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.

Kangodo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
They're not removing it, they're folding into another army that's 80%+ identical.

60%, maximum. And that is enough reason to continue with a separate Codex as they did in the last 16 years.

Except you could fold them in without losing any of their functionality...that means they really don't need their own book. Or they could be done as a supplemental book, which wouldn't be the first time they were done that way.

And they should have their own book; not take away the Codices of other armies.

And how many core codex books are we going to print when GW can't keep pace with the one's we've got?

Blood Angels already have Chaplains, they are Elites.

Reclusiarch is just a Chaplain rank. Previously the Reclusiarch was the W2 chaplain in the 4E SM books and the Master of Sanctity was the W3 Chaplain. Again, hung up on specifics of one edition.

You would have to put so many additional rules and exceptions, just for one army.
Now imagine doing that four times! And why? Because we still haven't heard a good reason.

So we don't have armies spread over three editions because we have to make room for 3-4 extra marine books in the marketing release pipeline?

I find it very simple why it should not happen. Look at this thread and some of the reactions.
It would only please a small number of people.
Reduce over all sales. [I know it would for me, I currently own all of the available Hard Copies of Marine Codex's]
A lot of us would not be happy with it.
It would only cause even more confusion and fights over rules.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
They're not removing it, they're folding into another army that's 80%+ identical.

60%, maximum. And that is enough reason to continue with a separate Codex as they did in the last 16 years.

Except you could fold them in without losing any of their functionality...that means they really don't need their own book. Or they could be done as a supplemental book, which wouldn't be the first time they were done that way.

Answer me this - why don't gw roll *all* the armies into one army book? There would be no loss of functionality or fluff, the only reason *not* to do it is GW's money-grabbing ways, right?

 Anpu42 wrote:
It would only cause even more confusion and fights over rules.

Not that I care about this debate, since I know that GW isn't going to do this, but wouldn't this measure make the Marine rules more streamlined, and this easier to process? There would of course be some initial confusion as people got used to the new codex, but that's true of every update.

 Vaktathi wrote:
So we don't have armies spread over three editions because we have to make room for 3-4 extra marine books in the marketing release pipeline?

Who cares? In 6 or so months we'll have all codices up to date. If the extra marine codices are so similar to the main SM codex, they can just have smaller windows in the marketing release pipeline... as we've already seen GW are happy to be flexible on it for different armies.

I, for one, think 3-4 marine codices are better than either 1 marine codex which is confusing because you're shoving so much crap in to them (I already hate navigating GW codices, I don't really want another 30 entries that I'm not allowed to use to make it even harder to navigate) OR 1 marine codex which is a watered down version of the 3-4 codices.

The only downside I'm seeing is shelf space in physical stores, of which I really don't give a damn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I find it very simple why it should not happen. Look at this thread and some of the reactions.
It would only please a small number of people.
Reduce over all sales. [I know it would for me, I currently own all of the available Hard Copies of Marine Codex's]
A lot of us would not be happy with it.
It would only cause even more confusion and fights over rules.

Yep, I agree with you here. The last sentence is obviously dependent on different things, but everything other than your last sentence I agree with.

Removing things is bad. That's basically how I feel. It pissed me off that my IG lost their special characters, it pissed me off they lost their artillery tanks (even though, yes, I know I can buy an IA to continue to use them, it still pissed me off they aren't in the codex). Those things being removed pissed me off more than having the Hydra/Wyvern/Taurox added in made me happy.

The only way I could get behind removing things is if GW were rewriting the entire rules system to be more streamlined, in which case I do feel things would benefit greatly from being consolidated like they were back when GW last rewrote the rules from scratch.

for me I would put it as

-Codex Adherant and make you own chapter in one book
-Non Codex Adherant Chapters, including GK, SW,BT, BA etc
- Codex Imperium - Guard, Sisters,Knights
-Chaos Deamons, Legions, Warbands, Renegades, Traitor Guard
-Codex Eldar - Eldar, Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Exodites
Codex Tyranids, Hive fleet Nids
Codex Orks, Ork Clan lists, Ork Pirates
Codex Necrons
Codex Tau

I think this covers it.

Would be nice to have them as hard back but also in a sleave like the main rule book.


Really i wish they would sell something like a ring binder to put the army rules into.

As such they could then sell the folders ( with limited edition artwork) polywrapped codexes which are pre punched, or in a soft cover with perfs on it. They could also then sell the dividers.

That way it would encourage people to 'collect' the rules.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Who cares? In 6 or so months we'll have all codices up to date.

We'll may or may not have all armies out of 5th edition. As seen by the new 7E books, there's a radical difference in force org theory that other armies are missing out on, as well as formations and integrated LoW's.

If the extra marine codices are so similar to the main SM codex, they can just have smaller windows in the marketing release pipeline... as we've already seen GW are happy to be flexible on it for different armies.

That's a big maybe, and either way, adds significantly to the release pipeline.

I, for one, think 3-4 marine codices are better than either 1 marine codex which is confusing because you're shoving so much crap in to them (I already hate navigating GW codices, I don't really want another 30 entries that I'm not allowed to use to make it even harder to navigate) OR 1 marine codex which is a watered down version of the 3-4 codices.

This would be a problem of execution, not something inherent to combining the marine books. We've had other books manage it, we see other games manage to fit many armies coherently into single books, what makes Space Marines so different here?

KommissarKarl wrote:

Answer me this - why don't gw roll *all* the armies into one army book? There would be no loss of functionality or fluff, the only reason *not* to do it is GW's money-grabbing ways, right?

I know I'm answering an obvious troll response, but here goes anyways.

They could, actually. Releasing a book with all the armies in a single book, divided by faction, could very well be a thing. It'd be rules only, of course, but yeah. In fact, let's go one step further, and make it a PDF online. Let's make it free, too.

Anything is doable when you put your mind to it. GW likes money, so they charge for faction books. Other companies don't require you to, but often offer a nice, hardbound copy of the rules with bonus fluff for half the cost of a GW codex.

The argument for marines is that they're virtually identical, in the grand scheme of things, yet had different codices historically, so we still have them now.

For all those pointing at BT as a reason not to roll in marines, the problem is not with the idea, with the execution. Of course, GW would likely mess up some sort of combined book, but its not like they won't mess up a stand alone book either.

Besides, all these unique unit entries in BA are just wargear options that could easily be added for all other marines. Even most of the ICs could be done away with, and be used with appropriate wargear selection from a standard character.

The discussion is moot anyways, its not like anyone is going to convince a BA, DA, or SW player they'd be better off without a standalone book. The merits of combining are for the game as a whole.

 Blacksails wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

Answer me this - why don't gw roll *all* the armies into one army book? There would be no loss of functionality or fluff, the only reason *not* to do it is GW's money-grabbing ways, right?

I know I'm answering an obvious troll response, but here goes anyways.

They could, actually. Releasing a book with all the armies in a single book, divided by faction, could very well be a thing. It'd be rules only, of course, but yeah. In fact, let's go one step further, and make it a PDF online. Let's make it free, too.

Anything is doable when you put your mind to it. GW likes money, so they charge for faction books. Other companies don't require you to, but often offer a nice, hardbound copy of the rules with bonus fluff for half the cost of a GW codex.

The argument for marines is that they're virtually identical, in the grand scheme of things, yet had different codices historically, so we still have them now.

For all those pointing at BT as a reason not to roll in marines, the problem is not with the idea, with the execution. Of course, GW would likely mess up some sort of combined book, but its not like they won't mess up a stand alone book either.

Besides, all these unique unit entries in BA are just wargear options that could easily be added for all other marines. Even most of the ICs could be done away with, and be used with appropriate wargear selection from a standard character.

The discussion is moot anyways, its not like anyone is going to convince a BA, DA, or SW player they'd be better off without a standalone book. The merits of combining are for the game as a whole.

Firstly, I've reported your "troll" comment. Please don't preface a post with such obvious flamebait again or I shall simply report and not bother responding next time.

So you want to remove the idea of codexes as collectables then? If you regard them as nothing more than a collection of rules then yeah, they probably should be free. Personally I enjoy codexes, I like that the rules and the fluff are intertwined - it makes the rules seem like a natural extention of the fluff rather than just abstract data, that's not to say I don't think there's no issues with codexes as they stand (this is not the thread to dicuss these problems), but the entire premise of your argument is that codexes should be nothing more than a dispassionate list of stat values and special rules, and you haven't, as far as I can see, even done us the courtesy of stating this.

Also, you've *still* not actually spelt out why you think codexes should be scrapped, other than that you think they should all be cheaper/free anyway. So here's a hypothetical question - assuming GW carries on roughly on its current codex/suppliment route, what do you think should happen and why?

I have explained why I think codices should be *combined*. Perhaps you can read through the thread and find where I, and others, have explained the reasoning behind this?

You'll notice I also mentioned that companies who do offer free rules, generally also offer nice collectible books with fluff. The same could be done with GW. But to answer your original question about combining, yes, it absolutely could be done.

There is no one right way to offer rules to customers. In fact, a combination or options is preferable. Which means, you could have one giant file with everything on it, and then have a series of nice books with pictures and what not.

 Blacksails wrote:
The argument for marines is that they're virtually identical, in the grand scheme of things, yet had different codices historically, so we still have them now.

They WERE virtually identical, 16 years ago.
In the meantime they became so different that merging SW, GK, DA or BA would make as much sense as merging Codex: CSM

Besides, all these unique unit entries in BA are just wargear options that could easily be added for all other marines. Even most of the ICs could be done away with, and be used with appropriate wargear selection from a standard character.

So in other words: Remove their special characters and give every unique wargear to everyone else.
Great idea. Not.

The discussion is moot anyways, its not like anyone is going to convince a BA, DA, or SW player they'd be better off without a standalone book. The merits of combining are for the game as a whole.

And how exactly is this a merit for the game as a whole?
Because half of the SM-players don't need an even bigger book and the other half will be upset when you remove their Codex.
And you would force both groups of players to buy a book at increased cost filled with stuff they don't care about.

People were less upset with Black Templars being added because everyone thought they would get a supplement for the lost stuff.
Now, a year later, that supplement still isn't there.

Kangodo wrote:
@Veteran Sergeant:
Again.
Because people refuse to read it.
14 unique units!

It's not 14 unique units unless you're counting Special Characters. Most of the differentiations are superficial, at best, and could easily be folded into the Codex: Space Marines entries just like was done with the Black Templars. But aside from the Death Company and the Librarian Dreadnoughts, what massive differences are there? Sanguinary Priests get absorbed into command squads as apothecaries (those of us who remember freestanding apothecaries in C:SM armies request you cry us a river). Then they add one line to a handful of vehicles about "armies with Chapter Tactics: Blood Angels can take x for y points." We're talking about a half page of extra rules, at most.

I'm not saying all of the players would like the idea of their book disappearing, but let's be realistic, every codex change is unpopular with somebody, lol.

The Blood Angels are a Codex Chapter. They can easily fit into Codex Space Marines, if we're just talking theoretical. Heck, they belong there far more than the Black Templars did. But it's not about what makes sense, it's all about dolla dolla bills ya'all. So in that regard, you need not worry your pretty little heart, because Codex: Blood Angels isn't going anywhere.

Kangodo wrote:

They WERE virtually identical, 16 years ago.
In the meantime they became so different that merging SW, GK, DA or BA would make as much sense as merging Codex: CSM

First, I wouldn't merge GK in. They can be in another book for Inq and other Imperial agents. Prior to this SW book, they could have fairly easily been rolled. The changes aren't half as big as you're making them out to be. Which makes sense, seeing as you're a marine player, you're obviously going to think your book is immutable and sacred.

So in other words: Remove their special characters and give every unique wargear to everyone else.
Great idea. Not.

Do you have a point to make? Maybe explain? Provide a counter reason? Otherwise, the written equivalent of plugging your ears and shouting "nanananana" isn't productive for a discussion.

And how exactly is this a merit for the game as a whole?
Because half of the SM-players don't need an even bigger book and the other half will be upset when you remove their Codex.
And you would force both groups of players to buy a book at increased cost filled with stuff they don't care about.

First, the boo wouldn't be that much bigger. There would be streamlining, in this fictional world where GW wouldn't want to milk their customers for every last penny. With streamlining comes more option with less space taken up. We already see this in books where units are fit into smaller spaces, both in the fluff section and army rules. The same is easily done for marines, all of whom share nearly identical wargear. Second, if we're talking about a GW capable of writing quality rules, I'll also make another crazy assumption, and state that the book wouldn't be more expensive, or at least not so much more that players would be upset, especially when you consider all the additions.

Stop thinking of it as buying an additional book and think of it as an edition update, which you'd buy a new book for anyways. Now, obviously GW as it stands wouldn't do any of this for very obvious reasons, but then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place if certain assumptions weren't made.

As for benefiting the game as a whole, well I've already explained the merits earlier in this thread, so you can go back and read them there. You didn't like them there, so I don't expect you to like them now. Instead, maybe provide some counter reasons that aren't pointing out the history of the codices.

People were less upset with Black Templars being added because everyone thought they would get a supplement for the lost stuff.
Now, a year later, that supplement still isn't there.

Okay?

 Vaktathi wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Who cares? In 6 or so months we'll have all codices up to date.

We'll may or may not have all armies out of 5th edition. As seen by the new 7E books, there's a radical difference in force org theory that other armies are missing out on, as well as formations and integrated LoW's.

How fast do you want them recycling codices? If it takes them less than 2.5 years between codices, IMO that's getting too fast.

That's a big maybe, and either way, adds significantly to the release pipeline.

GK only added 1 week to the release pipeline. SW only added 3 while Orks added 6 (from memory).

This would be a problem of execution, not something inherent to combining the marine books. We've had other books manage it, we see other games manage to fit many armies coherently into single books, what makes Space Marines so different here?

Well I'm not sure what we're comparing to so I can't specifically say what the "difference" is. But to me a huge significant thing is that SW, BA, DA already have codices, and have had for a long time.

A big book of Space Marine COULD have been done well... back in 3rd edition. That was the best time to do it, all the marine chapters were very similar and SW/BA/DA only amounted to supplements anyway so could have easily just been included in the main book. I can't remember DA and BA, but back in 2nd SW were very simply Space Marines with a few minor mods that could be summed up in a paragraph or two and add Blood Claws as a unique unit and you're good to go. That's no longer the case.

To roll them in now, it'd either be monolithic or you'll be cutting down on what we already have. Sure, we may not need 22 special characters (which is how many SW, BA and DA have combined). But the fact is we DO have 22 special characters, many of which have models. You're going to have to go a long way to convincing me cutting things we already have is a good option.

Never creating them in the first place? Sure. That's fine. Cutting them? Not nearly the same.

If you don't cut things and just go with the monolithic codex, well, as I mentioned, I'd rather just have 4 separate codices than 1 monolithic one, if for no other reason that it's a pain to navigate through a bunch of entries you can't use. I'd be happy if they all released in a single 2 month release window, but I'd still rather have them separate. Of course GW would probably rather spread them out more so that they have a constant influx of SM marketing material.

I want like a mega-codex that's more expensive but has all space marine chapters in detail. Like a giant liberarium.

 Blacksails wrote:
Which makes sense, seeing as you're a marine player, you're obviously going to think your book is immutable and sacred.

Yeah, it's quite irritating if someone thinks that GW should just remove my secondary army.
I also think that it is ridiculous to merge four (or three) Codices so a handful of people have even more options for their homebrewed Chapters.
Hardly anyone does it and they already have enough options.
Of course, as a non-Marine player, you probably don't give a gak about their Codices and the players.

Do you have a point to make? Maybe explain? Provide a counter reason? Otherwise, the written equivalent of plugging your ears and shouting "nanananana" isn't productive for a discussion.

Is there a discussion here?
Because so far it are just walls of text explaining how we can rape the book by merging things and having a couple of additional paragraphs for each and every unit to make this possible.
We have yet to see a valid reason that actually outweighs all the cons.

Now, obviously GW as it stands wouldn't do any of this for very obvious reasons

Exactly, I am glad they are smart enough to refrain from doing such a thing.

You didn't like them there, so I don't expect you to like them now. Instead, maybe provide some counter reasons that aren't pointing out the history of the codices.

1) It would make the Codex ridiculously large.
2) It would make the Codex too expensive.
3) Unless they remove most of the things that players like, in which case the flaw of the idea is quite obvious.
4) It would include a lot of nonsense that most players don't care about, like other Factions.
5) It would ruin the uniqueness of those armies and upset their players.

So what exactly are the benefits?

Kangodo wrote:
Yeah, it's quite irritating if someone thinks that GW should just remove my secondary army.
I also think that it is ridiculous to merge four (or three) Codices so a handful of people have even more options for their homebrewed Chapters.

Why is it irritating that someone dare think codices could be combined? In a thread asking that question, no less. Are personally offended I hold this opinion? It sounds like you're getting a little emotional about this purely theoretical discussion, of which, we all know nothing will come. Your book is safe from my evil clutches.

Its not just homebrewed. If I had a Salamander army, I'd have more option too. I'd have tanks in my FA slot, I'd have hand flamers and inferno pistols. I'd have librarian dreads. All of which are incredibly flavourful additions.

Hardly anyone does it and they already have enough options.

Do you have numbers to back this up? Even a cursory glance at Bolter and Chainsword will tell you there is a dedicated community of people who do just that. I'd hardly call it "Hardly anyone".

Of course, as a non-Marine player, you probably don't give a gak about their Codices and the players.

I very much give a gak. I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth and make assumptions about me. I look at the different flavour of marines and think they could easily fit in a book from a game design perspective. There really isn't anything remarkably different about them as factions deserving of their own book. Combining them frees up developer time for other codices, supplements, expansions, campaigns, and other stuff.

Is there a discussion here?

There is, you're just constructively adding to it.

Because so far it are just walls of text explaining how we can rape the book by merging things and having a couple of additional paragraphs for each and every unit to make this possible.
We have yet to see a valid reason that actually outweighs all the cons.

No, you just don't like the reasons. Don't confuse a valid reason for one you dislike because the status quo suits you just fine. Change is scary, and with GW, highly unpredictable and often times a bad thing. If any other company was writing the rules for 40k, they could very easily do a combined book. There would be cutting from the BA, and DA, and SW, but those are acceptable to me to open marines to everyone that much more. Most of the cutting would come from paring down the characters and the fluff sections, but ideally there'd be a more diverse spread of which marines appear in the fluff than is currently displayed.

1) It would make the Codex ridiculously large.

Not really. You're making the assumption that we'd have to include the BA book wholesale. As I mentioned above, there would be cuts, but it could fit rather nicely. The book would be bigger, but not nearly as big as what you're implying.

2) It would make the Codex too expensive.

With GW, sure. With a reasonable company and sensible pricing, no. Then again, paying $60 for a codex now is pretty absurd. If anything, you could keep it the same cost for a normal book ($60), but then make it worth the value by having that much more in the book.

3) Unless they remove most of the things that players like, in which case the flaw of the idea is quite obvious.

As a BA player yourself, you're obviously more concerned with the damage done to BA, but miss out on the opportunities afforded to everyone by having a singular source for all things loyalist marine. In my head version, you'd lose out on a number of characters, but make up for by having an expanded wargear selection so you could make these characters again with wargear, minus some special rules.

4) It would include a lot of nonsense that most players don't care about, like other Factions.

Not your strongest point. The same could be said about the current C:SM, but I don't think Ultramarine players are upset that Salamanders and White Scars appear in the book alongside them.

5) It would ruin the uniqueness of those armies and upset their players.

No, it would ruin the exclusivity of those chapters. Don't confuse being unique for being exclusive. You could make the same army you currently do (minus some specific characters), with the difference that another marine chapter could use wargear previously not available to them. It doesn't make your army any less unique, and frankly, if your concept of uniqueness is based solely on the rules for that chapter, I'd suggest you open up a little and realize that a paint job, conversions, and model selection will play a bigger role in making your army unique and play distinctly.

So what exactly are the benefits?

One source book for all things loyalist/power armour. No redundancy across books. More variety for all marine players. A cheaper method to collect/own rules for multiple chapters. Easier to balance. More time afforded to developers for other projects. Streamlined rules.

I understand that you dislike my idea, but I think you need to get less emotional about it. Trust me, I'm not going to GW HQ any time soon and holding the place hostage until they combine marine books.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Since I've seen a lot of people arguing it for SM, I have to ask: what makes CSM so special that each god should be split into four codices? Other than the main four, I don't see much difference between Sons of Horus and Alpha Legions. I feel these could be equally given the same amount of attention as chapter tactics in SM. I still think a combining of Daemon and CSM would be great, even a Khorne/Nurgle codex and a Tzeentch/Slaanesh codex. I think it's freaking stupid I can read all about Nurgle marines and Typhus, but hey! I can't take Plagubearers because they're not in the same fething codex.

I am genuinely curious though, what makes CSM deserve their own individual codices?

You mean the varied daemon weapons, Daemon Engines that would drastically be different between gods, the varied tactics that would come from rogue psykers/rogue traitors, the new inventions created by the Dark Mechanicus, the Horus Heresy Era weaponry that would still be in peak condition (CSM still use Reaper Cannons, come on they should have some HH stuff besides the CRAPPY STUFF!), Daemons of different gods, Gigantic mutations of monsters, potent sigils of blood and bone, flame and fear, drastically different weapons between cult legions and people who serve them.

Not to mention the fact that Chaos Lords should be able to become Psykers (They aren't CAPTAINS!) they worship and use the warp and don't care for structure like SM.

Heck tactics and gear loadout being different for the basic troops would make sense because they aren't using a standardized template between each other as Space Marines is, Troops of nurgle would have plague spewers and bolts loaded with plagues that explode upon hitting the enemy, while the Khorne don't care, but they use more powerful melee weapons with bolters to try and tear the flesh from the enemy and make them bleed.

I mean really, unlike Space Marines even the basic RHINO would potentially be different between gods, with Tzeentch Rhino's flickering in and out of reality and getting it's troops into position, with Nurgle's bloated pus covered Rhino's belching forth plague and bile and making it hard to see it, while coating the enemy in filth.

Sure, and I'd be all over that. I also think CSM should have access to more than ONE Land Raider variation (I mean, seriously). That being said, as it is, each god doesn't need its own codex, as there really isn't enough units to justify it. If they gave them a lot of unique units, especially as you said various god vehicles and weapons, then I would absolutely buy a Codex: Nurgle. But as it stands, I don't see any reason why CSM players are crying for DA and BA to get rolled into SM, when mono god armies don't really have enough units to stand on their own

... So a chapter that barely uses slightly different tactics and looks "BA" with another army that's base tactics is something any army could do "DA", and those that had to have new and newer units just to justify it "SW" would be lesser in content then that? All of these armies that had to have constant new stuff to justify things would be more then armies that would require actual new units, but at the same time new units that would have different sorts of units beyond "Oh hey we have 'HELFROST WEAPONS NOW'

I just have to ask you if your trolling me.

I'm not intentionally trying to troll you, and I'd ask you not to insult my integrity, sir. My point was just that I see a lot of players rarely run mono god lists and usually play undivided. Most BA or DA players play only that chapter, they don't play SW colors and use Ultramarines tactics.

Like I said, I would love more Chaos units, especially unique ones, but when every god can use a Defiler, Daemon Prince, and a non-god specific vehicle, each god having their own codex doesn't make sense to me. I'm not trying to anyone, I just don't see why people think DA could be so easily rolled into SM with a few minor rules changes, but don't have any evidence to support a Codex: Nurgle.

P.S. To be fair, I am legitimately curious and not trying to flame. Second, I would LOVE a Codex: Nurgle, as I just got Typhus in the mail

 Blacksails wrote:

Spoiler:

Kangodo wrote:
Yeah, it's quite irritating if someone thinks that GW should just remove my secondary army.
I also think that it is ridiculous to merge four (or three) Codices so a handful of people have even more options for their homebrewed Chapters.

Why is it irritating that someone dare think codices could be combined? In a thread asking that question, no less. Are personally offended I hold this opinion? It sounds like you're getting a little emotional about this purely theoretical discussion, of which, we all know nothing will come. Your book is safe from my evil clutches.

Its not just homebrewed. If I had a Salamander army, I'd have more option too. I'd have tanks in my FA slot, I'd have hand flamers and inferno pistols. I'd have librarian dreads. All of which are incredibly flavourful additions.

Hardly anyone does it and they already have enough options.

Do you have numbers to back this up? Even a cursory glance at Bolter and Chainsword will tell you there is a dedicated community of people who do just that. I'd hardly call it "Hardly anyone".

Of course, as a non-Marine player, you probably don't give a gak about their Codices and the players.

I very much give a gak. I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth and make assumptions about me. I look at the different flavour of marines and think they could easily fit in a book from a game design perspective. There really isn't anything remarkably different about them as factions deserving of their own book. Combining them frees up developer time for other codices, supplements, expansions, campaigns, and other stuff.

Is there a discussion here?

There is, you're just constructively adding to it.

Because so far it are just walls of text explaining how we can rape the book by merging things and having a couple of additional paragraphs for each and every unit to make this possible.
We have yet to see a valid reason that actually outweighs all the cons.

No, you just don't like the reasons. Don't confuse a valid reason for one you dislike because the status quo suits you just fine. Change is scary, and with GW, highly unpredictable and often times a bad thing. If any other company was writing the rules for 40k, they could very easily do a combined book. There would be cutting from the BA, and DA, and SW, but those are acceptable to me to open marines to everyone that much more. Most of the cutting would come from paring down the characters and the fluff sections, but ideally there'd be a more diverse spread of which marines appear in the fluff than is currently displayed.

1) It would make the Codex ridiculously large.

Not really. You're making the assumption that we'd have to include the BA book wholesale. As I mentioned above, there would be cuts, but it could fit rather nicely. The book would be bigger, but not nearly as big as what you're implying.

2) It would make the Codex too expensive.

With GW, sure. With a reasonable company and sensible pricing, no. Then again, paying $60 for a codex now is pretty absurd. If anything, you could keep it the same cost for a normal book ($60), but then make it worth the value by having that much more in the book.

3) Unless they remove most of the things that players like, in which case the flaw of the idea is quite obvious.

As a BA player yourself, you're obviously more concerned with the damage done to BA, but miss out on the opportunities afforded to everyone by having a singular source for all things loyalist marine. In my head version, you'd lose out on a number of characters, but make up for by having an expanded wargear selection so you could make these characters again with wargear, minus some special rules.

4) It would include a lot of nonsense that most players don't care about, like other Factions.

Not your strongest point. The same could be said about the current C:SM, but I don't think Ultramarine players are upset that Salamanders and White Scars appear in the book alongside them.

5) It would ruin the uniqueness of those armies and upset their players.

No, it would ruin the exclusivity of those chapters. Don't confuse being unique for being exclusive. You could make the same army you currently do (minus some specific characters), with the difference that another marine chapter could use wargear previously not available to them. It doesn't make your army any less unique, and frankly, if your concept of uniqueness is based solely on the rules for that chapter, I'd suggest you open up a little and realize that a paint job, conversions, and model selection will play a bigger role in making your army unique and play distinctly.

So what exactly are the benefits?

One source book for all things loyalist/power armour. No redundancy across books. More variety for all marine players. A cheaper method to collect/own rules for multiple chapters. Easier to balance. More time afforded to developers for other projects. Streamlined rules.

I understand that you dislike my idea, but I think you need to get less emotional about it. Trust me, I'm not going to GW HQ any time soon and holding the place hostage until they combine marine books.

 Anpu42 wrote:

And Then there will be no differences at all between Chapters. Everything would be a mix and match system for TFG/WAAC Gamer to abuse the system.

We already have Unbound. Somebody who wants to abuse the rules will find a way anyways. Putting the rules in one book instead of four isn't going to be noticeable in how people break the game.

That much variety can be bad. A lot of new player will look at ALL the choices and be so overwhelmed he/she will not know what to do. At least with the BA/DA/SM/SW when they look at the book they will have a choice.

But they already have that much variety. Its just in four books with a whole lot of redundancy. A new player will already be overwhelmed by the choices and differences between the different marine books. I know I was mightily confused by four different marine books and the little list of special rules they all had.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is it irritating that someone dare think codices could be combined? In a thread asking that question, no less. Are personally offended I hold this opinion? It sounds like you're getting a little emotional about this purely theoretical discussion, of which, we all know nothing will come. Your book is safe from my evil clutches.

And I am glad for that.
It's just alarming that the majority of people voting have no idea what those Codices contain and are blind to the fact as to how terrible a merge would be.

Its not just homebrewed. If I had a Salamander army, I'd have more option too. I'd have tanks in my FA slot, I'd have hand flamers and inferno pistols. I'd have librarian dreads. All of which are incredibly flavourful additions.

And if we added C:CSM you'd have Baleflamers, still a bad idea though quite flavourful.
Different armies have different rules and wargear. It's something we have to live with.
Technically they could merge BA with Necrons, doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Even when it would give other armies to all their lovely wargear and units.

There really isn't anything remarkably different about them as factions deserving of their own book. Combining them frees up developer time for other codices, supplements, expansions, campaigns, and other stuff.

Except that there is enough difference, which is why they have their own book to begin with.
Ignoring the part where it wouldn't free up developer time at all, are you suggesting that they should just put less effort in Codices you don't play?

There would be cutting from the BA, and DA, and SW, but those are acceptable to me

But would it be acceptable to the people that actually play those armies?

Not really. You're making the assumption that we'd have to include the BA book wholesale. As I mentioned above, there would be cuts, but it could fit rather nicely. The book would be bigger, but not nearly as big as what you're implying.

Codex: Blood Angels is around 100 pages, I guess SW and DA are the same. Codex: Space Marines are 180 pages.
That are 480 pages! Without the duplicate stuff probably around 400 to 425.
How much do you suggest they cut? Is it any wonder people feel offended when someone suggests they would cut at least half of their Codex?

One source book for all things loyalist/power armour. No redundancy across books. More variety for all marine players. A cheaper method to collect/own rules for multiple chapters. Easier to balance. More time afforded to developers for other projects. Streamlined rules.

So in short.
One book for all Loyalist armies: Which only matters if you actually play multiple loyalist armies.
No redundancy across books: Why is that a bad thing? It really doesn't hurt the game if Tactical Marines are present in multiple books.
More variety: Giving everything to everyone is a bad idea if you ask me.
Cheaper: Only cheaper if you care about it, otherwise it's more expensive.
Easier to balance: If that is achieved by giving everything to everyone, that's a bad idea. Other companies know this and don't do that.
More time for other projects: So? Why are my Necrons more important than my Blood Angels? They are both an independent Codex.
Streamlined rules: From the dictionary: "Streamlined: lacking anything extra.".. Yeah, no thanks.

So what it comes down to is: Because we want all their goodies and they should spend less time on Blood Angels because I don't think they deserve their own Codex.

Codex: Mars (iron hands and Admech) But yeah (BT FANBOY QQ WARNING)













.


We want BT codex back!!! :(

Blood angels player and it saddens me i have to turn on my brothers here, but assuming it is done properly and without botching rules/SC's/units and retaining a bit of fluff, i dont honestly see a reason not to. I honestly feel as if all allied marines could be in a single dex easily enough. If done right. They could have the base wargear and units that every faction has, then separate sections for each chapter that includes SC's, fluff, and special units/wargear. I honestly feel that every first founding chapter deserves a section like this. The BA section would give a page or two of fluff, then a special wargear list, and half or quarter page of rules per SC/unit that is available only to BA chapter tactics. Think if you took the codex, cut and shortened the rules for all 14 unique units, and put them in the book as well as including the "Blood Angels special rules" section of page 23 and renamed it to Chapter Tactics: Blood Angels. Heck you then color code the entries in the Army List to each specific chapter that unlocks them to avoid confusion. I feel if it was done in a way similar to this it would be done well enough to help each founding chapter develop their own playstyle, keep the originality of all the existing codices and make it so that those players are still happy. I despise the idea of them becoming a supplement; it would be like asking for the price of your codex to be doubled. I could see paying a bit more (no more than 60$ but it would be a good bit thicker if this was done). I would be satisfied with it if it were done that way.

Sadly the real world GW isnt able to grant this diversity to the marine codex we do have and i shudder to imagine what mess we would get if they did roll the marines into a single dex.

 Blacksails wrote:
But they already have that much variety. Its just in four books with a whole lot of redundancy. A new player will already be overwhelmed by the choices and differences between the different marine books. I know I was mightily confused by four different marine books and the little list of special rules they all had.

For most new players they are 4 different Armies when they are in the store that all have different colored armor. If they know anything about the game they are making their choices based purely on Fluff. If they don't they are going to go for the coolest looking army in their opinion.

Now imagine you are a new player picking up the current Codex: Space Marines, there is a lot to absorb. What Characters can you take, what happens if you don't want to play Black Templars, but like Crusader Squads? For many new players the concept of "If it is not viable, why was I giving an option?"
Now Toss on Dark Angels Veteran Squads, Wolf Guard, Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, Thunderwolf Cavalry, Fenrisian Wolves, Sanguinary Guard, Deathwing Terminators, and Long Fangs.

I feel like we should roll all marine codex into one... And then do away with every other codex. They just vanish. Don't exist. Cause people keep saying 'marine players obviously don't want this with their sacred codex' so how about your forced to be a marine player cause your crappy army doesn't even have a book?

Kangodo wrote:

1) It would make the Codex ridiculously large.
2) It would make the Codex too expensive.

Given that you're already paying the price for a 200 page book, you might as well get one.

Having a "big" book is the most absurd complaint I've ever heard, especially for the prices we're paying. For the same price Flames of War gives me two dozen army lists for 4 or 5 different nations and 200+ pages of material and background.

Why would you *not* want a giant book of Marine awesomeness like that?

4) It would include a lot of nonsense that most players don't care about, like other Factions.

Oh noes, more content, not that! Please, this holds no water.

If nothing else, now you don't have to pay another $50 for your opponents rules.

And this is assuming you aren't buying those other codex books in the first place for reference.

5) It would ruin the uniqueness of those armies and upset their players.

Only if executed badly. Granted GW has a history of this, but it's not guaranteed.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
And all of that Marginalizes yet another chapter like the Black Templars.

When literally everything that made them different is still there?

Besides, BT haven't been marginalized, they have access to a greater array of units and weapons and options than ever before, still retain their "unique" troops unit and some special rules. They lost some things, but who's to say they'd have retained them in a new codex either? Very little from that 4E era survived intact.

This might not mean a lot to some, but Listen to the Pre-6th edition Black Templar Players vs. the new ones.
The Old: "I am Playing my Black Templars using [C: SM, enter Chapter or Space Wolves]"
New: Wait as far as I know there are no new ones or at least I have not seen one.
I have yet to meet a Single Back Templar Player using Chapter Tactics: Black Templars

People aren't using those Chapter Tactics because close combat kind of sucks in 7e. Also, I started playing Templars after 6e for what it's worth.

Kangodo, I have an honest non-sarcastic question for you. If Blood Angels were rolled into Codex: Space Marines with the suggestions Blacksails made, would the army feel any different? They'd still functionally have the same units but they wouldn't be called "Sanguinary guard". They would be Honor Guard with jump packs.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

People aren't using those Chapter Tactics because close combat kind of sucks in 7e. Also, I started playing Templars after 6e for what it's worth.

And what Codex were they using with the attitude "When You Pull It From My Cold Dead Hand!" until Codex: Space Marine 6th Edition came out?
Their old one, I have dealt with one who begged everyone to just let him use his old one.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Kangodo, I have an honest non-sarcastic question for you. If Blood Angels were rolled into Codex: Space Marines with the suggestions Blacksails made, would the army feel any different? They'd still functionally have the same units but they wouldn't be called "Sanguinary guard". They would be Honor Guard with jump packs.

So I would lose my Honour Guard ánd my Sanguinary Guard because they are now a different unit that only functions the same.
They'd have to delete all the Sanguinary Guard-fluff and replace it with what?
And yes, looking at how they handled Black Templars it would certainly make the army feel different.
You should spend a day on MMO-C and ask people how they'd feel if everything had the same abilities with only a few distinctions.

They are really not the same, they are as alike to Space Marines as Chaos Marines are.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Given that you're already paying the price for a 200 page book, you might as well get one.
Having a "big" book is the most absurd complaint I've ever heard, especially for the prices we're paying. For the same price Flames of War gives me two dozen army lists for 4 or 5 different nations and 200+ pages of material and background.
Why would you *not* want a giant book of Marine awesomeness like that?

Because we all know that a 300 page Codex: Space Marines would go for at least 100 dollar
I'm scared to think how much they would charge for the Limited Edition!

Oh noes, more content, not that! Please, this holds no water.

Why not? If people cared about content from other armies, they would've bought other codices. How many players do that?

Only if executed badly. Granted GW has a history of this, but it's not guaranteed.

Well, it's not 100% guaranteed, but we all know GW

I should have stepped away from this earlier, and I will now. Kangodo, its been fun. You can sleep easy tonight knowing your BA book will still exist in the morning.

I just don't feel like debating this any further with someone who very clearly is hard set in maintaining the status quo. I've outlined my points enough.

Oh, and your example about merging BA and Necrons was pretty comical. Got a chuckle.