black Legion, Word Bearers, and the Thousand Sons.

Book II: "The Touch of the Corrupt".
'Generic' Tzeentchian Warbands(read: not Thousand Sons proper, but something similar might be workable) and Nurgle warbands+Death Guard.
I know that Tzeentch and Nurgle are diametrically opposed, but they also have a lot in common. Both play "the long odds", and manipulate circumstances to their favor.

Book III: "Gaze of the Gods".
Khornate warbands and Slaaneshi warbands. World Eaters and Emperor's Children get their own lists in here.
Again, they're diametrically opposed...but again very similar. They both favor their heroes who perform well, and enjoy punishing those who fail.

Book IV: "Shattered Oaths".
This one will be...well. This one is kinda tough.
I'm thinking that Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Night Lords, and Red Corsairs all have some good tie-ins. They try to get rid of 'marked' units--but they're not entirely opposed to making use of said 'marked' units.

Daemons would be available to all of them, so that's kind of my biggest fear right there.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:Because it's slowly killing this game for many people?

Rolling SM's into one book in and of itself isn't going to make other armies attractive, what it's going to do is mean that other armies won't take as long to update, since you don't need to be devoting 28-50 months of release pipeline time and marketing efforts for 7 armies to what effectively might as well be 3 armies and 12-21 months of release pipeline time instead, which will help make it possible to get to all the armies within the span of a single edition and keep armies from being two editions out of date.

That's what would likely have an impact on non-SM army sales. You aren't taking anything away from the SM crowd, it's all still there, just in one book instead of 5, and then you've got more time and resources available, especially sales and marketing resources, to help support the other armies after the big giant happy marine release each edition.

Actually yeah, you are "taking things away from the SM crowd". You're taking away the flavor of their army for the most part and genericizing it in the worst possible way.
This ridiculous notion of "Marines get so much of the release and development time" that you continually spout needs to stop. It's blatantly false, and you and I both know it.
What was the last Space Marine release that wasn't able to be utilized across almost every one of the Codices?
Oh right: the Dreadknight--and before that, the Stormraven.

But really. We know why the Dark Eldar and Necron books took so long to update. It's not because "Space Marines took development time away from them". It's because they updated these armies in a dramatic fashion.

Seaward wrote:
Which is something GW couldn't care less about. They don't want you to sit on one army and be happy; they want you constantly buying.

Except much of the reason I'm not buying much stuff now is because I'm not happy with where the games at.

That's how they stay in business. One Space Marine book would kill a huge portion of their revenue, because it means a Space Marine player goes shopping once every four years, and is then done until the next version. They want that Space Marine player hopping from vanilla to Space Wolves to Blood Angels to Grey Knights as the successive codices are released, because it makes them far, far more money than what they make from the far smaller percentage of players who decide they want to give Dark Eldar a shot.

Except a huge proportion of codex hopping is that you don't *NEED* to buy new models, or very few. I could port my CSM's to Space Wolves and all I'd need to do is swap my Daemon Prince with a different HQ. Other than that, I've already got everything I need, it's just spiky.

e]
No, it won't. You guys keep saying it's totally doable to just use Special Characters to represent all the rules in the variant codices

I never said that SC's should be used to represent variant codices

, but I have yet to see anybody actually show us an example - largely because it is not in fact doable.

I'm not a fan of SC's being used for this, I'd prefer a simple "chapter package" type thing, similar to CSM 3.5, but the concept in general is similar.

Take SC or Chapter package
Page or two explaining the following:
Army gains/loses the following army wide rules
Units A, B, C get gain/lose the following stats/rules/wargear and adjust cost by X, Y, Z.
Army gains access to units E, F loses access to units G, H, I, J.

Done.

See above. GW wants codex creep.

If that's an explicit desire then it's a bad one, it causes just as many issues and sales problems as it helps.

A Blood Angel Tactical Marine is the same as a Space Marine Tactical Marine, so there's no real difference between the codices? Sorry, but this has to be one of the stupidest arguments you guys make. Grey Knights play far differently from vanilla Marines;

In general, GK's aren't what people are talking about.

Blood Angels also play wildly differently, and Space Wolves do to quite an extent, too.

Not really, most of the differences boil down to which specific support units are better in each army (that are usually countered in generally the same way) and the more extreme niche builds (which eventually seem to get distributed to other marine armies anyway and generally are just FoC swaps or can be mostly imitated if one wishes).

With SW's most of what I see is lots of razorbacks and long fangs with rune priests, sometimes some drop pods. With BA's it's much the same thing but swap rune priests with librarians (practically identical except that RP's have better psychic defense and more abusive powers), Grey Hunters with Assault Marines (hooray we lose a bolter and counterattack and gain a 1/6 chance of Furious Charge) and Long Fangs with Fast Predators/Vindis/Stormravens. With C:SM we swap assault marines for tac marines (we gain a bolter and lose a CCW and take a heavy instead of a 2nd special, or if comparing to GH's, we lose a CCW and Counterattack and cost 10-15% more after kit) and maybe we'll see some TH/SS termi's in there. DoA isn't much different than Drop Pod lists common to every SM army now except that there's no pod. These encompass the vast majority of SM armies I see.

In general, when playing these armies, my battle plan doesn't change as it does if I'm playing against Tau or Tyranids or Eldar. That, more than anything, is what informs my opinion that these armies should be combined. If I can face them all and generally can stick with the same battleplan, they don't need their own book.

They share a lot of units, but the way those units are organized, and the rules they're subject to, are quite a bit different.

Most of the organization change is simple FoC swaps, and the rules they're subject to are simple USR that can be just as easily swapped.

You say that can all be rolled into one book, I say it can't. You want to prove me wrong? Start with the Blood Angels codex

Will do.

Lets say we have a base list, say using C:SM for now, and we have a BA Chapter Package that takes a page or two with the following notations making changes from the base list. Start it off with the BA army-wide special rules, note that certain units in the base list are no longer available (e.g. thunderfire cannons) and that the following changes are in effect.

It needs FC/FNP apothecaries

As I noted in an earlier post, this is exactly the kind of unit that changes with each codex iteration so is easily changed as needed, however if it must be kept with these exact same abilities, simply make it something like the following

"Apothecaries become Sang Priests for +Xpts with the following Y changes"

Assault Marines as troops

This is super easy and there's already tons of examples in current marine books to accomplish a simple FoC swap...take HQ with jump pack or SC or just say in the Chapter Package page that BA's can take assault marines as troops.

Furioso Dreads

Lets be honest, these were always just dreads with a 2nd DCCW, even in 5E they're basically just Ironclads with a couple minor differences simply for it's own sake. However, if they *MUST* remain distinct from an existing unit just because, it's rather easy.

"Blood Angels Ironclads are called Furioso's, they have the following X changes and additional Y options for Z points, may be upgraded to Librarian with A rules for B points"

Stormravens

This is a unit that, again, as I noted earlier, is likely to see more widespread adoption, however *assuming* it remains BA specific, then it'll get a unit entry like any other and be noted that only armies using the BA Chapter Package may take it.

Baal Predators

"BA armies may take Predators as Baal Predators, they cost additional Xpts, gain Fast, automatically swap their Autocannon for a TL Assault Cannon or Flamestorm cannon, and may swap Heavy Bolter Sponsons with Heavy Flamer Sponsons. " Scout and FA slot are relatively irrelevant and honestly never should have been either of those in the first place (and never were before this edition) so I'm not going to worry too much about that.

DoA,

Explained at the beginning of Chapter Package page.

BA psychic powers, Chaplains moved from HQ to Elite

This sort of stuff is again, the kind of thing that changes with each edition and is unlikely to survive in similar condition, and I'm not going to worry too much about. Psychic powers basically get totally redone each codex iteration for many books, and the chaplains as Elites thing is really only a thing in the 5E book and was never a thing before and isn't a popular unit option at all so it's hard to see it as a vital retainer, but if it absolutely *MUST* be retained, again

"Chaplains are elites units in an army with the BA Chapter Package. They may use the statline of a Captain instead and remain HQ's (retaining their other rules, wargear and options) and be called Reclusiarch's for +Xpts"

Death Company

There are several ways to do this one. You can either make a generic unit entry for DC and just say "only available to BA Chapter Package" or you can go the route of previous books and make it essentially a change to an existing model "units marked as Death Company swap their wargear for X loadout and gain the following Y stat changes for +Zpts"

Dante, Mephiston, the Sanguinor, Astorath, Gabriel Seth, Tycho,

characters are really going to be the big space-eater of the book, but just put them in and say only available to armies running the BA chapter package.

Sanguinary Guard

Vanguard veterans may be upgraded to Sanguinary Guard with the following X changes for Ypts.

Infernus Pistols, Angelus Boltguns, and Glaives Encarmine.

more stuff that is relatively unimportant to the character of the army and is likely to change with different iterations of the codex anyway, but not hard to put in. Infernus pistols already existed in other armies so just stick it in the summary, Angelus boltguns are EDIT: Ap4 half-range stormbolters, in all honesty probably best to just replace them with stormbolters, Glaives Encarmine is a fancy name for MC'd Powerweapon.

Also, because it wasn't mentioned

"Rhino's, Razorbacks, Predators and Vindicators in an army with the BA Chapter Package may be upgraded to Fast for +Xpts".
"Land Raiders in a BA army may deploy via Deep Strike".

Just for a start. I'll be interested to see what SCs you come up with that provide all of that without simply cramming the BA codex into the SM book.

Don't need any. All of the above stuff encompasses the BA rules almost exactly (and lets be honest, they're not going to survive as exactly in any future incarnation either no matter what) and is easily able to be fit in page or two as simple modifications to the C:SM basic list.

In my personal opinion, no, White Scars should not get their own Codex.

But Space Marines sell. Regardless of any rhyme or reason, people love to buy them. The reason why there's different codicies of Space Marines is because GW knows that fickle Space Marine players will always swap chapters, thus buying the next SM codex, thus increasing GW's coffers.

I wouldn't doubt there's another new Space Marine Chapter Codex floating about in developer purgatory, but first they have to revamp Black Templars to something more ridiculous that Grey Knights, then Dark Angels after that. My guess is on Salamanders or Raven Guard.

But I'm digressing. Whatever GW makes out as a Space Marine usually sells, and thus is embellished (Drop Pods, Storm Ravens, Pattern Land Raiders), because they know people will buy them. I do notice that there's less 'character' in the majority of Xenos and Imperial Codecies compared to SM and Chaos Marines, and its really unfortunate.

Why hasn't GW launched a global wide 40k Campaign recently? I really think if they made one in conjunction with the 6th edition release, the obvious attatchment to Space Marines would be painfully evident.

If we're going to see another "new" Space Marine Chapter Codex, it will be through Forge World.

KplKeegan wrote:Whatever GW makes out as a Space Marine usually sells, and thus is embellished (Drop Pods, Storm Ravens, Pattern Land Raiders), because they know people will buy them.

Because out of those, two are usable by every single one of the Space Marine codices...
The Stormraven is the only one which is not, and time will tell whether or not it remains that way.

I do notice that there's less 'character' in the majority of Xenos and Imperial Codecies compared to SM and Chaos Marines, and its really unfortunate.

Are you saying that the books themselves have less "character"(which is flatout bull, unless you're not really reading anything in there--and I'm including the Imperial Guard book here too. Even if I dislike how Cruddace added that character, he did at least retain some character. Sadly it didn't translate over to the viability of various characterful units or keeping the fluff in line with the previous iterations. Fething hotshot lasguns grah.) or that they have less characters?

If it's the second one: I suggest you look at Codex: Dark Eldar, Tyranids, and Necrons as the shape of things to come.

Why hasn't GW launched a global wide 40k Campaign recently? I really think if they made one in conjunction with the 6th edition release, the obvious attatchment to Space Marines would be painfully evident.

Probably because every time they've done it, the WAAC players come out of the woodwork and do everything they can to skew results to favor their armies then whine that they didn't get some kind of "prize" for it?

But really. It takes quite a bit to run even the most cursory worldwide campaign, and it nets them little to nothing in return. Just more complaints.

Vaktathi wrote:

Seaward wrote:
Which is something GW couldn't care less about. They don't want you to sit on one army and be happy; they want you constantly buying.

Except much of the reason I'm not buying much stuff now is because I'm not happy with where the games at.

Tragic. Fortunately, you're not Games Workshop's only customer.

Except a huge proportion of codex hopping is that you don't *NEED* to buy new models, or very few. I could port my CSM's to Space Wolves and all I'd need to do is swap my Daemon Prince with a different HQ. Other than that, I've already got everything I need, it's just spiky.

Let's say it were true that everyone who codex-hopped used their already-owned models and only their already-owned models, without buying any of the new, codex-specific sculpts.

Know what? GW's still earning $25 (or whatever codices are at these days, less publishing costs) more per codex hopper than they would have with only a single book. No matter how you slice it, it makes more financial sense to push your prime sellers.

I'm not a fan of SC's being used for this, I'd prefer a simple "chapter package" type thing, similar to CSM 3.5, but the concept in general is similar.

Take SC or Chapter package
Page or two explaining the following:
Army gains/loses the following army wide rules
Units A, B, C get gain/lose the following stats/rules/wargear and adjust cost by X, Y, Z.
Army gains access to units E, F loses access to units G, H, I, J.

Done.

I'm cutting it off here, as you're basically advocating smashing the variant codices' rules into the SM codex. That's perfectly possible. It's also overly complicated and stupid business, and they're simply never going to do it. And despite your claims that it'd only take "a page or two," you'd end up with a far-too-large book if you tried to do it.

See above. GW wants codex creep.

If that's an explicit desire then it's a bad one, it causes just as many issues and sales problems as it helps.

How so?

Not really, most of the differences boil down to which specific support units are better in each army (that are usually countered in generally the same way) and the more extreme niche builds (which eventually seem to get distributed to other marine armies anyway and generally are just FoC swaps or can be mostly imitated if one wishes).

I find it hard to believe you've never in life seen a DoA or Thundercav list, but I suppose I'll have to take your word on it.

Seaward wrote:
Tragic. Fortunately, you're not Games Workshop's only customer.

Nope, though I'm willing to bet that I've spent more and would be willing to spend more than most.

Let's say it were true that everyone who codex-hopped used their already-owned models and only their already-owned models, without buying any of the new, codex-specific sculpts.

Know what? GW's still earning $25 (or whatever codices are at these days, less publishing costs) more per codex hopper than they would have with only a single book. No matter how you slice it, it makes more financial sense to push your prime sellers.

Except the codex's aren't what makes them money, the models are. They come right out and say it to investors "we are a model company". If they aren't selling models, they aren't making money.

I'm cutting it off here, as you're basically advocating smashing the variant codices' rules into the SM codex.

Right, that's what I've been saying the entire time.

That's perfectly possible. It's also overly complicated and stupid business,

Aside from simply stating so, and not responding to the post I made showing you exactly how you could merge those books without losing anything significant simply by creating sublists from a base common list, by saying in effect "I'm cutting it off because a point was made and I can't or don't want to adequately reply", what's overly complicated and stupid about it? You asked, I showed you.

A couple pages per chapter, say 10-14 pages out of the entire book at a stretch, and you've got your alternate chapters. The big part would be the characters. The vast majority of units and wargear are shared, much of the fluff (e.g. Horus Heresy, SM Creation, etc) is all shared. All you'd need to do is cover major fluff sections of each chapter (smaller than you think if you actually look at each codex), some timeline with major SM battles of all chapters (say all that's 60something pages up to this point), non-duplicative unit descriptions (say 40 pages), a core army list two pages of rules for BT/DA/BA/SW so 8 total, a character section (you could fit each character in half a page with some work) of say, 16 pages, it'd be just a bit bigger than the current C:SM, so it might actually be worth the $40/45 they charge for codex's by the point such a hypothetical book would come out given codex price increases of the last few years (65% increase in the last 5 years). Add in some more fluff to make it a nice round 150 pages by fleshing out characters and chapters, and you're good. Sure it's a bit bigger than others but is that really that much of an issue at that point?

And despite your claims that it'd only take "a page or two," you'd end up with a far-too-large book if you tried to do it.

And you know that...how? And by what standard is it "too large"? Keep in mind that you're not adding much aside from the characters.

How so?

Older armies become unviable, nobody starts them, people quite, etc.

I find it hard to believe you've never in life seen a DoA or Thundercav list, but I suppose I'll have to take your word on it.

DoA plays much like a pod list. Thundercav are a niche list and are dealt with like any deathstar, SM or not.

Kanwulen wrote: Sadly it didn't translate over to the viability of various characterful units or keeping the fluff in line with the previous iterations. Fething hotshot lasguns grah.) or that they have less characters?

This. Where you could have unique and fluff regiments that you could place on the table top. From Catachans, Tanith First, Terrax, Mordian Iron Guard, Tallarn, Salvar Chem Dogs, Harkoni WarHawks, etc. you could actually field in the 4th edition Imperial Guard Codex. When the 5th one rolled around, it took all of that uniqueness away.

You can't have a deep striking guard army (unless you use Imperial Armor 8), or a regiment that can infiltrate its infantry, or give you Guard units abusive narcotics like Slaugh and Obscura.


It seems that Space Marines are going in the opposite Direction. If you take Shrike, you can trade Combat Tactics for Fleet. If you take Kahn, your Dedicated Transports have outflank. If you take Lysander, you can make your marines Stubborn. If you take Pedro Cantor, Vanguard counts as Troops. Almost Everything can take a Drop Pod.

With each iteration of a new Chapter Codex, it embellishes uniqueness even more.


I realize that they should exploit things that sell, and that the core focus of sales is Space Marines, but I'm just a little perturbed on how things come to pass.

If it's the second one: I suggest you look at Codex: Dark Eldar, Tyranids, and Necrons as the shape of things to come.

The Dark Eldar seem rather promising, Necrons and Tyranids, not so much.

Necrons actually have more in common with Dark Eldar, at least from what I saw of the book giving it a cursory glance today. Decent amount of characters, even if they don't necessarily alter the army's setup.

But really. We shouldn't see an issue with the "uniqueness" being embellished. Let's face facts here, but the Dark Angels and Space Wolves and Blood Angels and Black Templars have had lists to themselves before. They were little dinky things though.

The Guard codex is rightfully perturbing. Stupid Cruddace helming that one made no sense.

Vaktathi wrote:

Seaward wrote:
Tragic. Fortunately, you're not Games Workshop's only customer.

Nope, though I'm willing to bet that I've spent more and would be willing to spend more than most.

Huzzah for you then, I suppose. That's not the point. One individual - even a whole horde of individuals - being upset with the "state of the game" is not going to matter to GW as long as they're making money. And they are.

Let's say it were true that everyone who codex-hopped used their already-owned models and only their already-owned models, without buying any of the new, codex-specific sculpts.

Know what? GW's still earning $25 (or whatever codices are at these days, less publishing costs) more per codex hopper than they would have with only a single book. No matter how you slice it, it makes more financial sense to push your prime sellers.

Except the codex's aren't what makes them money, the models are. They come right out and say it to investors "we are a model company". If they aren't selling models, they aren't making money.

You're either being deliberately obtuse, or simply ignorant. Black Library makes a lot of money for them, and has yet to sell a single model. Their licensing deals make them fair bundles of cash. They will not turn down a profitable revenue stream. The codices wouldn't be much use without models, but if they could simply sell codices and stay profitable, they would. My point, which you seem to have wildly missed, was that even if nobody buys a single new box to go with their shiny new codex while in the process of changing to the latest and greatest army book, they're still making money from that codex sale. Whether it's a large amount or a small amount is irrelevant - it's more than they would have made if that codex didn't exist.

Aside from simply stating so and responding to the post I made by saying in effect "I'm cutting it off because a point was made and I can't or don't want to adequately reply", what's overly complicated and stupid about it?

It's stupid business for the reasons I've outlined earlier in this thread, as well as above in this post; GW wants you to be constantly buying and updating. Publishing one Space Marine codex an edition makes sure that's not going to happen. They want you to codex hop. They want to make it relatively easy for you to do it, too. If the demand is there - and it is, or none of these variant codices and their associated sculpt lines would be profitable - there's literally no reason to not continue to support them as variant codices. Aside, of course, from concerns about "game balance" and "fairness," which they couldn't care less about.

And despite your claims that it'd only take "a page or two," you'd end up with a far-too-large book if you tried to do it.

And you know that...how?

I can count.

And by what standard is it "too large"? Keep in mind that you're not adding much aside from the characters.

No, you're adding quite a lot of rules, wargear, and units, too.

Older armies become unviable, nobody starts them, people quite, etc.

Now you're starting to get it. Yes, older armies become obsolete...encouraging you to switch to a newer army. Welcome to the Games Workshop army treadmill. It's not exactly a new concept.

DoA plays much like a pod list.

LOL.

Vaktathi wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:well all converge on a SINGLE Codex which will unit the vast majority of 40K players in a single book. That would kill diversty in the game as sure as the sun rises in the morning.

If it's got everything the other books did, what diversity is lost?

It's not like these armies are super diverse anyway. C:BA outright shares 80% of it's non-SC units, with most of the rest being variations on existing units (e.g. dreads/predators/etc), with C:SM.

Apparently, for Zweischneid, "Diversity" can also be spelled d-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-t b-o-o-k c-o-v-e-r-s. Because that's all the 5 separate space marine codici really amount to in the long run.

Arandmoor wrote:
Apparently, for Zweischneid, "Diversity" can also be spelled d-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-t b-o-o-k c-o-v-e-r-s. Because that's all the 5 separate space marine codici really amount to in the long run.

Then get everyone you know to buy every xenos codex and box of models out there. Twice.

The only way you'd ever see Space Marines scaled back and any given xenos army getting nearly as much attention is if they started to come even remotely close to SM sales figures.

Which they won't because of the way GW promotes SM with 5 or 6 Codexes and AOBR, as well as other stater sets and the greater range of models.

Deadshot wrote:Which they won't because of the way GW promotes SM with 5 or 6 Codexes and AOBR, as well as other stater sets and the greater range of models.

Whereas I say the chicken came first.

If GW could wave their magic wand and instill the desire to buy something in customers, they'd be doing a much better job of saving WFB.

Kanluwen wrote:
Actually yeah, you are "taking things away from the SM crowd". You're taking away the flavor of their army for the most part and genericizing it in the worst possible way.
This ridiculous notion of "Marines get so much of the release and development time" that you continually spout needs to stop. It's blatantly false, and you and I both know it.

Blatantly false? So, space marines don't constitute 40% of the available armies in 40k?

By what math?

Oh. I know. From your perspective Marines are only 40% of the codicies, and are therefore not the majority because 40 < 51. Correct?

Except...you're comparing them to ALL the xenos armies in one lump, which is not a fair comparison. Marines make up 40% of the codicies, and are mostly interchangeable with each other barring, as you said, around 2 units.

There is no single xenos army that comes anywhere near 40% of the game's representation. The only way you can successfully claim that marines don't get the majority of the R&D schedule is if you compare them to all of the non-marine armies put together.

What you're trying to do is claim that Brentonia isn't, hypothetically, 40% of the fantasy release schedule if they went and created one army book for every single brentonian knightly order at the expense of the rest of the fantasy armies, and fantasy ended up having 9 brentonian army books and 12 books for the rest. Suddenly...Brentonia, by your logic, isn't the majority of the armies because there only have 9 books for themselves. Obviously, the other armies have more.

Well, obviously, the xenos have more. Except Necrons only have one book.
Tau only have one book.
Eldar have two.
Orks only have one.
'nids only have one.

There are five marine chapter codicies, plus the vanilla codex.

Space marines get the vast majority of the release schedule compared to any other single faction.

Seaward wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Which they won't because of the way GW promotes SM with 5 or 6 Codexes and AOBR, as well as other stater sets and the greater range of models.

Whereas I say the chicken came first.

If GW could wave their magic wand and instill the desire to buy something in customers, they'd be doing a much better job of saving WFB.

I was just stating a fact. I don't know what you mean with this chicken buisness.