Can the MeQ statline be saved?

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.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
1. And yet the Black Templars are in the same codex, and Chapters with hardly any deviations as a whole (Dark and Blood Angels) have separate Codices. Your argument here is bad. Next.
2. Once again not a defense. Try and tell that to a Dark Eldar player please and that they're whining over old options and they should get over it. I insist. Tell them to move on and that they should remember the current rules focus on the average Cabal!
3. I DO argue they should be improved. I'm focusing on the thread at hand though. Why would I bring up other units?

So basically the fluff argument you try does NOT work here. I haven't an idea why you are attached to 1 Special 1 Heavy when people have done all they can to avoid it, the fluff says it isn't always the case. It never worked, and you insist we change the rules around one unit? They already did that! Now you can move with a Heavy Weapon at a slight penalty and you have Split Fire on everyone. It's STILL terrible!

1. The Templars used to have their own codex and probably will again. The poor handling of them has nothing to do with this though. Neither does the often debated need for Dark and Blood Angels to have their own Codex. It would probably be possible to write an SM codex that can hold them all and support all of their options, but that is irrelevant to the current argument. The entries in the codex are based around Codex Adherent chapters and are not meant to represent all the possible deviations of other chapters.

2. I am a Dark Eldar player, thanks. I don't have any of those complaints, but I started with them in 5th so maybe I just wouldn't. I'm fine with getting more options. But I still want them based on the fluff. Losing options because GW didn't bother supporting them is different from losing options because the fluff changed.

3. Because the thread is about a lot more than Tacs. And it is not only about specific units, but the overall approach to fixing the game. Which is why I keep stressing the point that the policy should be to match the rules to the fluff, not throw out the fluff because the rules team failed to live up to it.

I'm not attached to 1 special 1 heavy. I'm attached to rules reflecting fluff. Otherwise this never ends. Tacs aren't just bad because of 1 special 1 heavy. Let's just remove them entirely! And Death Strike missiles for guard aren't very good. Let's turn them into rapid fire seeker missile clones because that'd be more useful mechanically. And Vanguard Vets aren't that great right now. Fix them? Nah, let's just delete them. Screw 25+ years of story and universe development, we need to make some numbers that we could just change add up!

I'm not insisting we change the rules around one unit. I'm insisting we not change a unit because of the current rules. What units are is defined by the fluff. Tactical marines are not a statline in a game system. They are an idea in a story. The game system is based around the story. The statline is temporary. If we are considering changing the idea of what one of the most iconic, foundational units in the Warhammer Universe is because the current rules for it are bad, then we might as well throw out the entire game now. The game system exists in support of the universe and story, not the other way around.

That's the whole point of this thread: When your most iconic units, that have brought in the largest share of your player base for decades end up being crap in a ton of different ways due to the structure of rules in the new edition, you know you've got problems. I'm fine with changing fluff for story or writing reasons. But I'm not okay with changing even one iota of the story just because the current game system authors have done a poor job. Fix the rules without compromising the lore and fluff.

1. Saying "they probably will again" doesn't somehow remedy you being wrong. You said average Chapter. Those were YOUR words, not mine.
So yeah it does have everything to do with this. A unit is actually inflexible thanks to the codex having to represent the average Chapter when you have deviants that exist, along with THE official poster child for deviant chapters in said codex meaning to represent the average Chapter?

No. You can't just say "Nah they'll get their own codex" and move on. I'm not letting you. We are talking about the now.

2. You literally lost characters because there weren't kits supporting them. If you say you want rules based around fluff, you ought to complain about that, right? Fluff DID change as well, as we don't hear about those characters anymore!

3. Yeah I know it isn't about just Tactical and Chaos Marines, but bringing up how units like Wyches are bad doesn't help in this thread. That's the good ol' fashioned "There are kids starving in Africa so you're not allowed to whine about YOUR problems"
I hadn't even gotten to how Chosen and Sternguard and Vanguard and Assault Marines and TONS of stuff could possibly be fixed. I simply have to focus on one unit at a time, as there are CLEAR issues with the unit design of one of them. One of those issues is something people avoid altogether, but even WITH the core rules trying to rectify it, the loadout makes no sense. Simple as that.

So yes, I'm saying you DO have an attachment to the outdated format whether you want to admit it or not. Going into a cute little tirade about deleting units really doesn't do anything for your case. The unit basically hasn't worked for basically most of its existence. Simple as that. This is because of the fluff you choose to defend though, as the unit doesn't make sense for fluff OR crunch at the same time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
...1. The Templars used to have their own codex and probably will again. The poor handling of them has nothing to do with this though. Neither does the often debated need for Dark and Blood Angels to have their own Codex. It would probably be possible to write an SM codex that can hold them all and support all of their options, but that is irrelevant to the current argument. The entries in the codex are based around Codex Adherent chapters and are not meant to represent all the possible deviations of other chapters...

If GW were writing Space Marines sensibly there would be one "Space Marine Codex" with a set of appendixes describing Chapter Tactics and unique rules for all nine of the loyal Legions plus the Black Templars (the way the 30k Legion list and the 3e CSM book were written). The only "Space Marines" that would actually be in different Codexes are the ones whose units don't map directly to "normal" Marine units (GK/Deathwatch).

But they're not writing them sensibly so instead we get three Codexes where ~70% of the content is identical between each one and one where only ~50% of the content is identical.

All you people saying this need to remember the space marine codex is already pretty thick, fold dark angels blood angels and space wolves in there and you proably suddenly have a 75 dollar 350 page monster codex

Most of the "unique" entries really aren't unique (the Sanguine Priest can go, quite frankly, and when you even bother to use Terminators in the first place you focus them on a task so who's even bothering with mixing and matching with Deathwing?) or need to be folded into the other chapters anyway (The Librarian Dread is especially insulting to Grey Knights) That leaves maybe 1-2 extra units and the special characters.

**Drudge Dreadnought**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
1. And yet the Black Templars are in the same codex, and Chapters with hardly any deviations as a whole (Dark and Blood Angels) have separate Codices. Your argument here is bad. Next.
2. Once again not a defense. Try and tell that to a Dark Eldar player please and that they're whining over old options and they should get over it. I insist. Tell them to move on and that they should remember the current rules focus on the average Cabal!
3. I DO argue they should be improved. I'm focusing on the thread at hand though. Why would I bring up other units?

So basically the fluff argument you try does NOT work here. I haven't an idea why you are attached to 1 Special 1 Heavy when people have done all they can to avoid it, the fluff says it isn't always the case. It never worked, and you insist we change the rules around one unit? They already did that! Now you can move with a Heavy Weapon at a slight penalty and you have Split Fire on everyone. It's STILL terrible!

1. The Templars used to have their own codex and probably will again. The poor handling of them has nothing to do with this though. Neither does the often debated need for Dark and Blood Angels to have their own Codex. It would probably be possible to write an SM codex that can hold them all and support all of their options, but that is irrelevant to the current argument. The entries in the codex are based around Codex Adherent chapters and are not meant to represent all the possible deviations of other chapters.

2. I am a Dark Eldar player, thanks. I don't have any of those complaints, but I started with them in 5th so maybe I just wouldn't. I'm fine with getting more options. But I still want them based on the fluff. Losing options because GW didn't bother supporting them is different from losing options because the fluff changed.

3. Because the thread is about a lot more than Tacs. And it is not only about specific units, but the overall approach to fixing the game. Which is why I keep stressing the point that the policy should be to match the rules to the fluff, not throw out the fluff because the rules team failed to live up to it.

I'm not attached to 1 special 1 heavy. I'm attached to rules reflecting fluff. Otherwise this never ends. Tacs aren't just bad because of 1 special 1 heavy. Let's just remove them entirely! And Death Strike missiles for guard aren't very good. Let's turn them into rapid fire seeker missile clones because that'd be more useful mechanically. And Vanguard Vets aren't that great right now. Fix them? Nah, let's just delete them. Screw 25+ years of story and universe development, we need to make some numbers that we could just change add up!

I'm not insisting we change the rules around one unit. I'm insisting we not change a unit because of the current rules. What units are is defined by the fluff. Tactical marines are not a statline in a game system. They are an idea in a story. The game system is based around the story. The statline is temporary. If we are considering changing the idea of what one of the most iconic, foundational units in the Warhammer Universe is because the current rules for it are bad, then we might as well throw out the entire game now. The game system exists in support of the universe and story, not the other way around.

That's the whole point of this thread: When your most iconic units, that have brought in the largest share of your player base for decades end up being crap in a ton of different ways due to the structure of rules in the new edition, you know you've got problems. I'm fine with changing fluff for story or writing reasons. But I'm not okay with changing even one iota of the story just because the current game system authors have done a poor job. Fix the rules without compromising the lore and fluff.

1. Saying "they probably will again" doesn't somehow remedy you being wrong. You said average Chapter. Those were YOUR words, not mine.
So yeah it does have everything to do with this. A unit is actually inflexible thanks to the codex having to represent the average Chapter when you have deviants that exist, along with THE official poster child for deviant chapters in said codex meaning to represent the average Chapter?

No. You can't just say "Nah they'll get their own codex" and move on. I'm not letting you. We are talking about the now.

2. You literally lost characters because there weren't kits supporting them. If you say you want rules based around fluff, you ought to complain about that, right? Fluff DID change as well, as we don't hear about those characters anymore!

3. Yeah I know it isn't about just Tactical and Chaos Marines, but bringing up how units like Wyches are bad doesn't help in this thread. That's the good ol' fashioned "There are kids starving in Africa so you're not allowed to whine about YOUR problems"
I hadn't even gotten to how Chosen and Sternguard and Vanguard and Assault Marines and TONS of stuff could possibly be fixed. I simply have to focus on one unit at a time, as there are CLEAR issues with the unit design of one of them. One of those issues is something people avoid altogether, but even WITH the core rules trying to rectify it, the loadout makes no sense. Simple as that.

So yes, I'm saying you DO have an attachment to the outdated format whether you want to admit it or not. Going into a cute little tirade about deleting units really doesn't do anything for your case. The unit basically hasn't worked for basically most of its existence. Simple as that. This is because of the fluff you choose to defend though, as the unit doesn't make sense for fluff OR crunch at the same time.

1. The SM Codex is for representing Codex Adherent chapters. The Black Templars are not one. GW rolled them in their in a half assed fashion, which is dumb and annoying. That the current codex, that is obviously not really meant to fully represent them does not do a good job of representing them doesn't prove anything. It was never meant to do a proper job of it. They have their own special unit as an alternative to tacticals. You are off on some tangent that has no bearing on this discussion. The SM Codex is for Codex Adherent Chapters. Thus the units are written to represent Codex Adherent Units. But they tossed in some half assed stuff to tide people over until they can get their own books. They may never. What is hard to understand about this?

2. Lots of armies have lost units that didn't have models supporting them due to the various copyright and legal issues GW is facing. Not because these characters were deleted from the story. Those characters are not featured in the codex's fluff because the codex is focused on the units in it. They still exist in the universe. What is even your argument here? Can you not tell the difference between not featuring a unit, and rewriting the unit to fit poorly written rules?

3. There's nothing wrong with the design. The 1 special + 1 heavy is a reference to many real world military fire teams. It'd be fine if it was good. It could be good if they wrote rules to make it good. We should not have to lose it just because the current rules aren't good.

You seem to be intentionally ignoring what i'm writing at this point. The Unit hasn't worked well for most of it's existence on the tabletop. It's perfectly fine in the story. So do we A) Fix its rules on the tabletop or B) Change it on the tabletop AND in the story and open an endless Pandora's box of arbitrary tabletop rules overriding the story? Why on earth is B what's appealing to you more?

Most of the "unique" entries really aren't unique (the Sanguine Priest can go, quite frankly, and when you even bother to use Terminators in the first place you focus them on a task so who's even bothering with mixing and matching with Deathwing?) or need to be folded into the other chapters anyway (The Librarian Dread is especially insulting to Grey Knights) That leaves maybe 1-2 extra units and the special characters.

"Waaah these popular and characterful units are conflicting with my arbitrary desire to stick everything into one book so they can just go."

Yeah no. We're not doin that.

**pm713**

Folding them all into one is a great idea. I'd love to pay much more for a book where I use a fraction of the content. Especially when that's clearly the best place to remove faction bloat!

**AlmightyWalrus**

You know, considering the absolute clusterfeth that Black Templars have become after getting rolled in 6th, how is ANYONE still arguing that rolling more books into C:SM is a good and reasonable idea?

**Mr Morden**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, considering the absolute clusterfeth that Black Templars have become after getting rolled in 6th, how is ANYONE still arguing that rolling more books into C:SM is a good and reasonable idea?

The problem is that GW have drove down a one way street with their constant updates to a couple of snowflake Chapters and been forced to make them more and more outlandish and IMO stupid to self justify it.

I think they should have had a Codex Adherent book and non Adherent book which would have given all the options that are ohh so "unique" to the Wolvves and the Angels and that in reality would be seen - with other things - in plenty of Chapters (and are in Black Library)

So cavalry, sniper squads,inflitatration teams, Librarain Dreadnoguhts, Forgemaster Dreadnoughts - loads of fun stuff

but no - we will just get Wulf wulff WULF Primaris and the like as models and units like we had to have special boxed sets for the Angels alone.

**Luke_Prowler**

BrianDavion wrote:
All you people saying this need to remember the space marine codex is already pretty thick, fold dark angels blood angels and space wolves in there and you proably suddenly have a 75 dollar 350 page monster codex

Wanna bet on that? I think I could do a combined Space Marine Codex for half that amount of pages and not remove a single unit

**AlmightyWalrus**

Luke_Prowler wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
All you people saying this need to remember the space marine codex is already pretty thick, fold dark angels blood angels and space wolves in there and you proably suddenly have a 75 dollar 350 page monster codex

Wanna bet on that? I think I could do a combined Space Marine Codex for half that amount of pages and not remove a single unit

That's what people said about Black Templars as well. Look where that ended up.

**Luke_Prowler**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
All you people saying this need to remember the space marine codex is already pretty thick, fold dark angels blood angels and space wolves in there and you proably suddenly have a 75 dollar 350 page monster codex

Wanna bet on that? I think I could do a combined Space Marine Codex for half that amount of pages and not remove a single unit

That's what people said about Black Templars as well. Look where that ended up.

Your complaint is duly noted, but GM's poor execution does not mean it can't be done, nor do I think GW would do any better with a special snowflake codex beyond uniqueness for uniqueness' sake.

**Slayer-Fan123**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
All you people saying this need to remember the space marine codex is already pretty thick, fold dark angels blood angels and space wolves in there and you proably suddenly have a 75 dollar 350 page monster codex

Wanna bet on that? I think I could do a combined Space Marine Codex for half that amount of pages and not remove a single unit

That's what people said about Black Templars as well. Look where that ended up.

They didn't have a lot of unique units that cannot be represented in other ways. All the complaints about Sword Brethren seem to not make sense when Vanguard are doing the same thing.

**Mr Morden**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
All you people saying this need to remember the space marine codex is already pretty thick, fold dark angels blood angels and space wolves in there and you proably suddenly have a 75 dollar 350 page monster codex

Wanna bet on that? I think I could do a combined Space Marine Codex for half that amount of pages and not remove a single unit

That's what people said about Black Templars as well. Look where that ended up.

They didn't have a lot of unique units that cannot be represented in other ways. All the complaints about Sword Brethren seem to not make sense when Vanguard are doing the same thing.

Same with the Wolves and Angels if you exclude the Flander specials - and even then those could be made generic ones as other chapters will have equivalents.

**Primark G**

Hopefully one day there will be more codices to represent each of the original Legions.

**Bobthehero**

The last thing we need is extra space marines

**Slayer-Fan123**

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
1. And yet the Black Templars are in the same codex, and Chapters with hardly any deviations as a whole (Dark and Blood Angels) have separate Codices. Your argument here is bad. Next.
2. Once again not a defense. Try and tell that to a Dark Eldar player please and that they're whining over old options and they should get over it. I insist. Tell them to move on and that they should remember the current rules focus on the average Cabal!
3. I DO argue they should be improved. I'm focusing on the thread at hand though. Why would I bring up other units?

So basically the fluff argument you try does NOT work here. I haven't an idea why you are attached to 1 Special 1 Heavy when people have done all they can to avoid it, the fluff says it isn't always the case. It never worked, and you insist we change the rules around one unit? They already did that! Now you can move with a Heavy Weapon at a slight penalty and you have Split Fire on everyone. It's STILL terrible!

1. The Templars used to have their own codex and probably will again. The poor handling of them has nothing to do with this though. Neither does the often debated need for Dark and Blood Angels to have their own Codex. It would probably be possible to write an SM codex that can hold them all and support all of their options, but that is irrelevant to the current argument. The entries in the codex are based around Codex Adherent chapters and are not meant to represent all the possible deviations of other chapters.

2. I am a Dark Eldar player, thanks. I don't have any of those complaints, but I started with them in 5th so maybe I just wouldn't. I'm fine with getting more options. But I still want them based on the fluff. Losing options because GW didn't bother supporting them is different from losing options because the fluff changed.

3. Because the thread is about a lot more than Tacs. And it is not only about specific units, but the overall approach to fixing the game. Which is why I keep stressing the point that the policy should be to match the rules to the fluff, not throw out the fluff because the rules team failed to live up to it.

I'm not attached to 1 special 1 heavy. I'm attached to rules reflecting fluff. Otherwise this never ends. Tacs aren't just bad because of 1 special 1 heavy. Let's just remove them entirely! And Death Strike missiles for guard aren't very good. Let's turn them into rapid fire seeker missile clones because that'd be more useful mechanically. And Vanguard Vets aren't that great right now. Fix them? Nah, let's just delete them. Screw 25+ years of story and universe development, we need to make some numbers that we could just change add up!

I'm not insisting we change the rules around one unit. I'm insisting we not change a unit because of the current rules. What units are is defined by the fluff. Tactical marines are not a statline in a game system. They are an idea in a story. The game system is based around the story. The statline is temporary. If we are considering changing the idea of what one of the most iconic, foundational units in the Warhammer Universe is because the current rules for it are bad, then we might as well throw out the entire game now. The game system exists in support of the universe and story, not the other way around.

That's the whole point of this thread: When your most iconic units, that have brought in the largest share of your player base for decades end up being crap in a ton of different ways due to the structure of rules in the new edition, you know you've got problems. I'm fine with changing fluff for story or writing reasons. But I'm not okay with changing even one iota of the story just because the current game system authors have done a poor job. Fix the rules without compromising the lore and fluff.

1. Saying "they probably will again" doesn't somehow remedy you being wrong. You said average Chapter. Those were YOUR words, not mine.
So yeah it does have everything to do with this. A unit is actually inflexible thanks to the codex having to represent the average Chapter when you have deviants that exist, along with THE official poster child for deviant chapters in said codex meaning to represent the average Chapter?

No. You can't just say "Nah they'll get their own codex" and move on. I'm not letting you. We are talking about the now.

2. You literally lost characters because there weren't kits supporting them. If you say you want rules based around fluff, you ought to complain about that, right? Fluff DID change as well, as we don't hear about those characters anymore!

3. Yeah I know it isn't about just Tactical and Chaos Marines, but bringing up how units like Wyches are bad doesn't help in this thread. That's the good ol' fashioned "There are kids starving in Africa so you're not allowed to whine about YOUR problems"
I hadn't even gotten to how Chosen and Sternguard and Vanguard and Assault Marines and TONS of stuff could possibly be fixed. I simply have to focus on one unit at a time, as there are CLEAR issues with the unit design of one of them. One of those issues is something people avoid altogether, but even WITH the core rules trying to rectify it, the loadout makes no sense. Simple as that.

So yes, I'm saying you DO have an attachment to the outdated format whether you want to admit it or not. Going into a cute little tirade about deleting units really doesn't do anything for your case. The unit basically hasn't worked for basically most of its existence. Simple as that. This is because of the fluff you choose to defend though, as the unit doesn't make sense for fluff OR crunch at the same time.

1. The SM Codex is for representing Codex Adherent chapters. The Black Templars are not one. GW rolled them in their in a half assed fashion, which is dumb and annoying. That the current codex, that is obviously not really meant to fully represent them does not do a good job of representing them doesn't prove anything. It was never meant to do a proper job of it. They have their own special unit as an alternative to tacticals. You are off on some tangent that has no bearing on this discussion. The SM Codex is for Codex Adherent Chapters. Thus the units are written to represent Codex Adherent Units. But they tossed in some half assed stuff to tide people over until they can get their own books. They may never. What is hard to understand about this?

2. Lots of armies have lost units that didn't have models supporting them due to the various copyright and legal issues GW is facing. Not because these characters were deleted from the story. Those characters are not featured in the codex's fluff because the codex is focused on the units in it. They still exist in the universe. What is even your argument here? Can you not tell the difference between not featuring a unit, and rewriting the unit to fit poorly written rules?

3. There's nothing wrong with the design. The 1 special + 1 heavy is a reference to many real world military fire teams. It'd be fine if it was good. It could be good if they wrote rules to make it good. We should not have to lose it just because the current rules aren't good.

You seem to be intentionally ignoring what i'm writing at this point. The Unit hasn't worked well for most of it's existence on the tabletop. It's perfectly fine in the story. So do we A) Fix its rules on the tabletop or B) Change it on the tabletop AND in the story and open an endless Pandora's box of arbitrary tabletop rules overriding the story? Why on earth is B what's appealing to you more?

Most of the "unique" entries really aren't unique (the Sanguine Priest can go, quite frankly, and when you even bother to use Terminators in the first place you focus them on a task so who's even bothering with mixing and matching with Deathwing?) or need to be folded into the other chapters anyway (The Librarian Dread is especially insulting to Grey Knights) That leaves maybe 1-2 extra units and the special characters.

"Waaah these popular and characterful units are conflicting with my arbitrary desire to stick everything into one book so they can just go."

Yeah no. We're not doin that.

1. That Chapter alone proves you wrong it was a codex meant to represent adherent Chapters. Plus on top of that Blood Angels are adherent outside the whole Death Company thing. Why aren't they in? Because reasons. Plus not everyone else is completely adherent. Iron Hands certainly do things differently with their whole Clan thing ya know. They even have their own unique unit in the fluff!

Either it was meant to do this whole representation thing or not. It's a half-assed codex in general with an example of one of the most half-assed units in the game.

2. This makes no sense. If they really weren't deleted, we would hear of them, yet we don't. We are also talking options that do have representation model-wise. I've got plenty of Marines with Plasma Guns.
Unless you really just want to restrict to what's in the kit. In which case, Devastators should really only have access to two of each Heavy Weapon. I don't think anyone would be okay with that.

Also please don't show support for GW for the whole Chapter House fiasco.

3. This isn't real life. If you want realistic, you can play Imperial Guard, an army set up like that. I have three military friends (one each of Marines, Army, and Navy) that think the setup is stupid too for an army like Marines. You aren't losing anything when you avoid it in the first place and when we had the option to do either two special or Heavy we actually did THAT. Specialization is kinda neat ya know.

Also if the units can't be bothered to be used they need to go, and there ARE units that need to be available to every Chapter. When's the last time you saw Deathwing set up in a terrible fashion like their promo pics show in the history of their existence, or Sanguine Guard? What is it that makes it so that Blood Angels get an Apothecary in their HQ slot or a Librarian in a Dread? Why did Terminator Command Squads disappear for Vanilla Chapters but remain for Dark Angels? Why did Dark Angels forget Thunderfire Cannons kinda exist?

Once you've taken out the stuff that doesn't need to exist and consolidate (it isn't hard I promise), you have less codex bloat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Morden wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
All you people saying this need to remember the space marine codex is already pretty thick, fold dark angels blood angels and space wolves in there and you proably suddenly have a 75 dollar 350 page monster codex

Wanna bet on that? I think I could do a combined Space Marine Codex for half that amount of pages and not remove a single unit

That's what people said about Black Templars as well. Look where that ended up.

They didn't have a lot of unique units that cannot be represented in other ways. All the complaints about Sword Brethren seem to not make sense when Vanguard are doing the same thing.

Same with the Wolves and Angels if you exclude the Flander specials - and even then those could be made generic ones as other chapters will have equivalents.

I'm all for consolidating Blood Angels and Dark Angels as that could be done in literally an hour or two, but Space Wolves is slightly trickier. I tried to do it for 7th and was having a fit!

**Primark G**

I’d love to see chapters like Iron Hands get their own codex including new units like Morlocks and some special characters. I doubt GW would ever roll them all into one book as that would reduce profit.

**AlmightyWalrus**

The problem with this "roll them!" zeal is that it inevitably comes down to "I don't think your army should be getting any more development devoted to it, but would rather that effort was spent on army X instead" at which point the counterpoint is "OK, can I have my money back then since you're effectively discontinuing my army?". Rolling an army, as it currently stands, might as well be a death sentence for that army. It's not about Marine players wanting to be a "special snowflake" (seriously, feth off with that), it's about the fact that the army I once started playing essentially no longer exists other than as a "oh, and these guys are here too" glue-on to another army.

"How hard can it be?" is the battle-cry of the ignorant.

**Mr Morden**

Primark G wrote:
Hopefully one day there will be more codices to represent each of the original Legions.

Only if you want the game to be even more [coloured] Marines versus [coloured] Marines than it already its and want more flanderised units.

The problem with this "roll them!" zeal is that it inevitably comes down to "I don't think your army should be getting any more development devoted to it, but would rather that effort was spent on army X instead" at which point the counterpoint is "OK, can I have my money back then since you're effectively discontinuing my army?". Rolling an army, as it currently stands, might as well be a death sentence for that army. It's not about Marine players wanting to be a "special snowflake" (seriously, feth off with that), it's about the fact that the army I once started playing essentially no longer exists other than as a "oh, and these guys are here too" glue-on to another army."How hard can it be?" is the battle-cry of the ignorant.

Really? Marines have by far the largest range, epsecially when you add more than half of Forgeworlds entire production is dedicated to them alone and not having more is discontinuing the range - especially when there is now even a Super Special New Marine range called Primaris which works for ALL Chapters and is and will continue to add even more diversity to the Marine options.

GW could have easily rolled them into a couple of proper books (codex and non Codex Adherent) with all the options for diverse units including new ones as I mentioned.

**pm713**

Mr Morden wrote:
Primark G wrote:
Hopefully one day there will be more codices to represent each of the original Legions.

Only if you want the game to be even more [coloured] Marines versus [coloured] Marines than it already its and want more flanderised units.

If you want a game with rules about each legion then you're gonna love 30k.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Mr Morden wrote:
Primark G wrote:
Hopefully one day there will be more codices to represent each of the original Legions.

Only if you want the game to be even more [coloured] Marines versus [coloured] Marines than it already its and want more flanderised units.

The problem with this "roll them!" zeal is that it inevitably comes down to "I don't think your army should be getting any more development devoted to it, but would rather that effort was spent on army X instead" at which point the counterpoint is "OK, can I have my money back then since you're effectively discontinuing my army?". Rolling an army, as it currently stands, might as well be a death sentence for that army. It's not about Marine players wanting to be a "special snowflake" (seriously, feth off with that), it's about the fact that the army I once started playing essentially no longer exists other than as a "oh, and these guys are here too" glue-on to another army."How hard can it be?" is the battle-cry of the ignorant.

Really? Marines have by far the largest range, epsecially when you add more than half of Forgeworlds entire production is dedicated to them alone and not having more is discontinuing the range - especially when there is now even a Super Special New Marine range called Primaris which works for ALL Chapters and is and will continue to add even more diversity to the Marine options.

GW could have easily rolled them into a couple of proper books (codex and non Codex Adherent) with all the options for diverse units including new ones as I mentioned.

Having more units that perform awfully on the tabletop to spend money on sure is a boon.

**Slayer-Fan123**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The problem with this "roll them!" zeal is that it inevitably comes down to "I don't think your army should be getting any more development devoted to it, but would rather that effort was spent on army X instead" at which point the counterpoint is "OK, can I have my money back then since you're effectively discontinuing my army?". Rolling an army, as it currently stands, might as well be a death sentence for that army. It's not about Marine players wanting to be a "special snowflake" (seriously, feth off with that), it's about the fact that the army I once started playing essentially no longer exists other than as a "oh, and these guys are here too" glue-on to another army.

"How hard can it be?" is the battle-cry of the ignorant.

In the end it DOES allow more customization. Doesn't it seem a bit weird that no successor Chapter for the Blood Angels got the goods to make even a single Thunderfire Cannon? It might not fit the "stereotypical" battle style but do Whirlwinds? Not really.

Honestly rolling them all into one codex and leaving 1-2 unique units outside the Special Characters for their successors just makes good common sense and crunch sense.

**Mr Morden**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Primark G wrote:
Hopefully one day there will be more codices to represent each of the original Legions.

Only if you want the game to be even more [coloured] Marines versus [coloured] Marines than it already its and want more flanderised units.

The problem with this "roll them!" zeal is that it inevitably comes down to "I don't think your army should be getting any more development devoted to it, but would rather that effort was spent on army X instead" at which point the counterpoint is "OK, can I have my money back then since you're effectively discontinuing my army?". Rolling an army, as it currently stands, might as well be a death sentence for that army. It's not about Marine players wanting to be a "special snowflake" (seriously, feth off with that), it's about the fact that the army I once started playing essentially no longer exists other than as a "oh, and these guys are here too" glue-on to another army."How hard can it be?" is the battle-cry of the ignorant.

Really? Marines have by far the largest range, epsecially when you add more than half of Forgeworlds entire production is dedicated to them alone and not having more is discontinuing the range - especially when there is now even a Super Special New Marine range called Primaris which works for ALL Chapters and is and will continue to add even more diversity to the Marine options.

GW could have easily rolled them into a couple of proper books (codex and non Codex Adherent) with all the options for diverse units including new ones as I mentioned.

Having more units that perform awfully on the tabletop to spend money on sure is a boon.

Better than getting SFA like some - so everyone of the new units is rubbish? And of course how many slightly differnt Marine Codexes when some are still waiting.

**Primark G**

If more of the original Legions got new codices for one thing there’d be more background information provided which I enjoy reading. I’ve seen some 30k games and don’t want to play it. I like to fight other races.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Mr Morden wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Primark G wrote:
Hopefully one day there will be more codices to represent each of the original Legions.

Only if you want the game to be even more [coloured] Marines versus [coloured] Marines than it already its and want more flanderised units.

The problem with this "roll them!" zeal is that it inevitably comes down to "I don't think your army should be getting any more development devoted to it, but would rather that effort was spent on army X instead" at which point the counterpoint is "OK, can I have my money back then since you're effectively discontinuing my army?". Rolling an army, as it currently stands, might as well be a death sentence for that army. It's not about Marine players wanting to be a "special snowflake" (seriously, feth off with that), it's about the fact that the army I once started playing essentially no longer exists other than as a "oh, and these guys are here too" glue-on to another army."How hard can it be?" is the battle-cry of the ignorant.

Really? Marines have by far the largest range, epsecially when you add more than half of Forgeworlds entire production is dedicated to them alone and not having more is discontinuing the range - especially when there is now even a Super Special New Marine range called Primaris which works for ALL Chapters and is and will continue to add even more diversity to the Marine options.

GW could have easily rolled them into a couple of proper books (codex and non Codex Adherent) with all the options for diverse units including new ones as I mentioned.

Having more units that perform awfully on the tabletop to spend money on sure is a boon.

Better than getting SFA like some - so everyone of the new units is rubbish? And of course how many slightly differnt Marine Codexes when some are still waiting.

You know what's worse than waiting for a Codex? Getting a rubbish one, because then you're waiting until next edition. That's fun.

**greatbigtree**

In regards to the OP, the MEQ stat line is perfectly salvageable, but the new purpose would be unpalatable to traditionalists.

MEQ armies need a chaff unit to hold ground, as Guard are currently fulfilling. MEQ doesn't need to be better. They don't need to be tougher. They don't need better / different weapon options.

They just need to be cheaper. More disposable. If a basic grunt is cheap, that becomes their niche. That becomes their purpose. They'll never compete with Devastators for damage output. But they could be used to reduce soup, by making them better at board control like Guardsmen are, by making them fewer points.

Just throwing it out there. Leave everything else in the codex alone for a moment, and drop tacticals to 10 points each. Let's assume Guard Infantry will be increased to 5 points each. They aren't interchangeable, but you could probably see tacticals being run as "cheap" screens and objective claimers while the more expensive units go about killing stuff.

In 8th edition, an army needs board control. You either have it in your codex, or you soup it in.

**AdmiralHalsey**

Primark G wrote:
If more of the original Legions got new codices for one thing there’d be more background information provided which I enjoy reading. I’ve seen some 30k games and don’t want to play it. I like to fight other races.

Black Library is a thing, ya know!

**Martel732**

greatbigtree wrote:
In regards to the OP, the MEQ stat line is perfectly salvageable, but the new purpose would be unpalatable to traditionalists.

MEQ armies need a chaff unit to hold ground, as Guard are currently fulfilling. MEQ doesn't need to be better. They don't need to be tougher. They don't need better / different weapon options.

They just need to be cheaper. More disposable. If a basic grunt is cheap, that becomes their niche. That becomes their purpose. They'll never compete with Devastators for damage output. But they could be used to reduce soup, by making them better at board control like Guardsmen are, by making them fewer points.

Just throwing it out there. Leave everything else in the codex alone for a moment, and drop tacticals to 10 points each. Let's assume Guard Infantry will be increased to 5 points each. They aren't interchangeable, but you could probably see tacticals being run as "cheap" screens and objective claimers while the more expensive units go about killing stuff.

In 8th edition, an army needs board control. You either have it in your codex, or you soup it in.

This is how GW is rolling in 8th anyway. Marines have NEVER been lore-accurate. EVER. Especially in 2nd ed. -2 armor save sonic blasters? -3 armor save shuriken cannons?

**Torga_DW**

I'm opposed to the idea of making meq cheaper and/or more like guard. Otherwise they start becoming more of a horde army when they're supposed to be 'elite'. I'd rather see them get buffed appropriately and become 'worth' their points.

I also agree with the idea that fluff should drive rules. The problem isn't the fluff, as always its the shoddy implementation of the rules.

All these things can be fixed. They just won't, because at the end of the day, the gw business model revolves around selling miniatures to customers who are grateful to buy them.

**Martel732**

Torga_DW wrote:
I'm opposed to the idea of making meq cheaper and/or more like guard. Otherwise they start becoming more of a horde army when they're supposed to be 'elite'. I'd rather see them get buffed appropriately and become 'worth' their points.

I also agree with the idea that fluff should drive rules. The problem isn't the fluff, as always its the shoddy implementation of the rules.

All these things can be fixed. They just won't, because at the end of the day, the gw business model revolves around selling miniatures to customers who are grateful to buy them.

They've never been elite or worth their points, though. Ever. Custodes are the elite army now.

**Torga_DW**

Martel732 wrote:
Torga_DW wrote:
I'm opposed to the idea of making meq cheaper and/or more like guard. Otherwise they start becoming more of a horde army when they're supposed to be 'elite'. I'd rather see them get buffed appropriately and become 'worth' their points.

I also agree with the idea that fluff should drive rules. The problem isn't the fluff, as always its the shoddy implementation of the rules.

All these things can be fixed. They just won't, because at the end of the day, the gw business model revolves around selling miniatures to customers who are grateful to buy them.

They've never been elite or worth their points, though. Ever. Custodes are the elite army now.

I know. I'm just saying they can and could have been. Probably never will be, either, but they can and could have - if gw was doing their highly paid job right.

**Median Trace**

Primark G wrote:
I’d love to see chapters like Iron Hands get their own codex including new units like Morlocks and some special characters. I doubt GW would ever roll them all into one book as that would reduce profit.

A single special character would be nice. A named dreadnought would be cool. Heck, the tank commander is an Ultramarine for cursed sake. What’s next, a special Jump Pack character that is an Imperial Fist? A successor chapter even has a special character in the base SM book. Simply put, the Iron Hands don’t have enough variance to warrant their own book.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Median Trace wrote:
Primark G wrote:
I’d love to see chapters like Iron Hands get their own codex including new units like Morlocks and some special characters. I doubt GW would ever roll them all into one book as that would reduce profit.

A single special character would be nice. A named dreadnought would be cool. Heck, the tank commander is an Ultramarine for cursed sake. What’s next, a special Jump Pack character that is an Imperial Fist? A successor chapter even has a special character in the base SM book. Simply put, the Iron Hands don’t have enough variance to warrant their own book.

To be fair, when Chronus was introduced that codex explicitly stated to try and make the characters your own or some junk like that.

Still the fact that he was never Iron Hands was kinda sad.