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.

 Galas wrote:
I like to do [...] honest discussion

You've failed to have one yet.

 Melissia wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I like to do [...] honest discussion

You've failed to have one yet.

I'm not the one calling people names and ignoring their opinions based in what army they play!
But I'll leave this discussion there. I'll continue to have a honest discussiong with other posters!
Have a nice day and be happy.

 Galas wrote:
I'm not the one calling people names and ignoring their opinions based in what army they play!.

If you think I "called you names" in spite of no name-calling actually existing in my posts, you may report the post in question.

Can we get back on topic?

I think that these Codices are not going to be the traditional Codices that everyone is used to. I think they're going to mimic the AoS Battletomes in that all the units that are included in the Codex are, by and large, the same unit that is in the parent Index. In AoS, the Battletomes are simply there to give your army more flavor. The Battletomes include Artifacts, Warlord Traits, Commands, Battalions, etc. - the same stuff that's being described for Codices (Relics, Warlord Traits, Strategems, etc.). I would also think they would be priced in the $25 range, similar to the Indices. So, you may have paid $25 for your Index already, but you were paying $50 for a Codex before, no? So, $25 for your Index and $25 for your army-specific rules, would be my guess. Now, in AoS, you can also get by without the faction tome if you have your battletome, but I'll guess we'll see what's to become of the parent Indices, whether or not they are invalidated. The Battletomes don't "replace" the Faction tomes in most cases, simply enhances them. I expect this to be a simlar situation.

For one, I enjoy having the parent Index, even if I do have my more army-specific Codex alongside it.

If they "enhance" the army with new rules then they become mandatory.

 Peregrine wrote:
If they "enhance" the army with new rules then they become mandatory.

Well, that depends, I guess. If all the units in the Codex are the same as the Index, then you could field an Index-built army, you just wouldn't have access to the "enhanced" traits, relics, strategems, etc. That's how it works in AoS anyway. Not saying that everything in 8th Edition is going to be like AoS, but the game does draw many parallels to it already.

 Melissia wrote:
I can see khornate marines be given their own codex. It's been done in the past, hasn't it?

I'm hoping there are World Eater and Emperor's Children books, with full 1KSons level miniature releases.

And, assuming Sisters ever get a full Codex, they might get rules for the different Orders or whatever their not-Chapters are called.

RULE #1 is BE POLITE.

RULE #2 is STAY ON TOPIC.

Trying to egg people on, troll and/or fan some sort of flames?

Unacceptable.

 insaniak wrote:

 Galas wrote:
For example, Skitarii lost some personality being mixed with Cult Mechanicus.

Did they have to, though? I mean, if they lost 'personality' because GW chose to not include certain rules in the Mechanicus version, there would seem to be a fairly simple fix for that...

No they did not. There should have made them able to be run completely independent from Ad Mech. Make rules for Skitarii Alpha Primes and Princeps Primes. They should have done the same thing as what happened with Harlequins.

 Galas wrote:
It means less options. Thats a given.

The 3.5 Chaos Codex had more options than the 'Chaos' Codex we got in 4th. The 3.5 had options for every Legion, the 'Chaos' Codex did not (it barely even had Daemons in it!). So no, combining armies in a single book does not automatically equal a loss of options. It ain't no given!

 Melissia wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Nice ad hominem!

You're the one that said 40k "is" space marines.

Apparently, none of this is 40k to you:

So if none of that is 40k to you, what is it, exactly?

If you want non-marine art from 30k you can find it. Also rules, models etc. On that basis 30k isn't space marines either.

That or you have to admit in the end both are about marines with others as side kicks.

 puma713 wrote:
Well, that depends, I guess. If all the units in the Codex are the same as the Index, then you could field an Index-built army, you just wouldn't have access to the "enhanced" traits, relics, strategems, etc. That's how it works in AoS anyway. Not saying that everything in 8th Edition is going to be like AoS, but the game does draw many parallels to it already.

Then you lose consistently because you don't have the full range of rules options available. If the codices have additional rules (and not just fluff along with copies of the index rules) then they are mandatory.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I can see khornate marines be given their own codex. It's been done in the past, hasn't it?

I'm hoping there are World Eater and Emperor's Children books, with full 1KSons level miniature releases.

And, assuming Sisters ever get a full Codex, they might get rules for the different Orders or whatever their not-Chapters are called.

I agree on the WE and EC. They are as different from CSM as BA and DA are from C:SM.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Galas wrote:
It means less options. Thats a given.

The 3.5 Chaos Codex had more options than the 'Chaos' Codex we got in 4th. The 3.5 had options for every Legion, the 'Chaos' Codex did not (it barely even had Daemons in it!). So no, combining armies in a single book does not automatically equal a loss of options. It ain't no given!

You can't compare a good product vs a bad product, thats makes baby Tom Kirby sad!
I was talking based in the assumption that both products where of equal quality

 puma713 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
If they "enhance" the army with new rules then they become mandatory.

Well, that depends, I guess. If all the units in the Codex are the same as the Index, then you could field an Index-built army, you just wouldn't have access to the "enhanced" traits, relics, strategems, etc. That's how it works in AoS anyway. Not saying that everything in 8th Edition is going to be like AoS, but the game does draw many parallels to it already.

Would be pretty stupid to have 2 versions of tactical marines in terms of rules&points though...We already know rules&costs will be changed on codexes so...

 Galas wrote:
I was talking based in the assumption that both products where of equal quality

But that's not a good assumption to make. You can make a better quality product when you have more per-product development time available because you aren't shoveling out mediocre books as fast as possible to cover all 999999999 different factions (and milk the cash cow as hard as possible).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I can see khornate marines be given their own codex. It's been done in the past, hasn't it?

I'm hoping there are World Eater and Emperor's Children books, with full 1KSons level miniature releases.

And, assuming Sisters ever get a full Codex, they might get rules for the different Orders or whatever their not-Chapters are called,

That would be pretty awesome. World Eater and Emperor's Children books could also have a side note saying "these can be used to represent Khornate/Slaaneshi marines that aren't part of these legions, but if you do this, they can't use these legions' characters" similar to how successor chapters work for the various loyalist marines.

tneva82 wrote:
That or you have to admit in the end both are about marines with others as side kicks.

There is no admission here of anything. 30k is literally about Marines vs Marines, that's the entire point of the Horus Heresy which 30k is based around. 40k is much broader than this, being based around the survival of an aging and decaying Imperium and the myriads of xenos and daemonic threats to the Imperium. The xeno and the demon are side-shows in 30k; they are front and center in 40k. Daemons, Eldar (of all kinds) and Orks have a much more prominent role in 40k, and Necrons, Tau, and Tyranids exist as meaningful opponents to the Imperium. Hell, most factions in 40k didn't even exist in 30k, including a great many Marine subfactions, the Ynnari eldar subfaction, the Inquisition, the Sisters of Battle... even if you can proxy the Imperial Guard as the Solar Auxilia the Guard still play a much bigger role in 40k than 30k.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I was talking based in the assumption that both products where of equal quality

But that's not a good assumption to make. You can make a better quality product when you have more per-product development time available because you aren't shoveling out mediocre books as fast as possible to cover all 999999999 different factions (and milk the cash cow as hard as possible).

One could assume that at this point GW should have enough employes to write Codexs for aprox 20 factions even 30. But at the same time we could assume that they have enough money to hire competent rule writters so...

Obviously what you have said with the reality that they have limited emplyes is truth. But what point is enough faction-triming to have better written codex?

And about the "Are Space Marines the protagonists of 40k?" I'm only gonna post this as my last point to make:

 Peregrine wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
So ignore all the unique demonic units csm have, possessed marines, demon engines, cult troops? You aren't arguing they are the same, you are arguing they could be made the same if you stripped out everything unique and interesting about them. That's true but it's also a silly argument, as you could argue that about anything with varying degrees of absurdity.

I never said that. My position is one book for all loyalist marines, one book for chaos (including cultists/demon engines/etc, with WHFB-style demons reduced to an option for summoning). Having a separate book for CSM isn't the problem, it's every special snowflake sub-faction of marines getting their own codex.

In fact, if you want to share what army you play (and if you say eldar I'll probably die from laughter).

It's in my signature, I play IG (specifically DKoK/ABG).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
Grey Knights may use terminators, but theyr'e a completely differant animal of terminator from regular marines.

Not really. They have terminator armor, storm bolters, and power weapons. Stop looking at their current special snowflake rules and look at the fluff instead, and they can be represented just fine by C:SM terminators with a GK "chapter tactics" rule.

I don't disagree with Dark and Blood Angels being rolled up into the Vanilla codex, but you cannot argue for Space Wolves and Grey Knights and (to an extent) Deathwatch doing the same thing. They're just too different.

I think that Deathwatch and Grey Knights should be in a Inquisition Codex with Sisters of Battle and the Three Ordos together. We know that isn't happening but... alas.

 Melissia wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Grey Knights may use terminators, but theyr'e a completely differant animal of terminator from regular marines. arguing GKs are no differant from ultramarines is as stupid as arguing sisters of battle aren't a distinct army and should just be folded into codex space marines. I mean they use power armor and rhinos right?

Of course not. Sisters don't have a Marine statline, and in the lore they are not Space Marines, unlike Grey Knights, who have both a space marine statline and are, in fact, space marines in the lore-- so the comparison doesn't work as well. Next you're going to be trying to convince me that Orks are Marines because they both are toughness four or some other ridiculous nonsense.

And Grey Knight termies aren't really THAT different from normal termies in the end. "Completely different" my ass, they've still got the crux terminatus and terminator save, they've still got the teleport strike, they've still got combat squadding and ATSKNF, they've still got the storm bolter and power weapon, they've still got the reduced movement of a terminator unit. They've got some neat toys to play with and they're psykers-- which is par for the course for a Grey Knights unit. But they're still terminators in the end, and have all the amenities a terminator requires to be a terminator.

We could go on and on about this all day, but in the end, it's still a fact that what we're going to be getting is four different flavors of space marine in a row as our only announced releases thus far.

Galas: Goddamn you're trolling hard today. Try using less strawman arguments and more logic.

Well they ARE completely different because they have different heavy weapons and different power weapons.

 Galas wrote:
One could assume that at this point GW should have enough employes to write Codexs for aprox 20 factions even 30. But at the same time we could assume that they have enough money to hire competent rule writters so...

Obviously what you have said with the reality that they have limited emplyes is truth. But what point is enough faction-triming to have better written codex?

It's not just the number of employees, it's the length of the development cycle. Doing a codex right takes many people: a development team, a playtesting team, a rules manager to keep up with the rules interactions between books, etc. All of GW working together might, if they ditched their idiotic beliefs about game design, be able to write one codex at a time. So making a smaller number of combined codices means allowing a larger development investment and therefore better final quality than rushing out 20+ different codices so that each minor sub-faction has their own rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well they ARE completely different because they have different heavy weapons and different power weapons.

That doesn't matter from a fluff point of view. A power sword is a power sword, it doesn't need special snowflake rules to represent the fluff concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't disagree with Dark and Blood Angels being rolled up into the Vanilla codex, but you cannot argue for Space Wolves and Grey Knights and (to an extent) Deathwatch doing the same thing. They're just too different.

Sure I can.

SW are just normal marines with different names. Maybe they need a new unit entry or two for their power armored melee "scouts", but most of the army is just C:SM. And most of the things that aren't (TWC, the flyers, etc) are stupid concepts that should be dumped anyway.

GK and deathwatch should not exist in 40k. Fluff-wise their numbers are far too small to be relevant, and they should be limited to skirmish-scale games or maybe an occasional narrative scenario with special scenario-specific rules for using the existing marine models and codex to represent the special marines. But even with that in mind they're still largely just marines and can be represented by a "chapter tactics" style rule that gives them the psychic unit thing, and dumping the stupid dreadknight model that should never have been created in the first place.

I don't think they should be rolled up in to one codex. But I do disagree that they're really that much more substantially different. Longfangs are Devastator Marines, Bloodclaws and Skyclaws are Assault Marines, Wolf Guard are Veterans, Terminators are Terminators, Iron Priests are Techmarines, Runepriests are Librarians, and so on. They have some unique units in their vehicles and in the Wulfen-related lore, and some unique wolfgear-- err, wargear. But they're Space Marine analogues through and through. You were better off arguing about Grey Knights, really.

Hell, GW itself certainly thinks Space Wolves are equivalent to generic Space Marines; if you select Space Wolves in the US GW site, amongst the list of units is... every single generic Space Marine unit. Alongside Longfangs you have Devastators, and so on. They even show the generic "Space Marine Heroes" trio with that obnoxious ultramarine crest on the captain as options.

Heh.

Amusing how me simply showing dismay that all the Space Marine books are packed in the initial release of 8th edition turned in to yet another argument of "COMBINE THEM!" "NO DON'T!". I'd simply rather the releases of the various flavors of Space Marine codices be more spread out, personally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well they ARE completely different because they have different heavy weapons and different power weapons.

And yet it's still a Space Marine holding them.

Peregrine, honest curiosity. How many factions and what ones would you leave in your ideal incarnation of the 40k ruleset?

Zero games of 8th played and.......I'm out.

I'm not paying $50 for hardcover codices.

I should have know they were up to their old tricks when they LIED and said that the rules would be free.

Well, without the goddamn datasheets the fething rules are unusable.

 Galas wrote:
Peregrine, honest curiosity. How many factions and what ones would you leave in your ideal incarnation of the 40k ruleset?

Space marines (all loyalist chapters).
Chaos (all chaos chapters + cultists + summoned demons).
Imperial Guard (including regiment-specific rules)
Imperial Everything Else (minor factions: inquisition, SoB, etc)
Orks
Eldar (including all space elf varieties)
Tau

Space marines are consolidated, Tyranids are gone, Necrons are probably also gone, and TBH I'd probably dump the minor Imperial factions too (they're not really relevant on a 40k-scale battlefield) but people would riot over it.

Tyranids are way too important to 40k lore to be removed. Necrons are too interesting.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Peregrine, honest curiosity. How many factions and what ones would you leave in your ideal incarnation of the 40k ruleset?

Space marines (all loyalist chapters).
Chaos (all chaos chapters + cultists + summoned demons).
Imperial Guard (including regiment-specific rules)
Imperial Everything Else (minor factions: inquisition, SoB, etc)
Orks
Eldar (including all space elf varieties)
Tau

Space marines are consolidated, Tyranids are gone, Necrons are probably also gone, and TBH I'd probably dump the minor Imperial factions too (they're not really relevant on a 40k-scale battlefield) but people would riot over it.

To be honest people would riot with your list so at that point one faction or two more isn't gonna make a difference
I find curious that you didn't erased Tau too. But thanks for your time!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Peregrine, honest curiosity. How many factions and what ones would you leave in your ideal incarnation of the 40k ruleset?

Space marines (all loyalist chapters).
Chaos (all chaos chapters + cultists + summoned demons).
Imperial Guard (including regiment-specific rules)
Imperial Everything Else (minor factions: inquisition, SoB, etc)
Orks
Eldar (including all space elf varieties)
Tau

Space marines are consolidated, Tyranids are gone, Necrons are probably also gone, and TBH I'd probably dump the minor Imperial factions too (they're not really relevant on a 40k-scale battlefield) but people would riot over it.

So no Tyranids? No GSC?

Curious as to why, as Genestealers have been around forever.

Why keep Tau though? Unless they're expanded on GREATLY, they're a small xeno empire that only survives through luck and the Imperium's short tolerance of them.

Rule #2...

Feel free to create separate topics that are about all that stuff that isn't discussion about the actual books that GW is planning on releasing eventually.