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 hope not. I don't want even more pseudo-races.

 sudojoe wrote:
Codex inquisition

- SOB supplemental book
- GK supplemental book
- Death watch supplemental book

I predict this *nod self*

SOB Are Not Inquisition!

So much potential for guard regiments it's practically unholy.

 Melissia wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
But to argue that they're simply Marines in red

Would be fairly accurate really.

Just one of the 1000 loyalist Space Marine chapters.

Fluff wise, absolutely. But rules-wise 5th edition made them very different to play as on tabletop.
It has to be said I do see the argument that we have too many Marine Codexes already. But I feel that the ones we have are already too established to draw together into one book.

 Super Ready wrote:
Fluff wise, absolutely. But rules-wise 5th edition made them very different to play as on tabletop.

Even in the rules they're just "marines... but different, really this time!".

<--- Black Templar player with 10k in painted Black Templars and another 2-3k waiting for paint about to give his opinion.

Having the Black Templars as a supplimental codex that adds rules based upon the current Space Marine Codex would suit me just fine so long as it's updated regularly.

Seriously. That's all we ask.

Right now, I have to buy frag grenades a 1 pt per dude and Kraks at 2 points per dude, can't take sergeants in my basic squads, have to consolidate off objectives, pay 2x as everyone else for razorbacks, and don't get me started on the kick to the nuts the vows took. Why couldn't the anti-psycher Vow been a Deny the Witch on 4+ or 5+?

Anyway, back on point. Do it, and then don't forget about us, GW.

Also, SOB have gotten a gakky deal.

If the other supplements follow the example of the Iyanden supplement if it is succesfull, I hope it bombes.

Those 2 pages of rules should be included in the main rulebook, or if you are going to make a supplement it should have included rules for more craftworlds (like the previous codex: craftworld Eldar).

The current supplement is a sneaky way to extort an additional sum of money from Eldar players that like to play an Iyanden inspired army. If it at least was filled with 120 pages of background and rules I'd be okay with it, but alas it is packed with pictures and scenarios :(

But I like pictures...

DutchSage wrote:
If the other supplements follow the example of the Iyanden supplement if it is succesfull, I hope it bombes.

Those 2 pages of rules should be included in the main rulebook, or if you are going to make a supplement it should have included rules for more craftworlds (like the previous codex: craftworld Eldar).

The current supplement is a sneaky way to extort an additional sum of money from Eldar players that like to play an Iyanden inspired army. If it at least was filled with 120 pages of background and rules I'd be okay with it, but alas it is packed with pictures and scenarios :(

Thing is, you don't need the book to play as Iyanden. All the rules for the units themselves are in Codex Eldar - even taking Wraith units as Troops. The rules in the Iyanden book can easily be left out, it's only a few extra Spiritseers, a Warlord change and new trait and some new items.
If the book had more rules in it, people would be *legitimately* complaining about having to buy 2 books. If it had none at all, like the heraldry books, people would complain about that, and also it would likely not sell very well. This is I feel a decent middle ground - there's enough in there for dedicated players without stitching up people with just the core book. You just can't please everyone.

For Iyanden, it's just right. For others... I'll reserve judgment until we see exactly who and whether the format stays similar.

I wouldn't mind the supplements as long as it's an occasional thing that is applied when it makes sense, and is supported long-term. The two scenarios I don't want to see:

- Throwing supplements at every single codex that comes out just because they think they can make a buck

- Pushing what have been dexes on their own into a supplement, then abandoning it for 10-15 years.

 Super Ready wrote:

Thing is, you don't need the book to play as Iyanden. All the rules for the units themselves are in Codex Eldar - even taking Wraith units as Troops. The rules in the Iyanden book can easily be left out, it's only a few extra Spiritseers, a Warlord change and new trait and some new items.
If the book had more rules in it, people would be *legitimately* complaining about having to buy 2 books. If it had none at all, like the heraldry books, people would complain about that, and also it would likely not sell very well. This is I feel a decent middle ground - there's enough in there for dedicated players without stitching up people with just the core book. You just can't please everyone.

For Iyanden, it's just right. For others... I'll reserve judgment until we see exactly who and whether the format stays similar.

I don't particularly believe in the reasoning that because you can play without it you shouldn't complain. The fact of the matter is that if you run a Wraith based list for 30+ euro you can improve that list, because you payed the money for 2 pages of rules. So from a competitive point of view you DO need to buy the book for the additional rules.
This is because the supplement Warlord traits and Remnants of Glory are far superiour to the codex ones for an Iyanden based army. You can argue over the new primaris, but even that can be a major benefit for wraith based lists (it's not a straight up improvement for every build, but can be for some).

 Super Ready wrote:
Thing is, you don't need the book to play as Iyanden.

You also don't need C:BA to play Blood Angels, either, you can play a perfectly legitimate Blood Angels army using C:SM rules, it's just that having the codex/supplement is certainly nicer than not having it, right?

They've done it before. I've still got the "War for Armageddon" supplement book, back from 3rd edition.

Jefffar wrote:
Tau could spin off Kroot Mercenaries or any of a number of auxiliaries.

I'd like to see a Human Auxiliaries rules set. Guardsman type units wearing Tau armor and converted weaponry. This can be
done now with an allied detachment of Guard in a Tau army so it could only improve things. However a book should probably
have more than just Humans in it; the Kroot mercenaries list being revived is a good idea.

Melissia wrote:You also don't need C:BA to play Blood Angels, either, you can play a perfectly legitimate Blood Angels army using C:SM rules, it's just that having the codex/supplement is certainly nicer than not having it, right?

Not really the same... with BA you'd really be doing "counts as" for all the unique units. Whereas with Iyanden, the main book has the rules for the units themselves.
If the Iyanden book had all the rules for WraithLords and Wraithknights separate, rest assured I would be moaning about it and if Codex Space Marines had rules for Death Company, Death Company Dreads, Furioso Dreads, Sanguinary Guard, Priests, Wolf Guard, Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, Long Fangs, Lone Wolves, Fenrisian Wolves, Thunderwolves, Ravenwing, Deathwing, Black Knights, Deathwing Knights and all the special characters (etc, etc...) I'd be ok with that too...

DutchSage wrote:This is because the supplement Warlord traits and Remnants of Glory are far superiour to the codex ones for an Iyanden based army. You can argue over the new primaris, but even that can be a major benefit for wraith based lists (it's not a straight up improvement for every build, but can be for some).

I understand... but still reckon, for my part, that they couldn't have put the book together in a better way without either annoying *somebody* or making it not profitable.

 Super Ready wrote:
Not really the same...

Certainly is to me.

 Melissia wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
Not really the same...

Certainly is to me.

You're not looking enough then. Assault Marines are awful in C:SM, aren't scoring and can't remove their Jump Packs, so if you've got "foot assault Marines" like most BA players do you're gak out of luck. The opinion that Space Marine Chapters could be rolled into the vanilla Codex should not be conflated with the idea that they could be played just fine with the current Codex, because they can't.

As a multiple marine book player myself, I'm not sure. Playing a lot of C:SM and DA mainly for a long time, used to play a lot of BT, played some BA, and didn't really get into SW but I have played as them several times.

They do feel and play differently enough to be separate books(we'll come back to this point here, bare with me). They are much more than "vanilla marines plus 2 or 3 kinda different units". I really don't want to get into detail because I'm hoping to avoid a fruitless argument. Saying that they are pretty much the same thing only points to your lack of experience playing with/against the various books.

That being said, if done correctly, not just "use the vanilla dex and you can take these 2 units and this one special rule", it could be good. I still have the old DA supplement book. I'm pretty sure if I looked hard enough I even have a copy of Angels of Death. If it was more along the lines of "you may use the following from Codex: Space marines: Space marine tactical squads, space marine scouts, devastators, dreadnoughts, ect" and then "here are all your unique rules, HQ, units, gear, FOC modifiers, and things you can do in addition to the units you took from C:SM", and it was done right, I would be all for something like this. Heck if done right you could do something like one for Blood angels/Dark angels/blood ravens, one for Black templar/Imperial fists/Crimson Firsts, and one for Raven guard/White scars/something else. This way you could make them a bit bigger than a few pages of rules, and you would get more than just one army in each. It would also give you room to shine some spotlight on some of the other chapters that would probably never get their own book. They could still be a bit smaller than a normal dex, and each book would be more likely to sell because it appeal to more than just one niche of chapter fans.

Once again, as long as it is done well. I could also see some for armies such as CSM(please give them one, I'm sick of hearing "well CSM doesn't have different books so SM shouldn't), IG, and Orks. Those are the more obvious ones, but really they could make them for any army. I just don't want to see them made for the sake of making them, like people suspect of the eldar one.

Once again, as long as it is done well. I could also see some for armies such as CSM(please give them one, I'm sick of hearing "well CSM doesn't have different books so SM shouldn't),

Because they used to have all the legions, then they got ripped away. Sort of a bitter edge there that C:SM got to keep it and yet Eldar didn't keep Craftworlds and Chaos Legions.

It's certainly a distinct possibility. GW has already done so successfully with BT, BA, DA and SW codexes without hurting the vanilla SM codex in the process. It all comes down to how successful and popular each army is. It would not be cost effective to have multiple necron codexes as they are not as popular as SM.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Once again, as long as it is done well. I could also see some for armies such as CSM(please give them one, I'm sick of hearing "well CSM doesn't have different books so SM shouldn't),

Because they used to have all the legions, then they got ripped away. Sort of a bitter edge there that C:SM got to keep it and yet Eldar didn't keep Craftworlds and Chaos Legions.

It was mostly sarcastic. My brother plays CSM, and complains about not having full legion specialization support while he deep fries everything with a heldrake. I remember the craftworld eldar book, but I don't remember there being separate books for CSM legions. I do remember their 3rd edition book being ridiculous, and if that is what you're referring to then the problem isn't with the number of SM books so much of a hollowed out CSM one. But then again I've only been playing since third, so if it was before that I don't know. I do agree that CSM could use a well done legion supplement, it was mostly just a joke at how CSM players tend to be more vocal then others about wanting more representation. Heck, most of our local CSM players (my brother included) haven't even been playing long enough to remember not having a separate demon book, but they still complain about it not having legion stuff.

 pwntallica wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Once again, as long as it is done well. I could also see some for armies such as CSM(please give them one, I'm sick of hearing "well CSM doesn't have different books so SM shouldn't),

Because they used to have all the legions, then they got ripped away. Sort of a bitter edge there that C:SM got to keep it and yet Eldar didn't keep Craftworlds and Chaos Legions.

It was mostly sarcastic. My brother plays CSM, and complains about not having full legion specialization support while he deep fries everything with a heldrake. I remember the craftworld eldar book, but I don't remember there being separate books for CSM legions. I do remember their 3rd edition book being ridiculous, and if that is what you're referring to then the problem isn't with the number of SM books so much of a hollowed out CSM one. But then again I've only been playing since third, so if it was before that I don't know. I do agree that CSM could use a well done legion supplement, it was mostly just a joke at how CSM players tend to be more vocal then others about wanting more representation. Heck, most of our local CSM players (my brother included) haven't even been playing long enough to remember not having a separate demon book, but they still complain about it not having legion stuff.

Ha, true, my main issue is that it seems exactly like the 4th edition book, where none of chaos' issues was fixed and our main strategy has changed in a very Minor way.

4th Edition-5th edition: Lash Prince to pull from cover, charge. Plague Marines for backup

6th: Plagueflamers to burn things in cover.Plague marines as backup

There's slightly more choices, who imagined chaos spawn being good again? But yet it seems for everything that got fixed, things got worse, and in the end it's just a Phil Kelly book, where he really, really can't balance melee troops out and wargear. (I probably wouldn't complain if Dark Apotheosis for the HQ's wasn't a downgrade in many cases, and Gift of Mutation was 5 points, not 10)

Super Ready wrote:Blood Angels, Black Templars, Dark Angels and Space Wolves all need their own Codexes if they're to remain distinct. And, hey - Dark Angels already got theirs.

It's funny how perspective can colour things. Apparently it's fine to have the gazillion Guard regiments share a single book, but the 1k Astartes Chapters - who are much more uniform to one another in terms of equipment and combat doctrines, compared to the Guard - absolutely need their own codices? (sidenote: the first Codex the BA appeared in wasn't theirs alone either)

I can certainly understand the feeling, psychologically speaking. We all place our priorities differently and have our favourites, and of course we all enjoy being catered to. At the same time, even with this bias, I'd almost say it takes a bit of mischievousness to propose something like the "Codex Inquisition" concept I see being tossed around for years, whilst at the same time being utterly convinced that Red Marines, Blue Marines, Black Marines and Grey Marines all need special books.

If we were discussing a balanced treatment of all armies with the goal of making every faction equally playable and attractive, as is the case in other tabletop games, we'd have one Codex for each type of army, and supplemental books for notable sub-factions that are largely similar, but still unique enough to warrant some deeper exploration and a few special rules, or even two or three special units/characters. Special "mini factions" such as the Inquisition could be supplements that can be added to any other army of their respective alignment instead of just a single army's Codex, as befitting their fluff.

Realistically, however, this is not what the company is going for, so it's pretty much a moot point to even debate it. I'm almost shocked to see GW churning out a supplemental book that is not Space Marines, so perhaps the current approach to Eldar does indicate a slight change of their market strategies, at least for some of the armies. It's too early to tell for now, but it could be an experiment, so I'll just join the rest of the people who assume that the future depends on how well it'll sell.

There is also a bit of chicken and egg here - the original army list for Marines covered the various Chapters BUT once they started having their own Codexes and especially in 5th and 6th Ed - they suddenly had to have lots of "new" things and rules to fill up the Codex..........

GW has already done so successfully with BT, BA, DA and SW codexes without hurting the vanilla SM codex in the process. It all comes down to how successful and popular each army is

Again = Chicken and egg - they have been sccessful because they have done them - you can't know what else would or would not have been successful if its not been done properly.......... Dark Eldar were constantly written off until new codex, new models etc = huge sales - strange that.........

How many Grey Knights were sold before they got a shiny new Codex full of new stuff (and sod the established background)

It may well be that Astartes continue to get main codexes for every minor deivation of the Codex whilst everyone else gets supplemental Codexes now and again.

Mr Morden wrote:There is also a bit of chicken and egg here - the original army list for Marines covered the various Chapters BUT once they started having their own Codexes and especially in 5th and 6th Ed - they suddenly had to have lots of "new" things and rules to fill up the Codex..........

Indeed. Of course you can expand each and every little army into a full-blown Codex with lots of new stuff. The question is merely, do you have to? Is this good for the game?

(although I would presume it is apparently good for GW's finances - or at least they do not have sufficient confidence in their other armies to try otherwise .. but as mentioned before, perhaps this Eldar thing is an experiment covering this angle)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're not looking enough then.

That or you're grasping at straws in an attempt to justify saying "my codex deserves to exist, but this supplement doesn't".

If the Iyanden supplement (and other supplements like it) doesn't deserve to exist, then certainly Blood Angels aren't unique enough to deserve their own full-blown codex. In the end, they're still just "We're Space Marines-- but different this time, no really we are!". Which was entirely my point-- if something as samey as Blood Angels deserves its own codex, then certainly Iyanden, Catachan, Feral Orks, Chaos Legions, DKoK, Kroot Mercs, Farsight's little group, and so on deserve at least a supplement.

 Melissia wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're not looking enough then.

That or you're grasping at straws in an attempt to justify saying "my codex deserves to exist, but this supplement doesn't".

If the Iyanden supplement (and other supplements like it) doesn't deserve to exist, then certainly Blood Angels aren't unique enough to deserve their own full-blown codex. In the end, they're still just "We're Space Marines-- but different this time, no really we are!". Which was entirely my point-- if something as samey as Blood Angels deserves its own codex, then certainly Iyanden, Catachan, Feral Orks, Chaos Legions, DKoK, Kroot Mercs, Farsight's little group, and so on deserve at least a supplement.

Where did I ever say that Iyanden doesn't deserve a supplement? You also didn't actually read my post, where I explicitly said that various marines COULD be folded into the Vanilla Codex, but you went on an anti-marine rant and thus proved my entire point. Good job.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
an anti-marine rant

If that's all you got outof my post, then you're being a little bit hypocritical in claiming I haven't read your post. I haven't actually advocated removing any codices in this thread. Rather, I support adding MORE material to the game.

More updated codices, more supplements, etc.

My "anti-marine rant" is nothing more than me pointing out how similar all the marine codices are... because they're all Space Marines in the end-- and the point was that if they deserve to have their own codices... and quite a few people in this thread would assert they do... then certainly other races' subfactions at LEAST deserve supplements.

That's all I've been arguing in this thread.

 Melissia wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
an anti-marine rant

If that's all you got outof my post, then you're being a little bit hypocritical in claiming I haven't read your post. I haven't actually advocated removing any codices in this thread. Rather, I support adding MORE material to the game.

More updated codices, more supplements, etc.

"Anti-marine" as in "it's unfair that Marines get supplements where others do not", which had nothing to do with my post that you were responding to. Considering you appearently agree with me I don't see the point of posting a post where you claim to disagree with me only to then go on to state what I've agreed to. What I said was that you really couldn't play Blood Angels with the current Vanilla Codex. From this you appearently deducted that I thought that Iyanden doesn't deserve a supplement, which is completely untrue.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Anti-marine" as in "it's unfair that Marines get supplements where others do not"

Something that I never actually said.

I only stated that if we are to take the position that if Blood Angels deserve a codex-- a position that the majority of the people participating in this thread are likely to support-- then certainly supplements for other armies' subfactions are reasonable using the exact same logic as used to justify the existence of the Blood Angels codex.

If you want to try to call this is "anti-marine", then that's really reaching and frankly this discussion will go nowhere. Let's agree to disagree.