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.

So it comes down to "if I don't get exactly what I want every other improvement to the game is gak."

Breng77 wrote:
So it comes down to "if I don't get exactly what I want every other improvement to the game is gak."

There is nothing that an amalgamated "factions Breng doesn't give a damn about" book would do to improve the game to begin with.

Merging all the non-SM Imperium factions into a single book is especially silly when you consider Space Marines themselves get five or six different books to cover their various flavors.

That would cause the publishing cycle to be even more heavily saturated with Space Marines, with GW only rarely acknowledging "oh yeah other armies kinda exist".

Breng77 wrote:
So it comes down to "if I don't get exactly what I want every other improvement to the game is gak."

To be fair, that is not an uncommon attitude on Dakka right now.

 Melissia wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So it comes down to "if I don't get exactly what I want every other improvement to the game is gak."

There is nothing that an amalgamated "factions Breng doesn't give a damn about" book would do to improve the game to begin with.

Did you even read the genesis of said idea? Or just say "sisters merge with other stuff feth no!" The idea was a way to limit "allies" in the game. Especially because they largely boil down (as they always have) to Imperium gets allies. Allies make a balanced game difficult. I'd love to see all those factions fully supported, but they aren't and may never be. If all those factions had a full model range that made them playable armies on their own great, then you just have more "primary factions" with no extra allies. Until such a point merging them together to allow them all to be playable to some extent is superior to having "Codex custodies" with 4 units in it.

Martel732 wrote:
It's just 5th ed redux. Don't let the IG whiners tell you otherwise; they were brutal in 5th to face.

Best army in the game in 5th.

 ross-128 wrote:
Merging all the non-SM Imperium factions into a single book is especially silly when you consider Space Marines themselves get five or six different books to cover their various flavors.

That would cause the publishing cycle to be even more heavily saturated with Space Marines, with GW only rarely acknowledging "oh yeah other armies kinda exist".

Except those space marine books have more units than many of the non-space marine factions. Personally I love the idea of all space marine chapters rolled into 1 book, I always have, it cuts down on re-prints of units, and keeps all the rules on the same page between books.

That said

Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves have more unique units than Sisters have units.

GK are 1 less, and Deathwatch are significantly less, and I've said they should be rolled into the imperium dex to work with the inquisition and expand their model range.

Which gives you
IG
SM
BA
DA
SW
Ad mech
and Imperium
For the imperial side of things as "primary" factions




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So it comes down to "if I don't get exactly what I want every other improvement to the game is gak."

To be fair, that is not an uncommon attitude on Dakka right now.

very true

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's just 5th ed redux. Don't let the IG whiners tell you otherwise; they were brutal in 5th to face.

Best army in the game in 5th.

For a little while. Guard leafblower did not actually last as the top tier army for the whole of 5th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Did you even read the genesis of said idea?

Yeah, I read it. I stand by my statement. I view your solution as crap even BEFORE I hate on it for forcing multiple wildly divergent armies into a single book where they stagnate and die.

Frankly, if the only way to achieve balance is to say "feth you" to everyone who isn't a Space Marine, then balance isn't worth achieving.

And by the way, I found it pretty fething funny that your original post wanted to stuff deathwatch, sisters, and inquisition in a book, but wouldn't allow Daemonhunter Inquisitors access to Grey Knights. If there's going to be a solution to this "problem", it needs to come without screwing a huge number of people completely unrelated to the problem over.

alex0911 wrote:
So far 8th edition is boring... I hope codex will balance it... At least in v7 there were 4 viable armies..

If you ban Guard and Eldar, there are tons of viable armies.

Uniting the Ordos again under one book isn't a bad idea.

 Quickjager wrote:
Uniting the Ordos again under one book isn't a bad idea.

Isn't a good one, either. Best idea is actually more variety; more books, including variant books for factions like orks, guard, tyranids, necrons, and sisters similar to the various colors of space marines that get their own books. Like with C:SM, make them weaker when you mix and match.

 Melissia wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Uniting the Ordos again under one book isn't a bad idea.

Isn't a good one, either. Best idea is actually more variety; more books, including variant books for factions like orks, guard, tyranids, necrons, and sisters similar to the various colors of space marines that get their own books. Like with C:SM, make them weaker when you mix and match.

nah this is terrible, it just makes updates take longer. We need space marine contraction, not expansion of other stuff. Now if we are talking about some more units for underserved armies I'm for it, but more books was a huge issue in 7th.

Breng77 wrote:
nah this is terrible, it just makes updates take longer. We need space marine contraction, not expansion of other stuff. Now if we are talking about some more units for underserved armies I'm for it, but more books was a huge issue in 7th.

Not really. 7th's problems had almost nothing to do with too many books, and too much to do with the idea that each new book must be better, stronger, and more versatile than the last.

Yea, SM/CSM/GK, all these codices will be overshadowed in the coming releases. Just look at 7th.

 Melissia wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's just 5th ed redux. Don't let the IG whiners tell you otherwise; they were brutal in 5th to face.

Best army in the game in 5th.

For a little while. Guard leafblower did not actually last as the top tier army for the whole of 5th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Did you even read the genesis of said idea?

Yeah, I read it. I stand by my statement. I view your solution as crap even BEFORE I hate on it for forcing multiple wildly divergent armies into a single book where they stagnate and die.

Frankly, if the only way to achieve balance is to say "feth you" to everyone who isn't a Space Marine, then balance isn't worth achieving.

And by the way, I found it pretty fething funny that your original post wanted to stuff deathwatch, sisters, and inquisition in a book, but wouldn't allow Daemonhunter Inquisitors access to Grey Knights. If there's going to be a solution to this "problem", it needs to come without screwing a huge number of people completely unrelated to the problem over.

Assumption that those armies stagnate and die in one book, is no more valid than the reality that they are stagnating and dying right now in their own separate snowflake books. Also everyone that isn't a space Marine?

It doesn't hurt
Ad Mech
IG
Any merged army based on their current iteration.
Orks
Eldar
DE
Nid
GSC
etc.

So yeah not really hurting lots of non-space marine players, in fact it takes tools away from space marine players so point in fact would hurt them.

Personally I'm sad to see the return of codices at all, I think they are a terrible design practice. on the flip side carrying 10 books for your army sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
nah this is terrible, it just makes updates take longer. We need space marine contraction, not expansion of other stuff. Now if we are talking about some more units for underserved armies I'm for it, but more books was a huge issue in 7th.

Not really. 7th's problems had almost nothing to do with too many books, and too much to do with the idea that each new book must be better, stronger, and more versatile than the last.

I disagree I think adding new books instead of updating existing books was bad, which is what happened. Why update sisters when we can have admech, or more flavors of marines.

Alright getting a little off topic perhaps?

 Quickjager wrote:
Alright getting a little off topic perhaps?

True this has been for pages

Breng77 wrote:
Assumption that those armies stagnate and die in one book, is no more valid than the reality that they are stagnating and dying right now in their own separate snowflake books.

Even with Sisters stagnating separately in the gameplay, we actually got new lore in the previous codices before Imperial Agents. New lore, new artwork, and so on.

Breng77 wrote:
So yeah not really hurting lots of non-space marine players

I specified imperial earlier in this thread, and that's the context behidn that statement.

Breng77 wrote:
Personally I'm sad to see the return of codices at all, I think they are a terrible design practice. on the flip side carrying 10 books for your army sucks.

What the feth-ass kind of army are you using that requires ten books? Inquisition? Well tough gak, that's the nature of Inquisition. They explicitly aren't an army in and of themselves. They are powerful leaders that take command of, hire, or otherwise acquire other armies. Really, Inquisitors should actually be Lord of War material with their retinue giving them powerful support, debuff, and survivability powers depending on how the retinue is built; but that's an entirely different gripe.

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree I think adding new books instead of updating existing books was bad, which is what happened. Why update sisters when we can have admech, or more flavors of marines.

By that definition, the first thing they should have done this edition is release Sisters of Battle as their opening codex, but that's not what's happened, and let's be realistic, it was never going to happen. In your ideal fairyland world with unicorns and rainbows, everyone can be crammed inside of a few tiny books but still be supported just as well if not better than they currently are. I fail to see how, with such a vivid imagination as would craft such an unlikely scenario, you cannot also imagine the idea of GW continuing to pump out a book or two every month until everyone has gotten an update, then add new subfactions in order to add even more variety ot the gameplay.

And yes, a game without variety is a worse game than one with more. If I wanted to play a game without variety, I'd toss away my miniatures and go be boring and pick up chess.

With Codex's coming out you're going to be more motivated to bring a single army through specific stratagems and other perks. So hopefully you'll be rewarded by bringing a thematic army, though I know you can forge whatever narrative you wish.

Breng77 wrote:
Personally I'm sad to see the return of codices at all, I think they are a terrible design practice. on the flip side carrying 10 books for your army sucks.

It's strange too since Age of Sigmar is almost perfect in its design and affordability. There aren't masses of codex books like this mess of a game. There's just four mega-alliance books that have the stats for everyone in them. They consolidated the factions into four "teams" and put all the rules into a single book for each. Plus when the game launched, the rules were FREE. You could download your index online.

Yet GW makes us pay $25 for an Index that is obsolete two weeks later then $50 for a book that contains 1/3 of your faction then waiting months and months and MONTHS to get the rest of them. Sigmar dropped all four faction books at basically the same time.

They CAN do it. They're just not bothering to. That or Sigmar is literally occupying the majority of their resources.

7th problem wherent many books. It was that you needed MANY books to play ONE army.
Many books but everyone to one single army (Real Armies that aren't stupid armies like Tempestus Scions or Custodes or Sisters of Silence) are a good thing.

First rule of dakka is really that every thread eventually ends with sisters players bitching

 Arkaine wrote:

alex0911 wrote:
So far 8th edition is boring... I hope codex will balance it... At least in v7 there were 4 viable armies..

If you ban Guard and Eldar, there are tons of viable armies.

Uhh...yeaahhh. Eldar are totally out-performing Chaos and SM. /s

I sense no small amount of here.

Edit: apparently it wasn't clear that I was referring to tournaments. In non-competitive, it's much more of a crapshoot.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

alex0911 wrote:
So far 8th edition is boring... I hope codex will balance it... At least in v7 there were 4 viable armies..

If you ban Guard and Eldar, there are tons of viable armies.

Uhh...yeaahhh. Eldar are totally out-performing Chaos and SM. /s

I sense no small amount of here.

Ah, the typical Dakka resident... assuming everyone in the world is as salty as they are.

Actually I was referring to the collected community results that put Eldar and Imperium as the two strongest factions currently.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/930/730601.page#9524393

So nope, no salt here but your own.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Named characters should be banned from competition.

That's as stupid as banning FW or specific units because you don't like them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rickels wrote:
If conscripts are the "meta" then you just have to work out a way to beat them. You will start seeing massive ork armies with 150+ orks, banners and warboss with some weirdboys to teleport a squad within 9", congo to the warboss, advance and then charge those conscript units.

6+/5+ with only double shots and then dying in drove on a 2+/3+.

Stop being so nerf happy and figure out a way to beat the current meta instead of relying on GW to do it for you.

Remember how Eldar and Marine apologists said this exact line about Scatterbikes and Gladius?

Stupid?
Yeah.
Such a smart remark.
Because I don't like them? Who said that?
Not me...
Anyway you are so smart.
You must be right.

 Arkaine wrote:
Ah, the typical Dakka resident... assuming everyone in the world is as salty as they are.

Actually I was referring to the collected community results that put Eldar and Imperium as the two strongest factions currently.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/930/730601.page#9524393

So nope, no salt here but your own.

I think the salt is that we are still at a place where "Eldar" means "CWE" not "anyone with pointy ears".

Ynnari are still fine. Not quite as comically "this is the end of the edition they are not even pretending to care" broken as before, but clearly solid.
I am convinced DE are also good - but while this is being confirmed in Dakka's findings it doesn't seem to be coming through in tournaments.
Craftworld by contrast are looking pretty rubbish. Which is perhaps not surprising because their perk for not being Ynnari is pretty rubbish.
Not sure about Harlequins.

Tyel wrote:
Ynnari are still fine. Not quite as comically "this is the end of the edition they are not even pretending to care" broken as before, but clearly solid.
I am convinced DE are also good - but while this is being confirmed in Dakka's findings it doesn't seem to be coming through in tournaments.
Craftworld by contrast are looking pretty rubbish. Which is perhaps not surprising because their perk for not being Ynnari is pretty rubbish.
Not sure about Harlequins.

I think it's not showing in tournaments because those will feature only the most hyper competitive lists. Dakka's results include all manner of random games, both hardcore and fluffy, that distill the results a bit. Obviously when people only take the absolute min-max unit compositions in an effort to be That Guy then only the Imperial Guard truly shine as a beacon of terror. Everyone else is kind of... eh? Mixed results.

 Arkaine wrote:
But in previous editions, the Lords could be stronger than the special characters due to wargear customization. Even HeroHammer was a thing in Fantasy. Special named characters weren't the crux of these days but rather your personally named avatar warlord with the bajillion upgrades.

This edition is the closest chess equivalent we've had yet thanks to stratagems allowing for a sense of choice and the careful evaluation of resource expenditure according to what your opponent is likely to do. Past editions effectively played themselves if you were always performing the optimal play.

So what?
Fixing herohammer - this is easy enough.
What does that have to do with named characters and buff-junkies doing what buff-junkies do?
Point is stop feeding the buff junkies.
Srategems seem cool but we have yet to see the rest of them.

And how is your second statement not true now?
The easiest way to make a more even less buff junkie rewarding system is with universal rules.
Everything in special words on different scrolls or slates is not helping.

 ross-128 wrote:
Merging all the non-SM Imperium factions into a single book is especially silly when you consider Space Marines themselves get five or six different books to cover their various flavors.

That would cause the publishing cycle to be even more heavily saturated with Space Marines, with GW only rarely acknowledging "oh yeah other armies kinda exist".

There should really only be a few Space Marine codices:
1. Space Marines
2. Grey Knights
3. Space Wolves
4. Deathwatch

There's absolutely no reason for Death Angels and Blood Angels to be separate. Plus there's no reason Vanilla Marines shouldn't have some of their options, and no reason the angels shouldn't have some of their options. It's ridiculous.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Merging all the non-SM Imperium factions into a single book is especially silly when you consider Space Marines themselves get five or six different books to cover their various flavors.

That would cause the publishing cycle to be even more heavily saturated with Space Marines, with GW only rarely acknowledging "oh yeah other armies kinda exist".

There should really only be a few Space Marine codices:
1. Space Marines
2. Grey Knights
3. Space Wolves
4. Deathwatch

There's absolutely no reason for Death Angels and Blood Angels to be separate. Plus there's no reason Vanilla Marines shouldn't have some of their options, and no reason the angels shouldn't have some of their options. It's ridiculous.

I'm curious as to why Dark/Blood Angels should be included within the main codex and Deathwatch not? Just add a few more special weapons and equipment and you'll have that army included as well.