PDA

View Full Version : Should GW bring all marine codex into line



rickie8437
13-02-2009, 13:12
Ok this is not a ' i want to use a land raider redemer in my BA army' thread

i just want to see how many people have the same view as my self

should GW bring the gear in the BT,DA,BA codexs inline with the new space marine codex

now i dont mean the land raider tanks if its new like the redemer and stern/van guard then it should be for that dex only

i mean storm shields, points cost of transports and the maz they can carry, also the machine spirt rule and any other rule that has changed with the new codex but is still the same in the older codexs

to explain what i mean here is and example

one dark angel sgt stood with a storm shield and thunder hammer with his land raider behind him

stood next to him is an Ultramarine with the same wargear and landraider stood next to him

now the DA has 4+inv save and a 3+ sv and his tank cant fire both lascannons unless it fires on on bs5

now the smurf has a +3 inv save adn a +3 sv and his tank can split fire and uses its normal bs skill

how is this fair there both marines yet the smurfs gear is better WTF!!

ive set a poll up please vote and leave your views here

thanks

Radium
13-02-2009, 13:16
No, they should not.

They should make a single codex with all chapters in it, much like they did with chaos. Possibly giving special chapters a special character that unlocks that chapter's traits. Belial makes termi's troops, Khan makes bikes troops, Death Company Chaplains give Death Company etc.

Oh, and get rid of the 6 UM chars, just Tigerius and Calgar is enough.

rickie8437
13-02-2009, 13:23
No, they should not.

They should make a single codex with all chapters in it, much like they did with chaos. Possibly giving special chapters a special character that unlocks that chapter's traits. Belial makes termi's troops, Khan makes bikes troops, Death Company Chaplains give Death Company etc.

Oh, and get rid of the 6 UM chars, just Tigerius and Calgar is enough.


nice idear but the reson i dont play the new marine codex is there is no flavor about it apart from Ultrasmurfs

also if you say Khan give you bikes as troops then what about players who dont want to do a white scares army, i think you shouldnt have to pick a named character to make the army play and look like you want, the masters/captains should have that option all ready

the chaper only codex has that about them which is what makes people play that chaptor and as for making it like the choas codex please god no if that ever happened id have to stop playing 40k and GW killed choas off as a codex that had depth and flavor to it

Radium
13-02-2009, 13:26
Instead of making them named, you could get a 'White Scars Master' or something along those lines. It's the principal that is most important, not the exact implementation :P.

Count de Monet
13-02-2009, 13:26
To a degree, yes. A bolter should work the same regardless, a storm shield should work the same regardless, a Land Raider should work the same regardless. All of the basic Imperial gear should work the same regardless of whether it's being used by an IG officer, an Ultramarine, a Space Wolf or an Inquisitor.

I don't mind point costs being a bit different. I don't mind some chapters having access to some things and not others. But basic gear that has the same name should use the same basic stats. If you want it to work differently, give it a different name at least.

Lord Malorne
13-02-2009, 13:28
No, they should not.

They should make a single codex with all chapters in it, much like they did with chaos. Possibly giving special chapters a special character that unlocks that chapter's traits. Belial makes termi's troops, Khan makes bikes troops, Death Company Chaplains give Death Company etc.

Oh, and get rid of the 6 UM chars, just Tigerius and Calgar is enough.

If I want that I would use the current SM codex...:eyebrows:.

I play Black Teamplars, so yes would like a new book, though I am doing fine with the current one.

ehlijen
13-02-2009, 13:29
One of two options I want:

1) Don't have more than one marine dex. They don't really need one.

2) If they insist on more than one dex, there should be nothing off limits to creating an actual difference.

So no, I don't think they should bring multiple codices 'into line'.

Col. Dash
13-02-2009, 13:33
No. Every chapter is different in theory. Every chapter has access to different gear that does different things and pays different points for it. Not everyone is a damn ultramoron.

FraustyTheSnowman
13-02-2009, 13:34
My vote is for all one codex. Craftworld eldar had all the flavor stripped out, chaos got the same treatment, guard too. Why not marines?

Corrode
13-02-2009, 13:46
No. Every chapter is different in theory. Every chapter has access to different gear that does different things and pays different points for it. Not everyone is a damn ultramoron.

There is a substantial difference between 'access to different gear' and 'using identical gear, but some reason mine just isn't as good.'

Bekenel
13-02-2009, 13:46
The decisions that GW has made to remove Traits, Legions, Craftworlds and soon Doctrines is a very good one in my eyes. Why, honestly, should you be rewarded for taking a particular army? "Hey, I've got Alpha Legion, so I get to Infiltrate for 1 point per model!". The way they work it now is brilliant. Does allowing Dark Angels to take Terminators/Bikes as troops break the game as much as Iron Warriors did? Does allowing Blood Angels to take Assault Marines as troops break the game as much as the Pathfinder disruption table?

Plus it's not like Marine players haven't suffered. What about Iron Hands players who converted Sergeants to Terminators? Or those who took Apocatherys? True Grit? There's a lot of people who's army has had to make drastic changes. All those Salamanders players who now can't take dual-Special Weapons. All those who took 10 man Command Squads. Every new book means you have to sort out your army somehow.

What is unfortunate is the fact that GW didn't take the ideas from C: DA and apply them to C:CSM. But since we're apparently going to be getting Codexes for several Legions, that should balance out. In a system like GW runs, some armies are going to have to just wait until it's their turn. God knows Orks waited long enough, Dark Eldar still have no confirmation on when they're going to be sorted out and I'm just glad that IG are finally being updated.

rickie8437
13-02-2009, 13:52
im not saying the GW should rush out new codexs but atlest bring the basic rules of all the marine codexs into line

if that was the case then they shouldnt have change these items unless they are going to update them in the errat which by the look of it they dont seem to want to do

shutupSHUTUP!!!
13-02-2009, 13:58
The simple fact is that there are more space marine players than any other faction, therefore they recieve more codex attention. It's entirely possible that there are as many Blood Angels, Dark Angels or Space Wolves players, all sub-faction of marines, as there are Eldar players in total, let alone specific Craftworlds.

Space Wolves will recieve codex treatment soon enough and then the Blood Angels will, leaving Dark Angels with inferior equipment which is of course unfair. So yes they should get updated rules.

Sir_Turalyon
13-02-2009, 13:58
Yes, but they should do so by rewriting the codices and rebalancing them rather then hastely errating new rules into old ones. BA and BT are stil in queue to be properly re-relased , so only thing needed is giving Dark Angels a "second edition" of codex, much like what they got in 3rd edition or what DE are using now.

slasher
13-02-2009, 13:59
I said yes - 1 want a heavy 4 rending assault cannon please. (my DH have a heavy 3 jams one :( )

The Clairvoyant
13-02-2009, 14:05
I think they should all have their own codex books and all have wildly differing rules in each, even for the same equipment.

Oh and there should be a Codex: 40k Tournaments which is designed specifically for tournament players.
Both players deploy forces upto the maximum of 1500pts, following all of the rules given in their codexes.
Then each player rolls a single D6. The highest roll wins the game and the lowest loses. In the event of a tie, the game is a draw.
Please check the games workshop website at regular intervals for an updated FAQ on this codex.

loveless
13-02-2009, 14:22
I really don't see the point of complaining. I have the new Marine Codex, the Dark Angel Codex, the Black Templar Codex, and the Blood Angel Codex (but who doesn't have that one? :p).

Each one has its benefits and its drawbacks.
You lose out on 3+ SS, but you get Terminators as troops.
You lose out on Combat Tactics, but you get Assault Marines as troops and "free" Death Company.
Your scouts aren't scoring units, but at least they have BS4 (plus whatever your Codex says counts as scoring actually is scoring)
You don't get a slew of random wargear options for your Captains, but at least you have Chaplains that don't suck.

Blah. Blah. Blah. You can't have everything. Codices have different drawbacks and benefits. Frankly, I'm not that offended by it.

[Black] Katalyst
13-02-2009, 14:27
I think all the chapters should be in one codex. Everything, BA, DA, BT, everything. It works well for the powers of chaos, why should SM be any different?

People said that the latest CSM codex was going to ruin themed armies but it didn't. A Worldbearers army is a Worldbearers army, Nurgle is still Nurgle, Night Lords are still the Night Lords. Its all how one wants to build and paint their army,

Just because there would be an option to mix and match doesn't mean people will. I play Deathwing and if a new codex cam out and I could use Vulkan, no matter how awesome it would be, I wouldn't.

There is a rule called "counts as". If people are so truely aggitated with their current codex just start using the SM codex. Problem solved.

When it comes to GW the old saying holds more truth than ever before, "Deal with the hand you're dealt."

Fixer
13-02-2009, 14:35
I would like to see GW release updated editions of current codexes every so often.

They've done minor rewrites that have had some big differences in the past. To mind comes the following codexes which had patches.

The 4rd ed Chaos dex which was a toughness change to obliterators
3rd ed Armageddon Codex which had some gear price changes.
Dark Eldar which had quite a few units revamped, especially Wyches.

In fantasy, there was a 2nd edition rerelease of Dark Elves, adding some vital fixes to what was perhaps the worst army book ever made. Which I summed up before with:



Dark Elves army book! Before the minor alterations that made them just barely competetive by swarming the fields with downpriced warriors.
He made Cold one knights slower because the models looked slow. Made them stupid in an elite glass cannon army so they would have to be babysit by a noble so that they could be relied on to do something more than 2/3rds of the time. Despite apparently basing model stats on appearance he put Dark Elf executioners in light armor despite the fact they were clad from head to toe in elven plate and chain. Giving us a T3 special unit with weapons striking last and next to no save so they would be ripped to shreds by almost any basic infantry after a charge.

Monsters that moved faster than their handlers so that if they charged the handlers were left behind.

Terrible magical weapons options.

An overpriced and relatively useless assassin, that despite being the most deadly warrior in flff, in game terms is worse than a rat with a bad attitude.

A beastmaster that basically worked out to be a hat for a monster whos only saving grace was that his pets didn't run off when he inevitably died.

The Dark Lord Of Naggaroth with an awesome 2+ ward save, which just happens to be bypassed by every single magical weapon or attack in the game meaning that a hideously expensive model was in dire threat of being killed by a goblin with a biting blade.

Yeah, I wont be missing Gav Thorpe's gaming insight anytime soon :S

These releases aren't too hard to put out. There was even a 'cut and paste' template to update old books at some time. I wouldn't mind seeing an update to Dark Angels since they seem to have been stuck with the honor of being a beta test for a new codex writing scheme which was only finalised in C:SM.

One other thing I see they've done in the new marine dex is cut down on the 'extremely small chance of something really good happening with a massive chance it'll do nothing or kill you in 4 games = lots of points' powers.

However, I have to say that Dark Angels from a tournament view are not uncompetitive. It is however mostly due to Deathwing and Ravenwing (check out DarkAngelDentist's success) the rest of the army being bland and outdone. The general desire of most DA players that have called for parity with regular marines has only been because a few pieces of equipment are better or cheaper. If storm shields in the new marine dex went back to their old crappier 3rd ed 'only against one target in CC' rules you would hear no demands for it at all.

There's no cries from DA players demanding the less powerful chaplain to lead their forces.

Competitive balance has to be considered. Doublewing forces are already powerful as they are. Giving the Deathwing the option to be a fearless scoring unit with 3+ invulnerable saves and an assault cannon/2 shot missile launcher would throw things out of whack. You'd probably see a points cost hike or a unit change for access for that weapon. Also, company veterans, they have relatively cheap access to Storm shields. Expect that price to go up too.

By all means, let's patch the dexes. Bring them into line with line with other marines, but you should aware that bringing an army into line will not always be massive free improvements across the board.

Znail
13-02-2009, 14:53
Its a bit anoying with multiple rules for the same wargear and vehicles. I would prefeer if GW used a diffrent policy and alowed for updates to codexes. Its a bit weird that they released some chapters before the new SM codex. It would make alot more sense to make a new SM codex, then release all the chapter specific books soon after as they will fairly obviously be tweaked around the SM codex.

Its amusing to see the marine haters crawl out of the woodwork in all such topics. Its even more amusing to see that some people wants to go back to having one army for the Empire and one for the 'other stuff'.

pookie
13-02-2009, 14:55
No, they should not.

They should make a single codex with all chapters in it, much like they did with chaos. Possibly giving special chapters a special character that unlocks that chapter's traits. Belial makes termi's troops, Khan makes bikes troops, Death Company Chaplains give Death Company etc.

Oh, and get rid of the 6 UM chars, just Tigerius and Calgar is enough.

have you read the new dex?

a bike mounted Captain lets you have Bikes as troops. not just the Khan, imo people are moaning for the sake of moaning.

as a BT player i also would like a new dex, one that relects the fact we also should have things that the SM dex has* ( and DA ) yet im not complaining, im ( as Lord Malorne says ) doing fine with my dex.

*like a Landraider that we invented that carries 16 not 15 troops, why do we get smaller LR's than BA/SM/DA? and as for SS i aint that fussed about not having terminators with a 2+/3+ coz i get Combat shileds that are 5+ :evilgrin: which i use a lot of.

Radium
13-02-2009, 15:08
Yep I have, I was just using that example to illustrate the other chapters don't need their own dex, as using a character like that is pretty much the only difference between their unique codex and codex: UM.

zombied00d
13-02-2009, 15:08
Simplest solution, embraced by dozens of other companies producing games through out the world:

Most Recent Printing Rule: For vehicles/units/wargear with an identical name, the most recent printing of rules, point cost and/or options takes precedence over previously printed rules/point cost/options.

Using an MRP brings all of the wargear and vehicles into line in one go, normalizing the functionality of identiclly named units. That way the only difference is in the availbility of said units.

This fixes the different functionality of items with the exact same name while otherwise leaving the prior codex intact. And has an added bonus of effictivly offering minor codex upgrades to armies/units that have not had their turn in the update cycle.

Sir_Turalyon
13-02-2009, 15:36
Most Recent Printing Rule: For vehicles/units/wargear with an identical name, the most recent printing of rules, point cost and/or options takes precedence over previously printed rules/point cost/options.

So, to keep the rules for Dark Angels up-to date, player should buy Codex:Ultramarines, then Codex:Space Wolves as it comes out, then Codex: Blood Angels, then Codes: Black Templars, and if Codex: Dark Eldar will include new rules for "jetbikes", buy it to to use Sammel? Then remember where each piece of wargear was last updated, in case newer codex does not use some of gear (Codex:Salamanders has new better rules for thunder hammers, but their terminators don't use lightning claws so I should take older Codex:Blood Angels which gave lightning claws rending as well)? That's not way to go.

As a side note, I'd like to take back what I said: if GW was to bring rules into the line, they'd better do it by rewriting and rebalancing book as whole, relasing it as "second printing" version. But such rebalancing would probably work both ways, and as it probably includes reduing my badass chaplains and heroic librarians to two wound seregants, I prefere them to leave codices as they are until they re-relase armies.

Lungboy
13-02-2009, 16:01
Katalyst;3288123']I think all the chapters should be in one codex. Everything, BA, DA, BT, everything. It works well for the powers of chaos, why should SM be any different?

The only main chapters that are different enough from the Codex chapters to (possibly) warrant their own books are the Black Templars, Space Wolves and Grey Knights. GKs are in the DH codex so they don't really count, leaving just BT and SW. The 2 Angels chapters are Codex, other than a few non-standard units like Mortis Dreads and Baal Preds etc. Why they ever thought giving them their own books was a good idea is beyond me.

RichBlake
13-02-2009, 16:05
They should bring them into line with new books, I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

However updating the codexes with errata and FAW documents etc would be a pain in the ass.

The only other option would be to release all the chapter codexes in PDF format like the Blood Angels, but I doubt they will do that.

PapaDoc
13-02-2009, 16:12
That would unleash a chain reaction. Why stop at space marines? Chaos has more expensive predators and vindicators.

Angelus Mortis
13-02-2009, 16:27
They should go back to 3e where they had the SM codex and a mini-dex for the big ones (SW, BA, DA, etc...). To have the disparity in equipment (ie, Cyclones, Storm Shields, etc) they do now is both stupid and lazy.

captainramoz
13-02-2009, 16:29
Actually the new combat tactics rule allows you to aply special rules in order to represent each chapter traits

40kdhs
13-02-2009, 16:31
I voted Yes because every SM army should be treated equally. They may not have the same special rules but their wargears should be the same.

Nero
13-02-2009, 16:33
Yeah, they need to be brought into a line. Against a wall, where they're summarily shot.

Space Marines only need one codex, which would also solve any problems with discrepancies between codex.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
13-02-2009, 16:38
The sad thing is they could do it by the end of today with minimal effort. How hard would it be it to make a PDF saying "equipment x now does y to make them consistent with the updated marine rules" and host it on their web site?

And be realistic please. For the foreseeable future there is always going to be a Codex Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves, with the latter codexes being slated for 2009/10 respectively.

With that in mind, how anybody can say the DA should have inferior equipment to everyone else confuses me. Thy typical "it doesn't affect me therefore there is no problem" crowd I guess.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
13-02-2009, 16:49
The only other option would be to release all the chapter codexes in PDF format like the Blood Angels, but I doubt they will do that.

I would totally support that. Every marine player would only need C:SM, with PDF/White dwarf variant rules that can be added on top of the base codex for unique chapters.

Probably not going to happen, but it makes perfect sense to me.

For the record, in my opinion imperial weapons/equipment/vehicles should be standardized. In fact, my gaming group uses a "latest printing"-esque rule for our armies, although we don't change the points cost. They're all mass produced on forge worlds anyway, so why should an entire chapter get a full shipment of substandard gear?

Grazzy
13-02-2009, 17:31
I think they should be brought in line to some degree. Storm shields and the redeemer for example should be in all codexes for example, and rules such as machine spirit should be consistent.

SanguinaryDan
13-02-2009, 17:33
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it must be a pigeon.:wtf:

At least that's what GW seems to be telling us right now. If it means my Chaplain stats go down? Fine. I just want my Storm Shield to be just like one painted blue or green or aluminum orange.

march10k
13-02-2009, 18:04
My vote is for all one codex. Craftworld eldar had all the flavor stripped out, chaos got the same treatment, guard too. Why not marines?


...cause marines are GW's cash cow?:rolleyes:



I say identical stats for gear, but different points costs and not all gear available to all chapters. DW should be able to field a squad with storm shields...but at, say, +3 points per model. Scoring storm shield terminators are obviously far more valuable than generic storm shield terminators...and were not taken into consideration when balancing the DA codex.

Eryx_UK
13-02-2009, 18:07
I voted yes, but what I would like to see if a SM codex that cut a load of the unnesseary fluff and instead had sections for the main chapters saying how the FoC was different from them. Keep it all under one book.

Sir_Turalyon
13-02-2009, 18:33
How hard would it be it to make a PDF saying "equipment x now does y to make them consistent with the updated marine rules" and host it on their web site?

Then you would have issues like scoring Deathwing and cheap veterans both packing new stormshields and cries of cheese from everywhere much louder then frustrated muttering of Dark / Blood Angels players. To implement changes properly GW would need to rebalance and playtest army list again, then reprint the codex.

Lisiecki
13-02-2009, 18:37
No, they should not.

They should make a single codex with all chapters in it, much like they did with chaos. Possibly giving special chapters a special character that unlocks that chapter's traits. Belial makes termi's troops, Khan makes bikes troops, Death Company Chaplains give Death Company etc.

Oh, and get rid of the 6 UM chars, just Tigerius and Calgar is enough.

??????

The Codex: Chaos Space Marines contains rules for playing war bands... no the traitor legions

solkan
13-02-2009, 18:47
I thought that the rationale behind the differences between the standard codex Space Marines and the alphabet soup chapters was the fact that there had been gene seed drift and other seperation. Aren't the chapters supposed to maintain and acquire the equipment to their own specifications?

The equipment is part of the package--if you want the flavor and the special rules, put up with the out of date equipment. It's the same deal that Chaos has to put up with, after all.

Ubermensch Commander
13-02-2009, 18:58
My vote is for all one codex. Craftworld eldar had all the flavor stripped out, chaos got the same treatment, guard too. Why not marines?


The decisions that GW has made to remove Traits, Legions, Craftworlds and soon Doctrines is a very good one in my eyes. Why, honestly, should you be rewarded for taking a particular army? "Hey, I've got Alpha Legion, so I get to Infiltrate for 1 point per model!". The way they work it now is brilliant. Does allowing Dark Angels to take Terminators/Bikes as troops break the game as much as Iron Warriors did? Does allowing Blood Angels to take Assault Marines as troops break the game as much as the Pathfinder disruption table?

Plus it's not like Marine players haven't suffered. What about Iron Hands players who converted Sergeants to Terminators? Or those who took Apocatherys? True Grit? There's a lot of people who's army has had to make drastic changes. All those Salamanders players who now can't take dual-Special Weapons. All those who took 10 man Command Squads. Every new book means you have to sort out your army somehow.



Yep. Universal list single codices are nice.

But anyway, I feel that no, they should not bring all Marine codexes "into line", leastways not until they release a full on new codex. The equipment was costed up with different rules in mind, dif gameplay etc. Some much older codices equipment/traits are no longer even applicable (Does not count leadership modifiers for X reason) for example. Waiting for a new codex is just the nature of the beast with GW.
That being said, I do not care about playing a Deathwing with a 4+ sv etc personally, it is simply a nice change of pace to play the standard book and have some sort of advantage over the BA or DA or BT.

Tonberry
13-02-2009, 19:04
I voted no, as I whole-heartedly agree with the WD designers notes for the new Space Marine codex, where he says that in the past the non generic codexes (by this I mean SW,DA BA, BT etc) got everything codex chapters got, plus extra shiny gubbins, which means there was no reason to use the 'standard' marine codex.
Now there is.

Bekenel
13-02-2009, 19:50
Ah, Ubermensch, I might not have got my opinion completely across there.. I'm not for a single Space Marine codex, because of two certain chapters - Space Wolves, and to a lesser extent Black Templars. You can't integrate either of those into one book purely because of how different they play to other chapters.

It's not a case of a Space Wolf "Captain" letting you increase the Tactical Squad squad limit, different weapon options and a new special rule, because then what about Grey Hunters? What about the completely different Scouts, Long Fangs, the option of a Leman Russ, Dreadnought HQs.. the list goes on. It's too complicated to have Space Wolves in a regular list. With Black Templars, you might be able to get away with having an Emperor's Champion give you all the rules changes you need (Righteous Zeal, Fearless in Combat, a Vow, losing Combat Squads, changing Tactical Squad compositions radically) but that will be a stupid amount of rules for one character, which still doesn't remove all the options that need removing - Veteran Sergeants from all squads that can take them, Devastator Squads, Sternguard (assuming that the next Marine book keeps them, Black Templar Sword Brethern are far more like Vanguard on foot).

That's why I listed the DA special Troops choices. For them, it's simply take a particular Captain, with no rules changes. They're priced fairly for either Force Org slot. With BA it's even more simple - Assault Marines are Troops, that's it.

Eka
13-02-2009, 20:19
I voted no, as I whole-heartedly agree with the WD designers notes for the new Space Marine codex, where he says that in the past the non generic codexes (by this I mean SW,DA BA, BT etc) got everything codex chapters got, plus extra shiny gubbins, which means there was no reason to use the 'standard' marine codex.
Now there is.

I can only talk for the BT codex as that's the only one out of the "special" Marine chapters I own. We did not get everything in the previous C:SM codex, nor would I want them.

The only thing that bothers me is that my brother marines cannot assault from their LRCs - the assault vehicle rule was in the 4th ed rulebook, it isn't in the 5th but has shown up in the recent edition of C:SM.

I'm in favour of seperate codices, I used to play Craftworld Ulthwe and had started a 3rd ed Death Guard army. I really am not keen on "streamlining" everything, I think the older, slightly mish-mashed version had a certain charm about them.

Hashshashin
13-02-2009, 20:31
The only thing I feel should be brought into line are transport capacities, drop pod rules, power of the machine spirit, dreadnoughts, and storm shields...That's all.

philipdgilbert
13-02-2009, 20:35
Keep them as they are, because soon it won't matter. If the Imperial guard have taught us anything its that different types of the same army get streamlined into one. You only have to read the new codex to see that GW is putting all of its eggs in one basket. It called them Aberrant, of little consequence and dying out. Soon it will just be the Ultramarines and the Codex chapters, and the 'abberant' chapters will be a memory, like Mordians, or Valhallans. As a blood angel, and a white scar player, i don't mind the difference. My BA don't use storm shields, they don't use a Redeemer, and they still have the furioso, and i still get to charge ten death company and a chaplain out of a Crusader.

Sir_Turalyon
13-02-2009, 21:15
The only thing that bothers me is that my brother marines cannot assault from their LRCs - the assault vehicle rule was in the 4th ed rulebook, it isn't in the 5th but has shown up in the recent edition of C:SM.

Are you sure assaulting from vehicle rules in the 5th edition rulebook does not specify Land Riders are exception?

JLBeady
13-02-2009, 21:55
Yes, but only to the extent that those things in common have common rules. I have no problem with DA having Deathwing/Ravenwing/Doublewing, it's what makes DA, DA. I don't have a problem with Vanilla marines having the SC
s that they have, it's what makes them vanilla. BA's, SW's, and BT's have their chapter specific rules. But it really is confusing that this marine's storm shield is different from another marine's storm shield.

Basically, it makes the game hard to manage, which make's it less fun.

hawo0313
13-02-2009, 22:10
OK I play BA and would hate to see my team dissapear into the blue void of the ultramarines the merging of the codexes is 1 step away from the other teams from becoming ultramiraines with armour painted a different colour. Thats whats happened with codex (ultra)marines and I dont want it to happen to the other individual space marine chapters. But yes they should try and balance the stats i.e 3+ invulnerable save from storm sheilds that makes me so jealous I dont want to use them. Maybe they should try and bring them all out at the same time.

whitewolfmxc
13-02-2009, 23:36
no way SW can be taken into a codex chapter codex lol too many stuff to add

Inquisitor_Tolheim
14-02-2009, 00:05
What if there was only one marine codex, with modifications posted as PDFs or in White Wolf? The PDFs could reference the codex, and thus ensure that the equipment for every marine army is standard, while still having the option to customize your force into a more specialized list though unique units, FOC shuffling or other special rules.

(In other words, if you want to play marines you buy the vanilla codex, then download the PDF for a more specific force if desired.)

Lord Malorne
14-02-2009, 00:19
^bad idea.

The fallout of the many, many people who collect the non standard marine armies would be bad business for GW, so slapping them in one book would be a stupid idea, CSM have never REALLY had seperate books, just cool army tweaks in the same codex, but thay have/had enough in the 3.5 book to do what they wanted.

Not eventualy updating the non-standard marine codex's would be stupid, when thay have there own range of models in addition to basic marine models. I daresay an update is assured...someday.

rickie8437
14-02-2009, 00:27
after reading the points put foward so far i do feel sorry for the BT and DA players as they have a dex in print the space pups now that come the end of they year they will be the new gay kid on the block with a bucket of cheese lol, but as for the BA pdf i cant see why GW cant do some hotfixes to it and then say guys new pdf to download get it here job done not like its hard to change one or 2 words is it

as for on codex for all marines 'crap' thats what i said and it would never happen because GW makes for more cash from marine players be it codex player or non codex than they do from any other codex, its more like that most if not all marines nutts have all the codexs i know i do (not a bigfan of the new one to many smurfs for my liking, thumbs up for the crusader my hairy ****)

sorry rant

but its good to see im not the only one who things they should do this i mean an updated FAQ wouldnt hurt would it

Lord Malorne
14-02-2009, 00:31
...Not really, codex BT is far better than the marine codex, people can argue that point with me, they won't get anywhere :p.

All I want as a BT player is to consolidate into enemy units (for righteous zeal), they can keep all the shiny gubbinz, don't need them :).

grissom2006
14-02-2009, 00:51
no they shouldn't if they did then all chapters may as well be ultra marines and all hum the the same tune

Emperor's Scourge
14-02-2009, 02:14
I voted no.

You want your cake and you want to eat it too?

You want special rules and deployments AND you want vanilla weapons and wargear?

So, for you to feel the game is fair...the Codex marine players should give you all of their traits without the benefit of special rules?

Ok...you can have our storm shields...I want Terminators or Assault Marines as troops.

That sound fair to you?

Don't worry. After a while I'm sure GW'll capitulate to the demands of the mob and give you your 3++ storm shields and redeemers. Everyone'll opt for 3++ troops choices and become the cheesiest of cheese. Then Codex Marine players'll bitch and moan about how they're nerfed...then 6th edition will release and we'll go through the whole bit of garbage all over again.

The grass is always green...especially when you don't look close enough to spot the sheen of **** amidst its swaying blades.

Draxas
14-02-2009, 02:37
I voted no.

You want your cake and you want to eat it too?

You want special rules and deployments AND you want vanilla weapons and wargear?

So, for you to feel the game is fair...the Codex marine players should give you all of their traits without the benefit of special rules?

Ok...you can have our storm shields...I want Terminators or Assault Marines as troops.

That sound fair to you?

Don't worry. After a while I'm sure GW'll capitulate to the demands of the mob and give you your 3++ storm shields and redeemers. Everyone'll opt for 3++ troops choices and become the cheesiest of cheese. Then Codex Marine players'll bitch and moan about how they're nerfed...then 6th edition will release and we'll go through the whole bit of garbage all over again.

The grass is always green...especially when you don't look close enough to spot the sheen of **** amidst its swaying blades.

You DO realize that in the SM codex there are a number of special character that bring their own Chapter Tactics special rules? Seriously I don't know where this attitude comes from, regular marines codex players get 10 times the number of options via special characters, and extra unit options aside from those that don't even exist in the older marine chapter codexes. Vulkan for example is way more powerful than being able to take Termies as troops, in my opinion.

I don't think that the new UNITS in the SM codex should be given to DA, BA, BT, but the gear and vehicles they have that goes by the same name should be identical in effect and points cost. They don't necessarily need the Redeemer or anything that would add units to their codex, but an Ultramarines Storm Shield and a Dark Angels Storm Shield should be the same, it doesn't make any sense otherwise.

There's no reason GW can't put up an "Imperial Equipment Supplement" on their website stating that each of the following items by this name in the various imperial codecies are the same, and give the appropriate values. Just print it up and carry it with your codex to games. People not having the internet is no longer an excuse for not doing this, it's 2009, what kind of person who shells out hundreds of dollars on little figures to do wargaming with doesn't have the internet?! If by some extremely strange circumstance they didn't, they could ask one of the people they play with or the staff at their local store to print it up for them.

mughi3
14-02-2009, 02:48
No. Every chapter is different in theory. Every chapter has access to different gear that does different things and pays different points for it. Not everyone is a damn ultramoron.

They are different in FLUFF, game mechanics wise all marines are basically exactly the same.

If they brought back all the index astartes rules for each chapter then you would have a point with the scars and their riding lances, sallies and their slower stronger attacks and so on.

Now the rules have made all mariens exactly the same(all marines are codex acorrding to JJ when the new C: DA was released), the only difference is the new dex lets them do it cheaper with better rules, so you are actualy punishing people for not taking stuff out of the new marine codex.

Warforger
14-02-2009, 02:52
No. Every chapter is different in theory. Every chapter has access to different gear that does different things and pays different points for it. Not everyone is a damn ultramoron.

True, but only four chapters have different wargear then the rest, so that takes sense out of the equation.

How about this, they bring back those damn traits and etc. , balance them (have more punishing drawbacks) as they in reality brought alot of character to armies, not the same old "I can expect these strats. to be used..."

rodmillard
14-02-2009, 02:55
I voted yes, because it annoys the hell out of me setting up across from random power armoured troops with (for example) storm shields and not knowing which set of rules they are using - all the more so since several people I play with seem to switch between codices for their "create your own" chapters at random. It's basic WYSIWYG: everything that is modelled with storm shields should have a 3++ save, otherwise your opponent doesn't know what he's facing. Likewise, everything that's shaped like a brick with two Lascannons on each side should have the same shooting and assault rules, and be able to carry the same number of troops.

That said, I think a far better solution would have been for GW to turn around and say:


We want to change the rules for assault cannons. Therefore, in the new codex we will refer to them as "Thunder Pattern Assault Cannons" which use the new rules, anything that is just called "Assault Cannon" will use the old rules, and as the codices are updated the new name will be used to reflect the rules change.

A bit clunky, perhaps, but the moaning could have been avoided with a simple fluff explanation that new "patterns" of weaponry are slowly being adopted across the Astartes; the more traditional chapters are more resistant to the change, and will therefore take longer to accept the new pattern weaponry.

RichBlake
14-02-2009, 03:36
The sad thing is they could do it by the end of today with minimal effort. How hard would it be it to make a PDF saying "equipment x now does y to make them consistent with the updated marine rules" and host it on their web site?

And be realistic please. For the foreseeable future there is always going to be a Codex Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves, with the latter codexes being slated for 2009/10 respectively.

With that in mind, how anybody can say the DA should have inferior equipment to everyone else confuses me. Thy typical "it doesn't affect me therefore there is no problem" crowd I guess.


I would totally support that. Every marine player would only need C:SM, with PDF/White dwarf variant rules that can be added on top of the base codex for unique chapters.

Probably not going to happen, but it makes perfect sense to me.

For the record, in my opinion imperial weapons/equipment/vehicles should be standardized. In fact, my gaming group uses a "latest printing"-esque rule for our armies, although we don't change the points cost. They're all mass produced on forge worlds anyway, so why should an entire chapter get a full shipment of substandard gear?


If you keep creating PDFs etc then all you get is a wave of print outs needed to be dragged along to every game. Not only that but due to the fact that to make each Chapter different certain "new" units and equipment will be more or less advantageous you need lots of time to playtest them.

Also you know there will be some people who edit the PDFs to dupe unsuspecting victims and the fact that GW doesn't like the idea of people playing their game without paying for a Codex.






I say identical stats for gear, but different points costs and not all gear available to all chapters. DW should be able to field a squad with storm shields...but at, say, +3 points per model. Scoring storm shield terminators are obviously far more valuable than generic storm shield terminators...and were not taken into consideration when balancing the DA codex.

No, GW are taking the line now that all weapons should cost the same points. Why is a Plasma Rifle held by a Marine more valueable then one held by a Guardsman? It isn't, the potential is still the same. Instead the points cost of the model itself should reflect the fact that any weapon you give it will be less effective.

If I re-wrote the DA codex giving them all the updated gear then I would say that Belial (or whoever his name is, the Deathwing guy that allows terminators to be taken as troops) takes standard Terminator Squads as troops. This way you don't get impossible to kill scoring units, also hypes up the supposedly more "common" terminator over the "less common" Assault Terminator (i use quotation marks as 9 times out of 10 the terminators I see are assault Terminators).

If I re-wrote the Blood Angels codex then I'd personally revert Death Company to being selected in the same way as they used to be (you roll for each squad at the start of the game). This is because at the moment BA players, especially younger ones or power gamers, don't get the point that the DC aren't a "YAY I has free modelz!" unit but more of a "Holy crap Geoff just went crazy! At least he is awesome now (until he dies after the battle)". The old rolling system represented that. Tactical Marines gonig nuts and becoming DC was awesome, Terminators and Honour Guard, not so much.


A bit clunky, perhaps, but the moaning could have been avoided with a simple fluff explanation that new "patterns" of weaponry are slowly being adopted across the Astartes; the more traditional chapters are more resistant to the change, and will therefore take longer to accept the new pattern weaponry.

Then you'd just get a thread being titled "Should GW stop nerfing some SM chapters with different pattern' weapons" instead of "Should GW bring all marine codex into line".

Frankly a lot of Warhammer players don't appriciate or even understand the amount of work that GW does and usually blame it on GW being "money grabbing", "lazy" or some other BS (note: that doesn't mean Ballistic Skill). Quite honestly DA, BA and SW don't need redeemers or 3+ invulnerable save terminators to win (also I think that was the stupidest thing GW ever designed anyway).

Emperor's Scourge
14-02-2009, 03:47
Thats my point.

If you envy the C:SM so much...why not make a Codex marine army? Because you want to be special right? And yet, you're demanding the right to be special and, at the same time, equal to Codex marines. Then what would be the point of using Codex Marines? Special characters? They don't really make that big a difference to be honest. I use a Captain or Librarian in most games. A Thunderfire Cannon? A variant of LR? GW wants to sell all those shiny new models on the shelves. Besides the fact that GW is probably already counting on the cash they'll make from selling new DA/BT/BA codexes. Why would they put up a PDF for free? To make you feel better? Mmm...yeah.

Your armies will get their 5th edition upgrades eventually(maybe just before 6th edition releases? ;)), but there's a long line of armies that have waited far longer.

C:SM was made for Codex marines. Taking those rules and cherry picking which ones YOU want to apply to your armies will just lead to cheese.

EldarBishop
14-02-2009, 03:56
I voted yes....

I don't care if different chapters pay different point costs, have different characters, stats, or whatever.

However, a Storm Shield (just as one example) should be the SAME regardless of who is using it. It shouldn't matter if the SM using it is an UM/BA/SW/whatever other F'n chapter... it should have the same damn rules... so that other players who don't play any SMs at least know what the save value is! If it's not the same... then give it a different name, and call it a day.

Angelus Mortis
14-02-2009, 05:00
I voted no.

You want your cake and you want to eat it too?

You want special rules and deployments AND you want vanilla weapons and wargear?

So, for you to feel the game is fair...the Codex marine players should give you all of their traits without the benefit of special rules?

Ok...you can have our storm shields...I want Terminators or Assault Marines as troops.

That sound fair to you?

Don't worry. After a while I'm sure GW'll capitulate to the demands of the mob and give you your 3++ storm shields and redeemers. Everyone'll opt for 3++ troops choices and become the cheesiest of cheese. Then Codex Marine players'll bitch and moan about how they're nerfed...then 6th edition will release and we'll go through the whole bit of garbage all over again.

The grass is always green...especially when you don't look close enough to spot the sheen of **** amidst its swaying blades.

Using this logic, we should then go back and give Chaos Marines 4+ save Power Armor and S3 Boltguns right? I mean seeing as they get special rules and all (marks, ap3 boltguns, extra CCW, etc, etc). How much sense would that make? :rolleyes: :wtf: And as far as your cake and eat it too comment, if I order a cake I would at least like to get a freaking cake, not a potato.

Hymirl
14-02-2009, 05:12
There's no cries from DA players demanding the less powerful chaplain to lead their forces.

Thats the key point isn't it? Its all boohoo stormshield this, machine spirit that... but when they find that their chaplians are much more brutal in hand to hand they don't seem to want to talk about it, not explain why every captian in their army is as good a commander as Cato Sicarius, or how if they only buy 5 marines in a tactical unit they're still allowed a special weapon...

I mean look at Azreal, compared to the leaders you get in the Marine codex the man is a massive damage machine, he can use a (master crafted) relic blade with a pistol for a bonus attack because he has mad skillz.

More seriously, I'm sure that eventually the codexes will be lined up, probably just in time for a new marine codex to come out and put everyone back to where they started. But theres not really anything to be complaining about at this stage in the game, some stuff is better some is worse.. thats what being a different army is about.

Warforger
14-02-2009, 06:16
Thats the key point isn't it? Its all boohoo stormshield this, machine spirit that... but when they find that their chaplians are much more brutal in hand to hand they don't seem to want to talk about it, not explain why every captian in their army is as good a commander as Cato Sicarius, or how if they only buy 5 marines in a tactical unit they're still allowed a special weapon...

Well it should be a given, well for that last comment that was before GW devolpers realized you could split your squads into combat squads and still being able to ride the transport. Plus they still pay a expensive fee for the weapons,while there not marginally more expensive, the heavy weapons are.


I mean look at Azreal, compared to the leaders you get in the Marine codex the man is a massive damage machine, he can use a (master crafted) relic blade with a pistol for a bonus attack because he has mad skillz.

And he's not immune to Instant death, even though he is in fact a chapter master, I mean how the hell does Lysander have it but no Commander Dante or Azrael? I mean with Eternal Warrior, Calgar is a more viable option then he was last edition (Well, a rather ironic thing to say but, during 4th Ultramarine units really had the nerf stick on them) .

Emperor's Scourge
14-02-2009, 07:12
I like how all the replies I'm getting are selective quoting and completely ignoring the units in their codex that are superior to Codex Marines.

"Waaaaahhhh we should have better units AND cherry pick the wargear we want from your new codex! Nerf our Chaplains like they did yours? Nah, thats ok."

Face it, if GW were to hand over the things you want without balancing out everything else in your Codex you'd be better than codex marines. Not equal.

Oh I forgot...everyone who plays DA/BT/BA does it for the unique fluff. /sarcasm

Warforger
14-02-2009, 08:04
Well yah I play BA, but really the only thing that needs to get in line are point costs, thats just the top priority since there paying for the same things, so they should get it at the same price.

Beyond that I couldn't really care less, I don't use Land Raiders, I use flamers over thunderfires, WS6 captains? Sounds a tad unrealistic but whatever, WS above 5 doesn't actually do any better then 5 most of the time (except insane WS, like 10), I do not use storm shields outside my marine army (loving the irony). New Librarian powers? Screw that, I'd rather keep my Unlimited range psychic hood and jump pack powers.


Face it, if GW were to hand over the things you want without balancing out everything else in your Codex you'd be better than codex marines. Not equal.


And as people have pointed out, DA players have been abused for a long time with no hope for a even OP codex in a while, they've been one of the most nerfed races in the game, they don't even have a Mortis like they should. If they were bettter then marines for once, I'd be fine with that.

Emperor's Scourge
14-02-2009, 09:00
Its seriously like talking to a brick wall...

I'm not saying you guys don't deserve new codexes(codexi?).

But if you pick and choose whatever you want from a 5th edition Codex to apply it to your older codexes you'll be broken armies. From your statements that seems to be what you want to happen.

So, again, this isn't about equality. This is about you guys wanting to powergame the **** out of your armies.

Example:
Chaplains with 3+ attacks and wounds that cost less than 100 pts
3++ Terminator Assault Squads with Furious Charge

etc etc etc

All without the appropriate pts cost increases that a new codex would include.

Those are just the tip of the cheese iceberg. **** that I can pull without even thinking hard about it. So don't try to tell us that you just want things to be "fair."

Sir_Turalyon
14-02-2009, 10:25
There's no cries from DA players demanding the less powerful chaplain to lead their forces.

And there were no cries from SM players demanding 35 points Rhinos when DA codex came out. Shame on us.

Lord Malorne
14-02-2009, 10:32
As a Black Templar player we have downsides, no unit veterans, no devasators, no whilwinds, no librarians. These we have never had. I can go into detail about what else we do not have but frankly I do not care. Wargear update is practicly the only thing I would want an update on, yes C:ultramarines has a lot of shiny gubbinz, nice gubbinz to, but as a Black Templar player I know I don't need them, a wargear update is what is needed.

Its not the pathetic statement 'cake and eat it' cakes have nothing to do with this :eyebrows:.

We are not codex chapters, we pay more money to have our armies than marine players do, we are (or where) costed in points to represent our awesomeness, sucky marines follow the codex and 'good fer you' for doing that, my army does not, my army has its own codex, the only issue is wargear, keep the rest of the new wargear items and new units, my answer to them is pfft, all I want is the same stats for my wargear.

I should aswell, I have paid for the right to have it, as have many, many, many more collectors of none codex chapters, we pay for our armies in points and cash.

rickie8437
14-02-2009, 10:37
I voted no.

You want your cake and you want to eat it too?

You want special rules and deployments AND you want vanilla weapons and wargear?

So, for you to feel the game is fair...the Codex marine players should give you all of their traits without the benefit of special rules?

Ok...you can have our storm shields...I want Terminators or Assault Marines as troops.

That sound fair to you?

Don't worry. After a while I'm sure GW'll capitulate to the demands of the mob and give you your 3++ storm shields and redeemers. Everyone'll opt for 3++ troops choices and become the cheesiest of cheese. Then Codex Marine players'll bitch and moan about how they're nerfed...then 6th edition will release and we'll go through the whole bit of garbage all over again.

The grass is always green...especially when you don't look close enough to spot the sheen of **** amidst its swaying blades.

on if you had read my opening post you would see that i didnt say that the DA,BT and BA codex should be able to get the NEW units like the redemer and ster/van guard

i said that any rule that was the same and now has changed which is the storm shield rules and the power of the machine spirt should be made the same

and to be honest i'll take deathcompany any day over stern/van guard
and as for your named charactors yeah great i like the BA ones better

please stop posting about giving the non codex chapters the new units as this is not that this thread is about

march10k
14-02-2009, 10:39
No, GW are taking the line now that all weapons should cost the same points. Why is a Plasma Rifle held by a Marine more valueable then one held by a Guardsman? It isn't, the potential is still the same. Instead the points cost of the model itself should reflect the fact that any weapon you give it will be less effective.

That works...to a point. Is a plasma pistol held by a captain more valuable than one held by a sergeant? I'd say so, for two reasons. First, the captain can suffer an overheat and survive, while the sergeant cannot. Second, the captain with plasma pistol can end up being a sixth plasma weapon in a squad (well, a plasmariffic dev squad). I have a hard time buying that either of these is accounted for in the points cost of the captain. The difference between a marine and a guardsman, ok...but when it comes to items available to characters...I think GW, if that's their position, are feeding us a line.



If I re-wrote the DA codex giving them all the updated gear then I would say that Belial (or whoever his name is, the Deathwing guy that allows terminators to be taken as troops) takes standard Terminator Squads as troops. This way you don't get impossible to kill scoring units, also hypes up the supposedly more "common" terminator over the "less common" Assault Terminator (i use quotation marks as 9 times out of 10 the terminators I see are assault Terminators).

...except that Dark Angels don't have access to standard terminator squads or assault terminator squads...just deathwing terminator squads (please don't try to fix a codex you haven't read)...your wording would strip belial of all usefulness, since he'd make units that the army list doesn't allow into troops. There is simply no way to simultaneously allow DW as troops and prevent the mega-cheese of scoring storm shield terminators.

Darkstar2586
14-02-2009, 10:47
I dont think so, no one complained when the BA codex came out with their cheaper transports and attack bikes foe example.

I agree with radium, all chapters should be be put into a single codex. one big codex :P imagine the size of it! SW,BA,DA, RS & current codex being brought together! mmmm

one big happy marine family

thoughtfoxx
14-02-2009, 10:49
I had a chat to Gary one of the roolzboyz at GW in connection with issues around SM retinues. He explained the reasoning behind the decision to change the SM 'dex marines. It was to make them unique when compared with the other SM chapters. It is GW's intent to keep the SM chapters distinct from one another so that people have a varied tactical choice when choosing to play DA, BA SM's etc.
It is logical to assume that the intention with the varied gear costs is reasoned out in a similar way.
Notwithstanding from a fluff perspective SM chapters have specific forgeworlds [over which they are very possesive] that provide their equipment and that not all chapters have access to the best output of every forgeworld. Therefore the quality of different chapters equpment may well vary.

Bekenel
14-02-2009, 11:01
Its seriously like talking to a brick wall...

I'm not saying you guys don't deserve new codexes(codexi?).

But if you pick and choose whatever you want from a 5th edition Codex to apply it to your older codexes you'll be broken armies. From your statements that seems to be what you want to happen.

So, again, this isn't about equality. This is about you guys wanting to powergame the **** out of your armies.

Example:
Chaplains with 3+ attacks and wounds that cost less than 100 pts
3++ Terminator Assault Squads with Furious Charge

etc etc etc

All without the appropriate pts cost increases that a new codex would include.

Those are just the tip of the cheese iceberg. **** that I can pull without even thinking hard about it. So don't try to tell us that you just want things to be "fair."

Both of your examples of "powergaming" are wrong there, I'm afraid. A regular Chaplain is not less than 100 points, and an Interrogator Chaplain is more than 100 points. And in order to get Furious Charge, the Blood Angels need to take Corbulo, who I always understood gave you Furious Charge for one turn only. Oooooh how broken.

Look, the only changes I can think of that would need making are: Storm Shields, Combat Shields, Power of the Machine Spirit, Typhoon Missile, Cyclone Missile, Land Raider/Drop Pod capacity and the Apocathery special rules. At a push, and I mean that in a "If this doesn't get changed I really wouldn't care", Razorback price/options. So how would those be broken? After all, the strength of Death Wing is the fact you can build an army around them, with their mixed loadouts. So you wouldn't want a full squad of SS/TH in my opinion, since you'd be missing out on a Heavy Weapon (unless you went for Cyclone, which is costed 10 points less, but I don't see that being a massive POWERGAMERS RAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH argument).

And hey, look at that, I listed a piece of wargear that's better for DA at the moment - I'd rather have a 5++ in combat than a 6++ all the time, but who cares, the SM rules are the latest and obviously the way they're going with the items of wargear. Hence DA, BA and BT should have newer Combat Shields. PotMS is again hardly a major change, since the prices of the LR is the same. The LRC is cheaper, this is true, but the points difference doesn't justify a vastly different rule for PotMS.

Dark Angel Drop-pods, all I'd say they need is the change in points and the capacity. DA already get a version of Drop-pod Assault with their Terminators, so that rule isn't necessary. BA probably should get it, mind.

Dark Angels getting new Typhoon Missiles would be a little off, but then again - SM can fit 9 Typhoon Missiles into their army. DA can fit.. 3. A 30 point difference is huge, but priced within the army, it's actually not that bad.

The DA Command Squad may be cheaper, but it has much less options than the Space Marine one, and gets a worse Company Champion. But hell, in order to take an Apocathery, you actually need to spend more points then what you pay for a SM Command Squad. Terminators getting FnP, well, that is approaching the realm of Nob Bikers there, but it's only 5 (possibly 7 if you stick both ICs in there) guys, who still would be worried when that Demolisher Cannon lands on them. FnP on Bikes doesn't worry me in the slightest, because the max size for that squad is again 7 (6 Bikes + IC), and Bikes wouldn't have access to the 3++ save.

vv Not making a new post just for this, addressing Emperor's Scourge:
The irony? I'd like to think that I addressed both sides of the coin with regards to each particular item. My point can be summed up, I guess, as this:

You're wrong, if a small number of wargear was standardised across all Marine books, then it wouldn't be "game-breaking" or "cheesey".

Also, here's the best bit - I don't play DA, BA or BT.

Emperor's Scourge
14-02-2009, 11:14
Fixed a double post.

Emperor's Scourge
14-02-2009, 11:19
Both of your examples of "powergaming" are wrong there, I'm afraid. A regular Chaplain is not less than 100 points, and an Interrogator Chaplain is more than 100 points. And in order to get Furious Charge, the Blood Angels need to take Corbulo, who I always understood gave you Furious Charge for one turn only. Oooooh how broken.


Some of your points have merit, but I wanted to clarify that I was referring to Black Templars...not Dark Angels or Blood Angels.

Like I said, that one example was off the top of my head.

I'm not familiar enough with DA/BA codex to list examples from memory unfortunately.

Fixer
14-02-2009, 12:51
And there were no cries from SM players demanding 35 points Rhinos when DA codex came out. Shame on us.

You really need to read that single quote in context of the entire lengthy soul destroying post I made in reply #19.

NightrawenII
14-02-2009, 14:23
I voted yes....

I don't care if different chapters pay different point costs, have different characters, stats, or whatever.

However, a Storm Shield (just as one example) should be the SAME regardless of who is using it. It shouldn't matter if the SM using it is an UM/BA/SW/whatever other F'n chapter... it should have the same damn rules... so that other players who don't play any SMs at least know what the save value is! If it's not the same... then give it a different name, and call it a day.

This is true meaning of this tread. If it have the SAME name it should have the SAME rules.

It is no matter of wtf they have cheaper Rhino, hey you Chaplain is schoolgirl compared to our. It is mater of different rules for the same wargear.

Edit: I voted yes.

Corrode
14-02-2009, 14:40
...except that Dark Angels don't have access to standard terminator squads or assault terminator squads...just deathwing terminator squads (please don't try to fix a codex you haven't read)...your wording would strip belial of all usefulness, since he'd make units that the army list doesn't allow into troops. There is simply no way to simultaneously allow DW as troops and prevent the mega-cheese of scoring storm shield terminators.

Because there would never be an opportunity to split them into Deathwing Terminators/Deathwing Assault Terminators, and make it so that Belial only allowed the former to be Troops (or even both were made Troops, but with the caveat that 'Assault Terminators may never be scoring units').

Well, not unless you re-wrote the Codex OH WAIT HANG ON.

Eka
14-02-2009, 15:44
Are you sure assaulting from vehicle rules in the 5th edition rulebook does not specify Land Riders are exception?

If they do then I cant find 'em.

vladsimpaler
14-02-2009, 16:03
No, they shouldn't.

First of all, the only chapter that REALLY deserves a codex is the Space Wolves, as how they work is completely different.

Two, this teaches the Blood/Dark Angels and any other chapters with a codex that they should have been happy with what they had and not complained to get their own 'stand-alone' codex.

Dark Angels, you really want a codex? You think that you're THAT different? Well you're not.

Just add a couple extra special characters and units to the codex, and you're done. Yay.

But since you had to have your own book, you need to accept the consequences.

march10k
14-02-2009, 16:05
Because there would never be an opportunity to split them into Deathwing Terminators/Deathwing Assault Terminators, and make it so that Belial only allowed the former to be Troops (or even both were made Troops, but with the caveat that 'Assault Terminators may never be scoring units').

Well, not unless you re-wrote the Codex OH WAIT HANG ON.


Er...isn't the ability to mix assaulty and shooty terminators into the same squad the reason to play deathwing in the first place? You can't tell me it's deathwing assault...that was just invented. Ditto the "only deathwing can have scoring terminators" rule.

In what world would it make sense to destroy the defining characteristic of an army?!? OH, wait. This is that world. The world where Sisters of Battle get retconned into being inquisitorial militia. The world where demiurg not only commit mass suicide, but make a pact with Tzeench to wipe their existence from history, as well. Yeah, why not. Let's just make a Codex: MEQ, and fold in the nerons, as well as everything running around with 4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4 statlines and power armor.


First of all, the only chapter that REALLY deserves a codex is the Space Wolves, as how they work is completely different.


Spoken like a true space pup. :rolleyes:

Lord Malorne
14-02-2009, 16:07
No, they shouldn't.

First of all, the only chapter that REALLY deserves a codex is the Space Wolves, as how they work is completely different.

Two, this teaches the Blood/Dark Angels and any other chapters with a codex that they should have been happy with what they had and not complained to get their own 'stand-alone' codex.

Dark Angels, you really want a codex? You think that you're THAT different? Well you're not.

Just add a couple extra special characters and units to the codex, and you're done. Yay.

But since you had to have your own book, you need to accept the consequences.

Same can and has been said about codex space puppies :eyebrows:. I collected when you had to have C:SM and the armageddon book, my army had good rules and bad, units where missing some where better, I paid more points and money to play my army, that is the consequence :eyebrows:, but the wargear was up to date.

The question, NAY, the POINT of this thread is...should the wargear be updated?

Why do people not read threads before spouting off rants, if you want all marines in one codex go start a thread on it. This is about updating wargear.

Please read before posting should be a sticky in everyones mind before...posting.

malisteen
14-02-2009, 16:43
No. If codeces are going to be separate then they need to be separate. Whether they should be separate... but that's another issue. Just because we're on the internet all the time discussing 40k, doesn't mean you can reasonably make internet access an assumed requirement to use your codex.

itcamefromthedeep
14-02-2009, 16:44
Not unless a whole bunch of other stuff in each codex is brought into line. I'm thinking of the BT vow of preferred enemy, as well as veteran skills on their Terminators. Cyclones on Assault Termies also comes to mind. Scoring Land Speeders. That sort of thing. If you're going to "bring them in line", there's a lot more than equipment and vehicles on the roster that deserve a second look.

To really bring the other Space Marine codexes "into line", they would have to rewrite and rebalance half the codex. If they're doing that, they might as well just reprint a new codex.

Since the OP's suggestion is a game balance minefield, I voted no.

captainramoz
14-02-2009, 22:17
have you read the new dex?

a bike mounted Captain lets you have Bikes as troops. not just the Khan, imo people are moaning for the sake of moaning.

as a BT player i also would like a new dex, one that relects the fact we also should have things that the SM dex has* ( and DA ) yet im not complaining, im ( as Lord Malorne says ) doing fine with my dex.

*like a Landraider that we invented that carries 16 not 15 troops, why do we get smaller LR's than BA/SM/DA? and as for SS i aint that fussed about not having terminators with a 2+/3+ coz i get Combat shileds that are 5+ :evilgrin: which i use a lot of.
Why nobody realises that the old edition codexes must be used with new ed codex now old ed codex are mini-dexes like the old wolf dex don't you realize that

Lord Malorne
14-02-2009, 22:19
Nope, only the SW one uses the new codex for a few things, the rest are standalone codex's...which you have not realised :eyebrows:.

Corrode
14-02-2009, 22:26
I think he's saying that since there's a new SM codex the old ones now count as mini-dexes. Still wrong, but a different point.

Captain Galenus
14-02-2009, 22:50
rickie8437, I sense some serious Ultramarine hatred. Just cos GW has a thing for the smurfs and cos kids paint them (normally badly), so vanilla marines get some perks that others don't. BA have 3 wound lightning claw chaplins, DA have termies as troops, and BA have assault marines as troops. As a vet UM player (since Rogue Trader) what's wrong with some difference. Some GW often make mistakes, so what you're a big boy deal with it. Besides, the majority of chapters make their own kit so you would expect so difference, especially from variant ones.

Shangrila
14-02-2009, 22:57
No i dont think they Should, since we dont get death company or mixed termies or Jump marines as troops of their codexes so why would they get our codex bonus'?

Lord Malorne
14-02-2009, 22:59
WARGEAR!

Read the first post.

rickie8437
14-02-2009, 23:22
ok ok your missing my point

again i will say it

IM NOT ASKING FOR UNITS FROM THE NEW SPACE MARINE CODEX

im saying that why cant the other dexs get the same rules after all there are all space marines, land raiders are all the same there made from the same STC so now we are been told coz your a codex chapter you get a better machine spirt thats ball, and that goes for things like storm shields and assault cannons (DH codex)

all im hearing so far on this post is, this codex gets this op unit this codex gets this, and thats not why i set this up

all i want to know is WHY cant all marine codex follow the same core rules for wargear


rickie8437, I sense some serious Ultramarine hatred. Just cos GW has a thing for the smurfs and cos kids paint them (normally badly), so vanilla marines get some perks that others don't. BA have 3 wound lightning claw chaplins, DA have termies as troops, and BA have assault marines as troops. As a vet UM player (since Rogue Trader) what's wrong with some difference. Some GW often make mistakes, so what you're a big boy deal with it. Besides, the majority of chapters make their own kit so you would expect so difference, especially from variant ones.

and james this is not about Ultramarine hate, and the new codex does have its perks and the BA dont have 3 wound LIghting claw welding chaplins the best they get is a 2 wound and a power fist just the same as DA chaplins, not sure about the interrogater chaplins i think they may be 3 wound but still they dont get lighing claws just power weopon or power fist, your thinking of the BT chaplins so please read the codex before making coments like that thanks

Sheena Easton
14-02-2009, 23:26
An item of wargear shouldn't work differently in two different lists, neither should a transport have a different capacity in different lists simply because some muppet "developer" thought OMG diz iz deh ROXXZ!!!!!! Different costs perhaps as soem things are worth more in some lists than in others

A Land Raider is a Land Raider regardless of whether it is a Ultramarine, Space Wolf, Dark Angels, Black Templars, Grey Knights or World Eaters Land Raider - therefore it should have the same rules, stats and transport capacity across the board regardless of which list it is in.

A Storm Shield is a Storm Shield regardless of who carries it and what colour it is painted - therefore it should have the same rules for everyone regardless.

A Bolter is a Bolter no matter who carries it - therefore it should have the same range, S, AP and rate of fire for everyone who is carrying it

etc.

rickie8437
14-02-2009, 23:29
An item of wargear shouldn't work differently in two different lists, neither should a transport have a different capacity in different lists simply because some muppet "developer" thought OMG diz iz deh ROXXZ!!!!!! Different costs perhaps as soem things are worth more in some lists than in others

A Land Raider is a Land Raider regardless of whether it is a Ultramarine, Space Wolf, Dark Angels, Black Templars, Grey Knights or World Eaters Land Raider - therefore it should have the same rules, stats and transport capacity across the board regardless of which list it is in.

A Storm Shield is a Storm Shield regardless of who carries it and what colour it is painted - therefore it should have the same rules for everyone regardless.

A Bolter is a Bolter no matter who carries it - therefore it should have the same range, S, AP and rate of fire for everyone who is carrying it

etc.

thank you for your post

some one that understands were i am coming from

ehlijen
15-02-2009, 00:09
But then why have different codices for DA/BA? They are different books. Just because they have similar names does not make them identical. Forget the background for a second (it can always be rewritten if necessary) and look at what you have:
2(3) different codices describing two different armies you can use in the game called 40k. If they're different enough to warrant seperate books, there should be actual differences between them. You don't demand that shootas and bolters become identical, do you? Because that's just another piece of wargear that's mostly like something else (bolter) but the designers thought they should make it a bit different.

If you think DA/BA should have their different codices, you need to view them as something as potentially different as Orks vs Nids. If they're not different, why have more than one book?

Znail
15-02-2009, 01:14
Just because they have similar names does not make them identical. Forget the background for a second (it can always be rewritten if necessary) and look at what you have:

The names arent just similar, they are identical. And that fluff you seem to scorn says so as well.


If you think DA/BA should have their different codices, you need to view them as something as potentially different as Orks vs Nids. If they're not different, why have more than one book?

You can have your Orc and Nid combined codex if you so want. A horde of hitty stuff, a horde of innacurate shooty stuff etc.

But the idea that the diffrent stats on wargear adds character to the diffrent chapters are rather absurd. Even the alien races has several wargear that are the same as SM's, but that hardly makes them lose character. This goes even more for the Empire based armies plus chaos marines. A Guardsman with a Heavy Bolter is hardly the same as a Chaos Marine with a Heavy Bolter, nor do they need to combine into one codex just because they use the same technology.

ehlijen
15-02-2009, 03:25
You have green space marines wanting a book seperate from blue space marines. Yet you don't really want them to be different. That's pointless.

Why make two books if you're then not allowed to actually make them different?

A guardsman with a heavy bolter is different to a chaos marine with one. He needs a friend to help him carry it. And if GW decided to make IG heavy bolters heavy 4 or heavy 2 that would be fine with me as long as general balance is maintained.

Background has been rewritten in the past to suit new models and it will done again. It is and always has been subject to model and game balance requirements.

I'm not saying things must be different, or mustn't be different, but they should be allowed to be different in different codices without everyone complaining.

Corrode
15-02-2009, 03:37
You can make differences without having them be arbitrary. Special rules, unique units, or more/less wargear are one thing. Having the same item be different for different armies because 'Dark Angels .... get theirs from a DIFFERENT FORGE WORLD' is silly and reflects a poor attitude to consistency.

Nobody is complaining that DA don't get Sternguard, Vanguard, whatever, that's just a consequence of playing DA. The complaint is that identical wargear functions differently for 'green marines' for no good reason.

itcamefromthedeep
15-02-2009, 03:47
You have green space marines wanting a book seperate from blue space marines. Yet you don't really want them to be different. That's pointless.You must be deliberately obtuse here. The OP is suggesting that the differences can come from the stats of the models, who can take what kind of equipment, and how the army is organized.

It should be fine for the models to use the same wargear. The differences can be expressed in other ways.

Now, I object to the rebalancing on the grounds of game balance. If wargear is going to be rebalanced to the newer standard, then the abilities should also be rebalanced to reflect the overall increase in power that those codexes would get. The classic example would be Black Templars and the ubiquitous abuse of the vow that gives them Preferred Enemy. If their gear is going to be changed to fit 5th ed sensibilities, then the special rules should too. If you're changing gear and special rules, then just wait for the next iteration of the codex.

Master Stark
15-02-2009, 04:11
i dont play the new marine codex is there is no flavor about it


Craftworld eldar had all the flavor stripped out


if you want the flavor and the special rules, put up with the out of date equipment.

I don't understand what you mean by flavour.

ehlijen
15-02-2009, 04:27
I don't object to models from different codices using the same wargear. I object to the apparant demand that they must not use different gear.

I'm saying that if it is in a different book, it should be allowed to be different, regardless of the name. Not that it must be, but that it can be.

Emperor's Scourge
15-02-2009, 04:40
The only people being deliberately obtuse here are the folks voting "yes" and completely ignoring the fact that their codexes are balanced for the stat lines they have now.

They are not balanced for C:SM wargear...ONLY THE GEAR IN YOUR CODEX.

Again, the changes you propose will not bring everything in line it'll overpower your armies to the point where a Marine player would be stupid to play C:SM.

TheDarkDuke
15-02-2009, 04:53
I think they should. However as you mentioned not be giving all the new toys to them. Bring the points costs and rules in line.

I play BT. I do not want Redeemer's, Thunderfire's, Sternguard or Vanguard. I would like the base points costs per marine equal as BT are suppose to be more numerous yet at points cost they fit less bodies in. Yet with that in mind I get that a LR Crusader is probably better for BT then Codex SM and should maybe cost a bit more points. However 1pt grenades vrs free should be changed as well for an example. For BT as an example I think the better chaplain should remain as per fluff for BT, but the Marshall should be upped to Codex abilities as they do lack as is.

However with that said I think the bigger thing that has altered the separate books is the new set of rules. I think in general BT are probably stronger under 5th, yet there is a large large portion of their Codex that is well useless, not because it is subpar but because it doesn't work or has functions against maybe 5% of armies you will face.

Corax
15-02-2009, 08:33
Given what an utter can of worms the various 'stand alone' codexes have turned into, streamlining them into one book seems like common sense.

Using the template of the 5e SM codex, chapter specific units could be accessed through the selection of certain characters, ie. Want Death Company? Take Chaplain Lemartes. Want Ravenwing? Take Sammael. The fact is that the 'special' chapters really aren't that different that they require an entire book to themselves. Most of them could be easily accommodated by a single page of modifications to represent each chapter.

The other important reason for doing this is that it would free up time and space in the release schedule for GW to spend more time on things they have tended to ignore, like... DARK ELDAR!!!!

Ianos
15-02-2009, 08:38
I think they should. However as you mentioned not be giving all the new toys to them. Bring the points costs and rules in line.


Although it is not about just points. It is also about what unit can be in the list and as what kind of selection. I voted yes up to date, but i do not want to see troop thunderhammer termies hitting the table because i really don't think their cost can be balanced especially if they are fitted in a DW style list.

As such, in order to bring everyone in line we need either a lot of FAQs or new dexes for all variants. So yes bring them in line, but later on, there are other races that DESPERATELY need a dex right now and no matter how loved the marines are, these races will also become loved with some attention by GW.

Jackmojo
15-02-2009, 13:28
In a perfect world I would have wanted one codex for the "Codex adhereant" marines (UM, BA, DA, etc..) i.e. most of them and then perhaps some add-on or stand alone lists for the very divergant chapters (SW, BT, etc...).

The new marine codex came close to this and if they had added a few more options for altered army lists based on equipment for captains, plus a few more chapter tactics characters all that would have been lost is two units from codex BA (Death Company and Baal Predator), which I would have been fine with including as options for any marine player to take (i.e. one more weapon loadout for the predator and some sort of upgrade to berserkers for either an honour guard or command squad) it would have been successful.

Just as there are currently units in the Space Marine Codex that are not fluffy for all the armies it represents (Legion of the Damned being an obvious example) unit selection would have been a large part of what makes an army feel "chapter themed".

Jack

P.S. My marines are painted Blood Angels but I play them as either BA or Codex depending on what sort of army I feel like making.

Bekenel
15-02-2009, 13:51
The only people being deliberately obtuse here are the folks voting "yes" and completely ignoring the fact that their codexes are balanced for the stat lines they have now.

They are not balanced for C:SM wargear...ONLY THE GEAR IN YOUR CODEX.

Again, the changes you propose will not bring everything in line it'll overpower your armies to the point where a Marine player would be stupid to play C:SM.

I don't see it. I went through the things that I think should be moved across, there was 2 things that might have needed points adjusting, but most of it would have worked well.

Troops with a 2+/3++ might be a bit dodgy, but consider the squad costs over 200 points - that's what, pulling a unit out of nowhere.. a full squad of Dire Avengers with Bladestorm, with plenty of points left over. You unload enough small arms onto Terminators, and they will die. Especially if your effective range is over 12". Or you could get 35 Guardsmen for just a little bit more. 70 Lasgun shots probably isn't going to kill all 5 of them if you Math-hammer it, but you certainly will lose Terminators.

Someone did post about BT being more expensive, not having Frags etc. That isn't something we're discussing here, since that's pretty much a rewrite of the Codex. At the end of the day, and it's been said again and again, all the BA/DA/BT players would like is wargear the same.

Znail
15-02-2009, 14:20
Well, if they adjust the wargear rules then they can also adjust the costs for the same wargear, so there isnt any real problem. Its no big deal as it would only add +5 points to any Storm Shield upgrade and +10 for Cyclone Missile Launchers. Its not a big deal and could probobly be ignored anyway as there are lots of other stuff that is overcosted.

Xelloss
15-02-2009, 15:15
Ok, I voted no, but it was because I misunderstood the question (my bad)

In fact my opinion is to give old armies a real FAQ, because :
- waiting 2+ years to have balanced rules isn't viable
- some points in codex only cause RAW problems (for exemple in the BT codex there are lots of rules of the old corerulebook rewritten to prevent having to switch between books all the time. Some of this rules have been reactualized because to strong/to weak, but BT are stuck with them because "codexes come first")
- Most of old armies player aren't 12yo and so can afford an internet connection/have it at work/are in gaming circles.

New rules to standart wargear ? suggestion->beta FAQ->FAQ. Doesn't have to be for the next day tough

Armies should be different because they are different, not because they are obsolete. You should still have common points.

rickie8437
15-02-2009, 15:34
In a perfect world I would have wanted one codex for the "Codex adhereant" marines (UM, BA, DA, etc..) i.e. most of them and then perhaps some add-on or stand alone lists for the very divergant chapters (SW, BT, etc...).

The new marine codex came close to this and if they had added a few more options for altered army lists based on equipment for captains, plus a few more chapter tactics characters all that would have been lost is two units from codex BA (Death Company and Baal Predator), which I would have been fine with including as options for any marine player to take (i.e. one more weapon loadout for the predator and some sort of upgrade to berserkers for either an honour guard or command squad) it would have been successful.

Just as there are currently units in the Space Marine Codex that are not fluffy for all the armies it represents (Legion of the Damned being an obvious example) unit selection would have been a large part of what makes an army feel "chapter themed".

Jack

P.S. My marines are painted Blood Angels but I play them as either BA or Codex depending on what sort of army I feel like making.

the baal predator is a BA only tank no other chapter can have it as the only stc for it is held by the chapter it self so then you would have to rewrite the fluff which id be pissed at as im a massive BA fan

as for making one massive codex why not throw in chaos aswell sure there all in power armour might as well just play lord of the rings if we do that

Corrode
15-02-2009, 15:58
Reductio ad absurdium is a terrible way to make a point. I love BA, they were my first army, but I believe that they (along with DA and possibly BT) should be lumped back with C:SM.

As much as people hate special characters, it makes sense to do it that way. You can take Chaplain Lemartes, who adds one free unit of Death Company (1 member per infantry squad?) and the option to take a Baal Predator (although that said, how amazing is the Baal? It wouldn't exactly hurt to share it out). Or Commander Dante who lets you take jump pack command squads. Make Furioso dreadnoughts a standard loadout (it was already done to LRCs and Mortiis Dreads, why not Furioso?) and bam, you can represent the entire BA army with C:SM.

Raellos
15-02-2009, 16:03
The only thing BA lose is the cool Baal pred fluff.

They gain an assured update every time the Marine book is.

Jackmojo
15-02-2009, 16:09
the baal predator is a BA only tank no other chapter can have it as the only stc for it is held by the chapter it self so then you would have to rewrite the fluff which id be pissed at as im a massive BA fan

as for making one massive codex why not throw in chaos aswell sure there all in power armour might as well just play lord of the rings if we do that

Fluff changes to benefit rules all the time. In any case its hardly such a unique design that a techmarine couldn't replicate it (seeing as how they seem to remount weapons to make all these new Land Raider variants all the time). Also its clearly not unique to them as its ntoed their scucessor's have access to it.

I, for one, am not going to encourage the old 3rd edition bonus dexes where the supplemental codex chapters got something for nothing (the Blood Angels being arguably the worst offender).

In any case putting it in the main dex allows someone to make a more codex successor chapter of the Blood Angels for example or play the Mentor Legion testing it out before wide spread adoption. The key, much as with the current Eldar, Ork and Chaos codecies would be to put lots of useful and interesting units in and let a palyer's army selection show their theme/chapter.

Thats what I would want from a single book for all "Codex Astartes" Marines.

Jack

Snotteef
15-02-2009, 16:14
Having read the original post, I voted yes.

I want a storm shield to be a storm shield to be a storm shield.

I am not advocating rolling all the chapters into one dex. I am not advocating giving all the shiny new units to non-codex chapters, but one combat shield should work the same as the next.

All Standard Land Raiders should have the same troop capacity, same machine spirit, same assualt ramps, etc. As the OP suggested, the wargear should be brought in line to be the same in each army. That is all. The rest of this discussion is moot and should be moved to a different thread. We got sidetracked somewhere. Either by skimming the original post, or replying to posts that had gone off-topic, but made our hackles rise.

I hope future posters will vote based on the original post and not on the side discussions which have erupted since. *gets off soap box, trips and hits head, because preaching is BAD* :p

Raellos
15-02-2009, 16:24
Having read the original post, I voted yes.

I want a storm shield to be a storm shield to be a storm shield.

Damn straight.

Wiseman
15-02-2009, 16:41
Yes to wargear and equipment standardisation, no to units. Any wargear, or vehicles that are in both, should have the same stats, as they are the same. Should units be the same, nope, you can keep your vanguard, sternguard, MotF, Redeemer, Thunderfire etc. Units shouldn't be mixed between codex's, but things that are named the same should be. A storm shield is a storm shield, paint job makes no difference. But a chapter may not employ some units, hence them not being part of the codex, and will instead employ others, I'd glady replace our normal chaplains with C:SM ones, if we get to keep our Interogator Chaplains, as its one of our Unique units.

VeritasMortis
15-02-2009, 16:54
My 2 cents,
First of all, lets be honest when each of the divirgent chapters is updated GW will update all of the equipment and units to fall in line, I don't know why any one would argue against GW doing this, a Storm Shield working the same across the board just makes sense.

More to the point, should GW do errata or FAQs or whatever to fix it now? Well I say yes, but it's not going to happen. what am I saying yes to exactly? I think all wargear should work the same acrosse the board Cyclone missile launchers, SS, Typhoons, and scouts all come to mind as units with diverse stats that should be levelled. I don't feel some things can be updated to "work" the same without a points update as well, for example; the Typhoon missile launcher in the blood/dark dex is crap compared to the current ultra one, but you can't change it without a massive points jump. None of this matters too much though as GW will never do a proper FAQ update for the wargear no matter how much we **** and moan.

I am not saying we should get all the "sweet" new units in the codex, Vanilla marines have always had a problem with being, well, vanilla. My take is that Vanillas should keep Forge fathers, Sternguard, Vanguard(I do maintain however, vanguard should never have been made! Such a blatant slap in the face to VAS's), Thunderfire Cannons, and maybe even Ironclads all to themselves (being divirgent shouldn't just meen we get extra stuff, divirgence is variation, which generally implys a trade off) I do think all Chapters should get the Redeemer of course, because to be fair the Templar had to dish out their cool variant so why shouldn't vanillas. I think each chapter should have its own unique units, generaly represented in its more elite entries, for example Blood Angels VAS's and DC, Dark Angels Deathwing Terminators, Black Templars Sword Bretheran, and Ultra/IF/Ravens/White scars/CF/Sallies Sternguard and Vanguard.

So to sum up for you skimmers, wargear and equipment should be the same, units should remain unique.

Znail
15-02-2009, 16:56
Reductio ad absurdium is a terrible way to make a point. I love BA, they were my first army, but I believe that they (along with DA and possibly BT) should be lumped back with C:SM.

As much as people hate special characters, it makes sense to do it that way. You can take Chaplain Lemartes, who adds one free unit of Death Company (1 member per infantry squad?) and the option to take a Baal Predator (although that said, how amazing is the Baal? It wouldn't exactly hurt to share it out). Or Commander Dante who lets you take jump pack command squads. Make Furioso dreadnoughts a standard loadout (it was already done to LRCs and Mortiis Dreads, why not Furioso?) and bam, you can represent the entire BA army with C:SM.

Minus all the other special characters and characters (if you have to take those two then you cant take any others, can you?), minus Assault Marines as Troops, minus Veteran Assault Marines, minus Death Company Dreadnaughts and minus all the things removed to make the GYB codex in the first place (remember that the current one is pretty minimalistic and got rid of alot of the chapter character as it was just a quick fix). It would also give BA things it shouldnt have and make them into SM +bonus features. It would also require a new SM codex and we just got one.

Minicodex would work, but its very unlikely as it seems GW has decided never to make any codex reference another again. An Appendix in the main Codex with extra rules, characters, FOC etc would work. Alot of people seem to grumble over paying extra for something they dont need, even if its worth as little as a happy meal every 5 years. This plan also falls on the need for a new SM codex again.

Updating the online codex would be ideal and they have actualy already done so a few times as there have been plenty of changes made to it. So you are already required to download the most recent one, its just that the changes arent so obvious that everyone has noticed. I doubt this will happen as GW doesnt seem to believe that Internet is here to stay.

So we are left with a stand alone codex as only realistic alternative and the sooner the better.

madd0ct0r
15-02-2009, 17:25
I voted YES but nobody mentioned a timescale...

Bring all imperial equipment into line (rules wise) across ALL the imperial codexs
Points costs to be variable for balance
Of course, due to the testing involved, this could only be implemetented when that codex is renewed. (and several deserving cases take precedance)

This presumably is what GW will be doing. I hope they'll be doing it after DE though...

Sickstringabyss
15-02-2009, 17:27
I voted no because of the whole can of worms theory...

The easiest solution would be to change the name of the wargear. Storm shield would be called something else for another chapter if it has different stats or effects. Land Raiders would have different variants for different chapters. Simple, and requires no further balancing.

If you're saying "I want stuff to be the same as other stuff" you are running into balancing issues, which pretty much requires a new codex. Which will happen anyway for everyone at some point, so its probably best not to open the can of worms for all the potential problems it might cause. I personally hate getting worms all over my battlefield :)

ard boy stu
15-02-2009, 17:31
I dont think they should bring all marine codex into line untill they have done all the over 40k races

Inquisitor_Tolheim
15-02-2009, 17:44
If you keep creating PDFs etc then all you get is a wave of print outs needed to be dragged along to every game. Not only that but due to the fact that to make each Chapter different certain "new" units and equipment will be more or less advantageous you need lots of time to playtest them.

Apologies for the late response RickBlake.

Wouldn't you need the same amount of time to playtest a new codex as you would a PDF codex? Players would still have to purchase just one codex (C:SM) to play their army, and every variant SM army would have the same stats for wargear regardless of updates. The PDF codices would need updates the same way normal rules would, but the problem with differing wargear stats would be gone.


Also you know there will be some people who edit the PDFs to dupe unsuspecting victims and the fact that GW doesn't like the idea of people playing their game without paying for a Codex.

Codex purchasing comment referenced above. And you can't stop people from being jerks. Those players work to get perfectly legal conversion armies banned based on WYSIWYG, misrepresent their rules, throw tantrums when things don't go their way and trim points costs when building armies. The best policy is to not play with them if you catch them cheating, and check on the rules on your own if you thought they did. With a PDF codex, their rules as originally written would be just a URL away.

Captain Galenus
15-02-2009, 21:55
rickie8437: while I will concede to a typing error in my reply, I still feel that chapter specific war gear, ie my storm shield is better than a DA one for example, why shouldn't codex war gear be better than some of the other chapters gear, the others have their own bonus . Yeah, I would love to field Baal Preds or an army of termies, but my codex doesn't let me, and like many others I don't believe in painting a chapter one way and using another ones codex. If you want one particular thing use the appropriate codex, AND I know you hate UMs

rickie8437
15-02-2009, 23:38
rickie8437: while I will concede to a typing error in my reply, I still feel that chapter specific war gear, ie my storm shield is better than a DA one for example, why shouldn't codex war gear be better than some of the other chapters gear, the others have their own bonus . Yeah, I would love to field Baal Preds or an army of termies, but my codex doesn't let me, and like many others I don't believe in painting a chapter one way and using another ones codex. If you want one particular thing use the appropriate codex, AND I know you hate UMs

oh yes i forgot if the Ultramarines makes something and this goes for all there chapters then they should get a set of better rules for that wargear coz its painted blue WTF!!!!!!!

you have stern guard and there cool ammo, you get van guard (deff a rip off of VAS) you get thunderfire cannons and you get the redemmer, not one BA,DA,BT are asking for them unites all we want is wargear that is the same as ''ULTRAMARINE'' wargear and rules/ transport that are the same.

now on the deathcompany which i here you all say are ''free'' there not we pay 115 points for 5 tac marines as you pay 90 i think so them extra points pay for that ''free'' marines, if fact correct me if im wrong but im sure all points cost in all three codexs are more then they are in the new C:SM

but thats not the point in this thread its to find out why we cant get the same rules

edit.... PS james i could go on and say about your feel no pain medics which we dont get yet there the same thing

and yes i do HATE the ultramarine fluff and the colour

Warforger
15-02-2009, 23:53
rickie8437: while I will concede to a typing error in my reply, I still feel that chapter specific war gear, ie my storm shield is better than a DA one for example, why shouldn't codex war gear be better than some of the other chapters gear, the others have their own bonus . Yeah, I would love to field Baal Preds or an army of termies, but my codex doesn't let me, and like many others I don't believe in painting a chapter one way and using another ones codex. If you want one particular thing use the appropriate codex, AND I know you hate UMs

Well once you consider C;SM does not cover UM alone, and that every chapter thats not BT BA or DA has better wargear then they do (even though its the exact same thing) then it makes no sense, I mean BA deserve it more fluff wise, due to extended life and more experienced Techmarines as a result. I mean now Marines now do not only stand out, but do the same role as DA and BA, Ironclad=Furiso, Double Autocannon dread=Mortis, then they still have the option of taking 10 man terminator squads while DA and BA are stuck with 5 man terminator squads (funny thing that Death Wing can't get 10 man terminator squads). Exactly why do Crimson Fists have access to more up to date wargear then Dark Angels or Blood Angels? I thought they were screwed over.

Ubermensch Commander
16-02-2009, 03:22
Exactly why do Crimson Fists have access to more up to date wargear then Dark Angels or Blood Angels? I thought they were screwed over.

Give me access to a Death Company equivalent, VAS, Assault Marines as Troopers, Terminators as Troops, as a regular SM player and maybe I will agree that the BA got "screwed over".

They are different, but I would hardly call it "screwed over."

NightrawenII
16-02-2009, 09:45
Give me access to a Death Company equivalent, VAS, Assault Marines as Troopers, Terminators as Troops, as a regular SM player and maybe I will agree that the BA got "screwed over".

They are different, but I would hardly call it "screwed over."

He mean screwed over in fluff. Dont forget the battle of Rynns World.

Darklord Yorke
16-02-2009, 10:06
I'm a Black Templars player, and as most of you will know, Templars are fleet based - So its painfull to watch a Codex SM army call down an Orbital bombardment from a Strike Cruiser or Battle Barge, knowing that, in comparison, the Templars have a greater fleet!
Why cant I do this aswell??!!??

I suppose that us "non-codex" SM players will have to be patient and wait for our new codexes to be released.

Darklord Yorke
16-02-2009, 10:12
Another thing...........

BT's are close combat specialists, yet they cant field a veteran squad completely armed with power weapons and jump packs - Arrrrgh!!! Me Angry!!

Lord Malorne
16-02-2009, 10:24
Check out my sig for happy times Darklord Yorke :D.

As has been said, we wants wargear, I (can't speak for others) don't care about the new units, just the wargear.

pookie
16-02-2009, 12:01
Check out my sig for happy times Darklord Yorke :D.

As has been said, we wants wargear, I (can't speak for others) don't care about the new units, just the wargear.

and cheaper tanks! :evilgrin:

alas im still not fussed as all this 'shiny' new stuff isnt used in my BT army ( Storm Shields etc), so im in the minority of those who feel hard done by tho a vet Sqd that had 2 attacks would pelase me at least a little :D ).

Metaphorazine
16-02-2009, 12:21
God no. "Oh, let's see. That assault cannon that was nicely balanced when we wrote your codex, now it's got more shots, greater strength, and costs the same points! Genius! Oh, and despite us thinking 4+save storm shields are worth 20 points in your codex, we'll upgrade them to 3+ for the same cost. How's that grab you?" *

Sounds brilliant... Though don't GW cop enough flack for not testing codexes enough as it is?

* Disclaimer: I don't know marine stats, so if these are wrong I don't care. But seriously, all I'm hearing is "Baaaaw, we want our gear to get better for free!". Your gear is balanced for your codex, now stop it!

Corrode
16-02-2009, 13:16
How exactly would costing storm shields identically in the DA and SM codices 'unbalance' them? Is a Terminator in the DA 'dex, with an identical points cost to its Ultramarine fellows, going to become suddenly unbalanced if it has the same gear? This 'your codex was playtested around these costs, now we get better stuff same cost/cheaper but you can suck it up because BALANCE' argument is pretty short-sighted.

marv335
16-02-2009, 13:44
How exactly would costing storm shields identically in the DA and SM codices 'unbalance' them? Is a Terminator in the DA 'dex, with an identical points cost to its Ultramarine fellows, going to become suddenly unbalanced if it has the same gear? This 'your codex was playtested around these costs, now we get better stuff same cost/cheaper but you can suck it up because BALANCE' argument is pretty short-sighted.


The ability to take the 2+/3++ save in a troops unit should be taken into account.
Especially in the 5th ed environment where only troops can score.

MadDoc
16-02-2009, 13:52
* Disclaimer: I don't know marine stats, so if these are wrong I don't care. But seriously, all I'm hearing is "Baaaaw, we want our gear to get better for free!". Your gear is balanced for your codex, now stop it!

If you'd actually been paying attention you'd note that most of us wanting wargear parity are more than happy to pay the increased cost for things like storm shields (likewise the reduced cost for things like combat shields). We're not actually wanting anything for free. But don't let the facts interfere with you taking a pot shot at people with a legitimate gripe... :rolleyes:

As for GW's attempted justifications of "balanced for your Codex..." and "we don't update/add rules in FAQs, so tough luck", it'd be nice if they actually stuck with that ruling, and didn't just haphazardly apply it to certain selected Codecies....


The ability to take the 2+/3++ save in a troops unit should be taken into account.
Especially in the 5th ed environment where only troops can score.

As should the fact that said (already more expensive) squad is restricted to only 5 members and with TH & SS load-out has 0 ranged capability (if a ranged option is kept/taken, then those models do not have a 3++ either). But as usual those facts are carefully omitted.

Edit: I almost forgot the sub-par/pants Special Character you're forced to take in order to take those squads as troops. For only 10 points more you can get a Space Marine Captain in Terminator armour with a higher WS and an Iron Halo (worth 25 points based on the former points values) and the only thing you'd lose would be the master-crafting of the power weapon (worth 15 points based on the former points values), the free swap between weapons options (negligible at best), and the Deathwing specific rules... I'd also like to point out that said same Captain in power armour can upgrade to a 2+ save and have a storm bolter and Sword of Secrets/Heavenfall blade equivalent Relic blade and only cost 18 points more, still with a higher WS and also frag & krak grenades without losing the ability to Sweeping Advance...

rickie8437
16-02-2009, 16:59
If you'd actually been paying attention you'd note that most of us wanting wargear parity are more than happy to pay the increased cost for things like storm shields (likewise the reduced cost for things like combat shields). We're not actually wanting anything for free. But don't let the facts interfere with you taking a pot shot at people with a legitimate gripe... :rolleyes:

As for GW's attempted justifications of "balanced for your Codex..." and "we don't update/add rules in FAQs, so tough luck", it'd be nice if they actually stuck with that ruling, and didn't just haphazardly apply it to certain selected Codecies....



As should the fact that said (already more expensive) squad is restricted to only 5 members and with TH & SS load-out has 0 ranged capability (if a ranged option is kept/taken, then those models do not have a 3++ either). But as usual those facts are carefully omitted.

Edit: I almost forgot the sub-par/pants Special Character you're forced to take in order to take those squads as troops. For only 10 points more you can get a Space Marine Captain in Terminator armour with a higher WS and an Iron Halo (worth 25 points based on the former points values) and the only thing you'd lose would be the master-crafting of the power weapon (worth 15 points based on the former points values), the free swap between weapons options (negligible at best), and the Deathwing specific rules... I'd also like to point out that said same Captain in power armour can upgrade to a 2+ save and have a storm bolter and Sword of Secrets/Heavenfall blade equivalent Relic blade and only cost 18 points more, still with a higher WS and also frag & krak grenades without losing the ability to Sweeping Advance...

some one talking sence, thanks for the post dude

Ubermensch Commander
16-02-2009, 17:59
He mean screwed over in fluff. Dont forget the battle of Rynns World.

Oops! Quite right!

Xelloss
16-02-2009, 19:38
- The argument "your codexes are balanced" is irrelevent. They were in their edition. They are not now.
- IIRC, Dark Angels have less gear, less powerful and more expensive. Sure giving them an update would be too cheesy...
- Enough with the "no SM variants, everybody in the same codex". SW and BT don't even respect the index astartes. BA and DA could have been (with difficulties) grouped with the others, but they didn't in the last SM codex. Now let's talk about real options

In fact, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that lots of us could easily wait a new codex if just GW showed some interest to our concerns. We could understand they can't magically find solution for every thing - but the present situation is more a "go to hell" with their "discuss it with your opponent"

Earthbeard
16-02-2009, 19:39
I think they should with standard equipment Storm Shields etc, but extra units etc, nope.

vlad78
16-02-2009, 20:45
No, they should not.

They should make a single codex with all chapters in it, much like they did with chaos. Possibly giving special chapters a special character that unlocks that chapter's traits. Belial makes termi's troops, Khan makes bikes troops, Death Company Chaplains give Death Company etc.

Oh, and get rid of the 6 UM chars, just Tigerius and Calgar is enough.

Amen

vlad

Master Stark
16-02-2009, 21:11
- Enough with the "no SM variants, everybody in the same codex". SW and BT don't even respect the index astartes. BA and DA could have been (with difficulties) grouped with the others, but they didn't in the last SM codex. Now let's talk about real options

Well, to me this is exactly what 'bringing marine codexes into line' means. One codex to rule them all.

Now sure, Black Templars and Space Wolves are 'different' to regular marines.

But just how different are they? Or rather, are those differences enough, from a background and game balance perspective, to justify five separate codexes?

I say no!

A Black Templar marine is the same as a Space Wolves marine is the same as an Ultramarines marine is the same as a Salamanders marine.

The differences between the 'big five' are not sufficient to justify entirely seprarate rule books for them, which invariably creates internal balance problems.

Wolf Sgt Kirke
16-02-2009, 21:15
price differences, item amount limitations, items differing functions and the like are a good thing - they help to show the unique aspects of each chapter - I'm a SW player - possibly the most divergent chapter and i would be horriefied to be basically playing grey smurfs - the difference is part of what makes they game fun - dark eldar and eldar would suffer from being joined up in a codex, as would all xeno's - this is where we would end up should we travel far along this path! Chaos definetly suffered when they got a single codex - thank goodness chaos daemons came out! I do think there was no need to move away from the traits idea - special characters being required to achieve this is rather silly!

Lord Malorne
16-02-2009, 21:18
...

What are these balance issues that people rant about yet don't back up?

Considering whatever you see as unbalanced is taken into account accross the board (codex).

Silly people saying put all in one codex.

I say 40k Needs only 2 codex's Codex All Space Marines and Codex Everyone else.

Sorted :eyebrows:.


Chaos definetly suffered when they got a single codex...

As opposed to when they had loads :eyebrows:.

If people think these chapters need to be put in one book...they clearly do not these armies enough to judge.

Silentbob10
16-02-2009, 21:34
At the end of the day a storm shield is a storm shield they should ALL be the same regardless of who uses them. I woulnd be that annoyed if it was just ultramaines who had them because you could just say they in particular have better equipment but its not like that EVERY chapter exept for black templatr DA and BA (and SW until they get they new book fingers crossed) have essentially better equipment. And its not even just wargear a basic space marine captain is WS 6 yet the Grand master of the entire dark angels chapter is WS5???? Does that make sense to anybody. But yet again i could understand if they they said "DA arnt that keen on combat there more a thinkers chapter" but then you could say BA captains who are supposed to be exeptional at combat are still worse then them. As far as i can see they have made a very large volume of ppl very unhappy. AT the end of the day it would be as simple of them releasing FAQs for all not main codex marines saying you can use all the wargear selections in the marine codex and the appropriate points cost. THat would please me and im shure alot of other people.

Phew rant over ive got it of my chest :)

Master Stark
16-02-2009, 21:46
Silly people saying put all in one codex.

I say 40k Needs only 2 codex's Codex All Space Marines and Codex Everyone else.

Sorted :eyebrows:.

I'll paraphrase Occulto (I think) here.

I like spicy food. That doesn't mean my ideal meal results in chemical burns and internal bleeding.

Or to turn your argument on it's head; if diversity is such a treasured ideal surely we should have even MORE different marine codexes, plus separate ones for each Ork clan, each Tyranid hivefleet, each IG regiment, each Eldar craftworld...


If people think these chapters need to be put in one book...they clearly do not these armies enough to judge.

The differences between Marine codexes are artificial and cosmetic, and should be ironed out.

Lord Malorne
16-02-2009, 21:49
Based on what, your opinion? Its not shared by the people who collect those armies.

The BT/SW/DA/BA sell, they make money, lots of money, putting them in one book means less money...hence silly idea. Nice and simple.

Master Stark
16-02-2009, 22:02
Based on what, your opinion?

No one ever bothers to explain why Grey marines or Green marines are so different from Blue marines that they need an entirely different codex.


The BT/SW/DA/BA sell, they make money, lots of money, putting them in one book means less money...hence silly idea. Nice and simple.

Can't argue with that. The multiple books do make for lots of model sales.

VeritasMortis
16-02-2009, 22:13
The ability to take the 2+/3++ save in a troops unit should be taken into account.
Especially in the 5th ed environment where only troops can score.

Consider this, 2+/3+ save troops of only 5 guys, which for each ss you take, you loose the ability to actively engage the enemy ie: walking terminators need guns, assault terminators need transport.

So if you build a hybrid squad and hoof it across the field, you have,1 heavy and, hell lets go crazy 4 ss, your shooting is crap and any half competant monkey will shoot your guys to pieces before they see CC.

If you transport you have 2 options 1. land raider, terms plus raider =465+ points, 2 squads like this and thats half your army summed in 12 models. Hardly an unstoppable force, no matter what you equiped them with. option 2. Drop pod, gets you right where you want to be, to bad you have to stand there now and get punched in the face for a turn since your a 5 man CC squad and if you decided "hey I'll just land on an objective and hold it!!!!", good for you, you just dropped 250+ points (likely more than25% of your army) of no fire power on an objective, to which your opponent can answer "I'll ignore them and take the rest of the objectives" or "lol I'll stand 18 inches away and shoot them for 5 turns lol".

If you want to talk about ss Terms kicking some a** look at how rediculous they are when it comes to contesting objectives! thats where they shine and you don't need to be a scoring unit for that.

Bottom line, Deathwing is a hard army to use, you have low numbers, average toughness, a small unit selection ,and I respect any one that uses them. Giving the emo's (had to throw it in somewhere) 3+ ss units will not make them "OMG NO CANT STOP IT", it will make them better, not over the top, just a little better. considering the rocky road the DW has travelled ( any one remember 3rd edition with no inv!!) they could use a little a strong army.

As far as upgrades go, YES some wargear options could use a price hike if levelled, but only typhoon missile launchers, and Cyclone missile launchers come to mind. Of those 2, only Typhoons would REALY need a price hike.

How unbalanced are you afraid it's gonna be? BA and DA all already pay more for almost every single unit in their army, for less in return. Primary example: Ultras tac squads come with a new special rule Combat tactics (or equivilant swap) and are cheaper than DA and BA (even after subtracting the DC cost for BA), and thats our TROOPS! not to mention our god awful drop pod entries, (but let me guess, you think your drop pods "should" shoot better carry more guys and cost less points right).

BA and DA got kind of got a bad deal, and generaly it doesn't bother me (simply because, I've used BA for a very long time, and enjoyed the pinnacle of our competitive existance. So it's nice to break out my BA and hear "really?" or "why?" instead of "omg not BA!!") but all this "not all marines should have the same kit! crap just gets on my nerves. Vanillas have Ironclads, Stern/Van guard, better captains, custom army rule chars, super Venerables, master of the forge, Legion of the damned, Storm speeders, Scout bikes, Tfire cannons, and Redeemers! All we want is for our equipment to have its stats updated! Which GW didn't even do, so you can't even give us some cheese with our wine, whats up with that?

rant/off

sorry Marv, only the DW part was to you the rest was just me venting randomly.

Warforger
17-02-2009, 00:03
Actually the UM pods cost less because they have Drop Pod Assault, which is a rather crappy rule.

Znail
17-02-2009, 00:54
Actually the UM pods cost less because they have Drop Pod Assault, which is a rather crappy rule.

Drop Pod Assault is a great advantage, not a downside! It reduces/gets rid of the main downside Deep Strike and Reserves have, that your units gets less time on the field thus making your weaker initialy. Its not an uncommon strategy to buy extra Pods for units that doesnt actualy plan to use them just to take advantage of that rule and get more units dropped in the first turn.

Warforger
17-02-2009, 01:50
Then you realize that unit is unsupported, if you want it to be supported, you'd have ti have it next your own guys or in the middi.e, reducing there effectiveness. Its a crappy rule and its useless, I much prefer not using it with my better 50 point pods

Reinholt
17-02-2009, 02:25
I don't think the problem is with the codices themselves being separate, I think it is with the resultant inability to standardize marines.

Black Templars, Grey Hunters, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and now all other Chapters all have what are, essentially, variations of the tactical squad. Yet some have grenades, some do not, some get heavy weapons, some get more special weapons, some get close combat weapons, but yet again, the points don't match up (or even have differences that make sense, at times), Rhinos cost different amounts, and so on...

The problem is just the lack of consistency. Why are storm shields different for different marines? Why are rhinos more expensive for some and less expensive for others? What the hell is up with tech marines? And so on.

PDF-style updates for simply the army list portion of chapters without a current book (especially the non-SW chapters, as SW are probably the most divergent chapter by far) could easily fix this. I'm not sure why it's not done.

ehlijen
17-02-2009, 03:57
The problem of consistency will always crop up if you update codices that use 'standard' gear seperately form one another. Which is why 'standard' gear is such a bad idea when updating codices one at a time.

Just imgagine what would happen if this mess had occurred during the chapter of the month period of 3rd ed when everyone and their grandma got a page or two of special rules rewarding you disporportionally for simply not taking one or two things from your codex.

It's so much easier to just treat every codex as seperate and accept their differences, even in 'standard' gear, than be forced to buy two seperate codices and hunt down an faq just to play one army.

Pdf codices might be happening once a year or so, but don't expect that to last. GW has not given up on selling army books/codices yet.

MadDoc
17-02-2009, 04:27
The simple fact of the matter is GW have been dismissive of players concerns, given wishy-washy non-committal answers in the certain FAQs, and managed to actively contradict their justification for doing so by retro-actively altering other units/lists in their FAQs.

They've effectively thumbed their nose at certain players, and with new Codex books coming out (i.e. Imperial Guard) and even their common/shared gear appearing to be consistant with that in C:SM, the disparity is only going to get worse.

Warforger
17-02-2009, 04:48
Urrr not necessarily, there just thinking more in the long run, they don't like doing FAQ's or errata's mainly because they feel it would be better to do it through a codex:update, so they spend more time doing a codex update then making FAQ's and errata's, hell the FAQ's nowdays are made by councils of tournie winners and newcomers.

Rioghan Murchadha
17-02-2009, 04:53
...
As opposed to when they had loads :eyebrows:.

If people think these chapters need to be put in one book...they clearly do not these armies enough to judge.

Sorry. This is simply ignorance speaking. In RT days, Chaos had 2 books topping out at roughly 600 pages detailing the army lists and shedloads of background. (Yes, Slaves to Darkness, and The Lost and the Damned)

At the same time, Orks had 2 books hitting about 330 pages. Space Marines? They were mentioned in the rulebook, and some white dwarf articles.

So yeah, opposed to when they had lots. Simply because if you take your argument back far enough, there was a time when regular space marines weren't popular enough to warrant even 1 book. Frankly, you do not know Chaos enough to judge.

MadDoc
17-02-2009, 05:17
Urrr not necessarily, there just thinking more in the long run, they don't like doing FAQ's or errata's mainly because they feel it would be better to do it through a codex:update, so they spend more time doing a codex update then making FAQ's and errata's,

All of which completely fails to actually address any of what I'd mentioned. If they're willing/able to do it for one list then why not for another? Can't answer that? Not surprising, since there's little to no real readily discernable reason, outside of incompetence/apathy/spite/pig ignorance/laziness... take your pick. :skull:


hell the FAQ's nowdays are made by councils of tournie winners and newcomers.

Well in light of the fact that the two FAQs I was primarily referring to earlier are written by Design Studio staffers, and one runs completely contrary to GWs supposed line of "units/rules will not be fundamentally rewritten in FAQs", that isn't even remotely relevant... thats without even mentioning that its GW responsibility to ensure that materials they're releasing are/should be accurate.

But hey, since when should we expect a Company to have pride in its product? :rolleyes:

Ianos
17-02-2009, 06:14
But hey, since when should we expect a Company to have pride in its product? :rolleyes:


Go 'head and tell that to all the xenos players who have either been waiting or waited loooong years with not even decent FAQs. Or the DH players whose assault cannons are heavy 3 non-rending. Yeah sure, DAs don't get 3++ on their troops, maybe they should or not (i think not) but:

a) Marine players should wait in line, they just had a brand new dex, they got seperate dexes which apart from SW and BTs are pretty recent, they get minies all the time and even if they do not like they way their special chapter is represented in its own dex, they can still use the C:SM to play their army anyway they like!
b) Eldar lost craftworlds and their players are STILL very happy with their dex, so are Orks with clans gone. The only ones bitching are SM and some CSM players.
c) Why not GW think of IG, DE, DH and maybe Nids/Necrons for a change?, i mean these codices apart from subpar/older have also so many inconsistencies its not funny at all. I see everyone worried about his equipment being/cost different, how bout not knowing what it even does or it being TOTALLY useless.
d) Sure GW should update stuff, but the thing is even when they do, they still get the bitching for not doing it EXACTLY as EVERYONE wanted. Especially from the vocal majority (guess who they are again).
e) Ever since i 've been playing, its Marinehammer 40k, attention is shifting, gamewise, metawise, promowise, FAQwise, sure its gonna hurt, but balance is above all.

Finally, i hope you understand, i just quoted you for the start of it, i am not speaking personally to you MadDoc:). GW is definitely behind, but is still in the darkest of times, giving us the best, fluffiest, apocalyptic, new shiny, cinematic, fun and well developed game. I 'll take the gold with the mud alright!;)

Warforger
17-02-2009, 06:34
All of which completely fails to actually address any of what I'd mentioned. If they're willing/able to do it for one list then why not for another? Can't answer that? Not surprising, since there's little to no real readily discernable reason, outside of incompetence/apathy/spite/pig ignorance/laziness... take your pick.

If you've seen the confirmed next races, then the whole whining DE and SW players about how old there codex is is going to end. Only people who can complain are Inqusition, who are just going to have to stick with FW updates.

Lord Malorne
17-02-2009, 11:45
. Frankly, you do not know Chaos enough to judge.

Hence I didn't, as them 'olden days' are not relevent to this topic as I am sure you can agree, being as this is to bring wargear into line, not codex's into one. To me personaly, 2 books back then is hardly lots especialy considering the topic at hand, being 5th ed.

Captain Micha
17-02-2009, 12:27
No, because that means we'll get what we had before, for sure then.

3 marine releases to -four- non marine releases.

Of course that's exactly how it's going to play out.

itcamefromthedeep
17-02-2009, 16:10
Wargear at the same price with the same rules is what I'm hearing.

So, that's free Iron Halos for... whom?

BT Marshals?
Belial?
What about BA captains who already get it for free? Why do the other two get free stuff out of this? Or should BA just use the Captain entry out of C:SM? Should BA Captains get Relic Blades, then?

How much should BT be paying for their Narthecium? There's no price listed in the SM codex, so how much should Feel No Pain be worth to a 10-man BT Command Squad (plus characters)? The XX points it is listed as in their codex? What about DA Terminator Command Squads? How much is Feel No Pain worth for them? Should the BA Exsanguinator do the same thing as a Narthecium?

Or should the wargear just stay the same price as it is in the existing Chapter Codex, and leave the Nartheciums at current price?

I'll see what else I can dredge up. BA and DA are not so hot as is, and the BT vehicles are likely overpriced, but I'm not comfortable letting everyone get the whole kit and kaboodle (sp?) without a thorough check-up.

Znail
17-02-2009, 16:48
Wargear at the same price with the same rules is what I'm hearing. You hot that right as that is most common wish.


So, that's free Iron Halos for... whom?

BT Marshals?
Belial?
What about BA captains who already get it for free? Why do the other two get free stuff out of this? Or should BA just use the Captain entry out of C:SM? Should BA Captains get Relic Blades, then?


But where did you get the idea that people wanted things that arent in the codexes to begin with? It would take alot of work to figure out wich new things the special chapters should get and that goes beyond a basic rules update.

TheWuMK2
17-02-2009, 22:12
Wargear should be the same for all i mean a stormshield is a stormshield it does what it says on the tin and should be the same for all.
In the end all we need is a FAQ to sort all this out, but you know GW it will never happen and if it does not for a while.

Bekenel
17-02-2009, 23:31
Wargear at the same price with the same rules is what I'm hearing.

So, that's free Iron Halos for... whom?

BT Marshals?
Belial?
What about BA captains who already get it for free? Why do the other two get free stuff out of this? Or should BA just use the Captain entry out of C:SM? Should BA Captains get Relic Blades, then?

How much should BT be paying for their Narthecium? There's no price listed in the SM codex, so how much should Feel No Pain be worth to a 10-man BT Command Squad (plus characters)? The XX points it is listed as in their codex? What about DA Terminator Command Squads? How much is Feel No Pain worth for them? Should the BA Exsanguinator do the same thing as a Narthecium?

Or should the wargear just stay the same price as it is in the existing Chapter Codex, and leave the Nartheciums at current price?

I'll see what else I can dredge up. BA and DA are not so hot as is, and the BT vehicles are likely overpriced, but I'm not comfortable letting everyone get the whole kit and kaboodle (sp?) without a thorough check-up.

Well, hang on there. Wargear doing the same thing is what is being proposed. Iron Halo still does 4+ invulnerable save. I unfortunately don't have a BT codex, so I can't compare things there, but I did a comparison of BA/DA here (http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3290408&postcount=76). I think the points I made are fair, but I'd have to read through a BT book before I can make comparisons for that one.

MadDoc
18-02-2009, 00:10
Go 'head and tell that to all the xenos players who have either been waiting or waited loooong years with not even decent FAQs. Or the DH players whose assault cannons are heavy 3 non-rending.

Which is a disparity that should be corrected... but one which, surprise, surprise, GW consistantly refuses to address...


Yeah sure, DAs don't get 3++ on their troops, maybe they should or not (i think not) but:

Good job focusing on the issue somebody else raised and I just happened to be addressing, because thats all I really want 3++ SS Terminators for Troops... :rolleyes:

As far as I'm concerned 3++ SS were a bad idea, one amongst many in the disgusting tripe churned out in UM fanboi Matt Ward's C:SM...


a) Marine players should wait in line, they just had a brand new dex, they got seperate dexes which apart from SW and BTs are pretty recent, they get minies all the time and even if they do not like they way their special chapter is represented in its own dex, they can still use the C:SM to play their army anyway they like!

Do those non-Marine players have Codex books? Yes, ok no issue there...

Do they have common shared wargear that is inconsistant with identical wargear in the latest Codex books? In the instances where the answer is yes, they should be given wargear/rules parity for those items its that simple. Which, if you'd been paying attention to what most of us have been saying, is what we actually want... parity of common wargear.

Theres some other issues also. For instance, (while a DA specific issue) how is it that SGM Azreal Chapter Master of the Dark Angels, a Fleet based Chapter with the obscenely gunned Rock as their mobile Fortress Monastery, is unable to call down an Orbital Bombardment and yet Chapter Master Bob from the Generic Marines'R'Us Chapter can? Not to mention that for some reason Bob (and his Captains) seem to be more skilled in close combat than the Veteran Chapter Master Azreal...


b) Eldar lost craftworlds and their players are STILL very happy with their dex, so are Orks with clans gone. The only ones bitching are SM and some CSM players.

Ok this is seemingly going to come as a shock to you, but several of the people throwing their 2 pence/cents/drachma into the ring in support of what we're saying about there being a need for common wargear to be consistant across lists don't actually play either of those armies.


c) Why not GW think of IG, DE, DH and maybe Nids/Necrons for a change?,

By IG I take it you mean IG as in the next big Codex release Imperial Guard? Which all indications point to having parity of shared wargear... that Imperial Guard?


i mean these codices apart from subpar/older have also so many inconsistencies its not funny at all.

Such as? Other than those books which have non-5th compatible rules (which the FAQs have addressed for the most part :eek: GW actually giving a committal answer in an FAQ... isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse?), I'm not entirely sure what you're getting... :confused:


I see everyone worried about his equipment being/cost different, how bout not knowing what it even does or it being TOTALLY useless.

What wargear do you not know the function of? The Codex books you referenced all have wargear sections which lay out the function of items (even if, as in the case of Daemonhunters, certain items are still in need of being given parity). And as for any gear thats useless, you're not being forced to actually give it to any units...


d) Sure GW should update stuff, but the thing is even when they do, they still get the bitching for not doing it EXACTLY as EVERYONE wanted. Especially from the vocal majority (guess who they are again).

Not me, I can assure you. If GW actually pulled finger and redressed the disparity, rather than a wishy-washy cop-out attempt at deflecting it, then I, for one, would be satisfied.


e) Ever since i 've been playing, its Marinehammer 40k, attention is shifting, gamewise, metawise, promowise, FAQwise, sure its gonna hurt, but balance is above all.

I've been playing since near the end of Rogur Trader era and Marines have been a focus because, their imagery sells. Its that simple. Elite super soldiers of humanity going out and busting alien/traitor heads... that appeals to alot of people. YMMV


Finally, i hope you understand, i just quoted you for the start of it, i am not speaking personally to you MadDoc:). GW is definitely behind, but is still in the darkest of times, giving us the best, fluffiest, apocalyptic, new shiny, cinematic, fun and well developed game. I 'll take the gold with the mud alright!;)

You'll forgive me if several of my, and my friends, armies (not just my DAs) being impacted by GW's increasingly inconsistant and (apparently) dismissive attitude (apparently) towards certain player groups leaves me alittle cold.

Corax
18-02-2009, 04:05
You'll forgive me if several of my, and my friends, armies (not just my DAs) being impacted by GW's increasingly inconsistant and (apparently) dismissive attitude (apparently) towards certain player groups leaves me alittle cold.

GW not really caring about some (or all) of its player base is hardly anything new. Truth told, I sometimes wonder if they're so sheltered in their bunker up in Lenton that they have little or no idea what their consumers think or want.

Personally, I suspect that they simply don't care as long as people keep buying whatever the latest thing is. The inconsistencies are the result of the constant need to make each new army more Z0MG!!!1!!0!!1 teh r0XX0rs!! than the one before. I think it will continue to occur as long as it serves GWs economic interests.

Frep
18-02-2009, 04:28
I think Gamesworkshop should bring the marine codexes "into line" with one another, but only so far as wargear goes. A stormshield should be a stormshield, but on the other hand I'm not too upset over the differences in codexes. Should they be the same, sure, does it bother me? Not really.
On Monday I was in a Megabattle with a BA player, a SW player, Chaos demons and myself using one force org chart with codex marines and another other as Deathwing (4k points each, two charts apiece). Was there some confusion? Sure but the game was still fun, though the variety of psychic hoods on the table was rather amusing, especially since the one player had an inquisitor ally with yet another rule set.

Rioghan Murchadha
18-02-2009, 05:10
...
As opposed to when they had loads :eyebrows:.

If people think these chapters need to be put in one book...they clearly do not these armies enough to judge.


Hence I didn't, as them 'olden days' are not relevent to this topic as I am sure you can agree, being as this is to bring wargear into line, not codex's into one. To me personaly, 2 books back then is hardly lots especialy considering the topic at hand, being 5th ed.

Wow... Just wow. Do you even read, or remember things you've previously posted?

"As opposed to when they had loads" (in what certainly reads as a sarcastic manner) In reference to Chaos specifically. I have kindly pointed out that yes, indeed they did used to have 'loads' if you will. Some 600 pages, as opposed to the Whopping 104 we have now. (Also note that you are the one who initially referenced 'the olden days' albeit unintentionally I'm sure)

The 'topic at hand' in the post I responded to, was that people suggesting consolidating the marine codex don't know the army enough to pass judgements. Yet you yourself consistantly pass judgement on people who say boo about the changes wrought to Chaos over the years, when it's readily apparent you should be following your own advice.

Hive Mind 33
18-02-2009, 05:25
Well, to me this is exactly what 'bringing marine codexes into line' means. One codex to rule them all.

Now sure, Black Templars and Space Wolves are 'different' to regular marines.

But just how different are they? Or rather, are those differences enough, from a background and game balance perspective, to justify five separate codexes?

I say no!

A Black Templar marine is the same as a Space Wolves marine is the same as an Ultramarines marine is the same as a Salamanders marine.

The differences between the 'big five' are not sufficient to justify entirely seprarate rule books for them, which invariably creates internal balance problems.

HA! HA! Wow, you must never have seen the Space Wolf Codex. Acute Senses, True Grit, Counter attack, Fenrisian Wolves, Blood Feud. Needing to take an HQ at every 750 pts, Rune Priests,wolf Priests. Mark of the Wulfen, Wolf Totem, Wolf pelt, and Frost Blades.

Nice trolling though.

Master Stark
18-02-2009, 06:17
HA! HA! Wow, you must never have seen the Space Wolf Codex. Acute Senses, True Grit, Counter attack, Fenrisian Wolves, Blood Feud. Needing to take an HQ at every 750 pts, Rune Priests,wolf Priests. Mark of the Wulfen, Wolf Totem, Wolf pelt, and Frost Blades.

Nice trolling though.

Yeah, those are all the rules in the codex.

But why is the background so different that it justified those rules?

WLBjork
18-02-2009, 06:19
HA! HA! Wow, you must never have seen the Space Wolf Codex. Acute Senses, True Grit, Counter attack, Fenrisian Wolves, Blood Feud. Needing to take an HQ at every 750 pts, Rune Priests,wolf Priests. Mark of the Wulfen, Wolf Totem, Wolf pelt, and Frost Blades.

Nice trolling though.

Yeah, and of those Counter Attack is a USR now IIRC. True Grit will probably be deleted in favour of Bolter, Bolt Pistol and Close Combat Weapon. I'm pretty sure that Blood Feud has an equivalent USR as well.

That leaves Acute Senses, Fenrisian Wolves, HQ requirements (possibly being removed, as it's a pain in the fundament), Rune Priest can be replaced by the Librarian (it's only a different name after all) and Wolf Priest by Chaplain (albeit a Chaplain with access to the medical gear). Then there's what, 6-10 pieces of unique wargear (you missed the Wolf Tail Talisman and Chooser of the Slain out of that list :p).

What would that take? 2 pages of rules and 3 of background within the Marine Codex?

I'm all for having a separate codex when it's needed, but to be frank with USRs and other tools they no longer need the separate codex.

Corax
18-02-2009, 06:34
HA! HA! Wow, you must never have seen the Space Wolf Codex.

But none of the stuff you listed is of any great importance in terms of how the army plays. The only things that are important in that regard are the HQs (per 750pts), Blood Claws, Wolf Scouts, and Long Fangs. None of these things are so complicated that they could not be subsumed into a universal Codex with minor adjustments to the existing Codex and the units themselves.

Lord Malorne
18-02-2009, 09:30
Wow... Just wow. Do you even read, or remember things you've previously posted?

Not really :p.


"As opposed to when they had loads" (in what certainly reads as a sarcastic manner) In reference to Chaos specifically. I have kindly pointed out that yes, indeed they did used to have 'loads' if you will. Some 600 pages, as opposed to the Whopping 104 we have now. (Also note that you are the one who initially referenced 'the olden days' albeit unintentionally I'm sure).

Thats the trouble with the internet, you need sarcasm tags to be sarcastic unless people jump to conclusions (you). Thay had 2 according to you in what? 1st edition? 2nd edition? GW is hardly comparable now to what it was then, so I hope you forgive my ignorance in not taking them ye olden books into consideration...please.


The 'topic at hand' in the post I responded to, was that people suggesting consolidating the marine codex don't know the army enough to pass judgements. Yet you yourself consistantly pass judgement on people who say boo about the changes wrought to Chaos over the years, when it's readily apparent you should be following your own advice.


Not the topic at hand though i'm afraid.

How pray tell did I pass judgment? By the looks of it I made an ignorant remark showing that I did not know they had more than one book (I did know they had more than one, though I fully admit that with how long ago that was it was not relevent to me...seems someone did think it was relevent so I apologise again)

Follow my own advice?...ok I will stop passing judgment on chaos players :eyebrows:....when did I advise that?

And why do some people want the current line of non vanilla codex's subsumed? How does it make there lives better? Why do you care if they have their own book? It does in effect benefit you...but whatever, its your choice.

Anyhoo back on topic, wargear should be brought in line like the OP suggests.

Mozzamanx
18-02-2009, 13:21
EDITED: I've rather had a change of heart.

self biased
18-02-2009, 14:33
as has likely been previously stated, the inconsistency of wargear amongst various codcies can cause all kinds of heated words to be exchanged between the "It's Not Fair!" camp and the "Too Bad." camp. frankly both are legitimate opinions to have, and the whole situation is indicative of a larger problem.

the lack of consistency between codecies can be traced to an observation that's been made about the way games workshop releases its products, and i can give what is hopefully an enlightening example:

after a few months work and internal playtesting, GW releases a new edition into the wild, with a few specific design paradigms, and the two preceding codecies are written with the new edition in mind. after about two years, it becomes apparent to GW that the rules they wrote didn't really reflect all of the changes they wanted to make, so they attempt to bring things back in line. after another few years of this, they start work on the next edition, and the cycle starts again. they never stick to a design philosophy for an entire iteration of the game.

remember the third edition eldar avatar? he had a 5+ invulnerable save. clearly the design team thought that was really good, when the actual results weren't all that spectacular. i'm sure everyone here can find examples of this in the book of their choice.

which is why the wargear issue is what it is: the Dark Angels codex was written under a different design philosophy than the (though i hesitate to say) current one. this is also an argument in favor of a single marine codex covering all the chapters, rather than two books a year.

Rioghan Murchadha
19-02-2009, 04:26
Thats the trouble with the internet, you need sarcasm tags to be sarcastic unless people jump to conclusions (you). Thay had 2 according to you in what? 1st edition? 2nd edition? GW is hardly comparable now to what it was then, so I hope you forgive my ignorance in not taking them ye olden books into consideration...please.

Yes. They had 2. Pointing out that they had more than one was in response to your statement of "as opposed to when they had loads."


Not the topic at hand though i'm afraid.
Nope, you're right. The topic at hand is bringing marine books into line. I happen to disagree with subsuming all the marine books into one. If anything, I'd like to see other armies with multiple books when warranted (chaos). That aside. Yes, they should bring the wargear into line. If anything, they should do what they did with the 3rd ed ork codex. Have all the wargear stats and such in the main rulebook and not in the codex at all.:p


Follow my own advice?...ok I will stop passing judgment on chaos players :eyebrows:....when did I advise that?
I was referring to your comment about how anyone who thinks all chapters should be combined into one marine codex doesn't know the armies enough to judge. Specifically to be applied to making comments about the Chaos codex.


And why do some people want the current line of non vanilla codex's subsumed? How does it make there lives better? Why do you care if they have their own book? It does in effect benefit you...but whatever, its your choice.


People who do want this done probably want it done out of simple spite. Retribution for the fact that perhaps their armies had far more variety in the past that has been taken away and subsumed into one inadequate volume.

Orks had multiple books in the past, as did chaos, and if we went by the average size of non-space-marine books (100 pgs give or take) then if you brought the 2 chaos books forward to today, they would be 6 volumes instead of 2.

Lord Malorne
19-02-2009, 10:12
Yes. They had 2. Pointing out that they had more than one was in response to your statement of "as opposed to when they had loads.".

As I am sure you agree...I don't care about that.


Nope, you're right. The topic at hand is bringing marine books into line. I happen to disagree with subsuming all the marine books into one. If anything, I'd like to see other armies with multiple books when warranted (chaos). That aside. Yes, they should bring the wargear into line. If anything, they should do what they did with the 3rd ed ork codex. Have all the wargear stats and such in the main rulebook and not in the codex at all.:p.

To an extent I agree, I don't agree that this topic is to bring the codex's into line, as the OP stated in the first post, it is in regards to the wargear.

Though I completely and utterly agree that wargear should be in the rulebook. Whether you meant it or not.



I was referring to your comment about how anyone who thinks all chapters should be combined into one marine codex doesn't know the armies enough to judge. Specifically to be applied to making comments about the Chaos codex..

When did I say all chaos SHOULD be in one book?...You sir are incorrect.


People who do want this done probably want it done out of simple spite. Retribution for the fact that perhaps their armies had far more variety in the past that has been taken away and subsumed into one inadequate volume.

Now I see where they are coming from :D.


Orks had multiple books in the past, as did chaos, and if we went by the average size of non-space-marine books (100 pgs give or take) then if you brought the 2 chaos books forward to today, they would be 6 volumes instead of 2.

But how much of that was rules?

genestealer_baldric
19-02-2009, 10:48
No, because diffrent chapter have diffrent history and diffrent tactics, salamanders should have burny landraiders thats what they do, but dark templars who act like knights it dosnt realy fit them.

Rioghan Murchadha
19-02-2009, 17:32
When did I say all chaos SHOULD be in one book?...You sir are incorrect.
I think you misunderstand.
Someone mentioned that they felt Chaos suffered when they got crammed into a single book. (regardless of when that happened)

You responded with what really amounts to a needlessly flippant comment, then went on to say that anyone advocating putting all loyalist chapters into one book didn't know the armies enough to judge.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, how is it you can so easily brush off people's concerns about their armies simply because they aren't space marines, and at the same time, deny them the right to pass judgement on space marines because they don't play them enough.



Now I see where they are coming from :D.
Not me personally. But I'm sure that's where alot of it stems from. IMO the more army books the better. Oh, and I was serious about the wargear being in the main rulebook. Just that it was more of a joke that the ork codex in 3rd was the only one that didn't have common wargear stats in it.



But how much of that was rules?
Of the 2 books, WAAAAAAARGH! The Orks was the fluff book, weighing in at 106 pages (the size of an entire codex today). 'Ere We Go! was the rules, and that one hit 229 pages.

Lord Malorne
19-02-2009, 17:42
I think you misunderstand.
Someone mentioned that they felt Chaos suffered when they got crammed into a single book. (regardless of when that happened)

You responded with what really amounts to a needlessly flippant comment, then went on to say that anyone advocating putting all loyalist chapters into one book didn't know the armies enough to judge.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, how is it you can so easily brush off people's concerns about their armies simply because they aren't space marines, and at the same time, deny them the right to pass judgement on space marines because they don't play them enough.


You are reading into what I said too much. I can brush them off as the discussion at hand is SM chapters, not xenos, personaly I can't wait for Necrons and Dark Eldar, odd as it may seem as I bored as hell with a marine release, heck when the BT release was done I was annoyed as hell, didn't get any of the models untill months later, I would much rather have a non marine release so I hope I do not come accross as wanting more marines done.

I just want wargear, and I am happy to wait for that.


Not me personally. But I'm sure that's where alot of it stems from. IMO the more army books the better. Oh, and I was serious about the wargear being in the main rulebook. Just that it was more of a joke that the ork codex in 3rd was the only one that didn't have common wargear stats in it.

I know what you mean, I used to do orks and no wargear table at the start of 4th was a pain!


Of the 2 books, WAAAAAAARGH! The Orks was the fluff book, weighing in at 106 pages (the size of an entire codex today). 'Ere We Go! was the rules, and that one hit 229 pages.

Cool :D.

Rioghan Murchadha
19-02-2009, 23:00
You are reading into what I said too much. I can brush them off as the discussion at hand is SM chapters, not xenos, personaly I can't wait for Necrons and Dark Eldar, odd as it may seem as I bored as hell with a marine release, heck when the BT release was done I was annoyed as hell, didn't get any of the models untill months later, I would much rather have a non marine release so I hope I do not come accross as wanting more marines done.


Fair enough. I think it was the smiley that did it. The raised brow smiley looks too antagonistic.

I'm also a tad defensive about Chaos. Being that I run chaos as a result of the huge depth and breadth of background they used to have, and it seems these days that anyone that says boo about the current chaos dex is just a powergaming iron warriors playing cheesehead pining for the days of 3.5.

Mors
20-02-2009, 04:20
I vote no as without a points recost in my opinion it would unbalance some builds (beyond the GW normal unbalancing). Their units were costed based on certain equipment having certain abilities. Saying they can just FAQ it to have the same abilities is wrong. They would also need to FAQ new points costs too.

Hellfury
20-02-2009, 05:14
I vote no as without a points recost in my opinion it would unbalance some builds (beyond the GW normal unbalancing). Their units were costed based on certain equipment having certain abilities. Saying they can just FAQ it to have the same abilities is wrong. They would also need to FAQ new points costs too.

So beyond a few examples that were recosted in the new codex (cyclones for example) they cost the exact same as other armies pay but get substandard (the standard being the codex astartes, whose rules are for the most part superior) yields from the exact same items.

Sorry, but that theory you gave holds no water in the face of logic whatsoever.

Xelloss
20-02-2009, 10:34
I may add that vanilla marines have now free bolt pistol, free frag frenades, free krak grenades, free smoke luncher, free sponsors, and the three-las pred excluded cheaper vehicules. So I don't see how some wargear update could be so unbalancing... :confused:

Ironmonger
02-03-2009, 20:35
I voted yes. Just because certain chapters have access to different wargear doesn't mean that those chapters' wargear which is the same shouldn't be... well... the SAME!

Easy enough to do. Issue a FAQ stating something along the lines of: 'All weapons, wargear and options within the codices of non-Codex space marine chapters (i.e. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Black Templars, etc.) that are listed within Codex: Space Marines have the same cost, effects and rules as stated within Codex: Space Marines.' Done.

Goq Gar
02-03-2009, 20:41
The chapters werent the same in the old days, why make them the same now? They are meant to be very different armies. The space wolves should have very unique equipment compared to the salamanders, and so on.

SimonL
02-03-2009, 20:44
Easy enough to do. Issue a FAQ stating something along the lines of: 'All weapons, wargear and options within the codices of non-Codex space marine chapters (i.e. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Black Templars, etc.) that are listed within Codex: Space Marines have the same cost, effects and rules as stated within Codex: Space Marines.' Done.


I agree 100%, this will include the detrimental changes such as the reduction of the Psychic Hood range.

itcamefromthedeep
02-03-2009, 21:01
So, do you guys plan to have all the DA, BA and BT players buy a copy of the Space Marines codex, or should GW just post it all on their website so that anyone can make an army list without the codex?

What happens to the Narthecium on BT command squads? Feel No pain to the unit, then? FNP to Dark Angels Terminator command squads? What about the BA exsanguinator?

While you're at it, you might as well fix the BT vows to not be quite so abusive, or give BA Captains a free Iron Halo.

If you're doing all that, making sure eveything is balanced again, why don't you just remake the codex from the ground up? Or, more to the point, why don't you guys just wait for the next edition of the codex?

Vaktathi
02-03-2009, 21:06
If you're doing all that, making sure eveything is balanced again, why don't you just remake the codex from the ground up? Or, more to the point, why don't you guys just wait for the next edition of the codex? Because if the past is anything to go by, it may be 7th edition before that happens. I doubt DA for example will get a book until 2013/2014. BA may get a book in 2011/12 if they are lucky? SW's 2010? BT's 2012/13?

Thats a long time for a huge disparity in what should be identical wargear items and vehicles. A Land Raider should have the same capacity throughout every army, it really should.

The big sticking point for me is that when these books do get updated, they will get all the current stuff. DA stormshields won't remain 4+ in CC only, CSM land raiders will hold 12 models, etc... the changes will happen, they should have already been applied. Why not just get it over and done with?

Mozzamanx
02-03-2009, 21:11
Despite the inadequacies of the Dark Angel codex compared to it's bigger brother, I have to say no. I'll admit it's ludicrous from a fluff point of view, and understand precisely why people are peeved off.

However, the point is that it is a separate codex. Why even bother with a different title if the contents are exactly the same? We have had our own codex for years, and yet the players seem dead set against any differences, even moderate.

Yes, our wargear is worse. No, there is no justification for it in the background. But really, I dont care. Would players honestly prefer it if Dark Angels got wrapped up into the next Codex: Space Marines, and just be done with it? Hell, even making Belial and pals special characters? Is that a better alternative than being a genuinely different codex to you?

Of course, update the rules for the next Codex. Give us our bigger Raiders and better Shields, and cost them appropiately. But we don't have to follow them in everything. I for one, hate the gimped Scouts and have no idea how Games Workshop justified BS3 when they come from the absolute cream of the crop, with years of experience on top.


I totally disagree with you Ironmonger, no offence intended. What I think we need is a big paragraph right at the front of the next Dark Angels codex, in a box right next to the 'why play this army' speech.

"Despite appearances, this is not Codex: Space Marines. Consequently, rules and updates will not carry over from one to the other, and in effect they are as different as Codex: Tau. You may wish to update wargear in a friendly match, but for tournaments and official stores, these will not apply and never will."

jimbo1701
02-03-2009, 21:24
I voted yes, I do think that the storm shields/scout BS&WS etc should all be brought into line across the codices simply for the fact that all neophytes would be at the same skill level and that SMs should all get the very best wargear in the Imperium. It's not as if the BAs/DAs/BTs and SWs are out of favour with the mechanicus and get substandard storm shields now is it. :)

I don't however think that the chapters should all play out the same by any means. DAs should have special characters to allow ravenwing/deathwing armies, BAs should have the same to allow JP troops and DC. These aspects make the armies play out as unique. Things such as scouts as troops and scout bikers should also be in there - these are fundamental operating mechanics of any chapter with a basis in the codex astartes. (BAs aren't much more deviant than whitescars in this respect) SWs should be able to take BCs and GHs as troops and WSs as elites (as I think they are now) as this reflects their modus operandi.

Things such as thunderfires, redeemers, C:SM special characters, certain libby powers, Ironclads, sternguard/vanguard etc should be reserved for codex chapters to make them unique and desirable in different respects. I'd have no problem in theory to a joint C:SM containing all chapters - there'd need to be a shed-load of pages and about a dozen 'army changing' special characters to make it work tho. (how about codex: space marines and codex:non-codex space marines instead??) Makes sense to me but I appreciate this is a delicate topic around here and so fully expect a few retorts. :)

waiyuren
02-03-2009, 21:57
When i was looking at getting into 40K, I actually thought the books for Blood Angels/ Dark Angels etc, etc were "expansions".... For instance, you want to play Space Wolves? Then pick up a copy of Codex: Space Marines and a copy of the Space Wolves "expanded rules".

Imagine my suprise when i found out those teeny little books were codex's in their own right! (My original assumption was the reason i opted to not go Dark Angels and build a Relictors themed army..... I should've just bought the damned teeny little codex. I want Death Company dag-nabbit! :( )

itcamefromthedeep
02-03-2009, 22:33
When i was looking at getting into 40K, I actually thought the books for Blood Angels/ Dark Angels etc, etc were "expansions".... For instance, you want to play Space Wolves? Then pick up a copy of Codex: Space Marines and a copy of the Space Wolves "expanded rules". That's exactly what Space Wolves remain, to this very day.

Ironmonger
03-03-2009, 00:37
Despite the inadequacies of the Dark Angel codex compared to it's bigger brother, I have to say no. I'll admit it's ludicrous from a fluff point of view, and understand precisely why people are peeved off.

However, the point is that it is a separate codex. Why even bother with a different title if the contents are exactly the same? We have had our own codex for years, and yet the players seem dead set against any differences, even moderate.

Yes, our wargear is worse. No, there is no justification for it in the background. But really, I dont care. Would players honestly prefer it if Dark Angels got wrapped up into the next Codex: Space Marines, and just be done with it? Hell, even making Belial and pals special characters? Is that a better alternative than being a genuinely different codex to you?

Of course, update the rules for the next Codex. Give us our bigger Raiders and better Shields, and cost them appropiately. But we don't have to follow them in everything. I for one, hate the gimped Scouts and have no idea how Games Workshop justified BS3 when they come from the absolute cream of the crop, with years of experience on top.


I totally disagree with you Ironmonger, no offence intended. What I think we need is a big paragraph right at the front of the next Dark Angels codex, in a box right next to the 'why play this army' speech.

"Despite appearances, this is not Codex: Space Marines. Consequently, rules and updates will not carry over from one to the other, and in effect they are as different as Codex: Tau. You may wish to update wargear in a friendly match, but for tournaments and official stores, these will not apply and never will."

But Codex: Dark Angels and Codex: Black Templars AREN'T as different from Codex: Space Marines as Codex: Tau Empire. They're all Space Marines. Power armour is power armour, a bolter's a bolter, Land Raider a Land Raider, etc. Each has special rules, organizational differences, special characters, etc., etc... but we aren't talking about all that. We're talking about having a Storm Shield in one chapter function the same as in another,or a Land Raider carry as many Black Templars as Ultramarines. Are you telling me that you think when the Ad Mech are manufacturing a LR, they stop and go, 'Harry, you idiot! The smaller Land Raiders go in that area for the Dark Angels, and the bigger ones go over there for the Salamanders!'?

Znail
03-03-2009, 00:54
So, do you guys plan to have all the DA, BA and BT players buy a copy of the Space Marines codex, or should GW just post it all on their website so that anyone can make an army list without the codex?
If GW makes an update then they should ofcourse post it and not keep it secret. And if you consider something that costs in the same area as a happy mean a year a great financial burden then I suggest you stay away from any game by GW.


What happens to the Narthecium on BT command squads? Feel No pain to the unit, then? FNP to Dark Angels Terminator command squads? What about the BA exsanguinator?
The downside of updating equipment is obviously that not all are upgrades.


While you're at it, you might as well fix the BT vows to not be quite so abusive, or give BA Captains a free Iron Halo.

If you're doing all that, making sure eveything is balanced again, why don't you just remake the codex from the ground up? Or, more to the point, why don't you guys just wait for the next edition of the codex?
How about we just skip the hyperboles and everything is fine instead?

Ironmonger
03-03-2009, 01:05
Originally Posted by itcamefromthedeep

If you're doing all that, making sure eveything is balanced again, why don't you just remake the codex from the ground up? Or, more to the point, why don't you guys just wait for the next edition of the codex?

Well, that's what FAQ's are FOR.