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.

I still say sisters. Looking forward to the sisters players having there own codex insteade of some lame white dwarf knockoff. And possible some new release models.

The tau make me sad they have a bab codex

I wrote SOB Because it barely counts as a codex, there is only a few pages in the WD...

gonna say sisters for how bad they are, though I like the army
and grey knights for how badly written and broken the codex was (I donno if they still are but to this day I refuse to play against them)

I've begun my decent into Chaos. I am the 1 vote for Codex Space Marines even though I think it's the best codex of them all... MWAHAHAHAHA!

 Kaldor wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Back in the day (apparently before this game was over-run with kids. Get of my lawn!) Dark Angels used to be unique.

Key point: used to be.

Now they aren't unique, and "give them more unique stuff" isn't a design concept. To do that you'd have to re-write the whole codex to the point that it isn't DA anymore, so why not just start over from scratch without all the DA baggage? Or just get rid of them entirely, since it's not like the game needs another new marine codex, and the only reason to keep them seems to be a few DA fanboys who can't stand the thought of being in the basic marine codex.

Dude just go away please. I tried no t to respond to you and Kaldor earlier but really The last DA codex was bad as was the old Chaos codex. Your are using an argument that basically boils down to I don't like them so they shouldn't exist. No Codex should be cut that is simply the whining of people who hate insert codex here and having a reason to whine about it.

If you think that's the case, you haven't fully explored the argument.

Dark Angels have no core, key concept for them to be structured around that in turn justifies a whole codex. They're like Salamanders, Imperial Fists, White Scars or Ravenguard; They're different, but not different enough.

You could make them more different, but IMO the Salamanders deserve that treatment more the Dark Angels. I think creating reasons to make yet another Marine army is generally a bad idea.

That is the point all of you fail to take into account we were different and are different if you refuse to recognize reality i cannot make it more clear to you in fact if they were to redact a codex it should be grey knights going back to Deamon hunters because they do not operate independently like the rest of the chapters . More importantly your entire argument revolves around the fact that you have an opinion so it should be reality.

You can say what you want but it won't make you right.

I'm surprised at all the votes for sisters. It may not be a big codex, but it is doing quite well right now. Of course, the thread title and the poll question are pretty far off from each other so...

 captain collius wrote:
That is the point all of you fail to take into account we were different and are different if you refuse to recognize reality i cannot make it more clear to you in fact if they were to redact a codex it should be grey knights going back to Deamon hunters because they do not operate independently like the rest of the chapters . More importantly your entire argument revolves around the fact that you have an opinion so it should be reality.

You can say what you want but it won't make you right.

But the point remains, they have no clear, different concept around which to build a codex. Or rather, the core concept of their army is less deserving of a codex than Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Ravenguard or White Scars.

SOB. They need the update the most. If it wasn't for WD (which most people wouldn't normally count as a codex anyway) they're a 4th edition army that was relatively sub-par to begin with. Don't even get me started on the necessary update of plastic models....

I agree that we could do with out a PA codex or two

Necrons, because it was probably written with some knowledge of what 6th would be like, yet 6th ed Necrons are probably one of the most broken codexes in 40k history.

 Kaldor wrote:
But the point remains, they have no clear, different concept around which to build a codex. Or rather, the core concept of their army is less deserving of a codex than Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Ravenguard or White Scars.

This. The ONLY reason to have a DA codex at all right now is the historical precedent that they've had one in the past. Making a new codex* would involve completely redesigning the army to the point that it would be DA in name only. And if you're going to do that there are other chapters that deserve it just as much, and no reason to pick DA other than the fact that they were lucky enough to be picked in the past. Or, the better thing to do would be to put them in C:SM where they belong and stop having marine armies just for the sake of filling a quota on the number of marine armies 40k "needs" to have.


*Assuming they make a proper codex that actually has a unique role in the game. Obviously they can just give DA unique unit or two and make them another "like C:SM but slightly better" army where everyone ignores 90% of the book and just spams the overpowered unit with the same marine models they've been using with BA/SW/GK. However, I think it should be pretty obvious that this is worse than just putting them in C:SM.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
SOB. They need the update the most. If it wasn't for WD (which most people wouldn't normally count as a codex anyway) they're a 4th edition army that was relatively sub-par to begin with. Don't even get me started on the necessary update of plastic models....

The rules as currently written are very strong though. I agree the army is in a subpar shape, its just not weak on the tabletop.

how do sob deal with necron or IG flyer lists ?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
But the point remains, they have no clear, different concept around which to build a codex. Or rather, the core concept of their army is less deserving of a codex than Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Ravenguard or White Scars.

This. The ONLY reason to have a DA codex at all right now is the historical precedent that they've had one in the past. Making a new codex* would involve completely redesigning the army to the point that it would be DA in name only. And if you're going to do that there are other chapters that deserve it just as much, and no reason to pick DA other than the fact that they were lucky enough to be picked in the past. Or, the better thing to do would be to put them in C:SM where they belong and stop having marine armies just for the sake of filling a quota on the number of marine armies 40k "needs" to have.


*Assuming they make a proper codex that actually has a unique role in the game. Obviously they can just give DA unique unit or two and make them another "like C:SM but slightly better" army where everyone ignores 90% of the book and just spams the overpowered unit with the same marine models they've been using with BA/SW/GK. However, I think it should be pretty obvious that this is worse than just putting them in C:SM.

It would appear that GW doesn't agree with your assessment since DA is coming out next.

 wowsmash wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
But the point remains, they have no clear, different concept around which to build a codex. Or rather, the core concept of their army is less deserving of a codex than Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Ravenguard or White Scars.

This. The ONLY reason to have a DA codex at all right now is the historical precedent that they've had one in the past. Making a new codex* would involve completely redesigning the army to the point that it would be DA in name only. And if you're going to do that there are other chapters that deserve it just as much, and no reason to pick DA other than the fact that they were lucky enough to be picked in the past. Or, the better thing to do would be to put them in C:SM where they belong and stop having marine armies just for the sake of filling a quota on the number of marine armies 40k "needs" to have.


*Assuming they make a proper codex that actually has a unique role in the game. Obviously they can just give DA unique unit or two and make them another "like C:SM but slightly better" army where everyone ignores 90% of the book and just spams the overpowered unit with the same marine models they've been using with BA/SW/GK. However, I think it should be pretty obvious that this is worse than just putting them in C:SM.

It would appear that GW doesn't agree with your assessment since DA is coming out next.

We don't know that. It's likely, but we don't know for sure.

I'm going to have to vote for my beloved orks I'm afraid.

They took a major hammering due to the 6th edition meta changes from 'tanks and assault' to 'shooting in your turn, then some more in your opponents turn, then a bit more in between turns'.

My Reasons (why I've lost a lot of spirit for my green hordes):
Orks are an assault army, but due to crappy armour, the desire to give every gun and its mother an AP value of less than 6 and the fact that there is no way to 'boost' orks into combat, we end up whiffling out to massed gunfire by turn two.

Orks are an assault army, yet our best tactic in 6th is to slowly walk forward firing gakloads of shots (spirit of the army is lost under 6th).

Variety - Orks have lots of fantastic looking and bad-ass crazy units, however if you want a chance of actually winning a game, you choose between about 5 (Warboss, Big Mek, Boyz, Lootas, nobs&bikernobz, battlewagons/kanz)...

you forgot dakka jets. orcs arent bad , they are no longer assault and I understand that it sucks for those who like to play it this way , but its like trying to play assault BT.

 Kaldor wrote:

But the point remains, they have no clear, different concept around which to build a codex. Or rather, the core concept of their army is less deserving of a codex than Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Ravenguard or White Scars.

No, it isn't!

Dark Angels, in 3rd edition had;
- Fearless Terminators that could mix both tactical & assault options.
- Stubborn & Intractable across the army.
- Chaplains who could 'capture' enemy models for additional VP's.
- Plasma cannons in Tactical squads.
- 6++ saves on bikers & speeders
- 3 special banners with bonus abilities.
- The original 'relic blade' for Company/Grand Masters.

Plus, they're the original ing Legion!!!

In the 4th ed Vanilla codex, you got the Chapter Traits which ment that regular 'ol marines could steal one or two bits of the DA's uniqueness, and of corse, everyone esle got plasma cannons in their tac squad too.

Then once the 4.5 ed DA codex came out, it got neutered by the total change in design philosophy that GW tried out for all of 3 short codex releases. (Eldar being the first, then DA's, and finally ending with CSM's). GW was trying to bring a semblance of balance back into the game due to the rabid complaints about how ungodly broken the later 3rd edition and early 4th edition books were getting, such as Siren Daemon bombs or 1st turn auto-assault from an Icon, 70+ man Seer 'Congresses', along with crap like infiltrating dev squads & min/maxed las/plas death squads.
This lead to Jerivs basically re-writing the Eldar codex on Mr.Kelly, (who was very unhappy about it!), and then DA getting the "keep it super-simple-stupid" book that removed almost all options and left little flavour overall while having very rigid unit builds.
This design theory ended after the community uproar once DA players abandoned the army, followed by Chaos players raging & quiting over the utterly bland codex they got which was simply no more than "Codex: Naughty Space Marines with Spikes!"

So yes, right now, Dark Angels come across as maybe not really deserving of their own book, because their book was gutted by a bad overall design strategy!
The point is, Dark Angels are not a 'Codex Chapter' and never have been. Their 1st company is the ONLY company to have enough termie armour to outfit all 100 memebers, who also do not conform to the rules of 'tactical' & 'assault' loadouts. Their 2nd company isn't even a 'Battle Company', not to mention that the Ravenwing are far more 'elite' than the bikers & speeder pilots of normal chapters. While their officer ranks have various circles and are far more convoluted in their accension than a proper 'Codex Chapter'.
They also have the distincton of being the very first Space Marine Legion, plus their intractable nature and (hopefully) regaining Stubborn as an army-wide rule. (or at least, an option for characters).

Makumba wrote:
how do sob deal with necron or IG flyer lists ?

One way is retributors, or allied psyker with Div. So far, flyers haven't really been a problem for me though.

Experiment 626 wrote:


Dark Angels, in 3rd edition had;
- Fearless Terminators that could mix both tactical & assault options.
- Stubborn & Intractable across the army.
- Chaplains who could 'capture' enemy models for additional VP's.
- Plasma cannons in Tactical squads.
- 6++ saves on bikers & speeders
- 3 special banners with bonus abilities.
- The original 'relic blade' for Company/Grand Masters.

2nd Edition Ultramarines had:
- Captains in Terminator Armour
- Company Standard
- Chaplains
- Librarians
- Apothecary
- Techmarines
- Veteran Squads
- Space Marine Scouts
- Bike Squadrons
- Whirlwind
- Land Speeders
- Attack Bikes
- Razorbacks.

Than Angels of Death started stealing the gak.

Give those back and we can start talking

If we are talking no allies or fortifications, then its SOB hands down. Hello army with a bunch of overpriced T3 assault models with squad caps of ten, poor saves, and no access to assault vehicles. This backed by a core of infantry priced in the neighborhood of space marine that falls short on every stat with no access to AP2 or armor killing weapons on their squad leaders. And lets not forget the non scaling faith mechanic....

They do get better than Nids the moment they can take an ally or man an emplaced gun, however.

Eitherway, when it comes to crappy codexes, no one can touch the master robin Crudface.

Went for Black Templars. One too many "Fantasy in Space" archetype for me. Plus I find it untidy that a minor chapter gets it's own Codex. If we have to have individual books for Space Marine chapters, let's restrict it to the big 4 please.

 Phazael wrote:
If we are talking no allies or fortifications, then its SOB hands down. Hello army with a bunch of overpriced T3 assault models with squad caps of ten, poor saves, and no access to assault vehicles. This backed by a core of infantry priced in the neighborhood of space marine that falls short on every stat with no access to AP2 or armor killing weapons on their squad leaders. And lets not forget the non scaling faith mechanic....

Umm. Sisters were fine before forts and allies and are still fine. Didn't frgswntr get in the top 8 at Nova with a pure sisters list? Allies and forts just make them even better.

Also, your analysis is a bit off. The T3 assault models have great saves (DCA, Crusaders with FNP is just great for saves), no assault vehicle does hurt though. The basic sisters are lame but every unit has AP1 and tons of it. Sisters players LOVE it when they get matched up against terminator 'wing' armies. I think you are really selling sisters short when they have been doing great both in 5th and 6th.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Celestine is a game winner by herself, dominions are great for linebreaker or first turn nukes, Seraphim make celestine even better and hold their own, exorcists and rets are great heavy slots.

 Flashman wrote:
Went for Black Templars. One too many "Fantasy in Space" archetype for me. Plus I find it untidy that a minor chapter gets it's own Codex. If we have to have individual books for Space Marine chapters, let's restrict it to the big 4 please.

Disclaimer: I'm biased, just look at my avatar.


With that out of the way: minor? I could understand someone calling the Black Dragons or the Mentors Legion minor, but Black Templars? What?

 Flashman wrote:
Went for Black Templars. One too many "Fantasy in Space" archetype for me. Plus I find it untidy that a minor chapter gets it's own Codex. If we have to have individual books for Space Marine chapters, let's restrict it to the big 4 please.

This, and it looks like GW agrees. Very possible BT get rolled into the SM codex (as should BA and DA, IMO)

Sisters of Battle. For the simple fact that they do not have a Codex.

 A-P wrote:
Sisters of Battle. For the simple fact that they do not have a Codex.

They have a WD codex. Which is a codex. It may not be the codex we want, but it is the codex we have.

Now I haven't seen many codices because I started a mere 2 months ago, but the Tyranid codex has some ed up plotholes. What happened to Guilliemen? he should of been chowed on by tyranids. Or the fact that as soon as Marnus destroyed the tyranid hive fleet, he went back as if there was a minor termite infestation, when the Swarmlord and numerous hive tyrants to lead the swarm. So Macragge, and the UltraSmurfs should be Nid chow.

Maybe the power of Matt Ward stopped Cruddance from destroying his beloved Smurfs.



Go Tyranids anyway.

Experiment 626 wrote:
So yes, right now, Dark Angels come across as maybe not really deserving of their own book, because their book was gutted by a bad overall design strategy!

Ok, but the past is past. The book, as it stands now, has no purpose, and giving it one would mean rewriting it to the point where it's DA in name only. Since the game has more than enough marine armies as it is the only reason to do so would be to satisfy people like you, who insist that once an army gets a codex it always has to have a codex.

Their 1st company is the ONLY company to have enough termie armour to outfit all 100 memebers, who also do not conform to the rules of 'tactical' & 'assault' loadouts.

You mean just like all-terminator SW, all-terminator GK...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wowsmash wrote:
It would appear that GW doesn't agree with your assessment since DA is coming out next.

Well, it remains to be seen whether they'll redo DA into a legitimate new codex, or just another generic marine book that the game didn't need.