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.

WhiteDog wrote:

The reality is they aren't special and are a cause for imbalances to happen.

What's really unique is your own point of view on life. You're arguing that DA are the cause of imbalances ... lol you're unique man, truly unique.

The argument is not that DA are rippling out into the game and causing imbalances. It's that by having them be a separate unique army they are yet another thing to balance when they are not actually unique enough to warrant being so. So either the DA fall behind (which they have been) or they jump ahead (which they haven't) but are either way imbalanced from the rest. DA the army does not cause the game to be imbalanced. DA the army can't help but be imbalanced as the game grows and changes. The best way to fix that is to turn them into the supplement they always should have been.

Let's try this approach instead. None of you pushing for rules consolidation have given a good reason to rewrite rules and fluff over at least 2 codices to justify the move.
DA and the rest are separate armies that share a model range only.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Let's try this approach instead. None of you pushing for rules consolidation have given a good reason to rewrite rules and fluff over at least 2 codices to justify the move.
DA and the rest are separate armies that share a model range only.

Just because you deem them not good enough doesn't mean they aren't.

Also nobody here wanted to rewrite the fluff? So what even is that point.

Further: If the rules would allow for customization, there would be infintely more options to make what you want out of an army.
There is a reason why R&H literally dropped off after 7th because the complete removal of said customisation.

I'd also want to mention i have no dog in this fight but IF gw were to consolidate then i'd hope they would go for the following Setup:

The Core, basically the units. Build a trait. Then the more specific and special Chapters which get their restrictions mentionened, ther specialisation and specific to them Units there.
(basically like some of the mono god legions in the CSM book, except with actual thought behind it).

You'd have ALL the datasheets of SM in one book. You could finally fill the questionable lack of some things (cough Ravenwing etc.) and more importantly, if handled propperly with addendums you could make better second founding chapters aswell.

"DA and the rest are separate armies that share a model range only."

Yes. Just like Goffs and Deathskullz. Or Tau Sept and Farsight Enclaves. Or Cadians and Catachans. Need I go on? Every single sub-Faction in the game could have it's own Codex, based on "well the fluff is different and they have a handful of unique units and units that they cannot take."

 flandarz wrote:
"DA and the rest are separate armies that share a model range only."

Yes. Just like Goffs and Deathskullz. Or Tau Sept and Farsight Enclaves. Or Cadians and Catachans. Need I go on? Every single sub-Faction in the game could have it's own Codex, based on "well the fluff is different and they have a handful of unique units and units that they cannot take."

Goofs and Deathskullz haven't been presented as different factions, however - with the possible exceptions of Kult of Speed and Feral Orks, the Klanz have generally been presented as quite intermingled, not operating as different armies.

I don't think anyone would have much of a problem with a Farsight Enclave supplement, and I'd love to see a return of Codex: Catachans.

Goffs and deathskulls have just 1-2 named characters as specific clan units, anything else is exactly the same. Units, wargear and all the combinations between them aren't affected by choosing a specific clan or another one. SM stand alone chapters have several unique units instead and even some of the ones that are in common between chapters have actually different options available.

I don't get the point of consolidating all chapters into one book unless it comes from someone that plays more than a chapter and wants to use (and buy) a single book.

As a SW collector and player I want my 100+ pages about that specific chapter, I couldn't care less about Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, etc... At the same time I don't want a 1000 pages bible either.

For someone like me, who plays just one chapter that is already a stand alone one, consolidation is bad: I'll end up with less pages about my SW or with a bulkier (and likely more expensive) codex.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

The best way to fix that is to turn them into the supplement they always should have been.

The real best way fo fix this is to let SM players use their codex and their codex only. Supplements should never exist.

BroodSpawn wrote:Let's try this approach instead. None of you pushing for rules consolidation have given a good reason to rewrite rules and fluff over at least 2 codices to justify the move.
DA and the rest are separate armies that share a model range only.

If that's your take, then you probably weren't paying much attention to the previous posts and proposals.

No-one is advocating rewriting the fluff - at least, the actually IMPORTANT fluff. Long standing fluff like the Deathwing and Ravenwing no-one wants to change. Fluff that makes no sense and isn't really even elaborated on in their own Codex (like "no Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons") have no reason not to be amended.
Like, if you'd indulge me, go through all my proposals and tell me which ones "rewrite" the fluff, the established, iconic fluff. I'll give you a head start:
- Everyone gets Terminator Apothecaries - because there's nothing about DA lore that indicates they're the only Chapter capable of this. Given how every Chapter now has Terminator Ancients, the idea that DA get unique Terminator command units to show how they have so many suits of TDA is no longer consistent. There is no consistent reason why this unit should be unique.
- Everyone gets mixed squad Terminators - mixed squads Terminators are a thing in many non-Dark Angels Chapters in lore. No reason why the Dark Angels should be the only ones.
- Gaining Sternguard and Vanguard* - if they were treated like how the current Company Veterans are, ie, attached to the Battle and Reserve companies, and not the 1st Company, this wouldn't break any lore.
- Gaining generic flyers and Thunderfire Cannons - while Techmarines aren't trusted with knowledge of the Fallen, they are still used within the Chapters, even to repair equipment for the Inner Circle! So long as these generic flyers and Thunderfire Cannons weren't used in the Deathwing or Ravenwing, this would be fine.
- Gaining Centurions - I'm still waiting on someone, anyone, to tell me why the Dark Angels don't use these in lore. It's almost like there's no reason for it.


As for rules, again - mechanically, very few rules would actually change in my proposal. List a unique Dark Angels rule or ability, and I should be able to guarantee you that it would still be around in my proposal. I'll go through a few to start off:
- Inner Circle - the easiest one. Every unit with the <Terminator> keyword gains the <Deathwing> keyword, and all units with the <Deathwing> and <Librarian> keyword gain the Inner Circle rules.
- Jink - similarly easy. Add onto the existing Chapter Tactic (Grim Resolve) to say "units with the <Biker> and <Land Speeder> keywords gain a 4+ Invulnerable save on any turn they Advance", or something like my Inner Circle proposal - every unit with the <Biker> or <Land Speeder> keywords gains the <Ravenwing> keyword. Units with the <Ravenwing> keyword gain the Jink rule.
- Interrogator Chaplains, like how things like Chief Apothecaries and suchlike are represented, could be a 1CP upgrade for any <Chaplain> unit in your army. They gain an extra Wound, the <Deathwing> keyword, and the Aura of Dread rule.
- Plasma cannons being made generic (again, because there's no reason not to be - plasma weapon have been demonstrated on non-DA Terminators before) would still mean they have plasma weapons.
- The Watcher in the Dark could be made into a 1CP stratagem, with a guaranteed Denying the psychic power, and could work on any <Deathwing> unit, not just regular Terminators and Deathwing Knights.

So, mechanically, you don't lose anything. The only thing you *lose* is the special feeling of uniqueness by having "Codex" on the top of the book.

Dark Angels are a Space Marine subfaction, by virtue of sharing 85% of the same units as their generic brethren, largely the same keywords and aesthetics, and a prior history of being once part of the standard book.

Compare and contrast to other Codexes that share units and deserve to be kept separately (Custodes and Genestealer Cults). Both of these share a small fraction of their units with the armies they share it with (Space Marines Land Raiders and Contemptor Dreadnoughts, and Tyranids Genestealers respectively), instead of 85% of the same units. Both of these have drastically different units that make up the rest of their book compared to their shared counterparts (multiple wound, well equipped, heavily armoured Custodes vs the MEQ profile we all know and love, and ambush-deploying, vehicle heavy, guardsman-like Genestealer Cultists vs swarm of short range infantry and monstrous creature heavy Tyranids). Both of these have a very different aesthetic from their twin. Basically, the majority of their units are very different, their aesthetics being very different, and their lore largely being very distinct.

Dark Angels share the majority of their units, their core aesthetic is literally "Space Marines with a colour palette swap, robes, and wings"**, and their lore is largely "our first two Companies are unique, but the rest of the Chapter is pretty much "normal"."


*I'm still undecided on the Sternguard and Vanguard matter. On one hand, it would be trivial to write something in saying "Dark Angels armies cannot take <Sternguard Veterans> or <Vanguard Veterans>, but also from a fluff perspective, it would make complete sense for those units to be included in the same way as Company Veterans.
**that's not a criticism, I might add, that's a perfectly unique aesthetic and it does look cool. But it is "just" an aesthetic change.

Blackie wrote:I don't get the point of consolidating all chapters into one book unless it comes from someone that plays more than a chapter and wants to use (and buy) a single book.

If you want to play a First Founding Chapter with all their bells and whistles, you wouldn't be buying a single book though. You'd be buying two - Codex and supplement.

Only DA/BA/SW get to have their unique units and generic ones in one book, unlike everyone else.

As a SW collector and player I want my 100+ pages about that specific chapter, I couldn't care less about Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, etc... At the same time I don't want a 1000 pages bible either.

It's a good thing that this isn't the case then, isn't it?
As an Ultramarines player, I don't particularly care for the Raven Guard (cool Chapter, but not my cup of tea) - so I just don't buy their supplement. Simple. The only Raven Guard things in my Codex are probably taking up less than a page or two.

Likewise, in my proposal, if you wanted Space Wolves and not everyone else, then just don't buy their supplement. The generic units are still yours.

Or, am I to take this to mean you'd want all Space Marine First Founders to have their own Codex?

For someone like me, who plays just one chapter that is already a stand alone one, consolidation is bad: I'll end up with less pages about my SW or with a bulkier (and likely more expensive) codex.

So, just to clarify, you would support every First Founder having a unique Codex then, so they don't have a bulkier Codex?

I'd also like to point out that despite having the bulkiest Codex out there right now, the Space Marine Codex is just as expensive as other Codexes. I'm sure that adding the extra handful of pages for DA/BA/SW basic rules wouldn't be a problem. And then, the more bespoke stuff exclusive to those Chapters, like how it's been done with every other Chapter, is added in supplements. The unique SW/DA/BA units, like the unique Ultramarine units, would be added in via supplement.

The real best way fo fix this is to let SM players use their codex and their codex only. Supplements should never exist.

So all First Founders should have had their own Codexes? Or are you saying "screw those other first founders, they don't deserve unique rules?"

Wanna pull up their win rate then and prove me wrong? Even BEFORE Space Marine Codex 2.0 both the Angels were doing fantastically worse, though at least Blood Angels provided Slamguinus (and that's literally it).

You're saying they are weak then ? They are not the cause of any imbalance, the codexes with high winrate are. Them being weak is no argument, it's actually just dumb. Necrons have a low winrate, and nobody ask for the end of necron or their "consolidation" into something else. Plus supplements are a bigger balance problem than the DA/SW/BA ever have been. You should be up in arms against codex supplements for SM (7 release ! for almost no datasheet differences !).

The argument is not that DA are rippling out into the game and causing imbalances. It's that by having them be a separate unique army they are yet another thing to balance when they are not actually unique enough to warrant being so. So either the DA fall behind (which they have been) or they jump ahead (which they haven't) but are either way imbalanced from the rest. DA the army does not cause the game to be imbalanced. DA the army can't help but be imbalanced as the game grows and changes. The best way to fix that is to turn them into the supplement they always should have been.

Delete the entire xenos mini range then, it would greatly improve the balance of the game. Because everything you said is perfectly right for any codexes/faction in the game except. Nothing is specific to DA/SW/BA : what you criticize is the diversity of factions and rules that exist in 40K. As rules and mini are released, old codexes tend to "be imbalanced" (you mean weak). Making them a supplement would actually not fix ANYTHING because, AS WE NOW KNOW, supplement are a huge source of imbalance (see Iron Hands winrate ...).

As per my last post and the replies to it: the point was that if your only argument for having a separate Codex is "we have unique units and lore", then it's a poor argument because it can be applied to literally every sub-Faction in the game. If we want to argue the number of unique units, it's already been pointed out that DA only has about a handful more than UM does, so it's also a bad argument for separation.

As per Whitedog: so, your solution to imbalance is to get rid of every Xeno Faction, rather than consolidate less than a handful of incredibly similar Space Marine Codexes into a single book? Ok then.

 flandarz wrote:
As per my last post and the replies to it: the point was that if your only argument for having a separate Codex is "we have unique units and lore", then it's a poor argument because it can be applied to literally every sub-Faction in the game. If we want to argue the number of unique units, it's already been pointed out that DA only has about a handful more than UM does, so it's also a bad argument for separation.

As per Whitedog: so, your solution to imbalance is to get rid of every Xeno Faction, rather than consolidate less than a handful of incredibly similar Space Marine Codexes into a single book? Ok then.

Xenos factions create a way bigger imbalance problem than DA/SW/BA - and there is easy reason to that, the basic mechanism that are at the core of the DA/BA/SW is the exactly similar to the basis mecanism that are at the basis of the SM and the SMC codex (4 4 4 4 as stats and a 3+ save).
I'm not saying it's a good solution, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in your argument : you guys argue that DA/BA/SW are at the core of a balance problem while they are not, and you don't even mention the fact that some faction create way more balancing problem than DA/SW/BA : the SM supplements are a big balancing problem, xenos too, historically.

WhiteDog wrote:

Wanna pull up their win rate then and prove me wrong? Even BEFORE Space Marine Codex 2.0 both the Angels were doing fantastically worse, though at least Blood Angels provided Slamguinus (and that's literally it).

You're saying they are weak then ? They are not the cause of any imbalance, the codexes with high winrate are. Them being weak is no argument, it's actually just dumb. Necrons have a low winrate, and nobody ask for the end of necron or their "consolidation" into something else. Plus supplements are a bigger balance problem than the DA/SW/BA ever have been. You should be up in arms against codex supplements for SM (7 release ! for almost no datasheet differences !).

The argument is not that DA are rippling out into the game and causing imbalances. It's that by having them be a separate unique army they are yet another thing to balance when they are not actually unique enough to warrant being so. So either the DA fall behind (which they have been) or they jump ahead (which they haven't) but are either way imbalanced from the rest. DA the army does not cause the game to be imbalanced. DA the army can't help but be imbalanced as the game grows and changes. The best way to fix that is to turn them into the supplement they always should have been.

Delete the entire xenos mini range then, it would greatly improve the balance of the game. Because everything you said is perfectly right for any codexes/faction in the game except. Nothing is specific to DA/SW/BA : what you criticize is the diversity of factions and rules that exist in 40K. As rules and mini are released, old codexes tend to "be imbalanced" (you mean weak). Making them a supplement would actually not fix ANYTHING because, AS WE NOW KNOW, supplement are a huge source of imbalance (see Iron Hands winrate ...).

If a codex has a persistently low win rate it is also imbalanced. This imbalance is exacerbated when units it shares with other books (i.e. tactical squads), get refined and buffed elsewhere. Why should a marine that gains move and fire as if it hasn't moved with -1ap then be reduced to be cheaper than a marine who hasn't been amended but shares the same core rules and profile? Or you have the core units drawn from the same source for ALL marines, as they are the same unit. The literal same unit.

Once the core overlaps are centralised those imbalances cease to exist and can be better controlled. you sprinkle in falvour units via supplement and price them accordingly based on the affect they have on the other units with their special rules, as you now have a consistent baseline.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

As a SW collector and player I want my 100+ pages about that specific chapter, I couldn't care less about Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, etc... At the same time I don't want a 1000 pages bible either.

It's a good thing that this isn't the case then, isn't it?
As an Ultramarines player, I don't particularly care for the Raven Guard (cool Chapter, but not my cup of tea) - so I just don't buy their supplement. Simple. The only Raven Guard things in my Codex are probably taking up less than a page or two.

Likewise, in my proposal, if you wanted Space Wolves and not everyone else, then just don't buy their supplement. The generic units are still yours.

And then I'd have only some of the rules available for my army. Now with the SW codex I have everything for that army.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Or, am I to take this to mean you'd want all Space Marine First Founders to have their own Codex?

SM chapters that have 10+ unique datasheets and unique wargear should definitely have a codex of their own. Chapters that just have traits, relics, and stuff like that to make them different form other chapters should be included in the same book, like ork clans or drukhari obsessions.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

For someone like me, who plays just one chapter that is already a stand alone one, consolidation is bad: I'll end up with less pages about my SW or with a bulkier (and likely more expensive) codex.

So, just to clarify, you would support every First Founder having a unique Codex then, so they don't have a bulkier Codex?

I'd also like to point out that despite having the bulkiest Codex out there right now, the Space Marine Codex is just as expensive as other Codexes. I'm sure that adding the extra handful of pages for DA/BA/SW basic rules wouldn't be a problem. And then, the more bespoke stuff exclusive to those Chapters, like how it's been done with every other Chapter, is added in supplements. The unique SW/DA/BA units, like the unique Ultramarine units, would be added in via supplement.

Again, I'd need to buy two books for having all the rules for my chapter. And the SW codex is 100+ pages, most of them are just fluff and models showcase. I wouldn't like a general book with just 5 pages of fluff and 5 of showcase for my army, but to have all the chapters equally represented in a merged codex you'll need 1000ish pages BEFORE getting to the rules part. No way dude.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The real best way fo fix this is to let SM players use their codex and their codex only. Supplements should never exist.

So all First Founders should have had their own Codexes? Or are you saying "screw those other first founders, they don't deserve unique rules?"

Unique rules can be included in the same book if they are just rules for the army. First founders that have the same exact datasheets aside a few named characters should be included in the same codex.

Like snakebites rules are all included into the ork codex because there isn't the need of having a stand alone book since wargear and datasheets are exactly the same of other clans.

WhiteDog wrote:
you guys argue that DA/BA/SW are at the core of a balance problem

I've never said anything of the sort. Slayer might have, and while I don't share their motivation (striving for balance), I do share the end goal of consolidation. Not for balance reasons, but for simplicity for new players, cheaper means to get involved in multiple books, and ensuring that sweeping changes to all Space Marines are just that - sweeping. We've seen a prime example of why separate Codexes creates problems (DA/BA/SW have all needed emergency FAQs to bring them up to the new Marine standard).

WhiteDog wrote:

Wanna pull up their win rate then and prove me wrong? Even BEFORE Space Marine Codex 2.0 both the Angels were doing fantastically worse, though at least Blood Angels provided Slamguinus (and that's literally it).

You're saying they are weak then ? They are not the cause of any imbalance, the codexes with high winrate are. Them being weak is no argument, it's actually just dumb. Necrons have a low winrate, and nobody ask for the end of necron or their "consolidation" into something else. Plus supplements are a bigger balance problem than the DA/SW/BA ever have been. You should be up in arms against codex supplements for SM (7 release ! for almost no datasheet differences !).

The argument is not that DA are rippling out into the game and causing imbalances. It's that by having them be a separate unique army they are yet another thing to balance when they are not actually unique enough to warrant being so. So either the DA fall behind (which they have been) or they jump ahead (which they haven't) but are either way imbalanced from the rest. DA the army does not cause the game to be imbalanced. DA the army can't help but be imbalanced as the game grows and changes. The best way to fix that is to turn them into the supplement they always should have been.

Delete the entire xenos mini range then, it would greatly improve the balance of the game. Because everything you said is perfectly right for any codexes/faction in the game except. Nothing is specific to DA/SW/BA : what you criticize is the diversity of factions and rules that exist in 40K. As rules and mini are released, old codexes tend to "be imbalanced" (you mean weak). Making them a supplement would actually not fix ANYTHING because, AS WE NOW KNOW, supplement are a huge source of imbalance (see Iron Hands winrate ...).

You seem to forget imbalances can be caused by the lower end of things, so lemme try and help you because you have a tough time understanding this basic concept.

Let's just assume, for a moment for whatever reason, all the current factions are balanced. Whatever. GW decides they're gonna release Codex: Cultists. The basic troop is the CSM Cultist, except s/he is 5 points compared to the regular one in the CSM codex. That's a bit weird, and they're now strictly worse despite being the same unit. Their HQ is the Dark Apostle, who is 100 points now because of how much more the army relies on him, rather than pricing him on his actual value. Their.Fast Attack slot is the Spawn, which will be 30 points again because you're paying for durability and speed in said army that doesn't have it.

Why justify it as it's own codex? Because something has been done with TLaD and RaD. Is that a good reason? Absolutely not. Now anyone who bought into this crap codex deals with an imbalance: the imbalance is caused by their army though and the army is inexplicably worse than everyone else being perfectly balanced.

Also I am 100% against the supplements as I'm 100% against rules bloat. They're not a unique faction like you say they are, the Angels are simply Loyalist Marines and they need to start being treated as such for the health of those armies rather than pleasing you, somehow thinking these are their own Factions and should be treated as such. It's quite clear, based on several years, this doesn't work.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

Wanna pull up their win rate then and prove me wrong? Even BEFORE Space Marine Codex 2.0 both the Angels were doing fantastically worse, though at least Blood Angels provided Slamguinus (and that's literally it).

You're saying they are weak then ? They are not the cause of any imbalance, the codexes with high winrate are. Them being weak is no argument, it's actually just dumb. Necrons have a low winrate, and nobody ask for the end of necron or their "consolidation" into something else. Plus supplements are a bigger balance problem than the DA/SW/BA ever have been. You should be up in arms against codex supplements for SM (7 release ! for almost no datasheet differences !).

The argument is not that DA are rippling out into the game and causing imbalances. It's that by having them be a separate unique army they are yet another thing to balance when they are not actually unique enough to warrant being so. So either the DA fall behind (which they have been) or they jump ahead (which they haven't) but are either way imbalanced from the rest. DA the army does not cause the game to be imbalanced. DA the army can't help but be imbalanced as the game grows and changes. The best way to fix that is to turn them into the supplement they always should have been.

Delete the entire xenos mini range then, it would greatly improve the balance of the game. Because everything you said is perfectly right for any codexes/faction in the game except. Nothing is specific to DA/SW/BA : what you criticize is the diversity of factions and rules that exist in 40K. As rules and mini are released, old codexes tend to "be imbalanced" (you mean weak). Making them a supplement would actually not fix ANYTHING because, AS WE NOW KNOW, supplement are a huge source of imbalance (see Iron Hands winrate ...).

You seem to forget imbalances can be caused by the lower end of things, so lemme try and help you because you have a tough time understanding this basic concept.

Let's just assume, for a moment for whatever reason, all the current factions are balanced. Whatever. GW decides they're gonna release Codex: Cultists. The basic troop is the CSM Cultist, except s/he is 5 points compared to the regular one in the CSM codex. That's a bit weird, and they're now strictly worse despite being the same unit. Their HQ is the Dark Apostle, who is 100 points now because of how much more the army relies on him, rather than pricing him on his actual value. Their.Fast Attack slot is the Spawn, which will be 30 points again because you're paying for durability and speed in said army that doesn't have it.

Why justify it as it's own codex? Because something has been done with TLaD and RaD. Is that a good reason? Absolutely not. Now anyone who bought into this crap codex deals with an imbalance: the imbalance is caused by their army though and the army is inexplicably worse than everyone else being perfectly balanced.

No I'm not misunderstanding anything you're just wrong. DA have basically a 45-50 % winrate : they are not the source of any imbalance, they are at in the middle lower tier. SW and BA are basically the same : they are not extremly weak, nor are they better than average : they are just below average. This shows GW never had any problem in balancing them. Your arguments have no weight.

Also I am 100% against the supplements as I'm 100% against rules bloat. They're not a unique faction like you say they are, the Angels are simply Loyalist Marines and they need to start being treated as such for the health of those armies rather than pleasing you, somehow thinking these are their own Factions and should be treated as such. It's quite clear, based on several years, this doesn't work.

Then make a post about supplements and psychic awakening because they are a way bigger problem than DA/BA/SW will ever be. That's where you bias against factions you just don't know nor understand shows.

Not for balance reasons, but for simplicity for new players, cheaper means to get involved in multiple books

No you're just an ultramarine player that's a bit jealous some SM chapters have more identity than your ... There's plenty of ways to get into the game for cheap and simple, not everything has to be simplified.

I already made a thread against Supplements. I entitled it "Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne".

Also Dark Angels don't have a 45% win rate. They're more around 35%.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I already made a thread against Supplements. I entitled it "Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne".

Also Dark Angels don't have a 45% win rate. They're more around 35%.

43.6 % winrate in monofaction, just a little below CSM and way above tyranids. Space wolves are above 46 %, and BA just below 40 % without the new PA release.
https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report

And that's during the era of SM supplements, who are around 60 % winrate and represent a huge part of the faction played.

 Blackie wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

As a SW collector and player I want my 100+ pages about that specific chapter, I couldn't care less about Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, etc... At the same time I don't want a 1000 pages bible either.

It's a good thing that this isn't the case then, isn't it?
As an Ultramarines player, I don't particularly care for the Raven Guard (cool Chapter, but not my cup of tea) - so I just don't buy their supplement. Simple. The only Raven Guard things in my Codex are probably taking up less than a page or two.

Likewise, in my proposal, if you wanted Space Wolves and not everyone else, then just don't buy their supplement. The generic units are still yours.

And then I'd have only some of the rules available for my army. Now with the SW codex I have everything for that army.

What about people who play Ultramarines though? They don't get all of the rules available for their army in one book.

Now, if you want *all* unique Chapters to have their own Codexes, then fair enough. All I'm asking is "why the double standard"?
Either everyone gets a Codex, or everyone gets a supplement.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Or, am I to take this to mean you'd want all Space Marine First Founders to have their own Codex?

SM chapters that have 10+ unique datasheets and unique wargear should definitely have a codex of their own. Chapters that just have traits, relics, and stuff like that to make them different form other chapters should be included in the same book, like ork clans or drukhari obsessions.

So Ultramarines should have a Codex of their own?*

And what about those people who "don't want a bulkier (and likely more expensive) codex"? Why should an Imperial Fists player pay for Raven Guard rules they don't want, to use your own argument?

*Note, as an Ultramarines player myself, I don't want that. I'm more than happy with my supplement, because the majority of my available units, just like BA/DA/SW, are generic ones. A generic Codex, to make up the vast majority of generic options I get access to, makes absolute sense.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

For someone like me, who plays just one chapter that is already a stand alone one, consolidation is bad: I'll end up with less pages about my SW or with a bulkier (and likely more expensive) codex.

So, just to clarify, you would support every First Founder having a unique Codex then, so they don't have a bulkier Codex?

I'd also like to point out that despite having the bulkiest Codex out there right now, the Space Marine Codex is just as expensive as other Codexes. I'm sure that adding the extra handful of pages for DA/BA/SW basic rules wouldn't be a problem. And then, the more bespoke stuff exclusive to those Chapters, like how it's been done with every other Chapter, is added in supplements. The unique SW/DA/BA units, like the unique Ultramarine units, would be added in via supplement.

Again, I'd need to buy two books for having all the rules for my chapter.

So does every other First Founder. Should they have all their rules in one book?

And the SW codex is 100+ pages, most of them are just fluff and models showcase. I wouldn't like a general book with just 5 pages of fluff and 5 of showcase for my army, but to have all the chapters equally represented in a merged codex you'll need 1000ish pages BEFORE getting to the rules part. No way dude.

The supplement model provides an alternative. You get a small section of your own Chapter's lore in the core Codex, and then you get a whole book dedicated to your specific Chapter in the form of the supplement.

You wouldn't lose any lore, any units, and pictures - arguably, you'd get more. You'd just have to have another book for it - which, if that's a problem for you, I understand, but do you also think that EVERY Chapter should then have their own book?

Basically, are you concerned about the cost/weight of having two books, or just holding SW/DA/BA to a different standard?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The real best way fo fix this is to let SM players use their codex and their codex only. Supplements should never exist.

So all First Founders should have had their own Codexes? Or are you saying "screw those other first founders, they don't deserve unique rules?"

Unique rules can be included in the same book if they are just rules for the army. First founders that have the same exact datasheets aside a few named characters should be included in the same codex.

But what about their lore and photographs? According to you, that'll just increase the cost of the book.

Similarly, their warlord traits, unique stratagems, psychic powers, relics, etc etc - Chapters like the Iron Hands and Imperial Fists don't have many unique datasheets, but they do have plenty of unique rules all the same. And, as you've said, you opposed Chapters you didn't care about being put in the same book because it would increase the cost of the book.

Like snakebites rules are all included into the ork codex because there isn't the need of having a stand alone book since wargear and datasheets are exactly the same of other clans.

In my opinion, Snakebites should have their own supplement. Practically *every* subfaction should have a supplement, except maybe the factions ones with ill-defined/poorly defined subfactions (ie, Harlequins).

WhiteDog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I already made a thread against Supplements. I entitled it "Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne".

Also Dark Angels don't have a 45% win rate. They're more around 35%.

43.6 % winrate in monofaction, just a little below CSM and way above tyranids. Space wolves are above 46 %, and BA just below 40 % without the new PA release.
https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report

You do realize 40kstats is one of the worst sites to prove your point as they take anything, including dinky little local tournaments where nothing is even optimized by 50%. Try again.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I already made a thread against Supplements. I entitled it "Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne".

Also Dark Angels don't have a 45% win rate. They're more around 35%.

43.6 % winrate in monofaction, just a little below CSM and way above tyranids. Space wolves are above 46 %, and BA just below 40 % without the new PA release.
https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report

You do realize 40kstats is one of the worst sites to prove your point as they take anything, including dinky little local tournaments where nothing is even optimized by 50%. Try again.

Then give your own source or just don't speak. You gave us a number that came from your own hat and I should accept it as gospel ? lol
In the last ETC, there were plenty of DA allies with librarian played, or some talon master : they have a place un the game.

There's no reason a consolidated marine book would need to be a thousand pages, 90% of the fluff is shared (we don't need repeat fluff sections on the Rhino or Geneseed for each chapter), and a little bit of layout editing can cut down a huge amount of page space when they're not using full page color pictures (often of the same studio painted models or artwork we've seen for years or even decades) to inflate page count. Likewise, most unique units are just a generic SM unit with an equipment swap or an additional special rule, as opposed to being truly distinct new units, that could be handled in a much more compact fashion if GW chose to do so.

To further the point, everyone else deals with only a couple fluff pages of their niche subfaction in their codex, including Chaos Marines that are by all rights dramatically more divergent from each other, not sure why that's such a dealbreaker for SM's.

DA were literally the best marine faction before this new codex. They have the best characters. Landspeeder characters / azreal 4++ invune bubble. If they get a powerful super-doctrine and a reworked chapter tactic - they will likely be more powerful than ironhands.

4++ bubble alone is enough to make them the best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's no reason a consolidated marine book would need to be a thousand pages, 90% of the fluff is shared (we don't need repeat fluff sections on the Rhino or Geneseed for each chapter), and a little bit of layout editing can cut down a huge amount of page space when they're not using full page color pictures (often of the same studio painted models or artwork we've seen for years or even decades) to inflate page count. Likewise, most unique units are just a generic SM unit with an equipment swap or an additional special rule, as opposed to being truly distinct new units, that could be handled in a much more compact fashion if GW chose to do so.

To further the point, everyone else deals with only a couple fluff pages of their niche subfaction in their codex, including Chaos Marines that are by all rights dramatically more divergent from each other, not sure why that's such a dealbreaker for SM's.

OFC this is true. It's killing the game. Even other marine players are annoyed by it at this point. Because it's one thing to play gaurd and lose to eldar or something. To play marines and lose to a chapter with more bonkers rules is possibly the dumbest thing ever.

WhiteDog wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Not for balance reasons, but for simplicity for new players, cheaper means to get involved in multiple books

No you're just an ultramarine player that's a bit jealous some SM chapters have more identity than your ...

Thing is, that's where your bias comes in. Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels - they have their identity, and that's absolutely fine. I don't want to strip any of that away. But since when did "identity" entitle you to a Codex?
Ultramarines, White Scars, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, Black Templars - if you don't think these Chapters have their own unique identities and histories and features, then I'm sorry to say it, but in your own words, "you're just wrong"*. With supplements being introduced and every Chapter getting their own unique rules to compliment their historic natural unique features, now has never been a better time for consolidation.

You haven't explained at all why DA/BA/SW should have a Codex beyond quoting inconsistent lore (where's your lore explanation for no Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons?), and this vague idea of "uniqueness". To me, Ultramarines are a perfectly unique Chapter, but you don't see me crowing for them to have their own Codex, because being a slightly special kind of Space Marine doesn't entitle you to a Codex.

Let's pretend that DA/BA/SW didn't have Codexes, or that we were looking at completely restructuring 40k from the ground up. If you'd be so kind, give your reasons why these three Chapters in particular need a Codex, and not a supplement, to enact their mechanical differences?

And of course, I think it's perfectly clear to see that I don't need to waste time on refuting your claim that "you only hate us 'cos you ain't us". What an excellent attempt of deflecting otherwise valid comments because there "must be a personal reason for it!"

*also an amazing form of argument, who needs facts and evidence and debate when you can just say "no you're wrong", eh?

There's plenty of ways to get into the game for cheap and simple, not everything has to be simplified.

Please, tell me how I can get into playing Ultramarines and Dark Angel's for cheaper than I can playing Ultramarines and Imperial Fists, without pirating rules?

It's simple maths. £25 for Codex: Dark Angels and £25 for Codex: Space Marines, plus the £17.50 for whatever unique Chapter I want = £67.50
vs
£25 for Codex: Space Marines, plus £17.50 for whatever unique Chapter you want, and then another £17.50 for the other unique Chapter = £60

Also, why shouldn't collecting Space Marine be simpler? Why should I need to explain to someone picking up their first Tactical Squad that the rules for it could be in one of four books, depending on if they want to paint their Space Marines green or red or grey-blue or any other colour?
What's wrong with being able to say "yup, if you want to do any kind of loyalist Space Marine, except these super diverse ones that don't use 85% of the same units, just pick up this core Codex, and if you're comfortable specialising into one of the nine unique First Founders, grab the respective supplement for extra stuff!"

What's wrong with that approach?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I already made a thread against Supplements. I entitled it "Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne".

Also Dark Angels don't have a 45% win rate. They're more around 35%.

43.6 % winrate in monofaction, just a little below CSM and way above tyranids. Space wolves are above 46 %, and BA just below 40 % without the new PA release.
https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report

You do realize 40kstats is one of the worst sites to prove your point as they take anything, including dinky little local tournaments where nothing is even optimized by 50%. Try again.

40kstats is certainly limited - the 45% win rate should be taken with a grain of salt, and keep in mind the source.

But the 35% winrate has absolutely no citation. It appears to be an off-the-cuff "feels right" stat asserted to prove a point. So it shouldn't be taken seriously, unless it can be backed up.

Bharring wrote:
40kstats is certainly limited - the 45% win rate should be taken with a grain of salt, and keep in mind the source.

But the 35% winrate has absolutely no citation. It appears to be an off-the-cuff "feels right" stat asserted to prove a point. So it shouldn't be taken seriously, unless it can be backed up.

Agreed, it does need backing up here.

Remember that a 45% win rate army against a 55% winrate army is way way way more loopsided than 45/55 in an actual game. The 55% winrate army have that winrate at the top table playing against the other strong lists while the 45% winrate army are playing at the bottom table against other low winrate armies. If you sre 0-4 in a Tournament you arent gonna play against IH or IF with your BA, you are gonna play against tyranids, DA, GK etc.

In a real match the 55% winrate army would probably have closer to 80-90% chance to win against the 45% army. Not 55%.
So being 45% winrate for some marines while others habe 55% isnt just a small 10% difference in actual winrate against each other but more like 100%! Its seriously imbalanced.

If the range of top to bottom were more like 48% for the bad and 52% for the good then it would be quite ok state but each % up or down from 50% is much bigger than people understand.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Thing is, that's where your bias comes in. Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels - they have their identity, and that's absolutely fine. I don't want to strip any of that away. But since when did "identity" entitle you to a Codex?

Since the original Codex: Space Wolves - a codex, let us not forget, which was released before the first "generic" Space Marine Codex, back in 2nd edition.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Ultramarines, White Scars, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, Black Templars - if you don't think these Chapters have their own unique identities and histories and features, then I'm sorry to say it, but in your own words, "you're just wrong"*. With supplements being introduced and every Chapter getting their own unique rules to compliment their historic natural unique features, now has never been a better time for consolidation.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - all eighteen of the original SM Legions should get their own Codex. Some of these books would require more development time than others as, to date, some of these factions have seen far less focus and development.

Notable Successor Chapters (CF, BT, FT) can feature as an appendix in their Progenitor's book.

What would being a Codex provide for them that they aren't already getting via the "main" book and supplement? For that matter, what does a Codex provide SW, DA, etc. that they'd be unable to get via a supplement?

 Dysartes wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Thing is, that's where your bias comes in. Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels - they have their identity, and that's absolutely fine. I don't want to strip any of that away. But since when did "identity" entitle you to a Codex?

Since the original Codex: Space Wolves - a codex, let us not forget, which was released before the first "generic" Space Marine Codex, back in 2nd edition.

Weren't Space Wolves originally just part of the general Space Marine faction in Rogue Trader and, *then* made separate when Codexes were released (those being Space Wolves, Angels of Death, and Ultramarines?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Ultramarines, White Scars, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, Black Templars - if you don't think these Chapters have their own unique identities and histories and features, then I'm sorry to say it, but in your own words, "you're just wrong"*. With supplements being introduced and every Chapter getting their own unique rules to compliment their historic natural unique features, now has never been a better time for consolidation.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - all eighteen of the original SM Legions should get their own Codex. Some of these books would require more development time than others as, to date, some of these factions have seen far less focus and development.

Notable Successor Chapters (CF, BT, FT) can feature as an appendix in their Progenitor's book.

In which case, I applaud your consistency. As long as you want all the Chapters to have the same treatment (because they're very much unique mechanically now), then that's my main concern.
I still don't think a Codex each is necessary, because that would be a lot of generic units being shared out, and as the 30k books have demonstrated, two books, one for the generic units, and one covering every unique faction, is something that works. But, if everyone's brought level, that's my main grievance eliminated.

As flandarz says - what does a Codex do that a supplement doesn't?

"Create your own army" is better than "Choose between all those preset armies".
So having one unique book with enough flexibility to represent all kind of armies, including the already established ones, is better than having more, less flexible books to represent specific, set in stone factions.
Checkmate, codex-separatist!