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.

 Irbis wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Space Wolves especially, as every single unit is slightly different in some way, they wouldn’t be able to be squeezed into a supplement.

"Wouldn't" when they were able to squeeze them into Index SM?

All it would take is something like "Wolf Lord - see Captain datasheet. He can also take wolfwolfwolfsword and wolfyiffaxe". There, done. Wolves have like 5 really unique units, rest is either tiny variation on Codex one or completely identical to it.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think Grey Knights deserve a look at well before the other three.

I still find it funny (and kind of sad) how virtually all proposed fixes for them I see can be boiled down to "reprint their 5th edition codex and fire everyone who did any subsequent GK book as obviously incompetent in basic math and fluff knowledge"...

Reboot back to the third edition daemon hunters codex, and I will potentially forgive the ridiculous additions such as the dreadknight and allow it to go into the book, otherwise nothing will repair the GK's.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Space Wolves especially, as every single unit is slightly different in some way, they wouldn’t be able to be squeezed into a supplement.

"Wouldn't" when they were able to squeeze them into Index SM?

All it would take is something like "Wolf Lord - see Captain datasheet. He can also take wolfwolfwolfsword and wolfyiffaxe". There, done. Wolves have like 5 really unique units, rest is either tiny variation on Codex one or completely identical to it.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think Grey Knights deserve a look at well before the other three.

I still find it funny (and kind of sad) how virtually all proposed fixes for them I see can be boiled down to "reprint their 5th edition codex and fire everyone who did any subsequent GK book as obviously incompetent in basic math and fluff knowledge"...

Reboot back to the third edition daemon hunters codex, and I will potentially forgive the ridiculous additions such as the dreadknight and allow it to go into the book, otherwise nothing will repair the GK's.

Agreed completely with both the "pretend" unique Space Wolf units (*) and the sheer awfulness of the Dreadknight model - on a par with Centurions.

I might pick up the new supplements if there is a good amount of lore in them

(*) especially since other DA/BA/SW players are often extremely vocal that they want ALL their snowflake units AND any new Marine unit - because..........

Voss wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

It is pretty clear that DA/BA and SW are not going to have codex "supplements". They will get full fledged codexes, and GW is doing so in order to completly separate those different flavor of marines (because it is just better from a business standpoint, even if it is weird from a rule standpoint). And the best proof we have of that is that DA/BA/SW don't get doctrines - if a codex 2.0 gets out, those chapters will most likely get their own specific doctrines, cementing the differences between chapters.

That isn't clear at all. Getting their own variant or even special snowflake doctrines is easily within the bounds of a supplement book (given that both so far do exactly that: provide additional doctrine modifiers). Its no harder there than in a completely separate codex, and gives rules to the 'differences' between chapters just fine.
But as far as business goes, getting money from base codex ($40) + supplement ($30) is more than getting money from special snowflake codex ($40). $30+$40 > $40.

As far as Angels and Wolves not getting doctrines in the 'datasheets for new models' PDFs, that isn't proof of anything beyond an unwillingness to do major rules mechanics in a free download. Which isn't exactly a shock.

You have a hard time understanding the word supplement so I will help you : all SM who have a supplement gets everything from the codex SM (including the doctrines) plus the few tweaks that are in the supplements (i.e. there's a template).
From the white scars and the ultramarines supplements we also know what supplement chapters gets : a few units, mostly characters, a chapter tactic, relics, a discipline for librarians.
Suffice to say all supplement chapter get the doctrines, and DA/SW/BA not getting that rule means it will not get be part of those supplements.
Plus we know the numbers of supplement already. Just move on.

As for the business perspective you are getting all that wrong : if SW/DA/BA have separate codex, separate rules (for all we know, DA/BA/SW having specific doctrines can mean that if you mix DA/SW/BA and SM detachment in an army, you don't get doctrines at all) and more specific units, then they become full fledged armies : hence GW has created an incentive so that people buy a SM codex army and also those non codex SM.

This discussion is going on in two separate thread, by the same people with the same arguments all because there's some absurd (but funny) frustration over the fact that GW use more ressources on some chapters and some factions than over. For some faction this makes sense, for others, it's a bit childlish.

 AduroT wrote:

 Redemption wrote:
I wonder what the next supplement is...

Oh god, they’re whitewashing Salamanders!

hahaha, hilarious!

 Mr Morden wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Space Wolves especially, as every single unit is slightly different in some way, they wouldn’t be able to be squeezed into a supplement.

"Wouldn't" when they were able to squeeze them into Index SM?

All it would take is something like "Wolf Lord - see Captain datasheet. He can also take wolfwolfwolfsword and wolfyiffaxe". There, done. Wolves have like 5 really unique units, rest is either tiny variation on Codex one or completely identical to it.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think Grey Knights deserve a look at well before the other three.

I still find it funny (and kind of sad) how virtually all proposed fixes for them I see can be boiled down to "reprint their 5th edition codex and fire everyone who did any subsequent GK book as obviously incompetent in basic math and fluff knowledge"...

Reboot back to the third edition daemon hunters codex, and I will potentially forgive the ridiculous additions such as the dreadknight and allow it to go into the book, otherwise nothing will repair the GK's.

Agreed completely with both the "pretend" unique Space Wolf units (*) and the sheer awfulness of the Dreadknight model - on a par with Centurions.

I might pick up the new supplements if there is a good amount of lore in them

(*) especially since other DA/BA/SW players are often extremely vocal that they want ALL their snowflake units AND any new Marine unit - because..........

Wolves are a lot harder to consolidate, but there's no good argument to not consolidate the Angels at this point.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Space Wolves especially, as every single unit is slightly different in some way, they wouldn’t be able to be squeezed into a supplement.

"Wouldn't" when they were able to squeeze them into Index SM?

All it would take is something like "Wolf Lord - see Captain datasheet. He can also take wolfwolfwolfsword and wolfyiffaxe". There, done. Wolves have like 5 really unique units, rest is either tiny variation on Codex one or completely identical to it.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think Grey Knights deserve a look at well before the other three.

I still find it funny (and kind of sad) how virtually all proposed fixes for them I see can be boiled down to "reprint their 5th edition codex and fire everyone who did any subsequent GK book as obviously incompetent in basic math and fluff knowledge"...

Reboot back to the third edition daemon hunters codex, and I will potentially forgive the ridiculous additions such as the dreadknight and allow it to go into the book, otherwise nothing will repair the GK's.

Agreed completely with both the "pretend" unique Space Wolf units (*) and the sheer awfulness of the Dreadknight model - on a par with Centurions.

I might pick up the new supplements if there is a good amount of lore in them

(*) especially since other DA/BA/SW players are often extremely vocal that they want ALL their snowflake units AND any new Marine unit - because..........

Wolves are a lot harder to consolidate, but there's no good argument to not consolidate the Angels at this point.

Npe not really - people pretend they are but all or almost all of the units would be present in some other Chapters, most are doable with a simple rules line/option - nothing get removed, we just stop pretending that these units are unique.

This discussion is going on in two separate thread, by the same people with the same arguments all because there's some absurd (but funny) frustration over the fact that GW use more ressources on some chapters and some factions than over. For some faction this makes sense, for others, it's a bit childlish.

Good job GW have infinite time and resources to make your ill thought defence make any sense. Oh and Spoiler Alert - some of us saying this HAVE Space Wovles, Dark Angels armies......I know I do.

A supplement version of the DA/SW/BA rather than reprint codexs would be a step in the right direction but I doubt it.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Space Wolves especially, as every single unit is slightly different in some way, they wouldn’t be able to be squeezed into a supplement.

"Wouldn't" when they were able to squeeze them into Index SM?

All it would take is something like "Wolf Lord - see Captain datasheet. He can also take wolfwolfwolfsword and wolfyiffaxe". There, done. Wolves have like 5 really unique units, rest is either tiny variation on Codex one or completely identical to it.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think Grey Knights deserve a look at well before the other three.

I still find it funny (and kind of sad) how virtually all proposed fixes for them I see can be boiled down to "reprint their 5th edition codex and fire everyone who did any subsequent GK book as obviously incompetent in basic math and fluff knowledge"...

Reboot back to the third edition daemon hunters codex, and I will potentially forgive the ridiculous additions such as the dreadknight and allow it to go into the book, otherwise nothing will repair the GK's.

Agreed completely with both the "pretend" unique Space Wolf units (*) and the sheer awfulness of the Dreadknight model - on a par with Centurions.

I might pick up the new supplements if there is a good amount of lore in them

(*) especially since other DA/BA/SW players are often extremely vocal that they want ALL their snowflake units AND any new Marine unit - because..........

Wolves are a lot harder to consolidate, but there's no good argument to not consolidate the Angels at this point.

Npe not really - people pretend they are but all or almost all of the units would be present in some other Chapters, most are doable with a simple rules line/option - nothing get removed, we just stop pretending that these units are unique.

This discussion is going on in two separate thread, by the same people with the same arguments all because there's some absurd (but funny) frustration over the fact that GW use more ressources on some chapters and some factions than over. For some faction this makes sense, for others, it's a bit childlish.

Good job GW have infinite time and resources to make your ill thought defence make any sense. Oh and Spoiler Alert - some of us saying this HAVE Space Wovles, Dark Angels armies......I know I do.

A supplement version of the DA/SW/BA rather than reprint codexs would be a step in the right direction but I doubt it.

I'm not defending GW at all, I'm just saying the discussion is over since we have all the proof we need those three chapters are not going to get a supplement. You can continue flapping your gum tho.

WhiteDog wrote:
we have all the proof we need those three chapters are not going to get a supplement.

No we don't.

 Crimson wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
we have all the proof we need those three chapters are not going to get a supplement.

No we don't.

1. no access to doctrines ;
2. we know the numbers of supplements already ;
3. all the supplement codexes already have rules and chapter traits in the SM codex, the supplements only adding content, but there are no mentions of the DA/BA/SW.

"we don't".

WhiteDog wrote:
1. no access to doctrines

This is wrong - SM vehicles and stuff from Forge World book taken by BA/SW/DA have doctrines, only the ones taken by Grey Knights were excluded. You were saying?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Reboot back to the third edition daemon hunters codex, and I will potentially forgive the ridiculous additions such as the dreadknight and allow it to go into the book, otherwise nothing will repair the GK's.

You mean the garbage book which was seriously below underpowered even in 3rd edition, never mind being complete trash in 4th and 5th? The one with GK captains having a single wound and statline of SM sergeants? Where nemesis force weapons were AP - for half the units? There is being nostalgic, and there is clamoring for being dumped straight into a cesspool, especially when the alternative is competently written, balanced 5th edition Codex, the only one ever that was both fluffy and viable...

WhiteDog wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
we have all the proof we need those three chapters are not going to get a supplement.

No we don't.

1. no access to doctrines ;
2. we know the numbers of supplements already ;
3. all the supplement codexes already have rules and chapter traits in the SM codex, the supplements only adding content, but there are no mentions of the DA/BA/SW.

"we don't".

While I agree the supplements we know are coming probably won't include those 3, I'd argue that the lack of updating their Chapter Tactics or giving them Doctrines makes the FAQ feel like a stop-gap until those 3 do get a supplement to replace their codex.
GW is probably just saving them for a later release, but it's almost guaranteed that they've thought about it, have some ideas in development, and if the current supplements are successful, we'll see those 3 sooner than later

-

WhiteDog wrote:

You have a hard time understanding the word supplement so I will help you : all SM who have a supplement gets everything from the codex SM (including the doctrines) plus the few tweaks that are in the supplements

Black Templars say 'Hello. We now have multiple models from the base codex we can't take (additional types of librarians), in addition to a long standing special snowflake unit of our own.'

Suffice to say all supplement chapter get the doctrines, and DA/SW/BA not getting that rule means it will not get be part of those supplements.

And until today, Ultras, WS, Sallies, etc didn't have doctrines either. Magically, GW was able to add doctrines to the main codex and modifiers to the doctrine rules in the supplements. This is not hard.

Plus we know the numbers of supplement already. Just move on.

We know the number of announced supplements. We don't know how many more will be made over the course of the next year+.

WhiteDog wrote:

1. no access to doctrines ;
2. we know the numbers of supplements already ;
3. all the supplement codexes already have rules and chapter traits in the SM codex, the supplements only adding content, but there are no mentions of the DA/BA/SW.

"we don't".

This only means that their supplements are not among the six they release first.

 Crimson wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

1. no access to doctrines ;
2. we know the numbers of supplements already ;
3. all the supplement codexes already have rules and chapter traits in the SM codex, the supplements only adding content, but there are no mentions of the DA/BA/SW.

"we don't".

This only means that their supplements are not among the six they release first.

This means that if they want to release DA/SW/BA as supplements they need to change the SM codex.

 Irbis wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
1. no access to doctrines

This is wrong - SM vehicles and stuff from Forge World book taken by BA/SW/DA have doctrines, only the ones taken by Grey Knights were excluded. You were saying?

Nitpick much. It might even be a mistake for all we know.

Voss wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

You have a hard time understanding the word supplement so I will help you : all SM who have a supplement gets everything from the codex SM (including the doctrines) plus the few tweaks that are in the supplements

Black Templars say 'Hello. We now have multiple models from the base codex we can't take (additional types of librarians), in addition to a long standing special snowflake unit of our own.'

Suffice to say all supplement chapter get the doctrines, and DA/SW/BA not getting that rule means it will not get be part of those supplements.

And until today, Ultras, WS, Sallies, etc didn't have doctrines either. Magically, GW was able to add doctrines to the main codex and modifiers to the doctrine rules in the supplements. This is not hard.

Plus we know the numbers of supplement already. Just move on.

We know the number of announced supplements. We don't know how many more will be made over the course of the next year+.

BT are in the SM codex. They have a chapter traits and a few lines. They might get more things in a sons of Dorn supplement, but you can already play them out of the SM codex, like all supplements chapters, and unlike SW/DA/BA. Damn it's not that hard to understand really ...

WhiteDog wrote:

This means that if they want to release DA/SW/BA as supplements they need to change the SM codex.

No it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

This is wrong - SM vehicles and stuff from Forge World book taken by BA/SW/DA have doctrines, only the ones taken by Grey Knights were excluded. You were saying?

The doctrines do not work if the army has units without them though, so they do currently nothing for non-vanilla marines.

I'm just pointing out that all the chapters that will get a "supplement" already have the basic rules in the SM codex. It is not hard to understand that this was intended and that there is a template that GW made to release those supplements, a template that does not include SW/DA/BA yet. This might be a bad thing, but that's just how it is.

WhiteDog wrote:
I'm just pointing out that all the chapters that will get a "supplement" already have the basic rules in the SM codex. It is not hard to understand that this was intended and that there is a template that GW made to release those supplements, a template that does not include SW/DA/BA yet. This might be a bad thing, but that's just how it is.

Printing the chapter tactic in the supplement is hardly difficult. We know that the six supplement are probably coming quite fast and none of those armies have their own codex currently. Putting the DA/BA/SW traits in the main codex when they still have their own books and it might get a while until they get their supplements would have just unnecessarily confused people. "Wait, there is a BA trait in the vanilla marine codex? Am I supposed to play my BA with that book or my BA codex?" It would have been a mess.

 Crimson wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
I'm just pointing out that all the chapters that will get a "supplement" already have the basic rules in the SM codex. It is not hard to understand that this was intended and that there is a template that GW made to release those supplements, a template that does not include SW/DA/BA yet. This might be a bad thing, but that's just how it is.

Printing the chapter tactic in the supplement is hardly difficult. We know that the six supplement are probably coming quite fast and none of those armies have their own codex currently. Putting the DA/BA/SW traits in the main codex when they still have their own books and it might get a while until they get their supplements would have just unnecessarily confused people. "Wait, there is a BA trait in the vanilla marine codex? Am I supposed to play my BA with that book or my BA codex?" It would have been a mess.

Not having chapter traits in the SM codex means you can't play DA/BA/SW with the SM codex, unlike all the other chapters that will get a supplement. It's not difficult at all to understand really. There is no reason for a DA/BA/SW player to buy the SM codex, and GW specifically said that such players could buy it "for the lore" if they want... So why would they write a "supplement" for DA/BA/SW to a codex that they don't need to buy as of now ? That's just silly.

And if that was the case, why would GW take the time to specify that DA/BA/SW don't get angel of death rule but just the shock assault ? What's the point of all that shennanigan ?

WhiteDog wrote:

Not having chapter traits in the SM codex means you can't play DA/BA/SW with the SM codex, unlike all the other chapters that will get a supplement. It's not difficult at all to understand really. There is no reason for a DA/BA/SW player to buy the SM codex, and GW specifically said that such players could buy it "for the lore" if they want... So why would they write a "supplement" for DA/BA/SW to a codex that they don't need to buy as of now ? That's just silly.

Now you're just babbling.

I really do not know if those chapter will get supplements or full codices, but nothing of what we've seen would preclude the supplement model. Now they use their own codex, and to avoid the confusion, their chapter traits are not in the vanilla codex. If they release supplements for them, they will transition to using vanilla codex + supplement. Chapter traits will be in those supplements. It would make perfect sense and would work just fine.

why do we keep assuming they're going to make supplements out of the DA/BA/SW chapters?
there's no evidance they're not going to get a codex per norm. until GW does anything to signify otherwise the proper assumption is the status quo.

BrianDavion wrote:
why do we keep assuming they're going to make supplements out of the DA/BA/SW chapters?
there's no evidance they're not going to get a codex per norm. until GW does anything to signify otherwise the proper assumption is the status quo.

Because Crimson think that repeating the same arguments over and over ("it makes sense") will make it come true.

BrianDavion wrote:
why do we keep assuming they're going to make supplements out of the DA/BA/SW chapters?

We are not assuming that, but unlike some posters think, it s perfectly possible, and would in fact be a clear improvement to the current setup. And not even unprecedented. All those chapters were handles via similar supplement system in the third (probably third..) edition.

 Crimson wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
why do we keep assuming they're going to make supplements out of the DA/BA/SW chapters?

We are not assuming that, but unlike some posters think, it s perfectly possible, and would in fact be a clear improvement to the current setup. And not even unprecedented. All those chapters were handles via similar supplement system in the third (probably third..) edition.

Yes, that was In 3rd and it was utter crap. Especially when 4th SM dropped and SWs weren't allowed to use the new rules and didn't get an update until 5th.

Ragnar69 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
why do we keep assuming they're going to make supplements out of the DA/BA/SW chapters?

We are not assuming that, but unlike some posters think, it s perfectly possible, and would in fact be a clear improvement to the current setup. And not even unprecedented. All those chapters were handles via similar supplement system in the third (probably third..) edition.

Yes, that was In 3rd and it was utter crap. Especially when 4th SM dropped and SWs weren't allowed to use the new rules and didn't get an update until 5th.

Yeah, the SM book had no chapter tactics, no reference to any first founding chapters, outside a double page on the ultramarine strategic organisation with no information on the fact that they were Guilliman's sons, and a few chapter specific characters. It's a 48 page long book....

Looks like I don't need to check here anymore since the Codex is out and this thread has turned into constant bickering.

1. No, SW/BA/DA players won't be buying both. The updated data sheets will be free to download until...

2. They get their updated codices. Same with Grey Knights. As for who "deserves it" first - it doesn't matter. They all went under the knife at the same time. They will have full codices, not supplements. Which also means...

3. They will not be able to soup with other Marines and still get doctrine-style benefits. Like Ultramarines and White Scars, if you want all their goodness, you can't mix them. GW is trying to make Marines competitive without the Loyal 32, Imperial Knights, or a rainbow detachment of chapters.

(SIDE NOTE): They will be doing so for Astra Militarum as well. You will be able to still ally, but all the best rules will come from staying within 1 faction.

4. The supplements are:
-Ultramarines
-White Scars
-Salamanders
-Raven Guard
-Imperial Fists
-Iron Hands

Only First Founding loyalists. With DA/BA/SW getting their own books, that's all of them. Successors will be with each supplement/Codex. I, for one, think it's a tidy way to give all the chapters their due. Second foundings and successors should NOT be splintered into further books. That type of fractured bloat was one of many problems with 7th.

Chaos will ultimately mirror this (in a way) down the road, with their current "undivided" Codex already having more variety than the new Marine one.

 brassangel wrote:
(SIDE NOTE): They will be doing so for Astra Militarum as well. You will be able to still ally, but all the best rules will come from staying within 1 faction.

Source?

Or they will just put the pages that DA/SW/BA need in the next Chapter Approved as a selling point - plenty of room as they fitted an entire Beta Codex in last time.

Second foundings and successors should NOT be splintered into further books. That type of fractured bloat was one of many problems with 7th.

at least nine supplements for one subfaction is not considered bloat???

I'm not sure they'll do the same for AM but I'd not be suprised. I'd not be suprised to see GW do it for a number of codices that by all rights damn well should be capable of standing alone.

Incorrect at above the 8 chapters in the codex Space Marines 8.5 ED or "enhanced chapter tactics" are all getting a supplement.
Confirmed on podcast one of the ITC peeps.