PDA

View Full Version : A proposed solution to the overabundance of space marine codexes



Pages : [1] 2

Sternguard777
11-08-2011, 23:20
So many people here on Warseer are unhappy with the sheer number of Marine codices, compared to others such as xenos codices. Now there have been other ideas in this matter such as folding all of them into one, which though in a logical sentiment pehaps would be difficult to execute without upsetting a lot of people. My proposal is of similar intent but ends with a different result. I propose that a kind of Army supplement book be created. The reason I say supplement is because it would refer to C:SM for units such as Tactical Squads and Scouts. No more BS4 scouts, different vehicle capacites, or Stormshields that only work in melee.

For units that are not in C:SM it would have them listed in the supplement book. To keep from mixing the best units the book would be in sections. For armies that use units from C:SM there would be a message saying something like "A Dark Angels army may use any non-character unit in Codex Space Marine in addition to any of the following units." For non-codex armies it would say something like this "A Black Templars army may take the following units as well as the following units from Codex Space Marines."

So in essence it would be like the codexes today, but in one place and using C:SM for the units that exist there. The advantage of this is that it reduces the total Marine releases to two, not including chaos and GK. In addition thanks to the format you could even variate them further if it would fit, adding things like "an Iron Hand army may take all non-character units in C:SM in addition to the following units. Iron Hand armies may take a Venerable Dreadnought as an HQ choice." Even if it was a page spead listing minor variances like that for at least the first founding chapters it could make a lot of players happy without making a whole slew of special characters.

Obviously the sections would mention things like chapter tactics for that kind of army and special rules like the black templar rules. Yes this all would do little to curb the use of Marines competitively, but it would give xenos and chaos codecies more chances to update and keep up with the imperial codecies. So what do you think Warseer is this a sound solution that will be promptly ignored or do you thinkbits a terrible idea that you're happy will never see the light of the tabletop?

-note: I do not personally dislike the variant chapters, but I know people who do and this was a kind of compromise I worked out with them that I thought was worth sharing with the internet.

If it sounds similar to third ed then I wouldn't know. Wasn't into the hobby yet.

Lord Damocles
11-08-2011, 23:37
So, third ed. with all the variant codexes bound up toghether...

I still don't like the idea much to be honest (for an illustration on how a similar system can go horribly wrong, see the 3.5 ed. Books of Chaos - yeah; having rules for everything under the sun was great and all, but balance? What balance?)


The far simpler solution would be to cut out most of the [relatively] recent codex bloat, drop the majority of the changes which have been made simply to make variant Marines different enough to justify a seperate codex, and roll all [Loyalist] Marines together into one book.

There's no reason, for example, that...
Dreadnoughts
Venerable Dreadnoughts
Ironclad Dreadnoughts
Dark Angel Dreadnoughts
Blood Angel Dreadnoughts
Furioso Dreadnoughts
Death Company Dreadnoughts
Black Templars Dreadnoughts
Space Wolf Dreadnoughts
Space Wolf Venerable Dreadnoughts
Bjorn the Fell Handed
...couldn't all be rolled into a single 'Dreadnought' entry. You'd need to expand the weapon options a little to accomodate the different patterns, but that's no great undertaking.

The same holds true for...
Tactical Squads
Dark Angel Tactical Squads
Blood Angel Tactical Squads
Grey Hunters
Crusader Squads
...as well. Etc. etc...

Dr.Clock
11-08-2011, 23:46
Wall of text... Please, attempt to form paragraphs when writing down long ideas like this...

It's not a bad idea - it's just very unlikely to happen. There honestly isn't a huge need to differentiate most chapters from one another. The larger variations that DO exist can be accounted for pretty easily using either a different book or one of the many Imperial Armour Badab Characters (check them out... soooo much possibility).

What units in the SW Codex are transferable to C:SM? vehicles, basically. The army plays differently, with different units. Blood Angels? Closer - but there's still a great many differences. I much prefer giving the major divergences the space they need to get fundamentally different lists, rather than having to cross-reference everything to some 'master' list.

GW wants us all to buy each book. 1 50 dollar book, even if bought by every marine player, is not as good as 3 30 dollar books; especially since those books can be released over a few years rather than all at once. GW needs to keep milking MEQ because it's their strongest market. Releasing a single tome, no matter how complete, and basically saying 'Marines are good until next edition' is just poor business sense.

This isn't to say that GW couldn't do a better job of supporting non-MEQ. But times are changing... they are running out of marine forces to revamp, and Marines will always need someone to beat on - enter Chaos Space Marines, stage left.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

ehlijen
11-08-2011, 23:53
As long as all marince codices sell, and indications are that they do, GW won't see it as an 'overabundance', sadly.

Honestly, I'd have preferred one book to have the main list for a faction each. And then just one book full of nothing but SCs and unique themed units for all factions.

Surgency
12-08-2011, 00:20
Theres a hundred posts with this same topic. They all come out to the same thing. Half the community is all for it, because it'll magically make the game perfect and better, and half the community hates it, because they play one of the variant SM chapters who you suggest should lose their codex.

Eventually someone will suggest that Necrons, all SM, CSM should be folded into 1 codex since they have a 3+ save, and everyone else be folded into a second codex since they're all virtually the same. If you support combining the variant codicies, this is the logical conclusion of that train of thought

Sternguard777
12-08-2011, 00:22
Wall of text brocken up into more manageably chunks. ;)

The idea is that Unless something is different enough there shouldn't be 11 dreadnoughts, four tactical squads, etc. Just One Tac Squad with mabye different options for different chapters, and all the different patterns rolled up into the extra book if they are truly different or iconic.

I fully understand that this is never going to happen and is a fully theoretical exercise.

Bestaltan
12-08-2011, 00:35
As one who hasn't broken his Space ******, er, Marines out of their dust-collecting corner in years, I can say by all means, play all the marine variants you want. Makes my job as an Ork/Tyranid player all the easier. If you can beat one marine codex, you have laid the groundwork for beating them all.

Wishing
12-08-2011, 00:39
I fully understand that this is never going to happen and is a fully theoretical exercise.

Yes. While it is fun to keep complaining about it endlessly, the marine codex problem is only a problem for a small segment of the fanbase. It's not a problem for GW, otherwise they wouldn't have specifically engineered the situation we are complaining about. It was expressed so well a few posts back:


GW needs to keep milking MEQ because it's their strongest market. Releasing a single tome, no matter how complete, and basically saying 'Marines are good until next edition' is just poor business sense.


As such, labeling the thread as a "proposed solution" is a bit of a misnomer. The anti-marine codex crowd will only be happy if the number of marine codexes is reduced, and the pro-marine codex crowd (which includes GW) will never be happy with or accept the notion of reducing the number of marine codexes. Therefore there is no solution. A better title for the thread would be "some more wishing for an imaginary world with fewer marine codexes".

bluemage
12-08-2011, 00:55
Well you can put me in the completely against it category. I don't think there's a problem with having 6 or 7 space marine codexi. Space Marines sell well because a lot of people like them, buy and play them. And as GW likes to make a profit they will continue to have make them.

The really important thing to remember is how little effort it takes to create a new marine army. All you need is a couple of box sets and some blisters as the rest of the units already have boxed sets.

Another point is why should 30% (its a guess) of the GW community lose their army? People choose to play a variant marine army over codex marines for a reason and who are you to tell them otherwise.

Another point is that if you want there to be more xenos updates, try doing something about it. And posting this thread on warseer doesn't count as doing something. Try contacting GW and saying something. Try to convince them that xenos races can sell well. And that you would like to start some xenos races but feel that they need an update before you're willing to spend ~$400 on starting a new army.

Chem-Dog
12-08-2011, 01:23
There's no reason, for example, that...
Dreadnoughts
Venerable Dreadnoughts
Ironclad Dreadnoughts
Dark Angel Dreadnoughts
Blood Angel Dreadnoughts
Furioso Dreadnoughts
Death Company Dreadnoughts
Black Templars Dreadnoughts
Space Wolf Dreadnoughts
Space Wolf Venerable Dreadnoughts
Bjorn the Fell Handed
...couldn't all be rolled into a single 'Dreadnought' entry. You'd need to expand the weapon options a little to accomodate the different patterns, but that's no great undertaking.



NOOOOOOOOO!!!! Space Wolves Venerable Dreads with access to Bloodfists would be Broken.

:angel:

HRM
12-08-2011, 01:49
I've said it before - in my never-humble opinion, the only two Chapters that are different *ENOUGH* to warrant their own books are the Black Templars and White Scars. One is a disorganised mob, the other is a biker gang.

Really, though, the problem isn't too many Marine books, it's too many Marine players.

AlexHolker
12-08-2011, 01:52
Before GW's embargo killed the project I was working on a two book solution as a fandex, with Codex: Space Marines representing generic codex-compliant Chapters descended from any of the nine legions, and the Heroes of the Space Marines book introducing doctrines and unique units. I've still got a bunch of preliminary work for it, if anyone wants it.

Inquisitor Engel
12-08-2011, 02:14
This was called Third Edition, and it was terrible.

MadDoc
12-08-2011, 02:21
This was called Third Edition, and it was terrible.
QFT

More words...

AlphariusOmegon20
12-08-2011, 02:40
I've said it before - in my never-humble opinion, the only two Chapters that are different *ENOUGH* to warrant their own books are the Black Templars and White Scars. One is a disorganised mob, the other is a biker gang.

I'd like to introduce you the Iron Hands and Salamanders......

a1elbow
12-08-2011, 02:52
I don't play Marines. I recognise the game is devoted to Marines. I live with that fact and move on.

Just like people talking about how GW can weaken vehicles. GW doesn't want to do that. GW could nerf them right and square, they know how to nerf things. Vehicles and Marines produce profit, some people just can't accept it.

sean_scanlon2000
12-08-2011, 03:01
why on earth would GW ever consolidate the marine codex's..... they make to much money and you would upset so many players... marines = GW unhappy marine players = bankrupt GW

im sorry but you people serious need to get over it. if you didnt have marines you wouldn't have orks tau eldar or any other xenos race.... and that's the bottom line.

you wish for them to create more xenos races to balance up the game.... well the play more xenos race's...


you don't like all the people who play marines. get them interested in playing other armies.... oh wait thats right most of us who started with marines eventually branch out and buy other armies like orks and eldar..... if you wish to get more xenos races created and played you have to be able to convince GW that you can make money off of that line... look at Dark Eldar they were almost scrapped until GW was convinced that they would bring them in a profit... which they have. you want more races talk people into buying more armies that arent maries and you will see GW shift their focus until then Marines make money simple as that....

Lothlanathorian
12-08-2011, 03:31
I'd like to introduce you the Iron Hands and Salamanders......

And over here, we have their brothers, the Space Wolves.

PANZERBUNNY
12-08-2011, 03:34
Make a small rule set where you have available skills/unique interesting abilities and flaws. People can create a chapters organization and buy the interesting tid bits with a certain number of points.

Surgency
12-08-2011, 03:41
Make a small rule set where you have available skills/unique interesting abilities and flaws. People can create a chapters organization and buy the interesting tid bits with a certain number of points.

We see how well that worked in 3rd Ed. What was the flaw that everyone took? "We Stand Alone"?

Gen.Steiner
12-08-2011, 03:47
We see how well that worked in 3rd Ed. What was the flaw that everyone took? "We Stand Alone"?

You mean 4th Edition. And I didn't take that. I took 'Death Before Dishonour' with 'Trust Your Battle-Brothers'.

megatrons2nd
12-08-2011, 04:14
why on earth would GW ever consolidate the marine codex's..... they make to much money and you would upset so many players... marines = GW unhappy marine players = bankrupt GW

im sorry but you people serious need to get over it. if you didnt have marines you wouldn't have orks tau eldar or any other xenos race.... and that's the bottom line.

you wish for them to create more xenos races to balance up the game.... well the play more xenos race's...


http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307409

Hope the link works. It appears by this poll that less than 25% of players play marines. Sure, it's higher than all the other armies but it took every marine codex to do it. If you split that number up 6 ways it gets real small real quick. The artificial increase in marine sales by making more marine stuff than everything else and updating them before every other army is the cause of more marine sales.

Axeman1n
12-08-2011, 06:28
Looks like IG is the winner.
Now where's my Catachan codex?

Gatsby
12-08-2011, 08:02
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307409

Hope the link works. It appears by this poll that less than 25% of players play marines. Sure, it's higher than all the other armies but it took every marine codex to do it. If you split that number up 6 ways it gets real small real quick. The artificial increase in marine sales by making more marine stuff than everything else and updating them before every other army is the cause of more marine sales.

Yep my current army is IG, but I got a dark angels and thousand sons army too. Read the thread closer before jumping to conclusions.

Spider-pope
12-08-2011, 08:29
I'm not fond of the idea presented by the OP myself. The main reason is why should someone who wants to play a varient chapter have to buy an additional book to do so.

With this model anyone wanting to collect say Blood Angels would have to buy Codex Space Marines and then Codex Non-Codex Space Marines to get to play their army of choice. While we had to do this for 3rd edition, the books were a fraction of the price (and size) they are now. The proposed system basically financially penalises a player because he happens to like an army that others deem "too popular".


http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307409

Hope the link works. It appears by this poll that less than 25% of players play marines. Sure, it's higher than all the other armies but it took every marine codex to do it. If you split that number up 6 ways it gets real small real quick. The artificial increase in marine sales by making more marine stuff than everything else and updating them before every other army is the cause of more marine sales.

Online sites like Warseer only represent a fraction of the total playerbase of GW, and they are often comprised of the more veteran and divergent elements of the playerbase.

And the argument that making more marine models causes the sale of more marine models is flawed at best. GW could cast two hundred variations of the Pumbagor, but that would not increase sales of the ugly thing because there is no demand for it. Marine models sell because people want to buy marine models.

MadDoc
12-08-2011, 08:39
Yep my current army is IG, but I got a dark angels and thousand sons army too. Read the thread closer before jumping to conclusions.
But if people did that they'd have to take pesky little things like facts into consideration and that'd just be silly... :angel:

On a more serious note, this thread, and others of its ilk, aren't about what is reasonable or commercially viable for GW its just another way to slam Marine players and have a whinge (about said same players) without being too overt about it.

The 3E approach to Marine lists didn't work for a reason, people suggesting a return to the 3E approach as a solution to anything, either weren't playing 40K back then, have very short memories or just plain don't know what they're talking about.

I play IG (Tanith), Marines (DA), Feral Orks (only playable as plain C:O Orks now), Kroot Mercs (in mid-construction when GW dropped official support for the list) and SoB. My biggest army is my DA but thats mainly because they were my first, followed closely by my IG. But even if I didn't play a Marine army I'd still be able to see that this is a terrible idea that GW would be silly to even contemplate.

@Spider-pope - +1

Conscript
12-08-2011, 10:10
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the whole codex lineup shrunk into a more manageable number. You'd have Codex: Imperium, Codex: Chaos, Codex: Eldar (including both Eldar and DE)... well, I guess we'd still need separate Codices for Orks, Tau, Necrons and whatnot. However, having fewer codices could theoretically reduce the time during which all codices got rewritten/updated and, again theoretically, maybe help keep the thing balanced.

Then again, GW will never go for anything like this.

HRM
12-08-2011, 10:23
I'd like to introduce you the Iron Hands and Salamanders......

What, exactly, is so different about those two, especially the Sallies?

Someone mentioned Wolves; OK, ya, point conceded. They ARE pretty different.

Fixer
12-08-2011, 10:31
Arguable the 5th edition Space Marine Codex is the Salamanders army list.

Preference for hammers, terminators, Land Raiders, flamers and melta weapons. No-one uses jump pack veterans or very rarely regular assault marines. Majority of shooting is 24" range or less.

The book says that Robute Gulliman is the spiritual leige of all Space Marines, but they're following Vulkan's example instead ;)

Haravikk
12-08-2011, 11:57
I personally preferred the 3rd edition style, the problem is getting everything updated in a timely manner. However, it should be do-able if they have a dedicated Space Marine updater, who can work on the core codex and supplements, issuing FAQs for anything that falls behind to keep them compatible enough to play.

There's really no need to have so many books where 90% of the content is identical, all we need is the chapter-specific fluff, the army-wide rules, and the (truly) unique units. Anything that's only a minor variation should either be dealt with by an additional rule, or an entry for additional equipment.

With a big Space Marine update of that type it would be possible to finally strip out all the crap that a lot of codices have gained, so that we can restore some of the unique chapter-specific options again, rather than all chapters being essentially identical and requiring more and more gimmicky ways to distinguish them.

AlphariusOmegon20
12-08-2011, 12:27
What, exactly, is so different about those two, especially the Sallies?

Someone mentioned Wolves; OK, ya, point conceded. They ARE pretty different.

Salamanders Fluff wise:

The ability to freely mix normal Termie weaponry and Assault Termie weapons in the same squad.
Their squad and company markings are non standard from the Codex Astartes.
Distinctive Force Organization
Tactical Dogma
Level of weapon and armor artifice unmatched by any other chapter ( meaning the more likely one would see mastercrafted weapons in the hands of normal troops)

Iron Hands Fluff Wise:

Iron Fathers, a weird cross between Captain and Techmarine as chapter master or captain.
The ability to have Dreadnought as HQ's on a regular basis, even serving as company captains or higher
Higher level of technology than other chapters
Distinctive Force organization
The ability to have sergeant in termie armor
Extensive use of bionics.

Shall I go on? ;)

Lord Damocles
12-08-2011, 12:51
Salamanders Fluff wise:

The ability to freely mix normal Termie weaponry and Assault Termie weapons in the same squad.
Originally everyone could do it.
Background still has some Terminator squads with mixed equipment (eg. Squad Gideon from Space Hulk the Novel).
No reason a variant list is needed to allow for such - if the mixing of weapons is actually required at all. I mean, Blood Angels can't accurately represent squad Gideon...

Their squad and company markings are non standard from the Codex Astartes.
Aesthetic only.

Distinctive Force Organization
Adequetly represented by vanilla codex.

Tactical Dogma
Adequetly represented by vanilla codex. Take appropriate weapons/units. Use appropriate playstyle.

Level of weapon and armor artifice unmatched by any other chapter
Take Artificer Armour on characters. Re-introduction of Master Crafted weapons wouldn't hurt. Otherwise, Digital Weapons give a similar effect.



Iron Hands Fluff Wise:

Iron Fathers, a weird cross between Captain and Techmarine as chapter master or captain.
Chaplain and Techmarine.
Take either Chaplain (Crozius for Power Weapon, Power Fist for Servo Arm) or Master of the Forge.

The ability to have Dreadnought as HQ's on a regular basis, even serving as company captains or higher
The Blood Swords had a Dreadnought as Chapter Master (Red Fury). Codex: Blood Swords required?

Higher level of technology than other chapters
Which wasn't even represented when they did have their own variant rules!

Distinctive Force organization
Adequetly represented by vanilla codex.

The ability to have sergeant in termie armor
Use Codex: Space Wolves (Wolf Guard)? Also solves the HQ Dreadnought issue (Bjorn).

Extensive use of bionics.
Take Sons of Medusa special character (counts as Iron father)?
Given that in general Bionics have no in-game effect any more... so what?

HRM
12-08-2011, 12:58
What he said.

Thank-you.

Baragash
12-08-2011, 13:58
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307409

Hope the link works. It appears by this poll that less than 25% of players play marines. Sure, it's higher than all the other armies but it took every marine codex to do it. If you split that number up 6 ways it gets real small real quick. The artificial increase in marine sales by making more marine stuff than everything else and updating them before every other army is the cause of more marine sales.

Except that poll asks what is a player's main/current army, not if they own and use a SM army at all.

Besides, I don't see why people think less Marine books will really mean less Marine armies. There is a wealth of fluff out there that means most people can find a background or aesthetic that appeals to to them. What we need is more playable and more developed Xenos factions without them being left to rot for long periods of time.

Captain Semper
12-08-2011, 14:18
I am a Dark Angels player since “Codex: Angels of Death” came out back in 2nd. I also collect a number of DA successors and I consider myself a very committed person to the hobby and this particular faction.

I’m also in favor of a single Codex for Space Marines. Although many take this view out of need to limit the SM influence in the game (thus allowing other factions to emerge to prominence) I take this view for different reasons. Here are the advantages for SMs and the hobby in general in my view:

* All options available to all chapters. This has a twofold positive effect. First all hardware would be available to everybody and that all or at least several builds will also be available to everybody. So for example the Stromraven that is now available only to BAs (and GKs) for no real reason other than they both were the latest codices will be available to all chapters. In fact there is no good reason why it shouldn’t be available fluff wise (and it might be introduced to future incarnations of the other Codices. And as for army builds, they are all marines. Although each Chapter has a “signature” style of fighting they will employ all the resources available to tailor their forces to any situation. So yes DAs have the Deathwing build. Does this mean that BAs, for example, won’t use an all terminator force in the situation arise? Space Hulk comes to mind… But even so, there are no real restrictions fluff-wise for any chapter to be dogmatic on a particular style. Even if it were it is up to the player to play in character or not.

* No codex hopping. All chapters enjoy the same level of “power”. Codex hopping is to many a distasteful habit and is frowned upon. There is also some underlying “Codex Patriotism” that implies that if you play a certain chapter you are somehow honor bound to stick to its associated codex no matter how old and out of date it is. Why? It is just stupid to willingly choose to handicap yourself in a game before you even sit in front of the gaming table. Before DAs FAQ this handicap has driven a lot of players to adopt the green codex-marine path. Is that criminal? Obviously there are those that do the codex hopping only to gain a perceived advantage of the latest Marine codex. This is distasteful but it is going to be eradicated with a single codex – no?

* No adverse impact on the fluff from the artificial need of each chapter to be “different”. We’ve seen that becoming more and more an annoying feature of Marine codices. From tedious nomenclature to downright outrageous units that diminish the suspension of disbelief and border to the ridiculous. Both SW and BAs suffer from that. One can only imagine what will happen to DAs just to “force” a difference that will justify a Codex of its own. Sorry but I like the fluff for what it is. I don’t need it to be validated through outrageous rules or units. Which brings me to my next point:

* Choose a faction for the right reasons: fluff – not special rules. OK this is (as my previous points obviously) completely personal view. But it is also valid I think. I play DAs because I like their fluff. This is what drew me to them back in 2nd ed. and I haven’t looked back since. I believe this is the case of the vast majority of Marine players. And come to think of it, it is the same for every other faction. You can build all kind of Eldar armies from the same Codex but people still choose to play Saim Han or Ulthwe (sp?) or any other. Same with Chaos Marines or Guard. Same rules across the board but people come up with all those different regiments. Why? Is it because they have teleporting Land Raiders? Nope! It’s because they believe Valhallans for example are the coolest! And I’m sure same applies with Marine players. Playing BAs is not about teleporting Land Raiders at all. It is about playing the theme of the army which is the struggle against their genetic deficiency while fighting the Emperor’s wars with grace and style. Oh, and Space Vampires. What units would the DAs need to make them more Darkangely? There are whole threads about that, but that means that the things that are not yet available, although welcome, are not necessary to define the faction. There are Dark Angels players out there and have been for years, even without Mortis or Chaplain Dreadnoughts. I would welcome them of course; I just don’t see why Imperial Fists for example would/should not have access to them?

* Fewer Codices in the pipeline allow for more frequent revisit of all codices or even the introduction of new factions. This is something that is brought up a lot by non-Marine players. I think it holds water. GW resources although substantial are also finite. If it was possible to come up with all the codices for all the factions and for each SM Chapter within say a month of each new core edition came out then that’d be fine. But as things stand know once a Codex comes out that usually means it’s going to be “current” for a couple of editions at least. This in turn means that the evolution of the main rules is also slower as GW will strive for compatibility between editions (no radical changes) but at the same time it is possible that some codices will be hit more than others thus creating an undesirable unbalancing effect. If GW gets five codices into one and assuming they do not mess it up (a big “if” I know), then not only they can achieve an internal and external balance for 5 factions in one move they also release more time for other codices as well. Everything will be updated faster (including SMs) but there is also the possibility for introduction and support of new races. This is a good thing.

* Cross selling opportunities. GW is making money mainly through selling miniatures. The codex will be bought by all Marine players obviously so this is easily a best seller. As far as miniatures go, items like the Stormraven for example or the various Land Raider versions or what-have-you, will now be available too all. Not to mention that by producing Chapter specific sprues, GW can keep people interested and support tabletop diversity. And if in the mid-life of a certain edition they come up with another nasty piece of hardware, they can always launch it with “Chapter Approved” rules in WD or their site, and again all SM players would be eligible buyers. I actually thing the FW Contemptor Dreadnought is already in this category and from what I read in their site it is “the most popular Dreadnought model that we've designed so far”. I think is a pretty solid indication of what SM “available for all” models can do!

So I only see advantages here. From technical point of view I agree there will be some tough decisions to be made and maybe some very exotic units might go out of commission. Oh, and it’s going to be a fat one. But I believe it can work and it will be to the benefit of SM players, non-SM players and GW.

logan054
12-08-2011, 14:38
I can't say I am bothered by the fact the DA, BA and other codex (or close to codex) chapters have their own codex, you codex role all the codex armies into one book but you would need some sort of alternate rules for the slightly less codex chapters. I think you need your standard marines rules page like we have now then a page for each chapter you felt needed slightly alternate rules.

Blood angels would be something:

Blood angels replace the combat tactics special rule with furious charge and decent of angels special rules

Deathcompany: veteran assault marines with the FNP special rule for +xpts per model, you could could then have a special character that makes them troop choices but count as scoring.

Sang guard: honor guard with new weapon options, jump packs + xpts, inferno pistols +xpts, Dante allows them to be taken as troops.

Death company dreads: could be a BA only upgrade to venerables, perhaps they replace the venerable special rule to being immune to crew shaken and stunned results.


All marines perhaps could choice a type of captain, assault making assault marines troops, Terminator making terminator troops, biker making biker troops, etc.

Obviously BT, space wolves and any marines that work drastically different would have to have their own codex but it could be done.

Tastyfish
12-08-2011, 15:00
I think a "Hero's of the Space Marines" book would work - I'd still leave the Wolves, Templars and probably Blood Angels with their own books, but then have another one that is just new characters for Codex Space marines who bring with them Vulkan-like modifiers to combat tactics and the odd new unit.

Maybe even with the option to buy their "combat tactics" replacement as an upgrade to a regular captain.

So like a codex, but each unit entry is a special character representing their chapter, which should give you enough space to do them justice. "Pre-packaged" characters who give skills to existing units rather than come with a separate list should ensure that they remain a little more edition change friendly.

MLP
12-08-2011, 15:12
I think a lot of you aren't realising that most people who play the different chapters like the fluff and background of their individual armies.

Rather than just being "a slightly different space marine force" it makes each chapter a lot more desirable and interesting to collect and play if they each have an individual codex.

Voss
12-08-2011, 15:19
Fluff and background has been done repeatedly and is easily available, however.

self biased
12-08-2011, 15:38
I am a Dark Angels player since “Codex: Angels of Death” came out back in 2nd. I also collect a number of DA successors and I consider myself a very committed person to the hobby and this particular faction.

*Brilliant treatise on codex design and the way things ought to be*

:Starts a slow clapping:

omegoku
12-08-2011, 16:07
All the Marine codex, excluding Chaos, can be put into a big codex, without losing too much unique units, event the stupid wolf riding ones!
Fluff should cover (but not in great detail) The Legions, The Heresy, The Creation of the Codex, the Second Founding.
Then in more detail, Major battles of the SM. Like UM vs Nids, BA vs Orks on Armageddon, etc. and creation of a Marines
Then a few pages on each of the most popular Chapters.

Then on GW website you upload the hundreds of pages of fluff that could not make the cut. All the info is there, broken down by chapter, etc

sean_scanlon2000
12-08-2011, 16:30
going off of that lines then you can roll up all of the exnos races into one super codex and call it codex xenos...... i mean if there i sno difference between wolves and ultra marines... then what difference is there between tau and eldar... their both xenos thus they should be put into the same book. sorry but i dont follow the one book to rule them all philosophy. i was much happier with 4th ed codex where i coudl actually make a more unique chapter with out having to take a character to do so and gaining 1 special rule possibly 2 and not actually being able to represent a force. me i hope they never bind all the marine books into one codex... their not all the same sorry their just not. they fight differently they operate differently and their structured differently. space wolves are not codex marines their not... they dont fight like they they dont act like them their not ultra marines... templars are not ultra marines they are not they fight like templars they roam around bound by the will of their chapter and not by the tome of guillimen. blood angles again are not ultra marines they fight serperatly from a codex marine. their warriors who can break off from a tactical position to charge into combat with not thoughts of themselves. they are represented by their death company. they have the baal predator and other variatons ie a more prevolant use of jump pack and special jump pack squads.

sorry but not every chapter fights like the ultra marines... look at fist fluff they all should have some form of close combat weapons same goes for iron snakes shield and spear... some chapters have dual chapter masters. iron hands have a very different structure and do not so much as follow codex lines as they are more similar to autonomus fighting forces. salamanders... shoudl have less fast attack and more devestators but you cant do that with codex sm now can you.

why should people have to give up on their fluff or unique traits just because you wish to complain that they shouldnt have their own codex. who are you to say how GW should run marines? obviously what they are doing is working considering their marine sales out shine all of the fantasy armies combined.... you wish for them to focus more so on other xenos factions that can be done... show GW that there is an interest in them and that enough people will buy said product to make it worth while for them to support such an oppertunity. other wise they arent going to do it if they cannont make money from it. look at how long it takes to get a new book for a faction? orks who are probably 2nd or 3rd on their sellers went for what a decade almost with out a new codex. and GW didnt even touch them until they needed to do so to return sales to a proper and adequate level to support the army. you want a new race.... sign a petition and send it to GW with enough signatures to show that people will actually buy it. and for the love of god quite whinning about marines no marines= now 40k so get over it


do you realize that SM sales are what drives the development of other xenos races? thoes sales are what pays the game designers and what send funds into the development of other races. you need marine sales to continue to support the design and up keep of xenos races. you think they sell enough eldar or tau or necrons Dark eldar on their own to support thoes races?

PANZERBUNNY
12-08-2011, 16:41
going off of that lines then you can roll up all of the exnos races into one super codex and call it codex xenos...... i mean if there i sno difference between wolves and ultra marines... then what difference is there between tau and eldar... their both xenos thus they should be put into the same book. sorry but i dont follow the one book to rule them all philosophy. i was much happier with 4th ed codex where i coudl actually make a more unique chapter with out having to take a character to do so and gaining 1 special rule possibly 2 and not actually being able to represent a force. me i hope they never bind all the marine books into one codex... their not all the same sorry their just not. they fight differently they operate differently and their structured differently. space wolves are not codex marines their not... they dont fight like they they dont act like them their not ultra marines... templars are not ultra marines they are not they fight like templars they roam around bound by the will of their chapter and not by the tome of guillimen. blood angles again are not ultra marines they fight serperatly from a codex marine. their warriors who can break off from a tactical position to charge into combat with not thoughts of themselves. they are represented by their death company. they have the baal predator and other variatons ie a more prevolant use of jump pack and special jump pack squads.

sorry but not every chapter fights like the ultra marines... look at fist fluff they all should have some form of close combat weapons same goes for iron snakes shield and spear... some chapters have dual chapter masters. iron hands have a very different structure and do not so much as follow codex lines as they are more similar to autonomus fighting forces. salamanders... shoudl have less fast attack and more devestators but you cant do that with codex sm now can you.

why should people have to give up on their fluff or unique traits just because you wish to complain that they shouldnt have their own codex. who are you to say how GW should run marines? obviously what they are doing is working considering their marine sales out shine all of the fantasy armies combined.... you wish for them to focus more so on other xenos factions that can be done... show GW that there is an interest in them and that enough people will buy said product to make it worth while for them to support such an oppertunity. other wise they arent going to do it if they cannont make money from it. look at how long it takes to get a new book for a faction? orks who are probably 2nd or 3rd on their sellers went for what a decade almost with out a new codex. and GW didnt even touch them until they needed to do so to return sales to a proper and adequate level to support the army. you want a new race.... sign a petition and send it to GW with enough signatures to show that people will actually buy it. and for the love of god quite whinning about marines no marines= now 40k so get over it


do you realize that SM sales are what drives the development of other xenos races? thoes sales are what pays the game designers and what send funds into the development of other races. you need marine sales to continue to support the design and up keep of xenos races. you think they sell enough eldar or tau or necrons Dark eldar on their own to support thoes races?

SUPPORT YOUR MARINES! We need more xenos to kill. Please dev more.

althathir
12-08-2011, 16:43
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307409

Hope the link works. It appears by this poll that less than 25% of players play marines. Sure, it's higher than all the other armies but it took every marine codex to do it. If you split that number up 6 ways it gets real small real quick. The artificial increase in marine sales by making more marine stuff than everything else and updating them before every other army is the cause of more marine sales.

I remember that Poll, I voted eldar, but um I have a couple thousand points of marines, and I wouldn't have if I didn't like space vikings.


I am a Dark Angels player since “Codex: Angels of Death” came out back in 2nd. I also collect a number of DA successors and I consider myself a very committed person to the hobby and this particular faction.

I’m also in favor of a single Codex for Space Marines. Although many take this view out of need to limit the SM influence in the game (thus allowing other factions to emerge to prominence) I take this view for different reasons. Here are the advantages for SMs and the hobby in general in my view:

* All options available to all chapters. This has a twofold positive effect. First all hardware would be available to everybody and that all or at least several builds will also be available to everybody. So for example the Stromraven that is now available only to BAs (and GKs) for no real reason other than they both were the latest codices will be available to all chapters. In fact there is no good reason why it shouldn’t be available fluff wise (and it might be introduced to future incarnations of the other Codices. And as for army builds, they are all marines. Although each Chapter has a “signature” style of fighting they will employ all the resources available to tailor their forces to any situation. So yes DAs have the Deathwing build. Does this mean that BAs, for example, won’t use an all terminator force in the situation arise? Space Hulk comes to mind… But even so, there are no real restrictions fluff-wise for any chapter to be dogmatic on a particular style. Even if it were it is up to the player to play in character or not.

The lack of builds is more a sign of an earlier codex, than anything most 5th books have really stressed this (besides nids), personally I think allowing different vehicles/units allows for more balance. For example right now I wouldn't mind if wolves didn't gain access to ravens, but nilla, DA, BT, and chaos marines did inorder to balance out the armies a bit better, while still allowing wolves their unique units that wouldn't make sense in a combined book which as the chaos 3.5 dex proved isn't easy to balance either.

* No codex hopping. All chapters enjoy the same level of “power”. Codex hopping is to many a distasteful habit and is frowned upon. There is also some underlying “Codex Patriotism” that implies that if you play a certain chapter you are somehow honor bound to stick to its associated codex no matter how old and out of date it is. Why? It is just stupid to willingly choose to handicap yourself in a game before you even sit in front of the gaming table. Before DAs FAQ this handicap has driven a lot of players to adopt the green codex-marine path. Is that criminal? Obviously there are those that do the codex hopping only to gain a perceived advantage of the latest Marine codex. This is distasteful but it is going to be eradicated with a single codex – no?

I really have never had an issue with this, at the end of a day if the models are WYSISWYG I could care less, our hobby is too expensive for people to shelf armies cause the rules are outdated. The gamers that hop books for the rules will still exist it just may them cost more, the problem isn't the pratice of it, its the WAAC players that do it.

* No adverse impact on the fluff from the artificial need of each chapter to be “different”. We’ve seen that becoming more and more an annoying feature of Marine codices. From tedious nomenclature to downright outrageous units that diminish the suspension of disbelief and border to the ridiculous. Both SW and BAs suffer from that. One can only imagine what will happen to DAs just to “force” a difference that will justify a Codex of its own. Sorry but I like the fluff for what it is. I don’t need it to be validated through outrageous rules or units. Which brings me to my next point:

BA seemed fairly reasonable it just ward felt the need to add blood before everything he could. For wolves TWC are the biggest offender, and some of the fluff pieces. That said 40k has always been OTT, and if you look has always bordered on ridiculous look at jokaero. I enjoy that aspect and theres room in the hobby for both of us, for example look at how somber DA fluff is, this is a good thing.

* Choose a faction for the right reasons: fluff – not special rules. OK this is (as my previous points obviously) completely personal view. But it is also valid I think. I play DAs because I like their fluff. This is what drew me to them back in 2nd ed. and I haven’t looked back since. I believe this is the case of the vast majority of Marine players. And come to think of it, it is the same for every other faction. You can build all kind of Eldar armies from the same Codex but people still choose to play Saim Han or Ulthwe (sp?) or any other. Same with Chaos Marines or Guard. Same rules across the board but people come up with all those different regiments. Why? Is it because they have teleporting Land Raiders? Nope! It’s because they believe Valhallans for example are the coolest! And I’m sure same applies with Marine players. Playing BAs is not about teleporting Land Raiders at all. It is about playing the theme of the army which is the struggle against their genetic deficiency while fighting the Emperor’s wars with grace and style. Oh, and Space Vampires. What units would the DAs need to make them more Darkangely? There are whole threads about that, but that means that the things that are not yet available, although welcome, are not necessary to define the faction. There are Dark Angels players out there and have been for years, even without Mortis or Chaplain Dreadnoughts. I would welcome them of course; I just don’t see why Imperial Fists for example would/should not have access to them?

Completely agree but having one book doesn't magically make all players play for the fluff, I love my wolves, and my beil-tan eldar. You've chosen a chapter which really is defined by their fluff more than anything, and their fluff is background centric, its not like wolves that have to deal with the curse of the wulfen

* Fewer Codices in the pipeline allow for more frequent revisit of all codices or even the introduction of new factions. This is something that is brought up a lot by non-Marine players. I think it holds water. GW resources although substantial are also finite. If it was possible to come up with all the codices for all the factions and for each SM Chapter within say a month of each new core edition came out then that’d be fine. But as things stand know once a Codex comes out that usually means it’s going to be “current” for a couple of editions at least. This in turn means that the evolution of the main rules is also slower as GW will strive for compatibility between editions (no radical changes) but at the same time it is possible that some codices will be hit more than others thus creating an undesirable unbalancing effect. If GW gets five codices into one and assuming they do not mess it up (a big “if” I know), then not only they can achieve an internal and external balance for 5 factions in one move they also release more time for other codices as well. Everything will be updated faster (including SMs) but there is also the possibility for introduction and support of new races. This is a good thing.

I agree with this to extent, personally I think GW needs to really take advantage of the net and start updating armies a bit between releases. The DA faq is a great example, it added some new life to an old book, and it should have been marketed. As far as more fractions I'm a firm believer that part of the reason we had three marines books so close to together was inorder to afford DE if they bombed.

* Cross selling opportunities. GW is making money mainly through selling miniatures. The codex will be bought by all Marine players obviously so this is easily a best seller. As far as miniatures go, items like the Stormraven for example or the various Land Raider versions or what-have-you, will now be available too all. Not to mention that by producing Chapter specific sprues, GW can keep people interested and support tabletop diversity. And if in the mid-life of a certain edition they come up with another nasty piece of hardware, they can always launch it with “Chapter Approved” rules in WD or their site, and again all SM players would be eligible buyers. I actually thing the FW Contemptor Dreadnought is already in this category and from what I read in their site it is “the most popular Dreadnought model that we've designed so far”. I think is a pretty solid indication of what SM “available for all” models can do!

Again this can be achieved through different means, using their website (bring back black gobbo) and white drawf can create more balance and diversity.

So I only see advantages here. From technical point of view I agree there will be some tough decisions to be made and maybe some very exotic units might go out of commission. Oh, and it’s going to be a fat one. But I believe it can work and it will be to the benefit of SM players, non-SM players and GW.

Personally my big fear of a combined dex is another chaos 3.5, I would like it if they used other resources instead of combining a bunch of dexes, and probably invalidating a bunch of people's armies in the process.

Sai-Lauren
12-08-2011, 16:52
Really, though, the problem isn't too many Marine books, it's too many Marine players.
IMO, it's that Marines get promoted over all other armies.



Cross selling opportunities. GW is making money mainly through selling miniatures. The codex will be bought by all Marine players obviously so this is easily a best seller. As far as miniatures go, items like the Stormraven for example or the various Land Raider versions or what-have-you, will now be available too all. Not to mention that by producing Chapter specific sprues, GW can keep people interested and support tabletop diversity. And if in the mid-life of a certain edition they come up with another nasty piece of hardware, they can always launch it with “Chapter Approved” rules in WD or their site, and again all SM players would be eligible buyers. I actually thing the FW Contemptor Dreadnought is already in this category and from what I read in their site it is “the most popular Dreadnought model that we've designed so far”. I think is a pretty solid indication of what SM “available for all” models can do!

Whilst it has it's advantages, I don't think a single all Marine codex would create that many cross selling opportunities. For example, let's say you've got a Dark Angels army. Are you really going to start a Black Templars or Space Wolves army? You might buy a few more variant bits for your army, but that's about it.

Something closer to the IA books, or even the campaign mini-codexes, but in the IA size and fleshed out much more (and supported for the next forever rather than dropped as soon as the campaign's finished) might work better. For instance, say there's a background campaign where the Salamanders, with Mordian guard and Sororitas of the Bloody Rose face off against Snakebitez Orks on a desert world, when suddenly Necrons aligned to the Nightbringer wake up, and an army from Ulthwe arrive to deal with everyone. And I'm sure you could justify Tau and Tyrannids getting in there somehow.

Suddenly, there's at least 6 different options in the same book which might grab your attention, and as you read through the book in the future, there's more chance that you'll see something in another army that sets root as the basis for a new army.

And rather than the codex being bought by just Marine players, it's potentially being bought by all players. :)

It's the difference between having a choice of boiled ham, yorkshire ham, roast ham, breaded ham or gammon ham for your sandwiches, or having a choice of roast ham, chicken and stuffing, cheese, corned beef or tuna mayo for your sandwiches.

Ham's nice (well, unless you're vegetarian of course), but ham every day is boring.

Gen.Steiner
12-08-2011, 17:28
Frankly, seeing as EVERY OTHER FACTION copes with a single dex to cover umpteen million possible armies (e.g. Codex: Imperial Guard - Airmobile fights differently to footslogging Siege Guard, etc; or Codex: Eldar, or Codex: Tau, or Orks, or...) I think Codex: Adeptus Astartes would be a fine idea.

Droma
12-08-2011, 17:34
IMO, it's that Marines get promoted over all other armies.


When? Where? When's the last time you've seen GW advertising anything that wasn't either in store/WD/website? I only see tons of marine promotion because of Relic and their video game franchise. In GW itself marines are only slightly favored as they are including in the demo game otherwise it's whatever the codex of the month is.

As for this topic in general I've discussed it at length elsewhere and I disagree with it. To summarize my argument I've got two sentences.

1: It will make GW less money as people no longer bandwagon
2: It will not create any more xenos players it will only cause all marine players to be playing the same damn thing.

PANZERBUNNY
12-08-2011, 17:34
IMO, it's that Marines get promoted over all other armies.


Whilst it has it's advantages, I don't think a single all Marine codex would create that many cross selling opportunities. For example, let's say you've got a Dark Angels army. Are you really going to start a Black Templars or Space Wolves army? You might buy a few more variant bits for your army, but that's about it.

Something closer to the IA books, or even the campaign mini-codexes, but in the IA size and fleshed out much more (and supported for the next forever rather than dropped as soon as the campaign's finished) might work better. For instance, say there's a background campaign where the Salamanders, with Mordian guard and Sororitas of the Bloody Rose face off against Snakebitez Orks on a desert world, when suddenly Necrons aligned to the Nightbringer wake up, and an army from Ulthwe arrive to deal with everyone. And I'm sure you could justify Tau and Tyrannids getting in there somehow.

Suddenly, there's at least 6 different options in the same book which might grab your attention, and as you read through the book in the future, there's more chance that you'll see something in another army that sets root as the basis for a new army.

And rather than the codex being bought by just Marine players, it's potentially being bought by all players. :)

It's the difference between having a choice of boiled ham, yorkshire ham, roast ham, breaded ham or gammon ham for your sandwiches, or having a choice of roast ham, chicken and stuffing, cheese, corned beef or tuna mayo for your sandwiches.

Ham's nice (well, unless you're vegetarian of course), but ham every day is boring.

Sure. Take all the extra dexs away for marines. Then we have our opponents whining about fighting against "vanilla" marines all the time or marine players complaining about the Red Vs Blue nature of Marine armies.

GW customers will complain about anything, especially those without the journey through the various editions of torture.

Options are good. Be glad "niche" army has a dex at all and not just a WD trash effort.

Everyone would like more updates and xenos, but chopping others isn't the answer. It's like nerfing classes in mmo's. It's a bandaid solution.

Worry about pimping your own army instead of bashing others.

Dr.Clock
12-08-2011, 18:09
One unforeseen problem that a mega-dex might, and likely would, create would be that band-wagoners would all flock to one build. This happens already BETWEEN SM 'dexes as everybody and his brother currently clamours for the razor-spam list to rule them all.

balancing 10+ variant lists within a single codex is a nightmare balance-wise. Say what you will about the SW and BA, I consider them pretty well balanced barring a few abusive builds. But what list DOESN't have a few abusive builds. The fact that double-lash/Oblit spam, Nob Biker lists and leafblower are out there puts paid to the notion that marines are somehow the worst offenders. Marines in general tend to attract WAAC players because they are, on the whole, forgiving as a list.

At the end of the day, the legions of the interwebz are going to pick that massive, gorgeous, fluffy tome to pieces and we'll be left with 45% of marine players playing shooty-marines of doom, 45% playing close combat nutters and the remaining 10% deliberately handicapping themselves for fluff reasons. This has already happened in C:SM as Ultramarines suddenly twin-link all their flamers and meltas. As a Salamander's player, I thank the developers for including us in the codex, and staunchly refuse to use that travesty of a Chapter Tactic. I'm cool with Lysander, thanks ; )

Once everything is in one place, there will simply be no reason NOT to pick the variant character/units that provide the best bonuses for the least sacrifice - They're all in the same book after all... This problem will be aggravated by the advance of the rest of the market: by the time the next 5 or 6 books come out, marines will once again be down to only a few workable lists.

With things as they currently stand, it seems to me that the player base is split pretty evenly among C:SM, BA and SW. And even within those groups there are significant groups playing variant builds. Some lists from each codex tend to crop up a little more than others... but that's a reality in any book. Multiple marine codexes is good for the game because it encourages variety. We all approach a book looking for the 'best' thing. If we all have only one book to go to, we'll all end up in the same place.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Getz
12-08-2011, 18:17
going off of that lines then you can roll up all of the exnos races into one super codex and call it codex xenos...... i mean if there i sno difference between wolves and ultra marines... then what difference is there between tau and eldar... their both xenos thus they should be put into the same book.

This is a stupid straw man argument. Do Eldar, Tau and Orks have nearly identical statlines? Do the use the same weapons and vehicles? Do they have largely the same special rules?

Come on, you can do better than that... :eyebrows:

Personally, I'd like to see DA's and BA's re-amalgamated into "Codex: Angels of Death." It worked just fine in 2nd Ed and I don't see why it wouldn't work just as well now. You could also include rules for other "ever so slightly deviant" chapters like the Iron Hands and White Scars.

Space Wolves probably deserve their own codex and perhaps another for Crusading Chapters like the Black Templars, but that's about it.

As to everyone who reckons that the supliment codexes from 3rd Ed didn't work - how exactly didn't they? Everyone seemed to be happy with them at the time...

logan054
12-08-2011, 18:19
balancing 10+ variant lists within a single codex is a nightmare balance-wise. Say what you will about the SW and BA, I consider them pretty well balanced barring a few abusive builds. But what list DOESN't have a few abusive builds. The fact that double-lash/Oblit spam, Nob Biker lists and leafblower are out there puts paid to the notion that marines are somehow the worst offenders. Marines in general tend to attract WAAC players because they are, on the whole, forgiving as a list.

Dunno, I buy the argument of nightmare balances, I look at certain things in codexs and army books and can't help but wonder if they even play test.

I'm a grey knight player but the purifiers cannot have been play tested, why on earth is a purifier with falchioner cheaper than a strike with the same weapon? How can 10 purifiers with 2 psycannons, 1 hammer, psybolts and rhino be 325pts yet 10 strikes with the same loadout be 290pts (especially when the purifers can be made troops!).

Are WAAC players really more attracted to marines for any reason other than you can build a army for less money and have less models to paint?

althathir
12-08-2011, 18:26
Frankly, seeing as EVERY OTHER FACTION copes with a single dex to cover umpteen million possible armies (e.g. Codex: Imperial Guard - Airmobile fights differently to footslogging Siege Guard, etc; or Codex: Eldar, or Codex: Tau, or Orks, or...) I think Codex: Adeptus Astartes would be a fine idea.

I think there is more difference between a grey knight, and space wolf, then there is between a cadian and valhallan, or guardians from two different craftworlds, or fire warriors/boyz/guants in different forces.

I do think that older armies should receive codex updates, but I don't think one marine book is gonna magically make that happen.


One unforeseen problem that a mega-dex might, and likely would, create would be that band-wagoners would all flock to one build. This happens already BETWEEN SM 'dexes as everybody and his brother currently clamours for the razor-spam list to rule them all.

balancing 10+ variant lists within a single codex is a nightmare balance-wise. Say what you will about the SW and BA, I consider them pretty well balanced barring a few abusive builds. But what list DOESN't have a few abusive builds. The fact that double-lash/Oblit spam, Nob Biker lists and leafblower are out there puts paid to the notion that marines are somehow the worst offenders. Marines in general tend to attract WAAC players because they are, on the whole, forgiving as a list.

At the end of the day, the legions of the interwebz are going to pick that massive, gorgeous, fluffy tome to pieces and we'll be left with 45% of marine players playing shooty-marines of doom, 45% playing close combat nutters and the remaining 10% deliberately handicapping themselves for fluff reasons. This has already happened in C:SM as Ultramarines suddenly twin-link all their flamers and meltas. As a Salamander's player, I thank the developers for including us in the codex, and staunchly refuse to use that travesty of a Chapter Tactic. I'm cool with Lysander, thanks ; )

Once everything is in one place, there will simply be no reason NOT to pick the variant character/units that provide the best bonuses for the least sacrifice - They're all in the same book after all... This problem will be aggravated by the advance of the rest of the market: by the time the next 5 or 6 books come out, marines will once again be down to only a few workable lists.

With things as they currently stand, it seems to me that the player base is split pretty evenly among C:SM, BA and SW. And even within those groups there are significant groups playing variant builds. Some lists from each codex tend to crop up a little more than others... but that's a reality in any book. Multiple marine codexes is good for the game because it encourages variety. We all approach a book looking for the 'best' thing. If we all have only one book to go to, we'll all end up in the same place.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

QFT

Spider-pope
12-08-2011, 18:33
Why would merging all the marine codexs into one book solve anything at all?

There would still be just as many Marine players out there, a super book would take just as long to revise and require just as many resources to update, and there would be far more chance of every marine army looking identical.

At least currently a game against Blood Angels is different than a game against Grey Knights or Dark Angels.

Merging the books into one or two codexs will not change anything at all. Marines dont sell because they have half a dozen codexes, there are half a dozen codexes because marines sell.


As to everyone who reckons that the supliment codexes from 3rd Ed didn't work - how exactly didn't they? Everyone seemed to be happy with them at the time...

I don't know what your gaming group was like, but mine wasnt exactly thrilled that their Codexes chock full of background information had been reduced to a couple of pamphlets at best. Hell the Dark Eldar Codex was so flimsy that a brand new race had bugger all background information. It took years just to find out who they were, by which point no one gave a crap.

And thats not even getting into the pain in the **** that was involved when trying to keep them up to date. Having Codex A and a Codex A+ means that when Codex A is updated, it then throws Codex A+ out of whack. I'm sure no one really wants a return to having to cut out and glue amendments into their books, which occurred several times during early 3rd edition.

Lord_Squinty
12-08-2011, 18:39
We see how well that worked in 3rd Ed. What was the flaw that everyone took? "We Stand Alone"?

Yes, but that was purely for fluff reasons... :rolleyes:

Dr.Clock
12-08-2011, 18:41
@logan054

Exactly: every book has unintentional glitches and abusive lists. Do we really want one codex to lead to ONE abusive list to rule them all?

Re: GK

Because the Purifiers have a crazy combat power that is superior to the one the strike squad gets? Because they get free incinerators? Because they were designed with a slightly different purpose in mind than being psycannon toters? Because you can cram more special weapons in there?

If you take a 10 man purifier squad with 4 incinerators, a hammer, psybolts and rhino, you come to 305 - or 15 points for Cleansing Flame and MOAR BURNING. Seems pretty fair to me. The two units do different things - comparing them as if they were the same is unhelpful.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

AlphariusOmegon20
12-08-2011, 18:51
Aesthetic only.




Not Aesthetic only. Isignium Astartes gives a clear listing of what is accepted as codex markings, and squad markings shaped like fire is not in it.

Getz
12-08-2011, 18:55
Why would merging all the marine codexs into one book solve anything at all?

There would still be just as many Marine players out there, a super book would take just as long to revise and require just as many resources to update, and there would be far more chance of every marine army looking identical.

At least currently a game against Blood Angels is different than a game against Grey Knights or Dark Angels.

I played against BA's and DA's quite a lot in my club tournament last year. Basically no difference - fast marines (either Bikes or Assault Marines, sometimes mechanised) followed by deep striking 2+ saves, usually supported by Dreadnoughts. Ssometimes the TEQs were in a Landraider. Same threats, same solutions, no variation.

Of late GKs have been very popular at my club - usually mechanised PAGKs and deepstriking Terminators supported by Dreadnoughts. Sometimes the Terminators are in a Landraider. Yawn.

Okay sure, I play Guard so honestly a Paladin or Sanguinary Guard isn't really any more theatening in assault than a basic marine (I die horribly before getting to do much either way) and perhaps the people I play against are an unimaginative bunch, but this much vaunted "Variation" of which everyone speaks doesn't seem to crop up much in practice.

Even if we look at the wider Metagame, the main difference between the most popular SM and BA builds seems to be that BA tanks are fast.


Merging the books into one or two codexs will not change anything at all. Marines dont sell because they have half a dozen codexes, there are half a dozen codexes because marines sell.

Perhaps the Xenos races would sell better if they got more product support? Recently, whenever GW does a big splash on a Xenos race they fly off the shelves like hot cakes, but since the end of 4th what non Marine codexes have we had? Orks, IG, Tyranids and Dark Eldar. Only Tyranids seem to have been a disappointment...


I don't know what your gaming group was like, but mine wasnt exactly thrilled that their Codexes chock full of background information had been reduced to a couple of pamphlets at best. Hell the Dark Eldar Codex was so flimsy that a brand new race had bugger all background information. It took years just to find out who they were, by which point no one gave a crap.

And thats not even getting into the pain in the **** that was involved when trying to keep them up to date. Having Codex A and a Codex A+ means that when Codex A is updated, it then throws Codex A+ out of whack. I'm sure no one really wants a return to having to cut out and glue amendments into their books, which occurred several times during early 3rd edition.

The lack of fluff in the booklets has nothing to do with the viability of the supplement idea. We're talking rules here.


Not Aesthetic only. Isignium Astartes gives a clear listing of what is accepted as codex markings, and squad markings shaped like fire is not in it.

Rubbish. Variant marking require a different transfer sheet, not a different set of rules.

schmoozies
12-08-2011, 19:01
The problme is that the dominance of marines is something that was created by GW through the marine marketing strategy. Every 40k starter set has featured marines, they are one of the only ranges that has close to the complete range in plastic (its what 80-90% right now) and with each new set they are the first codex that gets updated. They are the poster child for the 40k universe and yes marines sales are the top of the GW food chain but only because they force it down players throats.

The idea of a generic marine codex is a good idea. The majority of marine armies actually do follow the Codex layout fairly closely with a minor tweak here and there to unit layout. For example Blood Angels have a few unique units, Death Company (foot and Dread), Sanguinary Priests and Libby dreads. Alot of the unique wargear in the book is over the top or renamed versions of existing wargear. Sanguinary Guard are just Vanguard Veterans with additional wargear options, the Baal is another turret option for the Predator which really should be available to everyone.

As the initial post said you could cover the codex wth 10-15 pages of chapter fluff, 5-6 special characters, a page to cover unique wargear and an army wide chapter tactics to reflect the unique combat style of each chapter and 2-4 pages of unique unit options that are keyed to the army such as Death Company. Yes its similar to the third edition pamphlet codexes but guess what those worked to keep wargear in line and meant that you only had to update wargear in one book and it was covered rather than the mess we saw when they changed storm shields and you had some codexes using the new rules and others using the old rules for what 2 years.

It is obvious that GW struggles to keep up with the development cycle of armies as evidenced by the gap between updates for certain factions, and would also address the perceived bias that certain marines are better by virtue of having the latest codes.

Personal opinion the only imperial marines that differ radically enough from codex standards to need a complete seperate list are Space Wolves, and Grey Knights (which I still question the need for a full chapter given the original fluff for them). Templars covered by adding Neophytes to tac squads and chapter tactics. Dark Angels a few wargear tweeks, chapter tactics and characters to unlock the needed Wing armies. You could add Imperial Fists, Salamanders, Iron Hands and the other original founding chapters who don't have seperate codexes.

Do I expect to see this sort of change, no. Would I like to see it, yes.

althathir
12-08-2011, 19:02
Why would merging all the marine codexs into one book solve anything at all?

There would still be just as many Marine players out there, a super book would take just as long to revise and require just as many resources to update, and there would be far more chance of every marine army looking identical.

At least currently a game against Blood Angels is different than a game against Grey Knights or Dark Angels.

Merging the books into one or two codexs will not change anything at all. Marines dont sell because they have half a dozen codexes, there are half a dozen codexes because marines sell.



I don't know what your gaming group was like, but mine wasnt exactly thrilled that their Codexes chock full of background information had been reduced to a couple of pamphlets at best. Hell the Dark Eldar Codex was so flimsy that a brand new race had bugger all background information. It took years just to find out who they were, by which point no one gave a crap.

And thats not even getting into the pain in the **** that was involved when trying to keep them up to date. Having Codex A and a Codex A+ means that when Codex A is updated, it then throws Codex A+ out of whack. I'm sure no one really wants a return to having to cut out and glue amendments into their books, which occurred several times during early 3rd edition.

Thats a good point, I doubt it would clear up resources either. In my case part of the reason I started wolves was the grey hunter/blood claw/wolf guard kit, and those would still have a place in the release schedule even if there wasn't dex with them. People will want to personalize their army and if we share book with the same strengths there will be demand for models that allow us to do so.

3rd edition dexes sucked, there wasn't much background in the full dexes, much less the mini-dexes.

As I've said before one marine book isn't the solution, GW actually using their website, and white dwarf as a tool to update their ranges instead of as an advertisment would have a much more beneficial effect on the hobby.

Spider-pope
12-08-2011, 19:05
Perhaps the Xenos races would sell better if they got more product support? Recently, whenever GW does a big splash on a Xenos race they fly off the shelves like hot cakes, but since the end of 4th what non Marine codexes have we had? Orks, IG, Tyranids and Dark Eldar. Only Tyranids seem to have been a disappointment...


Except that arguement doesnt work. GW is a business first and foremost. If all it took to quadruple sales of a product was to release a few extra codexes every race would have half a dozen and GW would be ordering extra magnums of champagne for their next shareholder meeting.

And what more product support can they get? Do the Xenos lists have the bulk of their miniature ranges on the shelf? Yes. Do they get FAQed when rules issues arise? Yes.

Reducing the number of marine books on the shelf is not going to magically make more people play Xenos lists. The argument suggests that there are loads of players being forced to play marine lists, all the while wishing if only, if only Codex Harlequins existed then they could escape the horror of their Blood Angel army.

Producing good looking models with an effective army list is the only way Xenos will get a boost to sales. Dark Eldar flew off the shelves because they looked damn cool and have a great list, not because Codex Space Wolves happened to be out of stock that week.

And look what happened as a result, we get several waves with the vast majority of the kits in quick succession. Because they sell. And it's because they sell that we see multiple Space Marine releases.

logan054
12-08-2011, 19:15
f you take a 10 man purifier squad with 4 incinerators, a hammer, psybolts and rhino, you come to 305 - or 15 points for Cleansing Flame and MOAR BURNING. Seems pretty fair to me. The two units do different things - comparing them as if they were the same is unhelpful.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

How is unhelpful? why should a unit that is better at shooting (more available special weapons) and better at close combat (more attacks per model) have cheaper weapon upgrades? how is that even remotely balanced? You have Russel Crow in your list and you actually now reason at all to use them! Why do you think so many people spam them? obviously one unit is vastly superior to the other and I think it sticks out like a sore thumb! this certainly suggests a lack of play testing and poor internal balance! I think the only reason to use strikes is warp quake! Most armies can function perfectly fine without such abilities so losses hardly out weigh the loses in this case.

Sami
12-08-2011, 19:30
I want a codex for each Dark Eldar Kabal and Cult that the fluff mentions has a unique fighting style. Fair? :P

Personally I don't care about Marine releases, providing GW is able to keep all of their codices up to date and effective. Which at the moment, they seem to be struggling to do. We still have 3rd edition books for 5th edition rules :/.

In an ideal world, there would be one big Space Marine codex detailing the standard Space Marine units and equipment. White Dwarf can then be used to expand the SM codex for various divergant chapters. It a) makes WD more appealing, and b) means you still only need to buy one book, as the WD armies would appear on GW's website.

Going by the 6th edition rumours (salt etc) this seems to be what is planned for Chaos, and as a former CSM player who abandoned the army come 4th edition I am all for it. I really don't care if I have to have 10 printed bits of paper with my codex (I already have that now - it's called the FAQ) if it means GW are able to quickly add new armies to the game without requiring me to buy another book. It's far cheaper to print it in WD, and far cheaper for them to correct any mistakes or balance issues as they can just upload an entirely corrected version of the WD list online.

Then again, I personally think GW should put all of their rulebooks online and make them free to access, because I honestly believe that it would generate so much interest in the game (and get more people involved, who are usually put off by the high price of entry) that in the long run the vastly increased unit sales would boost profits.

Getz
12-08-2011, 19:40
Except that arguement doesnt work. GW is a business first and foremost. If all it took to quadruple sales of a product was to release a few extra codexes every race would have half a dozen and GW would be ordering extra magnums of champagne for their next shareholder meeting.

And what more product support can they get? Do the Xenos lists have the bulk of their miniature ranges on the shelf? Yes. Do they get FAQed when rules issues arise? Yes.

Reducing the number of marine books on the shelf is not going to magically make more people play Xenos lists. The argument suggests that there are loads of players being forced to play marine lists, all the while wishing if only, if only Codex Harlequins existed then they could escape the horror of their Blood Angel army.

Producing good looking models with an effective army list is the only way Xenos will get a boost to sales. Dark Eldar flew off the shelves because they looked damn cool and have a great list, not because Codex Space Wolves happened to be out of stock that week.

And look what happened as a result, we get several waves with the vast majority of the kits in quick succession. Because they sell. And it's because they sell that we see multiple Space Marine releases.

At the end of the day, my experience working in sales is that people buy what you try hardest to sell them. GW clearly tries harder to sell marines than they do anything else. This is actually nothing new, where the best selling product gets pushed hardest by the salesmen, which is why it sells best, which is why the salesmen push it...

Bluntly however, I'm much more interested to hear what you have to say on my point that the variation these codexes are supposed to create is illusionary. Essentially, as a non Marine player, I can tell you with some certainty that all the Marine codexes play pretty much the same from my side of the table and they all take the same tactics to defeat. There's no variation for the person playing against them, and I believe that's why there's hostilty to the marine variants from non-Marine players. We're being told that there's loads of variation in 40k, but 75% of games turn into the same old anti-MEQ yawn-fest and in some cases we have to wait nearly a decade for our codex to be updated (I also play Orks and used to have a Necron army) while we watch the Marines get shiny new codex after shiny new codex.

Chem-Dog
12-08-2011, 19:46
Although I've never been a supporter of the combined codex the easiest way about such a measure would be to have a basic list with a series of appendicies for each Variant, detailing the bits which are unique to them.

Like I said, not a big fan of the idea but Appendicies would be the simplest way of doing it.

Surgency
12-08-2011, 21:11
Personal opinion the only imperial marines that differ radically enough from codex standards to need a complete seperate list are Space Wolves, and Grey Knights (which I still question the need for a full chapter given the original fluff for them). Templars covered by adding Neophytes to tac squads and chapter tactics. Dark Angels a few wargear tweeks, chapter tactics and characters to unlock the needed Wing armies. You could add Imperial Fists, Salamanders, Iron Hands and the other original founding chapters who don't have seperate codexes.

This actually sounds like a good idea, the more I think about it. I'd like to include Ravenwing Bikers as my first strike units, Sanguinary Priests to include with my Deathwing Terminators, and maybe even Iron Hands-esque Sergeant upgrades with my Imperial Fist Squads to provide solid firebases

Lowmans
12-08-2011, 22:02
The thread title has this all back to front IMHO.

There's an assumption that the number of Marine (or marine type) codices is a problem but that isn't the real underlying complaint. The complaint is that xenos don't get enough support.

Best advice, stop crying on tinterweb that somebody else is having fun. Go out, show everyone at your FLGS that your xenos are the bees knees. Get them
psyched to play xenos too. Because the support follows the money.

HRM
12-08-2011, 22:03
Because the support follows the money.

Most accurate comment thus far.

Voss
12-08-2011, 22:59
Merging the books into one or two codexs will not change anything at all. Marines dont sell because they have half a dozen codexes, there are half a dozen codexes because marines sell.

The history of 40K doesn't support that assertion. Space Marines sold long before there were half a dozen marine army lists.
They sold when Space Wolf = Dark Angel = Blood Angel = Ultramarine. They still sold when Grey Knight just meant a slight bonus against fear. Yes, they even sold before Terminators.
Marines even sold when they were toughness 3 and only had a 4+ armour save (which got worse with armour save modifiers).

Marines sell more because GW makes more of an effort to sell marines. It started because Marines got the first plastic box, then the first plastic vehicle. It was far easier (and cheaper) to collect squads of marines than anything else for a significant chunk of time. That hasn't really changed much, nearly 25 years later.

Spider-pope
12-08-2011, 23:26
At the end of the day, my experience working in sales is that people buy what you try hardest to sell them. GW clearly tries harder to sell marines than they do anything else. This is actually nothing new, where the best selling product gets pushed hardest by the salesmen, which is why it sells best, which is why the salesmen push it...

Bluntly however, I'm much more interested to hear what you have to say on my point that the variation these codexes are supposed to create is illusionary. Essentially, as a non Marine player, I can tell you with some certainty that all the Marine codexes play pretty much the same from my side of the table and they all take the same tactics to defeat. There's no variation for the person playing against them, and I believe that's why there's hostilty to the marine variants from non-Marine players. We're being told that there's loads of variation in 40k, but 75% of games turn into the same old anti-MEQ yawn-fest and in some cases we have to wait nearly a decade for our codex to be updated (I also play Orks and used to have a Necron army) while we watch the Marines get shiny new codex after shiny new codex.

I can't comment on the degree of variety you are facing when going up against different Marines, no two gaming groups are the same. I'm not a marine player myself, but my daemons certainly have to be used differently when facing close combat orientated Blood Angels than a mostly shooting based Ultramarine army.

What i said was at least there is some variety. A mono list with every option available to every marine player would quickly eliminate what little variety there currently is.

I am not arguing that Marines should get the majority of support, feth knows i've waited long enough to get a daemon battalion box, what i am arguing is that reducing them to a single codex at this point won't make any difference. They will still get the bulk of support and releases because they simply sell better. GW arent going to kill their golden goose in the hope that the other geese will start laying silver eggs.

AlexHolker
13-08-2011, 02:43
Why would merging all the marine codexs into one book solve anything at all?
It removes the incentive to add stupid things just to differentiate the different Space Marine codices.

It supports all the 1,000 Chapters with a doctrine system, instead of just a handful. You've got things ranging from Veteran Bike Squads to Thunderfire Cannons, and the combinations GW permits are not necessarily the only fluffy ones. For example, there is no Space Marine codex that has both Veteran Scout Squads (the WS 4/BS 4 Elite slot ones) and the Land Speeder Storm.

It encourages a more coherent design process. For example, in my ruleset I effectively had three tiers of customisation: founding legion/Chapter Tactics, Doctrines and, for the important chapters, special characters. The Black Templars variances from the Codex Astartes can be described in a single page - you don't need half a book. And that means you can use the saved time and space for more chapters or more fluff.

Spider-pope
13-08-2011, 07:32
It removes the incentive to add stupid things just to differentiate the different Space Marine codices.

It supports all the 1,000 Chapters with a doctrine system, instead of just a handful. You've got things ranging from Veteran Bike Squads to Thunderfire Cannons, and the combinations GW permits are not necessarily the only fluffy ones. For example, there is no Space Marine codex that has both Veteran Scout Squads (the WS 4/BS 4 Elite slot ones) and the Land Speeder Storm.

It encourages a more coherent design process. For example, in my ruleset I effectively had three tiers of customisation: founding legion/Chapter Tactics, Doctrines and, for the important chapters, special characters. The Black Templars variances from the Codex Astartes can be described in a single page - you don't need half a book. And that means you can use the saved time and space for more chapters or more fluff.

But would any of this reduce the number of Marine players out there? Would any of this reduce the complaints that people are playing MEQ armies 9 times out of 10? Would any of this result in the Xenos getting more support?

Sami
13-08-2011, 07:55
Would any of this result in the Xenos getting more support?

Less time spent writing/updating SM variant codices means more time updating non-SM variant codices, or even the chance of brand new ones being added (I know a lot of people are dying for a Mechanicus codex). So yes, it would.

Spider-pope
13-08-2011, 08:33
Less time spent writing/updating SM variant codices means more time updating non-SM variant codices, or even the chance of brand new ones being added (I know a lot of people are dying for a Mechanicus codex). So yes, it would.

But that assumes that the only thing holding GW back is that they are beholden to produce multiple marine codexes. One marine book doesnt not automatically equal a change in the distribution of resources within the studio.

As Lowmans said far more succinctly than me, the support follows the money. 1 codex or 10, Marines are the best selling GW range. They will still get a large proportion of the release schedule because it's making GW money. The people playing marines now arent going to suddenly stop and switch to Eldar, if anything it'll have the opposite effect drawing in more players once they realise they can get the best of several army lists in one.

Will this ever change? Perhaps. We've seen a couple of races now with very successful launches, Orks did well at release and have continued to be a good seller, Dark Eldar did spectaculary at launch.

And as a result we've seen both ranges get the bulk of their army lists produced in a relatively short space of time- an impressive feat especially for the orks who have had to make do with conversions for a long time prior.

Conversely Tyranids did rather badly, and how many more waves of releases have we seen for them?

If Necrons do well, i'd imagine it may be the final jolt needed to convince GW that a properly supported Xenos range can if not exceed then at least equal the sales of some of the Marine armies out there.

Haravikk
13-08-2011, 11:11
I think it'd be unrealistic to think that any of the current Space Marine chapters are going anywhere; there are just too many people playing them, and Space Marines are a big go to army for a lot of new players as they're a definite hook.


That said, I do think a core codex with supplements is the way to go. As mentioned; things like the myriad Dreadnought variants etc. could easily be collapsed into one or two Dreadnought entries with suitable equipment (e.g - armour upgrade to enable Ironclad, Venerable upgrade boosts stats a bit etc.).
Same can be done with a lot of things.

On the other hand; the core codex can also get rid of some of the crap that has been built up over the years, as with every chapter having every other chapter's stuff we're just stuck in an arms race to come up with new, gimmicky things, and it's just becoming too much as chapters no longer have any truly unique strengths or weaknesses.

With a good strong core book, the supplements then only need to focus on what makes various chapters unique. In future, if the core book is to be updated, then so long as supplement costs are shown as upgrades (e.g - +10 points per model to upgrade Terminators to Deathwing), then it should allow the supplements to keep functioning with only minor FAQ tweaks to keep them compatible.


I don't think that a single book to cover everything would work though, as at the very least there are far too many special characters, and it'd become a cluttered monstrosity.

Spider-pope
13-08-2011, 12:47
With a good strong core book, the supplements then only need to focus on what makes various chapters unique. In future, if the core book is to be updated, then so long as supplement costs are shown as upgrades (e.g - +10 points per model to upgrade Terminators to Deathwing), then it should allow the supplements to keep functioning with only minor FAQ tweaks to keep them compatible.



But then how is that fair to Marine players? Armies should only require a single codex to play, there is no reason why Marine players should be expected to pay for two codexes just to use a single army, especially since said codexes are now £20 each rather than £8 and £4 back when they last tried the add on pamphlet idea.

Gen.Steiner
13-08-2011, 13:43
Dead easy: You have a Space Marine list (and a list for every other army) in the back of the main rulebook, which is balanced and legit for tournies. Then every other army gets a variant dex, which enables all sorts of madness! :D

Codex: Airborne Imperial Guard Regiments, anyone? Or maybe Codex: Hyper-Violent Bargheesi, or Codex: Mercenaries or Codex: Rogue Trader Expeditions or Codex: Dark Mechanicus, or...

Threeshades
13-08-2011, 15:25
would it really be so bad for marine players if they had one book with which they coulkd still build their chapter as individually as their separate books made them?

Would it be so bad for GWs business? The books aren't their main source of income. Actually it would be even better for them: GW could sell one tremendous tome to every marine player out there no matter what chapter. It would unclog the update schedule of the game immensely and allow for more updates on everything else.

Haravikk
13-08-2011, 17:01
But then how is that fair to Marine players? Armies should only require a single codex to play, there is no reason why Marine players should be expected to pay for two codexes just to use a single army, especially since said codexes are now £20 each rather than £8 and £4 back when they last tried the add on pamphlet idea.
When has GW ever cared about fair? Even if they were £20 for core and £10 for each supplement, then for people with multiple Marine armies it'd work out cheaper overall.

It's also fair in that it would mean the basic marine wargear and profiles would have a level playing field, whereas now it takes so long to update all the codices that we're stuck in a cycle of one or two being top-dog while others languish far behind. With such a large number of armies as Marines the supplement system should cut down the amount of time it takes for these armies to be updated, and if the core book is updated sensibly then supplements will continue to work if the core book updates again.

Lord Damocles
13-08-2011, 20:00
Not Aesthetic only. Isignium Astartes gives a clear listing of what is accepted as codex markings, and squad markings shaped like fire is not in it.
So you'd give Salamanders' a variant list because they paint fire on their armour?

Seriously?

solkan
13-08-2011, 22:39
So, just have GW roll all seven Space Marine codices into one massive 550 page book (I'll spot anyone about 50 pages that might get saved by avoiding duplicating some wargear and army list entry pages) that combines all of the current rules and fluff together, and charge US $180 to anyone who wants to play a Space Marine? :angel:

For those who haven't been alive since the game started, GW makes up background material to justify the existence of units that they add to the game. Wolf riding Space Wolves, the Defiler, every single thing that makes any of the not-Ultramarines Space Marine books unique has been completely made up at some point to justify the addition of new models.

But compare the amount of models that have to be released for the Dark Eldar codex to the number of models that have to be released to turn out a new marine book. You have six different books that all use the same rhino model, and dreadnought model, and land raider model, and require maybe three or four new boxes of models. How many different boxes do the Dark Eldar alone need?

So if you want to add some new stuff to the game, and don't want to tie up the miniature production resources to do it, what's an easy army to do? A Space Marine variant. And that's why there are a half dozen of them.

But, if we're lucky, maybe the revitalization of the Dark Eldar models means that we'll see an explosion of Eldar variants next, in an attempt to prove that the craft world Eldar book was just ahead of its time.

yabbadabba
13-08-2011, 23:16
A proposed solution I didn't know it was a problem. It's not really.

to the overabundance of space marine codexes Again I'd debate that point. Marines have always been far and away the best selling army for GW and a C:SM release with the right models can be as lucrative as a game release weekend. By this reckoning there should be more, not less.

Sorry but this is a touch of Marine envy. Despite being supposedly the kick-ass human army they have just been average in gaming terms. The real problem is with sales. People don't buy enough of the other stuff to make it worth GW expanding their ranges like they have with Marines. And I know people will say it, so I will counter having tried it; no if GW promoted the other armies as much it doesn't sell the same as GW, just a little more.

However the opportunity for variant army lists being released for fun got sunk because GW couldn't release fun army lists without creating a crap load of unnecessary customer service tasks. So now it's down to the community to do their own variant army lists.

megatrons2nd
14-08-2011, 06:00
The real problem is with sales. People don't buy enough of the other stuff to make it worth GW expanding their ranges like they have with Marines. And I know people will say it, so I will counter having tried it; no if GW promoted the other armies as much it doesn't sell the same as GW, just a little more.



I've never seen a starter box with no marines in it.

People will buy what is easiest to acquire. Example: Two friends walk into a store and see the 40k box and either buy two boxes and trade the unwanted models or split the cost of the box. A player will always end up with Marines and the other will get the other army. Both new players will expand on whatever army they initially got.

Making 50% of all initial sales for Marines, and the other 50% whatever army GW decided to add, which has been around 3 other armies. Approximately 16.66% of sales for those three armies added from the starter alone as compared to 50% for marines. If a multiple starters were available or marines weren't included you might see a difference in sales.

yabbadabba
14-08-2011, 08:57
I've never seen a starter box with no marines in it.

People will buy what is easiest to acquire. Example: Two friends walk into a store and see the 40k box and either buy two boxes and trade the unwanted models or split the cost of the box. A player will always end up with Marines and the other will get the other army. Both new players will expand on whatever army they initially got.

Making 50% of all initial sales for Marines, and the other 50% whatever army GW decided to add, which has been around 3 other armies. Approximately 16.66% of sales for those three armies added from the starter alone as compared to 50% for marines. If a multiple starters were available or marines weren't included you might see a difference in sales. I love this old chestnut.

By this definition when GW produced its first box set 50% of the new recruited gamers should have been Marines and 50% Orks. Never happened. Same with the next edition with Marines and Dark Eldar. Never happened. With the release of the Book we should have seen an increase in the other armies and a roughly equivalent decrease in Marine sales. Never happened.

In short, GW learnt over the long period of 2e that Marines sell better than anything else. The are simple to construct, simple to paint, simple to play with, look awesome and they have the coolest imagery being 7ft genetic super human good guys. They sell more because for kids, GWs primary market, they are the best. This is also borne out through GWs Indie sales.

megatrons2nd
14-08-2011, 17:20
By this definition when GW produced its first box set 50% of the new recruited gamers should have been Marines and 50% Orks. Never happened. Same with the next edition with Marines and Dark Eldar. Never happened. With the release of the Book we should have seen an increase in the other armies and a roughly equivalent decrease in Marine sales. Never happened.

In short, GW learnt over the long period of 2e that Marines sell better than anything else. The are simple to construct, simple to paint, simple to play with, look awesome and they have the coolest imagery being 7ft genetic super human good guys. They sell more because for kids, GWs primary market, they are the best. This is also borne out through GWs Indie sales.

It nearly happened in my area. Ignoring the veteran players, we had 5 new marine players and 4 new orc players. One of the new Marine players traded his orcs to a veteran orc player for the veteran orc players excess marine scrap acquired through the years from set updates. Of the new players 3 marine players have quit, one went to Grey Knights and another to Blood Angels. Of the orc players 2 still play, 1 quit, and 1 went chaos marines. The next store over had 4 new players and was dead even in armies.

Captain Semper
14-08-2011, 17:21
In short, GW learnt over the long period of 2e that Marines sell better than anything else. The are simple to construct, simple to paint, simple to play with, look awesome and they have the coolest imagery being 7ft genetic super human good guys. They sell more because for kids, GWs primary market, they are the best. This is also borne out through GWs Indie sales.

I agree. And I think they'll be better served in a single Codex. Variant lists is not a primary requirement, several possible builds from a single list is.

It is possible, elegant and flexible. And we have a glimpse of it in the current C:SM. A very good Codex in my view that can produce a number of different builds. And people with different Chapters can pick'n choose their preferred units to build what they see as a Raven Guard or Imperial Fists or Salamander army. Or they can ignore all these and just build a competitive army irrespective of fluff. Something for everybody in just one Codex. There are other reasons too in my view but I have already post them - no need to repeat it.

yabbadabba
14-08-2011, 20:23
It nearly happened in my area. Ignoring the veteran players, we had 5 new marine players and 4 new orc players. One of the new Marine players traded his orcs to a veteran orc player for the veteran orc players excess marine scrap acquired through the years from set updates. Of the new players 3 marine players have quit, one went to Grey Knights and another to Blood Angels. Of the orc players 2 still play, 1 quit, and 1 went chaos marines. The next store over had 4 new players and was dead even in armies. While that's good, and the US market is far more varied because of the nature of the supply, Indies, its not a reflection of global sales patterns over the 13 years I was with them.

I have always maintained that GW haven't approached the US in the right way, but in the end especially for kids, marines sell.


I agree. And I think they'll be better served in a single Codex. Variant lists is not a primary requirement, several possible builds from a single list is. And GW will lose out on a substantial amount of sales opportunities which won't be made up from other lines. That's why we are unlikely to see a change unless GW choose a radically different path and sales direction to now.

Captain Semper
14-08-2011, 21:12
And GW will lose out on a substantial amount of sales opportunities which won't be made up from other lines. That's why we are unlikely to see a change unless GW choose a radically different path and sales direction to now.

You see this is the bit that I don't get. Why? The miniatures will still be on sale. All the plastic udgrade kits will be around and there will actually be an incentive to treat less popular chapters with new releases and broaden the diversity on the table top. Really cool Raven Guard plastics for example would be enough for me (a DA player since ever) to start a Raven Guard army on the side.

Ok the lack of codices might affect sales (not the primary concern anyway), but the "unified" codex would more than make up for it. Everybody is going to buy it. Even non-Marine players would be able with just one book to catch up with all the marine players armies. so I can see benefit in the "know your enemy" department too.

Saying that GW will lose money by switching to a single SM Codex is a perception. Not hard data. If it is hard data, will somebody show me? Really. What are the numbers that GW will surely lose by the single Codex endevour. If someone knows please share!

As far as I'm concerned GW can always try to find new ways to make money and obviously the current situation (for whatever reasons) is not ideal. Sales went down 3%yoy in a year when they actually released the 8th edition of WHFB. Here I'm proposing something that (I think) is genuinly good for the customers AND the shareholders. The only real counter-argument is that GW will lose money. I say it won't and unless someone can talk numbers this is a dead-end.

yabbadabba
14-08-2011, 21:43
You see this is the bit that I don't get. Why? The miniatures will still be on sale. All the plastic udgrade kits will be around and there will actually be an incentive to treat less popular chapters with new releases and broaden the diversity on the table top. Really cool Raven Guard plastics for example would be enough for me (a DA player since ever) to start a Raven Guard army on the side.

Ok the lack of codices might affect sales (not the primary concern anyway), but the "unified" codex would more than make up for it. Everybody is going to buy it. Even non-Marine players would be able with just one book to catch up with all the marine players armies. so I can see benefit in the "know your enemy" department too. GWs sales figures show that the initial 3 months of any release is the key period for sales. It significantly tails off after that, less for Marines than other, but it does. A Marine release generates a huge amount of interest. So what you are doing is replacing what is several very big releases with one huge one. One that can't be repeated the following year. In addition far more additional sales are created in that first 3 months of a new codex release than are generated with just a model release, so you would lose a significant portion of that as well.

Saying that GW will lose money by switching to a single SM Codex is a perception. Not hard data. If it is hard data, will somebody show me? Really. What are the numbers that GW will surely lose by the single Codex endevour. If someone knows please share! If you find any numbers, anywhere which aren't in the released report, then you have found more than 100% of all warseerites. I can tell you that because I worked for them in semi-priviledged conditions for a long time. I got to see the sales figures. I also had to match up model releases vs codex releases and I can tell you, 100% that it was a constant mismatch. You could never, ever match a codex release with a pure model release.

As far as I'm concerned GW can always try to find new ways to make money and obviously the current situation (for whatever reasons) is not ideal. Sales went down 3%yoy in a year when they actually released the 8th edition of WHFB. Here I'm proposing something that (I think) is genuinly good for the customers AND the shareholders. The only real counter-argument is that GW will lose money. I say it won't and unless someone can talk numbers this is a dead-end. See for me that's an easy way out. "No proof, no deal" on the internet is a risk you have to take in discussions like this. Well it can be countered by saying "sorry, but your idea doesn't work. Proof or no dice". Neither position allows this to go further.

As I have said, I don't agree with the title of this thread because there is no evidence for it. In fact I think GW should get better at promoting Marines and make more Marine codexes because they generate enough extra cash that could allow more fringe codexes to be produced.

Surgency
15-08-2011, 00:08
Sales went down 3%yoy in a year when they actually released the 8th edition of WHFB.

How many new releases were there in the same year that WHFB was released, as compared to other years? Maybe it was just my perception, but it seemed like there was a substantial decrease in releases in the 4 months following the 8th Ed Release

Nocculum
15-08-2011, 00:13
The question is not 'can you fit a workable and flexible army list to suit all the chapters with current codex releases' into it...

But 'can you fit the theme, fluff and attention those chapters deserve' into one book.

From Codex: Space Marines, the answer can only be no.

MadDoc
15-08-2011, 00:17
The question is not 'can you fit a workable and flexible army list to suit all the chapters with current codex releases' into it...

But 'can you fit the theme, fluff and attention those chapters deserve' into one book.

From Codex: Space Marines, the answer can only be no.
Hear, hear.

adeptusphotographicus
15-08-2011, 00:20
too many Marine codex's? not only is that a silly thing to both say and think.. it is complete fantasy.

and FYI people in here complain all the time, that is why they call it winge seer. so a poll of this place has zero value or meaning.

It would be niec to have even more codex's of the many interesting Marine chapters, and CSM legions that are not so gifted with a codex.

even a few new Xeno's codex's would be great too, another ork one, variation eldar, and dark eldar..

More is better, no value at all in less..

I respect your right to post what you like, but your assertion is wrong.

Wishing
15-08-2011, 00:51
It started because Marines got the first plastic box, then the first plastic vehicle. It was far easier (and cheaper) to collect squads of marines than anything else for a significant chunk of time. That hasn't really changed much, nearly 25 years later.

And the reason that marines got the first plastic box and the first plastic vehicle was that 40k was basically only written so that the marines would have a game to be played in. Orks, eldar and chaos were only drafted in from fantasy to provide some sideline antagonists.

In other words, 40k as a whole can be considered a marine codex expansion. Marines are the foundation that the game was built on. As such, threads that want marines to stop getting special treatment are effectively wanting to tear down the conceptual basis of the game and rebuild it from scratch. Would it be a better game if this was done? Probably. Would GW destroy their bestselling game to see if an alternate version would sell better? Of course not. Keep debating it as much as you like, but the sooner players understand that marines aren't a faction in 40k, they *are* 40k, the sooner they can either accept that and enjoy the game for what it is, or abandon the game and find one that has a balanced focus instead.

Wishing
15-08-2011, 00:56
The question is not 'can you fit a workable and flexible army list to suit all the chapters with current codex releases' into it...
But 'can you fit the theme, fluff and attention those chapters deserve' into one book.
From Codex: Space Marines, the answer can only be no.

And can you fit the theme, fluff and attention each ork klan deserves into one book? Hell no. Yet one book is all any non-marine faction gets. "Deserve" is a weird subjective term to be used in these discussions...



I respect your right to post what you like, but your assertion is wrong.

This is an amusing comment. "Your subjective opinion is wrong and my subjective opinion is right." :)

althathir
15-08-2011, 02:30
I agree. And I think they'll be better served in a single Codex. Variant lists is not a primary requirement, several possible builds from a single list is.

It is possible, elegant and flexible. And we have a glimpse of it in the current C:SM. A very good Codex in my view that can produce a number of different builds. And people with different Chapters can pick'n choose their preferred units to build what they see as a Raven Guard or Imperial Fists or Salamander army. Or they can ignore all these and just build a competitive army irrespective of fluff. Something for everybody in just one Codex. There are other reasons too in my view but I have already post them - no need to repeat it.

I think the current nilla book does a great a job with chapters like salamanders, raven guard, and Imperial fists, but I don't think it works well for aggressive CC chapters like wolves, black templars, or blood angels. So to make one book work, either more units need to be added, or armies need to lose choices or not fit their fluff. So either a bloated dex that can be broke (chaos 3.5), or a lot of customers with armies that are illegal :shifty:.


You see this is the bit that I don't get. Why? The miniatures will still be on sale. All the plastic udgrade kits will be around and there will actually be an incentive to treat less popular chapters with new releases and broaden the diversity on the table top. Really cool Raven Guard plastics for example would be enough for me (a DA player since ever) to start a Raven Guard army on the side.

Why would GW release RG plastics with a unified book? I just don't see why 1 book would make them be in higher demand, and that would be needed before GW push RG beyond shrike and shoulder pads. A great example of this is DE, if you look through the rumor section it becomes apparent that GW saw the demand and acted.

Ok the lack of codices might affect sales (not the primary concern anyway), but the "unified" codex would more than make up for it. Everybody is going to buy it. Even non-Marine players would be able with just one book to catch up with all the marine players armies. so I can see benefit in the "know your enemy" department too.

Most people that want to benefit from "know your enemy" buy all the books, and honestly less codices affecting sales should be one GW's primary concerns.

Saying that GW will lose money by switching to a single SM Codex is a perception. Not hard data. If it is hard data, will somebody show me? Really. What are the numbers that GW will surely lose by the single Codex endevour. If someone knows please share!

Fair, but on the other hand where is the data, that says that it will work better for them to do this? At the end of day GW is the one taking the risks, inorder to convince them to change your the one stuck with the burden of proof.

As far as I'm concerned GW can always try to find new ways to make money and obviously the current situation (for whatever reasons) is not ideal. Sales went down 3%yoy in a year when they actually released the 8th edition of WHFB. Here I'm proposing something that (I think) is genuinly good for the customers AND the shareholders. The only real counter-argument is that GW will lose money. I say it won't and unless someone can talk numbers this is a dead-end.

Luxury hobbies don't do great in bad economies, and just saying they won't lose money if they change to a unified marine book, doesn't mean much cause your not providing data either.


Personally I don't think marine dexes are problem, I think they allow GW to take risks that they wouldn't otherwise, there was reason DE didn't get updated for quite awhile they bombed the first time and that was with them being in the starter set (3rd).

megatrons2nd
15-08-2011, 02:36
GWs sales figures show that the initial 3 months of any release is the key period for sales. It significantly tails off after that, less for Marines than other, but it does. A Marine release generates a huge amount of interest.

So you admit that the Marine sales are artificially inflated.

Nocculum
15-08-2011, 03:13
And can you fit the theme, fluff and attention each ork klan deserves into one book? Hell no. Yet one book is all any non-marine faction gets. "Deserve" is a weird subjective term to be used in these discussions...

Yes...you can.

Pick up Codex: Orks.

There, somebody already did it.

althathir
15-08-2011, 03:19
So you admit that the Marine sales are artificially inflated.

How would that make them more artificially inflated than any other force? What he said was that the 3 months after a release were key and then sales dropped off but that it tended to be less of a drop off for marines.

That means that marines had more staying power and basically supports releasing them often as a good bussiness practice. The bottom line is there is demand for marines and GW is gonna sell them.

Stealin' Genes
15-08-2011, 03:53
Personally I don't think marine dexes are problem, I think they allow GW to take risks that they wouldn't otherwise, there was reason DE didn't get updated for quite awhile they bombed the first time and that was with them being in the starter set (3rd).

In fairness, part of the reason for that was that, missions aside, most of the people who bought the 3e starter just lined up the Marines and DE and fought an annihilation game. Which didn't go well for the DE, because while they outnumbered the SM, they had few, if any, weapons that bypassed marine armor, S3 guns, and the marines had a speeder. Meanwhile the marines denied DE armor saves, outfought them in close quarters, and, again, had a speeder. Ironically the "fast and aggressive army" was both outgunned and outmaneuvered by the marines they were fighting.

Most people who tried the DE in this "everything fights everything" game lost pretty one sidedly, figured DE weren't very good, and kept the marines. DE had a lot of problems in 3e; the army eventually got revised and was pretty good, but they had a lot that kept them from being popular:


They were new, so no existing player base.
Most people's experience with them in the starter set was not encouraging.
Their models were pretty ugly.
The initial codex wasn't very good.


On a total tangent:
I remember thinking at one point that the current popularity of loyalist marines v. loyalist marines games would make more sense if GW revised their universe.

Have the Imperium fall. In the resulting chaos, have guard warmasters, echlessiarchy officials, and chapter masters carve out their own empires. The GK could be the guys wandering the galaxy fighting demons; the way they see it, the Imperium's fall does not affect their vows to oppose Chaos to their last breath.

It might help a bit; I wonder whether some of the grumbling comes from people feeling like GW's focus on SM is a tad blatant at the moment. When the last few codex releases have been shouty men in power armor, and they also happen to be some of the strongest books in the game currently, and the two xenos books done this edition have been a) quite good, but 11? years after the first book DE got and b) workable but unexciting and full of problematic design decisions, overcosted units, and has gotten possibly the least model support in 5e thus far (Tyranids really felt kinda half-hearted on GW's part)... it kinda feels like GW maybe doesn't value our business.

Call it the brutal realities of the market or the cold hard facts of capitalism if you like. But if GW decides that my continued business isn't worth as much as it would be if I bought shouty men in power armor, I think the thing for me to do is to take my money somewhere else.

Just my 2 cents.

ehlijen
15-08-2011, 03:54
GW actually tried giving Xenos races more than one army list. The result was the unbalanced horror that was Codex: Craftworld Eldar.

megatrons2nd
15-08-2011, 03:55
Except that the marines receive a boost to sales at least once a year(sometimes more). Other armies receive no such boost. Which would than raise the marine sales and make them look more profitable as compared to any other army that waits 2-10 years for an update.

This actually reminds me of a childhood game. Take some balloons filled with regular air, and try to keep them all from hitting the ground. Now if you hit one 2-3 times more often than the others it will never hit the ground. Of course you may lose some of the others in the process.

AlphariusOmegon20
15-08-2011, 03:59
So you'd give Salamanders' a variant list because they paint fire on their armour?

Seriously?

I never said it would be because they have one unique trait ( not sure where the hell you got that from my post), because you'll remember I cited SEVERAL reasons why they are different.

Salamanders are much more different than the codex chapters (Ward did not do his homework very well it seems), just as much as Black Templars or Space Wolves are ( I still do not understand how a second founding chapter got their own codex. It should have been Codex: Imperial Fists TBH and it prolly would have looked like the Siege List from IA 10, with unit listings that could have handled BT) If being Highly Divergent from the Codex is the requirement to getting your own Codex, BA would NEVER have gotten their own codex, as they are clearly NOT divergent enough from the codex until Ward rewrote the book and MADE them divergent. If this is true, then today we would have had C:SM along with C: DA, C:SW, C: Salamanders, C: IH, and C: IF, which would have handled the most major divergences.

althathir
15-08-2011, 05:07
@Stealin' Genes - Its true that DE had a lot going againist them, but that didn't mean GW didn't invest heavily in a release that failed. Space marines allows GW to take more risks because they do sell.

The new DE represented a risk, so they pumped out a couple of marine dexes, and I think necrons also represent a risk. That said eldar, orks and chaos tend to be released fairly quickly one after another so it wouldn't be surprising to see that happen again.


GW actually tried giving Xenos races more than one army list. The result was the unbalanced horror that was Codex: Craftworld Eldar.

The craftworld supplement was pretty bad, I mean aspects as troops at the cost of guardians being elites (iirc) wasn't much of a drawback.


Except that the marines receive a boost to sales at least once a year(sometimes more). Other armies receive no such boost. Which would than raise the marine sales and make them look more profitable as compared to any other army that waits 2-10 years for an update.

This actually reminds me of a childhood game. Take some balloons filled with regular air, and try to keep them all from hitting the ground. Now if you hit one 2-3 times more often than the others it will never hit the ground. Of course you may lose some of the others in the process.

The key part of what yabbadabba was saying was the sales didn't tail off as much. I don't disagree that other fractions would benefit from more releases but I think GW can't really afford a couple of releases in row that bomb, marines seem to be risk free.

What angers me about GW is that there is a lot they could do to update the older parts of their range without taking big risks. Simply updating rules/point values on their website would provide a boost to older armies/units. Which I think would lead to more sales overall, but I can't blame them for selling what people want.

AlexHolker
15-08-2011, 05:10
The question is not 'can you fit a workable and flexible army list to suit all the chapters with current codex releases' into it...

But 'can you fit the theme, fluff and attention those chapters deserve' into one book.

From Codex: Space Marines, the answer can only be no.
I'd blame that on Ward's Ultramarine fetish. The book could have fleshed out the other chapters more, if they hadn't put Mr. "Everyone else feels bad because they can never be Ultramarines" in charge.

Or you could just go with my two book solution, with the first describing everything about the Space Marines in general, from the Primarchs to the Land Speeder, and the second book describing all the unique chapters.

ehlijen
15-08-2011, 05:44
I never said it would be because they have one unique trait ( not sure where the hell you got that from my post), because you'll remember I cited SEVERAL reasons why they are different.

Salamanders are much more different than the codex chapters (Ward did not do his homework very well it seems), just as much as Black Templars or Space Wolves are ( I still do not understand how a second founding chapter got their own codex. It should have been Codex: Imperial Fists TBH and it prolly would have looked like the Siege List from IA 10, with unit listings that could have handled BT) If being Highly Divergent from the Codex is the requirement to getting your own Codex, BA would NEVER have gotten their own codex, as they are clearly NOT divergent enough from the codex until Ward rewrote the book and MADE them divergent. If this is true, then today we would have had C:SM along with C: DA, C:SW, C: Salamanders, C: IH, and C: IF, which would have handled the most major divergences.

Most chapters are not divergent until GW decides to make a book for them. Then is when they start changing their unit structure and getting unique units and characters. Before codex Armageddon, Black templars were shining examles of the marine codex (they were they ones on the 3rd ed book cover and in the painting guide for the starter box). Then suddenly, they gained new made up background and units and ever since then 'they deserve their own book'.

Who or what deserves a seperate codex is 100% arbitrary and up to GW. If they think they can sell it, they will write it, slap together some new units and stick it on the shelves.

I'm wondering if an approach like LotR would be viable, where the game rules assume you have one good army and one bad army fighting at its very core. Only make it one imperial and one non-imperial faction...

Sai-Lauren
15-08-2011, 11:06
When? Where? When's the last time you've seen GW advertising anything that wasn't either in store/WD/website? I only see tons of marine promotion because of Relic and their video game franchise. In GW itself marines are only slightly favored as they are including in the demo game otherwise it's whatever the codex of the month is.

Slightly favoured?

Ever been in a store when someone's playing a demo game? I've never, ever, seen the prospective player being given the non-Marine race, and the Marines are usually played up as the heroes that the newcomer should play because they're so good and heroic and so on.

Marines as one side in every single box set.
Marines in something like 80% of battle reports, and if they're on the losing side, it's normally extremely close.
Marines normally handing everyone their backsides in every codex, whilst even in their own codex, it's rare for the featured army to face off against Marines - most often the Eldar, Guard or Orks that are involved.
Marines as central characters in most of the 40k Black Library production (and that's not including the Heresy series, although some books focussing on the Imperial Army and the Navy at this time would be nice) - there's only the Ghosts and Cain that have really bucked the trend.
Marines appear on the boxes for the Bastion, the Shrine of the Aquila, the Battlescape, the Skyshield Platform, the Aegis defence line (in fact, I think it's the same Ultramarines, direct from central casting, in all cases), when Guard would probably be the more realistic choice - and let us not forget the Marine statue in the Honoured Imperium set.

There's even a massive statue of a Marine outside the head office, and usually a portable one gets transported to Games Day.



The history of 40K doesn't support that assertion. Space Marines sold long before there were half a dozen marine army lists.
They sold when Space Wolf = Dark Angel = Blood Angel = Ultramarine. They still sold when Grey Knight just meant a slight bonus against fear. Yes, they even sold before Terminators.
Marines even sold when they were toughness 3 and only had a 4+ armour save (which got worse with armour save modifiers).

Admittedly, back then, there were only really Marines that were generally available. ;)



So, just have GW roll all seven Space Marine codices into one massive 550 page book (I'll spot anyone about 50 pages that might get saved by avoiding duplicating some wargear and army list entry pages) that combines all of the current rules and fluff together, and charge US $180 to anyone who wants to play a Space Marine?

For those who haven't been alive since the game started, GW makes up background material to justify the existence of units that they add to the game. Wolf riding Space Wolves, the Defiler, every single thing that makes any of the not-Ultramarines Space Marine books unique has been completely made up at some point to justify the addition of new models.

Considering about 75% of the fluff in every Marine codex is the boilerplate stuff about how to make a Marine, plus the Great Crusade and the Horus Heresy from a slightly different point of view, that's brought the page count down massively. ;)



The question is not 'can you fit a workable and flexible army list to suit all the chapters with current codex releases' into it...

But 'can you fit the theme, fluff and attention those chapters deserve' into one book.

From Codex: Space Marines, the answer can only be no.

Indeed.

And for your later point about Codex Orks, IMO, that's pretty much a Goff list that can just about be tailored to the other clans.



And the reason that marines got the first plastic box and the first plastic vehicle was that 40k was basically only written so that the marines would have a game to be played in. Orks, eldar and chaos were only drafted in from fantasy to provide some sideline antagonists.

Sorry, but that's incorrect.

40k started life as a game called Laserburn, which was adapted to use the 2nd edition WFB ruleset and races and was originally planned to be released merely as a supplement to WFB, rather than a complete game.

Wishing
15-08-2011, 11:07
Yes...you can.
Pick up Codex: Orks.
There, somebody already did it.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you can fit everything that orks deserve into one book, because orks have one book at the moment, but you can't do the same for marines, because they have more than one book at the moment? So if GW just made one marine book for all chapters in 6th, you would change your mind to that marines only need one book? Sorry, but I think this "what armies deserve is what they currently have" mentality to be somewhat incomprehensible. This is a debate about how things should be, not just stating what the current situation is.

Wishing
15-08-2011, 11:13
40k started life as a game called Laserburn, which was adapted to use the 2nd edition WFB ruleset and races and was originally planned to be released merely as a supplement to WFB, rather than a complete game.

That's cool. Did it have marines? I don't know what Laserburn was like, but the Rogue Trader rulebook (the first 40k product I was familiar with) read to me like a book about marines for people that like marines, and that you were supposed to buy some marines with the book and then maybe some aliens to shoot.

Sai-Lauren
15-08-2011, 12:57
That's cool. Did it have marines? I don't know what Laserburn was like, but the Rogue Trader rulebook (the first 40k product I was familiar with) read to me like a book about marines for people that like marines, and that you were supposed to buy some marines with the book and then maybe some aliens to shoot.

That's strange, it read to me like a book introducing the 41st millenium, with Humans, Eldar, Orks, Zoats, Jokaero and so on. Marines got covered, but in no more detail than anyone else. ;)

Then again, Rogue Trader was pretty much set up as a squad-level role playing wargame, so there was more information on other things - Inquisitors, Assassins, Navigators, Astropaths and so on. And later publications, especially White Dwarf, dwelt on Marines much more.

Nocculum
15-08-2011, 13:18
Ork variants are modelling choices, not rules choices.

You cannot represent a Sanguinary Guard unit with any unit in the vanilla marine book due to the force organisation restrictions (you could potentially get away with HQ squads I guess, but they don't have Glaive Encarmines or Angelus Boltguns, so it's a moot idea).

If you want feral orks, you model feral orks.

They already have furious charge, big choppas and mob leadership.

If you want looted imperial guard vehicles for those nasty 'uman lovin' orksies, model a looted wagon (see, you got a whole entry in the book SCREAMING for customisation!) and away you go.

You can make a perfectly viable Evil Sun and Speed Freak army with the book as well, and flavour, rule and unit options are all well represented.

The Ork Codex in my opinion is one of the best written and thought out 40k books for the current edition/time period.

Lord Damocles
15-08-2011, 13:24
It's funny that all those Ork choices used to have variant rules/lists (with some pretty hefty alterations from the standard), but apparently survived getting rolled into a single list...


EDIT: Also, Sanguinary Guard: 'A unit of Honour Guard may be given Jump Packs for +15pts per model if a Chapter Master with Jump Pack is taken as an HQ choice'. Simples.

Nocculum
15-08-2011, 13:36
Which in fact gives you Honour Guard with jump packs, and not master crafted power weapon elites.

logan054
15-08-2011, 14:10
Which in fact gives you Honour Guard with jump packs, and not master crafted power weapon elites.

I personally don't see why they have two handed power weapons ( I actually thought they had relic blades when I looked at the models!), I think honor guard with jump packs, wrist mounted boltguns and relic blades would make a perfect acceptable count as for Sanguinary Guard.

Then you would have Dante who would allow them to be taken as troops (just as now) and you haven't lost your list, you could easily have all the rules need to make chapters like BA or DA on a single page (well one page per chapter). You could then use separate codexs for chapters that do not follow the codex astartes (Space Wolf, Black templar, grey knights).

aka_mythos
15-08-2011, 14:28
Except that the marines receive a boost to sales at least once a year(sometimes more). Other armies receive no such boost. Which would than raise the marine sales and make them look more profitable as compared to any other army that waits 2-10 years for an update.

This actually reminds me of a childhood game. Take some balloons filled with regular air, and try to keep them all from hitting the ground. Now if you hit one 2-3 times more often than the others it will never hit the ground. Of course you may lose some of the others in the process.

To take your analogy, what GW believes its done is tied all the balloons to the one it keeps hitting, always the others lag behind but they follow. Space Marines make up 60% of all GW sales, while it can be said that some portion of that is a self fullfilling prophecy induced by their disproportionate investment the other half of this is that the consistency of revenue and profits from Space Marines are what allow GW to make investments into other less successful products, lowering their threshold to achieve success. Putting up with Space Marines is like a tax on getting the other stuff we want.

Wishing
15-08-2011, 15:32
That's strange, it read to me like a book introducing the 41st millenium, with Humans, Eldar, Orks, Zoats, Jokaero and so on. Marines got covered, but in no more detail than anyone else. ;)

Then again, Rogue Trader was pretty much set up as a squad-level role playing wargame, so there was more information on other things - Inquisitors, Assassins, Navigators, Astropaths and so on. And later publications, especially White Dwarf, dwelt on Marines much more.

I don't have the book in front of me and it's been a while since I read it, so perhaps my memory is playing tricks. What I remember is most of the artwork being marines fighting something or other, marines on parade, the stories being about someone preparing something for marines, and whatnot. If I remember all this incorrectly, I retract my comment about the RT book. I still stand by my view that without marines there would be no 40k, however.


Ork variants are modelling choices, not rules choices.
You cannot represent a Sanguinary Guard unit with any unit in the vanilla marine book due to the force organisation restrictions (you could potentially get away with HQ squads I guess, but they don't have Glaive Encarmines or Angelus Boltguns, so it's a moot idea).
If you want feral orks, you model feral orks.
They already have furious charge, big choppas and mob leadership.
If you want looted imperial guard vehicles for those nasty 'uman lovin' orksies, model a looted wagon (see, you got a whole entry in the book SCREAMING for customisation!) and away you go.
You can make a perfectly viable Evil Sun and Speed Freak army with the book as well, and flavour, rule and unit options are all well represented.
The Ork Codex in my opinion is one of the best written and thought out 40k books for the current edition/time period.


OK, so you're stating that you like the fact that Ork variant armies are simply variant colour schemes and modelling choices, rather than different army lists. All the flavour and rules for the different clans are contained perfectly in the one book.

Surely this is a testament that the same could be done with marines? You say that you can't field Sanguinary Guard using the standard marine codex, but that's the whole point of sanguinary guard - they were made up specifically so that the BA would have some more models to differentiate them from standard marines. If we were dealing with Orks, this is like if GW released a unit of special mega-nobz that had unique bad moon only weapons. All of a sudden we need a Bad Moon codex, because the clan can no longer be represented by the normal Ork codex. Is this what we want? Is this a good thing?

Remember that marine chapters aren't distinct and unique because of some mystical nature of theirs. They are distinct because GW changed them to be distinct so that people would be more excited about building armies of them. Originally all marines were just marines, and all chapters were just colour schemes. They don't "deserve" more books because of their fluff and distinctiveness, they only have the fluff and distinctiveness because GW wanted to make more books for them.

aka_mythos
15-08-2011, 15:46
Remember that marine chapters aren't distinct and unique because of some mystical nature of theirs. They are distinct because GW changed them to be distinct so that people would be more excited about building armies of them. Originally all marines were just marines, and all chapters were just colour schemes. They don't "deserve" more books because of their fluff and distinctiveness, they only have the fluff and distinctiveness because GW wanted to make more books for them.I unfortunately think its a case of the genie being out of the bottle and you can't put it back in. We'll have these armies around for a long while because GW put this effort into them. Back in 3rd edition when there was distinction would have been the time to do this, but back then I thought rather than publish umpteen marine codices, they should have just released a book as thick as the core rules that had the rules for all the marine variants in one.

Getz
15-08-2011, 15:52
You cannot represent a Sanguinary Guard unit with any unit in the vanilla marine book due to the force organisation restrictions (you could potentially get away with HQ squads I guess, but they don't have Glaive Encarmines or Angelus Boltguns, so it's a moot idea).

Before 2010, there was no such thing as Sanguinary Guard. They only exist because GW put them in the new codex, and no-one seemed to mind not having them back when they were using the old pamphlet codex of the WD release.

A perfect example, in fact. You say that C:SM can't represent BAs because it can't represent Sanguinary Guard (although why they just can't be Vanguard Veterans is completely beyond me) yet the only reason Sanguinary Guard exist at all is because GW decided to include them in a the BA codex so they differentiated the army from basic SMs more.

If GW wanted, they could just give SM Honour Guard an option for Jet packs and inferno pistols and you've pretty much got Sanguinary Guard in the main codex there and then.

In fact, I's go so far as to say there is nothing represented in the BA codex that couldn't be better done by adding a few options to some of the standard SM units and throwing in a some more special characters - yet for all this they require a whole new codex?

Wishing
15-08-2011, 15:52
I unfortunately think its a case of the genie being out of the bottle and you can't put it back in. We'll have these armies around for a long while because GW put this effort into them. Back in 3rd edition when there was distinction would have been the time to do this, but back then I thought rather than publish umpteen marine codices, they should have just released a book as thick as the core rules that had the rules for all the marine variants in one.

Yeah, but as pointed out, Orks had several books and army lists back in RT days, and these were consolidated into one book later on (even ignoring the clans entirely at one point). So there is precedent for GW publishing variant army lists and then retracting them again in a later edition, putting the genie back in the bottle as it were.

The reason the variant marine books won't be put back in the bottle even though the orks were is, once again, that 40k is the marine game and GW knows to acknowledge and profit from this nowadays,

aka_mythos
15-08-2011, 16:13
I think another aspect of GW's marine centrism is a matter of accounting. If you've ever seen slides from their investor website they lump Space Marines/Grey Knights/Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Black Templars/Dark Angels into a single category "Space Marines". That block collectively makes up 60% of all their sales; what would be more telling is if GW subdivided that into those smaller headings. My guess is that Space Marines would still make up 30% of their sales, but that those other Chapters only do as well as any given non-space marine army. I believe they're in effect inflating a portion of their figures to make a point and then making a bad choice based on this false assumption. Just because the collective block of marines do well does not mean specific portions do better than other non-marine armies but just because those chapters are lumped together they're treated as if they do and are given more investment, attention, and priority than the non-marine armies.

Lord Damocles
15-08-2011, 16:23
Yeah, but as pointed out, Orks had several books and army lists back in RT days
And not just Orks. 3rd - 4th ed. gave us such wonderful (read: terrible) variants as*:

Orks
Speed Freeks
Feral Orks
Bad Moons
Goffs
Deathskulls
Blood Axes
Snakebites
Evil Sunz

Eldar
Iyanden Ghost Warriors
Biel-Tan Swordwind
Siam-Hann Wild Riders
Aliatoc Ranger Force
Ulthwe the Damned
Ulthwe Strike Force

Imperial Guard
Elysian Drop Troops
Armageddon Planetary Defense Force
Catachan Jungle Fighters
Armageddon Ork Hunters
Death Korps of Krieg
Savlar Chem Dogs
Cityfight Veterans
Armoured Company (twice)
(plus Abhuman and Swamp Fighters doctrines)


They were all rolled into their current parent codexes.


*That I can remember off-hand. Not including Forgeworld.

40 klicks below
15-08-2011, 16:36
Before 2010, there was no such thing as Sanguinary Guard. They only exist because GW put them in the new codex, and no-one seemed to mind not having them back when they were using the old pamphlet codex of the WD release.

A perfect example, in fact. You say that C:SM can't represent BAs because it can't represent Sanguinary Guard (although why they just can't be Vanguard Veterans is completely beyond me) yet the only reason Sanguinary Guard exist at all is because GW decided to include them in a the BA codex so they differentiated the army from basic SMs more.

If GW wanted, they could just give SM Honour Guard an option for Jet packs and inferno pistols and you've pretty much got Sanguinary Guard in the main codex there and then.

In fact, I's go so far as to say there is nothing represented in the BA codex that couldn't be better done by adding a few options to some of the standard SM units and throwing in a some more special characters - yet for all this they require a whole new codex?



I think you've got it the wrong way round.

There is an overabundance of Marine-players in 40K. Consequently, it seems prudent for GW to release sufficient (and sufficiently diverse/different) Marine Codexes, so those masses of Marine-players are at least spread to a variety of different books/Marine-varients.

Forcing all the Marine-armies/options into a single Marine Codex would only mean that all those players out there playing more or less diverse Blood Angels/Black Templars/Space Wolves/regular Marines/-list would converge unto a single book/list, making the game (and gaming community) of 40K far less diverse than it is now.

Getz
15-08-2011, 16:58
Forcing all the Marine-armies/options into a single Marine Codex would only mean that all those players out there playing more or less diverse Blood Angels/Black Templars/Space Wolves/regular Marines/-list would converge unto a single book/list, making the game (and gaming community) of 40K far less diverse than it is now.

Utter she-ite.

As I've already said, there is no diversity anyway - everybody plays the same near identical armies even if they come from different different codexes.

Surgency
15-08-2011, 17:09
Thats funny, because my Dark Angels list doesn't work in any codex aside from GK, and then only with a LOT of proxy-ing. My SW list won't work across the board, my GK won't work across the board.....

I suppose I could fit my normal Marine list into the other codicies, but it would be a stretch, and would require some proxy-ing, depending on which book I try to squeeze it into

And they're all substantially different lists

logan054
15-08-2011, 17:15
Utter she-ite.

As I've already said, there is no diversity anyway - everybody plays the same near identical armies even if they come from different different codexes.

That's certainly not true unless you are seriously dumbing it down to "spam anti-tank ap2/3 weapons, my GK list is nothing like my Blood Raven list

AlphariusOmegon20
15-08-2011, 17:16
And not just Orks. 3rd - 4th ed. gave us such wonderful (read: terrible) variants as*:

Orks
Speed Freeks
Feral Orks
Bad Moons
Goffs
Deathskulls
Blood Axes
Snakebites
Evil Sunz

Eldar
Iyanden Ghost Warriors
Biel-Tan Swordwind
Siam-Hann Wild Riders
Aliatoc Ranger Force
Ulthwe the Damned
Ulthwe Strike Force

Imperial Guard
Elysian Drop Troops
Armageddon Planetary Defense Force
Catachan Jungle Fighters
Armageddon Ork Hunters
Death Korps of Krieg
Savlar Chem Dogs
Cityfight Veterans
Armoured Company (twice)
(plus Abhuman and Swamp Fighters doctrines)


They were all rolled into their current parent codexes.


*That I can remember off-hand. Not including Forgeworld.

Speed Freeks ARE Evil Sunz. They're the same thing, just the same thing as Feral Orks ARE Snakebites.

Nocculum
15-08-2011, 17:40
This is 5th Edition.

What was in 4th or the last decade matters not.

Lord Damocles
15-08-2011, 18:52
Speed Freeks ARE Evil Sunz. They're the same thing, just the same thing as Feral Orks ARE Snakebites.
Not according to their variant rules they weren't (from a rules perspective anyway).

Anyway, given that Ulthwe got two lists...

Voss
15-08-2011, 21:28
Speed Freeks ARE Evil Sunz. They're the same thing, just the same thing as Feral Orks ARE Snakebites.

Not even vaguely. Evil Sunz, as a klan, tend to have more speed freak members than other klans, similarly, Snakebites tend to adopt more ferals. But Speed Freaks and Ferals are mindsets that exist outside of the klan structure. They just tend to be more common in those clans, the same way the Goffs have more nobs.


And the reason that marines got the first plastic box and the first plastic vehicle was that 40k was basically only written so that the marines would have a game to be played in. Orks, eldar and chaos were only drafted in from fantasy to provide some sideline antagonists.

In other words, 40k as a whole can be considered a marine codex expansion. Marines are the foundation that the game was built on. As such, threads that want marines to stop getting special treatment are effectively wanting to tear down the conceptual basis of the game and rebuild it from scratch. Would it be a better game if this was done? Probably. Would GW destroy their bestselling game to see if an alternate version would sell better? Of course not. Keep debating it as much as you like, but the sooner players understand that marines aren't a faction in 40k, they *are* 40k, the sooner they can either accept that and enjoy the game for what it is, or abandon the game and find one that has a balanced focus instead.
That is absurd. And factually wrong. Eldar, orks, squats and guard got just as much space in Rogue Trader as marines. The tyranids were definitely sideline, and chaos barely present (most mutations were blamed on chemicals and radiation, not evil Space Gods), but there is no basis for the idea that 40k started out as 'just marines'.

In fact, the game was based more on the idea of warbands, with character-level figures like Rogue Traders (subtle, what?) leading a mixed force of a few squads into alien worlds. It was very much of an open universe originally, with space for a lot of ideas, critters, aliens and various departments of the Imperium of man (the bloody Adeptus Custodes had a page and a half, and they generally don't leave Earth). It wasn't intended or designed as Marine 40K.

The conceptual basis for 40k was a big nasty universe that treated people as irrelevant blips in the violence. Marines were simply one blip among many.

Wishing
15-08-2011, 22:44
Not even vaguely. Evil Sunz, as a klan, tend to have more speed freak members than other klans, similarly, Snakebites tend to adopt more ferals. But Speed Freaks and Ferals are mindsets that exist outside of the klan structure. They just tend to be more common in those clans, the same way the Goffs have more nobs.

Agreed. I'm not sure if boar boyz were Snakebite specific or not, but the original version of "ferals", Wildboyz, were definitely klan-independent, and the Cult of Speed was a separate group distinct from the Evil Sunz.



That is absurd. And factually wrong. Eldar, orks, squats and guard got just as much space in Rogue Trader as marines. The tyranids were definitely sideline, and chaos barely present (most mutations were blamed on chemicals and radiation, not evil Space Gods), but there is no basis for the idea that 40k started out as 'just marines'.

In fact, the game was based more on the idea of warbands, with character-level figures like Rogue Traders (subtle, what?) leading a mixed force of a few squads into alien worlds. It was very much of an open universe originally, with space for a lot of ideas, critters, aliens and various departments of the Imperium of man (the bloody Adeptus Custodes had a page and a half, and they generally don't leave Earth). It wasn't intended or designed as Marine 40K.

The conceptual basis for 40k was a big nasty universe that treated people as irrelevant blips in the violence. Marines were simply one blip among many.

That's not how I remember interpreting it, but I only got in at the tail end of RT and didn't play much so I may be misremembering. But in that case, when did marines in your opinion go from being just one blip among many to the biggest blip of them all, as they are now?

yabbadabba
15-08-2011, 23:05
But in that case, when did marines in your opinion go from being just one blip among many to the biggest blip of them all, as they are now? The period between the release of 2e and 3e. There were Marines, Orks and Eldar as main armies initially.

Getz
16-08-2011, 00:20
That's certainly not true unless you are seriously dumbing it down to "spam anti-tank ap2/3 weapons, my GK list is nothing like my Blood Raven list

To you perhaps, but what about to the guy on the other side of the table? One army of MEQs and TEQs is pretty much like another when you're playing against them and the overall composition archetypes never seem to change much. You might think that there's a world of difference between a Tactical Squad and a squad of Grey Hunters, but to the person you're playing against they're virtually identical. In most cases we're just dealing with an otherwise standard C:SM unit with a tacked on special rule or two, or a largely unchanged unit shuffled around the FOC. That's not any kind of diversity...

Surgency
16-08-2011, 01:23
following that logic, whats the difference between a firewarrior squad, dire avengers, DE warriors, or Necron warriors? They're virtually identical also, with a few small differences, so the same could be said there...

Stealin' Genes
16-08-2011, 01:34
Claiming that Dark Eldar Kabalite Warriors, Necron Warriors, and Fire Warriors are as alike as Tactical Marines and Grey Hunters is almost nonsensical.

The statlines alone of the four infantry troopers you mentioned vary dramatically. Not to mention dramatically different weaponry, armor values, and special rules, with each unit playing a very different role in its army. Those infantry run the gamut from light infantry to tougher than space marines.

Grey Hunters are more aggressive and less standoffish than tacticals, but the two statlines are identical. They can take slightly different weapon loadouts, but the basic unit design and threat profile (bolters and melta weapons or flamers) are more or less the same. The area of greatest divergence is special rules, but even then they have a lot in common.

From your opponent's perspective, though, GH are fightier tacticals that can't take a heavy weapon. They're harder to shift in assault, although serious assault units will beat them. And they have to get closer to hurt you. But they're still essentially marines; they can't not be.

Surgency
16-08-2011, 01:39
only a couple of stats really vary. Everything else is very close. Each unit has a similar role in its respective army. Each unit has similar tactics that it employs for most efficient use. The only real difference is in their weapons loadout, but they all do similar damage with their special rules/weapons loadouts.

ehlijen
16-08-2011, 01:45
This is 5th Edition.

What was in 4th or the last decade matters not.

If that was the case, marines wouldn't deserve seperate codices either. All the justification for that is either older than 5th ed or only came into being with their current codices, ie after the decision was made to give them a seperate codex.

megatrons2nd
16-08-2011, 01:58
following that logic, whats the difference between a firewarrior squad, dire avengers, DE warriors, or Necron warriors? They're virtually identical also, with a few small differences, so the same could be said there...

Necrons are closer to marines than they are to any of the other Xenos listed.


only a couple of stats really vary. Everything else is very close. Each unit has a similar role in its respective army. Each unit has similar tactics that it employs for most efficient use. The only real difference is in their weapons loadout, but they all do similar damage with their special rules/weapons loadouts.


There is more difference in stats and basic weapons on all of those Xenos than there is on any one of the marine tactical squad variants.

Getz
16-08-2011, 02:13
only a couple of stats really vary. Everything else is very close. Each unit has a similar role in its respective army. Each unit has similar tactics that it employs for most efficient use. The only real difference is in their weapons loadout, but they all do similar damage with their special rules/weapons loadouts.

What utter rubbish - barely worth dignifying with a reply.

But, because it never hurts to illustrate why exactly you are completely wrong:

Fire Warrior WS2, BS3, T3, S3, I2, Sv 4+ Ld7 armed with a S5 AP5 Rapid fire gun with 30" range - generally employed cautiously in small numbers mounted in a slow, tough skimmer with anti-infantry weapons. Tend to never get out of their transport.
DE Warrior WS4, BS4, T3, S3, I5, Sv5+, Ld8 armed with a SX AP5 poisoned Rapid fire gun with 24" range - generally employed agressively in large numbers mounted in a fragile, fast, open topped skimmer with an anti-tank gun. Tend to perform drive-by shootings, disembarking to assault weakened infantry
Dire Avenger WS4, BS4, T3, S3, I5, Sv4+, Ld9 armed with a S4 AP5 Assault 2 gun with 18" range - generally employed in modest numbers mounted in a fast, tough skimmer with versatile weapon options. Tend to be disembarked directly into the enemy before shooting at them.
Necron Warrior WS4, BS4, T4, S4, I2, Sv3+, Ld10 armed with a S4 AP5 Rapid fire gun with 24" range and the gauss rule - generally deployed in vast numbers and can only foot-slog inexorably across the table towards you, shooting all the while.

By Contrast;

Tactical Marine WS4, BS4, T4, S4, I4, Sv3+, Ld8 armed with a S4 AP5 Rapid fire gun with 24" range - generally employed agressively with a Rhino or Razorback
Grey Hunter WS4, BS4, T4, S4, I4, Sv3+, Ld8 armed with a S4 AP5 Rapid fire gun with 24" range - generally employed agressively with a Rhino or Razorback
Dark Angel WS4, BS4, T4, S4, I4, Sv3+, Ld8 armed with a S4 AP5 Rapid fire gun with 24" range - generally employed agressively with a Rhino or Razorback
Blood Angel WS4, BS4, T4, S4, I4, Sv3+, Ld8 armed with a S4 AP5 Rapid fire gun with 24" range - generally employed agressively with a Rhino or Razorback
Grey Knight WS4, BS4, T4, S4, I4, Sv3+, Ld9 armed with a S4 AP5 Assault 2 gun with 24" range and a force weapon - generally employed agressively with a Rhino or Razorback, or by deep strike

Clearly the chosen Xenos are every bit as similar to one another as the variant marines are. :eyebrows:

I concede I'm ignoring army special rules, but I've already pointed that that's about the only way the basic infantry differs.

However, even if the profiles were similar (which they are not) the armies from which the come play in very different ways. In my experience all SM variants play pretty much identically to basic SM's, they just get the odd special rule or unit that slants them slightly in one direction or another.

Eldar and Tau may both have T3 infantry and skimmer tanks, but the way in which the two armies play are radically different. Necrons and Tau may not get special weapons for their infantry and Battlesuits and Destroyers may appear superficially similar, but they have pretty much nothing else in common. To argue that the xenos codexes lack variety on account of a few shared stats or similar ideas is fundamentally dishonest. Most of the variant SM lists share infantry and tanks that are identical except for a few equipment options and the odd army wide special rule and most of them produce essentially identical armies.

Fusarius
16-08-2011, 02:21
it has probably been said, but:

the title of this thread should really be "A proposed solution to the profitability of games workshop"

althathir
16-08-2011, 02:24
I think another aspect of GW's marine centrism is a matter of accounting. If you've ever seen slides from their investor website they lump Space Marines/Grey Knights/Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Black Templars/Dark Angels into a single category "Space Marines". That block collectively makes up 60% of all their sales; what would be more telling is if GW subdivided that into those smaller headings. My guess is that Space Marines would still make up 30% of their sales, but that those other Chapters only do as well as any given non-space marine army. I believe they're in effect inflating a portion of their figures to make a point and then making a bad choice based on this false assumption. Just because the collective block of marines do well does not mean specific portions do better than other non-marine armies but just because those chapters are lumped together they're treated as if they do and are given more investment, attention, and priority than the non-marine armies.

I think it would be very hard for them to split those numbers up accurately. I mean marines share a lot of kits and alot of people buy every codex. Its possible the varient chapters are more popular than the vanilla ones, because most marine dexes don't have a lot of releases more like 2 or 3 units, and hq models, while rhinos inflate C:SM sales.


Utter she-ite.

As I've already said, there is no diversity anyway - everybody plays the same near identical armies even if they come from different different codexes.

Really, I'm gonna be honest I think the main reason you see it this way is cause you appear to play guard, and tactically most marine players are gonna try and do the same thing, get in CC cause no chapter is just gonna outshoot you, and guard don't win in CC againist marines. My gameplans for my eldar and wolves change based on the chapters i'm playing againist because some of them can outshoot me, and some want to get into CC.

For the most part the people that try to play all marine armies the same way tend to struggle the most, because they aren't taking advantage of their codex, they're looking for marines +1.


To you perhaps, but what about to the guy on the other side of the table? One army of MEQs and TEQs is pretty much like another when you're playing against them and the overall composition archetypes never seem to change much. You might think that there's a world of difference between a Tactical Squad and a squad of Grey Hunters, but to the person you're playing against they're virtually identical. In most cases we're just dealing with an otherwise standard C:SM unit with a tacked on special rule or two, or a largely unchanged unit shuffled around the FOC. That's not any kind of diversity...

With my eldar (mechdar) I'm approaching tactical squads and grey hunters in different manners, but its a bit more involved than that so first I'll break it down by the different armies.

1) Wolves - First if its a hybrid list I'll go after their heavy support probably long fangs till they're gone, then destroy rhinos, then if its an objective game clear off an objective and contest the rest, if its killpoints and I'm ahead I run cause thats what space elves are good at. If i'm down in killpoints if I can rid of the heavy support & rhinos then I just keep trying to engage one squad at a time, if they castle I rely on my serpents and stay out of range.

If its razor spam, its fairly similiar, but i'll try and overload one flank cause its too many targets for CWE to try and supress so I'll try and use their razors to help block Los. That said I'll go after the grey hunters more agressively if I wreck a razor, cause they have smaller squads I don't need to commit as much resouces to get them off the table. Razorback armies tend to bleed kill points, Objective games are fairly similiar for eldar tbh we suck at sitting on objectives so I just shoot for one and clear the rest.

With both lists, it mainly hinges on if I can get rid of their support options, after that I have an advantage.

2) Nilla Marines - If its shooty marines I can't really ignore the tacticals in this matchup, they're better at supporting each other, and having more heavy weapons helps them supress me if I'm not careful. That said marine armies tend to have fewer troops, and take advantage of combat squads so I'll split up my forces and have some go after support while the the rest kill tacticals.

Bike lists are tough ( I know you didn't ask for them by hey they exist). I go after their troop choices hard, cause they're fast enough that they can contest my objectives as well, and provide a threats to my serpents.

For both nilla matchups it tends to be a durability contest, cause the threats are more spread out.

3) BA don't run tacticals very often in my experience, when they do its because they want more scoring and could use a heavy. I just tend to go after the assault marines, unless they have fnp bubbles, and then my eldar cry.

aka_mythos
16-08-2011, 02:27
I think the issue as its being discussed is a bit backwards from what people really want. Its not really the abundance of marine codices its the perceived sacrifice of everything else for the sake of more marines. In that vein I think the number of marine codices would be perfectly fine, IF GW could support everything else to a noticeable degree more. Their biggest mistake more recently is that they've consistently pursued the easiest fixes first, which have all been marines, but those were easiest because they were so like each other... thus leaving the more varied flavors in the game for the next edition... and keeping them in their place as low selling product lines.

Getz
16-08-2011, 02:39
Really, I'm gonna be honest I think the main reason you see it this way is cause you appear to play guard, and tactically most marine players are gonna try and do the same thing, get in CC cause no chapter is just gonna outshoot you, and guard don't win in CC againist marines. My gameplans for my eldar and wolves change based on the chapters i'm playing againist because some of them can outshoot me, and some want to get into CC.

Not quite, Guard are my primary army, but I also regularly play Orks, Chaos Marines and Tau. In addition I'm tinkering with Eldar and an all Scout SM list - but neither are complete enough to play regularly - and have previously owned a Necron army.


For the most part the people that try to play all marine armies the same way tend to struggle the most, because they aren't taking advantage of their codex, they're looking for marines +1.

To be honest you may have a point here, but t doesn't really address the issue. I may be possible and even preferable to exploit whatever diversity the variant marine lists offer, but in my experience that's not what happens on the table top. You just get the same old ideas trotted out as before only with a new colour scheme and a couple of army wide special rules.

carlisimo
16-08-2011, 02:56
They have separate books because there's that much fluff about all the different chapters.

I'm guessing the savings on playtesting and miniature designing (because they're all basically the same) are significant, and that GW would not be able to release non-Marine armies as quickly if there weren't a bunch of Marine releases every year.

althathir
16-08-2011, 03:21
I think the issue as its being discussed is a bit backwards from what people really want. Its not really the abundance of marine codices its the perceived sacrifice of everything else for the sake of more marines. In that vein I think the number of marine codices would be perfectly fine, IF GW could support everything else to a noticeable degree more. Their biggest mistake more recently is that they've consistently pursued the easiest fixes first, which have all been marines, but those were easiest because they were so like each other... thus leaving the more varied flavors in the game for the next edition... and keeping them in their place as low selling product lines.

Yeah thats a good point, but what frustrates me about this topic is that GW can update those fractions rules without much risk online or in WD, then use SM to update those ranges models and create more diversity that way as well, but the only logical solution is one book for marines that will magically solve every problem.


Not quite, Guard are my primary army, but I also regularly play Orks, Chaos Marines and Tau. In addition I'm tinkering with Eldar and an all Scout SM list - but neither are complete enough to play regularly - and have previously owned a Necron army.



To be honest you may have a point here, but t doesn't really address the issue. I may be possible and even preferable to exploit whatever diversity the variant marine lists offer, but in my experience that's not what happens on the table top. You just get the same old ideas trotted out as before only with a new colour scheme and a couple of army wide special rules.

Fair enough but I would argue that most of those armies do tend to lead more defined style of play. Ork, Chaos Marines are assault armies, tau and guard are shooty, I think when play armies like that your tactics don't change quite as much because your armies strengths are more defined. Eldar are bit different because their main strength is being mobile so they tend to react more to thier opponents force and the different marines will seem a bit more unique.

edit: On the second point, I don't think a lot of players that switch armies have an easy time starting fresh, and the advice people get online isn't exactly groundbreaking which leads to a lack of creativity.


They have separate books because there's that much fluff about all the different chapters.

I'm guessing the savings on playtesting and miniature designing (because they're all basically the same) are significant, and that GW would not be able to release non-Marine armies as quickly if there weren't a bunch of Marine releases every year.

Thats a valid point, but they are a lot of older units like swooping hawks, and pryovores that a slight point adjustment may make them worth playing without ruining balance.

Stealin' Genes
16-08-2011, 03:41
I dunno what would make Pyrovores worth taking. They'd be a waste of an elite choice even if they were free.

I'd find the "marines are a steady cash flow so GW can release non-marine books that don't sell as well" notion more convincing if one of the two xenos books released for 5e so far didn't feel so rushed, uninspired, and half-hearted. It really felt like the guy who wrote Codex: Tyranids just didn't care. There's so much bad design in that book, strange decisions, overcosted units, all that fun stuff. It's a workable book. I've won plenty of games with it. But it doesn't make you go "wow!" the way GK or BA do.

And that's the issue, at least for me. It's that this book, supposedly a bigger risk than another marine chapter, seems like it was kicked out the door out of obligation without taking time to polish, playtest, or edit it. And then got no additional minis, supposedly because the launch wasn't very successful. But, had they released a better (not necessarily a stronger book, just a better product), the launch might have been better.

It feels like they kinda launched 'nids to sink, and that's what bothers me. It looks more and more like GW lavishes attention on marine books, and non-power armored armies just have to go with the luck of the draw. It's not the number of marine armies vs. the number of xenos. It's the appearance that GW doesn't value my business as highly because I play a less popular army, and so offer me a second-rate army book and less support.

althathir
16-08-2011, 04:24
I dunno what would make Pyrovores worth taking. They'd be a waste of an elite choice even if they were free.

I'd find the "marines are a steady cash flow so GW can release non-marine books that don't sell as well" notion more convincing if one of the two xenos books released for 5e so far didn't feel so rushed, uninspired, and half-hearted. It really felt like the guy who wrote Codex: Tyranids just didn't care. There's so much bad design in that book, strange decisions, overcosted units, all that fun stuff. It's a workable book. I've won plenty of games with it. But it doesn't make you go "wow!" the way GK or BA do.

And that's the issue, at least for me. It's that this book, supposedly a bigger risk than another marine chapter, seems like it was kicked out the door out of obligation without taking time to polish, playtest, or edit it. And then got no additional minis, supposedly because the launch wasn't very successful. But, had they released a better (not necessarily a stronger book, just a better product), the launch might have been better.

It feels like they kinda launched 'nids to sink, and that's what bothers me. It looks more and more like GW lavishes attention on marine books, and non-power armored armies just have to go with the luck of the draw. It's not the number of marine armies vs. the number of xenos. It's the appearance that GW doesn't value my business as highly because I play a less popular army, and so offer me a second-rate army book and less support.

IMO the nids book really suffered from GW shamelessly wanting to push new models, and then they hit it with a nerfstick faq. I don't blame you for being frustrated about it, but I don't think one marine book fixes that problem. GW has the tools to update forces just look at the DA & BT faq updates, and hopefully the White Dwarfs keep being used as a tool to update armies instead of just a big advertisement

Sai-Lauren
16-08-2011, 09:43
That's not how I remember interpreting it, but I only got in at the tail end of RT and didn't play much so I may be misremembering. But in that case, when did marines in your opinion go from being just one blip among many to the biggest blip of them all, as they are now?

IMO, it was the release of the Marines paint set, and then the Space Wolves army list in WD.



I think the issue as its being discussed is a bit backwards from what people really want. Its not really the abundance of marine codices its the perceived sacrifice of everything else for the sake of more marines. In that vein I think the number of marine codices would be perfectly fine, IF GW could support everything else to a noticeable degree more.

Indeed, going back to the balloon analogy, with all the balloons tied together and just playing keepy-up with the Marine one - if the string breaks, or the balloon is missed, the whole lot hits the floor.

I'm sure that we'd all agree that Marines are the iconic symbol of the 40k universe - to the point where they'd sell on looks alone. They don't need constant explicit support, that time could surely be spent better on the other races, to bring their sales figures up.

If GW stuck a weeks worth of Marines work into, say, Necrons, would the drop off in sales of Marines be exceeded by the increase in sales of Necrons? Would there be any drop off in Marine sales at all, giving GW pure profit? Would Marine sales even increase because people weren't fed up of them being promoted to the exclusion of everything else, or because the developers are off the treadmill and actually have time to think about new things properly?

I don't know, and I suspect no one does because no one's ever decided to work it out.

WFB does it roughly right IMO - there are more popular armies, and there might be armies that take the lead in each new edition, but all the armies are presented roughly equally. If they did it like 40k, we'd have "Warhammer Armies: Knights of the Blazing Sun", "Warhammer Armies: Knights Panther", "Warhammer Armies: High Helms" etc - because Knights sell well, and "Warhammer Armies: Skeletons and Stuff" with the VC and TK together because they don't, and Dwarves falling down a trapdoor because no one can be bothered to do anything with them, and Dwarves is a silly name (what was Tolkien thinking?) and the Empire's now got all the artillery, so what role have they got?



They have separate books because there's that much fluff about all the different chapters.

Sorry, but I can sum up the fluff in each Marine codex as follows:

Blah, blah, Great Crusade, blah, blah, Horus Heresy and aftermath, blah blah, signing up to the Codex: Astartes, blah blah, making a marine, blah blah, historical actions. :)

There's probably enough for all the chapters to combine and stick in an IA sized book with the various lists.

Anyway, the real reason the chapters wouldn't be combined? The developers know how much stick they've recieved over the years about the Squats - if a Marine chapter goes, there'd be a mob with pitchforks and torches outside the head office by that evening.

Wishing
16-08-2011, 10:25
Its not really the abundance of marine codices its the perceived sacrifice of everything else for the sake of more marines. In that vein I think the number of marine codices would be perfectly fine, IF GW could support everything else to a noticeable degree more. QUOTE]

Sort of, yes, but to me it's more of a principle issue. Having one race receive a hugely disproportionate amount of attention and releases, when the game theoretically presents each army as being equal, is just bad and biased design.

Imagine that you are making a new wargame with X different factions. Do you imagine that all the factions should have approximately the same amount of options and focus, or do you imagine that one specific faction should get six times as much attention as anyone else, for no internal reason but only based on sales? It would be like if Magic the Gathering decided that most people like Red, so 60% of any new sets will be red cards and the rest of the colours had to share the remaining 40% (if we pretend that cards were sold directly rather than randomly in boosters).

[QUOTE=Sai-Lauren;5715267]
Anyway, the real reason the chapters wouldn't be combined? The developers know how much stick they've recieved over the years about the Squats - if a Marine chapter goes, there'd be a mob with pitchforks and torches outside the head office by that evening.

Yet a previous post had a long list of army types that used to have separate army lists and no longer do, without anyone apparently complaining about these. I think the only reason people get so hung up on squats is that GW made a statement saying they were a mistake, rather than just discontinue their army list. There is no current Genestealer Cult list, Blood Axe list, Alaitoc list, etc., and no pitchforks about these.

I do agree that there would be pitchforks if any marine chapters got discontinued, but for entirely different reasons than the squat issue.

Lord Damocles
16-08-2011, 10:56
Yet a previous post had a long list of army types that used to have separate army lists and no longer do, without anyone apparently complaining about these.
Even Marines used to have loads of variants which have been dropped:

Imperial Fists
White Scars
Salamanders
Relictors
Raven Guard
Iron Hands
Minotaurs
Lamenters
Flesh Tearers
Legion of the Damned
Sons of Anteus
Flame Falcons
Black Dragons

Plus some I've probable forgotton...

Cheeslord
16-08-2011, 12:49
I don't see that theres a problem here that needs solving - there are a lot of Space Marine codices because the gaming community as a whole want them. The Warseer community may not be representative of the average player - if 60% of the playerbase want to play space marines then its only reasonable that they should not be crammed into having only 10% or so of the available force options in the game.

Mark.

Grand Master Raziel
16-08-2011, 16:22
What's by far the most important part of the backstory of 40K? The Horus Heresy - you know, the big throwdown between loyalist and traitor Space Marine legions. The conflict which never really ended and is still raging in M41. And based on this backstory, there's a lot of Space Marine supplements? Hmmm! :rolleyes:

sabreu
16-08-2011, 16:29
The best and easiest solution to placate everyone is:

1. Continue making Space Marine codex'
2. Develop them independently from the normal codex schedule (excepting the primary)
3. Make them direct-order from the website and offer print-on-demand services.

Thus, it allows the following:
1. More Space Marine 'Variety'
2. Will not bog down the development cycle any more.
3. Will not eat up unnecessary shelf space.

What do you guys think of that? Too simple?

RandomThoughts
16-08-2011, 16:53
Here's something else that I feel has been swept under the carpet so far:

What I want are consistent rules. A storm shield should be a storm shield and a drop pod should be a drop pod, no matter what colour it is painted. The reason I would like to see a unified Marine Codex is that they could update and synchronize all special rules and all wargear simultanuously, then add extra chapters that deal with the unique traits of individual chapters.

Seriously, standard-marine codex in the first half of the book, then individual army lists in the back. Space Wolves will probably need more space than Imperial Fists, since they diverge a lot more from standard marines, but you could easily have everything you have now spread across the various books in one, slightly larger tome.

People keep bringing up the (from what I hear) miss-balanced 3.5 Chaos and Eldar codices, but I don't think the problem was publishing a codex with more than one army list inside, I think it was a mind set that assumed that players would play fluffy, not competitively.

By the way, I personally would have no problem at all with a unified Eldar codex with both seperate Eldar and Dark Eldar lists inside (and preferably extra lists for pure Harlequins and Exodites). Craftworld-specific lists - not so much; I prefer to play my own craftworld, and I think players will be satisfied, as long as the standard list allows a decent build for each official craftworld.

RandomThoughts
16-08-2011, 16:55
GW actually tried giving Xenos races more than one army list. The result was the unbalanced horror that was Codex: Craftworld Eldar.

Which might have been avoided wit a bit of playtesting, perhaps? ;)

Gen.Steiner
16-08-2011, 17:12
What's by far the most important part of the backstory of 40K? The Horus Heresy - you know, the big throwdown between loyalist and traitor Space Marine legions. The conflict which never really ended and is still raging in M41. And based on this backstory, there's a lot of Space Marine supplements? Hmmm! :rolleyes:

Er, yeh, don't forget the AdMech and Dark Mechanicus, the Imperial Army and Navy, the Traitors of both, the cults and the fanatics...

...and that's not even beginning to count the alien races affected by the collapse of the Eldar Empire and the rise of Humanity.

Sai-Lauren
16-08-2011, 17:27
What's by far the most important part of the backstory of 40K? The Horus Heresy - you know, the big throwdown between loyalist and traitor Space Marine legions. The conflict which never really ended and is still raging in M41. And based on this backstory, there's a lot of Space Marine supplements? Hmmm! :rolleyes:
Only for the Imperium - the War in Heaven and the Fall would easily do it for the Eldar, whilst the rise of the Ethereal caste and the discovery of warp engines on a crashed alien vessel would be the biggest thing for the Tau. ;)

Anyway, you've just given the exact reason why Marines get masses of attention - after all, the Heresy wasn't between the legions, it was between the followers of Horus and those who stayed loyal to the Emperor, but whether they were a normal human or not was immaterial to which side they took. You've forgotten that the Space Marine legions just happened to be involved at the fore front of it, and, frankly, it seems that no one can be bothered to write Heresy-era Imperial Army or Fleet fiction for BL, despite there being a lot more stories in there.

Basically, everyone who has ever developed for any edition of 40k after RT, barring people like Rick P and Jervis who were on the RT development team, are ascended fans. They've got the opportunity to write their game as they see it - and pretty much what they see is in the shape of 8 foot tall suits of Power Armour.

How many acknowledged non-Marine players have there ever been in the design studio? Phil Kelly with his Eldar and Adrian Wood with his Orks is pretty much about it from memory.



The best and easiest solution to placate everyone is:

1. Continue making Space Marine codex'
2. Develop them independently from the normal codex schedule (excepting the primary)
3. Make them direct-order from the website and offer print-on-demand services.

Which would actually be a bad solution, as it would still take up development studio time - delaying other armies.

zerodemon
16-08-2011, 17:50
Surely a more realistic problem that needs solving is how little diversity there is for armies outside of Space Marines. The 4 different Chaos Gods could so with an army book each as the 4 armies play very individually when crafted to be dedicated to only one god.

althathir
17-08-2011, 00:44
The best and easiest solution to placate everyone is:

1. Continue making Space Marine codex'
2. Develop them independently from the normal codex schedule (excepting the primary)
3. Make them direct-order from the website and offer print-on-demand services.

Thus, it allows the following:
1. More Space Marine 'Variety'
2. Will not bog down the development cycle any more.
3. Will not eat up unnecessary shelf space.

What do you guys think of that? Too simple?

I'm not sure if the codex release schedule would stay the same if they removed space marines from the "normal codex schedule". Most of the marine dexes don't have a lot of kits for the most part a unit or two, maybe a new vehicle, and a couple hqs. Its also easier for them to judge how competitive a marine army is. Nids for example are a pretty dangerous army in unmeched environments but are considered the worst book out of 5th edition in tournaments. So I don't know if removing marines means that GW will pump out the same number of releases in a year.

Its why i'm hoping things like the sisters of battle codex in WD happen more often.There is nothing stopping GW from making small adjustments to armies that keep things fresh. A white dwarf update 3 years after the release of each codex wouldn't be that difficult and the player base would be a lot happier.


Here's something else that I feel has been swept under the carpet so far:

What I want are consistent rules. A storm shield should be a storm shield and a drop pod should be a drop pod, no matter what colour it is painted. The reason I would like to see a unified Marine Codex is that they could update and synchronize all special rules and all wargear simultanuously, then add extra chapters that deal with the unique traits of individual chapters.

Seriously, standard-marine codex in the first half of the book, then individual army lists in the back. Space Wolves will probably need more space than Imperial Fists, since they diverge a lot more from standard marines, but you could easily have everything you have now spread across the various books in one, slightly larger tome.

People keep bringing up the (from what I hear) miss-balanced 3.5 Chaos and Eldar codices, but I don't think the problem was publishing a codex with more than one army list inside, I think it was a mind set that assumed that players would play fluffy, not competitively.

By the way, I personally would have no problem at all with a unified Eldar codex with both seperate Eldar and Dark Eldar lists inside (and preferably extra lists for pure Harlequins and Exodites). Craftworld-specific lists - not so much; I prefer to play my own craftworld, and I think players will be satisfied, as long as the standard list allows a decent build for each official craftworld.

One space marine "tome" would be bigger than you think it would be. Grey Knights, Black Templars, and Wolves are all quite a bit different and BA & DA have their fair share of unique things as well.

For the most part the BT & DA faqs show they will keep most of the wargear on the same page from now on.

The eldar supplement and the chaos 3.5 dexes were both mistakes. The craftworld supplement wasn't balanced at all it was basically just a power up. The current eldar dex does a good job of allowing a player to make list that represents each CW without being broken.

The 3.5 dex though is why one marine book scares a lot of us, it worked fine when people made fluffly lists but it had so much in it, and people found every loop hole and it became a really tough codex to go up againist. Its one of the few older dexes that I think could still hold its own today.


Surely a more realistic problem that needs solving is how little diversity there is for armies outside of Space Marines. The 4 different Chaos Gods could so with an army book each as the 4 armies play very individually when crafted to be dedicated to only one god.

Again I think more updates could really help with this as well. Its rumoured that there will be a chaos legions book early in 6th and that would help flesh chaos out quite a bit.

megatrons2nd
17-08-2011, 01:30
Surely a more realistic problem that needs solving is how little diversity there is for armies outside of Space Marines. The 4 different Chaos Gods could so with an army book each as the 4 armies play very individually when crafted to be dedicated to only one god.

I don't play Chaos and agree with that. It is fair.

Eldar and Tau should get at least 2 codecies each.
Orks should get about 3.
Necrons and Dark Eldar might actually be good with what they have but may also benefit from a second.

AlexHolker
17-08-2011, 03:17
One space marine "tome" would be bigger than you think it would be. Grey Knights, Black Templars, and Wolves are all quite a bit different and BA & DA have their fair share of unique things as well.
The Black Templars require only a single page of rules. Trust me, I know. Grey Knights only need about three pages until you start shoving all Ward's nonsense into the list. And Space Wolves can draw from the same units that would have already been added for doctrines and other chapters - Veteran Scout Squads (Dark Angels), Storm Squads (Bolter, BP, CCW: Black Templars, no Neophytes), Deathseeker Veterans (Blood Angels, accompanied by Beast Companions instead of Deathseekers) and so on.

Grand Master Raziel
17-08-2011, 05:13
I suppose while we're discussing eliminating people's dexes because of superficial similarities between armies, Eldar and Dark Eldar could be lumped into one dex. They're both based on T3 5+ units, more or less. Kabalite Warriors roughly equal Dire Avengers. Wyches roughly equal Howling Banshees and/or Striking Scorpions. Both armies use fast skimmer transports and have some MCs. The differences are just in some of the upgrades and details. The two factions also share a lot of backstory, so GW would be saving space by only having to print it for one book. If Grey Knights are similar enough to vanilla Marines for both forces to be lumped into one book, then so are Eldar and Dark Eldar. Heck, Tau could probably be lumped into that one as well. It can be called Codex: Arrogant High-Tech Aliens.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

althathir
17-08-2011, 05:14
The Black Templars require only a single page of rules. Trust me, I know. Grey Knights only need about three pages until you start shoving all Ward's nonsense into the list. And Space Wolves can draw from the same units that would have already been added for doctrines and other chapters - Veteran Scout Squads (Dark Angels), Storm Squads (Bolter, BP, CCW: Black Templars, no Neophytes), Deathseeker Veterans (Blood Angels, accompanied by Beast Companions instead of Deathseekers) and so on.

Templars may only need a page of rules, but in a codex they'd have a least a few fluff pages, at least one gallery page, a couple of special characters, and an entry for emperors champion which would probably have that rules page. All the sudden you have 8-10 pages only 3 of which are rules. In 3rd edition GW did away with most of the fluff in army books at first and people hated it they won't do it again, people expect their armies story to progress. Space Wolves, BA, DA would be similiar and they probably wouldn't squat a lot of the chapters that play a big role in the current marine dex so those SC and their chapters fluff isn't going anywhere.

Grey Knights are important to this debate because I think the one book crowd forgets something they have different wargear that would need to be introduced cause otherwise kids armies aren't wysiwyg, and they would need to take drastic measures. Now you either add it for everyone (balance issues), limit it to "GK armies", or get rid of it and squat a kid (not gonna happen to a successful army). So we'll throw the third option out and now the size of the book jumps up either way.

Regardless the root of the problem is that people feel that all the space marine releases push back their armies. I don't see how switching to one marine book changes that. If customers just want marines they'll buy them, and GW will make them, its possible we see one codex and a new marine models from x chapter not two to three xenos releases year. Hopefully GW tries to update older fractions in other ways and people respond by buying some more established armies.

sabreu
17-08-2011, 05:23
I suppose while we're discussing eliminating people's dexes because of superficial similarities between armies, Eldar and Dark Eldar could be lumped into one dex. They're both based on T3 5+ units, more or less. Kabalite Warriors roughly equal Dire Avengers. Wyches roughly equal Howling Banshees and/or Striking Scorpions. Both armies use fast skimmer transports and have some MCs. The differences are just in some of the upgrades and details. The two factions also share a lot of backstory, so GW would be saving space by only having to print it for one book. If Grey Knights are similar enough to vanilla Marines for both forces to be lumped into one book, then so are Eldar and Dark Eldar. Heck, Tau could probably be lumped into that one as well. It can be called Codex: Arrogant High-Tech Aliens.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

These types of arguments always amuse me. They are so facetious, yet never logical, and an obvious knee-jerk reaction. Space Marine codex share the exact same models, background and rules with slight modifications that change how they operate and add flavor. The pro-argument, taking away from anti-marine bias, is still logical when observed objectively. You post, however, is not.

AlexHolker
17-08-2011, 05:38
All the sudden you have 8-10 pages only 3 of which are rules.
For the sake of argument, lets say that is true. That still means you can put 10-12 chapters in a single Codex: Space Marines-sized sourcebook, plus the doctrines and non-Codex compliant units for custom chapters.

megatrons2nd
17-08-2011, 05:45
Of all the Marine Codecies Space Wolves and Grey Knights are the only ones I would concede to being divergent enough to need their own codex. Blood Angels and Dark Angels not so much.

Funny thing I noticed recently. Assault on Black Reach show up as army essentials for Marines and Orcs, but not for any thing else, as the core to the game it should at least have it's own section. I wonder how much of it's sales are "claimed" as marine sales?

Sai-Lauren
17-08-2011, 09:43
Templars may only need a page of rules, but in a codex they'd have a least a few fluff pages, at least one gallery page, a couple of special characters, and an entry for emperors champion which would probably have that rules page. All the sudden you have 8-10 pages only 3 of which are rules. In 3rd edition GW did away with most of the fluff in army books at first and people hated it they won't do it again, people expect their armies story to progress. Space Wolves, BA, DA would be similiar and they probably wouldn't squat a lot of the chapters that play a big role in the current marine dex so those SC and their chapters fluff isn't going anywhere.

Fluff could potentially be at the start of each chapters sub-section and the gallery pages could be combined together.

But why are people thinking so small - a normal sized amy book? You're getting 4 or 5 lists in the book. Doesn't that demand something a little more impressive?

And even then, if you have a Marines only book, maybe 75% of each book is going to be unused - as I said earlier, if you have one Marine army, you're more likely to add a few bits here and there than start another Marine army in a different chapter. But maybe you'd start a different army if only you had the army lists to look through.

And it doesn't stop the proliferation of Marine lists, just hides them in what would eventually become multiple books, whilst all the other armies keep a single list in one book.

So, I believe that the best thing to do is go to Imperial Armour book size, and have 5 or 6 army lists from across the races (for example, have a skirmish around Armageddon and you could have Salamanders, supported by Steel Legion Mechanised Guard versus Bad Moon Orks as the main event, with the Alpha Legion taking advantage of the situation for their own purposes, Farsight's Tau hunting some particular Orks that've caused a lot of damage to a Sept world, and Saim-Hann Eldar trying to prevent something one of their Farseer's has predicted), filled with fluff and themed around a campaign. That way, you're more likely to cross sell different armies - you might not start a different Marine army, but something in say the Ork list might catch your eye and lead you to start them, or you might decide to add some Guard as support for your Marines.

Plus those armies would be balanced against each other (having been developed at the same time), and that balance might spread to future books as well.

AlexHolker
17-08-2011, 10:42
So, I believe that the best thing to do is go to Imperial Armour book size, and have 5 or 6 army lists from across the races (for example, have a skirmish around Armageddon and you could have Salamanders, supported by Steel Legion Mechanised Guard versus Bad Moon Orks as the main event, with the Alpha Legion taking advantage of the situation for their own purposes, Farsight's Tau hunting some particular Orks that've caused a lot of damage to a Sept world, and Saim-Hann Eldar trying to prevent something one of their Farseer's has predicted), filled with fluff and themed around a campaign.
I do not support this solution, as it sacrifices the synergy provided by a multi-Chapter book. You can't make an effective doctrine system that refers to 1-10th of 10 different books, and it's inefficient to copy the same Veteran Scout Squad page into 3-4 different sourcebooks. It also encourages GW to create sublists that shouldn't exist: for example, the Ork clans are not organised in a fashion that creates a bright line where you can say, "every warband on this side should be supported by the Bad Moon army list, and every warband on this side should be supported by the Deathskull army list".


That way, you're more likely to cross sell different armies - you might not start a different Marine army, but something in say the Ork list might catch your eye and lead you to start them, or you might decide to add some Guard as support for your Marines.
That seems rather obnoxious. At least when the Blackshirts do it, they don't charge you extra for the privilege!

HRM
17-08-2011, 10:52
I suppose while we're discussing eliminating people's dexes because of superficial similarities between armies, Eldar and Dark Eldar could be lumped into one dex. They're both based on T3 5+ units, more or less. Kabalite Warriors roughly equal Dire Avengers. Wyches roughly equal Howling Banshees and/or Striking Scorpions. Both armies use fast skimmer transports and have some MCs. The differences are just in some of the upgrades and details. The two factions also share a lot of backstory, so GW would be saving space by only having to print it for one book. If Grey Knights are similar enough to vanilla Marines for both forces to be lumped into one book, then so are Eldar and Dark Eldar. Heck, Tau could probably be lumped into that one as well. It can be called Codex: Arrogant High-Tech Aliens.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I actually don't see why this couldn't be the case. Then again, I don't have a problem paying $150 for a super-Codex.

Gatsby
17-08-2011, 11:11
They COULD always make 3 MASSIVE codex's akin to the main rulebook, Forces of the Imperium, (all the Imperial forces obviously,) Forces of Chaos, (Legions, Renegades, LaTD, Daemons,) and Xenos (do I REALLY have to explain these.)

Sure they'd be expensive, (really, REALLY expensive) cumbersome and heavy, rather fragile like the rulebook, but... well I got nothing really positive other than the rather evenly spread updates this would allow.

Sai-Lauren
17-08-2011, 12:32
I do not support this solution, as it sacrifices the synergy provided by a multi-Chapter book. You can't make an effective doctrine system that refers to 1-10th of 10 different books, and it's inefficient to copy the same Veteran Scout Squad page into 3-4 different sourcebooks. It also encourages GW to create sublists that shouldn't exist: for example, the Ork clans are not organised in a fashion that creates a bright line where you can say, "every warband on this side should be supported by the Bad Moon army list, and every warband on this side should be supported by the Deathskull army list".

Potential synergy. Fluff can be combined easily, but even with doctrines, and ignoring the special characters, there's going to be so many caveats and exceptions and the designers seeing a piece of design space open up that they didn't realise was there and sticking in a new unit or option, and by the time you've got all the restrictions in place to make sure people don't take options they're not supposed to, the book's a mess.



That seems rather obnoxious. At least when the Blackshirts do it, they don't charge you extra for the privilege!
Equally, it's not "buy this now, it's the greatest thing ever! You're a fool if you don't buy three, even if you can't have any in your army" - as seen with the plastic giant and the Stormraven. ;)

And to be honest, a multi-chapter book is exactly the same in principle, but worse because there is so much of the book that most people will never use.

Gen.Steiner
17-08-2011, 13:13
Actually, a multi-chapter book would have most things be used by most players. Tac, Assault, Dev, Vet, vehicles... all shared by every chapter.

And the background - what a bonus to have it all in one place and weaving in and around each other properly! And there could be more emphasis on things like the Reign of Blood and Badab War, too.

sabreu
17-08-2011, 18:33
They COULD always make 3 MASSIVE codex's akin to the main rulebook, Forces of the Imperium, (all the Imperial forces obviously,) Forces of Chaos, (Legions, Renegades, LaTD, Daemons,) and Xenos (do I REALLY have to explain these.)

Sure they'd be expensive, (really, REALLY expensive) cumbersome and heavy, rather fragile like the rulebook, but... well I got nothing really positive other than the rather evenly spread updates this would allow.

If they did take this approach, the books themselves could be hard-covered and cost about the same as conventional books of the gaming industry (around $50, give or take).

Rather a good idea actually. Would allow for greater scope and development and only require three updates per edition cycle, which can be done simultaneously rather than staggered.

BrainFireBob
17-08-2011, 18:54
Of all the Marine Codecies Space Wolves and Grey Knights are the only ones I would concede to being divergent enough to need their own codex. Blood Angels and Dark Angels not so much.

Funny thing I noticed recently. Assault on Black Reach show up as army essentials for Marines and Orcs, but not for any thing else, as the core to the game it should at least have it's own section. I wonder how much of it's sales are "claimed" as marine sales?

You're whistling in the dark here. The Tactical Squad boxes set alone out-sells entire WFB lines.

EDIT: Marines are faster releases for the studio, fewer rules changes, fewer new sculpts. Barring major edition changes, you are not freeing up resources to work on other projects, as some envious posters seem to darkly suspect. Your Xenos releases will not speed up if they slow down marine releases, we simply will have longer "dead times" between armies. Financially, this is terrible for GW, since Marines outsell all their other products combined.

Spell_of_Destruction
18-08-2011, 03:31
I suppose while we're discussing eliminating people's dexes because of superficial similarities between armies, Eldar and Dark Eldar could be lumped into one dex. They're both based on T3 5+ units, more or less. Kabalite Warriors roughly equal Dire Avengers. Wyches roughly equal Howling Banshees and/or Striking Scorpions. Both armies use fast skimmer transports and have some MCs. The differences are just in some of the upgrades and details. The two factions also share a lot of backstory, so GW would be saving space by only having to print it for one book. If Grey Knights are similar enough to vanilla Marines for both forces to be lumped into one book, then so are Eldar and Dark Eldar. Heck, Tau could probably be lumped into that one as well. It can be called Codex: Arrogant High-Tech Aliens.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

There are patently far greater differences between Eldar and Dark Eldar than there are between different Marine chapters. It's just that Marine players have (perhaps understandably) become so precious about their favourite chapter that they cannot tolerate the idea of not receiving a full length dedicated codex for each.

A far more logical conclusion to the argument is that if every Marine chapter should receive it's own codex so should every Craftworld/Cabal. I'm sure that the fluff can support sufficient differences between the forces of Biel-Tann and Saim-Hann to justify a completely separate codex for both.

The current Eldar codex - which allows you to represent different craftworlds through selective choice of the Troops available in the one codex - is a significantly more limited version of the ideas put forward here for an amalgamated Marine codex.

Even the old 3rd ed Craftworld Eldar codex offered little more than a few Craftworld specific units and modified force organisation charts. Differentiation between chapters could easily be dealt with in the same manner. I exclude Grey Knights from this because I think they are sufficiently different from other chapters to justify their own 'dex (I have no vested interest there - I have never played Grey Knights nor do I have any desire to do so in the future).

Stealin' Genes
18-08-2011, 04:36
Just to be clear: I'm not actually arguing in favor of one marine book.

I just think that, if Xenos are going to be updated erratically, whenever GW has room between cranking out surefire marine releases, it'd be nice if they'd take the time and put in the effort to give us good books like the marines get. As is, every power armored codex released in 5e so far has been good, while the non-PA have been uneven (IG top tier and powerful, DE well done and balanced about right, Tyranids halfassed).

It's not the volume that troubles me, it's the apparent disparity in effort. Marines in 5e always get strong books, everyone else has to hope that whoever writes their book likes them, lest they end up like 'nids.

Spell_of_Destruction
18-08-2011, 04:53
I think that it's a 'chicken or egg' dilemna and there is probably an element of both - there is something fundamental in the marine aesthetic that is highly marketable and appeals to a wide number of people. However, GW perpetuate this imbalance by lavishing so much attention on Marines. I think that we are close to reaching saturation point. I get that Marines are the poster boys of 40k and have widespread appeal but they also need antagonists to fight.

I don't really have a problem with multiple marine 'dexes. I just think it's ridiculous that factions badly in need of an update keep getting pushed back so that GW can fit in yet another marine codex. Dark Eldar waited over a decade for a new codex. Necrons are still waiting. The last Eldar and Ork codeces were also massively overdue when they both arrived.

althathir
18-08-2011, 04:55
For the sake of argument, lets say that is true. That still means you can put 10-12 chapters in a single Codex: Space Marines-sized sourcebook, plus the doctrines and non-Codex compliant units for custom chapters.

Possibly, but they would stiil include the generic marine background as well. Thats also not including new units, which if we're sharing rules, BA lion cav, space wolf dreadknights, etc. if not a lot of new stuff.

Thats also hoping that GW is consice. Look its possible GW could make a unified book everyone likes, its also possible it sucks, and we're stuck with it for years. This one marine book debate centers around one side believing that if there's one marine dex other armies will receive more attention, and its possible but its also possible one marine dex means new kits so blood angels have their dreadknight, and xenos at the same pace.


Actually, a multi-chapter book would have most things be used by most players. Tac, Assault, Dev, Vet, vehicles... all shared by every chapter.

And the background - what a bonus to have it all in one place and weaving in and around each other properly! And there could be more emphasis on things like the Reign of Blood and Badab War, too.


I agree on the background, I just can see a lot of players really being pissed when all the sudden their army isn't legal, and they have to shell 90 bucks for a codex they plan on using 20 pages out of.


If they did take this approach, the books themselves could be hard-covered and cost about the same as conventional books of the gaming industry (around $50, give or take).

Rather a good idea actually. Would allow for greater scope and development and only require three updates per edition cycle, which can be done simultaneously rather than staggered.

Thats really optimistic, gw would charge a lot more than that I didn't throw out 90 dollars above to be funny.

Yabbadabba, already mentioned earlier that there is a big spike when books are released so you have to make up for it much faster.


There are patently far greater differences between Eldar and Dark Eldar than there are between different Marine chapters. It's just that Marine players have (perhaps understandably) become so precious about their favourite chapter that they cannot tolerate the idea of not receiving a full length dedicated codex for each.

A far more logical conclusion to the argument is that if every Marine chapter should receive it's own codex so should every Craftworld/Cabal. I'm sure that the fluff can support sufficient differences between the forces of Biel-Tann and Saim-Hann to justify a completely separate codex for both.

The current Eldar codex - which allows you to represent different craftworlds through selective choice of the Troops available in the one codex - is a significantly more limited version of the ideas put forward here for an amalgamated Marine codex.

Even the old 3rd ed Craftworld Eldar codex offered little more than a few Craftworld specific units and modified force organisation charts. Differentiation between chapters could easily be dealt with in the same manner. I exclude Grey Knights from this because I think they are sufficiently different from other chapters to justify their own 'dex (I have no vested interest there - I have never played Grey Knights nor do I have any desire to do so in the future).

As an eldar player I'm gonna point out that there to this point the differences between the craftworlds haven't been trait based, more unit selection. It doesn't bother me that my beil-tan styled eldar have more DA than other aspects cause they're the most popular aspect.

DE and CWE are more different than two marine chapters are I'll grant that, but on the business size of the equation is a beil-tan codex gonna sell as much as a space marine one, I could see eldar having a comparable spike to a marine chapter but not one fraction of eldar.

MadDoc
18-08-2011, 05:15
I don't really have a problem with multiple marine 'dexes. I just think it's ridiculous that factions badly in need of an update keep getting pushed back so that GW can fit in yet another marine codex. Dark Eldar waited over a decade for a new codex. Necrons are still waiting. The last Eldar and Ork codeces were also massively overdue when they both arrived.
Much like the entire premise of this thread, you're operating under a flawed assumption, you have no proof (circumstantial or otherwise) that anything has ever been pushed back to fit in another Marine release. Your mention that the Ork and Eldar Codexes were long over due before their 4E releases is hilarious when consider that the BT Codex from the same era as those books is still waiting on an update (though I suspect that since they're Marines you'll claim they don't count).

The people who constantly insist that other lists get pushed back for Marine releases make me laugh, they have absolutely no proof for that belief (beyond bitterness or a seeming axe to grind against Marines/Marine players, yet they are positive, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that its the case), and they're dreaming if they think that putting all Marines in one 'dex will somehow miraculously mean that all the other lists will recieve updated lists any quicker. If anything the extra time need to make sure that such an unwieldy tome wasn't brokenly unbalanced/abusable would mean the Studio would have even less time free for other development than it does now.

Inquisitor Engel
18-08-2011, 05:33
The people who constantly insist that other lists get pushed back for Marine releases make me laugh,

So, as someone who has been very, very involved in the design process of a few Codexes, I'll speak up here.

Things do not intentionally get pushed around to make room for Marines. That said, most Marine releases require far less model work than other armies. Look at BT or DA lists - conversion kit, characters, metal box. Done. Compare that to Eldar where there's a LARGE redux required each edition to keep the aesthetic/options up.

Things didn't get moved to make way for Marines, Marines plugged the gaps. Simple as that.

Now, I think you'll start to see a bit more equitable (and need-based) reduxes in future now that we're staggering releases more than they used to and even updating some models "just because."

Spell_of_Destruction
18-08-2011, 05:47
Much like the entire premise of this thread, you're operating under a flawed assumption, you have no proof (circumstantial or otherwise) that anything has ever been pushed back to fit in another Marine release. Your mention that the Ork and Eldar Codexes were long over due before their 4E releases is hilarious when consider that the BT Codex from the same era as those books is still waiting on an update (though I suspect that since they're Marines you'll claim they don't count).

The people who constantly insist that other lists get pushed back for Marine releases make me laugh, they have absolutely no proof for that belief (beyond bitterness or a seeming axe to grind against Marines/Marine players, yet they are positive, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that its the case), and they're dreaming if they think that putting all Marines in one 'dex will somehow miraculously mean that all the other lists will recieve updated lists any quicker. If anything the extra time need to make sure that such an unwieldy tome wasn't brokenly unbalanced/abusable would mean the Studio would have even less time free for other development than it does now.

Sounds like you're the one with an axe to grind. You're the one choosing to pigeon hole everyone who doesn't agree with you as bitter Marine haters.

And you're right that I don't agree that you can compare BT to Eldar and Orks - if you can't see the difference between core xenos factions and a marginal codex chapter then I'm not sure there's much I can do to convince you.

As for your indignation at the idea that the focus on marines detracts from the attention received by xenos factios, what sort of smoking gun are you looking for? A leaked e-mail from someone high up in the development team explicitly stating that they're going to push back Necrons for a new Iron Hands codex?

I'm not out to prove that Dark Eldar would have received a new codex in 2004 had it not been for GW's fascination with marine releases (that seems to be a strawman of your making). It is patently clear that Marines receive more attention than other factions. I don't even have a problem with that - perhaps if you'd taken the time to read my post rather than prematurely pulling the trigger you would have noticed that I can see why GW do it - marines are the goose that lays the golden eggs. My concern is that they're starting to cut open the Goose's belly to see if there are more golden eggs inside.

But hey, I was happy to give you the opportunity to let off some steam. A quiet five minutes alone with a box of Kleenex might do the trick next time though. ;)

MadDoc
18-08-2011, 06:18
Sounds like you're the one with an axe to grind. You're the one choosing to pigeon hole everyone who doesn't agree with you as bitter Marine haters.
No I attributed bitterness or a seeming axe to grind against Marines/Marine players to those who seem to push the theory that GW push back other releases to make way for Marine releases. There is no proof for that assertion, and in fact, people in the know have even stated that this isn't the case.


And you're right that I don't agree that you can compare BT to Eldar and Orks - if you can't see the difference between core xenos factions and a marginal codex chapter then I'm not sure there's much I can do to convince you.
Because they're Marines... like I said, no surprise there.


As for your indignation at the idea that the focus on marines detracts from the attention received by xenos factios, what sort of smoking gun are you looking for?
Indignation? What post did you read? :eyebrows:


A leaked e-mail from someone high up in the development team explicitly stating that they're going to push back Necrons for a new Iron Hands codex?
No, but something beyond the speculation of people with absolutely no idea of the actually process involved behind the scenes, and not even so much as anecdotal evidence to base their "facts" on, might lend it some actual credence.


I'm not out to prove that Dark Eldar would have received a new codex in 2004 had it not been for GW's fascination with marine releases (that seems to be a strawman of your making).
Again, I have to question what post you read? I made no such assertion. Even obliquely.


It is patently clear that Marines receive more attention than other factions. I don't even have a problem with that - perhaps if you'd taken the time to read my post rather than prematurely pulling the trigger you would have noticed that I can see why GW do it - marines are the goose that lays the golden eggs. My concern is that they're starting to cut open the Goose's belly to see if there are more golden eggs inside.
Perhaps you need to read my post again. The only part of my post directed at you specifically was the first paragraph (hence it being a separate paragraph), and it was specifically addressing your ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim that other factions keep getting pushed back to fit in more Marine releases. I didn't even touch on your use of the highly subjective term "need".

If you felt the rest was somehow applicable to you, I have to question why you felt that?


But hey, I was happy to give you the opportunity to let off some steam. A quiet five minutes alone with a box of Kleenex might do the trick next time though. ;)
Wow, resorting to immature and crass innuendo... how pathetic is that? :eyebrows:

Captain Semper
18-08-2011, 07:23
So there are two groups: the "pro" Marines that beleive the multi dex strategy is fine and should continue and the "anti" Marines that think the codices are too many and suffocate other factions.

Are there any "pro" Marine people that think a single codex is actually a good thing for the Marine faction? I know I am (explained my views back in post #35). Anybody else?

Lowmans
18-08-2011, 07:37
Captin Semper - Interesting that you use 'pro' and 'anti' marine as the group classifications....!

Anyway,

I wouldn't want to see a mega-dex, here's why:

1. It's very unlikely that it would be sufficiently well balanced - this means more of the common list phenomenon that some complain of now.

2. Existing fluff and units would likely be butchered. Possibly invalidating existing units/armies.

3. Any imbalance in the book would take an age to be addressed. At least the existing schedule addresses imbalance through 'power creep'-ish.

4. The book would be colossally expensive, let's not kid ourselves. It will increase the cost of entry to the hobby for would-be marine players.

5. The book would be huge, even if it butchered existing books to keep the size down. Who wants to hump that to every game?

Ultimately, I'm pretty well convinced it would also damage GW profitability by decreasing the spread of launch sales bumps.

Furthermore, it appears that it won't mean more xenos codices either..... So, what's the benefit?

Captain Semper
18-08-2011, 08:22
@ Lowmans:

Well I used quotation marks... It's not really pro or anti, just people that are viewing the many marines codices as a burden to the other factions and those that beleive the many codices are important to the identity of the various marine chapters...

Poor choice of words maybe.

As for your points,

1. this is a risk with any codex (marine or not). It's possible to get balanced or completely broken lists. No one wants the latter but not attempting new things just because they might fail is not the way to go in my view.

2. Unfortunately fluff becomes more and more outregeous with each new marine codex. Trimming it back to basics it's not a bad thing. Besides the Codex is just one source of fluff. The more detailed and colorful aspects come from other sources like BL. Furthermore articles like the Index Astartes can also be brought to the forefront.

3. If only one book is out one can only assume that it will be updated at least once per edition. Remember how long it took for SW or BAs to get an updated codex?

4. I'd expect it will be more expensive. But it is going to be a "once per edition" expense. In the end of the day if the "new" C:SM costs double the amount it does today (100% hike) it'll be equivalent to a Terminator + Captain box. Expensive but not prohibitly so...

5. Physical size might be irritating I agree. But SMs are the emblematic faction of 40k. I wouldn't be surprised if GW were to by-pass this (assuming it was deemed too big a nuisance) in a similar fashion to the main rule book. You can get a huge collectors tome, a fairly large ordinary version of the pocket-book version. I'm just saying that if size is deemed too problematic there are solutions around it. Personally, I don't think physical size of a unified codex to be any real problem that would make it unattainable...

Being convinced on the profitability is a matter of perception. You beleive that, I don't. The book is going to be a huge seller despite its elevated price and surely GW can manage a couple of (non-book) SM releases per year to stimulate interest.

Lastly on the new codices (xenos or Imperial or whatever) I think there will be a benefit. How big I'm not in a position to tell but even if a SM is a "filler" that does not require so much effort to release, it still requires some effort. And there are 5 of them. So I think a single SM codex will release time from the schedule rather than add to it.

Wishing
18-08-2011, 11:13
Personally I don't think just combining the marine codexes into one mega-book is any kind of solution to the "marine problem". The problem isn't many books vs. one book - the problem is that marines have a disproportionate amount of focus. Giving marines a single book four times the size of a normal codex wouldn't change that.

I've argued that marines will always receive this focus and we just have to get used to it, but ignoring that argument for a sec, the only way to alleviate the problem (for those who think there is a problem) is to go back to a state like there apparently was in RT where marines are just one blip among many. If marines have a 300 page codex, then eldar and orks should have 300 page codexes too. If marines have five separate chapter subcodexes, then orks and eldar should have five separate klan/craftworld subcodexes too. *That* would be the way to solve the "marine codex problem".

(I use eldar and orks as examples because they are the archetypical xenos in my view: they existed since the beginning, and are vastly different in style and stats from both MEQ and each other, fast and fragile vs. slow and tough, noble vs. barbaric, etc.)

Iracundus
18-08-2011, 11:24
I've argued that marines will always receive this focus and we just have to get used to it, but ignoring that argument for a sec, the only way to alleviate the problem (for those who think there is a problem) is to go back to a state like there apparently was in RT where marines are just one blip among many. If marines have a 300 page codex, then eldar and orks should have 300 page codexes too. If marines have five separate chapter subcodexes, then orks and eldar should have five separate klan/craftworld subcodexes too. *That* would be the way to solve the "marine codex problem".

Agreed.

"Their colors are red and black. They use fast vehicles. They have powerful psykers that augment their forces. They engage in rituals that others might perceive as savage and which revolve around drinking blood. They have a civilized veneer on the surface but have darker urges that they suppress and try to control."

Who am I talking about? Blood Angels or Saim-hann? If one is "different" enough to deserve a Codex, then so should the other. If one can just be told to "make do" with the main list then so should the other.

ehlijen
18-08-2011, 12:41
Maybe if instead of variants for just marines they released themed variant comipliations?

As in codex: Blood Fury (contains sain-hann, farsight and blood angels)?

Wishing
18-08-2011, 13:28
Maybe if instead of variants for just marines they released themed variant comipliations?

As in codex: Blood Fury (contains sain-hann, farsight and blood angels)?

I think that's basically what they did back in previous editions with such books as Codex: Armageddon, which as I recall had variant lists for marines (black templars, salamanders?), guard (steel legion or somesuch), and some kind of ork (speed freaks?) and chaos variant lists too. I think that was a great way of releasing variant army lists, myself.

The problem with it is that we are locked into this "codex cycle" mentality that seems to exist both in the fanbase and with GW, where the publications that people care about are only the core rulebook and "core" codexes - a codex being considered as core when it has its own book dedicated to only that army. A book like codex armageddon is seen as not a core product, but as a one-off novelty to inspire new armies, but not stick around into future editions unless the army proves so popular as to get a codex of its own like black templars.

I guess it is to do with factionalism in a way... people want their army to feel like its own "thing", a separate autonomous entity, not just a part of a compilation. In Rogue Trader, all the expansion books were compilations that covered a bunch of different races and rule types, but nowadays, an army has to have a book all of its own to feel like a real and fully-fledged part of the game - meaning that GW has an implied responsibility of updating that army in future editions.

Captain Semper
18-08-2011, 13:57
I think that's basically what they did back in previous editions with such books as Codex: Armageddon, which as I recall had variant lists for marines (black templars, salamanders?), guard (steel legion or somesuch), and some kind of ork (speed freaks?) and chaos variant lists too. I think that was a great way of releasing variant army lists, myself.

The problem with it is that we are locked into this "codex cycle" mentality that seems to exist both in the fanbase and with GW, where the publications that people care about are only the core rulebook and "core" codexes - a codex being considered as core when it has its own book dedicated to only that army. A book like codex armageddon is seen as not a core product, but as a one-off novelty to inspire new armies, but not stick around into future editions unless the army proves so popular as to get a codex of its own like black templars.

I guess it is to do with factionalism in a way... people want their army to feel like its own "thing", a separate autonomous entity, not just a part of a compilation. In Rogue Trader, all the expansion books were compilations that covered a bunch of different races and rule types, but nowadays, an army has to have a book all of its own to feel like a real and fully-fledged part of the game - meaning that GW has an implied responsibility of updating that army in future editions.

I agree with everything said above.

Although not a big fan of RT references the rest reflects my thoughts exactly!

Sai-Lauren
18-08-2011, 14:18
Much like the entire premise of this thread, you're operating under a flawed assumption, you have no proof (circumstantial or otherwise) that anything has ever been pushed back to fit in another Marine release. Your mention that the Ork and Eldar Codexes were long over due before their 4E releases is hilarious when consider that the BT Codex from the same era as those books is still waiting on an update (though I suspect that since they're Marines you'll claim they don't count).

The people who constantly insist that other lists get pushed back for Marine releases make me laugh, they have absolutely no proof for that belief (beyond bitterness or a seeming axe to grind against Marines/Marine players, yet they are positive, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that its the case), and they're dreaming if they think that putting all Marines in one 'dex will somehow miraculously mean that all the other lists will recieve updated lists any quicker. If anything the extra time need to make sure that such an unwieldy tome wasn't brokenly unbalanced/abusable would mean the Studio would have even less time free for other development than it does now.

I could well be wrong, but weren't Eldar originally scheduled for Christmas 2005, but bumped for the Black Templars, who weren't even on the radar at the 3rd -> 4th edition change, simply because the Marine codex sold brilliantly well the previous Christmas, and someone thought Christmas = Marines?

Anyway - here's the list of the current codexes, and their release dates (taken from Lexicanium)

Codex: Necrons (3rd Edition) 2002
Codex: Daemonhunters (3rd Edition) 2003
Codex: Witch Hunters (3rd Edition) 2003
Codex: Black Templars (4th Edition) 2005
Codex: Eldar (4th Edition) 2006
Codex: Tau Empire (4th Edition) 2006
Codex: Dark Angels (4th Edition) 2007
Codex: Chaos Space Marines (4th Edition) 09/07
Codex: Orks (4th Edition) 01/08
Codex: Space Marines (5th Edition) 10/08
Codex: Imperial Guard (5th Edition) 05/09
Codex: Space Wolves (5th Edition) 10/09
Codex: Tyranids (5th Edition) 01/10
Codex: Blood Angels (5th Edition) 04/10
Codex: Dark Eldar (5th Edition) 11/10
Codex: Grey Knights (5th Edition) 04/11

I'd like to point out that the 4th edition Marine codex came out in 2004 - so the non-GK bits of the Ordo Malleus, the Ordo Hereticus/ Adepta Sororitas and Necrons have all not received a new codex in the time it took Marines to get updated twice, whilst the Blood Angels WD list was in 2007, and the previous Guard list shipped in 2003.

I do agree that multiple lists - whether all the existing Marine chapters or a mix of races based around a particular campaign - in one book wouldn't necessarily increase the production rate - it could even slow it down for each book as they still have to be playtested, fluff written and so on, but in bulk now (and in that way, over an edition, you might get some increase in rate). And of course, sooner or later, we'd wind up with Marine codex 2, featuring yet more chapters - and TBH, I wouldn't mind seeing White Scars, Iron Hands, Salamanders, Imperial Fists and Raven Guard lists.

What it might do is give the developers the idea that they can stick variant lists in one big book, so you do get the Ork clans lists, the Eldar craftworlds, Chaos Marine legions, DE Cabals and Cults, Sororitas Orders and so on.

As for lugging a big book around, as alternatives, quick reference sheets could be provided for download on the GW website, or there could even be a CD with a version of an army builder-type app included in the books for you to print your own - so that the army list comes out in a particular format with all the applicable rules for the units you've chosen, their weapons stats and so on.



A book like codex armageddon is seen as not a core product, but as a one-off novelty to inspire new armies, but not stick around into future editions unless the army proves so popular as to get a codex of its own like black templars.

Or is so overpowered that the powergamers flock to it.

How many Alaitoc ranger disruption chart armies existed when Craftworld Eldar was around?

jt.glass
18-08-2011, 14:24
Anyway - here's the list of the current codexes, and their release dates

Codex: Daemonhunters (3rd Edition) 2003
Codex: Witch Hunters (3rd Edition) 2003Witchhunters is just about still current (for about another week), but DH certainly isn't!


jt.

Sai-Lauren
18-08-2011, 14:40
Witchhunters is just about still current (for about another week), but DH certainly isn't!

jt.
Daemonhunters was part Grey Knights, part Ordo Malleus.

Can you really play O:M from the Grey Knights book?

As I said -
so the non-GK bits of the Ordo Malleus,

jt.glass
18-08-2011, 14:47
Daemonhunters was part Grey Knights, part Ordo Malleus.Whatever it was, it is not a current codex.


Can you really play O:M from the Grey Knights book?Yes!


jt.

Wishing
18-08-2011, 15:03
Or is so overpowered that the powergamers flock to it.

How many Alaitoc ranger disruption chart armies existed when Craftworld Eldar was around?

I dunno, but it brings up a good point about how GW decided that the Templars should get a codex when Alaitoc rangers, allegedly popular, didn't. Especially since there were no specifically Templar models available at the time.

Inquisitor Engel
18-08-2011, 21:14
I could well be wrong, but weren't Eldar originally scheduled for Christmas 2005, but bumped for the Black Templars, who weren't even on the radar at the 3rd -> 4th edition change, simply because the Marine codex sold brilliantly well the previous Christmas, and someone thought Christmas = Marines?

You are wrong. Flat. Out. Wrong.

I remember that discussion, when we were handed a new BT 'dex to test and being told to test it against the Eldar version we had at the time, which only saw MINOR tweaks between then and release. The decision to move Eldar was due to the progress of the models and had nothing to do with "Christmas=Marines."

BT were in fact "on the radar" (and have been since Codex: Armageddon) and required very little actual model work.

I guess I'll quote myself.


So, as someone who has been very, very involved in the design process of a few Codexes, I'll speak up here.

Things do not intentionally get pushed around to make room for Marines. That said, most Marine releases require far less model work than other armies. Look at BT or DA lists - conversion kit, characters, metal box. Done. Compare that to Eldar where there's a LARGE redux required each edition to keep the aesthetic/options up.

Things didn't get moved to make way for Marines, Marines plugged the gaps. Simple as that.

Now, I think you'll start to see a bit more equitable (and need-based) reduxes in future now that we're staggering releases more than they used to and even updating some models "just because."

Sai-Lauren
19-08-2011, 10:32
You are wrong. Flat. Out. Wrong.

I remember that discussion, when we were handed a new BT 'dex to test and being told to test it against the Eldar version we had at the time, which only saw MINOR tweaks between then and release. The decision to move Eldar was due to the progress of the models and had nothing to do with "Christmas=Marines."

BT were in fact "on the radar" (and have been since Codex: Armageddon) and required very little actual model work.

Then I stand corrected, thank you.

I would ask how many times something like that's happened though - a codex coming in after one that's already in playtest, and getting released before it.

RandomThoughts
19-08-2011, 14:21
Are there any "pro" Marine people that think a single codex is actually a good thing for the Marine faction? I know I am (explained my views back in post #35). Anybody else?

I am, and I explained my line of thinking above:
I like consistent rules, I want the same piece of equippment to work the same no matter what color the Marine is that uses it. I'd also like to see an approach in which every founding chapter replaces Combat Tactics with a suitable divergent rule, not just those some of them who happen to have a 5th Ed codex released yet.

Since 2nd Ed passed away, the rules have always been patchwork. How about one Edition to rule all Editions with codices for all armies released, and actually playtested against each other before release. Will that happen? Probably not. In its absence, a combined Marine Codex that upgrades all Marines at the same time would be a step in the right* direction.

*: For a subjective definition of "right".

Atlas_garon
19-08-2011, 17:30
consolodation would not work to well but if GW would step up play testing and really work at it they could get releases out faster for everyone. Ive never heard any reliable info on their creative process but surly some for thought and planning can make the rule updates and codex release quicker

Baaltor
19-08-2011, 19:10
So there are two groups: the "pro" Marines that beleive the multi dex strategy is fine and should continue and the "anti" Marines that think the codices are too many and suffocate other factions.

Are there any "pro" Marine people that think a single codex is actually a good thing for the Marine faction? I know I am (explained my views back in post #35). Anybody else?

I'm pro marine, and I think single dex is the way to go. The idea of each chapter getting a book is absurd, and I can't help but laugh when others claim that marines deserve it more than other armies due because they vary more. How would two chapters that adhere to the same book of guidlines differ more than guard regiments from other sectors? Or entire other craftworlds? Each craftworld is an ancient civilisation! Don't get me started on the traitor legions either. :I

Frankly I think it obscenely easy to fit the chapters of legend into a single book, and removes the idiotic concepts ward has summoned to try and make each chapter seem as if it were different enough to warrant and entire book.

Basically I think there should be one book that is written to modify the vanilla marines book that has sections for each chapter like this:

Special rules: Stuff like the red thirst and brotherherd of physics.
Wargear: The things that make the faction unique, Glaive encarmine, nemesis force weapons, frag cannons wolf claws etc.
Psychic powers: This shouldn't take a full page, give each chapter a couple of extra abilities, give or take a few.
Unit entries: The units they have that set them apart. Sanguinary guard, Baal predators, thunderwolves, whatever.
Misc: Changes to the list, limitations and any thing else extra

In total that should encompass everything that makes the chapter unique very quickly and efficiently, not wasted time on adding things that already exist in the other lists, and no more excuses about needing to make the list more different with arbitrary changes.

In total that should be about 7 pages of stuff per chapter, you could fit many of these into one book, maintain all the flavor with none of the bloat, and fix the production rate of codices. Applying this to chaos legions and other such books would make other (Non-marine) people happy methinks.

althathir
19-08-2011, 19:36
So there are two groups: the "pro" Marines that beleive the multi dex strategy is fine and should continue and the "anti" Marines that think the codices are too many and suffocate other factions.

Are there any "pro" Marine people that think a single codex is actually a good thing for the Marine faction? I know I am (explained my views back in post #35). Anybody else?

I don't know what you want here, I think what your trying to ask is if there are other marine players that support one dex.

Personally I play space wolves and I think they deserve their own dex, and furthermore I don't think that they pushed a xenos back, if anything I think they have helped release a xenos book.

The Space Wolves release had 2 plastic kits (hunters and termies) and 3 characters

DE had 6 plastics, and 5 metal kits, and have since released another waves, and I think some retinue releases.

According to http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=297915&highlight=timeline, DE have had more plastics released for them than GK, BA, and SW combined that had to have a represented a big risk to GW which the marine dexes I think were designed to blunt, and all three of those marine armies are popular.


I am, and I explained my line of thinking above:
I like consistent rules, I want the same piece of equippment to work the same no matter what color the Marine is that uses it. I'd also like to see an approach in which every founding chapter replaces Combat Tactics with a suitable divergent rule, not just those some of them who happen to have a 5th Ed codex released yet.

Since 2nd Ed passed away, the rules have always been patchwork. How about one Edition to rule all Editions with codices for all armies released, and actually playtested against each other before release. Will that happen? Probably not. In its absence, a combined Marine Codex that upgrades all Marines at the same time would be a step in the right* direction.

*: For a subjective definition of "right".

They've been making strides in having the equipment be on the same page, that was a much more valid complaint before the DA and BT faqs. For the most part the things that work differently from other options now have a new name.

The 2nd edition rules weren't perfect either, and believe it or not the first 2nd edition codex was space wolves at that time there wasn't a marine dex. I don't see advantages that one book would bring, its suggested that would ramp the release schedule but I doubt it.


consolodation would not work to well but if GW would step up play testing and really work at it they could get releases out faster for everyone. Ive never heard any reliable info on their creative process but surly some for thought and planning can make the rule updates and codex release quicker

I'm not sure at the start of third they released a lot of books in a hurry irrc eldar came out, and the next month orks were released, and 3rd seemed to have a lot of balance issues.

What I think they can do is start to do more aggressive updates. The DA and BT faqs seem to have been well received, and there really isn't anything from stopping them from releasing similiar updates to older armies. For example for CWE they could release one that lowered the point cost of swooping and shining spears. They wouldn't have to worry about game balance being screwed up cause those 2 units are widely considered some of the worst in the game.

Pyriel
19-08-2011, 19:50
you do realise the BT rhinos , and with them all their Troops choices, are now even more horribly overcosted right?...
in the old days, BT rhinos were more expensive but were much tougher due to old smokes.

the FAQ pretty much:
-improved storm shields.
-improved cyclone missiles.
-improved land speeder typhoons.
-improved the ballistic skill of PotMS.
-nerfed all troops choices and veterans choices by severely nerfing rhinos.
-changed no costs despite nerfs/buffs.

pretty much turned the BT into a "shooting army from hell" that avoids close combat like the plague and uses terminators as a sole counterassault unit.

sure, they can build *some* competitive lists now.
but its not BT anymore. i dont enjoy playing them. and theres even less reasons now to avoid "counts as blood angels".

the fact that , according to current schedule, the next BT release is in no sooner than 2-3 years because BA got a freaking *second 5th ed codex* , and soon we'll have 6th ed, hence automatic new vanilla SM codex, and between them some xenos and chaos books(rightfuly those) doesnt help much. *prays for white dwarf update*

althathir
19-08-2011, 20:39
I wasn't trying to imply that the DA and BT updates were perfect, just that online updates are a tool GW should be using as well as white dwarf updates. The crux of this issue is that some players feel they armies are be ignored, and they assume marine dexes are slowing it down, personally I think when the models are ready GW releases a book (thats why I think the nid book sucked, cause they made mawloc/trygon and knew the kit would sell then rushed out a codex.)

That said I wouldn't be shocked if the first dex in 6th is a black templar codex, cause it would be a smaller release and chaos legions could be huge for them.

Pyriel
19-08-2011, 21:11
yes, but new edition automaticaly means vanilla marines get updated.

they sell way too much to leave them unupdated for a month or two.
after that, a couple of chaos/xenos codeci need to follow.

this rule is why we wont see a BT/DA dex anytime soon.

megatrons2nd
20-08-2011, 03:28
yes, but new edition automaticaly means vanilla marines get updated.

they sell way too much to leave them unupdated for a month or two.
after that, a couple of chaos/xenos codeci need to follow.

this rule is why we wont see a BT/DA dex anytime soon.

Not if they do what they did this edition.

A 5th in mind orcs, Marines, Guard, more marines, Nids, yet more marines, Dark Eldar, even more marines. That's 2.5 xenos, 1 Non marine imperial, and 4 marines, and 1 White Dwarf codex for not quite marine nuns. There is possibly another marine code or a xenos codex in the next couple months depending on who you listen to.

BT/DA dex might be out before my Tau are updated.

WallWeasels
20-08-2011, 04:49
Hmm, a general question: Would the addition of chaos legions (which we have heard are coming) ease or increase problems with "to many marines"?
It is easy to see marines as "marines with spikes" but...these are going to be full blown death-guard/world-eaters releases, not the 4th edition CSM codex.
Although I think those who dislike all the marine codexes might dislike the concept of "4 more marine books" being released.

On a general note: I would love to see "chapters" of most races/non-marine armies. As a Sisters player I would love to know more about how different Orders function and differ. I wouldn't expect a separate book, but having a "C:SM" style characters wouldn't be bad.
I hope that the recent WD rule-additions mean that GW will be thinking about doing more rules in WD. Possibly that might lead to supplements being back :D

Pyriel
20-08-2011, 10:49
@megatrons2nd:
necron is next, afterwards tau. afterwards, 6th. (yeah, 6th is THIS close. we could just start playtesting the rumours in 2 months' time basicaly instead of playing 5th)
afterwards, vanilla marines naturaly, and SOME chaos codex after that.

thats 1.5 years in the future. see? 2-3 years till BT update.

PANZERBUNNY
20-08-2011, 16:11
Hmm, a general question: Would the addition of chaos legions (which we have heard are coming) ease or increase problems with "to many marines"?
It is easy to see marines as "marines with spikes" but...these are going to be full blown death-guard/world-eaters releases, not the 4th edition CSM codex.
Although I think those who dislike all the marine codexes might dislike the concept of "4 more marine books" being released.

On a general note: I would love to see "chapters" of most races/non-marine armies. As a Sisters player I would love to know more about how different Orders function and differ. I wouldn't expect a separate book, but having a "C:SM" style characters wouldn't be bad.
I hope that the recent WD rule-additions mean that GW will be thinking about doing more rules in WD. Possibly that might lead to supplements being back :D

Certain people will eventually come to terms with the fact that the story being told is that of Humanity and its divided lines, with the incursion of alien races on its domain to spice it up and keep things interesting.

Filling out chaos with separate codexes detailing the major traitor affinities would be most welcome.

megatrons2nd
20-08-2011, 22:15
@megatrons2nd:
necron is next, afterwards tau. afterwards, 6th. (yeah, 6th is THIS close. we could just start playtesting the rumours in 2 months' time basicaly instead of playing 5th)
afterwards, vanilla marines naturaly, and SOME chaos codex after that.

thats 1.5 years in the future. see? 2-3 years till BT update.

What I have heard was Necrons, or an undetermined(black templars had a mention) space marine codex was near, and that Tau would be after the release of 6th edition.

Of course that came from a smattering of sites and not anyone I recognize as a good rumormonger, but the people on those sites held them in as high a regard as we hold The pie man.

Marzillius
20-08-2011, 22:34
I think this would simply cause confusion. The sub-codices should never have been made in the first place, but now we're stuck with them.

Pyriel
21-08-2011, 01:29
I think this would simply cause confusion. The sub-codices should never have been made in the first place, but now we're stuck with them.

THIS.

this is probably true. i know space wolves and black templars and the others haveall these unique units...

does anyone here think these units would exist fluff-wise without the subcodeci?... if a subcodex comes out, sure unique units are required *to justify it*... but if the space marines were just one codex, would he BT/SW/BA/DA fluff be the same?... i think not. i think the huge sales of marines created the subcodeci, and then the codeci and their need to be justified created the fluff, not vice versa.

after all thats done, to properly make marines in one book as would be proper would need a huge retcon of epic scale: not likely to happen.

the best thing we can hope is:
marines have the vanilla codex, and the subcodeci are released in white dwarf(so that xenos/chaos codeci are not delayed)

a1elbow
21-08-2011, 01:46
THIS.

this is probably true. i know space wolves and black templars and the others haveall these unique units...

does anyone here think these units would exist fluff-wise without the subcodeci?... if a subcodex comes out, sure unique units are required *to justify it*... but if the space marines were just one codex, would he BT/SW/BA/DA fluff be the same?... i think not. i think the huge sales of marines created the subcodeci, and then the codeci and their need to be justified created the fluff, not vice versa.

after all thats done, to properly make marines in one book as would be proper would need a huge retcon of epic scale: not likely to happen.

the best thing we can hope is:
marines have the vanilla codex, and the subcodeci are released in white dwarf(so that xenos/chaos codeci are not delayed)

1-I hardly think GW would put out a codex for fluff purposes. I'm betting yes, they did create these sub-codicies with unique units to drive sails. McDonalds makes more than one type of hamburger, that is their meat. McChicken's are a side product like Xenos are to 40k.

2-Eh, Dark Eldar aren't natural. GW just made them to create sales. I think it would be unfair to lump the SM books into one and have two Eldar.

--
edit: GW's business model has been putting out new books and a new ruleset on a regular basis. Having lots of ABs/CXs allows them to generate extra profit by giving people a large pool of new options. For people on Warseer (etc), this is about having fun. For GW, shockingly, this is about making money.

Gilfred The Iron Knight
21-08-2011, 02:22
Personally, I'd rather they had less armybooks in 40k but had more varity within the books. My solution would be:

Codex Imperium,
Imperial Guard
Space Marines
Battle Sisters
Grey Knights

Codex Chaos,
Chaos Space Marines
Lost and the damned
Chaos Daemons
Dark Mechanicus

Codex Eldar,
Craftworld Eldar
Dark Eldar
Exodite Eldar
Chroneworld Eldar
Harequins

Codex Xenos Hordes,
Orks
Feral Orks
Tyranids
Genestealer cult
Zoats

Codex Mercenaries,
Tau Empire
Kroot
Squats
Rouge traders

Codex Machines,
Ad Mech
Necrons

That gives 6 books, which would be easy enough to update. Also within each book you can have possible allies and several alternative lists.

althathir
21-08-2011, 02:43
yes, but new edition automaticaly means vanilla marines get updated.

they sell way too much to leave them unupdated for a month or two.
after that, a couple of chaos/xenos codeci need to follow.

this rule is why we wont see a BT/DA dex anytime soon.

That has been the general trend for 3rd, 4th, and 5th but it isn't a law. It wouldn't surprise me to see a chapter like BT or DA lead off this edition, and putting a bigger spotlight on chaos legions.


Hmm, a general question: Would the addition of chaos legions (which we have heard are coming) ease or increase problems with "to many marines"?
It is easy to see marines as "marines with spikes" but...these are going to be full blown death-guard/world-eaters releases, not the 4th edition CSM codex.
Although I think those who dislike all the marine codexes might dislike the concept of "4 more marine books" being released.

On a general note: I would love to see "chapters" of most races/non-marine armies. As a Sisters player I would love to know more about how different Orders function and differ. I wouldn't expect a separate book, but having a "C:SM" style characters wouldn't be bad.
I hope that the recent WD rule-additions mean that GW will be thinking about doing more rules in WD. Possibly that might lead to supplements being back :D

Honestly most of the problems seem to come from frustration with how long it takes GW to update a player's fraction so yeah I think it will **** the same people off. That said chaos players deserve an update they've been miserable with the current book for awhile.

That said more WD updates is in my mind really important, cause as long as SM sell GW is gonna push them, so it allows them to update other armies without expending the resources until they can do right (full codex release).


THIS.

this is probably true. i know space wolves and black templars and the others haveall these unique units...

does anyone here think these units would exist fluff-wise without the subcodeci?... if a subcodex comes out, sure unique units are required *to justify it*... but if the space marines were just one codex, would he BT/SW/BA/DA fluff be the same?... i think not. i think the huge sales of marines created the subcodeci, and then the codeci and their need to be justified created the fluff, not vice versa.

after all thats done, to properly make marines in one book as would be proper would need a huge retcon of epic scale: not likely to happen.

the best thing we can hope is:
marines have the vanilla codex, and the subcodeci are released in white dwarf(so that xenos/chaos codeci are not delayed)

The first 2nd edition codex was space wolves (so basically the first codex before that everything was a WD list) the only time they've been a subcodex was in 3rd.

I'm a firm believer that gw releases fractions when the models are ready. Loyalist marines are easy space wolves got 2 kits, and 3 characters, xenos releases tend to be much larger.

Personally I think updating the older armies in WD while allowing for a constant release of armies is a better solution. Part of why we've had so many marine books imo is that DE and crons (if rumours are accurate) were both considered risky releases by GW so they compensated with a lot of low risk releases.

AlexHolker
21-08-2011, 03:39
2-Eh, Dark Eldar aren't natural. GW just made them to create sales. I think it would be unfair to lump the SM books into one and have two Eldar.
There would still be two SM books: Loyalists/Renegades and the Chaos Legions. So quit whining.

avien
21-08-2011, 08:37
My personal issue with the number of marine codexes is less to do with the codexes themselves than it is to do with the sheer number of marine releases each year. Marine, xenos, marines, xenos,marines... Gets a little dull. But marines sell and that's just the way things will be until they stop selling better than everything else.

To the point of the OP, I don't think this is necessarily an outright bad idea, but I don't see it happening. They did it in 3rd edition and then got rid for 4th and haven't looked back, so I would imagine there is a reason for that. Plus having to reference two codexes for one army does get annoying (speak as a former DA player in 3rd.)

My proposal would be to just put all the chapter army lists into one mega-dex and be done with it. Then throughout the year release other background ala index astartes... Remember those? Back in the day when GW actually wrote decent volumes of background.

My 2 cents

avien
21-08-2011, 08:54
2-Eh, Dark Eldar aren't natural. GW just made them to create sales. I think it would be unfair to lump the SM books into one and have two Eldar.
.

I have to disagree with your logic. At least the dark elder are different enough from the elder to warrant their own codex.

Black Templars and dark angels et al are essentially carbon copies with one or two unique units.

Release a single codex and scatter the marine releases throughout the year. This has 3 benefits right off. Firstly the obvious- other armies get updated more frequently. Secondly you get sales when these models are released throughout the year in addition to the latest codex and thirdly gives players an excuse to convert a unit that isn't immediately available (ala tervigon for nids)

GW has fallen into this horrible pattern of only releasing models with a new codex, which isn't necessary as seen by their recent foray into 2nd wave releases.

lanrak
21-08-2011, 09:50
Hi all.
There seems to be a basic disjoint between what the studio want to develop and what corperate managment belive is best for short term profit.

The studio wants to develop a balanced wargame.
The corperate managment focus on the directive '... sell toy soldiers to children....' tend to scuppper the best efforts of the game developers.

Most ballanced wargames tend to develop army lists with balance and synergy in mind.And release ALL the army lists with the core rules.And then expand on the core rules equaly for the entire range.

Games developed mainly as a direct marketing aid to sell minatures, tend to have erratic releases and imballanced game play.
(Due to not releaseing rules updates without a range of new minatures, and the use of 'special rules' to make the new minature apear more exciting. )

So those more concerned with game balance and game play , might be better off using other rule sets.

Lowmans
21-08-2011, 10:51
@lanrak

I don't necessarily disagree but this has always been the case for GW. Models have always been the core business and the games developed to suit.

Gen.Steiner
21-08-2011, 11:01
So those more concerned with game balance and game play , might be better off using other rule sets.

Yup. I use 40K 2nd and 4th with some (OK, lots) of homebrew stuff.

In GW and at my club I use 5th Edition Guard and/or Dark Eldar. I suspect I will stick with Guard as my main army throughout all the editions of 40K until I die but the Amalthean Crusade (see sig) will be fought with 2nd and 4th edition rules!

Pyriel
21-08-2011, 13:29
i disagree, lanrac.

1st and 2nd edition were no wargames, but RPGs. they were no "warhammer 40k" as we know it. hence, i cant use them in comparison despite how i may like them.


i continue:
3rd edition and its rhino rush lists was... deeply problematic. the rules were at quite the experimental stage too, and IMO were very erratic/unfair.

4th edition was a jump towards company-level battles, with a more wel-developed system than 3rd. especialy the "core" of the vehicle and transport rules and most of the restrictions we now take for granted, that were codified back then. however 4th ed was MAJORLY unbalanced in its codeci, with skimmers-moving-fast making Eldar(and Tau with a piece of wargear) nearly unbeatable, and due to crappy cc rules Tyranids would obliterate you without getting shot more than 1 round per game and Necrons could not be destroyed in cc. if a WAAC space marine player played a WAAC eldar/nidzilla player, the SM player had a 10%-15% chance to win at most. it was a time when list-building dominated everything and tactics and even dice were supremely second-fiddle.

5th ed comes. currently, the balance is on a whole different level: there are top-tier codeci like IG, GK and SW, there are mid-tier like SM,BA,DE, etc, and there are "low-tiered early-4th ed codeci", like necrons and Tau.
surprise-surprise: in 5th ed, a SW has no better chance than 60-65% to beat a Tau player! sure, the game is not balanced- NO GAME IN THE WORLD IS. not 40k, not fantasy, not warmahordes, not soccer("codex:west brom" will never have an equal "army list" with "codex:manchester united"; merely utd's being in the champions' league grants them SUPER-UNFAIR more money), not basketball, not nothing. no.game.is.completely.balanced.


but if you look at 40k history, you see balance *does* improve. i liked 4th a lot better than 3rd. so much that, at start, i wanted to boycott 5th and rallied ppl into doing that. but i tried 5th a while, and guess what; even 4th looks like an abomination of armylisttheory-domination compared to 5th.

so no, despite what most ppl think, i DO believe GW actively try to improve the game, because *i see results*. bt they just cant do it fast enough/effective enough cause it is NOT their #1 priority(and they never hid it). thats all.

Emperor's Scourge
21-08-2011, 20:41
It's sad that some folks think the secret to their happiness rests solely in taking things away from others. We should have outgrown this way of thinking after the toddler stage of development.

Mind your own business.

Vandelan
21-08-2011, 20:50
GW just needs to release 2 books around the same time, much like the rumors for 6th edition starting with DA or BT and Chaos Legions or Chaos Renegades and a later release made up of the two that weren't put out then.

Releasing more books at once would help get the books out and potentially sate the fans appetites.

Then again, the only reason people make these threads is because whiners think that less marine books mean that GW would care enough to release other army books more frequently, when we'll still see a brand new marine book at the beginning of every edition.

jt.glass
22-08-2011, 09:28
The studio wants to develop a balanced wargame.They may want to, but I have my doubts about whether they are capable of it, executive meddling or no.

When Jervis Johnson keeps referring to himself in a his column as "the rules guy", it kinda makes you worry for the rest... :confused:


jt.

lanrak
22-08-2011, 10:07
Hi again.
40k originaly started off as a sort of RPG with minatures.
Then went to a heavily narrative driven skirmish game in 2nd ed.
(If you like 2nd ed, you may like 'No Limits' a free rule set you can down load.Its srt of what 2nd ed could have been eventualy.)

From 3rd ed onwards 40k has simply completley changed direction , and not had a new rule set written for the new game play.
GW plc has made very MINOR improvments to 40k over the last 13 years.At the cost of msassive rules bloat.

I would rather that EVERY race had a core army list with ALL variants in the back of the book.(I would prefer fluff to be published in a seperate book to the rules too!)

IF ever player had similar amounts of army types , delivered in a similar format.
The blatent favoritism show towards one army wouldnt be blamed for diminishing the amount of time spent on the others.

But 40k is NOT about game ballance.So it will continue to be focused on selling SM to kiddies.(As that is what Tom Kirby belives is best for his pension fund.)

Having looked at how much better the rule sets are without corperate interferance,(SG s and rules written at other companies.)
I have no doubt in the game devs abilities.
As Jervis gave the world Blood Bowl , I can not hate him.
In fact I pity him as he is stuck as the resident whipping boy for the corperate missmanagment of game development at GW towers.

omegoku
22-08-2011, 13:27
What if, starting with 6th Edition GW release schedule became
Q1 - Xenos codex
Q2 - Xenos codex
Q3 - Supplement/Campaign (all codex get 1 new box)
Q4 - Marine codex

The marine codex will be tied to Xmas, so the combo of best sellers + xmas rush should ensure they sell like hot cakes.
The marines codex requires the least models, by far. Codex DE and IG, and to a lesser extend Orks and Nids are starting to catch up. The time saved in the Q4 release would be put into making models for Q1 and Q2.

Every Supplement/Campaign quarter would see the release of the Errata Doc.
While FAQs could be released and updated more frequently, major changes like points cost or rules change would be released alongside the supplement or campaign.
For example the spearhead should have come with
Ork Battlewagon, Nid MC, Necron plastic heavy destroyer, IG Tank, Eldar Grav Tank, D. Eldar Aircraft, Chaos Tank, Daemon MC, SoB tank, Marine tank.
If the Army is completely plastic, add a new unit, or upgrade a very old box.

Everyone gets something every year
Marines are sold to the kiddies every year, and for xmas
Xeno races are updated and released more frequently. (IG/SoB = xenos for this model)

Exception.
If a race is sorely lacking (Sob, CWE, Necrons) then to make up for the fact there is a lot of models needed, you release the codex in Q1, and a major second wave in Q2.

There can be minor waves throughout the year to fill in codex gaps as models become finished too.
Chaos Marines can be released as Marines too

aka_mythos
22-08-2011, 14:37
Unfortunately leading up to 6th ed looks more like... Necron, Chaos Marines, and SoB.

GW operates under the assumption that every player, even those players whose primary is not marines, has at least one marine army; thus every player is catered to when they do a SM release.

Chapters Unwritten
22-08-2011, 20:00
I never really found the 4th ed dex complaints that people took non-troublesome flaws as big a problem as everyone else seemed to. Not being able to take allies, for example, or use drop pods. At the time, it was all, "pfft! Who uses DROP PODS?!?! What kind of drawback is THAT?!" Now, there are almost no marine armies without drop podding units.

The problem wasn't the trait system, the problem was the environment. Nowadays, such a system would be pretty compelling, I think -- particularly if it limited the things we see as the crux of most armies (like special characters, or certain units).

MajorWesJanson
22-08-2011, 20:27
Maybe if they had tied specific drawbacks in with each trait instead of letting people pick and choose.

Gen.Steiner
22-08-2011, 22:16
No, the trick with the traits was to ensure that the negatives were pretty serious: more along the lines of 0-1 Terminators or No Vehicles of AV13 or more ... stuff like that. No Librarians is actually quite a powerful drawback.

a1elbow
22-08-2011, 23:30
There would still be two SM books: Loyalists/Renegades and the Chaos Legions. So quit whining.

It's hard to whine about something that isn't even happening and will never happen.


I have to disagree with your logic. At least the dark elder are different enough from the elder to warrant their own codex.

Black Templars and dark angels et al are essentially carbon copies with one or two unique units.

Release a single codex and scatter the marine releases throughout the year. This has 3 benefits right off. Firstly the obvious- other armies get updated more frequently. Secondly you get sales when these models are released throughout the year in addition to the latest codex and thirdly gives players an excuse to convert a unit that isn't immediately available (ala tervigon for nids)

GW has fallen into this horrible pattern of only releasing models with a new codex, which isn't necessary as seen by their recent foray into 2nd wave releases.

Hmm...maybe, but I bet I could pretty easily build a fair count-as army of both books using the other's codex. I guess it is a racial thing. Mon Keigh all look the same to the Eldar. I imagine to a Space Wolf there isn't much of a difference either.

Gen.Steiner
22-08-2011, 23:57
Officially, the Imperium only recognises the Eldar as "Eldar pirates" regardless of craftworld or origin.

Chapters Unwritten
23-08-2011, 00:06
I disagree about the Templars and DA. DA got somewhat bastardized and a lot of their innovations became standardized for bog standard SM. There was a time when DA were the only people who could combat squad, for example.

The Black Templar play very differently from the current marines, and I think that is good, but I readily admit this is more a side effect to being an old book than anything else. I fully expect them to get "Wardhammered" at some point and be rigged up such that five man units in Razorbacks is the most viable build just like GK did. This is a shame since they offer a great opportunity to really be different given their inspiration.

The Dark Angels are another story entirely - one of missed opportunities. For one, they are the FIRST legion. Shouldn't they have a huge abundance of veterans? To me, their troops should be tactical squads, company veterans, scouts, and deathwing terminators. That one change alone would make it one of the more diverse armies.

Moreover, they have this whole elaborate backstory of hunting the fallen that has NO bearing in the game whatsoever. I think this should be represented mechanically in the gameplay element somehow (like having to give a special model to the enemy force and having him count as an objective or something).

There is really a LOT of missed opportunity with that book. I hope they are a bit more clever about it next go around.

I guess my overall point here is that these books are similar only because GW chose to make them such. Fluff-wise, they could be very different in mechanics if it were ever decided to go in a new direction.

AlexHolker
23-08-2011, 02:09
It's hard to whine about something that isn't even happening and will never happen.
Yeah, yeah, you're a trailblazer for whiners everywhere. What do you want, a pat on the back?

AlphariusOmegon20
23-08-2011, 03:17
You're whistling in the dark here. The Tactical Squad boxes set alone out-sells entire WFB lines.


Really? Got any actual evidence to back up that claim?

I highly doubt your premise.




---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Surgency
23-08-2011, 03:19
well, i might believe that it outsells Wood Elves... but thats one relatively old faction that is due for an update soon, so that doesn't really count...

Stealin' Genes
23-08-2011, 06:56
I disagree about the Templars and DA. DA got somewhat bastardized and a lot of their innovations became standardized for bog standard SM. There was a time when DA were the only people who could combat squad, for example.


Just a nitpick - this used to be a standard marine thing. They dropped it in 3e and brought it back recently; I was happy to see it return just because it's old school.



The Black Templar play very differently from the current marines, and I think that is good, but I readily admit this is more a side effect to being an old book than anything else. I fully expect them to get "Wardhammered" at some point and be rigged up such that five man units in Razorbacks is the most viable build just like GK did. This is a shame since they offer a great opportunity to really be different given their inspiration.

Don't forget their brand new special character with MC-level stats who killed every C'tan in the galaxy with one hand tied behind his back. Also, prepare to have everything necessarily prefaced with "Purge."

Spiney Norman
23-08-2011, 07:08
As someone who doesn't play Marines in any colour, I'm absolutely fine with the number of marine codices in existence. It helps me financially, because once a decade when Necrons or Dark Eldar do get their new codex I can generally afford to go crazy.

I would also like to thank all those crazy gamers with too much money to spend that buy hundreds of the same marine models, paint them different colours and pretend they are different armies. You are the heroes upon whose backs the future of GW sales is assured. :D

Sai-Lauren
23-08-2011, 11:37
Officially, the Imperium only recognises the Eldar as "Eldar pirates" regardless of craftworld or origin.

And in a similar vein, GW recognises the 40k Armies as "Marines" and "Everyone else" ;)

Maybe the only way to break that is for something like everyone on Warseer, Dakka, BoLS etc each to buy a box of something non-Marine over the course of a financial quarter, to push their sales up. After all, it's all very well us saying we want a greater variety of stuff, but we do kind of need to get our wallets behind it.



I disagree about the Templars and DA. DA got somewhat bastardized and a lot of their innovations became standardized for bog standard SM. There was a time when DA were the only people who could combat squad, for example.

Agreed - remember, the DA codex was the prototype for the Marine codex.



Moreover, they have this whole elaborate backstory of hunting the fallen that has NO bearing in the game whatsoever. I think this should be represented mechanically in the gameplay element somehow (like having to give a special model to the enemy force and having him count as an objective or something).

Well, they don't always hunt the fallen - they do defend the Imperium on occasion, and, aside from it being frankly boring to do the same thing every game, if you go that way, you're starting to look at something closer to the old WH/DH adversaries rules.

They could certainly play up the secrecy and the DA-SW antipathy much more in the rules though.

And as an aside, to the poster that said you can still build an O:M list from the Grey Knights codex - having finally got around to checking my GK codex last night, you can't. You can have Inquisitors accompanying them, but there's no Inquisitorial Stormtroopers, Daemonhosts or anything else that make the O:M list separate.

Therefore, I would say that the Ordo Malleus are still awaiting an update, just the same as the Ordo Hereticus who won't get updated in the WD Sororitas list.

Getz
23-08-2011, 13:39
'Fraid to say that Matt ward is on record saying that the Grey Knights codex is "the new home of the Inquisition."

It sounds very much like there won't be an OM, OH or OX codex.

In theory you can play a GK free =][= list using the GK codex, you just have to take Inquisitor Corteaz to turn henchmen into troops - which is irritating for those of us who have old =][= armies that were lead by Inquisitors of our own devising...

Gen.Steiner
23-08-2011, 14:47
Arrrrrrgh! Yet more reason to be miffed at Mat Ward! :mad: :mad:

*Ahem*

Well, it doesn't affect me so much as I am ignoring any edition beyond 4th for anything other than Dark Eldar and Imperial Guard; my games at home are played in glorious 2nd/4th Technicolour! :D

But still, ouch, that's a poor decision by Mr Ward and the rest of the Games Development team...

Getz
23-08-2011, 14:56
Certainly I can understand the decision to do away with DH, WH and the never completed XH codex, but surely Codex: Inquisition wasn't too much to ask...

Anyway, I digress...

althathir
23-08-2011, 16:30
'Fraid to say that Matt ward is on record saying that the Grey Knights codex is "the new home of the Inquisition."

It sounds very much like there won't be an OM, OH or OX codex.

In theory you can play a GK free =][= list using the GK codex, you just have to take Inquisitor Corteaz to turn henchmen into troops - which is irritating for those of us who have old =][= armies that were lead by Inquisitors of our own devising...

If there is enough demand for a Codex: Inquisition than there will be one, but while promoting the Grey Knight codex, which has a lot of rules related to the Inquisition, Ward isn't gonna say, but wait 3 years and there will be a new Inquisition codex, GW wants people to buy now.

Sai-Lauren
23-08-2011, 17:00
Certainly I can understand the decision to do away with DH, WH and the never completed XH codex, but surely Codex: Inquisition wasn't too much to ask...

Or even a proper way of selecting allies, so you could potentially take a squad or two of Grey Knights, an Inquisitor and some platoons of Inducted guard without it being too overpowered. Maybe something like main army must take at least 3 troop choices and one HQ choice, allied armies must take at least one troop choice, and may take no more than one selection from either Heavy Support, Elite or Fast Attack for each troop choice taken.

Maybe they'll come back in 7th edition...

Wishing
23-08-2011, 22:41
Or even a proper way of selecting allies, so you could potentially take a squad or two of Grey Knights, an Inquisitor and some platoons of Inducted guard without it being too overpowered. Maybe something like main army must take at least 3 troop choices and one HQ choice, allied armies must take at least one troop choice, and may take no more than one selection from either Heavy Support, Elite or Fast Attack for each troop choice taken.

Maybe they'll come back in 7th edition...

Yeah, I think the removal of ally rules isn't an omission but a deliberate design choice, so the only way to get allies back is probably to wait for the design philosophy of the studio to change.

Personally I love the idea of allies, even though I doubt I would use them very often if the rules were available. But having the option to, say, hire Kroot to fight for my Chaos Marines would be very characterful.

Captain Semper
24-08-2011, 07:38
Yeah, I think the removal of ally rules isn't an omission but a deliberate design choice, so the only way to get allies back is probably to wait for the design philosophy of the studio to change.

Indeed. However I can't help to think that a "Codex: Imperial Agents" should have been the way to go. Group all the non-Marine, non-Guard imperial forces in one book. Let's face it background wise GK are hardly ever seen in 40k battelfields. Creating whole armies of what is essentially 800 marines in total is just, well... Let's just say it's the "rule of cool" in the superlative. Oh, and Inquisitors although they can be fighters, primarily they are not - they are more akin to, well, inquisitors...

Proper ally rules would solve the issue. Add a squad of GK terminators (not having to invent a ton of sub-units just to justify a Codex), the odd inquisitor and his retinue, assasins and even SoB's *ducks for cover*.

That way you can give color to the main fighting bodies of the Imperium (making it more gothic and 40k-ish) and contain the Imperium forces in three codices: Marines, Guard and Agents. And you move on with your life.

Sai-Lauren
24-08-2011, 09:57
Yeah, I think the removal of ally rules isn't an omission but a deliberate design choice, so the only way to get allies back is probably to wait for the design philosophy of the studio to change.

Personally I love the idea of allies, even though I doubt I would use them very often if the rules were available. But having the option to, say, hire Kroot to fight for my Chaos Marines would be very characterful.

It might also help with cross-selling armies - a marine player might want a small guard platoon to get access to a Leman Russ or two to support their marines, and could easily start to turn that platoon and tank into a full guard army.

And Captain Semper - agree on a Codex: Special Forces to include all the odd stuff (which could potentially be a book covering all armies, rather than just the Imperium), but the Adepta Sororitas should have their own list. :)

omegoku
24-08-2011, 13:52
Codex: Mercenaries would be a good way to sell to everyone, even nids!

I would not allow Marine army to buy some IG just to get a Leman Russ, they should be kept separate except in team/apocalype games.

I would include stuff like
Inquisitor + Retinue - can be taken in any Imperial army
Assassins - Imperial only
Ork Mercs - Anyone, can include Commissar if Imperial/ork army
Plague zombies - Chaos, D. Eldar, Nids
Human mercs - anyone
Eldar pirates - anyone, except nids/necrons/Slaanesh marines/deamons
Mutant rable - anyone
Kroot Mercs - anyone
GK Terminator squad - Imperial only
Alien Mercs - anyone
Chaos mercs - anyone but imperial
etc..

a bit like dogs of war, except you could not use it as a stand alone codex.
All the units would have a FoC, which might be different depending on allies.
All the units should be slightly more expensive than they should be, to avoid them becoming the easy fix for every codex (no CC in your Tau army? Add some deadly CC unit!)
Maybe include a rule that makes them a little untrustworthy or Low Ld to show they value their own skin more than their employers or something?

Dr.Clock
24-08-2011, 19:02
Well... this thread seems to have wandered considerably, but I'll jump in anyway:

While the idea of 'supplementary ally' codecies isn't bad necessarily, it can easily lead to a whole slew of balance issues.

The books would probably end up being 'opponent's permission' or some such redundant nonsense and thus might fuel the nerdrage about tournament validity etc.

Personally, I see nothing wrong at all with just coming up with your own rules for allying units in friendly games.

For instance, a good friend of mine has an SoB force but neither the inclination nor funds to expand on the sisters right now (the neutering of the model range is a true crime).

Thus, I've been more than welcoming to the idea of simply taking Coteaz in a SoB force and allowing him to use the henchmen troop entry to bolster his force with Ecclesiarchy/Inq. nutters.

Simply asking that the opponent stay within a single FOC and fill up the required choices for both the 'parent' list and the 'ally' list would be fine (1Hq, 2 troops each). If you want to get sticky about it, say that the number of allied choices outside troops must be less than or equal to the number of allied troop units. You might also ask that no more than one named HQ be taken.

In sum, if you wait for GW to get around to fully supporting ally rules, you'll be waiting a long time. People tend to forget that they can just talk with their opponents before the game if they want to try something else. After that, look to apocalypse.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Gen.Steiner
25-08-2011, 10:49
This is true, it's very easy to use mixed forces in friendly games.

avien
30-08-2011, 20:55
Hmm...maybe, but I bet I could pretty easily build a fair count-as army of both books using the other's codex. I guess it is a racial thing. Mon Keigh all look the same to the Eldar. I imagine to a Space Wolf there isn't much of a difference either.

Perhaps, though I don't see it myself, so I'd like to see someone do it. However I can build any space marine chapter from codex Space Marines without any effort whatsoever

Atomic Rooster
30-08-2011, 21:15
The more marine codexs there are, the more money GW makes. This is simply because that's what most people are interested in buying. The only solution that will work is to make it so that GW believes they will make more money by doing otherwise.