PDA

View Full Version : Condensing Warhammer 40,000?



The Inevitable One
05-07-2010, 04:52
This thread might have already been done a numerous amount of times, but I would like to see the new perspective of what people think about condensing Warhammer 40,000. As of right now we have sixteen codexes/codices and apparently the rule of thumb is to redo them every three to four years depending on how popular they are. With this said, it would take a huge amount of time to redo all of them, so would it be viable to compact them into one or two army rather than three, four, or even five armies? Obviously a fair bit of work but in the end it might make the process of releasing things a lot easier.

What is your take on the subject?

shaso_iceborn
05-07-2010, 05:05
I have to vote no, as IMO less variety (condensing) would make more people move away from the game than the cost of it.

IcedAnimals
05-07-2010, 05:07
condensing it would be a horrible business move. Having things to release over a long period of time is key to them actually being in business. If there was "imperium,xeno,chaos" then a single year into a new edition they would be out of rules. What would they do? keep releasing the same 3 codices every year? Shorten the time between major rules updates? fill in the months with tons of those horrible rules suppliments?

A codex release is what gets people talking about your product. Daemons are getting a second wave release that will probably do decent but its not getting tons of hype compared to the 3 codices that were released this year.

Death Company
05-07-2010, 05:13
I voted no; to do so would be terrible for the business.

The Inevitable One
05-07-2010, 05:14
I thought that was the case. To be honest, I am neither here nor there. I would have liked to have seen a codex for each faction, such as Codex: Chaos or Codex: Imperium, but as people have stated it goes against sales and game play balance. It would give us the opportunity to see how fights really are rather than just looking at one side. Just wondering as to what other people thought about it.

DDogwood
05-07-2010, 05:31
The Orks codex is a good example of how a single codex can contain a huge variety of units and army types. So, I think that condensing 40k would actually be a good thing, from a gaming perspective. From a business perspective, it would be more challenging, but not insurmountable.

First, fewer codices doesn't necessarily mean less variety. With armies like Chaos Space Marines, Tau, Necrons, and Dark Eldar, there are relatively few viable army builds, so more codices has hardly meant more variety in these cases. On the other hand, the Imperial Guard, Ork, and Space Marines codices each allow players to field a huge variety of interesting, fun, and competitive armies. The challenge is to make units and models within codices as balanced with each other as possible. It's hard to decide whether to take a Battlewagon or a squadron of Killa Kans, because they are balanced with each other even though they do totally different things. The main challenge this presents for "condensed" 40k is that there would be more things to balance in each codex.

Second, the Codex release format is really bad from a marketing perspective. GW would probably be better to follow a model like Privateer Press does with Warmachine - they are currently releasing codex-style books for each faction, but you don't actually need them to play the game. All of the rules are in the main rulebook, and every model you buy comes with a stat card containing all the rules you need to play it. Everyone still buys the books, because they're interesting, well-written, and contain all the stats in one place, but they are not necessary for the game. This allows Privateer Press to release new models with new rules on a regular basis, so players tend to spend more money spread over a longer period of time, instead of the sporadic bulk purchases most 40k/WFB players seem to make. It also means that every faction gets regular updates, so there is no army that slowly dies, like Dark Eldar, because of a lack of support for many years. That's not to say that Privateer's model is perfect, but it does illustrate that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

As far as playing the same army over and over and over again... IMO that's already a huge problem with 40k, and I think that GW would have to make a concerted effort to make it worse. 75% of the armies out there are some variety of Space Marines, and even though the lists tend to be pretty varied, it's still the same basic troops over and over again. Of the other 25%, several armies have only a handful of useful builds, so when you fight a Necron army it feels exactly the same as every other Necron army you've ever fought. It's hard to see how condensing the codices would make that any worse, unless they cut out most of the different units at the same time.

If it were done right, condensing 40k could really revitalize the game. That said, I don't think GW will ever do this, and I doubt that the current management has the vision to do it right. They're more interested in pushing expensive models on impressionable young people than in taking major risks to improve a game.

Gorbad Ironclaw
05-07-2010, 06:17
I don't see a problem with condensing some of the lists into the same book, or making bigger books that cover more things.
For instance I could easily see a much bigger book called Imperial Forces that covers everything from Imperial Guard/PDF forces to Inquisitors to Rogue Trader retinues to Sisters of Battle and other Ecclesiarchy units.

Then another book called Space Marines containing, you guessed it, the Space Marines. And no, that doesn't mean you have to make everything the same, there should still be plenty of scope for variation.

Now this approach wouldn't be valid for every list, for instance it would be hard to create a similar book for Necrons. But you could either have that as just a smaller book or go with something like the campaign books released by Battlefront (or Forgeworld I would think?) and such a format could also help you grow both new and existing armies over time with adding additional options or entirely new ways of fielding an old army.

The current Codex system is by no means the only way to support the game and increasingly I don't even think it's a very good way of doing it. There are just too many armies to support everything in an adequate fashion doing it the "old" way.

Megabyte
05-07-2010, 07:23
I voted no as I could see that any condensing would actually mean scrapping. It may not take long for a set of models relegated to a chapter of a book to be finally axed. A casual re-do of the book and bam a whole army is caste into the void.

Also why would you want to buy a book which has units which are not relevant to you in? GW prices are already high (Understatement!), a bigger book will just justify another price increase. This also applies to the campaign books. They're ok for your niche army, an army focused on one from a certain campaign, but I can't see that working for say Necrons, who would buy them?

I really didn't think that people would want to end with Space Marines vs The Rest!

AndrewGPaul
05-07-2010, 07:42
Second, the Codex release format is really bad from a marketing perspective. GW would probably be better to follow a model like Privateer Press does with Warmachine - they are currently releasing codex-style books for each faction, but you don't actually need them to play the game. All of the rules are in the main rulebook, and every model you buy comes with a stat card containing all the rules you need to play it. Everyone still buys the books, because they're interesting, well-written, and contain all the stats in one place, but they are not necessary for the game. This allows Privateer Press to release new models with new rules on a regular basis, so players tend to spend more money spread over a longer period of time, instead of the sporadic bulk purchases most 40k/WFB players seem to make. It also means that every faction gets regular updates, so there is no army that slowly dies, like Dark Eldar, because of a lack of support for many years. That's not to say that Privateer's model is perfect, but it does illustrate that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I'm not sure that model would work with 40K. It works with other games because they tend not to have unit upgrades. For example, in Warmachine, the only thing you can do to change a unit of Cygnar Trenchers is add more troopers. Try to get all the options for an Imperial Guard infantry squad or a Space Marine tactical squad on a credit-card-sized stat card. :)

However, I am of the opinion that you only need a single Codex: Space Marines to cover all the available Chapters, with the possible exception of Grey Knights. I don't think we'll see that happening now, though; there are too many fiddly rules for Space Wolves, Blood Angels, etc for the sake of "difference".

Lord Damocles
05-07-2010, 08:34
Roll Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Blood Angels, Codex: Dark Angels, Codex: Black Templars, and Codex: Space Wolves into one. Job done.

IJW
05-07-2010, 08:46
apparently the rule of thumb is to redo them every three to four years depending on how popular they are
For reference, the most frequently updated codex is the Space Marine one, and that's once per edition (4-6 years).

Other books get redone on a much less regular basis - the previous Ork codex was eight years old when replaced, IG was nine. WH, DH, DE & Necrons are all in that kind of range or even higher.

Solar_Eclipse
05-07-2010, 11:55
Yes yes, definately yes.

If each Codex filled multiple playstyles and army types, we could condense it to this:

1. Space Marines (Chapter Rules, variation, etc)
2. The Hordes of Chaos (Marines, Daemons, Mutants and traitors. Make it very variable)
3. Craftworld Eldar
4. Dark Eldar
5. Orks
6. Forces of the Imperium (Guard and the other things like Inquisitors, assassins, etc. This is from a Guard player)
7. Tyranids
8. Necrons
9. tau Empire

Yes, this isnt much of a condensation but its turned from 14 Codices to 9.

If you got a codex update every 3 months you would have the entire rulesset updated each 2.25 years (compared to the 3.5 years for 14 books)

AndrewGPaul
05-07-2010, 13:04
Roll Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Blood Angels, Codex: Dark Angels, Codex: Black Templars, and Codex: Space Wolves into one. Job done.


A man after my own heart. :)

Space Wolves - 2 Special weapons, but no heavy weapons in Tactical Squads, troopers can take a CCW. Devastators max 5 man squads, Blood Claws maximum 15. Allow models from Terminator, Assault Terminator, Vanguard and Sternguard Veteran Squads to become part of another squad as leader.

Blood Angels - Death Company as a special unit.

Dark Angels - Honestly not sure if they need to be a non-Codex chapter. Disallow them from taking Sterguard or Vanguard Veteran squads if you really must, I suppose.

Black Templars - don't really know about them; no heavy weapons in Tactical squads, allow Tactical and Scout squads to combine (like the Imperial Guard Combined Squads rule)?

Yes, this waters down the difference between Space Marine Chapters - in some cases down to merely being a different paint colour. I honestly don't see this as a problem. I do, however, understand that current players have been led to expect more; it may be too late to repair the damage (IMO :) ) at this stage. It should have been done in the 2nd edition codex, really.

__ALEX__
05-07-2010, 13:41
I voted yes, anything that brings codices/army books up to speed with edition rules changes (which are inevitable) quicker, is a good thing.

It wouldn't necessarily be a terrible business move because if you buy a book that lets you play say Chaos Marines, Chaos Daemons and Chaos Cults/Renegades (and any combinations thereof) it automatically gives you access to three armies, making it more likely you'll buy miniatures from these ranges - whereas if you go and buy Codex Chaos Space Marines and JUST have access to those rules you are less likely to pay another 20 quid to get the rules for Daemons for example - meaning potentially less miniature sales.

In fact I'd go further, and say that the Black Codex (2nd edition 40k - Codex Army Lists) and the Ravening Hordes (6th edition WFB) lists were excellent. Yes they only came about to bring armies up to speed with rules changes until they redid the books BUT it gave you access to so much stuff.

On top of that if you played games with JUST the core rules and Black Codex style army lists from each side I think you'd have much better and more balanced games. Of course there may be a few flaws with the Black Codex army lists themselves but since the rules would be simplified and condensed, it'd be much easier to update regularly than individual codices/books.

Wishing
05-07-2010, 13:41
As already stated, "condensing 40k" seems the same as saying "condensing the imperium, mainly marines". I don't think many people are wanting tyranids, tau and necrons melded together in one book, because they are not thematically related, whereas everything imperium is strongly related and could easily be one big book or two smaller ones.

Personally I would really really like this - but GW have dug themselves into a hole with so much focus on marines that they can't really get out of it easily. Them saying "yes, your armies of differently coloured marines no longer get their own separate books and wargear lists etc., get used to it" would presumably cause enough marine players to quit in disgust that it's just not something that would ever realistically happen.

kane40k
05-07-2010, 13:45
They condensed them all in to the 3rd ed rulebook... and that was Ugly man! gotta vote no.. not for me man!

808thMyrmidons
05-07-2010, 14:58
i voted no because even though updating the codexes takes a lot of man power(but hey lets be honest they have the resources to do it) if you were to condense it all it be like taking the mona lisa and making it a stick figure. you wouldn't have this 3d world full of fluffy goodness.

Old School
05-07-2010, 15:01
A big fat NO!

Sounds more like dumbing down.

megatrons2nd
05-07-2010, 15:28
I voted maybe. The current format doesn't work because they are updating Sub-Armies before full armies. Face it 3-6 flavors of Space Marines is not another army, it is the same thing with slightly different units and abilities. If they put all the marines in one codex(which is able to be done) they could actually do other armies to. If they don't condense then maybe(yeah right) they could release regular armies before doing all those stupid Sub-Armies.


Quoted from Wishing
Personally I would really really like this - but GW have dug themselves into a hole with so much focus on marines that they can't really get out of it easily. Them saying "yes, your armies of differently coloured marines no longer get their own separate books and wargear lists etc., get used to it" would presumably cause enough marine players to quit in disgust that it's just not something that would ever realistically happen.

True, but how much of that war gear is the same thing with a different name?

Col. Tartleton
05-07-2010, 15:55
I would release more stuff not less if I was changing things. I'd commandeer Black Library and make them do something productive.

Edition Rulebooks every 5 or 6 years

Annual Campaign Supplements

Reduce the number of Codexes to barebones stuff and make sure they're all out by halfway through an edition ie. release one every few months so that by the second half of the edition everyone has their new book (It makes no sense to drag it out to a codex every other edition when you can make a quicker turn over by having it done, because people will buy it every few years.)

Factional Source Books Supplement cycled through two editions for every codex that have the factions art, fluff, a couple short stories and some forge world type faction lists. Ie. SM have 5 sourcebooks: UM, BA, SW, BT, DA. INQ have Daemon Hunters, Witch Hunters , Alien Hunters, and Ecclesiarchy. Orks have a mainline Goffs, mounted up Speed Freaks, soldier Blood Axes, and savage Tribal, etc.

Eldar could have sword wind Biel Tan, seer and guardian heavy Ulthwe, ruthless Corsairs, Ferocious Dark Eldar, all using a broad codex and factional supplements.

The more stuff the more money. Fact...

Megabyte
05-07-2010, 18:52
I can understand an Space Marine codex for all the chapters, but if they are selling individually then that should continue. People are constantly saying how GW is losing money, it would be stupid for them to withdraw codexes if the individual marine chapters are selling well anyway. Codex Imperium, maybe, but then again if you can't use all the models in the book in one army due to the rules then why bother buying it (I.e. Inquisition and IG)

I just fear condensing means dumbing down. Codex 'The Rest'.... Sorry not for me!

gwarsh41
05-07-2010, 20:13
"Codex Imperium" and "Codex Xenos"
Good guys book, and bad guys book, you get to decide.
There, problem solved. (and dont get all "no one is bad in 40k" on me)

If you really want to, make a third one. "Codex: Chaos" It can have marines, daemons, and traitor guard in it... maybe dark eldar too...

Both will cost 150USD and come in a 3 ringed binder. It will weight 50LB and you will sign a waiver for back problems when you buy it.
Seriously, go pick up all of the marine, guard, and inquisition books at once. Then toss on a random book for extra pictures of all the armies together. Is that really something you want to take to ever game?

big squig
05-07-2010, 20:33
I would like to see the game brought down to eight armies:

1. Marines (would include every chapter)
2. Orks
3. Eldar
4. Chaos (includes daemons)
5. Imperium (includes guard and inquisition)
6. Tyranids
7. Tau
8. Necrons

Just let dark eldar die.

Also, the entire codex system that GW uses now is just bad business. They're literally throwing money down the toilet. All codexes should be in the main rule book balanced with each other. These should be real army lists, with full options sans special characters. They should be done since day one of an edition release. Never update them.

Then, start releasing codexs, but change "what" a codex "is". A codex should simply be a reprint of the army list within the rulebook, just laid out very nicely in full color with lots of flavor text and good graphic design. A codex should have no new rules at all except for special characters. It should have paining articles, tactic articles, battle reports, new scenarios, a campaign, very in-depth fiction, maybe a comic, an in-depth look at each unit, lots of illustrations. It should be the total guide and collector's book for your army.

People shouldn't "need" a codex to play, but they should "want" one.

Megabyte
05-07-2010, 21:49
@big squig-I disagree with much of what you say, especially about Dark Eldar, but I definately agree with your point on the codex. That would be great if they could be done like that, it would make them far more interesting. You should always "want" the codex, its use is a key, but side option.

ForgottenLore
05-07-2010, 22:24
Well, if we are wishlisting what we would like the line up to include...

My list, trying to be somewhat realistic here and bow to the market forces that seem to drive the game

Space Marines (including special rules and characters for a variety of different chapters inc. Blood and Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Black Templars because these two seem to be structured sufficiently differently from codex chapters to need their own books
Imperial guard
Chaos SMs
Daemons
Traitor guard to cover the NON-space marines who convert to chaos
Orks
Eldar
Tyranids
Tau
Necrons
A New Xeno race of some sort, preferably non-humanoid

And one or more extra thick books in a Codex:Minor Powers series that would include limited army lists for small forces that either don't usually deploy on their own or only fight in particular circumstances, including Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, Sisters, Deathwatch, and Inquisitor retinues, genestealer cults, kroot mercenaries, adeptus mechanicus, harlequins, feral orks and so on and include rules for allying these forces with some of the main armies.

The minor powers would then get limited miniatures support and players would be able to try out some different types of forces and experiment with different armies.

I might also give each army 2 books. One with the core army list as well as tactics and limited fluff and modeling that would serve as the tournament list for that army and another that includes some oddball units, more fluff and more detailed advice on painting and converting. That all might not be economically viable though.

enygma7
05-07-2010, 22:36
Currently Dark Angels do not merit their own codex - by their own background they follow standard codex organisation except for the deathwing (terminators with fearless) and ravening (marine bikes with scout). The background and special characters and interesting and deserving of a codex but the actual army list itself isn't (in fact, being a seperate codex causes all sorts of inconsistencies). They either need to be rolled into the main marine codex, released as a free FAQ/expansion document or to be made sufficiently unique to merit their own book.

I say this as a dark angels player.

Bunnahabhain
05-07-2010, 23:00
Yes.

1) Marines are Marines are mARINE ARE accused capslock are marines. We neither want nor need 17 codexs fir them.

2) better cire rules allow more varaition. Trust in balanced rules, intresting gameplay, and great models to sell the game.. .GW can do 3, and have done 1 and 2 at points...

MajorWesJanson
06-07-2010, 00:32
Currently Dark Angels do not merit their own codex - by their own background they follow standard codex organisation except for the deathwing (terminators with fearless) and ravening (marine bikes with scout). The background and special characters and interesting and deserving of a codex but the actual army list itself isn't (in fact, being a seperate codex causes all sorts of inconsistencies). They either need to be rolled into the main marine codex, released as a free FAQ/expansion document or to be made sufficiently unique to merit their own book.

I say this as a dark angels player.

I wish they had done it this round. It would not take much at all. Say 5 pages of fluff, and the following characters added:
Azrael- Chapter Tactics for Fearless and maybe no Gets Hot on plasma weapons
Sammael- Bikes as Troops, Land Speeders as scoring.
Belial- Terminators are scoring. Command Squads can take Terminator armor for +x points per model. Assault Terminators can take 1 Heavy Weapon per 5 models.
Ezekial- Alternate Librarian option to Tigurius. Different powers.
Asmodai- Alternate Chaplain option to Cassius. Preferred Enemy: Chaos Marines. Hunt the Fallen- choose an enemy HQ. If killed, it becomes an objective or gives d3 extra kill points.
Naaman- Scout upgrade character. CC version of Telion.

big squig
06-07-2010, 02:20
@big squig-I disagree with much of what you say, especially about Dark Eldar, but I definately agree with your point on the codex. That would be great if they could be done like that, it would make them far more interesting. You should always "want" the codex, its use is a key, but side option.

Well, maybe saying we should kill dark eldar was a bit much...:p

It's just that I don't see GW ever getting back to them, no matter how many times they hint at it.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
06-07-2010, 02:37
I would like to see the game brought down to eight armies:

1. Marines (would include every chapter)
2. Orks
3. Eldar
4. Chaos (includes daemons)
5. Imperium (includes guard and inquisition)
6. Tyranids
7. Tau
8. Necrons


This list is how I would set it up too, with the following exceptions: I would put traitors/mutants in with the Chaos list (Lost and the Damned style) and I would include Dark Eldar and Eldar in the same book. Yes I know the rage that the second one would cause.

That having been said it'll never, ever happen. It's a rotten business move that, while it would do a good job streamlining the glut of codices and alternative army lists, would likely result in a significant loss of income for GW. There are several Space Marine armies because they all sell quite well and help fund the work on other armies.

Does it suck? Kind of. Is it ever going to change? Not a chance.

megatrons2nd
06-07-2010, 03:22
There are several Space Marine armies because they all sell quite well and help fund the work on other armies.



There are several Space Marine Armies because GW wants them to sell better and updates them more, and puts them in every starter box and points new players right to them every time someone expresses interest in the game, and gives them stupidly overpowered fluff making some people buy them thinking they are awesomely powerful warriors. I could sell some people a broken car using the same dribble they spit out about Marines. Rant over.

I still have seen no proof that they sell better than everything else if they weren't given every advantage over all the other armies. It's like trying to raise several kids and only giving all the attention to one of them. That one will be really good and perform well the others will be problem children and not perform well.

big squig
06-07-2010, 03:52
This list is how I would set it up too, with the following exceptions: I would put traitors/mutants in with the Chaos list (Lost and the Damned style) and I would include Dark Eldar and Eldar in the same book. Yes I know the rage that the second one would cause.

That having been said it'll never, ever happen. It's a rotten business move that, while it would do a good job streamlining the glut of codices and alternative army lists, would likely result in a significant loss of income for GW. There are several Space Marine armies because they all sell quite well and help fund the work on other armies.

Does it suck? Kind of. Is it ever going to change? Not a chance.

I think there are much better incentives to play space marines than putting out tons of codexes. I'd like to think that GW is a miniature company. If the rules are well written and in one book, they can focus on new minis and supplements, and in-store promotions/events to inspire people to play armies like space wolves without releasing a book of special rules just for the sake of being special.

GW could safely put in a lot less energy and money in to getting people to play and collect.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
06-07-2010, 04:06
I think there are much better incentives to play space marines than putting out tons of codexes. I'd like to think that GW is a miniature company. If the rules are well written and in one book, they can focus on new minis and supplements, and in-store promotions/events to inspire people to play armies like space wolves without releasing a book of special rules just for the sake of being special.

GW could safely put in a lot less energy and money in to getting people to play and collect.

I don't disagree with this statement (or the statement above it), but at this point it's a chicken-egg situation. Aside from the obvious marketability of playing super-human "warriors of good", at this point GW is able to milk marines for all they are worth because those same marines have been re-hashed several times over. You can sell the same models over and over again, in several different niches and several times during an edition cycle.

I would prefer the compressed list that's been talked about. I'd happily pay more for large codices that contained massive options and possibilities. I'd love to see the marines all put together, not just because they are very nearly the same army across several books but also to avoid nonsense like differences in the strength of identical weapons from one army to the other. But to do so would invoke losses for GW, at least in the short term. And if the GW money men have shown anything during the latest spending money crunch in their major markets, it's that they are more worried about the immediate then the long term.

chromedog
06-07-2010, 09:17
Condense it into rulebook + codex:Good Guys (we automatically win) and Codex:Bad guys (who just plain suck).

Yeah, way to go.

Voted no, in case you were wondering. More choice means I can ignore more options and focus on the four armies I actually like.

Warmaster Bill
06-08-2010, 01:05
Bad business move for GW, had to vote no

ashc
06-08-2010, 07:34
I suppose it is considered condensing, but there could certainly be more comprehensive books that did away with a number of other ones...

Petay1985
06-08-2010, 08:40
I suppose it is considered condensing, but there could certainly be more comprehensive books that did away with a number of other ones...

I agree i am reluctant to call it condensing, but i suppose it is; I think there should be the following codicies, and to qualify my opinion i am a die-hard marine player:

- Imperial Guard
- Space Marines (all including Grey Knights)
- Ecclesiarchy / Sisters of Battle
- Adeptus Mechanicus

- Forces of Chaos (to include, legions, renegades, daemons, etc..)

- Eldar & Dark Eldar
- Tau
- Orks
- Tyranids
- Necrons

That gives 10 codicies, i would opt for 2 codex releases a year and an official store participation campaign every year, which can potentially progress the timeline and evolve the setting and story. Thus i have voted 'maybe'.

EDIT: however in complete contradiction i'd love to see many mode races/factions with individual books, done to a high standard with well balances individual play styles and army lists/units. But is wishes were fishes....

Cuchulain84
06-08-2010, 09:07
I think the game would be more balanced if the codexes were condensed. At the moment I think there are too many special rules specific to each army and it makes it very difficult to play well against an army unless you've read their codex cover to cover. It must be quite off putting for new players when you are trying to explain a rule but have to keep adding layers and layers of disclaimers and variations.

I don't see why all the SM codexes can't roll into one with certain chapters having a unique unit or two and maybe slightly different unit restrictions. (Contraversially, you could probably put CSM in there too)

ashc
06-08-2010, 09:08
(Contraversially, you could probably put CSM in there too)

Actually I think Chaos would benefit from being less based around marines and expanded in to a large renegades/daemons/marines Forces of Disorder type book.

ForgottenLore
06-08-2010, 09:20
Just a note.

I noticed that GW just updated their website and Blood Angels and Space Wolves are now listed as separate armies but Dark Angels and Black Templars are listed under the generic space marine army.

Think there is any significant to that?


Actually I think Chaos would benefit from being less based around marines and expanded in to a large renegades/daemons/marines Forces of Disorder type book.

I think that would be a really good way to make CSM not be "the OTHER space marines". It would do something fairly unique with them and keep them distictly separate from loyalist marines.

ashc
06-08-2010, 09:23
I would imagine its because the BAs and SWs have had large-releases in 5th edition as armies. Black Templars and Dark Angels were very much 4th edition, and at the time all were rolled under the 'Space Marine' section.

They'll get their section when they get their update.

insectum7
06-08-2010, 21:34
1. Space Marines (Chapter Rules, variation, etc)
2. The Hordes of Chaos (Marines, Daemons, Mutants and traitors. Make it very variable)
3. Craftworld Eldar
4. Dark Eldar
5. Orks
6. Forces of the Imperium (Guard and the other things like Inquisitors, assassins, etc. This is from a Guard player)
7. Tyranids
8. Necrons
9. tau Empire



Yessir. P-l-e-a-s-e... Trim the Imperial fat a bit.

I'd even be ok with a Space Marine Variant Codex, similar to the old Eldar Craftworld one (but thicker to incorporate more fiction and rules and what not). But separate full size codexes is superfluous and slows down the updates of other races.

Ianos
07-08-2010, 01:41
I say hire more designers and release all armies in every edition quick. Then, they can do all shorts of expansions and if they keep editions more stable, not much change will be needed. FAQ things every year and do more campaigns and gradually release more models to keep interests high.

Finally since they will now have a lot of spare time they can release even more armies like Admech, Inquisition, Exodites etc. More devs means more sales and customer satisfaction. Hence with just a little more money the company can practically double its profits and we would all be happy.

Wrath
07-08-2010, 05:56
I voted yes, but only under the condition that all the armies that got condensed still kept the flavor. For the Imperials I wouldn't just lump them together. I would like to see a Codex: IG and Codex: SM. The SM Codex would be HUGE but they are interchangeable as is so no big.

I would also wrap Demons, Legions, and Traitors into a single 'Dex too. The real question come down to Eldar and DE. Currently they are distinct and different armies. do you sacrifice that individuality and wrap them into one book or keep them separate?

Panzerkanzler
07-08-2010, 06:19
Condensing all the SM to one book would be great for everyone else. Oh well, here comes the whambulance.

Axel
07-08-2010, 10:36
Imho only the variety of SM-Codex' could be combined, from an editorial viewpoint.

This, however, are obviously the main sellers. The only other close call are the Eldar, though they are so apart that it does not really make sense.

On the other hand, the forces of the Ecclesiarchy and the Adeptus Mechanicus are still a major gap (though in the former case the SoB certainly would be merged in there).

So, unless we want to cull out the odd race, I see no way how to sensibly cull the multitude. I would vote to cut down on SMs, but I understand why this will most likely not be done.

Bunnahabhain
07-08-2010, 12:02
On the eldar, I'm not sure.

If it was done well, a big book of Eldar could cover Craft world eldar, exodites, and dark Eldar. It would require someone who knows and likes the Eldar to write it, and be prepared to think outside the box a little.

I know it is not in agreement with the current style of writing, but something like:

Choose your Eldar faction. Your army must be chosen from the choices marked as all, or <your faction>.

Fast attack
Unit A ( all)
Unit B ( all)
Unit C ( dark only)
Unit D ( Craft world and exodite only)

And the same for various options within a unit entry:
Knights, Statline: abcdefghijk, armed with laser lance, plasma grenades,.... XY points a model

The unit is mounted on:
Craft-world:Jetbikes +Xpoints a model
Exodites: Dragons + Y points a model
Dark: skyboards + Z points a model

Although I'm wondering , maybe if you allowed one unit ( or 1 unit per 2000 points?) from outside your faction to be chosen, you could include a huge variety of unusual modelling opportunities. Say you wanted to do an unusual aspect warrior unit, ie the slicing orbs of Xandross, you could use an dark eldar unit to represent it...


Chaos gets a similar treatment

I think the Imperium needs three books- Guard, Marines, and the odd bits that don't fit elsewhere - Adsmech, SOB, Assassins, Inquisitors, etc.
The marine book would be huge, and there simply isn't enough overlap between the Guard and the odd bits to roll them into one.

TheMav80
07-08-2010, 14:11
The nice thing to do would be to condense the books like others have suggested, to be slightly more generic lists.

Then...we make White Dwarf worth buying again! Chapter Approved makes a makes a come back in White Dwarf with new sub lists and fancy special characters.

I'm sure most of them would still be Space Marines, but at least your core list wouldn't be 9+ years old any more.

Wrath
07-08-2010, 18:08
The nice thing to do would be to condense the books like others have suggested, to be slightly more generic lists.


ehh kinda. Marines would use Chapter traits to give them variety. In the back have the stats for everything, this will have the bonus of keeping all the stats the same. Instead of choosing a special character you just choose a faction and that gives you your traits. Then you flip to the section and build your list with the option given to your group.

AT-43 pulls this off just fine, no reason 40K could not.

TheMav80
07-08-2010, 18:55
I'm only just getting into it, but maybe books like Flames of War could be better. At least so far as armies with lots of 'factions' are concerned.

chamelion 6
07-08-2010, 19:18
However, I am of the opinion that you only need a single Codex: Space Marines to cover all the available Chapters, with the possible exception of Grey Knights. I don't think we'll see that happening now, though; there are too many fiddly rules for Space Wolves, Blood Angels, etc for the sake of "difference".

I think the ideal is everyone get's their own codex and multiple Marien codexes and Eldar codexes and Ig and CSM codexes would be great.

But that would mean a robust release schedule, like 1 or 2 revamps a month at least... As it is Dark Eldar are still on a 10 page 3rd edition codex, Orks went almost as long before an update. GW just cannot support that.

Because of that I agree with AndrewGPaul here. Multiple SM codexes are nice, but are a luxury until you can support what youve got. There is no excuse for 2 or more SM codexes a year while others go years without support.

Lord Malorne
07-08-2010, 19:33
Roll Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Blood Angels, Codex: Dark Angels, Codex: Black Templars, and Codex: Space Wolves into one. Job done.

Speaking as a long time Black Templar player, no thank you :p

Chaosheade
08-08-2010, 15:21
Turning 16 armies into 3-5 would be terrible... but I also think having fully HALF of them (7 flavors of SM plus guard) being imperial is just too much. I think the 7 different SM books could be condensed some, but not all into just one book. Witch Hunters and Daemon Hunters could probably be combined and I'm not too familiar with dark angels but they would probably fit into the vanilla SM codex.

I don't think the game needs extreme condensing but I do believe that a little would go a long way.

Zweischneid
08-08-2010, 15:29
Since Space Marines are the unique draw of 40K, I think GW should take the time and effort to explore some of the more unique chapters. I am definitly looking forward to Dark Angels. They were my first loyalist love and they shouldn't fall into the Ultramarines Codex. Some more unique Space Marine Chapters like White Scars, Raven Guard or the "two Fists" have IMO enough background that would make them valid entries for their own Codex. Forgeworld going ahead with the Raven Guard recently is a good sign IMO. The controversies around Chaos kinda make me believe that spinning off a few of the more popular Chaos Legions in a book on their own might be worthwhile after all.


On the other hand, Orks and Nids could probably be fused into a "Codex: Xenos Hordes" and Tau join Eldar into a "Codex: fragile Xenos with Skimmers". And I don't think I ever even met someone who played Necrons, though that might be just a regional oddity.. who knows.

night2501
08-08-2010, 18:53
Yes yes, definately yes.

If each Codex filled multiple playstyles and army types, we could condense it to this:

1. Space Marines (Chapter Rules, variation, etc)
2. The Hordes of Chaos (Marines, Daemons, Mutants and traitors. Make it very variable)
3. Craftworld Eldar
4. Dark Eldar
5. Orks
6. Forces of the Imperium (Guard and the other things like Inquisitors, assassins, etc. This is from a Guard player)
7. Tyranids
8. Necrons
9. tau Empire

Yes, this isnt much of a condensation but its turned from 14 Codices to 9.

If you got a codex update every 3 months you would have the entire rulesset updated each 2.25 years (compared to the 3.5 years for 14 books)

that just hit the spot.

the problem is not that we have too many codex, but that we have too many marine/imperial codex.

with just some condensation and a ok release schedule all the codex could be made in a single edition cycle, which is impossible right now.

but guess GW is only interesting in force feeding marines even tough on the long run it might be bad...

edit:

in the case of SM special chapters, just do it like craftworld eldar or tau farsight army, it does nto need a whole new book...


I think the ideal is everyone get's their own codex and multiple Marien codexes and Eldar codexes and Ig and CSM codexes would be great.

But that would mean a robust release schedule, like 1 or 2 revamps a month at least... As it is Dark Eldar are still on a 10 page 3rd edition codex, Orks went almost as long before an update. GW just cannot support that.

Because of that I agree with AndrewGPaul here. Multiple SM codexes are nice, but are a luxury until you can support what youve got. There is no excuse for 2 or more SM codexes a year while others go years without support.

agree they could just release the faction codex and then with the extra time if they have it release more marine codex...

Tymell
08-08-2010, 19:06
Yes yes, definately yes.

If each Codex filled multiple playstyles and army types, we could condense it to this:

1. Space Marines (Chapter Rules, variation, etc)
2. The Hordes of Chaos (Marines, Daemons, Mutants and traitors. Make it very variable)
3. Craftworld Eldar
4. Dark Eldar
5. Orks
6. Forces of the Imperium (Guard and the other things like Inquisitors, assassins, etc. This is from a Guard player)
7. Tyranids
8. Necrons
9. tau Empire

Yes, this isnt much of a condensation but its turned from 14 Codices to 9.

This, absolutely this. And you've condensed 16 actually ;)

But yeah, cut out all the damned marine variants (and I say this as a Blood Angels player btw) and you've gotten rid of a quarter of them in one go. And as much as the Inquisition fans might say otherwise, they really don't need their own books. Sisters of Battle maybe, but the rest was really just made in the wake of Inquisitor.

TheShadowCow
08-08-2010, 19:25
Only if Necrons, Tau, Inquisition, Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons get the same treatment Imperial Guard, Tyranids, Orks and Space Marines have received over the past few years in terms of available builds and number of units. Heck, I'd actually like to see one or two *more* well-defined Xenos races (Hrud? Barghesi?) and Traitor Guard to give a wider spectrum of forces out there that aren't just MEQ with a different colour scheme.

We'd have what,

1) Space Marines
2) Imperium of Man (Guard, Inquisition, Witch Hunters, Daemon Hunters)
3) Chaos Space Marines
4) Legions of Damnation (Daemons, Traitor Guard)
5) Craftworld Eldar
6) Dark Eldar
7) Orks
8) Tyranids
9) Necrons
10) Tau
11) Random Very-Different-Xenos-Faction (optional)

So that would be 10 (or 11 if Xenos got a worthwhile boost) Codicies. I don't see how you could realisitically reduce it below that without seriously compromising how well each army is supported.

noobzor
08-08-2010, 21:12
just condense the marines into a codex, the Inquisition into a codex, and chaos into a codex and you are good to go IMO.

noobzilla
08-08-2010, 21:15
I never want to see Guard condensed into a codex with anything else. Nothing else is like the Guard.

A forces of the Imperium would be a good codex, but it SHOULD NOT include guard.

Elenneth89
08-08-2010, 21:23
i voted no. if condensing, there will be less bg, that are the core of wh 40k, i think

Tymell
08-08-2010, 21:50
i voted no. if condensing, there will be less bg, that are the core of wh 40k, i think

bg? Big gunz? Battle grounds?

I hope it wasn't meant to be boltguns :eyebrows:

DeeKay
08-08-2010, 21:55
I would release more stuff not less if I was changing things. I'd commandeer Black Library and make them do something productive.

Edition Rulebooks every 5 or 6 years

Annual Campaign Supplements

Reduce the number of Codexes to barebones stuff and make sure they're all out by halfway through an edition ie. release one every few months so that by the second half of the edition everyone has their new book (It makes no sense to drag it out to a codex every other edition when you can make a quicker turn over by having it done, because people will buy it every few years.)

Factional Source Books Supplement cycled through two editions for every codex that have the factions art, fluff, a couple short stories and some forge world type faction lists. Ie. SM have 5 sourcebooks: UM, BA, SW, BT, DA. INQ have Daemon Hunters, Witch Hunters , Alien Hunters, and Ecclesiarchy. Orks have a mainline Goffs, mounted up Speed Freaks, soldier Blood Axes, and savage Tribal, etc.

Eldar could have sword wind Biel Tan, seer and guardian heavy Ulthwe, ruthless Corsairs, Ferocious Dark Eldar, all using a broad codex and factional supplements.

The more stuff the more money. Fact...

This. It would eliminate problems such as the infamous "Mars pattern Storm Shields" used by the Dark Angels if the DA, SW, BA etc were simply expanded on from a single source. Any major deviations from the template could easily be covered in the supplement rather than all generic equipment being given an overhaul in seperate books as is currently the case.

With regards,
Dan.

Chem-Dog
08-08-2010, 22:20
I voted Maybe

I could see codexes being consolidated into each of the major factions, Chaos, Imperium, Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, Tau ect, ect.

In most instances this would represent the need for a massive amount of new units, you'd need a helluva lot of new Tau units to make their book weigh in at anything near the potential size of the Imperium Book.

The Books (as I imagine them) would have multiple lists each roughly equivalent to a Codex's army list section, allowing for unsupported lists to get some coverage (kinda like 2nd Ed's Chaos Codex with it's Daemonworld Appendix list), Eldar Exodites for the Eldar, Adeptus Arbites for the Imperium, Chaos Cultists for Chaos, Genestealer Cults for Tyranids are all good examples.
Although each list would be independant of the others in the book (there's no good reason for Dark Eldar raiding parties to be accompanied by an Avatar, for example) there's an opportunity for each of these uber codexes to contain a list of significant units that may be included in many, if not all of the Book's lists, Inquisitional representatives are the obvious example, Harlequins are also a good bet.
Finally the Codexes could inculde lists that represent specific factional groups based on individual Named Characters, Tau could have a specific Farsight Enclave list, allowing players to use a Farsight enclave themed list (which is largely currently a list of what you can't use) without necessarlily using O'Shova himself.

It's a bit far fetched now I read it back. But that's about the only way I see any meaningful condensation taking place, and even then, it'd be a huge pain in the ass.
Perhaps I should have voted No

Darthvegeta800
09-08-2010, 08:04
Maybe... to a degree.
I can see larger codices being made say uniting some faxtions. It is possible using a page or two per subfaction to change composition and adding a few unique options.
It would mean we'd have a few slightly larger codices. However some codices don't really have anything to be linked to like say Necrons or Tyrannids.

f2k
09-08-2010, 08:38
I would be all for cutting down on the number of codices and speeding up the release schedule.

Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Mechanicus, Inquisition => Codex: Armies of the Empire
Chaos Space Marines, Daemons, Traitor Guards, Traitor Mechanicus => Codex: Armies of the Warp
Eldar, Dark Eldar, Exodites => Codex: Eldar
Tau => Codex: Tau
Tyranids => Codex: Tyranids
Necrons => Codex Necrons
Orks => Codex: Orks

The Imperial and Warp based armies can, and indeed should, be collected into two codices. That would bring back the old Chaos Codex with all its daemonic glory. And it would allow us to deploy Marines supporting PDF regiments. The xenos codices, on the other hand, are somewhat trickier. They could be collected into a single codex (reducing the total number of codices to just three) but they don’t really belong in the same book and they can’t support each other as was the case with the first three codices.


I’ll say it again: it’s all about speeding up the release schedule. It might be good for Games Workshop to release a dozen Marine Codices every edition – economically speaking. But they lose a lot of goodwill with the marinecentric releases. Who long did Ork players wait for the new codex? What about Dark Eldar players? How long are they supposed to wait? Same with Necrons...

Tymell
09-08-2010, 09:29
Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Mechanicus, Inquisition => Codex: Armies of the Empire
Eldar, Dark Eldar, Exodites => Codex: Eldar

This one I'm not -quite- so keen on. Although I'm in favour of condensing and trimming a lot of the extra codexes, Imperial Guard and Space marines are distinct from one another. Even if they're on the same side, they really do require their own books. Same goes for Eldar and Dark Eldar, same race but definitely not the same army. Combining books like that might work for background material, but not so much for the game side of things.

Zweischneid
09-08-2010, 09:50
I would be all for cutting down on the number of codices and speeding up the release schedule.

Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Mechanicus, Inquisition => Codex: Armies of the Empire
Chaos Space Marines, Daemons, Traitor Guards, Traitor Mechanicus => Codex: Armies of the Warp
Eldar, Dark Eldar, Exodites => Codex: Eldar
Tau => Codex: Tau
Tyranids => Codex: Tyranids
Necrons => Codex Necrons
Orks => Codex: Orks

The Imperial and Warp based armies can, and indeed should, be collected into two codices. That would bring back the old Chaos Codex with all its daemonic glory. And it would allow us to deploy Marines supporting PDF regiments. The xenos codices, on the other hand, are somewhat trickier. They could be collected into a single codex (reducing the total number of codices to just three) but they don’t really belong in the same book and they can’t support each other as was the case with the first three codices.


I’ll say it again: it’s all about speeding up the release schedule. It might be good for Games Workshop to release a dozen Marine Codices every edition – economically speaking. But they lose a lot of goodwill with the marinecentric releases. Who long did Ork players wait for the new codex? What about Dark Eldar players? How long are they supposed to wait? Same with Necrons...

Dunno. If it's only about speed, it's cutting stuff from the wrong end of the popularity and unique IP of the game and universe.

Imperial Guard => Codex: Imperial Guard (incl. Inquisition)
Space Marines => Codex: Space Marines (incl. Ultramarines; maybe Grey Knights)
Space Wolves => Codex: Space Wolves (a future one could also include other "feral" stuff like White Scars maybe)
Blood Angels => Codex: Blood Angels (Flesh Tearers, etc...)
Dark Angels => Codex: Dark Angels (incl. alternate list for The Fallen)
Black Templars => Codex: Black Templar
Chaos Space Marines => Codex Chaos Space Marines
Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau => Codex fragile Xenos in Skimmers
Orks, Nids => Codex Xenos Swarms & Hordes
Necrons, Chaos Daemons => Codex Ancient Evils

A slick list of 10 Codexes and all the fan-favourites covered :cool:

Krovin-Rezh
09-08-2010, 10:03
Space Marines should be condensed into a single codex. But not the whole of 40k. So that's a no from me, I guess.

f2k
09-08-2010, 10:09
This one I'm not -quite- so keen on. Although I'm in favour of condensing and trimming a lot of the extra codexes, Imperial Guard and Space marines are distinct from one another. Even if they're on the same side, they really do require their own books. Same goes for Eldar and Dark Eldar, same race but definitely not the same army. Combining books like that might work for background material, but not so much for the game side of things.

True. It would take a lot of balancing... Which, granted, Games Workshop is not exactly known for...

I was mostly thinking of something like a combination of the system form the old Inquisition codices and the old Chaos armybooks that were meant to support each other.

For example, if your HQ is a marine, then all marines count as “core” and all non-marines counts as “special”. In the fluff, Space Marines often fight alongside the Imperial Guard, so why is this not represented in the rules?

Well, balance, of course. Unlimited mix’n’match would be horrible. But if well balanced...

Yeah, and if pigs could fly...



Dunno. If it's only about speed, it's cutting stuff from the wrong end of the popularity and unique IP of the game and universe.

Imperial Guard => Codex: Imperial Guard
Space Wolves => Codex: Space Wolves (a future one could also include other "feral" stuff like White Scars maybe)
Blood Angels => Codex: Blood Angels (Flesh Tearers, etc...)
Dark Angels => Codex: Dark Angels (incl. alternate list for The Fallen)
Black Templars => Codex: Black Templar
Chaos Space Marines => Codex Chaos Space Marines
Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau => Codex fragile Xenos in Skimmers
Orks, Nids => Codex Xenos Swarms & Hordes
Necrons, Chaos Daemons => Codex Ancient Evils

A slick list of 9 Codexes and all the fan-favourites covered :cool:

Updating 3 Codexes a year give a 3-year turnover for every Codex.

Are marines well supported because they are popular or are they popular because they’re so well supported? Hard to tell...

In any case, as I said, the marinecentric release schedual is not good for Games Workshops goodwill. How often haven’t we heard the cry of “one more *biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiib* marine codex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” from the non-marine players? If we go from popularity only, then we’ll end up with a game where everyone plays marines because the non-marines codices are seriously outdated and unsupported. Do we really want that?

Zweischneid
09-08-2010, 10:17
For example, if your HQ is a marine, then all marines count as “core” and all non-marines counts as “special”. In the fluff, Space Marines often fight alongside the Imperial Guard, so why is this not represented in the rules?



Because the fluff is just there to show they're on the same side. Space Marines and IG cater to very different tastes and customers. The former likely more into heroic pulp-action, the latter with a soft spot for modelling more realistic/historic armies, maybe with a copy of Flames of War at home as well.

Space Marine's invoke images of larger-than-life heroes (further spread out along different common, and popular literary associations with heroics; Roman/Classical Epics, Nordic Warrior Sagas, Achillian flawed/doomed Heroes, Heroes carrying a dark, terrible secret, Crusaders and Arthurian Knights, etc..). Guardsman furthermore invoke images of "common-men-holding-their-own-as-underdogs-in-a-forbidding-universe".

All these are very different kinds of sale-pitches by and large. All worthy of their own book IMO.

On the other hand, I'd say things like Eldar and Tau cater very much to the same type of customer. Sleek, Alien, Avanced Technology and vaguely Asien-inspired philosophy infusing the background. Stuff like that could be merged more easily.

Bunnahabhain
09-08-2010, 10:45
Because the fluff is just there to show they're on the same side. Space Marines and IG cater to very different tastes and customers. The former likely more into heroic pulp-action, the latter with a soft spot for modelling more realistic/historic armies, maybe with a copy of Flamew of War at home as well.

On the other hand, I'd say things like Eldar and Tau cater very much to the same type of customer. Sleek, Alien, Avanced Technology and vaguely Asien-inspired philosophy infusing the background. Stuff like that could be merged more easily.

I see your logic, but do not agree.

The rules are a way to use GW models within the GW universe. Therefore, they are a way to translate the background into game terms, as far as possible.

The Marine chapters have by far the biggest overlap of background with one another, so are the best candidates for condensing. Assuming the background is well covered in the codex, and lists are well written, the marines won't lose anything, and GW can carry on their marine centric marketing by relasesing new marine models - ie TCW, stormravens...

The assorted chaos fit together well, so condense naturally. The various Eldar in one book is a little forced, as is the Inq, Ad mech, etc, in one.

LonelyPath
09-08-2010, 11:45
I voted no. If we condenced all of the SM codecis together we'd end up with a 200+ page book that they'd have the cheek to charge us £25+ for, would anyone buy that when they won't be using/needing 80% of the option? Another thing to bear in mind is that some chapters are equipped differently, meaning that each entry in the list itself would become a mess at it list A has B, C has D instead of E, etc.

The same thing would happen with Daemons which would result in some 80+ units alone.

Orks is one thing as it can work, Inquisition is possible with repeatad (at present) units, but who knows what direction it'll go in when the next book with the GK is released. We know =I= are taking a step back, but that's all.

lanrak
09-08-2010, 12:12
Hi all.
IMO, the best way to condence 40k,is by replacing the abstract and poorly defined rules with a system written for the current game play.

Then KEEP the basic rules , and just add expansions to grow the game into multiple directions to suit a wider audience.


This way each race could get a detailed source book , and the rules would be released en mass for core rules and with each expansion.

So rather than re-seting to the start every 5 years, the ngame just grows and covers more and more .....

As far as Codex condensing, ALL SM chapters could and SHOULD be covered with one codex.

If GW put in a BALANCED trait system for each race , all the sub catogories could be covered with a minimum of fuss.

TTFN

Culgore
09-08-2010, 12:39
No simplifying the game in terms of amount of armies, is just a stupid idea. If I wanted a simple game I would play monopoly. People get all wrapped around the axle about stupid stuff. I can't remember who said it now but "the best thing that happened to Chaos Space Marines was the daemons becoming standardized" (i.e. a bloodletter is a plaguebearer is a daemonette)

I guess I don't see the problem with complicated rule sets. People justifying simplification because the army lists only offer a few viable choices (i.e 0 viable choices in the Fast Attack section of C:CSM) are just wrong. That mean s GW needs to put slightly more than 5 minutes thought in when they create a unit.

I play with people I trust to know their own rules (they often don't but not because they are trying to win, just they would rather assemble and paint dudes than learn rules, such is life) so I don't have to double check every rule they say they are using.

Zweischneid
09-08-2010, 12:59
I see your logic, but do not agree.

The rules are a way to use GW models within the GW universe. Therefore, they are a way to translate the background into game terms, as far as possible.

The Marine chapters have by far the biggest overlap of background with one another, so are the best candidates for condensing. Assuming the background is well covered in the codex, and lists are well written, the marines won't lose anything, and GW can carry on their marine centric marketing by relasesing new marine models - ie TCW, stormravens...

The assorted chaos fit together well, so condense naturally. The various Eldar in one book is a little forced, as is the Inq, Ad mech, etc, in one.

I think your stopping rather too short on the superficial fact that Marines are Marines. Marines are a simple (if effective) trope by GW to adapt archetypes and themes to their own IP.

In a Space-Fantasy Wargame like 40K, what you want is recognizable themes the potential fan-base can pick up upon; i.e. you want an army that's all about Nordic Mythodology, Vikings, Long Beards and people shouting BJOERN and ODIIN all they long. It's a massively popular archetype out there. Similar, you probably want something build around Undead, ancient-egypt-imagery, pyramids and long-forgotten evil. Again, a common theme people will pick up quickly.

Now, GW made Space Wolves a marine army and Necrons a Xenos army. A large part of it is history of the company. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked the other way around too. You could've, perhaps, use the "relentless-silent-undead-advancing-before-floating-pyramids-crackling-with-baleful-energy" theme for a MEQ army, perhaps a unique Thousand Sons Codex. Similarly, you could make some Viking-inspired, Beer-drinking, Saga-telling Xenos. In any case, there is still room for both concepts, though the Viking one is arguably alot more popular both in 40K and outside the GW hobby.

In any case. Merging all marines "because-they-are-Marines" kinda misses the point. GW has lots of Marine armies because Marines are ideally suited to put their own mark on common sci-fi/fantasy clichees with little effort. They all still serve a particular slice of the wargaming/rpg/sci-fantasy-fans market.

Thus, "condensing" Marines wouldn't speed up the Codex-turnaround, it would quite likely even prolong the development cycle as 40K would struggle alot more to keep its fingers in as many pies as it does now; struggling alot more just to not lose a significant share of the market it already has.

Tymell
09-08-2010, 14:32
I voted no. If we condenced all of the SM codecis together we'd end up with a 200+ page book that they'd have the cheek to charge us £25+ for, would anyone buy that when they won't be using/needing 80% of the option?

Just because there are five space marine books doesn't mean each one would take up 20% of the space in a condensed one. Indeed, that's the whole point: if you chop off most of the fluff and repetition, each variant chapter would only really need maybe 10-12pages or so. The resulting book would be bigger, but not enormous, and while there would inevitably be parts various players won't use, this could be said of any codex really.

Luisjoey
09-08-2010, 14:54
NO!

i rather infinite armies so i could face different things!

Zweischneid
09-08-2010, 15:07
NO!

i rather infinite armies so i could face different things!

Hehe.

I guess that would be the other extreme:

Never retreat old ground.
Never visit the same army twice.
Never break people's expectations by giving old stuff a new spin.

Every new Codex is fresh.
Every mini released something never seen before.
Every Codex ever released is still valid if you care to make it work.

It'd be a suicidal business, but I kinda like the approach!:D

Cuchulain84
09-08-2010, 15:12
The fact is a Space Marine is a Space Marine. Whether it's a Beer Swilling Viking, A Knightly Crusader or a Blood Lusting Vampire it still has the same ol' statline, the same equipment, the same weaponry, the same transport...

GrogDaTyrant
09-08-2010, 20:22
Space Marines should be condensed into a single codex. But not the whole of 40k. So that's a no from me, I guess.

I second this.

Every other army is fine as is, but Space Marines should be the ones condensed into 1 SM codex. My vote is either every army in the game gets one hastily-scrawled p-o-s codex to represent all their 'variant color schemes', or every army gets WD articles and codices dedicated to all their legions, septs, clans, hive fleets, regiments, etc.


I voted no. If we condenced all of the SM codecis together we'd end up with a 200+ page book that they'd have the cheek to charge us £25+ for, would anyone buy that when they won't be using/needing 80% of the option? Another thing to bear in mind is that some chapters are equipped differently, meaning that each entry in the list itself would become a mess at it list A has B, C has D instead of E, etc.


No we wouldn't. We'd end up with 1 normal sized codex with a standard army list that is built to 'represent' every chapter. You know... like how the Chaos Legions are currently represented in the CSM book, or how the Craftworlds and Clans are represented in their respective Eldar and Ork codices. All the "unique" SM chapters were all originally color schemes, just like all the sub-variant armies for every other faction. The only difference is that GW has gone out of their way to completely remove every trace of the sub-variant army lists for everyone but marines.