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.

With all the new stuff coming out it seems like a good idea to cut down and remove some of the older models not many people buy any more for the sake of simplifying the game. In order to do this it would make sense to remove some of the less popular, less unique factions. As sisters of battle are practically black templars it would make sense for them to be one of the removed factions. Some others the could quite easy be squared or just made into a unit in other codexes would be assassins and the inquisition.

It would also make sense to merge alot of the more similar factions such as blood angels and dark angels with the rest of the space marine chapters there differences could easily be made into chapter tactics and one or two unique units like black templars get. Other factions that could be merged would be Cult Mechanicus with Skitarii, Chaos daemons, Chaos space marines, Khorne Daemonkin and the new thousand sons. Militarum tempus with Imperial guard the list goes on. Nearly all of these factions could still even keep there unique identities by just making a chapter tactic like section in them and a few formations.

Some of the advantages of merging codexes like this is we can more easly avoid cases like where in the Khone demonkin book where most of Khones champions are unavailable. Well also lowering the total number of books needed to play these factions to there fullest and take advantage of the allies matrix.

Title edited to make it less...controversial.

Though we'll probably end up in a...bad place anyway.

As usual, please be sure to follow ALL the rules of the site when posting here - or anywhere - especially Rule #1.

Thanks!

I don't like it. The problem isn't with the armies, it's with the fortifications/splat books and the base rules.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I don't like it. The problem isn't with the armies, it's with the fortifications/splat books and the base rules.

Yeah, the constant slew of supplements and dataslates and other microtransaction-style crap is getting old. There's no need to have Codex: Genestealer Cults AND Codex: Tyranids, or five different splatbooks for the Inquisition, Chambers Militant, and Assassinorum. They've taken some steps to simplify the special rules, which deserves some applause, but there's a lot more flab that could be trimmed out. Having special "Forgeworld" units and Formations is also annoying; either put them in the main book or ignore them.

This strikes me as simplifying a building's wallpaper when one's foundation is built on sand.

One can simplify the game without needed to removing units and armies (although I would be okay with merging space marines, but their difference was minimal anyway :V). If we're just talking about the ungodly number of books, making the rules digital and free is easily one of the few things I'll give AoS credit for as a good idea.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
One can simplify the game without needed to removing units and armies (although I would be okay with merging space marines, but their difference was minimal anyway :V). If we're just talking about the ungodly number of books, making the rules digital and free is easily one of the few things I'll give AoS credit for as a good idea.

I wouldn't say merge SM, as some have some pretty varied rules and models, but release a supplement like the new traitor legions one for chaos. Call it Loyalist legions

I doubt GW still Squatts armies, armies getting Squatted tends to go over badly, people who have invested in those armies tend to throw the hobby away and leave with bad feelings and worse reviews for GW.
Letting the army sit idle tends to make people grouchy but they don't just storm out of the community with the sole purpose of condemning it.
I might be giving too much credit but the wood elf thingies in AOS seems to point to a step in a different direction.

 TheLumberJack wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
One can simplify the game without needed to removing units and armies (although I would be okay with merging space marines, but their difference was minimal anyway :V). If we're just talking about the ungodly number of books, making the rules digital and free is easily one of the few things I'll give AoS credit for as a good idea.

I wouldn't say merge SM, as some have some pretty varied rules and models, but release a supplement like the new traitor legions one for chaos. Call it Loyalist legions

Not really most could easly be made into chapter tactics with one or two units for them like the crusader squad. For example you could easly turn blood angels into chapter tactics by making there chapter tactics give furious charge and let them take assault marines as troops keep there signature units like death guard and sangeen guard.

Dark angels would just need there chapter tactics to let them over watch at BS2 make them have a formation for raven wing and deathwing and you have managed to keep them mostly the same.

It would not be much of a lose to the unit or strategic variances of the different armies to have this happen to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
This strikes me as simplifying a building's wallpaper when one's foundation is built on sand.

Well there are bigger problems that need to be addressed then the huge amount of books needed to play, when fixing something you must start somewhere and this seems like it would be a fairly easy place to start that would still meaningfully impact the game for the better.

I would actually like them to squat individual units rather than entire factions.

In fact I wish they'd axe enough stuff to merge the DA and BAs into the core SM book, because now with Chapter Tactics there's little other reason to have them as separate books. Stuff like the Ironclad, Librarian Dread, Dark Angel Knights, and Nephilim Jetfighter are all redundant when a few simple upgrades restricted to Chapter Tactics specific armies is more than enough to emulate them from the base SM book. It would also mean that BA or DA won't be left in the dust whenever the core SM book gets updated.

As for the others, the Imperial Agents book already resolved most of the scattering. Now the only thing left to do is to move LoW, D-Strength Weapons, Gargantuan Creatures, Superheavy vehicles, and flyers (and flying MCs/GMCs) into Apocalypse. In low-points games you often have to dedicate entire units, if not entire sections of your army, on the mere possibility that one of these things could show up and you could do nothing about it. In Apocalypse at least there would be an unspoken rule that everyone would likely be bringing them and en-masse so you don't have to min-max your army. Yes I know this would also mean removing a number of special characters, but usually LoW-level characters are so high up in the command chain that they should only show up in Apocalypse level engagements (as for wraith guards, return them back to the old distort rule).

These are the major clutter because they're either a huge number of redundant units in multiple books (or units existing solely for gimmicks and are not actually used that much) or because they operate on such a different scale from the base game that they need entire rule sections just to make them work (D-Strength Weapons and Flyers in particular).

Finally, assuming that is done, then cutting down on the "Special Snowflake" rule. An increasingly common sight now is almost every single non-standard weapon being given some esoteric rule that in practice act very similar to some other rule. And not just in the "one keyword encompassing multiple Universal Special Rules" but rather "Completely new rules never seen before". This is something from MTG, where they use to have a set of "Evergreen" keyword rules that all core sets can expect to have, while some special keywords only for a certain expansion (like Ingest for Battle for Zendikar). Each army should have an allotment of a few rules for weapons and racial skills and leave it at that, rather than every special weapon having some weird rule.

Obviously the best solution to remove bloat would to scrap all the Space Marine codexes and replace them with the option to take a single 10 man Ultramarines squad in any Militarum army over 10,000pts. This would help reduce clutter and make the games more fluff appropriate.

Loopstah wrote:
Obviously the best solution to remove bloat would to scrap all the Space Marine codexes and replace them with the option to take a single 10 man Ultramarines squad in any Militarum army over 10,000pts. This would help reduce clutter and make the games more fluff appropriate.

Actually fluff wise Space marines deploy all the time without imperial guard anywhere to be found. I mean if you wanted to have an army where it is just a bit of marine support you currently can do that with the rules. However at this point it is also an option to field marines on their own witch is equally fluffy. Well the goal of removing some codices is to simplify the game mostly but it should not be at the cost of huge portions of the game and remove core play styles.

Here are my thoughts:

It might be an idea to approach the complexity of the game with a more abstract / academic approach instead of the usual approach.

First we need to define what is complexity of the game, or what kind of complexity you want to reduce.
This might seem trivial but this isn't the case at all. We simply can't discuss this topic without at least a clear (personal) definition.

Note I don't have the final definition, but I have an opinion of what is unwanted complexity in the game:
Unwanted complexity has two aspects:
1. Wonky rules, that take too much time for a too small of an effect. Such as soulblaze, mysterious objectives,effect that result in random allocated hits on units, being forced to roll each save one at a time in units with mixed saves.
2. Rules that I have to look up during the game, either because they are hard to remember or are dubiously worded.

We also have to acknowledge that reducing complexity is always a trade off. Not all of these trade-offs are equal or even comparable and not all players might not value the core aspects of the game in the same way.

Now back to the question: Does reducing the amount of codexes influence the lv of unwanted complexity in a positive way ?

lets assume that GW does the opposite since this simpler to imagine to the extreme ends without getting distracted by emotions. What if GW made a codex for each space marine chapter and CSM legion. Resulting in 20+ extra codexes with the same quality as the regular SM codex.

Would this increase the unwanted complexity ?
It sure does for some players especially those who dislike the possibility of facing a huge diversity of unique armies. I am not one of those. I like this diversity in fact the freedom to build the army that I really want to build is one of the reasons why I like GW games.

Would it increase the amount of wonky rules. Na not really unless they somehow feth up the quality of the codexes. So this is an argument for high quality codexes not for less codexes.

Would this increase the amount of rules that I have to look up during the game. Slightly my opponent will have some rules that I would be unfamiliar with and I would have to look up / read those few rules before the game starts. Is this a serious issue, na not really since the amount of local opponents is finite so I would only have to do this when a local player switches to a new army. I would gladly trade this small inconvenience for the new gained freedom, and the diversity of armies my opponents.

So no I don't think that reducing the amount of codex's would help to reduce the in my opinion unwanted complexity of the game at all.

The thing is however that having more codexes dose not mean more diversity it just means you need more books. Also when making more codex tends to encourage making wonky rules as it is an easy way of making each codex seem unique.

 mew28 wrote:
The thing is however that having more codexes dose not mean more diversity it just means you need more books.

Na not really. You needing more books is a result of the core rules (allies system) and your personal preference.
If GW released codex: Digganobz tomorrow I would only have to use an extra book if I allied with it. I would only have to use 1 book if I just liked to play digganobz. The same holds true for whatever obscure faction GW would give a codex. Codex supplements on the other hand are something else.

Also when making more codex tends to encourage making wonky rules as it is an easy way of making each codex seem unique.

Not sure if this holds true. I expected this to be true but wonky rules in codexes and supplement tend to be the result of power creep and poor design not the direct result of the uniqueness.
Codex Harlequins, tempestus, legion of the damned, assassins and imp knights have all less issues with unique rules than the "core armies" such as SM, Eldar, Tau & Choas daemons.


The idea of cutting the amount of factions / codexes for fear of future bad design choices is a too pessimistic approach of fixing things for my taste.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 mew28 wrote:
The thing is however that having more codexes dose not mean more diversity it just means you need more books.

Na not really. You needing more books is a result of the core rules (allies system) and your personal preference.
If GW released codex: Digganobz tomorrow I would only have to use an extra book if I allied with it. I would only have to use 1 book if I just liked to play digganobz. The same holds true for whatever obscure faction GW would give a codex. Codex supplements on the other hand are something else.

Also when making more codex tends to encourage making wonky rules as it is an easy way of making each codex seem unique.

Not sure if this holds true, wonky rules in codexes and supplement tend to be the result of power creep and poor design not the direct result of the uniqueness.
Codex Harlequins, tempestus, legion of the damned, assassins and imp knights have all less issues with unique rules than the "core armies" such as SM, Eldar, Tau & Choas daemons

Some codices simply do not work as a stand alone army. A great example of this is legion of the damned if you had nothing but legion of the damned models in your army you would lose on the first turn this is clearly a case of needing an extra book. Also those books creat less unqie rues imply because they have all most no models in them.

Yeah in this rare case you would need one additional book. But you needing additional books to play is hardly a decent argument for all armies that do work well as a stand alone army.
Your question wasn't should we fix armies that can't be used on its own. It was should we reduce the amount of codexes. No one would argue that a BA codex can't be used on its own. Nor that a BA player would need more than 1 codex (supplements are an other discussion).

It actually is a pretty good argument as it not only makes those models easier to get on the table; it also increases the diversity of the kinda of armies you can feild. I mean we could also take this to the opposite extreme where each unit is it's own book essentially as in heroscape witch I must say works quite well when the rules come with the unit this works great when models have no options for customization . However currently we are in a fairly strange middle ground where you need to buy a 50$ book but you need to buy a 50$ book each time you want to change up your army much witch well it dose work it is expensive and a pain to find all the rules you want to play.

 mew28 wrote:
It actually is a pretty good argument as it not only makes those models easier to get on the table; it also increases the diversity of the kinda of armies you can feild. I mean we could also take this to the opposite extreme where each unit is it's own book essentially as in heroscape witch I must say works quite well when the rules come with the unit this works great when models have no options for customization . However currently we are in a fairly strange middle ground where you need to buy a 50$ book but you need to buy a 50$ book each time you want to change up your army much witch well it dose work it is expensive and a pain to find all the rules you want to play.

Are you saying that we should consolidate armies because you don't want to have to spend money to play a different army?

Just make the rules free PDFs. Then you can have as many snowflake marine chapters as GW's heart desires.

However, if we're keeping the expensive hardback method we currently have, merge'em. Mechanicus should have been one book. Stormtroopers didn't need a separate book. Loyalist marines could comfortably fit in one book.

 TheLumberJack wrote:

 mew28 wrote:
It actually is a pretty good argument as it not only makes those models easier to get on the table; it also increases the diversity of the kinda of armies you can feild. I mean we could also take this to the opposite extreme where each unit is it's own book essentially as in heroscape witch I must say works quite well when the rules come with the unit this works great when models have no options for customization . However currently we are in a fairly strange middle ground where you need to buy a 50$ book but you need to buy a 50$ book each time you want to change up your army much witch well it dose work it is expensive and a pain to find all the rules you want to play.

Are you saying that we should consolidate armies because you don't want to have to spend money to play a different army?

No it has other perks in that it means that armies are more unified letting you avoid some strange ones like the cult and skitartyi being separated when really they should be the same book and get the put them both in the same combined arms detachment. Also this would remove useless books like the legion of the damned or assassin one where you need a second codex to play anyways

IMHO I think instead of 'squatting' armies (Maybe some units, perhaps), you merge the books. Here's what I would do as far as that goes.

Space Marines: One book detailing the vanilla Space Marines including the chapter tactics, BA/SW/DA/etc. chapter tactics would give you access to those units/formations/relics/ etc.

The rest of the Imperium: Guard/Scions/Sisters/Inquisition/Custodes/etc. Fairly simple if it's done properly. Maybe also put Mechanicus/Skitarii here

Chaos: A bit tricky and very hopeful. One book with vanilla chaos (Undivided?) space marines and daemons. Then much like chapter tactics if you take certain legions, they associate with certain chaos gods or just Chaos undivided. Like I said, tricky. Also add in Cultists and Knights, and the other misc. if I missed anything.

Nids: I say put the Nids and Genestealer cults in one book.

Eldar: I say Craftworlders, Corsairs, and Dark Eldar (Maybe) get thrown together in one book.

That leaves Orks, Necrons and Tau. None of these can really be grouped together and the books on there own would be vastly smaller in content and size compared to the other ones, which is where a problem lies.

Now this whole thing is wonky and has many flaws, but it's just an idea, or the basis of one at least.

If we REALLY wanted to narrow it down we could go:
Imperium
Chaos
Xenos

But that would be awful. Slightly less awful:
Imperium of Man
Chaos
Eldar
Tyranids
Orks
Necrons
Tau

Personally the smallest I would go is:
Space Marines
Imperium of Man
General Chaos
Traitor Legions
Mechanicus/Skitarii
Orks
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Tau
Tyranids

1 Main Rule book
1 Codex: The Imperium of Man (this is all the Imperial factions)
1 Codex: Slaves to Darkness (This is CSM and Daemons)
1 Codex: Xenos (everything else)
1 Codex for urban combat (Cities of Death or whatever-the-feth you want to call it)
1 Codex for air and space-battles (Aeronautica or whatever)

... that's it. Most fair way to divvy it up.

Codex: Bro Fist (Blood Angels and Necrons)

In all seriousness, to Psienesis, they don't have air-to-air and space combat in 40k at the moment. But if they add it, I would be ALL OVER THAT SHIP!

 mew28 wrote:
However currently we are in a fairly strange middle ground where you need to buy a 50$ book but you need to buy a 50$ book each time you want to change up your army much witch well it dose work it is expensive and a pain to find all the rules you want to play.

I do agree with you that things get expensive fast once you start collecting multiple books. But the cost of the game does not have anything to do with the reduction of unwanted complexity / simplifiation of the game.

I disagree with you that multiple codexes make it hard to find the rules you need to play, it is the supplements that make it harder.
If I want to play genestealers I will just pick up codex genestealers and I am done, the same holds true for any other exotic codex that doesn't use any supplement. Increasing the amount of codexes doesn't change a thing about this, you will still only need 1 book. Reducing the amount of codexes however is likely to change this. Because GW would be hurting themselves by selling less books to us. So any scrapped codex will have to be compensated with an additional supplement raising the likely hood of you needing multiple books for your army.

I don't think that they would Squat any armies but it would be nice if they did combine the books into one like what Psienesis
says.

It can get crazy when you playing and flicking through books, I think our record was 5, maybe 6 books we were having to flick through.

The game does need streamlining and I wouldn't be sad to have some units merged into generic versions of each other. Currently with the multi codex approach there feels a need to put something special and unique in each book, even though it may be practically the same as something elsewhere.
How many different dreadnought options are there now? Create one dreadnought slot and allow it to be tailored to suit it's purpose across all marine chapters.

Squatting armies would be a terrible idea. Simply a way to piss off your customers.

Squat/merge units from bloated codices, and merge a select few codices/supplements that fit together nicely.

Zatsuku wrote:

Personally the smallest I would go is:
Space Marines
Imperium of Man
General Chaos
Traitor Legions
Mechanicus/Skitarii
Orks
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Tau
Tyranids

This is what I'd be happiest with.

Keeps the distinction between pretty distinct elements (Eldar and Dark Eldar for instance are often merged in these things, despite them being very distinct, but Harlequins could be used in both).

Make each of them PDF free-to-download rules, mainly so you can update them a lot quicker to keep game balance, with fluff books that you can buy (so they can keep a portion of their codex-money).

 mew28 wrote:
With all the new stuff coming out it seems like a good idea to cut down and remove some of the older models not many people buy any more for the sake of simplifying the game. In order to do this it would make sense to remove some of the less popular, less unique factions. As sisters of battle are practically black templars it would make sense for them to be one of the removed factions. Some others the could quite easy be squared or just made into a unit in other codexes would be assassins and the inquisition.

Well as much sense that might make in theory it's not going to happen by the looks of it. GW is releasing more and more factions to 40k and in AOS side number of factions exploded. GW is moving toward MORE factions. Not less.