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.

The Disciples of Caliban were the chapter you were thinking of. Azrael requested their creation, it was granted, their purpose is not known, unless someone can elaborate.

It wasn't Azrael who requested it.

It was one 'Anaziel'.

The reasoning for the creation is unknown, but the Dark Angels speculate that it was to hunt down Cypher as it was during one of his bigger shenanigans.

Bring back 4th ed space marine codex, add a few extra special characters. And there you have it. One book to a accurately represent every canon and non canon army.

Yeah...except not.

Toastedandy wrote:Bring back 4th ed space marine codex, add a few extra special characters. And there you have it. One book to a accurately represent every canon and non canon army.

That would pretty much kill the game.

At least 60 to 70% (my own estimate) of 40K players play Space Marines of one kind or another. Merging all Space Marines into one book would lead to 60 to 70% of the gaming community playing with just one book. That is stupid.

To guarantee the best possible spread of books-vs-players, given that 60% to 70% of the community plays Space Marine, the best spread would be achieved if 60% to 70% percent of the available Codexes being Space Marine books.

Watching the relative popularity of even variant Space Marine books like Grey Knights or Space Wolves compared the to under-utilized (and thus over-provided) Xenos-books, what we need is actually more Space Marine books, not less, to achieve an ideal of gaming diversity where roughly equal proportions of the player base play with each Codex in the range.

Kanluwen wrote:It wasn't Azrael who requested it.

It was one 'Anaziel'.

The reasoning for the creation is unknown, but the Dark Angels speculate that it was to hunt down Cypher as it was during one of his bigger shenanigans.

My bad, the names are similar, just mixed them up. Was it an Inner Circle decision?

Zweischneid wrote:

That would pretty much kill the game.

I dont see how it would kill the game. 4th ed space marine codex had a huge variety available. Obviously add more units, unique too certain chapters. But breaking the game? Very over the top IMO. How would every marine player using the same book exactly break the game?

They kinda of need it but Tau, Necrons, and Sisters need it more so i say no updates of marines till they get updated

Toastedandy wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:

That would pretty much kill the game.

I dont see how it would kill the game. 4th ed space marine codex had a huge variety available. Obviously add more units, unique too certain chapters. But breaking the game? Very over the top IMO. How would every marine player using the same book exactly break the game?

Because it would kill the diversity.

See... if the 40K gaming community would, in a simplified example, consist of 1000 players and 5 Codexes (Space Marine, Guard, Eldar, Ork, Daemons as examples), you might get a sample distribution like that:

Marines: 600
Guard: 200
Eldar: 50
Ork: 100
Daemons: 50

Now, 60% of the games you play would be against the same book. Now, if GW releases a variant Eldar book, the distribution would look like this:

Marines: 600
Guard: 200
Eldar: 25
DEldar: 25
Ork: 100
Daemons: 50

See? The effect on the overall distribution and diversity is nill. The community is fairly bland. Now, if GW had instead released another Marine book, the ideal distribution would look like this:

Marines 1: 300
Marines 2: 300
Guard: 200
Eldar: 50
Ork: 100
Daemons: 50

See? Much better spread and a much more diverse and lively gaming environment.

Of course, this is a simplification which assumes everyone has only one army, no cross-codex jumping etc... . But it still gives an approximation to the problem in the current 40K environment. As I said, I would think 60% to 70% of players play Space Marines. But even if you count CSM as Marines, only 7 out of 16 available Codexes are Marines. GW thus underprovides, on a player-per-book-basis the Marine players and overprovides for the Xenos-et-al. players.

For a healthy, even spread in the 40K gaming community, we thus need more Marines (or at the very least refreshers of the less-used Marine book like Dark Angels)

I see what you mean, but you missed my point by a mile. I said use 4th ed codex layout, so ALL armies can be represented. thats Dark angels, black templars, salamanders etc Even your own chapters could have its own rules. The diversity would still be there. Its just in one book. Understand?

Iron Hands and Salamanders please, plus a separate codex for Chaos Legions.

What would be the advantage of that?

That one book would, in effect, just be multiple books between two covers compared to the other (presumably then much smaller Codexes).

And balancing/playtesting such a massive tome to rule all Space Marines would be a nightmare I would think. Not to mention that it would be a major pain to use.. different units in differen FoC-slots depending on the army (Assault Marines, Dreads), different equipment options for identical units (BA-Assault, vs regular Assault) or different stats for identically equipped units (Blood Claws?), etc.. etc.. .

Zweischneid wrote:What would be the advantage of that?

That one book would, in effect, just be multiple books between two covers compared to the other (presumably then much smaller Codexes).

And balancing/playtesting such a massive tome to rule all Space Marines would be a nightmare I would think.

I've got a feeling your just argueing for the sake of it.

It would be one book, every marine player could use. It would be relatively difficult to playtest, but you could represent EVERY chapter you could think. It would only need updating once , allowing other books to get the focus they deserve. What is wrong with this? or are you just trying to save face somehow?

Zweischneid wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:

That would pretty much kill the game.

I dont see how it would kill the game. 4th ed space marine codex had a huge variety available. Obviously add more units, unique too certain chapters. But breaking the game? Very over the top IMO. How would every marine player using the same book exactly break the game?

Because it would kill the diversity.

See... if the 40K gaming community would, in a simplified example, consist of 1000 players and 5 Codexes (Space Marine, Guard, Eldar, Ork, Daemons as examples), you might get a sample distribution like that:

Marines: 600
Guard: 200
Eldar: 50
Ork: 100
Daemons: 50

Now, 60% of the games you play would be against the same book. Now, if GW releases a variant Eldar book, the distribution would look like this:

Marines: 600
Guard: 200
Eldar: 25
DEldar: 25
Ork: 100
Daemons: 50

See? The effect on the overall distribution and diversity is nill. The community is fairly bland. Now, if GW had instead released another Marine book, the ideal distribution would look like this:

Marines 1: 300
Marines 2: 300
Guard: 200
Eldar: 50
Ork: 100
Daemons: 50

See? Much better spread and a much more diverse and lively gaming environment.

Of course, this is a simplification which assumes everyone has only one army, no cross-codex jumping etc... . But it still gives an approximation to the problem in the current 40K environment. As I said, I would think 60% to 70% of players play Space Marines. But even if you count CSM as Marines, only 7 out of 16 available Codexes are Marines. GW thus underprovides, on a player-per-book-basis the Marine players and overprovides for the Xenos-et-al. players.

For a healthy, even spread in the 40K gaming community, we thus need more Marines (or at the very least refreshers of the less-used Marine book like Dark Angels)

Except if they were combined in to one book, then they're no where near as over represented, and newer players will be more encouraged to pick different factions. Adding a new Marine book will piss a lot of veterans off. Of course, GW doesn't care about veterans so they will.

Toastedandy wrote:I see what you mean, but you missed my point by a mile. I said use 4th ed codex layout, so ALL armies can be represented. thats Dark angels, black templars, salamanders etc Even your own chapters could have its own rules. The diversity would still be there. Its just in one book. Understand?

I'm gonna cite a little something for you that completely demolishes the 4th edition codex layout ideas.

This is a reply printed by one "Dirty" Steve in White Dwarf #303(April 2005) in response to a question about "Will Codex: Space Wolves be revamped?".

I believe that there are plans for making a Codex for each of the main Space Marine Chapters (Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and yes, Space Wolves). I don't know when these books will be released, nor in which order. I doubt that you'd see any of them before the end of the year.

Now remember. This is your vaunted 4th edition Codex, which EXPLICITLY left out Space Wolves and the Angels.

Even GW didn't think it would work.

There is no feasible way they could put all the current codices into one book without making it a massive complicated tomb that is even more un-wanted than the current method.

Kanluwen wrote:
Now remember. This is your vaunted 4th edition Codex, which EXPLICITLY left out Space Wolves and the Angels.

Even GW didn't think it would work.

They already had there own codex(s?) Doesnt mean they didnt think it would work, they just didnt do it

Then it would change from "I hate that Marines have so many codices whilst not being very diverse" to "I hate that Marines have such a big book with even more effort and content put into it than all the others, they should just have WD editions for divergent chapters ", which would lead to "Why do only marine variants have their own WD editions? I want one for my even less original Tau sept".

iproxtaco wrote:There is no feasible way they could put all the current codices into one book without making it a massive complicated tomb that is even more un-wanted than the current method.

4th ed space marines codex wasnt compicated at all and easily represented all chapters except the big 4

Toastedandy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Now remember. This is your vaunted 4th edition Codex, which EXPLICITLY left out Space Wolves and the Angels.

Even GW didn't think it would work.

They already had there own codex(s?) Doesnt mean they didnt think it would work, they just didnt do it

Why not take it to the extreme? One book to cover every army, they've done it before(3rd ed rule book).

Toastedandy wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:There is no feasible way they could put all the current codices into one book without making it a massive complicated tomb that is even more un-wanted than the current method.

4th ed space marines codex wasnt compicated at all and easily represented all chapters except the big 4

Yeah, key point being that the big four weren't in it. I doubt they represented the other divergent chapters as well either.

iproxtaco wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:There is no feasible way they could put all the current codices into one book without making it a massive complicated tomb that is even more un-wanted than the current method.

4th ed space marines codex wasnt compicated at all and easily represented all chapters except the big 4

Yeah, key point being that the big four weren't in it.

They could easily be added into it. At the moment your army is either codex astratus, or a shameless copy of one of the others. How is this a bad idea?

Toastedandy wrote:
It would be one book, every marine player could use. It would be relatively difficult to playtest, but you could represent EVERY chapter you could think. It would only need updating once , allowing other books to get the focus they deserve. What is wrong with this? or are you just trying to save face somehow?

And due to the increased amount of rules and playtesting required it would take as long as all the current books put together or we lose diversity. Thus all it'd accomplish would be to increase the price of the SM Codex, forcing the marine players who don't jump from Codex to Codex because they like the different playstyle (GASP!) of the marine Codex they're currently using to pay for rules they'll never, ever use. Don't tell GW this, it sounds just like the kind of move they'd attempt to pull off!

Toastedandy wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:What would be the advantage of that?

That one book would, in effect, just be multiple books between two covers compared to the other (presumably then much smaller Codexes).

And balancing/playtesting such a massive tome to rule all Space Marines would be a nightmare I would think.

I've got a feeling your just argueing for the sake of it.

It would be one book, every marine player could use. It would be relatively difficult to playtest, but you could represent EVERY chapter you could think. It would only need updating once , allowing other books to get the focus they deserve. What is wrong with this? or are you just trying to save face somehow?

And I've got a feeling you're doing the exact same.

Every Marine player would likely not want to use the single codex. That's the flaw that you lot seem to always ignore. NOBODY wants to pay for a book where the majority of the contents will never be fielded by their army. I don't want a huge Codex that I have to carry around with me filled with special characters for every single Chapter.

Not every single Marine player is a bandwagon hopping FOTM player. I have no interest in being able to constantly alter my list because hey, there's a new book. I want MY army to remain MY army, not a fething sublist in a book.

And quite frankly even if Marines were compiled into one book, it wouldn't end this ridiculous notion of "Xenos don't get more love than the Imperials!".
You think it took them 10 years to redo the Dark Angels Codex when it was done? Feth no. They had that thing out in 5 years.
The Dark Angels minidex 2nd edition was released in 2002.
In April 2005 the Dark Angels were "rumored" to be redone and that was within the design studio proper.
In March 2007 they were released--with all of four sprues and a single metal character for their own Chapter first full Codex all for themselves launch.
They had some other items released alongside them, I won't dispute that. But none of the Chaplains or Librarians or the Scout-Sniper figures were to be "Dark Angels exclusive" units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Toastedandy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Now remember. This is your vaunted 4th edition Codex, which EXPLICITLY left out Space Wolves and the Angels.

Even GW didn't think it would work.

They already had there own codex(s?) Doesnt mean they didnt think it would work, they just didnt do it

Their own codices required Codex: Space Marines to work.

When Codex: Space Marines was redone, they were invalidated.

Toastedandy wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:There is no feasible way they could put all the current codices into one book without making it a massive complicated tomb that is even more un-wanted than the current method.

4th ed space marines codex wasnt compicated at all and easily represented all chapters except the big 4

Yeah, key point being that the big four weren't in it.

They could easily be added into it. At the moment your army is either codex astratus, or a shameless copy of one of the others. How is this a bad idea?

So just the entire codex printed into the book? That wouldn't solve the problem, just make people less willing to buy it. Or do you want some stupidly complicated system involving multitudes of restrictions and charts, making it unwieldy and frustrating to use? My army? I only actually play Grey Knights as a whole army.

I think your all missing my point. Its not too encourage band wagoning. Its to create diversity. At the moment (as i already said) your either a vanilla marine, or one of the other 4.

iproxtaco wrote: making it unwieldy and frustrating to use?

This is different than today's Codexes how?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Toastedandy wrote:I think your all missing my point. Its not too encourage band wagoning. Its to create diversity. At the moment (as i already said) your either a vanilla marine, or one of the other 4.

5.

6, if you count Chaos Marines.

More if you count the FW Variants.

Platuan4th wrote:

iproxtaco wrote: making it unwieldy and frustrating to use?

This is different than today's Codexes how?

Even more so! It would be like trying to find a glock in a labyrinth whilst being chased by The Minotaur.

Toastedandy wrote:I think your all missing my point. Its not too encourage band wagoning. Its to create diversity. At the moment (as i already said) your either a vanilla marine, or one of the other 4.

And the thing you're missing is that lumping everything into one book isn't going to "create diversity". Even if you put the trait system back in(which again, won't "create diversity" in tournament settings which is where the argument is always cropped up about "too much marinez!" because EVERYONE will take the same general traits[the ones that win]) you're not going to succeed in "creating diversity".

The problem that you lot continually ignore is that as it stands, right now, the codices can very easily be done as general archetypes for stupidly diverse amounts of Chapters.

If GW actually builds off that idea, it goes quite nicely and "creates diversity".

Zweischneid wrote:And balancing/playtesting such a massive tome to rule all Space Marines would be a nightmare I would think.

That assumes that GW balances/playtests their stuff to begin with.


They don't.