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.

 Charistoph wrote:

pm713 wrote:
It's kind of hard to make Daemonkin for other Chaos Gods though. It only works well for Khorne.

Aside from Thousand Sons being the Cult Marines for Tzeentch, how so? Keep in mind, new models are not outside the realm of possibility.

Khorne Daemonkin work by spilling increasing amounts of blood until it reaches a point where Daemons can be summoned. You can't really have increasing amount of plotting or desire or disease throughout a single battle. I think books for things like Tzeentch Daemons + Thousand Sons are good but not as Daemonkin.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Nope - sorry you are wrong

There were indeed general doctrine rules which you could use - but then the more storied Regiments had specifically more or extra rules than a generic Regiment.

quoting directly from the Codex:

We have included sme famous regiments and the Doctrines which represent their typical organisation in battle. You will notice that some regiments have more than five Doctrines; this a reflection of their glorious history

Either quote the whole thing or don't quote it at all:

On pages 58 to 61 we have included some famous regiments and the Doctrines which represent their typical organisation in battle. You will notice that the some regiments may have more than five Doctrines; this is a reflection of their glorious history. In practice five Doctrines is plenty to give a regiment a distinctive slant. Again, there is no requirement to use the Doctrines rules for fielding any particular regiment.

Out of the 12 Regiments listed, seven(Tallarn Desert Raiders, Armageddon Steel Legions, Kanak Skull Takers, Harakoni Warhawks, Catachan Jungle Fighters, Savlar Chem-Dogs, and Terrax Guard) utilized 5 Doctrines. Two Regiments(Cadian Shock Troops and Tanith First & Only) utilized 7 Doctrines. The last three(Death Korps of Krieg, Mordian Iron Guard, and Valhallan Ice Warriors) utilized 6.

In any regards, none of that changes the fact that there were never special unique Regiment rules. Any and all Guard forces could utilize up to 5 Doctrines, in any legal combinations. The only exception was that if you wanted to, you could opt to use the book's take on any of the 5 Regiments that were given more than 5 Doctrines--and at the time, they also made it relatively clear that if you wanted to run those as non-Cadians, Tanith, DKoK, MIG, or VIW? You should go for it.

So it lost a flyer?

First of all, the Guard did not "lose" the Vendetta. It is still in C: Astra Militarum. The only place it is NOT present is in "Death From the Skies". And why would it be? Nothing about it changes beyond the transport capacity(halved) and the armament(3x TLLCs). It wouldn't change Agility or Pursuit values.

Second of all, even if they did "lose" the Vendetta, who cares? It should have always been a variant loadout for the Valkyrie. End of story.

The Marines gained a flyer - again?

The Marines gained a variant on a flyer--exactly like what you're whining about the Vendetta losing; except the Stormhawk Interceptor actually is a variant that has justifiable reasons

Logan Grimnar the Character - fine

Logan Grimanr on a Wolf Sleigh pulled by wolves - yes a perfect example of a desperate need to invent flavour units.

Right, because it's not like Space Wolves have had a long history of having wolves as wargear options right?

If you were talking about Dark Angels suddenly getting Dark Riders mounted on Dark Bikes firing Dark Cannons, I'd be a lot more receptive to your complaints. But you're talking about the one Chapter where these little "shoehorned flavour units" actually fit in pretty well.

Seriously?

There are special Doctorine Rules for the special Regiments - as I said and quoted.

You will notice that the some regiments may have more than five Doctrines; this is a reflection of their glorious history. [b]In practice five Doctrines is plenty to give a regiment a distinctive slant

There are special rules for special regiments - HOW excatly could it be clearer!?

Second of all, even if they did "lose" the Vendetta, who cares? It should have always been a variant loadout for the Valkyrie. End of story.

Oh look another me me me post - some people might, some poeple won't - we have different opinions on it - the FACT of the matter is that Death from the Skies is the current rules and its been removed.

Again FACT one army lost a flyer, one army gains a flyer - which army gets what - oh yeah marines get a new flyer model, rules etc. As I said how many do they have now 8, 10? more?

The Marines gained a variant on a flyer--exactly like what you're whining about the Vendetta losing; except the Stormhawk Interceptor actually is a variant that has justifiable reasons

Justifieable to whom? We never used to ened them - marines had Thunderhawks and drop pods. Suddenly because GW has to keep focussing on Marines they need to have loads of Flyers.

 TheMostWize wrote:
I think there needs to be something said about what the typical player of 40k is interested in.

Many of the above arguments point to units being bad on the tabletop. My questions is why does that matter? Not everyone is playing in tournaments. In fact I would guess the majority of 40k games are buddies playing in their basement just having fun. Because of this cool fluffy units sell and they see table time in places where cool fluffy units are fun. Non competitive environments.

I just started playing BA. People always talk about how bad they are but guess what. I didn't pick them because I want to win Adepticon. I picked them because I like their fluff and I like the models GW has created for them. I will have fun playing them based on that alone. I am positive I am not the only one who feels this way about the other books.

Sure they could combine a bunch of books and get rid of a bunch of kits but that would destroy the game. At least the aesthetic part of the game. If you only play to win tournaments and dominate every game you ever play then all of this is irrelevant as well because your only playing the best books possible so why do you care if there are more books that are crappy or have models you don't like. You are only playing to win. GW will continue with what sells and I don't think they are wrong in doing so.

It matters because of how superficially similar BA are to vanilla marines, but a few changes here and there make them virtually unplayable. It's frustration. It's not even about winning adepticon. It's about not being able to hang with even casual Tau lists.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Seriously?

There are special Doctorine Rules for the special Regiments - as I said and quoted.

You will notice that the some regiments may have more than five Doctrines; this is a reflection of their glorious history. In practice five Doctrines is plenty to give a regiment a distinctive slant

There are special rules for special regiments - HOW excatly could it be clearer!?

By actually reading what I wrote in reply to you, rather than just jumping back and only quoting a small amount of a blurb in the Doctrines book.

There were "special rules for special regiments", in that they gave you preset doctrines for 12 notable regiments. They also gave you specific weapon loadouts(Cadians had preferred: GLs and preferred: Autocannons); but you weren't restricted to them.
Special rules for the regiments implies that in order to field those regiments, you had to utilize those rules for those regiments--which wasn't the case.

Second of all, even if they did "lose" the Vendetta, who cares? It should have always been a variant loadout for the Valkyrie. End of story.

Oh look another me me me post - some people might, some poeple won't - we have different opinions on it - the FACT of the matter is that Death from the Skies is the current rules and its been removed.

The "FACT" of the matter is that it literally requires no effort on any player's part to utilize a Vendetta using Death From the Skies. It's literally a Valkyrie with half the transport capacity and three sets of Twin-Linked Lascannons.

Are you trying to tell me that people won't let you run the Vendetta because of Death From the Skies?
Even more surprising, are you telling me that people are actually playing Death From the Skies?!

Again FACT one army lost a flyer, one army gains a flyer - which army gets what - oh yeah marines get a new flyer model, rules etc. As I said how many do they have now 8, 10? more?

Orks got a new flyer as well. Are Orks Marines?

The Marines gained a variant on a flyer--exactly like what you're whining about the Vendetta losing; except the Stormhawk Interceptor actually is a variant that has justifiable reasons

Justifieable to whom? We never used to ened them - marines had Thunderhawks and drop pods. Suddenly because GW has to keep focussing on Marines they need to have loads of Flyers.

Marines had Thunderhawks, Drop Pods, and Land Speeder Tempests. They also had access to Imperial Navy assets.

In any regards:
A Stormhawk isn't just a Stormtalon with different guns, now is it?

There are not ebough marine armies. We need the BLOOD RAVENS!

pm713 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

pm713 wrote:
It's kind of hard to make Daemonkin for other Chaos Gods though. It only works well for Khorne.

Aside from Thousand Sons being the Cult Marines for Tzeentch, how so? Keep in mind, new models are not outside the realm of possibility.

Khorne Daemonkin work by spilling increasing amounts of blood until it reaches a point where Daemons can be summoned. You can't really have increasing amount of plotting or desire or disease throughout a single battle. I think books for things like Tzeentch Daemons + Thousand Sons are good but not as Daemonkin.

Khorne Daemonkin should not be balanced with that in mind than any other Psyker being able to summon Dameons.

Khorne Daemonkin needs to operate that way due to the fact that a no-Psyker army has zero access to Daemonology and thus no access to summoning Daemons the "normal" way. The others do not. At worst, we would be looking at Chaos Sorcerers being able to be like Daemons when Conjuring Daemons linked to their Mark.

Just because it is a Daemonkin book, doesn't mean it has to operate with the same premises and guidelines as the Khorne book any more than running Horrors and Bloodletters should be operating under the same premises and guidelines.

Lanrak wrote:
If we stand back a bit and look at what has been going on...

Game companies will focus on releasing expansions for all factions at the same time , so all forces remain balanced and interesting to play.
(As each expansion can be play tested against the units in the expansion , and the units already released.)

GW plc are in the business of selling little bits of plastic for as much money as possible.
So they want the minutest difference in detail to have extra special rules to help promote sales.

Space Marines have been promoted above all other factions .Every time GW needed a cash injection, they just added some different 'gribble' to the Space Marine sprue, Print a new Space Marine faction Codex with extra special snowflake rules, and count the cash as its come rolling in.

To sort this mess out, it really needs a re-write of the rules, and the poorly implemented and restrictive F.O.C needs to be replace with some thing that achieves what detachments and formations do.But in a much more straight forward and user friendly way.

If the game play had more tactical depth units could shine at the various in game roles they should have.Without having to resort to a bunch of special rules to make them special!

In regards to the FOC, I don't feel it's 'restrictive' so much as it lacks any real benefit. It's biggest strength is Objective Secured, but in the end that is often not enough.

Agreed that the rules need to really be looked at and I feel emphasis on the FOC should be a key part of it. I just wish Formations and Faction specific detachments weren't so 'auto include' for army construction these days.

I suppose the FOC being 'restrictive' is a good thing. It makes players make critical choices during list building. Being able to take a formation that lets you pile on more of certain things with no real drawback is pretty shoddy. :(

@Melevolence.
IMO, a force organisation chart should ,

A)Provide the player with a wide range of options when it comes to forces they may select. (Eg varied themed forces with different play styles.)

B)Be straight forward and easy to use.

C) Control the type and frequency of units , as to allow engaging and enjoyable pick up and play games.

(As lots of other war games manage this, I think 40k should have a system that works like this too.)

When I said the current F.o.C was restrictive, I meant the way GW made the slots about 'unit function' rather than 'unit rarity' in the force.
(It was GW sales department who wanted to do this as they saw it as a way of driving sales.)

AFAIK every other war game I am aware of uses 'unit rarity in the force' to control force composition.

If we look at the basic F,o.C and the SM as an example.

As Tactical Squads are Troops , that means any themed force that uses any other unit as a 'core' , need a completely new codex, or special characters and special rules that break the normal F.o.C restrictions.(Or more recently additional detachments and formations. )

EG White Scars Bike force, Deathwing terminator ,Ravenwing fast attack (airborne type.)

Where as if we use a simple F.O.C. based on unit rarity...

Each force Must include a HQ unit and 2 to 8 Core units.
For every 2 Core units selected, a single Support unit may be taken.
For every 2 support units taken a single Special unit may be taken.

The HQ sets the theme of the list and decides how the other units are classified.

EG select a SM HQ on bikes , and the bike and scout bike units become Core units.(And 'on theme units' populate other 'core and support' slots.Special units are more counter theme units.And things that have no place in the force from a thematic point of view can be excluded,)

So a vanilla list has access to all units as support and special units.

Where as stronger themed list looses the option to take some counter theme units.

For example a 'Feral theme for Orks ' could include units that ONLY appear in 'Feral theme list', and this would exclude other counter high tec themed units from the list.

This would allow all the cool options from the current wide range of separate codex books to be kept.
BUT we could control the force composition much better than the current complicated mess. And it would be a lot easier to use too.

There aren't too many Imperial armies. The Imperium is a very large and disparate society, reflected really well by the completely different and relatively autonomous factions it contains. If anything, it needs even more books, for different guard regiments, Inquisition, Sisters of Battle and the like.

Other factions need that sort of love, though, and I think that's where a lot of this discontent comes from.

There are not too many armies, but I think they are represented in an inefficient way.

It'd be nice if, instead, you could have something that provided more options. It'd be cool if there was a list of guard regiment bonuses or something and you could choose 2 to personalize a regiment with.

Same with space marines and sisters of battle.

 Quarterdime wrote:
If anything, it needs even more books, for different guard regiments, Inquisition, Sisters of Battle and the like.

Hell no. The 40k rules are already a bloated mess. The problem does not need to get worse.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm very interested in WH40's fluff. I also think that there are too, but oh God, too many armies now. That resulsts as most of us already got it, from GW's will to create various, expensive books and models to catch as many guys as possible in the tap. Sadly, it seems to me it's a rewardful Policy...

I do vote for a huge reorganisation which mostly leads backwards, to be honest.. If I were in GW's staff, I'd proceed this way:

-Delete Scions (and there awful vehicules from IG's codex!!!! )

-Put Imperial Knights in Apocalypse books. Only. They have no point in common battles in my opinion.

-Get every SM chapter in one single codex, then let free the players to recreate them through a chapter-creation chart. I'd leave GK their own one. I truly believe they're too specialized to share the same codex as their comrades. An alternativ would be the Codex/non codex codices as already suggested.

-Get Arlequins into Eldars codex. I don't really know much as far as those clowns, but I think they'd be at the good place.

-Skitarii and Mechanium. The idea, in it's core, is good. They actually are a force from the Imperium, fighting for Mankind. But, why not keep them into a single codex? They're quite the same aren't they?

-Let's get the nids dealt with... I agree with the concept. But I disagree on the codex (V6/5 only are known to me) which are too powerful according to my experience. Then try expending their background. When I read it I really felt it was poor. But that's no longer reducing the number of armies .

Hoping not to have been silly, I apology if half what I said is unoriginal!

How are Tyranids too powerful?

The thing I change there is that Harlequins should go back into Dark Eldar as well because they're a neutral faction that works with both sides.

The Tyranid codex has no real weakness to cope with as far as I read in the codex and played against them. That makes things less interesting than for exemple with orks, where you know they've poor shooting. Even synapses aren't so threatening for the nids player when they get broken. At least that according to my personal experience. Notice that I don't consider them as unbeatable though: I did win twice out of three in head to head battle.

Otherwise I agree with you: I actually didn't think about putting them into DE codex too, which obviously should be done.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:SM, IMO, could be rolled into one codex, with a series of supplements or additional parts that guarantee that no SM factions loses out on essential stuff.

I disagree with this. I think that there should be two, and precisely three, SM books:

"Chaos Space Marines."

"Codex Adherent Space Marines"

"Non-Codex Adherent Space Marines."

Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Black Templar should be in the latter.

Gray Knights should be rolled up with Sisters of Battle and Inquisition.

@Traditio:

The only problem with a "Non-Codex Adherent Space Marines" codex is that there are simply too many ways that a Chapter can be divergent from the codex for such Chapters to be accurately encompassed by one such codex.

 IllumiNini wrote:
@Traditio:

The only problem with a "Non-Codex Adherent Space Marines" codex is that there are simply too many ways that a Chapter can be divergent from the codex for such Chapters to be accurately encompassed by one such codex.

True in principle; false in fact.

If they aren't codex adherent, it's because they've decided to more or less keep their legionary set-up.

And besides, let's abstract from this:

Would it really be too difficult to roll black templars, space wolves and dark angels into one codex?

Would you, as a black templar player, really mind this?

Can't remember who already did that, but I'd like to point out that SoB are part of the Eccliesarchy. Even if they do closely cooperate with Inquisitors, I'd rather they remained a single codex, and GK and Inquisition to be merged. This would already make reduction, and wouldn't bocth either fluff or board effectiveness for any of these twos.

I personnally otherwise totally disagree with supplements . One should buy two books costing 33euros? The second one (come on, we all know GW's manners) being on purpose a stack of new expensive and overpowerful formations and units... It reminds me of the reviews I watched for Gazkhull Waaagh! supplement and it really was making a bad core codex to have people rushing the supplement.

So here I have, in the name of the Emperor, to OPPOSE THIS!

There's NOTHING wrong with Supplements. They just need more for different armies outside Marines, or at least Templars need one too.

Space Wolves and Grey Knights need to stay outside the Marine codex and remain their own entities.

 Traditio wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
@Traditio:

The only problem with a "Non-Codex Adherent Space Marines" codex is that there are simply too many ways that a Chapter can be divergent from the codex for such Chapters to be accurately encompassed by one such codex.

True in principle; false in fact.

If they aren't codex adherent, it's because they've decided to more or less keep their legionary set-up.

And besides, let's abstract from this:

Would it really be too difficult to roll black templars, space wolves and dark angels into one codex?

Would you, as a black templar player, really mind this?

I would, actually, because the last time they rolled the Black Templars into another codex (i.e. when they removed the Black Templars codex and rolled them in with Vanilla), they suddenly became less unique and arguably less viable (with their Chapter Tactics being the center of the viability argument). I don't need another book to do exactly that but in a different way.

A better solution is to have the generic Vanilla Space Marines Codex and supplements for the more unique Chapters (Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights (maybe), etc etc).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
There's NOTHING wrong with Supplements.

There's lots wrong with supplements. They significantly increase the cost of the game by encouraging GW to take content out of the codex and sell it to you as a separate $50 book, they make the rules bloat problem worse by piling on even more special rules to represent sub-factions with negligible differences from the "core" faction, and they create major problems with rules compatibility when the rules in different books are updated at different times (or not at all).

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
There's NOTHING wrong with Supplements.

There's lots wrong with supplements. They significantly increase the cost of the game by encouraging GW to take content out of the codex and sell it to you as a separate $50 book, they make the rules bloat problem worse by piling on even more special rules to represent sub-factions with negligible differences from the "core" faction, and they create major problems with rules compatibility when the rules in different books are updated at different times (or not at all).

I completely agree with and endorse the content of this posting.

This is basically what I think about the matter at hand.

If I own C:SM, then I should have all of the rules for C:SM in that book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IllumiNini wrote:A better solution is to have the generic Vanilla Space Marines Codex and supplements for the more unique Chapters (Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights (maybe), etc etc).

But everyone suffers if that happens. If black templar require a supplement, that means that I, as a crimson fists player, get rules, say, on date x, but you get rules on date x + 6 months later.

Currently, blood angels have scouts that fire at BS 3.

Currently, sisters of battle haven't had an actual hard copy codex update since...?

Do I really have to keep going?

Less codices is better for everyone. Not saying that GW should cut content. But they could be a whole hell of a lot more efficient with it than they are now. Do KDK, C:CSM and Chaos Daemons really need to be three different codices?

Ah yeah I forgot the chaos daemons... In V5 they were in the CSM codex if I'm not mistaken. That was good so in my opinion. After all, they do fight alongside chaos forces after being invoked, and even though Warp rifts may open by themsleves, it's more likely some heretical cult or chapter who've summoned them. A Chaos codex should therefore replace the both and offer the possibility to play a deamonc army, a chaos army, or a mix of them. In Warhammer battle that was so according to some friend who used to play it, but I don't know whether it remained organised this way with AoS.

And as far as supplements, I think it'd be far better to create a chapter organisation chart included in the basic codex like V4 (I think) IG or SMs.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
The Tyranid codex has no real weakness to cope with as far as I read in the codex and played against them. That makes things less interesting than for exemple with orks, where you know they've poor shooting. Even synapses aren't so threatening for the nids player when they get broken. At least that according to my personal experience. Notice that I don't consider them as unbeatable though: I did win twice out of three in head to head battle.

Otherwise I agree with you: I actually didn't think about putting them into DA codex too, which obviously should be done.

Overpriced models is a sizeable weakness.

Well, that is, but they are good enough to be by far amongst the most profitable units in the game. At first look that is a weakness but in deeds in nids' case that brings no particular problems.

But, well, I doubt this is the right subject and as far as it deserves being dug into, it'd be rather good to carry on in the right section.

To go on with army merging, do you regard Khorne Deamokin as a codex or a supplement? It's described as codex but is that really so?

But whatever that is it shouldn't exist on its own.

Yes. Just squat the BA at this point.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
There's NOTHING wrong with Supplements.

There's lots wrong with supplements. They significantly increase the cost of the game by encouraging GW to take content out of the codex and sell it to you as a separate $50 book, they make the rules bloat problem worse by piling on even more special rules to represent sub-factions with negligible differences from the "core" faction, and they create major problems with rules compatibility when the rules in different books are updated at different times (or not at all).

They're extra pieces that you don't need to function. As someone that uses Iron Hands CT, I don't NEED the Angels Of Death Supplement. However, it's a cool bonus to have. In the same way, no Tau player needs Farsight Enclaves, but it's nice to have the option for extra rules you might want at some point.

It only makes the game more expensive if you're choosing to buy all of them, even when you don't want the rules inside.

I always thought the Imperial armies should look like this:

CORE CODEXS - ARMIES OF THE IMPERIUM
Adeptus Astartes
* Includes all current Chapter Tactics, also includes ones for Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves.
* Primarily an Ultramarine book, at least for characters.
* Chapter-specific characters, units, warlord traits, relics, detachments and formations would be found in Supplemental books (maybe an excuse to bring back Index Astartes as a proper rules collection? Much like Angels of Death was recently).
Adeptus Mechanicus
Astra Militarum
Ecclesiarchy
* Adepta Sororitas and history-sensitive units (Ecclesiarchy Militia, etc).
Inquisitorial Forces
* Inquisitors, Assassins, Deathwatch and Grey Knights.

SUPPLEMENTS
Angels of Death (includes formations, units, etc for Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves)
Sons of Dorn (includes formations, units, etc for Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists and Black Templars; all three being more fleshed out)
etc

Please stop saying Astra Militarum you're givnig me a headache! Has respect passed away?

More seriously, rounding every Imperial factions in one book seems somewhat extreme. Aren't Imperial Guard (please let me this pleasure), SoB and SM rather different from each other? In my view they do deserve their own book.

I doubt making a huge single book of them would deal with the core problem: the armies which have no real reason to exist on their own because they're either not different enough from their mother faction, (ex: Scions and special marines chapters), or either because they're unadapted to standart sized games and so should either join a codex or the Apocalypse book (ex Arlequins, Imperial Knights.)

To cut it shorter: the matter isn't the characterful armies but the uncharacterful and secondaries invading Warhammer 40000.

One big book for loyalists works fine for all marines if you take a 30k approach to it, Choosing a chapter tactic denies the use of certain units, grants the use of other special units unique to the chapter, and adjusts the foc slot of units to fit the tactics of that chapter. Space wolves would work fine by doing just that. Unique units can be as simple as characters and as complex as the unique units the sw have.