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.

There's no fluff about Vindicators, Predators, Land Raiders (other than the Crusader, seeing as BT invented them...), Assault Squads, Land Speeders or Bikes in Codex: Black Templars. At least have the decency to know what you're talking about before making an argument.

Edit: Ah, I was trying to condense everything down to what could be added/changed in the general template, rather then what fluff they contained.

Can't take Librarians, Whirlwinds or Devestators. Can buy Power Fists/Power Swords/etc. on non-Sergeants. Cenobyte Servitors, ICs starting with Crusader Seals. You keep missing stuff, which makes the rest of your suggestions seem a bit shady.

I was making a general template that could be used, I would've taken more time if you preferred being nitpicky.

Vanilla Marines are staying for being the originals. GW will never cut them. But I am against rolling the other codexes into one monster book since it will screw the other Marine players out of lots of their signature things.

Blood Angels would lose Furioso Dreads, Baal Preadators, Death Company, and several characters that I see used extremely frequently like the Sanguinor, Mephiston, Lemartes, and Brother Corbulo.

Space Wolves would provide nerfs to Grey Hunters and Long Fangs who will then be nothing more than lackluster tacticals and devastators. Runic Weapons would be nerfed to standard Force Weapons. They'll also lose Thunderwolves, Lone Wolves, Fenrisian Wolves, and all the cool characters that they have.

Dark Angels would lose all their bike and TDA goodies; their players are not going to want Ravenwing and Deathwing Knights available to Space Wolf lists. Samael and Belial would be lost.

Chaos Marines; this is 100% out of the question, more than any other codex here. They've got too many things that distinguish them from loyalist Marines. Lack of ATSKNF, Marks of Chaos, Daemon Princes, Daemon Engines, Zerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines, Obliterators, all their exclusive Wargear, Mutation, etc.

Now, you could theoretically put all of the Marine stuff into one mega codex...

...or you could have them as separate, easier to read books that won't screw their man dedicated players. Do not remove any of the Marine books.

 Wilytank wrote:
Vanilla Marines are staying for being the originals. GW will never cut them. But I am against rolling the other codexes into one monster book since it will screw the other Marine players out of lots of their signature things.

Blood Angels would lose Furioso Dreads, Baal Preadators, Death Company, and several characters that I see used extremely frequently like the Sanguinor, Mephiston, Lemartes, and Brother Corbulo.

Space Wolves would provide nerfs to Grey Hunters and Long Fangs who will then be nothing more than lackluster tacticals and devastators. Runic Weapons would be nerfed to standard Force Weapons. They'll also lose Thunderwolves, Lone Wolves, Fenrisian Wolves, and all the cool characters that they have.

Dark Angels would lose all their bike and TDA goodies; their players are not going to want Ravenwing and Deathwing Knights available to Space Wolf lists. Samael and Belial would be lost.

Chaos Marines; this is 100% out of the question, more than any other codex here. They've got too many things that distinguish them from loyalist Marines. Lack of ATSKNF, Marks of Chaos, Daemon Princes, Daemon Engines, Zerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines, Obliterators, all their exclusive Wargear, Mutation, etc.

Now, you could theoretically put all of the Marine stuff into one mega codex...

...or you could have them as separate, easier to read books that won't screw their man dedicated players. Do not remove any of the Marine books.

I don't think the issue is about actually removing the likes of Death Comp, Furiosos, Ravenwing, etc... But rather the 'pro 1-2 big books' crowd are aruging that you can supposedly get the same 'feel' by simply using a few USR's and calling it, "job's a good 'un."
ie, In the pro-camp, the idea is if you simply give say;
- Rage + FnP to Assault Marines you have Death Company. (which unfortunately glosses over the fact they also have +1WS and get more bonuses out of their Chappies, etc...)
- Add extra CCW to basic Dreads and you have Furiosos apparently, because it's not like they have other unique options.
- Stubborn = Deathwing Termies. (and let's forget the fact that they are able to mix-and-match their weaponry)
- Tactical Squad can replace heavy weapon w/additional special weapon and gain Acute Senses = Grey Hunters. (but let's just take away the rest of their options unfortunately)

That kind of idea.
In other words, either each unit entry becomes a small novel to include all the relevent "Chapter of Legend" upgrades, OR, you have a complete mess of 3-4 special rules pages that require endless referencing and lead to mistakes being made in list creation and hence, illegal armies being fielded. (like what happened with the 3.5 CSM 'dex)


The idea that the specialist Space Marines get more army updates is silly anyways...
Only the actual Codex: Space Marines gets updated each edition. Space Wolves for example got a book about mid-way through 3rd edition, and then had to wait until 5th to get the new book. BA's went even longer without a new codex, while DA's went all of 5th edition without anything. (and the poor Templars are still waiting their turn...)

Orks, IG & Tyranids have all been given way more love than any of the specialist Chapters, but somehow, all the marine-haters seem to forget this point.

Orks, IG & Tyranids have all been given way more love than any of the specialist Chapters, but somehow, all the marine-haters seem to forget this point.

Because you'd still have MEQ coming up the pipeline, the one few army that you can spraypaint black and use as "Counts as Newest MEQ Update" (Speaking of which, CSM has only skipped 5th as well, so they're on that list for favored as well ) Many people don't exactly differentiate between them because besides a few things that differentiate them is not exactly big enough to matter aside from a few minor things. It's not like coming across Dark Elder vs Eldar.

So to many others they don't see "Special Independent Codex" they see "Imperium Space Marine Codex #3" You kill them in mostly the same way, they have the same statline, and generally there's nothing that makes you tilt your head to much. "This one flee's from combat and shoots, this one has alotta jump packs, this one has more meleeish troops with scouts mingling with tacticals, this one has bikes or terminators, this one has better marines with cavalry with a buncha things named wolf"

And Imperial Guards previous codex (as in 4th) was not exactly a good codex, same with Tyranids 5th (Who would rather they had kept their 4th for much of that run).

It'd probably help that if the MEQ coming from the Imperium were actually pretty different, and that powergames didn't switch to the hottest codex when a new SM dex comes out. Which grinds on the perspective that rather then there being a theme you enjoy, you just want to have multiple opportunities to get a good power dex. I don't feel that way myself, I just feel that they all return to supplements (and add the return of the others as well)

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Because you'd still have MEQ coming up the pipeline, the one few army that you can spraypaint black and use as "Counts as Newest MEQ Update" (Speaking of which, CSM has only skipped 5th as well, so they're on that list for favored as well ) Many people don't exactly differentiate between them because besides a few things that differentiate them is not exactly big enough to matter aside from a few minor things. It's not like coming across Dark Elder vs Eldar.

So to many others they don't see "Special Independent Codex" they see "Imperium Space Marine Codex #3" You kill them in mostly the same way, they have the same statline, and generally there's nothing that makes you tilt your head to much. "This one flee's from combat and shoots, this one has alotta jump packs, this one has more meleeish troops with scouts mingling with tacticals, this one has bikes or terminators, this one has better marines with cavalry with a buncha things named wolf"

And Imperial Guards previous codex (as in 4th) was not exactly a good codex, same with Tyranids 5th (Who would rather they had kept their 4th for much of that run).

It'd probably help that if the MEQ coming from the Imperium were actually pretty different, and that powergames didn't switch to the hottest codex when a new SM dex comes out.

And the people who codex hop to the flavour of the month marines tend to also be hyper-competitive types who take the game far too seriously in my humble experiences.
We had an Eldar player years ago who did just that with the Craftworld Codex. He'd see what army you'd brought, and then swap his Craftworld to counter you... (Mind you, it was halarious when he tried to pull Ulthwe Seer-Congress against my Drop Guard and fought his first ever Culexus Assassin! )
5th edition also made this much harsher because we not only had 4 loyalist marine books released, but also the studio was going overboard on the codex-creep and building too many outright hard-counters into the system. (*cough*GreyKnights*cough* being the outright worst offenders)

Just because a few unscrupulous as play army-roulette to always gain the biggest advantage doesn't mean GW should abandon the vast majority who don't sink to such level of filthy hobo shinanigans.

Read through most of the thread, and I find myself agreeing most with Peregrine's first reply.

Personally, I'd remove BT, BA, SW, and DA. I'd also remove GK, and have them replaced with a Codex: Inquisition. In a perfect world, there would be a loyalist marine codex, a traitor marine codex, and then the current selection of non-meq codices.

Then again, this would never happen, as marines sell the most models.

Experiment 626 wrote:
For everyone touting '1 big book to rule them all' nonsense, I hope you realise that this idea is;
a) Screwing over every single marine player by hienously over-charging them for their book.

What, to have access to all marine rules in one book to play what is effectively one army with a couple pages worth of variant rules? Do they never buy another codex besides a single variant chapter codex? I would think it'd make it cheaper for people that play multiple armies, or would like to, or simply buy most of the codex books. It's not like GW didn't already charge more for Codex: Space Marines than they did for any other codex book until they went to hardcovers.

Not to mention, who the hell wants to carry a fething 250+pg hardback tome around with them?!

Why on earth would it need to be 250 pages? As is the newer 6E books are smaller than most of the 5E books so there's apparently space to be found already.

Also, have you taken a look at any other wargames recently? If you check out say, Flames of War, they routinely have ~300page army books with complete army listings of every imagineable formation type for a faction and they don't exactly break anyone's back (and cost less than GW's boks that are 1/3rd the size). To say nothing of the basic $75 humongous brick of a core rulebook 40k already has, so if they can deal with that I'm sure they can deal with something half the size quite well.

The basic IG codex doesn't seem to mind having to cover most of the IG subfactions that have been created over the years, even those that had their own books at one time. It's hard to see why the snowflake chapters need be all that different.

b) Impossible to balance while still retaining any kind of flavour & individuality between the various main Chapters.

Why not?

Take basic SM list, add 2-5 pages in back for each variant chapter noting difference in certain units and adding variant options and mandatory changes. Voila, you've just included all the unique rules and units from each of the variant books and done so in a way that retains their special snowflake nature without making the mix-n-match or watering them down.

Traits, Chapter Tactics, SC's, whatever... You'd simply have everyone cherry-picking the best stuff from across the million or so options such a huge book would contain.
Or else to stop it from happening, you'd need so many rules exceptions that the book would start to read something more akin to legalise and we'd end up with the massive confused mess that was the 3.5 CSM codex of crap.

Why is it assumed they could only do it in the most asinine way possible and are completely unable to learn from their mistakes.

I don't understand how so many other wargames manage to be able to create subfactions and portray them accurately so much easily in combined lists but a combined SM book where they all share 50-90% of the same content is supposedly impossible.

GW has tried things like Legion rules & Traits before. They sucked rotten monkeyballs and simply ended up either OP, or else only the 2-3 'best' options ever got picked and suddenly every single marine army was exactly the same... (because 3x infiltrating devastator squads and True-grit everywhere was totally fair when the marines couldn't take those land raiders they were never going to include anyways!)

And having different books isn't any different when so many treat them all as one army anyway. Reference Adepticon 2011 where the most popular army was Space Wolves but only 3 of like 31 were actual SW armies and not codex-hoppers. Even players that don't fall under the super WAAC cheesy types will do this.

 Wilytank wrote:
Vanilla Marines are staying for being the originals. GW will never cut them. But I am against rolling the other codexes into one monster book since it will screw the other Marine players out of lots of their signature things.

Blood Angels would lose Furioso Dreads, Baal Preadators, Death Company, and several characters that I see used extremely frequently like the Sanguinor, Mephiston, Lemartes, and Brother Corbulo.

Space Wolves would provide nerfs to Grey Hunters and Long Fangs who will then be nothing more than lackluster tacticals and devastators. Runic Weapons would be nerfed to standard Force Weapons. They'll also lose Thunderwolves, Lone Wolves, Fenrisian Wolves, and all the cool characters that they have.

Dark Angels would lose all their bike and TDA goodies; their players are not going to want Ravenwing and Deathwing Knights available to Space Wolf lists. Samael and Belial would be lost.

Chaos Marines; this is 100% out of the question, more than any other codex here. They've got too many things that distinguish them from loyalist Marines. Lack of ATSKNF, Marks of Chaos, Daemon Princes, Daemon Engines, Zerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines, Obliterators, all their exclusive Wargear, Mutation, etc.

Now, you could theoretically put all of the Marine stuff into one mega codex...

...or you could have them as separate, easier to read books that won't screw their man dedicated players. Do not remove any of the Marine books.

Why do you assume they'll lose these things entirely, and why are you assuming so many of these are hugely unique? Furioso dreads? Prior to 5th edition, take Dread, give 2nd DCCW. After 5th edition, take Ironclad, swap a couple optionsand add Librarian option. Baal predator? Take Predator, put in wholly inappropriate FoC slot and swap turret weapon for +X pts. Add a couple pages for each chapter's unique stuff, takes maybe 15-20 pages, done.

Also, in many respects, some of these need to be adjusted, GH's/Long Fangs for one.


Lastly, I don't think anyone is suggesting seriously that CSM's be rolled in.

So, 12 pages in and people still don't understand the difference between "keeping every single option exactly the way it is right now" and "keeping the general 'feel' of the army". Who cares if a combined C:SM codex wouldn't keep every single detail of every single unit in the former independent codices? Those details aren't relevant. For example, death company could easily be represented by C:SM vanguard vets with black paint. Why? Because if you ignore the current rules for the unit the basic concept of death company is "powerful elite assault unit". All that stuff about falling to their curse and being doomed is FLUFF. If the current BA codex had just printed the exact same rules as vanguard vets and renamed them "death company" nobody would have complained at all, it would have been a perfect representation of the unit (especially now that rage is just an assault bonus and not a drawback). The same is true for a lot of other things, there's nothing special about the current rules representing the concept, and nothing would be lost if they were changed to merge with C:SM.

In short, 90% of the objections to a combined marine codex consist of "it wouldn't be exactly the same", and that's a ridiculous standard to use.

I would cut Dark Angels, and I am a Dark Angels player. (In fact, DA is now my only army since Vetock destroyed Tau.)

Simply, DA have very little which couldn't be modelled with mere WD supplement, or even just page's worth of special rules in the SM codex. They are (nominally) a Codex chapter.

Personally, I'd say Space Wolves, and I'm man enough to admit that it's because I dislike their models and their general attitude in the BL books, not because of the way they play. I'm a fan of more codexes, as it means more options. And I feel a sudden hatred for the 30% of you who said my Templars should go. I hope your armies get squatted.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, 12 pages in and people still don't understand the difference between "keeping every single option exactly the way it is right now" and "keeping the general 'feel' of the army". Who cares if a combined C:SM codex wouldn't keep every single detail of every single unit in the former independent codices? Those details aren't relevant. For example, death company could easily be represented by C:SM vanguard vets with black paint. Why? Because if you ignore the current rules for the unit the basic concept of death company is "powerful elite assault unit". All that stuff about falling to their curse and being doomed is FLUFF. If the current BA codex had just printed the exact same rules as vanguard vets and renamed them "death company" nobody would have complained at all, it would have been a perfect representation of the unit (especially now that rage is just an assault bonus and not a drawback). The same is true for a lot of other things, there's nothing special about the current rules representing the concept, and nothing would be lost if they were changed to merge with C:SM.

In short, 90% of the objections to a combined marine codex consist of "it wouldn't be exactly the same", and that's a ridiculous standard to use.

12 pages and you still got NO point.
Maybe it would help to actually read and accept the POV of anyone who isn't "Peregrine".?
All I see is a pretty self-centered person that doesn't play the army he debates.
All I see is someone who hates fluff and will jump ship to whatever 'powerful' bunch of stat lines and USR is considered "hot".

So after I've listed the current design of 6th ed codices in a post, where is your irrelevance of fluff now , if this "fluff" and artwork easily got as many or even more pages than rules have?
You're so called argument is like people asking for EGA graphics in modern games because "we only need the mechanics of the game, graphics be damned".

If you do not understand the value of the grown setting, its worth in expanding the basic TT-game to a world and the motivation of people to have more than just a bunch of markers to shove around then I suggests to find something else to call ridiculous because honestly, your posts stink.
They reek of a personal issue with Space Marines in general.

And no, nothing is irrelevant just because you deem it so.
Make no mistake, people like you are a reason to replace SM with movie-marines and to ignore the whining to follow.

 1hadhq wrote:
All I see is someone who hates fluff and will jump ship to whatever 'powerful' bunch of stat lines and USR is considered "hot".

Nice stereotype, but no, I've only ever played two armies (Tau and IG). And the current model is WORSE for "WAAC abuse", defining half the armies in the game as "marines +1" makes power creep inevitable as every "special" codex has to be better than the last one. Combining all marine armies into a single codex removes the power creep and lets marine players pick a single army based on fluff/cool models/etc instead of switching to the most recent (and most powerful) codex every few months.

So after I've listed the current design of 6th ed codices in a post, where is your irrelevance of fluff now , if this "fluff" and artwork easily got as many or even more pages than rules have?

Who cares?

1) We have an entire division of GW (BL) dedicated to making entire novels about marines. Losing a few pages of generic codex fluff is a tiny sacrifice to make if it means improving the rest of the game.

2) If we're going to ignore game mechanics then nothing about the current armies with their own codices makes them more deserving of expanded fluff than White Scars/Salamanders/etc, the armies that have to settle for a bit of fluff in C:SM.

Just sticking my head into the thread to say I voted Black Templars for the boot. I like all the others (especially Dark Angels).

 Flashman wrote:
Just sticking my head into the thread to say I voted Black Templars for the boot. I like all the others (especially Dark Angels).

No reason? Or is it just because you don't like them?

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
Just sticking my head into the thread to say I voted Black Templars for the boot. I like all the others (especially Dark Angels).

No reason? Or is it just because you don't like them?

I've not read the entire thread, so this has probably been covered already, but it's largely because they are a 2nd founding Chapter and one that was only added to the fluff in the mid 1990s. Yes, I know this also applies to Necrons, Tau and Dark Eldar but these races add something different to the game. Codex Close Combat Space Marines does not.

 Peregrine wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:
All I see is someone who hates fluff and will jump ship to whatever 'powerful' bunch of stat lines and USR is considered "hot".

Nice stereotype, but no, I've only ever played two armies (Tau and IG). And the current model is WORSE for "WAAC abuse", defining half the armies in the game as "marines +1" makes power creep inevitable as every "special" codex has to be better than the last one. Combining all marine armies into a single codex removes the power creep and lets marine players pick a single army based on fluff/cool models/etc instead of switching to the most recent (and most powerful) codex every few months.

Why do they have to be more powerful? Why couldn't they be different? Dark Angels aren't overly more powerful than Vanilla, so your premise is blatantly not true.

 Peregrine wrote:


Who cares?

You will.

Because GWHQ is going to enlighten you on their route, their actual line of products and the template to follow.
So either adopt or no go.

Remember, the "vanilla" flavor has no 6th ed codex. Whatever you suggest to include in it , same layout as established Material right now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why do they have to be more powerful? Why couldn't they be different?

They don't have to be. But that's how GW has been doing it, and the result is that C:SM is irrelevant after years of power creep and "marines +1" books. An alternative system where all marine armies were combined into a single codex would be better for balance and reduce the amount of "WAAC abuse" and flavor of the month marine armies.

Dark Angels aren't overly more powerful than Vanilla, so your premise is blatantly not true.

Nonsense. DA terminators are C:SM terminators but better. DA bikes are C:SM bikes but better. DA tactical squads are C:SM tactical squads but better. DA devastator squads are C:SM devastator squads but better. Etc.

 1hadhq wrote:
Because GWHQ is going to enlighten you on their route, their actual line of products and the template to follow.

Really? I had no idea that, in a thread about a hypothetical "what would you do" scenario, we aren't actually making the decision and are stuck with what GW decides to publish. Instead of stating the obvious could you actually address my response to you? Or are you just going to quietly pretend you didn't call me TFG?

 Peregrine wrote:
So, 12 pages in and people still don't understand the difference between "keeping every single option exactly the way it is right now" and "keeping the general 'feel' of the army". Who cares if a combined C:SM codex wouldn't keep every single detail of every single unit in the former independent codices? Those details aren't relevant.

Yes they are. They make the other codexes worth looking into in the first place.

 Peregrine wrote:
For example, death company could easily be represented by C:SM vanguard vets with black paint. Why? Because if you ignore the current rules for the unit...

You mean ignore the rules that make them unique in the first place? Because I'm sure C:SM has Red Thirst, Relentless for Vanguards, and more right? Right? They got Counter Attack for free along with Wolf Standards and Mark of the Wulfen? Not even Matt Ward would or could come up with a way how Ultramarines got the curse of the Wulfen.

Let's lump Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Orks, and Tyranids together next for Codex: Xenos. Forget all their individual details; they're filthy xenos anyway. As long as you get that general 'feel' anyway, it shouldn't matter one bit.

Combining the Marine books into one codex and taking away all their unique attributes is going to piss off a massive percentage of players and would be one of the worst choices GW ever made. I'm astounded how there's any amount of people who suggest that doing so would be beneficial or even necessary.

 Wilytank wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, 12 pages in and people still don't understand the difference between "keeping every single option exactly the way it is right now" and "keeping the general 'feel' of the army". Who cares if a combined C:SM codex wouldn't keep every single detail of every single unit in the former independent codices? Those details aren't relevant.

Yes they are. They make the other codexes worth looking into in the first place.

 Peregrine wrote:
For example, death company could easily be represented by C:SM vanguard vets with black paint. Why? Because if you ignore the current rules for the unit...

You mean ignore the rules that make them unique in the first place? Because I'm sure C:SM has Red Thirst, Relentless for Vanguards, and more right? Right? They got Counter Attack for free along with Wolf Standards and Mark of the Wulfen? Not even Matt Ward would or could come up with a way how Ultramarines got the curse of the Wulfen.

Let's lump Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Orks, and Tyranids together next for Codex: Xenos. Forget all their individual details; they're filthy xenos anyway. As long as you get that general 'feel' anyway, it shouldn't matter one bit.

Combining the Marine books into one codex and taking away all their unique attributes is going to piss off a massive percentage of players and would be one of the worst choices GW ever made. I'm astounded how there's any amount of people who suggest that doing so would be beneficial or even necessary.

Combat tactics easily swaps into those you know, also the offensive part of your hyperbole makes you hard to pay attention to (Anyone who uses, EVERYTHING INTO XENO'S is really trying to press back, it doesn't work.)

 Peregrine wrote:

Dark Angels aren't overly more powerful than Vanilla, so your premise is blatantly not true.

Nonsense. DA terminators are C:SM terminators but better. DA bikes are C:SM bikes but better. DA tactical squads are C:SM tactical squads but better. DA devastator squads are C:SM devastator squads but better. Etc.

Not the best example. The DA has a shiny new 6th edition codex, which does have stuff thats better than C:SM, but the things in C:SM that set it apart are better than the equivalents in the DA dex, basically canceling each other out. DA has good stuff, SM has good stuff (flyers are an excellent example), so their basically on equal terms.

But, if you want to further develop this argument, just wait 'til August-November for the 6th Edition SM dex.

 Wilytank wrote:
You mean ignore the rules that make them unique in the first place? Because I'm sure C:SM has Red Thirst, Relentless for Vanguards, and more right? Right? They got Counter Attack for free along with Wolf Standards and Mark of the Wulfen? Not even Matt Ward would or could come up with a way how Ultramarines got the curse of the Wulfen.

Sigh. Read the post again and try to understand the point of it. The concept of a unit is not limited to any specific set of rules, you could easily come up with several different alternative rules for any given unit that would capture the same "feel". It doesn't matter if C:SM "death company" have the exact same rules as long as they still play the same role in the army.

Let's lump Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Orks, and Tyranids together next for Codex: Xenos. Forget all their individual details; they're filthy xenos anyway. As long as you get that general 'feel' anyway, it shouldn't matter one bit.

Except, unlike marines, xenos armies don't have 90% of their units shared with other xenos armies.

 ace101 wrote:
]Not the best example. The DA has a shiny new 6th edition codex, which does have stuff thats better than C:SM, but the things in C:SM that set it apart are better than the equivalents in the DA dex, basically canceling each other out. DA has good stuff, SM has good stuff (flyers are an excellent example), so their basically on equal terms.

It's not about overall power level, it's about the concepts involved. Each army takes a subset of the units from C:SM and makes them better. How do you make DA tactical squads different from C:SM ones? Make them cheaper and let them take upgrade weapons in 5-man squads. How do you make SW tactical squads different from C:SM ones? Make them cheaper, let them take upgrades in 5-man squads, and give them a bunch of special rules. Can you make DA terminators troops and nothing else? Of course not, you have to make them better than the C:SM ones. Etc.

The end result is that units and even entire armies are sold as "C:SM +1", and over the years C:SM has become little more than the reference point by which other marine armies are judged. This encourages "WAAC" players to keep switching to the latest codex (remember that this came up because I was accused of being a WAAC player who wants to combine the books to win more), while a single marine book would balance all of the armies at a fixed level and remove the incentive to switch to the newest and best.

But, if you want to further develop this argument, just wait 'til August-November for the 6th Edition SM dex.

Yeah, at which point the whole cycle starts again. C:SM will be great for a while, but GW's marketing of several other armies as "C:SM +1" will ensure that power creep will keep going.

In which the power creep will ensure people buy more space marines..darn you GW!!!

If it were up to me, I would cut every specialist space marine faction and reduce space marines to just the core codex.

Having all these specialist factions creates two problems. The first is it takes too much focus and attention away from other armies. This was particularly problematic in 5th edition, were a full half of the releases were space marine codices.

The second problem is a bit more subtle. I believe that having all these specialist factions undermines space marines in general. Space marines are supposed to be a powerful, elite, infantry focused faction in their own right. Their basic troops are individually tough and space marines should be feared powerhouses on the tabletop. Instead, they just feel average, because they essentially are average, as everyone and their brother plays either them, or one of their many permutations. And because the various codices seem to one up each other, the space marines belonging to an inferior may even make space marines appear weak.

By reducing space marines to a single dex, they would become rarer and more special on the table top, and clearer contrast would be drawn between tactical marines and the weaker troops of other races, while also not being upstaged by more powerful tactical marines of a superior specialist dex. I think if this were done, space marines would feel a lot more like the heroic supersoldiers of the 41st millenium. The specialist factions would just exist in fluff and in model customization, which is were they belong.

Phanixis wrote:
Space marines are supposed to be a powerful, elite, infantry focused faction in their own right. Their basic troops are individually tough and space marines should be feared powerhouses on the tabletop. Instead, they just feel average, because they essentially are average, as everyone and their brother plays either them, or one of their many permutations.

This is a very good point. Notice the complaints (justified, IMO) about Tau being BS 3. Even though theoretically BS 3 is the average for a trained professional soldier the dominance of marine armies makes BS 4 the real "average" in 40k and anything with BS 3 automatically feels like "horde unit that sucks at shooting but brings tons of guns to make up for it". Likewise for all the other stats, anything with a 3 is automatically below average and that makes a huge impact on how a unit is seen.

Phanixis wrote:
If it were up to me, I would cut every specialist space marine faction and reduce space marines to just the core codex.

Having all these specialist factions creates two problems. The first is it takes too much focus and attention away from other armies. This was particularly problematic in 5th edition, were a full half of the releases were space marine codices.

The second problem is a bit more subtle. I believe that having all these specialist factions undermines space marines in general. Space marines are supposed to be a powerful, elite, infantry focused faction in their own right. Their basic troops are individually tough and space marines should be feared powerhouses on the tabletop. Instead, they just feel average, because they essentially are average, as everyone and their brother plays either them, or one of their many permutations. And because the various codices seem to one up each other, the space marines belonging to an inferior may even make space marines appear weak.

By reducing space marines to a single dex, they would become rarer and more special on the table top, and clearer contrast would be drawn between tactical marines and the weaker troops of other races, while also not being upstaged by more powerful tactical marines of a superior specialist dex. I think if this were done, space marines would feel a lot more like the heroic supersoldiers of the 41st millenium. The specialist factions would just exist in fluff and in model customization, which is were they belong.

Why would there be fewer Space Marines? It'd just mean every Marine player would play out of the same Codex, wouldn't it?

If you want less Space Marines, encourage people to play other armies. Don't punish those that want to play Space Marines because you don't like them.

 Peregrine wrote:

Nonsense. DA terminators are C:SM terminators but better. DA bikes are C:SM bikes but better. DA tactical squads are C:SM tactical squads but better. DA devastator squads are C:SM devastator squads but better. Etc.

Meanwhile, Vanilla has better fliers, better Sternguard, cheaper TH/SS (although admittedly not scoring), Thunderfire Cannons, Ironclad Dreadnoughts and a selection of Chapter Tactics that don't suck (seriously, Stubborn is a drawback most of the time on a unit with ATSKNF). If you ignore everything that's good about Vanilla and just bring up stuff that Dark Angels do better you're OBVIOUSLY going to come to the conclusion that Dark Angels are better, but it's a shoddy argument at best.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Meanwhile, Vanilla has better fliers, better Sternguard, cheaper TH/SS (although admittedly not scoring), Thunderfire Cannons, Ironclad Dreadnoughts and a selection of Chapter Tactics that don't suck (seriously, Stubborn is a drawback most of the time on a unit with ATSKNF). If you ignore everything that's good about Vanilla and just bring up stuff that Dark Angels do better you're OBVIOUSLY going to come to the conclusion that Dark Angels are better, but it's a shoddy argument at best.

Again, I'm not necessarily talking about the entire army and how well it wins games, I'm talking about how things are "marketed". Ask for a one-sentence description of a non-C:SM marine army and it's probably going to be something like "they're C:SM, but better at X, Y and Z". Yes, in theory if you want to do A, B and C you might take C:SM, but if you want to do X, Y and Z you're going to pick the other army. And if a new marine army comes out that does some of those things better you're going to change your "custom" chapter to use the new rules. This isn't just speculation, it's exactly what happens in large numbers.

And of course my point was never that C:SM is the worst at everything, it's that power creep exists and the current situation is better for "WAAC" players than a single all-marines codex would be. It's a response to a specific claim that I'm a WAAC player arguing for a more powerful army, not a general statement about the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Meanwhile, Vanilla has better fliers, better Sternguard, cheaper TH/SS (although admittedly not scoring), Thunderfire Cannons, Ironclad Dreadnoughts and a selection of Chapter Tactics that don't suck (seriously, Stubborn is a drawback most of the time on a unit with ATSKNF). If you ignore everything that's good about Vanilla and just bring up stuff that Dark Angels do better you're OBVIOUSLY going to come to the conclusion that Dark Angels are better, but it's a shoddy argument at best.

Again, I'm not necessarily talking about the entire army and how well it wins games, I'm talking about how things are "marketed". Ask for a one-sentence description of a non-C:SM marine army and it's probably going to be something like "they're C:SM, but better at X, Y and Z". Yes, in theory if you want to do A, B and C you might take C:SM, but if you want to do X, Y and Z you're going to pick the other army. And if a new marine army comes out that does some of those things better you're going to change your "custom" chapter to use the new rules. This isn't just speculation, it's exactly what happens in large numbers.

And of course my point was never that C:SM is the worst at everything, it's that power creep exists and the current situation is better for "WAAC" players than a single all-marines codex would be. It's a response to a specific claim that I'm a WAAC player arguing for a more powerful army, not a general statement about the game.

No, I claimed Dark Angels weren't very far ahead of Vanilla, you called that "nonsense" and then backed it up with the very stuff that Dark Angels are supposed to be better at. Good job. Yes, that means that if you want to play a Terminator army you'd be better off with Dark Angels, but that's the entire point. There's stuff that Vanilla does that no one else does as well. As long as the variant Marine Codices don't become "Vanilla +1" (which I completely agree Space Wolves and to a lesser extent Blood Angels were in 5th) there's no such WAAC factor, which is why I brought up Dark Angels as an example. They're different without being better in every single way.

Peregrine wrote:
An alternative system where all marine armies were combined into a single codex would be better for balance and reduce the amount of "WAAC abuse" and flavor of the month marine armies.

FotM depends on character. Your local problem is irrelevant to the world.
Plus, any FotM player would move towards "counts as", this little plastic figure is ork this month and elf next. WAAC are acting like this everywhere, not just TT-games.
Codex hopping isn't forced by GW, because GW wants you to buy their kits each time they release something.
To re-use the same Models isn't it.

 1hadhq wrote:
Because GWHQ is going to enlighten you on their route, their actual line of products and the template to follow.

Peregrine wrote:
Really? I had no idea that, in a thread about a hypothetical "what would you do" scenario, we aren't actually making the decision and are stuck with what GW decides to publish. Instead of stating the obvious could you actually address my response to you? Or are you just going to quietly pretend you didn't call me TFG?

I am aware you got no idea.
But still try my best to understand how some people assume they get to ignore the basic template of an edition of 40k. Hypothetical is an excuse and a bad one.
And rest assured, if i post something, i really mean it. I do not quietly pretend.

"what would you do" only makes sense if we have a common ground.
If a layout or size isn't part of this, we are at handwavium stage.

Phanixis wrote:If it were up to me, I would cut every specialist space marine faction and reduce space marines to just the core codex.

Welcome back, illoyal traitors.

Phanixis wrote:
Having all these specialist factions creates two problems. The first is it takes too much focus and attention away from other armies.

GW is losing the attention with their marketing... not the line of products.

Phanixis wrote:
The second problem is a bit more subtle. I believe that having all these specialist factions undermines space marines in general. Space marines are supposed to be a powerful, elite, infantry focused faction in their own right. Their basic troops are individually tough and space marines should be feared powerhouses on the tabletop. Instead, they just feel average, because they essentially are average, as everyone and their brother plays either them, or one of their many permutations. And because the various codices seem to one up each other, the space marines belonging to an inferior may even make space marines appear weak.

By reducing space marines to a single dex, they would become rarer and more special on the table top, and clearer contrast would be drawn between tactical marines and the weaker troops of other races, while also not being upstaged by more powerful tactical marines of a superior specialist dex. I think if this were done, space marines would feel a lot more like the heroic supersoldiers of the 41st millenium.

Nice start and then .....

Why would they be rarer?
- the player base annoyed and leaving?
- sucktastic codex no one wants to play except die hard fans?
- only available as digital download?
- WD dex, like sisters?
- people forced to play something else?

Maybe a human has his/her own will and chooses freely? Or at least, attempts to ignore marketing...and the "advice" of the interwebz..

Peregrine wrote:

Notice the complaints (justified, IMO) about Tau being BS 3. Even though theoretically BS 3 is the average for a trained professional soldier the dominance of marine armies makes BS 4 the real "average" in 40k and anything with BS 3 automatically feels like "horde unit that sucks at shooting but brings tons of guns to make up for it". Likewise for all the other stats, anything with a 3 is automatically below average and that makes a huge impact on how a unit is seen.

The theme of Tau was to pimp by tech, not increased statlines. BS 3 is exactly that. Orks do not complain , BS 2 and shouldn't so much lead in the air grant a better chance to hit?
BS 0-10. BS 2-5 used. Average is a funny concept. Orks live with BS 2 and Tau threads are filled with BS 5.....

Can't change your feelings of whats average, but seriously a scale of 10 using only 50% cannot provide a fine-tuned upscaling from can't hit a barn to professional .

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

If you want less Space Marines, encourage people to play other armies. Don't punish those that want to play Space Marines because you don't like them.

The theme of Tau was to pimp by tech, not increased statlines. BS 3 is exactly that. Orks do not complain , BS 2 and shouldn't so much lead in the air grant a better chance to hit?
BS 0-10. BS 2-5 used. Average is a funny concept. Orks live with BS 2 and Tau threads are filled with BS 5.....

Which is weird, because orks used to have BS3, warbosses had around BS4-6 (based on clan, bad moonz got bonuses!) a long while back.