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.

 Mmmpi wrote:


Sanguinary priests: Better equipment, extra special rules, and different fluff. Some people actually use the buff from them.

I get that they have different rules now, but perhaps they and the Apothecary really should be the same thing. Maybe that involves enhancing the Apothecary to match (because they're not particularly great now), but aside ultimately they're supposed both be medic units and serve the same role on the table (one is just worse) and there's really no reason why the same unit entry can't portray both things. Again, having them use the same unit profile doesn't mean the fluff needs to change (just as my Iron Warriors Warsmith model doesn't need its own unit entry and serves just fine as a Chaos Lord).

Deathwing: They haven't been assault or tactical terminators for five editions now. They have different equipment and extra rules. Keep in mind, DA don't get regular terminators.

I.E. they slapped the equipment options for Terminators and Assault Terminators into one unit instead of two. That's not really a unique unit. The extra rules have always been in the realm of something like a Chapter Tactic anyway, and changed with basically every codex release (from Stubborn in 3E to Fearless in 4E to shooting rerolls when deep striking in 6E and now to the Watcher psychic defense in 8E) and hanging onto anything related to that particularly tightly is bound to be disappointed in whatever next edition is released anyway.

They also don't give them the same style of training the DA do either.

This can go for anything. Ultimately, it's a Space Marine biker unit from an ostensibly self-described codex adherent chapter with a practically identical unit entry with no real visual differences aside from some extra iconography that has most typically been defined by an FoC swap more than anything else throughout its history and the addition of a teleport homer in recent years.

DA terminators and bikes have long had different equipment and/or rules, not just a ForceOrg change.

These weren't never really more different in practice than a chapter tactic would make them.

Are we really going to argue that Jink and a Teleport Homer require a unique unit profile entry, but Bikes that charge after advancing or falling back and not suffering penalties for firing heavy/assault weapons don't need a unique unit entry?

Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters. No Victrix Guard, no Iron Hands, no Guilliman. Like if you want to remove or condense options and rules so theres only 1 generic list that everyone uses with nothing unique for anyone, why not push it that way?

Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. End of the day if it makes money for GW and is seen to be worth the investment it's not changing anytime soon.

It's because they don't deserve to be "separate" armies when that many datasheets are shared. can be shared, or consolidated as they don't fulfill an actual purpose. Ergo that leads to better balance and therefore a better game.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters. No Victrix Guard, no Iron Hands, no Guilliman. Like if you want to remove or condense options and rules so theres only 1 generic list that everyone uses with nothing unique for anyone, why not push it that way?

Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. End of the day if it makes money for GW and is seen to be worth the investment it's not changing anytime soon.

course while we're at it woul;dn't it be simpler just to have no differing stats for units? it'd make it much easier to balance around and we could force it to be more dependant on tactics!

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters. No Victrix Guard, no Iron Hands, no Guilliman. Like if you want to remove or condense options and rules so theres only 1 generic list that everyone uses with nothing unique for anyone, why not push it that way?

Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. End of the day if it makes money for GW and is seen to be worth the investment it's not changing anytime soon.

The strawman is strong in this one.

I think the complaints stem from the fact that Marines are treated differently from every other faction in the game with regards to their layered rules and sub faction codexes/supplements. Not that it's an issue in and of itself, but where are my Ork sub faction supplements? Eldar craftworld supplements etc etc etc?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters. No Victrix Guard, no Iron Hands, no Guilliman. Like if you want to remove or condense options and rules so theres only 1 generic list that everyone uses with nothing unique for anyone, why not push it that way?

Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. End of the day if it makes money for GW and is seen to be worth the investment it's not changing anytime soon.

The strawman is strong in this one.

I think the complaints stem from the fact that Marines are treated differently from every other faction in the game with regards to their layered rules and sub faction codexes/supplements. Not that it's an issue in and of itself, but where are my Ork sub faction supplements? Eldar craftworld supplements etc etc etc?

It's also hillarious considering these are STILL way more homogenous and interchangable factions comparatively to their Chaos counterparts.

@Vaktathi

" I get that they have different rules now, but perhaps they and the Apothecary really should be the same thing. Maybe that involves enhancing the Apothecary to match (because they're not particularly great now), but aside ultimately they're supposed both be medic units and serve the same role on the table (one is just worse) and there's really no reason why the same unit entry can't portray both things. Again, having them use the same unit profile doesn't mean the fluff needs to change (just as my Iron Warriors Warsmith model doesn't need its own unit entry and serves just fine as a Chaos Lord). "

They used to not have similar rules. A SP used to be a slightly weaker captain who could also act as an apothecary. The changes to 8th brought them closer together as now you can run an apoticary as a WL if you really wanted to, with relics. Don't forget too, that BA also get apothecaries. The part you're forgetting though, is that SP never were apothecaries, they were always a character. Until 8th, an apothecary was a squad upgrade. Even now they still don't fill the same role. A SP can do an apothecary's job, but it's also a leader model with a command aura, just like chaplains, captains, ect get. It has always been a leader model, and always will be. The warsmith on the other hand was always a chaoslord. It was never a unique unit.

" I.E. they slapped the equipment options for Terminators and Assault Terminators into one unit instead of two. That's not really a unique unit. The extra rules have always been in the realm of something like a Chapter Tactic anyway, and changed with basically every codex release (from Stubborn in 3E to Fearless in 4E to shooting rerolls when deep striking in 6E and now to the Watcher psychic defense in 8E) and hanging onto anything related to that particularly tightly is bound to be disappointed in whatever next edition is released anyway. "

Along with a bunch of special rules. That does make a unique unit. The special rules for those units (DW or RW) have never been anything like a chapter trait. Stubborn was the CT equivalent.

" This can go for anything. Ultimately, it's a Space Marine biker unit from an ostensibly self-described codex adherent chapter with a practically identical unit entry with no real visual differences aside from some extra iconography that has most typically been defined by an FoC swap more than anything else throughout its history and the addition of a teleport homer in recent years. "

It can, but GW hasn't. Virtually identical aside from several decades of special rules unique to it, and more lately different equipment? You keep forgetting about those special rules.

"These weren't never really more different in practice than a chapter tactic would make them.

Are we really going to argue that Jink and a Teleport Homer require a unique unit profile entry, but Bikes that charge after advancing or falling back and not suffering penalties for firing heavy/assault weapons don't need a unique unit entry? "

Yes, We are going to argue about it, because there's enough of both equipment and rules changes to matter. If you brought this up in 3rd ed you'd have had a point. That was almost two decades ago.

@BroodSpawn

"Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters."

Let's just get rid of everything in the game that isn't a tactical marine with a bolter. /s

"Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. "

This is pretty much the gist of it. For some it's because other armies have 'stuff' and they want it for their own armies, for others it's because 'they know better than anyone else' about what is best for other players. Case in point the arguments that 'no one uses the Sanguinary Priest'.

@Slayer-Fan123

No, it's that you don't THINK they deserve to be separate armies. Stop conflating your opinion with fact. You're still doing that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


The strawman is strong in this one.

Nope.

Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters."

Let's just get rid of everything in the game that isn't a tactical marine with a bolter. /s

"Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. "

This is pretty much the gist of it. For some it's because other armies have 'stuff' and they want it for their own armies, for others it's because 'they know better than anyone else' about what is best for other players. Case in point the arguments that 'no one uses the Sanguinary Priest'.

I guess this person never played the twin lash chaos meta after 3.5.
Else you wouldn't state something like that.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters."

Let's just get rid of everything in the game that isn't a tactical marine with a bolter. /s

"Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. "

This is pretty much the gist of it. For some it's because other armies have 'stuff' and they want it for their own armies, for others it's because 'they know better than anyone else' about what is best for other players. Case in point the arguments that 'no one uses the Sanguinary Priest'.

I guess this person never played the twin lash chaos meta after 3.5.
Else you wouldn't state something like that.

I did. Sorry that a list that's been out of date for 20 years is still causing you traumatic nightmares.

Huh traumatic, not, annoying indeed, epsecially considering the ammount of lost customizability.
Also boring. But that isn't new insofar that most GW armies have a very specific effective build based on actually effective unit combinations whilest the rest of the books is just subpar.

My reason for wanting consolidation isn't some Marine envy or wanting homogeneous lists. I'm just curious as to why the separation is necessary. What do these sub-Factions gain from having their own book? What would they lose if they were part of the same book? It'd be the same questions I'd ask of my own Faction was split into separate books.

I don't own a Space Marine army at the moment, but did so in the past and like them in general.

I would appreciate a consolidation, if it would mean that other armies get more attention in rules and models. Basically what we have at the moment with C:SM and their supplements.
I really do like chapter unique models, as they add a lot of flavour to the faction for me, while at the same time I think that a Sanguinary Priest and an Apothecary (as examples) should be one and the same base unit, with base equipment and abilities. A Blood Angel supplement or rules section in the same base book would then add new wargear like a chalice for a +1S aura.

As to the "why do we need books for 8 different kinds of imperial Space Marines". Honestly, there is no need. Having a bigger book with all the rules or several books with their respective stuff does not make a big difference for anybody. We have it because there are enough fans of each Chapter.
I'm pretty sure GW would be more than happy to release a... let's say Ogdobekh dynasty supplement for Necrons if the demand is high enough.

Mmmpi wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What does using the datasheet of an Apothecary change from the Sanguinary Priest

You mean besides the lose of an aura ability?

And why can't that aura ability be attached to Blood Angels keyword modification? Something like "<Blood Angels> <Apothecaries> grant XYZ to friendly <Blood Angel> units" as part of their Chapter Tactic/supplement rules. Why not tie it to a stratagem, and make it super powerful? Something like a "Sanguinary Priest: 1CP - One <Blood Angels> Apothecary may become a <Sanguinary Priest>, and gain XYZ rule", or even "Sanguinary Priest: 1CP - a <Blood Angels> Apothecary may cause XYZ effect on friendly Blood Angels units until the next battle round".

There you go, still got your flavour, and it didn't require a whole new datasheet.

Because aside from it's basic lore, there is very little in the way of gameplay mechanic for it. By all means, all the Chapters should have their special idiosyncracies and organisations and unique naming conventions, but it doesn't mean they need a whole new datasheet for it. In my opinion, we should stick to the core datasheets where possible, and attach specific abilities to those generic units via the keyword system.

Or realize that because we're dealing with separate books, there's no need to stick to specific data sheets.

But why are we dealing with separate books? That's the point I'm trying to make: why is having a whole separate book just for a handful of unique units needed, when you could just reflect all of that in a supplement (which is still separate book!)

Your argument here is "we should make it a Codex, because it's a Codex!" That makes no sense, it's circular logic. I'm questioning *why* it needs to be a separate Codex, and all you're saying is "it is, because it is".

No-one's advocating that "Blood Angels now just have Apothecaries like everyone else

Some people actually are.

What, that they should no extra flavour in the background? I'm not sure, but sure, perhaps they are. *I'm* not. What about my argument?

If the Deathwing fluff is about them mass deploying, just take an army of lots of Terminators!

Yup, let's just ignore the differences between the DA terminators and other terminators.

What differences are those? Assume I'm ignorant, and educate me, what is unique mechanically about the Deathwing? Don't mistake that as me saying that in lore and fluff they're just "normal Terminators", because they absolutely have rich culture and different lore to Firedrakes or Gorgons, but what I am getting at is "what about that needs to ensure they need a full new datasheet" and not just "<Dark Angels> Terminators gain the 'Deathwing' rule and XYZ special rule".

Not only that, but there's nothing to stop that particular idiosyncrasy of the Chapter being portrayed by simply painting your pilots green/black/white.

That hasn't been true since 4th edition.

Why? What *mechanically* about Ravenwing Land Speeders (because don't forget, Nephilim and Land Speeder Vengeances/Darkshrouds weren't in the game in 4th edition!) means that they can't be represented by painting your pilot a different colour?

Speaking of which, you do know that Land Speeders in Codex Chapters aren't piloted by Techmarines either? The only units that would be are the Nephilim, Stormraven/Stormtalon, and the Forge World flyers - which, barring the FW flyers (because they never existed in the Codexes!) all didn't exist in game prior to 5th edition.

Basically, I'm asking you to justify the mechanical differences of generic units that require them to need a seperate datasheet, that cannot just be covered by stratagems, Vigilus-style Formations, or bespoke Chapter Tactics, beyond "they've always had separate entries!", because that wasn't true prior to "Angels of Death".

BroodSpawn wrote:Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters. No Victrix Guard, no Iron Hands, no Guilliman. Like if you want to remove or condense options and rules so theres only 1 generic list that everyone uses with nothing unique for anyone, why not push it that way?

So, basically just like 5th edition? Which I personally quite liked?

Basically, it was a case of "there are special named characters, but anyone can use them, and you can just fluff that character as being part of your Chapter!". For example, you could have Calgar as Chapter Master, Lysander as 1st Captain, Sicarius as 2nd Captain, Shrike as 3rd Captain, Vulkan He'stan as 4th Company Captain, etc etc. As a result, things like Honour Guard (which are now Ultramarine exclusive) were made open to everyone.

Fully enough, there was just as much list variety then as there was now.

Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW.

What about the people that have been in the hobby longer than DA/BA/SW were made separate?

flandarz wrote:My reason for wanting consolidation isn't some Marine envy or wanting homogeneous lists. I'm just curious as to why the separation is necessary. What do these sub-Factions gain from having their own book? What would they lose if they were part of the same book? It'd be the same questions I'd ask of my own Faction was split into separate books.

Very much this. It's not to say that DA/BA/SW shouldn't get anything at all, but that everything they could have could just be put in a supplement, and all the generic units could just be shared instead of wasting paper.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't own a Space Marine army at the moment, but did so in the past and like them in general.

I would appreciate a consolidation, if it would mean that other armies get more attention in rules and models. Basically what we have at the moment with C:SM and their supplements.
I really do like chapter unique models, as they add a lot of flavour to the faction for me, while at the same time I think that a Sanguinary Priest and an Apothecary (as examples) should be one and the same base unit, with base equipment and abilities. A Blood Angel supplement or rules section in the same base book would then add new wargear like a chalice for a +1S aura.

As to the "why do we need books for 8 different kinds of imperial Space Marines". Honestly, there is no need. Having a bigger book with all the rules or several books with their respective stuff does not make a big difference for anybody. We have it because there are enough fans of each Chapter.
I'm pretty sure GW would be more than happy to release a... let's say Ogdobekh dynasty supplement for Necrons if the demand is high enough.

Agreed. It's not about getting rid of flavour and background lore, or even some minor effects in game - it's about reducing the amount of datasheets that could easily sub in as one another.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Mmmpi wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What does using the datasheet of an Apothecary change from the Sanguinary Priest

You mean besides the lose of an aura ability?

And why can't that aura ability be attached to Blood Angels keyword modification? Something like "<Blood Angels> <Apothecaries> grant XYZ to friendly <Blood Angel> units" as part of their Chapter Tactic/supplement rules. Why not tie it to a stratagem, and make it super powerful? Something like a "Sanguinary Priest: 1CP - One <Blood Angels> Apothecary may become a <Sanguinary Priest>, and gain XYZ rule", or even "Sanguinary Priest: 1CP - a <Blood Angels> Apothecary may cause XYZ effect on friendly Blood Angels units until the next battle round".

There you go, still got your flavour, and it didn't require a whole new datasheet.

No, it just requires the use of CP, and a stratagem, which potentially takes up the same amount of room.

Because aside from it's basic lore, there is very little in the way of gameplay mechanic for it. By all means, all the Chapters should have their special idiosyncracies and organisations and unique naming conventions, but it doesn't mean they need a whole new datasheet for it. In my opinion, we should stick to the core datasheets where possible, and attach specific abilities to those generic units via the keyword system.

Or realize that because we're dealing with separate books, there's no need to stick to specific data sheets.

But why are we dealing with separate books? That's the point I'm trying to make: why is having a whole separate book just for a handful of unique units needed, when you could just reflect all of that in a supplement (which is still separate book!)

Your argument here is "we should make it a Codex, because it's a Codex!" That makes no sense, it's circular logic. I'm questioning *why* it needs to be a separate Codex, and all you're saying is "it is, because it is".

My argument isn't make it a codex because it's a codex. My argument has been from the beginning that there are enough differences to keep them a codex. That's not circular logic, despite you trying to frame it that way.

No-one's advocating that "Blood Angels now just have Apothecaries like everyone else

Some people actually are.

What, that they should no extra flavour in the background? I'm not sure, but sure, perhaps they are. *I'm* not. What about my argument?

Not everything I post has to do with your argument. Some people have advocated the full on removal of units, on the grounds that they thought they were too weak.

If the Deathwing fluff is about them mass deploying, just take an army of lots of Terminators!

Yup, let's just ignore the differences between the DA terminators and other terminators.

What differences are those? Assume I'm ignorant, and educate me, what is unique mechanically about the Deathwing? Don't mistake that as me saying that in lore and fluff they're just "normal Terminators", because they absolutely have rich culture and different lore to Firedrakes or Gorgons, but what I am getting at is "what about that needs to ensure they need a full new datasheet" and not just "<Dark Angels> Terminators gain the 'Deathwing' rule and XYZ special rule".

Different rules, different equipment choices. I've been saying that for what? A day now? They have options regular terminators don't, and rules they don't have.

Not only that, but there's nothing to stop that particular idiosyncrasy of the Chapter being portrayed by simply painting your pilots green/black/white.

That hasn't been true since 4th edition.

Why? What *mechanically* about Ravenwing Land Speeders (because don't forget, Nephilim and Land Speeder Vengeances/Darkshrouds weren't in the game in 4th edition!) means that they can't be represented by painting your pilot a different colour?

Speaking of which, you do know that Land Speeders in Codex Chapters aren't piloted by Techmarines either? The only units that would be are the Nephilim, Stormraven/Stormtalon, and the Forge World flyers - which, barring the FW flyers (because they never existed in the Codexes!) all didn't exist in game prior to 5th edition.

Basically, I'm asking you to justify the mechanical differences of generic units that require them to need a seperate datasheet, that cannot just be covered by stratagems, Vigilus-style Formations, or bespoke Chapter Tactics, beyond "they've always had separate entries!", because that wasn't true prior to "Angels of Death".

You mean besides different squad sizes, special rules, and at the time equipment options? Sure the current specialty speeders weren't around. But for a time, RW got unique speeders, and even after they became shared out, they still had rules that regular marines didn't get.
Justification done. Remember, stratagems cost CP, still take up room in the book, and can be countered by other stratagems. Formations require more space in books, you're really not saving space.

The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.

If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.

If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.

As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.

If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.

What happened to their twin link on ds thing?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.

If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.

As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?

Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.

Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't own a Space Marine army at the moment, but did so in the past and like them in general.

I would appreciate a consolidation, if it would mean that other armies get more attention in rules and models. Basically what we have at the moment with C:SM and their supplements.
I really do like chapter unique models, as they add a lot of flavour to the faction for me, while at the same time I think that a Sanguinary Priest and an Apothecary (as examples) should be one and the same base unit, with base equipment and abilities. A Blood Angel supplement or rules section in the same base book would then add new wargear like a chalice for a +1S aura.

As to the "why do we need books for 8 different kinds of imperial Space Marines". Honestly, there is no need. Having a bigger book with all the rules or several books with their respective stuff does not make a big difference for anybody. We have it because there are enough fans of each Chapter.
I'm pretty sure GW would be more than happy to release a... let's say Ogdobekh dynasty supplement for Necrons if the demand is high enough.

first off as I've noted consolidating into supplements wouldn't make much of a change, blood angels dark angels and space wolves have gotten a single character, upgrade kit and codex this edition, which is about the same amount that white scars got. (ignoring the primaris release in this case because they all got it) so right now the level of support they're getting is on par with supplements anyway. consolidation would thus potentially remove options for these factions, and little more.

secondly the demand bit is absolutely right, there is demand for expanded info on marine chapters. the reason for this is simple eneugh, thanks to the Horus Heresy and other books (primarily the horus heresy) there is intreast and specific knowledge about the various first founding chapters, their culture their practices etc.

Look at it this way, most subfactions what's known about them is maybe a page of text in a codex,

meanwhile, white scars have (BTW I'm using white scars because these guys are one of the lesser known first founders) about a dozen books about them some horus heresy, some modern 4k. and some of those books are REALLY good. Scars was a great read.

Novel wise outside Marines (loyalist and traitor) you rarly get that strong sense of identity. You sometimes see it in the guard (Cadia Stands and Cadian Honour are doing excellent in telling a story about CADIAN regiments but a lot of the time the regiments orgins are ireelevant to a story) etc.
So it makes sense there is more demand for expansion of marine subfactions. That said I'd really like to see them potentially do this with other subfactions too because it'd allow them to flesh them out. A Ulthwe Supplement would allow them to flesh out craftworld Ulthwe far more then they've been able to in the past, just for example.

A modest proposal:
If you're so worried about how many books are in the game, we could just drop all the Loyalist books. Since so many of their datasheets are functionally the same as their Traitor kin, they can just use that book. I mean, why have Tacs and Chaos Marines when you can have just one entry? Why have ASM and Raptors when you can have just one entry? Why split Libbies and Sorcs? Just merge the books!

Nobody uses any of the stuff not in the Chaos book anyways. And, if they do, they're bad. And should feel bad. So they shouldn't be allowed to play those models.

I've shown, right here, that anybody who thinks we shouldn't do this is wrong and dumb.

(inb4 - if you don't realize the sarcasm, google "A Modest Proposal".)

BrianDavion wrote:
first off as I've noted consolidating into supplements wouldn't make much of a change, blood angels dark angels and space wolves have gotten a single character, upgrade kit and codex this edition, which is about the same amount that white scars got. (ignoring the primaris release in this case because they all got it) so right now the level of support they're getting is on par with supplements anyway. consolidation would thus potentially remove options for these factions, and little more.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to take options away from any army or want to imply that non C:SM Marines get too much spotlight.

Arising balance issues aside, having all the available Marine rules from all the armies in one Codex and making them freely mix and matchable would open up an enormous playing field for abuse and - more importantly for me - customisation. Then you could truly make your own chapter with all kinds of interesting little bits.
Coming from Pen&Paper, I see every Codex (Marine or not) more like a framework to work with. Let's just assume you want to make a pure Kroot army but think that Tyranid rules fit better, then more power for you. I'm happily playing against you and your custom models with borrowed rules
Having played most of my time with earlier editions, I have to say I even would like consolidation of entries in the same base book. Codex Space Marine got 7 different datasheets for a "Captain" alone. I'm more used to having one Captain and list stuff like TDA, Gravis armour and a bike as wargear options. I understand why it is done, but it does feel bloated to me.

It is truly some kind of vicious circle, isn't it? Marine sub-factions are popular because they get support because they sell well because they are popular

a_typical_hero wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
first off as I've noted consolidating into supplements wouldn't make much of a change, blood angels dark angels and space wolves have gotten a single character, upgrade kit and codex this edition, which is about the same amount that white scars got. (ignoring the primaris release in this case because they all got it) so right now the level of support they're getting is on par with supplements anyway. consolidation would thus potentially remove options for these factions, and little more.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to take options away from any army or want to imply that non C:SM Marines get too much spotlight.

Arising balance issues aside, having all the available Marine rules from all the armies in one Codex and making them freely mix and matchable would open up an enormous playing field for abuse and - more importantly for me - customisation. Then you could truly make your own chapter with all kinds of interesting little bits.
Coming from Pen&Paper, I see every Codex (Marine or not) more like a framework to work with. Let's just assume you want to make a pure Kroot army but think that Tyranid rules fit better, then more power for you. I'm happily playing against you and your custom models with borrowed rules
Having played most of my time with earlier editions, I have to say I even would like consolidation of entries in the same base book. Codex Space Marine got 7 different datasheets for a "Captain" alone. I'm more used to having one Captain and list stuff like TDA, Gravis armour and a bike as wargear options. I understand why it is done, but it does feel bloated to me.

It is truly some kind of vicious circle, isn't it? Marine sub-factions are popular because they get support because they sell well because they are popular

well as I said, I suspect it's due to the popularity of the horus heresy that it's impacting things. between the return of primarchs, MK3 and MK4 armor, the focus on the first founding chapters, it's pretty clear that the populairty of the HH books has really embedded itself into 40k

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And why can't that aura ability be attached to Blood Angels keyword modification? Something like "<Blood Angels> <Apothecaries> grant XYZ to friendly <Blood Angel> units" as part of their Chapter Tactic/supplement rules. Why not tie it to a stratagem, and make it super powerful? Something like a "Sanguinary Priest: 1CP - One <Blood Angels> Apothecary may become a <Sanguinary Priest>, and gain XYZ rule", or even "Sanguinary Priest: 1CP - a <Blood Angels> Apothecary may cause XYZ effect on friendly Blood Angels units until the next battle round".

There you go, still got your flavour, and it didn't require a whole new datasheet.

No, it just requires the use of CP, and a stratagem, which potentially takes up the same amount of room.

But you've still got it. You have the option to take a more flavourful version of what you want, but if you can be bothered to spend a command point on it, that's not on me. Do you want flavour, or some command points?
And no, it absolutely wouldn't take up as much room, because the amount of space a stratagem takes up is far less than a whole new datasheet and containing every single other Space Marine unit. Even *if* we were to remove nothing and keep all the same datasheets (that can be replicated with stratagems or faction special rules that would take up all of one page), you'd still need to print out every other generic unit for the full Codex!

It would save VAST amounts of space to only have generic units in the main Codex, and only include unique ones (and rules to create permutations of existing generic units) in a supplement.

But why are we dealing with separate books? That's the point I'm trying to make: why is having a whole separate book just for a handful of unique units needed, when you could just reflect all of that in a supplement (which is still separate book!)

Your argument here is "we should make it a Codex, because it's a Codex!" That makes no sense, it's circular logic. I'm questioning *why* it needs to be a separate Codex, and all you're saying is "it is, because it is".

My argument isn't make it a codex because it's a codex. My argument has been from the beginning that there are enough differences to keep them a codex. That's not circular logic, despite you trying to frame it that way.

And I'm asking you what those differences actually *are*, and you're just saying (like you literally do in the below paragraph about Deathwing) "they're different because they're different".

Why. Be comprehensive with me. What are these differences, why can't they be filled by stratagems, Vigilus-style formations, and the occasional unique unit?

Don't just say "because they're different", tell me why, and maybe we'll get somewhere.

[quoteWhat, that they should no extra flavour in the background? I'm not sure, but sure, perhaps they are. *I'm* not. What about my argument?

Not everything I post has to do with your argument. Some people have advocated the full on removal of units, on the grounds that they thought they were too weak.

Bharring wrote:
A modest proposal:
If you're so worried about how many books are in the game, we could just drop all the Loyalist books. Since so many of their datasheets are functionally the same as their Traitor kin, they can just use that book. I mean, why have Tacs and Chaos Marines when you can have just one entry? Why have ASM and Raptors when you can have just one entry? Why split Libbies and Sorcs? Just merge the books!

Nobody uses any of the stuff not in the Chaos book anyways. And, if they do, they're bad. And should feel bad. So they shouldn't be allowed to play those models.

I've shown, right here, that anybody who thinks we shouldn't do this is wrong and dumb.

(inb4 - if you don't realize the sarcasm, google "A Modest Proposal".)

I'm actually all for eliminating the Death Guard and Thousand Sons codices to be consolidated, so it isn't far from what needs to happen. There should only be two in reality:
1. Loyalists + rules to use Renegades
2. Chaos Legions

That's all that's needed. None of this nonsense that everyone needs a supplement or a separate codex.

Except we could argue, in that model, that Renegades is adding unneeded bloat for snowflake rules that shouldn't exist as no one has given a good enough reason for them to exist.
And Chaos Legions are just Spiky Space Marines anyway, so they dont need a book either because, you guessed it, they dont have anything unique to them and any lore shouldn't matter on what people have for rules.

So a 1 book for Power Armour is the way to go, everything can just be a paint job. No rules for chapters or legions mind, again that's all covered in a paint job too.

By the way, this is how I see your argument that you've been pushing in one form or another for months even after answers for why certain models and codices exist now have been given over multiple threads.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Except we could argue, in that model, that Renegades is adding unneeded bloat for snowflake rules that shouldn't exist as no one has given a good enough reason for them to exist.
And Chaos Legions are just Spiky Space Marines anyway, so they dont need a book either because, you guessed it, they dont have anything unique to them and any lore shouldn't matter on what people have for rules.

So a 1 book for Power Armour is the way to go, everything can just be a paint job. No rules for chapters or legions mind, again that's all covered in a paint job too.

By the way, this is how I see your argument that you've been pushing in one form or another for months even after answers for why certain models and codices exist now have been given over multiple threads.

Renegades are super easy to handle.
1. One page to going over how to switch keywords, one page for strats + Relics (I'm for limited numbers so this would be easily done), 2 pages for the 3-4 units gained after losing the Chapters' regular stuff like Khan on Bike, Death Company, etc.
2. 4 or so pages for fluff
3. Example of extra rules is with Huron + Red Corsairs which are a counts-as White Scars Chapter Tactics

It wouldn't be hard and would consolidate Renegades onto what they should've been in the first place.

But you've still got it. You have the option to take a more flavourful version of what you want, but if you can be bothered to spend a command point on it, that's not on me. Do you want flavour, or some command points?
And no, it absolutely wouldn't take up as much room, because the amount of space a stratagem takes up is far less than a whole new datasheet and containing every single other Space Marine unit. Even *if* we were to remove nothing and keep all the same datasheets (that can be replicated with stratagems or faction special rules that would take up all of one page), you'd still need to print out every other generic unit for the full Codex!

It would save VAST amounts of space to only have generic units in the main Codex, and only include unique ones (and rules to create permutations of existing generic units) in a supplement.

Nothing about spending both points and CP makes things 'more flavorful', and your accusation is just more proof that you have no ground to stand on. Right now I don't have to pay CP to gain 'flavor'. It would take up the same amount of room, because you would have to include a larger than normal Stratagem text box to accurately describe the change. You might as well just include the datasheet. You describe printing generic sheets in multiple codexes as if it were a problem, when it actually means people don't have to buy six books to play their army.

And I'm asking you what those differences actually *are*, and you're just saying (like you literally do in the below paragraph about Deathwing) "they're different because they're different".

Why. Be comprehensive with me. What are these differences, why can't they be filled by stratagems, Vigilus-style formations, and the occasional unique unit?

Don't just say "because they're different", tell me why, and maybe we'll get somewhere.

No reason to be comprehensive. I have no interest in typing out every unit's change to equipment and rules. I've already said why they would make poor formations and stratagems. I suggest you read that answer from earlier.

No, but you're not answering my questions. And as I said, I don't care what anyone else's argument is, I'm asking you to judge the ones that I've put forward, and why you deem them unsatisfactory.

I am answering them, you just don't like the answers because they don't agree with the perspective you're trying to force on the community.

What different squad sizes? What equipment options? As far as I was aware, Dark Angels Land Speeders had all the same equipment loadouts and numbers as regular Marines. But, in case I'm wrong, please, tell me exactly what was different.

Yes, you got new speeders in time, but that's not "always been around" like you've been claiming. They're a recent development, and don't forget, the Stormraven was once only for Blood Angels and Grey Knights. Now regular Marines have them. What's the say the same can't happen for Nephilim Jetfighters, eh? Also, what were these "unique speeders" that you claim the DA had prior to the new ones? I've never heard of these.

For a very long time, DA could take land speeders in squads of five and six. They had unique load outs (not talking about the current specialty speeders). At no point except for a brief spot at the end of 3rd beginning of 4th did the DA not have special speeders/load outs. Those options are different now than before, but their options have always been different.
Nothing says it can't happen. But there's also nothing that says it will happen either.

Not true. Remember, if you wanted a full Codex, you'd need to reprint every single generic datasheet for Tactical Squads, Scouts, Intercessors, Infiltrators and Incursors, their points costs, their wargear options - and that's just the Troops choices. That's, what, four pages? Three? Just for your Troops. Face it, the supplement would take up magnitudes less space, all at the cost of *gasp* SHOCK HORROR! sharing the same base units and Codex as everyone else! Hell, I wouldn't even mind if your supplement got to be a little bit bigger than the others to ensure that you have enough stratagems and rules to make a flavourful army, but it certainly wouldn't be near Codex size, because it simply doesn't need to be!

I don't actually consider this to be a problem. It also give GW room to make changes specific to one army without having to print conflicting "Check this book on pg. 98x paragraph six" when building an army. Not sure why you think information appearing in more than one place is so horrible. It also means fewer purchases for someone who wants to play DA (ect).

Also, regarding flavourful things costing CP and can still be negated:
One, that's already a thing with things like Chapter Master, hellfire rounds, hunter killer missiles, and Chief Librarians.
Two, I oppose the idea of certain pre-game stratagems being able to be countered by other ones (ie, if I want to use the Chapter Master stratagem pre-game, nothing can stop me), and I've houseruled that out, because it's a stupid rule.

It doesn't matter what you agree with concerning stratagems. The ability to do it exists, and it's something that players have to account for. Furthermore, just because it is a thing, doesn't mean it should be. I feel there should be a separate sheet for Chapter Masters and Chief Librarians, rather than it being a Stratagem. That's not the case, and I'll have to live with it until GW changes it's mind.

I find it amusing that the same people who complain about rules bloat are saying we should change something from a single codex into a bloated 3 book mess

BrianDavion wrote:
I find it amusing that the same people who complain about rules bloat are saying we should change something from a single codex into a bloated 3 book mess

We are probably not going to get away from book bloat sadly but at least if all marines used the same base rule they would all be updated at the same time and work more similar so still easier for everyone when it comes to the rules. Sounds like a fair compromise and then when GW start losing book sales due to everyone using ebooks/pdf/battlescribe enough in the future they might just make 2 marine books of good quality worth paying for. 1 with all the core rules and 1 for the different chapters instead of multiple supplements.

Right now a tactical marine costs more for BA and DA than UM while chapter tactics works for WS vehicles but not SW. Some chapters have doctrines and some dont. Some Chaplains have litanies and some get rerolls. The marines all have some stratagems with the same name and also chapter masters but the exact rules for both work different for different marine chapters. Just consolidating the chapters in to the same base book would make it all more equal on the table to the benefit for the players. Some things from the new book got uppdated in faqs but some didnt so you might have to do some extra double checking to add to the current confusion.

And with all marines being more equal and a bit simpler to balance, lets pretend they didnt give OP CT and doctrines, due to sharing more stuff. More effort could be put in other factions or in rebalancing the core of marines. You could fix terminators by updating the single marine datasheet instead of having to faq/errata all marine books or more likely only fix them for 1 chapter but not the rest.

Ofc GW could still feth it up because its GW but this would make it even harder for them to feth things up. I play BA and I dont want a snowflake codex I just want slightly different marine rules, that most importantly are on the same level as lther marines, since we are still marines after all. Much more codex compliant than not as well.

Can you consolidate DA,SW and BA back into the main SM codex? Yes you can, in the sense that you can make them in one of the codex supplements like the other chapters.

That said though, get ready for quite a big book, since it would literally be the existing DA, SW and BA codici copy pasted with a bit less datasheets (the ones already existing in the main book).

The idea running around that you can consolidate snowflake datasheets like ravenwing bike squads in vanilla marine datasheets, is unfeasible, so you would have to keep all the snowflake datasheets, and there are a quite a lot of those. A difference in rule/equipment/squad size, coupled with an existing different model is reason enough to warrant a different datasheet, or you would have to consolidate tactical marines, devastators, sternguards veterans, vanguard veterans, assault marines and pretty much all 1W PA models. Also, there would be no reason to have intercessors, infiltrators and incursors as a separate datasheet.

Sure, you could just manage it with "If this model is from DA chapter then XyZ" type of rules, but that can be said for 90% of models in the game. I could technically compile a book long datasheet which encompassess all models in the game. Now we have a perfect consolidation of all models, but i guess that it would hardly pass for an improvement over the present condition.

You would also incur in some really weird rules like "If this model is from the BA chapter, you need to represent this model with the bloodybloodsanguisblooddoctor model, else you need to represent it with an apothecary".

So, forget about consolidating datasheet, it simply isn't going to happen and/or work.

Now, with that said, I can imagine that the snowflake chapters would be utterly delighted if they were to become a supplement to the basic marine codex, as it means that they just get to keep everything they have while also having access to a new psy table, new relics, WT and stratagems. Also, they would have Angels of Death. A little notice at the start of the supplement would read "If you play this chapter, you cannot use this list of models".
I would be really in favor of this, since right now it is counter intuitive for new players that depending on the color of your marine, you either take the marine book or something different. One would imagine that if i play marine, then i should buy the marine book.
For the same reason, GK should also become a supplement, but i can see that being quite hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really liked this last GW move to promote vanilla marine chapters to snowflake chapters.

Each of those chapters should be a different faction. At least this way you don't fight "Marines" 50% of the time, but 6 or more different factions, with different playstyles and lists. It makes it more refreshing.

Other factions do not require this to happen, since there isn't enough of a playerbase of each different craftworld/hyve fleet/Sept/whatever to warrant this to happen.

Playing against tyranids isn't something that happens so often, that you need to make more variations of it.

It's all a playerbase issue. Making more marine factions was a justified effort because it improved sensibly the gaming experience. Playing against Salamanders or White Scars feels as different as playing guard instead of Adeptus.

Doing the same for T'au wouldn't have the same effects. It would be mostly bloat.

Note: I'm talking about everyday games, not top tournament games (which hold no weight in the design of the game, except as balance indicators). In top tournament games the actual population of factions is skewed by what is meta and what is not. The real faction numbers are the ones known best by GW, based on the sales of the kits.

The only other faction in the game with enough playerbase to warrant some spicying were CWE, but that's what Ynnari were for.