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.

When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

What if my Marines don't have a colour? What if they are just Grey?

Kidding aside, I don't understand why the don't just create a detachment with a special character and and a statline for looted vehicles and plop it in white Dwarf
Problem solved.... ish!

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What if my Marines don't have a colour? What if they are just Grey?

Put down the Shard of the Monolith and step away from the Relictors!

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Kidding aside, I don't understand why the don't just create a detachment with a special character and and a statline for looted vehicles and plop it in white Dwarf
Problem solved.... ish!

No Model No Rules

 Jidmah wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
But the point is GW only create the kind of variety of models marines have when they also have factions to go with them.

That's clearly not the case. We had these subfactions for all armies in the past and it did not change the fact that marines still got significantly more models than anyone else.

In any case, this thread's question is not whether there should more models, but if there should be be separate codices. The answer is no. More codices do not generate more releases - if you don't believe me, just check the releases for the three legions split off the CSM codex compared to the CSM codex itself. There is no reason to believe that GW would handle orks any different.

Thats entirely disingenuous, GW doesn't release codexes without models. Thats like trying to say if someone asked if they should release new models but denying that includes bases for them to go on.

The op never said they were specifically looking for GW to act in a way contrary to their SOP and release just a book with nothing else. Why would you assume that's what they meant? They literally started with commenting on factions with small model counts getting codexes and then asking if Orks should do the same.

Nothing about that implies they specifically were requesting GW release a book with rules and nothing else.

GW releases books with model lines.

As for marines. 2nd Ed had 3 codexes covering 4 chapters with unique units, and it expanded from there. There has never been an edition with codex books where marines weren't represented by multiple unique unit lines and generic crossover units.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

I dont want Goffs, Bad Moonz, Evil Sunz or Snakebites to have bespoked dexes, as they are more like each other than Blood Axes. I dont GAF about ork fluff past ere we go era, its all lies and wrong

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

You missed the intermediary stage where Orks get new stuff, so Blood Axes should get those as well as their extra guff.

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

You missed the intermediary stage where Orks get new stuff, so Blood Axes should get those as well as their extra guff.

And why that's "circular" or even bad. How awful that people can make more than one viable army with the same models.

Rather than by Clans I would prefer:

Orks
Beast Snagga Orks
Feral Orks
Kult of Speed Orks
Blitz Brigade Orks
Stompa Mob (Maybe)

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

You missed the intermediary stage where Orks get new stuff, so Blood Axes should get those as well as their extra guff.

And why that's "circular" or even bad. How awful that people can make more than one viable army with the same models.

Because why would you ever bring a list from the core codex? Which again is a recurring problem marines face.

The second you have a 2nd £35 or whatever book with more stuff in to choose from it's by extension better by default. If you want to be a special snowflake subfaction, it has to come with some downsides, yet apparently that's not acceptable.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

You missed the intermediary stage where Orks get new stuff, so Blood Axes should get those as well as their extra guff.

And why that's "circular" or even bad. How awful that people can make more than one viable army with the same models.

Because why would you ever bring a list from the core codex? Which again is a recurring problem marines face.

The second you have a 2nd £35 or whatever book with more stuff in to choose from it's by extension better by default. If you want to be a special snowflake subfaction, it has to come with some downsides, yet apparently that's not acceptable.

Because you can't make 2,000 points - and definitely not a good 2,000 points out of a Primarch, 6 Special Terminator Squads, 4 characters most of whom can't join the Terminators, and an airplane?

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When looted vehicles were in the Ork Codex (3rd ed.), they were lifted straight from their parent Imperial codex, just with BS2.

There's nothing to suggest that Blood Axes use uniquely non-Orky vehicles.


This is a prime example of circular reasoning for why heaps of variant rules are 'needed':
- I want Blood Axes* to have snowflake rules
- I want to alter what Blood Axes have traditionally had access to and how they operate because they now have snowflake rules.
- Blood Axes are so different because I've changed them that they need snowflake rules!
- Blood Axes have snowflake rules so Goffs need snowflake rules

*Replace 'Blood Axes' with any random colour of Marines...

You missed the intermediary stage where Orks get new stuff, so Blood Axes should get those as well as their extra guff.

And why that's "circular" or even bad. How awful that people can make more than one viable army with the same models.

Because why would you ever bring a list from the core codex? Which again is a recurring problem marines face.

The second you have a 2nd £35 or whatever book with more stuff in to choose from it's by extension better by default. If you want to be a special snowflake subfaction, it has to come with some downsides, yet apparently that's not acceptable.

Because you can't make 2,000 points - and definitely not a good 2,000 points out of a Primarch, 6 Special Terminator Squads, 4 characters most of whom can't join the Terminators, and an airplane?

So how about in return for gaining those units they lose some others? Maybe they don't get access to the new wave of releases? How about you don't just have them as codex space marines + more stuff for no downsides.

If anything, 40k should have fewer codexes, not more. None of the Loyalist Marines (except maybe Grey Knights), are special enough to deserve their own codex. The likes of Death Guard and World Eaters should just have their god's demons and do away with the demon codex. Larger codexes with great customization > smaller codexes with worse customization. It makes keeping track of things easier, it make balance easier, at this point, all of these extra codexes are a major cash grab that makes other Marine/Xenos players feel miffed.

This makes no sense. You want to have to buy 6 books to use your Ork army?

 Gibblets wrote:
This makes no sense. You want to have to buy 6 books to use your Ork army?

No, they want 2 books to use their ork army. One for the core units shared across all clans and a wealth of rules, then a subfaction book on top with extra gubbins and they'd assume more units and kits.

"Marines +1" is a boogeyman I dearly wish would go away.

I think the codex: supplement should only be used if the army is very different from the core lists.

If it's just a named character he can stay in the core book, but radically different forces like Deathwatch should have their own books.

For Orks, if you wanted to incorporate all the FW resin and have a Rebel Grot Army, I could see them as a Supplement Codex, where they could use bits from the parent codex, but the rest of the army is radically different.

marines having more books than anyone else is a tradition which is as old as 40k having army books. even in 2nd edition, the three special boy chapters had their own books (and hell, the space wolves book even came out before the ultramarines codex). space marine exceptionalism is a core part of 40k's identity

 Hellebore wrote:
Thats entirely disingenuous, GW doesn't release codexes without models. Thats like trying to say if someone asked if they should release new models but denying that includes bases for them to go on.

The op never said they were specifically looking for GW to act in a way contrary to their SOP and release just a book with nothing else. Why would you assume that's what they meant? They literally started with commenting on factions with small model counts getting codexes and then asking if Orks should do the same.

Nothing about that implies they specifically were requesting GW release a book with rules and nothing else.

GW releases books with model lines.

You're overlooking the precedent Games Workshop has set with Death Guard, Thousand Sons, World Eaters, and soon, Emperor’s Children.

Getting your own codex primarily means a significant loss of options, in exchange for—at most—eight exclusive units and a handful of characters. Once a faction's codex is fully released, most editions see little more than a single additional character going forward.

Even if GW completely disregarded the lore, where Ork clans frequently unite towards a common goal, and instead followed the Loyalist Marine approach, what would be the result of splitting them into separate codices? Buggies would no longer fight alongside Beast Snaggas, and neither could be in the same army as Kommandos or Stormboyz.

This benefits Ork players in no way. Orks are one of the best-supported model ranges in 40K, even the current edition added two units, a character, and a Black Library tie-in. And it's one of the weakest in history. GW’s design and production capacity isn’t suddenly going to expand to release more models than they already do, nor will there be a surge of new Ork players to justify it.

Ultimately, you’re advocating for paying more money just to limit which units can be fielded together in the same army.

As for marines. 2nd Ed had 3 codexes covering 4 chapters with unique units, and it expanded from there. There has never been an edition with codex books where marines weren't represented by multiple unique unit lines and generic crossover units.

That's just a euphemism for saying they went nearly a decade with barely anything worthwhile, only for all their infantry to be replaced by Primaris.

I’d much rather get a full wave of Ork releases every edition, thank you very much.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
"Marines +1" is a boogeyman I dearly wish would go away.

I'm interpreting this as thinking it's something you don't think exists, when it very clearly does.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
For Orks, if you wanted to incorporate all the FW resin

I've got bad news for you...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
"Marines +1" is a boogeyman I dearly wish would go away.

It's clearly not a boogeyman when GW explicitly addressed this problem in their last balance dataslate.

 Jidmah wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
"Marines +1" is a boogeyman I dearly wish would go away.

It's clearly not a boogeyman when GW explicitly addressed this problem in their last balance dataslate.

I appreciated their effort but it was a bit of a plaster imo, I'm not sure bumping up the army rule quite cut the mustard vs having 4 extra detachments and half a dozen units extra to pick from sadly.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
have a Rebel Grot Army, I could see them as a Supplement Codex, where they could use bits from the parent codex, but the rest of the army is radically different.

Honestly, rebel gretchin should either be an internal faction like beastsnaggas or speed freeks with detachment support, or they could do their own thing like Gloomspire Gitz in AoS which has its own datasheets for kanz and mek guns.

Supplements are just the worst of both worlds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
I appreciated their effort but it was a bit of a plaster imo, I'm not sure bumping up the army rule quite cut the mustard vs having 4 extra detachments and half a dozen units extra to pick from sadly.

I didn't say they solved the problem

But I fully agree with you. They realized that demon allies and Ynnari are something you can't balance, but they still try to do so for marine chapters.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Thats entirely disingenuous, GW doesn't release codexes without models. Thats like trying to say if someone asked if they should release new models but denying that includes bases for them to go on.

The op never said they were specifically looking for GW to act in a way contrary to their SOP and release just a book with nothing else. Why would you assume that's what they meant? They literally started with commenting on factions with small model counts getting codexes and then asking if Orks should do the same.

Nothing about that implies they specifically were requesting GW release a book with rules and nothing else.

GW releases books with model lines.

You're overlooking the precedent Games Workshop has set with Death Guard, Thousand Sons, World Eaters, and soon, Emperor’s Children.

Getting your own codex primarily means a significant loss of options, in exchange for—at most—eight exclusive units and a handful of characters. Once a faction's codex is fully released, most editions see little more than a single additional character going forward.

Even if GW completely disregarded the lore, where Ork clans frequently unite towards a common goal, and instead followed the Loyalist Marine approach, what would be the result of splitting them into separate codices? Buggies would no longer fight alongside Beast Snaggas, and neither could be in the same army as Kommandos or Stormboyz.

This benefits Ork players in no way. Orks are one of the best-supported model ranges in 40K, even the current edition added two units, a character, and a Black Library tie-in. And it's one of the weakest in history. GW’s design and production capacity isn’t suddenly going to expand to release more models than they already do, nor will there be a surge of new Ork players to justify it.

Ultimately, you’re advocating for paying more money just to limit which units can be fielded together in the same army.

As for marines. 2nd Ed had 3 codexes covering 4 chapters with unique units, and it expanded from there. There has never been an edition with codex books where marines weren't represented by multiple unique unit lines and generic crossover units.

That's just a euphemism for saying they went nearly a decade with barely anything worthwhile, only for all their infantry to be replaced by Primaris.

I’d much rather get a full wave of Ork releases every edition, thank you very much.

I'd start out with the Marine Supplement paradigm - each subfaction gets a book - but I'd change the way the book works. Instead of trying to force mono-subfaction which isn't really how Orks work - I'd have the supplement do the datasheet swapping and/or other Push-me-pull-you rules. If you are Deathskulls, don't use the Main Codex datasheet for Lootas, and a handful of others, use these upgraded ones - then replace this handful of sheets with these downgraded ones to represent your mob command structure favoring and disfavoring certain units. Also here's a few Dets, and potentially a universal Stratagem for your your army as long as your warlord is (subfaction) type of thing

Breton wrote:

I'd start out with the Marine Supplement paradigm - each subfaction gets a book - but I'd change the way the book works. Instead of trying to force mono-subfaction which isn't really how Orks work - I'd have the supplement do the datasheet swapping and/or other Push-me-pull-you rules. If you are Deathskulls, don't use the Main Codex datasheet for Lootas, and a handful of others, use these upgraded ones - then replace this handful of sheets with these downgraded ones to represent your mob command structure favoring and disfavoring certain units. Also here's a few Dets, and potentially a universal Stratagem for your your army as long as your warlord is (subfaction) type of thing

OK, there's a lot to unpack here. Let me see if I follow this correctly: Orks don't necessarily work in mono subfactions, so you'd give them a mono subfaction supplement.

To represent the fact that they were a mono subfaction force (but aren't really), you'd rewrite, say 25% of the Codex in the supplement. This would be to encourage taking units that better fit the subfactions theme, by making them better at the expense of making another chunk of the Codex worse.

So if we replicate for all the klans, we still don't have any real reason to take the book you've written supplements for, since regardless of what theme you want to run, theres an additional £35 book to do it better.

To add to that you've now more than doubled the amount of playtesting and balance issues that can arise from the faction as each unit potentially has 7-8 of the same datasheet. This is ignoring that a Goffs sqighog is now magically a worse profile for no reason.

I can see this is better in the context of someone who is a dedicated deffskullz player now has their curated orks +1 subfaction. They are however now paying twice and destabilising the faction, or if rolled out to all factions, the entire game, for the pleasure.

It's a lot simpler, safer and easier to just... not.

It also screws over any player who doesn't want to go all in on their subfaction's flanderization.

Want a Blood Axe armoured company? Well too bad loser! Blood Axes are the Kommando subfaction now.

Want to play Blood Angels 1st Company? Well get used to just being inferior to Dark Angels for no reason chump!

...or occasionally causes the exact opposite 'um akshully, Raven Guard have always been known for spamming Assault Centurions...'

As I said earlier, Orks klans are melting pots and Ork Waaagh are even moreso, often comprised of multiple klans coming together.

There's no real reason that klans would specifically not use certain units. To use Bad Moonz as an example, the super wealthy Klan that is for some reason associated most with all shooting armies:

Having all that money and wanting to show off could lend you to getting a really big and loud shoota, or an extra-killy power klaw, or suping up your warbike, or buy a stormboy pack, or tricking out your favourite Squighog with a load of fancy bioniks, or you invest into a Mek and they build you a Stompa.

There isn't a reason for you to exclude any units from the codex from a Bad Moonz army, and there's no real unit that you would add outside of a special character like Nazdreg. Ergo, there's no need to split the faction.

The exception to this is Blood Axes, who have a different way of playing the game than other Ork klans. However this is fixed with a detachment, and doesn't need anything else to get the Blood Axe feeling.

If you really want to differentiate Blood Axes further than what the detachment already has, just play AM or GSC and paint them green.

Although a 'counts as GSC' Digga army does sound cool now I think of it.

Bloodaxes aren't that different from other clans in terms of units, though. The main difference between clans is how they approach things.

The novel "Warboss" does a great job at portraying the difference between goff, evil sun and bloodaxe leadership as the three warbosses attack the same city to prove they are worthy of leading the Waaagh!

The goff warboss uses gargants and stompas to shoot a hole into the city wall and then charge through it. The evil suns race through an artillery killing field and then have a mek short-circuit a hangar door. The bloodaxes dig tunnels into the sewers.

Despite their different approaches, all of them end up in the city and slaughter the 'umies in their preferred way. In the end, all three of them still join an all-out brawl with an eldar avatar and imperial troops.

Bloodaxes aren't particularly known for looted tanks at all. They are known for adapting imperial tactics and gear, as well as their sneaky and "cowardly" behavior. The one story about them infiltrating an imperial army base with looted tanks is just a result of that behavior.

Their primary units are stormboyz and kommadoz. Stormboyz are usually young orks which still believe in discipline, orderly ranks and other weird things - naturally blood axes imitating imperials tend to stick with the stormboyz much longer than other clans.
9th edition's codex explicitly told us that there are bloodaxe beastsnaggas which have less of an anti-technology mindset and from novels we know that there are bloodaxe trukkboyz, buggies, bommers, nobz, MANz, burnas, deff dreads, lootas, meks and weirdboyz. There is little reason to believe that they don't have access to everything else as well.

I meant that Blood Axes are different in the sense that they're more organised, dish out orders, and generally ape other armies rather than the classic Ork Horde would.

As we both said, all the models and units are the same, it's just a different play style.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I meant that Blood Axes are different in the sense that they're more organised, dish out orders, and generally ape other armies rather than the classic Ork Horde would.

As we both said, all the models and units are the same, it's just a different play style.

So in conclusion, this could likely be handled inside of the ork codex with a simple set of detachment/equivalent rules by the sounds of it.

I vastly prefer the detachment system where you have a variety of rules you can decide what best applies to the force you want to build. I think for marines, the second faction keyword largely works well and wouldn't hate to see other named characters get similar keywords.

I don't think much is added by forcibly dividing books up though. Most of the marine subfactions really don't need it, but it gives GW a way to release new marine content multiple times an edition and to cover past overreaches.

I mean, would Orks be more fun if the Beast Snagga models had a Snakebites keyword that locked you out of the rest of the vehicles with the Speed Freaks keyword that couldn't be taken if you had Ghaz in your army? That's the reality being asked for and not one I think is nearly as interesting as the one created by good, well rounded detachments that can take anything, but encourage different parts of the range.