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.

Brother Coa wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Justy wrote:Do you guys realize this game is about the IoM and his struggle in the grimdark future, they are the protagonist of this history, not your tau or necrons or eldar...

People who think there are too many SMs and IoM armies don't want the IoM to be the protagonist of the story.

These are generally also people who attend furry conventions and live in thier parents basement dreaming of thier next LARP adventure as a half ogre.

This will offend so many people...

Surprisingly not, I have to admit I'm a little befuddled.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Justy wrote:Do you guys realize this game is about the IoM and his struggle in the grimdark future, they are the protagonist of this history, not your tau or necrons or eldar...

People who think there are too many SMs and IoM armies don't want the IoM to be the protagonist of the story.

I'm perfectly fine with IoM being the protagonists, it's the power-armoured monkeys I've got a problem with. I'd prefer for the Imperial Guard to be the big thing, with the other factions being side-tracks.

Why? Because Imperial Guard are the real thing. They're the ones dying. They're the heroes. From a game-table perspective it makes sense.

But... In a universe where there's stuff that can gut you with a thought (and they're marginally the good guys) Space Marines just provide the stuff you need to make a James Bond (if Q was less into cars and more into power armour and MI6 had a strict celibacy policy). I.e. they make models for the novels, with the game as a clever sales trick.

-Loki- wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:I don't see why the fluff can't be kept as is, with an additional story or two added. Similar units pooled together, and bam, you've got yourself one big old codex that doesn't need an update until the next edition.

There's no real reason outside of how GW like to release armies in each edition. One big release with an army book and several new plastic kits and (now) finecase models, followed by a month or two of backup waves to keep interest high.

One big codex wouldn't let them do this. They'd have to keep releasing kits without a book to back them up, which doesn't generate as many sales.

Bunch them together in a logical rules book, presenting Space Marines, and mostly eliminate specific chapter rules. The rules can be designed so the majority of the different chapters can be represented - allowing terminators as troops with only a minor alteration, for instance, or having assault marines as one of the standard troop choices.

Then, when it comes time to release Blood Angels special kit, you release a Blood Angels book. Not a codex, but a supplement. In there you add in Dante and the others as well as cram it with "how to paint red" and the odd battle report showing a Blood Angels themed army in it's glory. This eliminates playtesting need for each chapter (which some holds they allegedly do, although it's up for debate) and prevents codex creep to some extent.

biccat wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:And forcing those that want to play Marines into another Codex would help because...?

I'm pretty sure no one said anything about forcing others to play Marines.

If you eliminate the inherent benefits SM armies confer on people they will tend to move away from marine armies.

Maybe design the game structure so that Marines aren't the best codices. Just a suggestion.

Maybe design the game to reduce the chances of armies?
Cool, one needs no balance at all....
You didn't think that through, I hope. Because if that was serious, let me say everyone following this line of thinking should have to play with a handycap himself.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Justy wrote:Do you guys realize this game is about the IoM and his struggle in the grimdark future, they are the protagonist of this history, not your tau or necrons or eldar...

People who think there are too many SMs and IoM armies don't want the IoM to be the protagonist of the story.

So if the rumors are true and chaos gets the spotlight in 6th, let us pray chaos also gets multiple codices and the bestest so the same
xeno-support-group here can then move their whining on to "too many CSM" , "too much chaos", etc.

If not, who want a different protagonist can go play something else.

Mahtamori wrote:

I'm perfectly fine with IoM being the protagonists, it's the power-armoured monkeys I've got a problem with. I'd prefer for the Imperial Guard to be the big thing, with the other factions being side-tracks.

Why? Because Imperial Guard are the real thing. They're the ones dying. They're the heroes. From a game-table perspective it makes sense.

From a hobby perspective the IG takes more time and effort than many other possible choices.
- skin and clothing to paint, and camo too . IMO a bigger challenge to paint.
- higher headcount than most of the rest if not mechanized. More work.
- nigh endless recruting sources, different looks, thus unlikely to be plastic except 1-2 lines. Thus old metal and new finecost for variety.
- player has to accept his models get less time on the table and may die so fast it isn't funny. Consider the time spent on the models vs the time in play they get.

Mahtamori wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:I don't see why the fluff can't be kept as is, with an additional story or two added. Similar units pooled together, and bam, you've got yourself one big old codex that doesn't need an update until the next edition.

There's no real reason outside of how GW like to release armies in each edition. One big release with an army book and several new plastic kits and (now) finecase models, followed by a month or two of backup waves to keep interest high.

One big codex wouldn't let them do this. They'd have to keep releasing kits without a book to back them up, which doesn't generate as many sales.

Bunch them together in a logical rules book, presenting Space Marines, and mostly eliminate specific chapter rules. The rules can be designed so the majority of the different chapters can be represented - allowing terminators as troops with only a minor alteration, for instance, or having assault marines as one of the standard troop choices.

Then, when it comes time to release Blood Angels special kit, you release a Blood Angels book. Not a codex, but a supplement. In there you add in Dante and the others as well as cram it with "how to paint red" and the odd battle report showing a Blood Angels themed army in it's glory. This eliminates playtesting need for each chapter (which some holds they allegedly do, although it's up for debate) and prevents codex creep to some extent.

The main codex + subcodices was 3rd ed. There was enough shared with CSM too, so while were at it, Can't we just cramp everything into 1 codex? Oh wait, if we take it further we could have it all right there in the rulebook itself.

Maybe its time to realize there is more than just a few specific rules. More than just a few specific units and equipment.

But....
we can't have THIS THREAD over and over again if we venture there.

GW runs 3 games and they share time and effort. Consider a expensive license on their top list and another game just had a new edition.
40k isn't set on a complicated course. It runs on full auto yet, with minimal risk and least resistance as its primary motive for navigation.

Well here's my two cents I've been playing for 19 years and I love pretty much all the armies out there. While I see both sides of the argument I've gotta say that the one book to rule them all sounds good in principle but sucks on the table top.

I have played ultramarines, they were my first love and I love them still today (although they haven't seen the table top in many years). I have played thousand sons I just love their storyline but what I play today and have quit a large collection of is guard. I have played all the armies at one point or another and for a time I worked at GW (don't hate me I was young).

Every time this conversation rocks around the point I have is look at those codexs that are all in one they suck if you want to specialize your army. My Guard for instance, why cant I do an all cavalry army? I cant even mount my command squad on horseback and that makes guard the only force that can't. I also cannot do an all storm trooper army. I can just do an air cav army which is cool ill admit (but only in a very narrow points band). but lets talk about chaos for a minute they suck because you can't really do a legion specific force yes I realize you can take "thousand sons" troops but what about elite and heavy support?

Now that's just a few examples but what about craftworld eldar and orks these armies too suffer from the fact that they are trying to sqease a lot of fluff and diverse armies into single books. when I see any of these books actually allow you to take fully customized forces then lets talk about rolling the space marine codexs together but until then I think its a totally backwards thing to do to make fully half the armies that a played suck more instead of making the other armies better.

In closing I think GW needs to release more codexs a year. I know they are a lot of work (if done properly) but I think a greater range of armies to choose from can only be a good thing. this of coarse has to be balanced against how profitable they releases would be and atm the profits are in the marines and while this stays the same nothing will change.

1hadhq wrote:Maybe design the game to reduce the chances of armies?
Cool, one needs no balance at all....
You didn't think that through, I hope. Because if that was serious, let me say everyone following this line of thinking should have to play with a handycap himself.

I do play with a handicap. It's called the Chaos Codex and it's horribly unbalanced in light of 5th edition.

And if you don't think that GW designs the game to eliminate the advantage some armies have over others, you obviously don't recall much of 4th edition. The changes to assault weapons, assaulting out of vehicles, fast vehicles, etc. were specific responses to perceived imbalances in the metagame.

However, I was more commenting on the design of specific codices. For example, there's no reason that BA and SW should be the best armies available. Why not Tau? Eldar? Orks?

@ Jollydevil. You a lady irl? I'll show you i'm not so short lass. If your a lad...Carry on and keep calm.


@ Che-Vito.

I survived High School because of Dwarf Fortress and Folk Metal.

biccat wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:And forcing those that want to play Marines into another Codex would help because...?

I'm pretty sure no one said anything about forcing others to play Marines.

If you eliminate the inherent benefits SM armies confer on people they will tend to move away from marine armies.

Maybe design the game structure so that Marines aren't the best codices. Just a suggestion.

Why nerf Marines though? Wouldn't it be better to buff everyone else to the same level?

kronk wrote:

black templar wrote:Space marines def. But i rarely see any Black Templar players im the only one in my local area

That makes you special, then.

That makes me alone

I'm no psychologist, but your signature may provide some clues as to why...

Khorne + Slaanesh =kinky sex
Nurgle + Slaanesh = AIDS
Tzeentch + Slaanesh = a lot of different positions

honestly it seems to be balanced exactly around the fact that imperium players ARE half the forces you face. It seems to make sense 8 'good guys' vs 8 'bad guys' ... i still dont see why this is a problem or how it detracts from ANY of the other codexes? updates would not be faster and if they were, you would be shelling over more money to buy the new dex + minis and complain about that...

Crusher050 wrote:honestly it seems to be balanced exactly around the fact that imperium players ARE half the forces you face. It seems to make sense 8 'good guys' vs 8 'bad guys' ... i still dont see why this is a problem or how it detracts from ANY of the other codexes? updates would not be faster and if they were, you would be shelling over more money to buy the new dex + minis and complain about that...

I think it's safe to say that IoM forces ARE NOT 50% of the population. It's definitely more.
I think you can go here and see for yourself that IoM is currently so imbalanced towards other races it hurts. I do not mind SM being powerful, but going to my FLGS and having to choose only between Space Marines to play against is boring. That is one of the reasons why I play only with friends. I don't mind 8 'bad' vs 8 'good'. (no matter how subjective and wrong this classification of codexes is) I do however mind that 8 of them are boringly similar. I do not want any race to be this much dominant because it kills variety. This is not: 'SM should be worse' post but 'everything should be equally appealing'. Currently it's not and it's not even close.

kronk wrote:I'm no psychologist, but your signature may provide some clues as to why...

Khorne + Slaanesh =kinky sex
Nurgle + Slaanesh = AIDS
Tzeentch + Slaanesh = a lot of different positions

Ive been told im strange but what the hell i like me

biccat wrote:

However, I was more commenting on the design of specific codices. For example, there's no reason that BA and SW should be the best armies available. Why not Tau? Eldar? Orks?

There is always a reason. You ask for Tau, Eldar, orks. The reasoning behind this?

Tau = CC? Go make them "the best". Then CC becomes unimportant and not only SM will suffer from this.
Eldar = had this position as "the best" once.. But somehow in the same boat as Tau. Go enable them to the escape any harm. Like above, SM won't suffer alone...
orks = ask the ork-player if his army is "the best". He agrees and you can close this case.
Go pimp da orks. Let them bury anyone beneath bodies and dice. Oh wait, not so good. Now every non-SM is buried too.

See, I do agree GW needs to get balance right and it should be the aim of the design team to write codices on a similar level.

A 50/50 chance is good enough. I doubt a "best army" should exist.
Back in the day of chapter approved, GW published a list of chances to win a game ratios there.
Nids got 60%, Marines 40%. Do you believe everyone played nids? Or marines players decreased in numbers?


But I may point to 5th focused on one side, could mean 6th moves to another. Patience is key.

black templar wrote:

kronk wrote:I'm no psychologist, but your signature may provide some clues as to why...

Khorne + Slaanesh =kinky sex
Nurgle + Slaanesh = AIDS
Tzeentch + Slaanesh = a lot of different positions

Ive been told im strange but what the hell i like me

We art all strange in our own way so it's ok.

Brother Coa wrote:

black templar wrote:

kronk wrote:I'm no psychologist, but your signature may provide some clues as to why...

Khorne + Slaanesh =kinky sex
Nurgle + Slaanesh = AIDS
Tzeentch + Slaanesh = a lot of different positions

Ive been told im strange but what the hell i like me

We art all strange in our own way so it's ok.

Thanks

kronk wrote:I'm cool with more codecies.

Split Chaos Marines into Renegade/Traitor Marines + Guard (Lost and the Damned style), Chaos Marines.

Ork: Not really sure that they need more than 1. Perhaps more special characters that screw with org chart.

Dark Eldar: ? Fine as 1 codex

Eldar: ? Fine as 1 codex (Needs a new one, IMHO).

Tau: Tau + Kroot in one book, tau empire that would combine or allow Humans, Tau, and other minor races.

Necrons: ? Fine as 1 codex.

Adeptus Mechanicus.

Nids: ? Fine as 1 codex.

So, that would add a Lost and the Damned (Xenos or Non-loyalists) along with a tau Empire (Xenos), and an Adeptus Mechanicus (quasi-loyalist). Not overwhelming to keep up with, I'd hope. I really wish GW would add more writers so that they could pound out all of the codecies with each new 40k edition.

As for Space Marines, there really isn't a need for Space Wolves, Black Templar, Dark Angels, Codex Marines, Blood Angels all having different codecies other than that's what we're accustomed too and you'd piss off the fan boys and lose a ton of sales if you did. I'm all for GW remaining open for business and making more models, so I guess it's ok.

i can see the tau and allies codex now "Tau and Friends" and it maeks sence to exict

with orks yea mayeb a primative /foot slogging ork book and a mech ork book

as for nids I'd think genesteeler cult has a place on its own

agreed on eldar/dark eldar

necrons they'd need some fluff changes to warrent 2 codexes so I agree for now but if any are able to rebel that'd be a neat story

I have to say that I would *love* to have a real Traitor/Chaos Guard list.

Granted, it'd have to be crazy flexible, to capture the range of Chaos "mortal" warriors. You know, going from hordes of rabble to the Sons of Sek (elite Chaos warriors, the equal of the Guard).

Ya know, it should be able to provide as diverse army choices as the 5th ed Guard codex *should* have (instead of making everybody Cadian.)

AlmightyWalrus: "Buffing everyone else" doesn't work. If you buff a large portion of the playable field, you are in reality nerfing the sections which aren't buffed, which means that you run an extreme risk of nerfing stuff you had no intention of nerfing. In addition to this, you get closer to the roof in terms of what your gaming system allows, essentially cutting possible variations.
What you need to do is nerf the stuff that's exploited, possibly buffing the stuff that's never used - but most importantly leaving as much as possible alone. Starcraft 2 patches has shown that sometimes buffing can have unforeseen consequences and that an ability which receives only a slight buff may end up being too good. Sadly a good rule set needs maintenance, which translates to a lot of glued-on paper in yon rulebooks.

1hadhq wrote:

biccat wrote:

However, I was more commenting on the design of specific codices. For example, there's no reason that BA and SW should be the best armies available. Why not Tau? Eldar? Orks?

Eldar = had this position as "the best" once.. But somehow in the same boat as Tau. Go enable them to the escape any harm. Like above, SM won't suffer alone...

You mean back in 3rd edition where Eldar used craftworld specific lists to tailor the best one? (Or do you possibly mean "clown cars" 4th edition, which, while I didn't play during this period, I am lead to believe wasn't the best army, only the most annoying to face)

At the moment we've got "Codex: Space Marine +2 Vorpal Close Combat". That's pretty much what happened to Eldar in 3rd edition when you got the Craftworld adding to the lists you had rather than rebuilding the armies from scratch to form specific Craftworlds.

In either case, codex creep will happen since GW isn't investing enough in testing the rules they make. In a way that can be seen as down-prioritizing the game in favour of the hobby (or sales if you want to be mean).

G00fySmiley wrote: "Tau and Friends"

to be fair another reason for the codex power creep is it sells models. release new codexes alongside new updated prettier models and they spread income over editions

I do however have a theory on space marines... they sell becasue they are the most hyped. get the most attention and have the biggest following.

granted they make a great starter army and I'm glad we get new players in... heck I have 2 armies one of whichh is space marines btu the reason is... money I wanted to play orks and I knew I wanted a second army for something different sometimes... so I got 3 AoBR sets at a pretty good deal ($70 per box) and build em up... now I do liek the marines they are fun as an alternate army and good to teach others with, however I would be curious to see what would happen if GW released a non-imperium starter set if those armies would see a large upswing in numerr of players, my money would be on yes

I feel McDonald's has far too many varieties of burgers. Sure, they sell better than Filet-o-Fish, but some of us really like fish sandwiches, and McDonald's should cut the burgers in favor of more fish sandwiches.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Seaward wrote:I feel McDonald's has far too many varieties of burgers. Sure, they sell better than Filet-o-Fish, but some of us really like fish sandwiches, and McDonald's should cut the burgers in favor of more fish sandwiches.

Obvious troll is obvious.

GW hasn't tried going outside of it's box of the Imperium too far. Accordingly, for all it knows, expanding non-Imperium armies could INCREASE sales. Heaven knows they're rolling in enough dough to give it a shot.

Again, that's like saying McDonald's hasn't gone outside of its burger box too far. Why try to fix something that isn't broken? It's broken from your perspective, possibly, but in a dollars and cents sense, it isn't. If, as you say, they are in fact rolling in dough, why mess with a winning formula?

The Imperium sells. GW doesn't make multiple SM codices because they have a hard-on for SM codices, they make multiple SM codices because they have a hard-on for sweet, sweet cash. If the Tyranids range brought in the kind of cash that the SM range did, I guarantee you they'd expand it. It doesn't, so they don't.

AustonT wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Justy wrote:Do you guys realize this game is about the IoM and his struggle in the grimdark future, they are the protagonist of this history, not your tau or necrons or eldar...

People who think there are too many SMs and IoM armies don't want the IoM to be the protagonist of the story.

These are generally also people who attend furry conventions and live in thier parents basement dreaming of thier next LARP adventure as a half ogre.

This will offend so many people...

Surprisingly not, I have to admit I'm a little befuddled.

AustinT just described every thursday night for me, for the past 4 years.

Actually not at all. I find it's usually the SM fan-boys who wish they were genetically altered supersoldiers who are the unadjusted, socially awkward neckbeards, but that's just my experience, and also pretty much unimportant.

That being said, I'd love to see at least a couple more non-Imperium armies/races, but I also consider Space Marines as one whole army.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
A winning formula is one that will stand the test of time. Theirs cannot and will not, as they've written themselves into a corner.
Pick up the successive editions worth of rulebooks and read away. The rumors of a very different 6e are signs of exact that the 'winning formula' is starting to show some age.

I'm not sure changing the core rules has anything at all to do with how many Space Marine boxes are sold, but you're free to believe as you like.

As far as time goes...hasn't 40K been around for twenty years or something like that?

Seaward wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
A winning formula is one that will stand the test of time. Theirs cannot and will not, as they've written themselves into a corner.
Pick up the successive editions worth of rulebooks and read away. The rumors of a very different 6e are signs of exact that the 'winning formula' is starting to show some age.

I'm not sure changing the core rules has anything at all to do with how many Space Marine boxes are sold, but you're free to believe as you like.

As far as time goes...hasn't 40K been around for twenty years or something like that?

It should be about 25 years or something along those lines


First Edition '87 Space Marines. My, how far we've come...