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.

There is no way to represent that scale in a table top warfare. We're representing individual battles and campaigns, not the entirety of the setting.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
There is no way to represent that scale in a table top warfare. We're representing individual battles and campaigns, not the entirety of the setting.

Yeah, there is. They just don't want to. Yeah, individual battles. Sure. Like I had a historical buddy that just happened to have all of very rare unit at EVERY battle. This is the same gak. Played out over and over and over.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
There is no way to represent that scale in a table top warfare. We're representing individual battles and campaigns, not the entirety of the setting.

Yeah, there is. They just don't want to. Yeah, individual battles. Sure. Like I had a historical buddy that just happened to have all of very rare unit at EVERY battle. This is the same gak. Played out over and over and over.

Okay genius how do you make them more rare without selling models people can't use?

Don't sell marine models. Sell other models. Of course it's bad for business. But I personally don't care about their business. I care about lame matchups and marine saturation.

Limit marines to one unit per 2K points of an imperium army. Eliminate entire armies of marines. Because they just don't exist in sufficient numbers. By their own writings. Or, eliminate those writings and rewrite it all.

I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".

I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.

Martel732 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".

I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.

If you picked a different army then you’d never have to play Marine vs Marine again.

Aash wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".

I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.

If you picked a different army then you’d never have to play Marine vs Marine again.

I'd still have to see the batreps. Marines would still be the majority of my opponents. I'm sick of marines in general, and yes, playing them for a long time is part of that. But it also didn't use to be this bad.

I'm not giving GW that kind of money ever again.

Martel732 wrote:Why is that of course? That's GW making them common and accessible.

Define this - "accessible" - what do you mean by that?

How do you intend to "fix" Marines being accessible?

Marines vs marines is super lame at this point. Really, it always was.

Mate, you PLAY Marines. If you want Marine vs Marine to stop, play something else, or just don't accept games with other Marine players.

"How do you make Marines less accessible without invalidating people's armies or forcing them to buy armies they had no intention of collecting?'

Probably can't be done. GW is all about invalidating armies, though. Just saying.

Aside from Squats (decades ago), and Corsairs (Forgeworld), I'm not I remember an army being actually *invalid*. Not meta? Maybe, but being meta isn't a requirement to play.

"People like power armour, they think that's fun, and you're actively seeking to deprive people of that."

I somewhat question this. It's more like Pavlovian conditioning to me.

So, people only like it because they're conditioned?

What an utterly condescending thing to say.
What right do you have to suggest that someone's enjoyment of something is solely based on manipulation, doubly so when YOU COLLECT THAT YOURSELF.

ClockworkZion wrote:There is no way to represent that scale in a table top warfare. We're representing individual battles and campaigns, not the entirety of the setting.

Exactly. If 40k were played at the Crusade level (as in, you're commanding units across a united front of space, across multiple planets, or something like Risk), then I could see merit in being unable to have full Marine armies. However, 40k is played at the battle level, and there are plenty of cases in 40k lore of Space Marine-only battles. They aren't common, but the tabletop makes an abstraction, with your battles representing those uncommon battles.

Martel732 wrote:Yeah, there is.

And that is...?

They just don't want to. Yeah, individual battles. Sure. Like I had a historical buddy that just happened to have all of very rare unit at EVERY battle. This is the same gak. Played out over and over and over.

40k isn't a historical. It's a fictional setting, which has no "real life lore" to worry about.

Even IF 40k were a historical, there's plenty of "historical" battles where only Marines fought. Your games are just representing those occasions. And frankly, even in a historical, that's still a you problem - unless you made it explicitly clear to your opponent that you were playing *exactly* by what was present at that battle, they had every right to bring what they did.
Tabletop battles are a framework. You can drape different cloths over that frame (historically accurate, tactical gameplay, an excuse to roll dice with friends), but there's no objectively correct way.

If Marines being so common bothers you, that's still a you problem. Take it on yourself to only play against more "common" factions, and only play with your own Blood Angels every thousandth game. If you're lucky, they might get a game in twice in one year!

Martel732 wrote:
Don't sell marine models. Sell other models. Of course it's bad for business. But I personally don't care about their business. I care about lame matchups and marine saturation.

Limit marines to one unit per 2K points of an imperium army. Eliminate entire armies of marines. Because they just don't exist in sufficient numbers. By their own writings. Or, eliminate those writings and rewrite it all.

And now you're ignoring every bit of lore where whole companies and chapters have deployed an masse into battle.

Not to mention you're punishing people who want to collect pure armies of only Marines. Good job.

Martel732 wrote:

Aash wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".

I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.

If you picked a different army then you’d never have to play Marine vs Marine again.

I'd still have to see the batreps. Marines would still be the majority of my opponents. I'm sick of marines in general, and yes, playing them for a long time is part of that. But it also didn't use to be this bad.

I'm not giving GW that kind of money ever again.

Nobody’s forcing you to read/watch battle reports. I know I don’t. And if you don’t like playing against Marines, maybe stop playing against them and play against the minority of your opponents that don’t use them?

Martel732 wrote:

Aash wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".

I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.

If you picked a different army then you’d never have to play Marine vs Marine again.

I'd still have to see the batreps. Marines would still be the majority of my opponents. I'm sick of marines in general, and yes, playing them for a long time is part of that. But it also didn't use to be this bad.

I'm not giving GW that kind of money ever again.

You don't have to watch the batreps either. Emperor's taint you are going out of your way to claim victomhood status over people playing Marines.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Don't sell marine models. Sell other models. Of course it's bad for business. But I personally don't care about their business. I care about lame matchups and marine saturation.

Limit marines to one unit per 2K points of an imperium army. Eliminate entire armies of marines. Because they just don't exist in sufficient numbers. By their own writings. Or, eliminate those writings and rewrite it all.

And now you're ignoring every bit of lore where whole companies and chapters have deployed an masse into battle.

Not to mention you're punishing people who want to collect pure armies of only Marines. Good job.

It just doesn't happen often enough. Assuming it would actually ever happen. And, yes, I am punishing them. Just like someone who wants to field an army of all Tiger tanks and no Panzer IVs would be "punished".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Aash wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".

I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.

If you picked a different army then you’d never have to play Marine vs Marine again.

I'd still have to see the batreps. Marines would still be the majority of my opponents. I'm sick of marines in general, and yes, playing them for a long time is part of that. But it also didn't use to be this bad.

I'm not giving GW that kind of money ever again.

You don't have to watch the batreps either. Emperor's taint you are going out of your way to claim victomhood status over people playing Marines.

Victim? Not at all. It's just dumb and boring. And I'm enjoying the crazy reactions.

"Your games are just representing those occasions."

Every single time? Really?

"They aren't common, but the tabletop makes an abstraction, with your battles representing those uncommon battles."

Oh, but 40K makes them SO very common.

Ah, you're trolling because you're bored. Maybe some time on 4chan would be more your speed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Ah, you're trolling because you're bored. Maybe some time on 4chan would be more your speed.

No, I actually think this. But the reactions are golden. There's always the ignore button.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Ah, you're trolling because you're bored. Maybe some time on 4chan would be more your speed.

No, I actually think this. But the reactions are golden. There's always the ignore button.

Well you are clearly not understanding the lore very well and confusing games for lore.

The games are personal narratives of things that could be happening. Not every game is a 1:1 recreation of a historical event. Even Horus Heresy doesn't shoot for that level of being pendantic.

Martel732 wrote:Don't sell marine models.

And what about people who want to play Marines? What about people who just started building their army, and now can't continue, because GW stopped selling them?

Sell other models.

That doesn't stop people who want to play Marines.
"Oh, that's a cool army - Space Marines? Where can I get started on them?"
"Sorry kid, Martel said you're not allowed to play them."
"Why am I not allowed to play them but you are?"
"Martel's just gatekeeping your fun. Hope you enjoy the hobby!!"

I care about lame matchups and marine saturation.

You care about yourself at the expense of everyone else, you mean.

Limit marines to one unit per 2K points of an imperium army.

That's not lore friendly, and forces people to buy from factions they didn't want to collect.
Entire Marines armies is a feature of the lore. Not all armies are "Imperium" armies, some armies as simple as "Space Marines".

By that same token, do you expect all Tyranid armies to HAVE to have a mixed of monster sizes, Chaos Daemons to *need* mortal soldiers to summon them in, and Tau armies are be one unit large, to represent their smaller military?

Eliminate entire armies of marines. Because they just don't exist in sufficient numbers. By their own writings.

You clearly haven't been reading GW's writings, if you aren't familiar with all-Marine battles, like the World Engine, or the final battle of the Assault on Black Reach, or the last stand of the Ultramarines 1st Company.

Or, eliminate those writings and rewrite it all.

So, really, what you're saying, is your argument has no background basis, no real life basis, and is entirely built on "wahhh i wanna gatekeep people because i don't like their personal choices how dare they like the same thing as everyone else".

Do you want vanilla ice cream banned? Milk chocolate? Would you like Pikachu eradicated from the Pokedex?

Martel732 wrote:I'd still have to see the batreps.

Is someone forcing you to read them? I thought not.

If you're sick of Marine battle reports, don't read them.

Marines would still be the majority of my opponents.

Don't play them.

I'm sick of marines in general, and yes, playing them for a long time is part of that. But it also didn't use to be this bad.
I'm not giving GW that kind of money ever again.

You won't be missed? I'd like you see you actually act on it though.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:It just doesn't happen often enough.

Well it's a good thing that battles on the tabletop are representing those special occasions, isn't it?

What, are you saying that, actually, the majority of 40k games shouldn't even be fought, because not every planet has a war being fought on it? Do I need to simulate the day to day lives of my models, waiting for the enemy to charge their walls, sitting in the mud and dirt of their trenches?

In a WW2 dogfighting game, do I need to simulate Bomber Command waiting for the order to scramble fighters, only for no order to come through?

And, yes, I am punishing them.

Good luck convincing anyone with that attitude.

Just like someone who wants to field an army of all Tiger tanks and no Panzer IVs would be "punished".

As someone who doesn't play Bolt Action, or any games like that, how are they *punished*? And, more importantly, is there already a significantly large audience of people who want to play only Panzer IVs?

Victim? Not at all. It's just dumb and boring. And I'm enjoying the crazy reactions.

So, you're not arguing in good faith. You're just a troll.

Hey, isn't there a rule against trolling?

"Your games are just representing those occasions."

Every single time? Really?

Yes. Next question?

"They aren't common, but the tabletop makes an abstraction, with your battles representing those uncommon battles."

Oh, but 40K makes them SO very common.

Tabletop isn't the lore. In lore? Uncommon. On tabletop - who cares how often it happens in the lore? It's a *game*.

Martel732 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".

I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.

Me too. In fact I've never played my SW against any other imperium army because I've always refused to do so, even during previous editions But I do have a xeno army as an alternative, which is also my main army, and I don't do tournaments. Hard to get some games with my SW in 8th but cellphones exist and it's possible to contact a friend and organize a game before going to the store-club

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.

Me too. In fact I've never played my SW against any other imperium army because I've always refused to do so, even during previous editions But I do have a xeno army as an alternative, which is also my main army, and I don't do tournaments. Hard to get some games with my SW in 8th but cellphones exist and it's possible to contact a friend and organize a game before going to the store-club

See - this is the sensible thing to do if you're sick of playing against a certain army. Take action yourself, fight games on your own terms (respectfully, I hope!), recognise that it's down to you to make sure you're only playing against the factions you want.

I honestly didn't expect this much of a crazy reaction. None of this would happen because GW is gonna GW and push the marines to the point of absurdity. Because GW. It's just what I would do. Why do you even care that much? Nothing will stand in the way of the marine fapfest. You can be assured there will be plenty of marine vs marine in 9th ed.

Martel732 wrote:
I honestly didn't expect this much of a crazy reaction. None of this would happen because GW is gonna GW and push the marines to the point of absurdity. Because GW. It's just what I would do. Why do you even care that much? Nothing will stand in the way of the marine fapfest. You can be assured there will be plenty of marine vs marine in 9th ed.

Mattel, GW has pushed Marines at the same level they always have. The fact you act like this is such a shock or that it's suddenly outrageous is the "crazy" thing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I honestly didn't expect this much of a crazy reaction. None of this would happen because GW is gonna GW and push the marines to the point of absurdity. Because GW. It's just what I would do. Why do you even care that much? Nothing will stand in the way of the marine fapfest. You can be assured there will be plenty of marine vs marine in 9th ed.

Mattel, GW has pushed Marines at the same level they always have. The fact you act like this is such a shock or that it's suddenly outrageous is the "crazy" thing.

It's not shocking or sudden. I never said it was. I'm just the most sick of it at this point. The IH gak show, which was entirely preventable by the way, was a new low for GW in my book. Maybe it wasn't for most people. In fact, it probably wasn't. But it was for me.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I honestly didn't expect this much of a crazy reaction. None of this would happen because GW is gonna GW and push the marines to the point of absurdity. Because GW. It's just what I would do. Why do you even care that much? Nothing will stand in the way of the marine fapfest. You can be assured there will be plenty of marine vs marine in 9th ed.

Mattel, GW has pushed Marines at the same level they always have. The fact you act like this is such a shock or that it's suddenly outrageous is the "crazy" thing.

It's not shocking or sudden. I never said it was. I'm just the most sick of it at this point. The IH shitshow, which was entirely preventable by the way, was a new low for GW in my book. Maybe it wasn't for most people. In fact, it probably wasn't. But it was for me.

I've spent three editions stuggling by with Sisters against all sprts of nonsense so maybe my tolerance is just higher than yours at this point for the levels of broken this game has tossed around.

And I really don't get the complaints right now. I mean Necrons have one of the largest releases we've seen for a Xenos army since Dark Eldar got revamped in 5th. GW is giving support to non-Marine armies, but they operate in a cycle of yeaes so even if they know what the community wants right now it takes time to pivot their direction there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.

Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.

You're basically just proving the point that lots of support for marines means lots more marine players show up at the tables. Which means the opposite is also true, less support for marines mean fewer marine armies getting fielded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I honestly didn't expect this much of a crazy reaction. None of this would happen because GW is gonna GW and push the marines to the point of absurdity. Because GW. It's just what I would do. Why do you even care that much? Nothing will stand in the way of the marine fapfest. You can be assured there will be plenty of marine vs marine in 9th ed.

Mattel, GW has pushed Marines at the same level they always have. The fact you act like this is such a shock or that it's suddenly outrageous is the "crazy" thing.

It's not shocking or sudden. I never said it was. I'm just the most sick of it at this point. The IH shitshow, which was entirely preventable by the way, was a new low for GW in my book. Maybe it wasn't for most people. In fact, it probably wasn't. But it was for me.

I've spent three editions stuggling by with Sisters against all sprts of nonsense so maybe my tolerance is just higher than yours at this point for the levels of broken this game has tossed around.

And I really don't get the complaints right now. I mean Necrons have one of the largest releases we've seen for a Xenos army since Dark Eldar got revamped in 5th.

Right. So. . . if major Xenos armies got hard pushes more often than once a decade the Marine-to-Xenos ratio might be a little different you think?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.

Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.

You're basically just proving the point that lots of support for marines means lots more marine players show up at the tables. Which means the opposite is also true, less support for marines mean fewer marine armies getting fielded.

No it doesn't. Even in 5th when it was years between Marine releases Marines were still one of the most popular armies in the game.

People are going to play what they like and the vast majority of people like Marines.

Martel732 wrote:I honestly didn't expect this much of a crazy reaction. None of this would happen because GW is gonna GW and push the marines to the point of absurdity. Because GW. It's just what I would do. Why do you even care that much? Nothing will stand in the way of the marine fapfest. You can be assured there will be plenty of marine vs marine in 9th ed.

It's not out of any fear of losing out on that sweet Marine on Marine action.

It's you explicitly stating that you'd gatekeep and act incredibly condescending to other people in the community because they like power armoured models. You don't like seeing Marines? That's not the problem people are having. It's you saying "I'd deliberately sabotage people's enjoyment to benefit my own".
If you have a problem with playing against Marines, take a leaf out of Blackie's book, and act on it yourself, instead of demanding everyone else change to suit your whim.

Maybe we might see more Xenos armies if they had more support (at least more Craftworld armies), but in my experiance people play what they like more than they focus on playing what is the best thing in the game unless they're focused on trying to win competetive events.

More GSC support in 8th didn't result in a massive bump in GSC players for example.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.

Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.

You're basically just proving the point that lots of support for marines means lots more marine players show up at the tables. Which means the opposite is also true, less support for marines mean fewer marine armies getting fielded.

No it doesn't. Even in 5th when it was years between Marine releases Marines were still one of the most popular armies in the game.

People are going to play what they like and the vast majority of people like Marines.

It was years between books, but MORE years between XENOS books. I was still using the 3.5th edition IG codex well into 5th, by which point marines had had like 3 codexes pass by.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.

Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.

You're basically just proving the point that lots of support for marines means lots more marine players show up at the tables. Which means the opposite is also true, less support for marines mean fewer marine armies getting fielded.

No it doesn't. Even in 5th when it was years between Marine releases Marines were still one of the most popular armies in the game.

People are going to play what they like and the vast majority of people like Marines.

You mean 5th with the Codex Marines release, the SW Codex release, the BA Codex Release, the Grey Knights Codex release, when each of those latter codexes became full-standalone books with expanded model support? THAT 5th Edition with "years between releases"?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.

Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.

You're basically just proving the point that lots of support for marines means lots more marine players show up at the tables. Which means the opposite is also true, less support for marines mean fewer marine armies getting fielded.

No it doesn't. Even in 5th when it was years between Marine releases Marines were still one of the most popular armies in the game.

People are going to play what they like and the vast majority of people like Marines.

It was years between books, but MORE years between XENOS books. I was still using the 3.5th edition IG codex well into 5th, by which point marines had had like 3 codexes pass by.

IG were one of the first books in 5th.

And yes, Codex Space Marines sees a new book every edition but for a long time they were the only ones that did.

Eldar, Orks, Tyranids and Tau all had 4th ed books, only Necrons and Dark Eldar where sitting around untouched for so long out of the Xenos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.

Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.

You're basically just proving the point that lots of support for marines means lots more marine players show up at the tables. Which means the opposite is also true, less support for marines mean fewer marine armies getting fielded.

No it doesn't. Even in 5th when it was years between Marine releases Marines were still one of the most popular armies in the game.

People are going to play what they like and the vast majority of people like Marines.

You mean 5th with the Codex Marines release, the SW Codex release, the BA Codex Release, the Grey Knights Codex release, when each of those latter codexes became full-standalone books with expanded model support? THAT 5th Edition with "years between releases"?

The one that took Blood Angels out of being a PDF codex, and Grey Knights out of 3rd editon? Yeah. There were years between C:SM and those other books too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and Grey Knights dropped alongside Dark Eldar and Necons. Two xenos armies.