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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:



The difference between Black Templar and C:SM are ideological based, and at best there's a few different things between them, you'll still be using the standard Imperium Armory with some partial differences when it comes to units. This is why I consider it Minor

The Imperial armory supplied every Legion so any marine has "imperial" wargear...power armor or boltguns isn't IoM only..
The tweaks of the tech heretics aren't making them non-human tech based.

Is a flamer different if it has a nice alien sounding name but still acts with the same AP and Str and template?

Disclaimer: I do like the nuns so I Apologize for this in advance. /
Following the human-tech logic, sisters belong into the SM dex, just a page and a SoB trait to manage the ideological differences. Stats? Maybe you have to upgrade from basic human to SM and the "astartes special rule" makes it happen..





Should add BT have command squads of 10 and a vehicle upgrade potms to experiment626 list.
Plus BT don't use codex scheme so who is volunteering to repaint now?

BTW, @Vaktathi, seems you don't realize DIN A 0 wasn't a joke...

 1hadhq wrote:

Should add BT have command squads of 10 and a vehicle upgrade potms to experiment626 list.
Plus BT don't use codex scheme so who is volunteering to repaint now?

And BA have cheaper Devastators than vanilla marines. Some of the stuff listed are not actual intentionally designed differences that are meant to represent anything, they're just results of the codices being written in different times by different people.

 1hadhq wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:



The difference between Black Templar and C:SM are ideological based, and at best there's a few different things between them, you'll still be using the standard Imperium Armory with some partial differences when it comes to units. This is why I consider it Minor

The Imperial armory supplied every Legion so any marine has "imperial" wargear...power armor or boltguns isn't IoM only..
The tweaks of the tech heretics aren't making them non-human tech based.

Is a flamer different if it has a nice alien sounding name but still acts with the same AP and Str and template?

Disclaimer: I do like the nuns so I Apologize for this in advance. /
Following the human-tech logic, sisters belong into the SM dex, just a page and a SoB trait to manage the ideological differences. Stats? Maybe you have to upgrade from basic human to SM and the "astartes special rule" makes it happen..





Should add BT have command squads of 10 and a vehicle upgrade potms to experiment626 list.
Plus BT don't use codex scheme so who is volunteering to repaint now?

BTW, @Vaktathi, seems you don't realize DIN A 0 wasn't a joke...

I do enjoy how defensive you all get when your codex of choice is threatened . I even use DA along with my CSM and I feel it should be rolled back as well, but no the Sisters are in no way similar enough to justify based on wargear alone, as while they use standard wargear, they are closer to IG then marines, not to mention due to the special abilities they've been differentiated enough not to be locked into IG.

I'd rather return to the 3rd edition "Supplements". Along with allowing other factions to gain their own, rather then one army getting all sorts of differentiated objects yet everyone else is left out, even when they have Major differences between the armies that are included within them.

Crimson wrote:

I remember when BT were exactly such a two page addon along with Salamanders.

Indeed, didn't seem to be too big of an issue back then

1hadhq wrote:

BTW, @Vaktathi, seems you don't realize DIN A 0 wasn't a joke...

I figured it was some sort of joke but obviously don't get it.

I like how everything that makes an army except the bare-faced TT rules are being completely thrown out when it comes to rolling codexes together...

If all you care about are the numbers and chart tables then why stop at Space Marines? Why not just start stripping everything back until any and every variation on the TT is a two-page summary in the rulebook?

Sheesh...

 Anfauglir wrote:
I like how everything that makes an army except the bare-faced TT rules are being completely thrown out when it comes to rolling codexes together...

If all you care about are the numbers and chart tables then why stop at Space Marines? Why not just start stripping everything back until any and every variation on the TT is a two-page summary in the rulebook?

Sheesh...

Are you talking about fluff and the like? That's what Black Library and Forgeworld is for.

Each codex release has historically taken 4-8 months of release pipeline. That's changing as of the last few months, but essentially it means that because of all the variant marine books it takes GW two and a half editions to update each army in turn, as even if they have all the books ready each release has to have while to build and sit on the front shelf to maximize its utility.

GW recently has begun to change this though to what ends and for how long we have no idea, but ultimately, having a bunch of minorly divergent marine books, often with fewer differences than from what can be found encapsulated within many other single books, detracts from the game as a whole as other, much more varied armies, are starved out and lapse into practically dead lines for years at a time so more Space Marine variants that could be covered in White Dwarf as an addendum to existing books (without losing any tabletop uniqueness) can get their own full releases.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Are you talking about fluff and the like? That's what Black Library and Forgeworld is for.

Yeah, totally. All I want from GW are spreadsheet printouts. I mean, what are they thinking? As if there were other parts to the hobby other than number-crunching!

>_________>

Each codex release has historically taken 4-8 months of release pipeline. That's changing as of the last few months, but essentially it means that because of all the variant marine books it takes GW two and a half editions to update each army in turn, as even if they have all the books ready each release has to have while to build and sit on the front shelf to maximize its utility.

GW recently has begun to change this though to what ends and for how long we have no idea, but ultimately, having a bunch of minorly divergent marine books, often with fewer differences than from what can be found encapsulated within many other single books, detracts from the game as a whole as other, much more varied armies, are starved out and lapse into practically dead lines for years at a time so more Space Marine variants that could be covered in White Dwarf as an addendum to existing books (without losing any tabletop uniqueness) can get their own full releases.

Which is why the two codex approach is the best solution. Have a main one for codex marines, and a supplementary one for non-codex marines. Simple. There's absolutely no need or reason to "two-page" everything into one massive tome, binning off everything except the bare-faced rules. Doing that is just as bad for the hobby as a whole as having countless marine codexes.

I reread BT army list. Even if we wanted to keep pretty much everything they have as it is, we would only need a page or two for army wide rules such as vows, and entries for Emperor's Champion, Crusader Squad, and Sword Brethren Squad. All other units are pretty much same as vanilla ones, if we discount differences introduced by edition changes.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Are you talking about fluff and the like? That's what Black Library and Forgeworld is for.

Yeah, totally. All I want from GW are spreadsheet printouts. I mean, what are they thinking? As if there were other parts to the hobby other than number-crunching!

>_________>

There are any number of factions we could go on about with this. The DKoK have as much fluff as the Black Templars, as do the Catachans, as does Biel Tan and whatnot. They don't get their own books just for their fluff, why makes BT's so special that they *need* one? Nothing, except that they got one because they were the 3E posterboys. That's it. Almost everything that is truly unique about them now as a tabletop army fit in a small Index Astartes article before they got a book. Hell, the Catachans used to have their own book, why shouldn't they have it again? Because it is unnecessary to portray them accurately on the table.

Which is why the two codex approach is the best solution. Have a main one for codex marines, and a supplementary one for non-codex marines. Simple. There's absolutely no need or reason to "two-page" everything into one massive tome, binning off everything except the bare-faced rules.

Why on earth would it need to be both xboxheuge and only the simplest of barebones rules? There is absolutely no reason why either should need to be true. I can think of tons of games with far more varied factions fitting in much less space than simply combining Space Marines into one book. Heavy Gear, Flames of War, etc.

You can fit, in their entirety, all of the rules that make BT's unique relative to C:SM onto about a page and a half as is if you cut out the gigantic text/pics/etc. Giving it some flair, 3-4 pages. Doing so for SW's, DA's and BA's, and BT's combined? Perhaps twenty pages in total for all their rules with some pictures and extravagance and they wouldn't need to play any differently than they do now. The biggest issue is just the raw number of characters.

Remember half or more of each SM codex is copy-paste material anyway giving you basic SM stuff, shared vehicles, horus heresy overview, etc.

 Vaktathi wrote:
There are any number of factions we could go on about with this.

Exactly. As an attitude it sets a very dangerous precedent. Where do we draw the line? When there's nothing left but spreadsheets? No thanks. You want anything about the hobby not to do with numbers to come from alternate sources than the army books produced by GW. Again, no thanks.

The DKoK have as much fluff as the Black Templars, as do the Catachans, as does Biel Tan and whatnot. They don't get their own books just for their fluff, why makes BT's so special that they *need* one? Nothing, except that they got one because they were the 3E posterboys. That's it. Almost everything that is truly unique about them now as a tabletop army fit in a small Index Astartes article before they got a book. Hell, the Catachans used to have their own book, why shouldn't they have it again? Because it is unnecessary to portray them accurately on the table.

Which is all well and good... but sadly irrelevant due to the fact that I've never argued that BT should have their own codex.

Why on earth would it need to be both xboxheuge and only the simplest of barebones rules? There is absolutely no reason why either should need to be true.

I wish I knew... it's at this point I refer you to my earlier post, where I call out the misplaced attitude of those arguing for cutting all the codexes on the basis that their variation on the rules can be condensed to one-and-a-half to two pages... and therefore the army should be cut to that. Ridiculous. Apply that precedent across the board and see what happens...

Remember half or more of each SM codex is copy-paste material anyway giving you basic SM stuff, shared vehicles, horus heresy overview, etc.

Yet more reason to roll and condense all the information into two codexes. Problem solved.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:


People are way too obsessed with different factions getting a codex.

Blood Angels or Grey Knights get released and get 2, maybe 3 plastic-kits and 2 or 3 Finecast. Dark Eldar or Necrons get released and get well over 20, in the case of Dark Eldar over 30 new releases.

Dark Eldar alone get more new releases than ALL Space Marine releases in 5th Edition taken together (!).

Just because there's a book for something doesn't mean that it's "equal" in the attention it gets.

If you wan't a a "big Space Marine Codex to rule them all", just get a book-binder to bind them all into one book for you.

Games Workshop is a miniatures company, not a book company (Bl excepted). The Codexes mean nothing. The miniatures is what counts.

You do realize that it took GW 12 years to update the dark eldar though, right? Rather than them getting an update every edition like the popular space marine codicies did.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
There are any number of factions we could go on about with this.

Exactly. As an attitude it sets a very dangerous precedent. Where do we draw the line? When there's nothing left but spreadsheets? No thanks. You want anything about the hobby not to do with numbers to come from alternate sources than the army books produced by GW. Again, no thanks.

Your are intentionally exaggerating my position to the point of farce and it's just not flying here. I'm not saying get rid of their special stuff, I'm saying most of what they do have isn't so outrageously special you couldn't fit it all into a couple of pages.

Which is all well and good... but sadly irrelevant due to the fact that I've never argued that BT should have their own codex.

I was just using BT's as an example, it can apply to any and all variants of loyalist SM's. If we can fit the massed might of the most varied and outsourced fighting force to have ever existed in one book (the Imperial Guard) I don't see why SM's need multiple books for loyalist chapters.

I wish I knew... it's at this point I refer you to my earlier post, where I call out the misplaced attitude of those arguing for cutting all the codexes on the basis that their variation on the rules can be condensed to one-and-a-half to two pages... and therefore the army should be cut to that. Ridiculous. Apply that precedent across the board and see what happens...

If you can cut it to that without losing anything, why shouldn't you? If that's all that's truly unique about the faction, it doesn't need its own book, you'd need a dozen or more subfactions to really require a distinct book, which is where a combined C:SM comes in.

Yet more reason to roll and condense all the information into two codexes. Problem solved.

And you'd still have two books sharing half or more of the same stuff, meaning you could do it in one Two would be better than what we have now, but if you could still fill them all in with an addendum to C:SM, why take a 2nd book to do it?

Let Forgeworld flesh out individual chapters, that's the entire point of their existence is stuff like that.

It seems to me that there is no need to lessen the number of codices now that GW has upped its release rate. If I were to give a reason why the space marines get different codices, it would be that they have a much much larger gap between there styles of fighting than i consider the other factions have, with maybe the exception given to the guard drop troopers. There pretty out there too given the standard guard system. Nw that still doesn't really give a good excuse to some SM codices. I'm looking at templars and dark angels here. They do seem at a glance to still be very smiler to the standard setup of space marine chapters. I'm no expert mind you.

Overall, I don't think any should be gotten rid of atm, but if there was a time when the codices were getting drip fed to us, I might get a little annoyed at the rare codices like BT and DA. I would like to see what GW do with BT and BA in 6th, since they could go so many ways with them. BA seems to scream give me great fast attacking aircraft to me, which as a play style seems really cool to me. I'm not so sure with BT though. DA stole some of there thunder, and really, apart from having oaths and champions, I don't see to much of a difference in play style.

If I were to give a reason why the space marines get different codices, it would be that they have a much much larger gap between there styles of fighting than i consider the other factions have, with maybe the exception given to the guard drop troopers.

Book of the Gods

Book of Khorne = Cultists/CSM/CD of Khorne
Book of Tzeentch/Slaanesh/Nurgle.

These would be valid, larger gaps of style then space marines, there's also quite a few numbers of IG that would be vastly different (The Tallarn Desert army for one, then there's the Catachan with their physical trapping, fighting, and meleeish style that's vastly different from the standard Cadian style of warfare, you've mentioned the Elysian Air troopers, then there's an entire army regiment based around Sub-humans along with prisoners)

Some of the fighting styles of the Space marines are vague enough, that by that logic every race deserves 1-5 codex of it's own.

Biel-Tan does not fight like Alatioc at all, nor do either of them fight like Ulthwee, then you could throw in a case for the Exodites with their dinosaur riding Eldar.

Orks have different clans that can do entirely different things. Old Bad Moonz used to have higher BS and liked higher shooting things which is very unorky, there's an army that uses entirely scrapped IG and SM vehicles as their base, then there's the Feral orks and their boar riders..

Necrons...Not yet, but I'm sure once the new tombworlds get some fluff we'll start seeing new things.

Tyranids as well, but they constantly evolve, one could make a point that they've evolved to fight the things in their sector far better then normal.

Dark eldar have the Kabalites, that fight differently from the Coven, which are vastly different from the gladiatorial based Wych Cults..

You've got the Inquisition stuffed with the Grey knights, yet they could encompass the Xeno's based Deathwatch, along with the vast weaponry available to the Inquisitors, yet are stuck with the GK.

Tau have their standard, and then they have the splinter group that actually value melee combat! That's drastically different from the standard tau.

To put it simply, everything has drastic styles within their own ranks..Yet they only have one codex, why are space marines the only one allowed to have multiple codex?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
To put it simply, everything has drastic styles within their own ranks..Yet they only have one codex, why are space marines the only one allowed to have multiple codex?

Because GW hates Xenos and loves those mutated Mon-Keighs?

 Happyjew wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
To put it simply, everything has drastic styles within their own ranks..Yet they only have one codex, why are space marines the only one allowed to have multiple codex?

Because GW hates Xenos and loves those mutated Mon-Keighs?

Already knew that, but what I'm looking for is an answer as to "Why" from those who defend the decision to keep them separate.

I've seen the defensive (Well our styles of fighting are greatly different between the codex)

I've seen some offensive (Lets roll everyone into one or two codex then huh? Lets roll Eldar and Dark Eldar together then huh?!)

And those that try to deflect (Well it'll make the time between each codex update take longer!)

But I've yet to see the major answer. "Why should you have all the different codex compared to anyone else."

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
To put it simply, everything has drastic styles within their own ranks..Yet they only have one codex, why are space marines the only one allowed to have multiple codex?

Because GW hates Xenos and loves those mutated Mon-Keighs?

Already knew that, but what I'm looking for is an answer as to "Why" from those who defend the decision to keep them separate.

I've seen the defensive (Well our styles of fighting are greatly different between the codex)

I've seen some offensive (Lets roll everyone into one or two codex then huh? Lets roll Eldar and Dark Eldar together then huh?!)

And those that try to deflect (Well it'll make the time between each codex update take longer!)

But I've yet to see the major answer. "Why should you have all the different codex compared to anyone else."

The simple answer is.... Technically there should be tons of codicies (For Example if there was a codex that appropriately conveyed Saim-Hann i would buy it.) However there will never be the sales of many of these armies to support sales. Hence they don't exist.

A list by race with my peersonal codicies i think should exsist
Eldar: Biel-tan, Ulthwe, Alaitoc, Saim-Hann, Iyanden
Dark Eldar; Ehh they could be updated but I feel they actually work well as they are.
Chaos: Khorne, Tzeentch, Slaanesh, Nurgle and Undivided for mixed
Tau: Empire, Farsight enclave, Kroot Mercs
Inquisition: Grey knights go in here
Sororitas:
Space marines; Dark Angels, White Scars, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Space Wolves, Salamanders, Blood Angels, Iron Hands, Ravenguard
IG: Cadian, Catachan, Steel Legion, Valhallan, Tallarn, Traitors
Necrons: Triarchs and Dynasties
Orks: Bad moonz, Speed Freekz, Bllod Axes, Armaggedon Orks
Tyranids: 1 In depth mutations chart

The simple answer is.... Technically there should be tons of codicies (For Example if there was a codex that appropriately conveyed Saim-Hann i would buy it.) However there will never be the sales of many of these armies to support sales. Hence they don't exist.

Except however that could be said of the multiple space marine armies. Do they sell well because they are the best selling, or because they are constantly updated (a space marine is guaranteed every one to three codex). Which then puts everything else in the spiral of "Not updated, getting weaker, selling less, not updating because it's not selling well, which lowers sales.."

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I do enjoy how defensive you all get when your codex of choice is threatened

A pleasure to serve.

But in general I am collecting them all.

Vaktathi wrote:Are you talking about fluff and the like? That's what Black Library and Forgeworld is for.

WTF.
Plus: Spotted the silence in the BL news&rumors thread?

Vaktathi wrote:
Each codex release has historically taken 4-8 months of release pipeline.

This is about the present and the future, not the past.

Vaktathi wrote:
That's changing as of the last few months,

So you can't be sure GW manages to update all the non-Space Marines without altering their portfolio of Space Marines.

Vaktathi wrote:
but ultimately, having a bunch of marine books, detracts from the game as a whole as others are starved out and lapse into practically dead lines for years at a time

( multiple snip there )
And thats my problem with your line of thinking.
It doesn't matter if GW has 1 or 100 space marine codices. If they want to re-do an army, they do.

If they have the man-power to do one per month, they still could drink beer instead. Sorry, other side of channel, so... tea. Thinking of it, some of their stuff looks more like they had beer than tea..

Vaktathi wrote:
You can fit, in their entirety, all of the rules that make BT's unique relative to C:SM onto about a page and a half as is if you cut out the gigantic text/pics/etc.

So an empty white page is it?
Am confused, what is left after your rampant hitting of the delete key whilst doing the layout of the codex?
Is text unimportant now? And pics, thought we like pics...??

Vaktathi wrote:
Remember half or more of each SM codex is copy-paste material anyway giving you basic SM stuff, shared vehicles, horus heresy overview, etc.

Why should they re-invent the wheel?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
To put it simply, everything has drastic styles within their own ranks..Yet they only have one codex, why are space marines the only one allowed to have multiple codex?

Because their gear is compatible and GW needs less effort to churn out more models?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

But I've yet to see the major answer. "Why should you have all the different codex compared to anyone else."

Is "because GW made it happen" enough?

A comparision is never fair. Take IG. How would a fair treatment look like? GW said: "billions of Regiments." Fans imagine a endless Sea of different uniforms . From a basic grouping into different eras alone this would "justify" dozens if not hundreds of Kits.
Imagine a release schedule filled with IG infantry releases for the whole edition lifecycle just to provide the basic line Troopers.
How long does it take to hear the non-IG fans cry foul because the new models are again and again Humans with lasguns ?

Because their gear is compatible and GW needs less effort to churn out more models?


Is "because GW made it happen" enough?

Wasn't asking why GW thinks it should happen... Quoting myself.

Already knew that, but what I'm looking for is an answer as to "Why" from those who defend the decision to keep them separate.

Just from those defending the decision to keep them separate. GW is pretty much a company that seems to not understand how marketing works at times.. I'm more curious as to why the People who defend their Space Marine variant of choice do so.

 Anfauglir wrote:
I wish I knew... it's at this point I refer you to my earlier post, where I call out the misplaced attitude of those arguing for cutting all the codexes on the basis that their variation on the rules can be condensed to one-and-a-half to two pages... and therefore the army should be cut to that. Ridiculous. Apply that precedent across the board and see what happens...
.

What happens:

Codex Chaos Space Marines where the various Chaos legions and renegade forces are described and explained, but don't have their own rulebook
Codex Eldar where different craft worlds with different views toward warfare and what is important on the battlefield are described and explained, but don't have their own rulebook
Codex Dark Eldar where different Kabals with different views toward warfare and what is important on the battlefireld are described and explained but don't have their own rulebook.
Codex Imperual Guard where various different guard regiments are described, with different views toward warfare...etc, etc, etc.

So while pretty much ever other force in the game has its various different approaches and forces described within them using the same list and relying on unit selection to effectively simulate them on the table, for marines if the tactics of the chapter are even slightly different from the baseline they get an entirely new book.

No one is say cut every army to two pages of rules and that is all. What is suggested in this case is: Have the baseline Space Marine codex list and units and then each chapter gets its own one to two page write up of special details and descriptions in that book and then the player can use unit selection to specialize his force to be the chapter they prefer just like every other army does in the game. Valhallans, Cadians, Catachans, Mordians and every other Imperial guard regiment can be built out of the same IG codex. Why can't Ultramarines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels and other marine forces do the same thing?

Skriker

 Skriker wrote:
[Why can't Ultramarines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels and other marine forces do the same thing?

Skriker

Because we don't trust GW to not feth it up. I wouldn't mind seeing Templars rolled into the Vanilla Codex if it was done well, I've just not seen anyone do it well yet.

Everything but templars. Everyone else has filthy psykers

Yeah, I think the reason most people don't want to get "rolled" is not trusting GW to not destroy the flavor. That's my main concern as well. I mean, the current SM Codex is basically my secondary Codex as it is, and it's pretty fun, with cool units like Sternguard and Thunderfire Cannons. It'd be kinda cool to use them in a Templars list (assuming they don't restrict access to them in the case of getting rolled, but at that point why even bother rolling?). Since our Codex is so old and with relatively few different units, representing us with the current SM Codex wouldn't be too difficult. But BT players wish that we'd really get made into something unique rather than a side show in the SM Codex. I wish that too, even while I can live with being rolled if that's the way they decide to go. Either way I just wish I knew for sure, so I'd know what to paint certain things as

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


To put it simply, everything has drastic styles within their own ranks..Yet they only have one codex, why are space marines the only one allowed to have multiple codex?

Because Space Marines sell more miniatures than all the other factions combined. GW is simply giving most people what they want most of all and thats more marines. If you like the other factions better, well it is kind of annoying but thats the way the hobby has developed to this point.

It could be worse you know, you could have had a huge investment in epic and had your whole game system and all your armies assigned to limbo.

JWhex wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


To put it simply, everything has drastic styles within their own ranks..Yet they only have one codex, why are space marines the only one allowed to have multiple codex?

Because Space Marines sell more miniatures than all the other factions combined. GW is simply giving most people what they want most of all and thats more marines. If you like the other factions better, well it is kind of annoying but thats the way the hobby has developed to this point.

It could be worse you know, you could have had a huge investment in epic and had your whole game system and all your armies assigned to limbo.

Indeed on the part about Epic.

Though at the same time I'm not so sure about the space marines. Could it be because they gave them more marketing, gave them far more supplements back around 2nd, and in general market them as the ultimate good guys? Thus creating a propagation where Space marines = Poster = Ultimate selling because = 3/4ths of the marketing go to space marines.

1hadhq wrote:
This is about the present and the future, not the past.

Of which we base our experiences and expectations...off of the past.

So you can't be sure GW manages to update all the non-Space Marines without altering their portfolio of Space Marines.

We have no idea at this point. We have encouraging steps, but a decades worth of mismanagement is hard to overlook, and certainly can't be handwaved away.

And thats my problem with your line of thinking.
It doesn't matter if GW has 1 or 100 space marine codices. If they want to re-do an army, they do.
If they have the man-power to do one per month, they still could drink beer instead. Sorry, other side of channel, so... tea. Thinking of it, some of their stuff looks more like they had beer than tea..

Manpower is irrelevant, a couple people could put out all the books in a couple months, it's marketing pipeline that takes the time, each release needs time to sell and have its time in the sun before getting crowded out with the next release, and the number of armies we have means its very difficult to get to each army within the span of even two editions. That may change here, but we don't know. Either way, it would offer at the least the opportunity to speed that up without 4 loyalist variant books floating around.

So an empty white page is it?
Am confused, what is left after your rampant hitting of the delete key whilst doing the layout of the codex?
Is text unimportant now? And pics, thought we like pics...??

This is a strawman argument.

The point was that what makes these armies different as a tabletop force is a relatively inconsequential amount of content that in no way, shape or form requires its own book to be faithfully represented as a playable force...I'm not saying they need to strip out all the little pretty pictures and funny quotes and whatnot, only that if you do, and look at the actual differences between these armies, they are very small and in no way worthy of their own codex.

Why should they re-invent the wheel?

Which is exactly what they're doing with multiple books.

Were I in charge they'd do one book with 'variant list' sections in the back like the Horus Heresy list for Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Inquisition (core Inquisition forces, Sisters of Battle, Grey Knights, Deathwatch), Chaos (including Daemons, CSM, and renegade Guard), Eldar (Craftworld, Dark, Corsairs), Tau, Necrons, Orks, and Tyranids and call it done, but I'm not in charge, so...

Plus that'd clump releases, which would damage GW's business model, which is probably the real reason they don't cut books once they exist.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Were I in charge they'd do one book with 'variant list' sections in the back like the Horus Heresy list for Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Inquisition (core Inquisition forces, Sisters of Battle, Grey Knights, Deathwatch), Chaos (including Daemons, CSM, and renegade Guard), Eldar (Craftworld, Dark, Corsairs), Tau, Necrons, Orks, and Tyranids and call it done, but I'm not in charge, so...

Plus that'd clump releases, which would damage GW's business model, which is probably the real reason they don't cut books once they exist.

Sisters of Battle are not Inquisition. This really needs to be said so often.

Vaktathi wrote:
Manpower is irrelevant, a couple people could put out all the books in a couple months, it's marketing pipeline that takes the time, each release needs time to sell and have its time in the sun before getting crowded out with the next release, and the number of armies we have means its very difficult to get to each army within the span of even two editions. That may change here, but we don't know. Either way, it would offer at the least the opportunity to speed that up without 4 loyalist variant books floating around.

GW has marketing beyond this 1 week pre-order and buy our limited stuff?

You seem to think its neccessary to run with a impulse buy marketing. Time in the sun shouldn't matter. Aren't all those books made to make the minis fieldable in a game?
As I was asked like anyone else if I would cut a dex, its possible that some of us wouldn't follow GW's method of marketing at all and I surly would not.
I don't think a dex has just a small release window and should sink to the bottom then. Thus any dex I would add/cut is part of an overall plan and I don't need to push a few "shinies" in almost hidden releases on people if a game is playable at multiple sizes and aimed at the "collector virus" so many Humans have.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Sisters of Battle are not Inquisition. This really needs to be said so often.

Actually, no. When they ever return, maybe...