# This Codex has got to go



## Karak The Unfaithful (Feb 13, 2011)

There are alot of codexes and armies these days, If GW keep making new ones for new armies we will have too many. So which codex do you think should be scrapped? or are you the sort of person who would keep them all?


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

i diddnt realise there were too many...


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Karak The Unfaithful said:


> There are alot of codexes and armies these days, If GW keep making new ones for new armies we will have too many. So which codex do you think should be scrapped? or are you the sort of person who would keep them all?


But the most recent army that was bought in was like... 10 years ago? Maybe more?

I don't think GW are going to be releasing many more Codexes (for new armies) in the near future, what with a pretty solid ruleset. A set of codexes that make sense and they work with the rulesystem. 

Oh, wait, I forgot Chaos Daemons - However, Daemons have been around for an awful long time, it was inevitable for GW to try and make more money out of them.

However, if I had to get rid of one or two, it'd be Chaos Daemons, and merge it with the next CSM codex.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Pretty much all the space marine ones. You don't need several seperate codexs detailing what is basically the same army, but with slight rules changes and different unit names. You could do the job by just having a single mega-codex, with seperate fluff sections and then a 'use this instead of' section for unique units.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

We have _seven_ Marine codices. We could have two and _be better off for it_.

Cutting five pointless books would free up a great deal of design and studio man-hours and make the hobby far stronger.

Not only that, but even Marines would benefit. Marine players wouldn't have to put up with stupid ideas like thunderwolf cavalry, flying land raiders and the dreadknight if Games Workshop were not trying to s-t-r-e-t-c-h one army into six/seven different codices. Players of one colour of marine would not have to put up with another colour getting better troops for fewer points. Chaos players could have those assault canons they've always wanted. Everybody wins!

The game would become stronger. How many people get bored of seeing nothing but marines and quit - or never start playing? I've played one single game _this year_ that wasn't against marines. It's not a coincidence that I've also only lost one game this year. I'm getting utterly bored of fighting the same battle every time, and winning because I've had so much practice gunning down marines.

That is not healthy for the hobby. Even marine players musty be getting tired of nothing but mirror matches.


----------



## Hammer49 (Feb 12, 2011)

Azezel said:


> We have _seven_ Marine codices. We could have two and _be better off for it_.
> 
> Cutting five pointless books would free up a great deal of design and studio man-hours and make the hobby far stronger.
> 
> ...


 
Sounds like a very good idea to streamline the SM codexs. Unfortunately its unlikely to happen as GW would lose money with people buying fewer codexes. 
I would personally like the chaos SM codex to include daemons like it did before as I think it should be the chaos codex.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Personally, I don't see why they can't do like the old CSM codex with the Loyal SM codex and have rules for multiple chapters in one codex...

I will say though that Grey Knights are distinct enough to have their own codex, and so still should have.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

None. People would complain to no end and lets all not forget that certain army that we shall not mention


----------



## Varakir (Sep 2, 2009)

Hammer49 said:


> Sounds like a very good idea to streamline the SM codexs. Unfortunately its unlikely to happen as GW would lose money with people buying fewer codexes.


They would, but at the same time people might branch into a second marine army if they had the codex to hand. Just from reading the vanilla codex I have got a counts as Telion and Kantor on my 'to do' list.....imagine what it's be like if BA, DA and BT options were in there too......


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

Just lump all the Mehreens codexes into one big one. Simple as that.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

Hammer49 said:


> Sounds like a very good idea to streamline the SM codexs. Unfortunately its unlikely to happen as GW would lose money with people buying fewer codexes.
> I would personally like the chaos SM codex to include daemons like it did before as I think it should be the chaos codex.


Games Workshop have always billed themselves as a model company which also has a side-business in wargaming rulesets.

However, the problem is wider than that. Every person who quits in disgust is a person who isn't buying _anything_ from them.

Their absolute commitment to making marines dominate the game is massively short-sighted and is biting them in the arse. I firmly believe that it is costing GW far more money than a more balanced approach would.

I've just started collecting High Elves. Granted, it's still GW - they are still getting my money, but they have managed to make me fed up of 40k because I only ever get to fight one army in a rainbow of colours.

They're just lucky my friends and I have no interest in Warmachine. There are plenty of people who do

I've never complained about GW making Marines models, and Marines models with spikes and Marines models with wolftails and Marines models with dresses and Marines models with nipples (okay, I complained about that last one). Best of luck to them.

but promoting Marines exclusively, at the expense of every other army, and encouraging people to collect the same army 5-7 times by publishing additional codices is actively harmful to the game - and GW's bottom line.

I don't think even the most hardened of Marine fans would still play if there were no armies but marines in the game. Well, that day draws closer with every non-Marine player who quits.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I'm not sure if it represents a growth opportunity or not, but I think condensing codices is a good idea. More concerted efforts when writing rules should reduce the need for FAQs, Errata, and corrections.

It would be ideal if they wrote all the codices, balanced them, then released them.

Granted, I don't think they could simultaneously write and balance all of them at once. Not because the couldn't hire more designers but because the amount of variables involved in writing and rewriting all the books at once would be too hard to manage.


Since GW likely isn't adding any 40K races they should be able to do it.

Write the flagship army, Marines, first. Then balance everything against marines as the benchmark. _Then_ release the codices 1 by 1 with the model production waves.


More on-topic - 


Most of the Imperial Marines could be condensed into a book. 
The Inquisition, grey Knights, and the sisters of the ministorum could be condensed into a book. 
Chaos Marines, Daemons, & Traitor Guard/renegades/cultists could be a book
And then its a matter of how to treat the Xenos, most likely they'd stay the same

Eldar
Orks
Tau
Necrons
Tyranids

Unless maybe they combined xenos books, and wrote them more from the position of the Imperium. And categorized them as something like _Xenos of Construction: Eldar & tau_ and _Xenos of Destruction: Necrons, Tyranids, Orks._ But I think that would likely alienate players. So I'd stick with 1 race per book.

Cheers,
Kreuger


----------



## steampunktau (Aug 12, 2009)

Retcon the fluff to where Horus succeeded and wiped out the Imperium. Then all 40k has left is chaos and xenos.

everyone wins!


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

I'd like a new Chaos Codex including the demons and traitor guardsmen.


----------



## DestroyerHive (Dec 22, 2009)

Scrap Necrons. They're gonna get WAAAAAAAAY too overpowered at some point...


----------



## ArchangelPaladin (Jul 7, 2010)

Condensing all the SM codex’s into one is a great idea! Have it based around the idea of swapping out the combat tactics SR and give a page of what each one does listing out the units that one can take and the additional wargear like the fast engines for BA. Granted that the new book would be 3x as long and probably be $50 but I’m ok with that.

Combining CSM with Demons is also a good idea so each army has way more options. 

And then we could maybe get a new xeno codex, to help move away from the “imperium is so awesome” mentality to a universe that has more going for it. I’d say a good (for lack of a better term) race is warranted because we have enough evil races in 40k as is(imperium included) 

But as for the op’s question, I’d nuke one of the Imperium codexs like SOB or Grey Hunters, I hate both, but that’s just me being a troll…


----------



## elmir (Apr 14, 2011)

Don't scrap any codex whatsoever. Remember the squats? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squat_(Warhammer_40,000) ) It sucks for everybody if GW would remove a race. 

I think it's also quite short sighted to think that scrapping all the specific chapter codexes would be a good idea. For those who think you'll get more diversity if they would all come from the same codex, you'd be wrong. 

People aren't going to stop playing their favorite marine chapter and switch to a xenos army because all marine armies would use the same codex. All those marine armies will still be around and will be played. Only difference is that all those armies would be exactly the same, instead of just showing similarities. And that will make the games even less diverse. 

Merging chaos and demons could be good though, as long as the codex is flexible enough to field viable all demon lists or all chaos marine lists, it wouldn't make THAT much of a difference.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

I hate that they've made codexes so simple, they've gone over board, the worse being CSM one.


----------



## Arias (Jan 8, 2011)

I agree with Kreuger in this, we could do with a little condensing of the Marines, Inquisition, and Chaos forces.

Another thing that might also help is if they didn't wait another 12 bloody years before updating a Xenos codex! That doesn't just hurt the person playing but all armies, a more reliable update system needs to be put into place. Even with price inflation and everything else considered I am sure they could hire a couple extra people to test and write. Why does it even take so long for these things as it is?


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

New Chaos Marines codex should just be chaos.

It shouldn't be Chaos Marines + Daemons.
It shouldn't be stand-alone Chaos Marines (Basically what we have now)

It should encompass everything about chaos, but this risks it becoming overpowered.
It would have to be capable of representing three armies, Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons and The Lost And The Damned. Now the Grey Knights have had some success doing something similar by mixing marines and humans, but the codex was called 'Grey Knights' not 'Grey Knights and some normal humans guys'. This let them get away with making people use some Inquisitor model (I dunno what his name is) to field henchmen as troops. This sounds pretty cool to me, but if we were to try the same thing in a chaos codex, they couldn't make it so that you had to have
a special cultist character to field cultists as troops, in my opinion. I think so because cultists are just as much a part of chaos as chaos space marines or Daemons are. They aren't just something that special character X decides to bring along to the fight. We've seen cultists fight alongside Daemons and Chaos Space Marines in books so much that it'd be, quite frankly, a load of bull. But the alternative is to make it so that you can just field them without special characters, but how the heck could you balance it all? God knows how many special character would have to be cut out to make a codex like this work, we could end up with no means of fielding psychic Chaos Space Marines due to a lack of space. There would need to be a major overhaul and I really think that it just can't be done. Just take a look at the second edition Chaos Codex and you'll see just how vast a codex that encompasses all aspects of chaos can be. I'll bet that there are some people here that don't know that we chaos players could once field Beastmen. Yep, fantasy battle Beasty-guys. Sounds cool, but the codex looked completely different from what we're used to now and gave little information (If any) on certain units, another reason why a chaos codex wouldn't work.

So while we should have the next Chaos codex to encompass everything Chaos, it's just not feasible.

The same could be said about putting all the marine codices into a single codex, but much worse.

Like, how the hell would they even begin?

They'd have to drop A LOT of units, which would mean that a lot of old models wouldn't be sold or that GW can't make any more money from their initial investment into designing the models. And the amount of HQ's lost? Now that's just funny. It'll never happen, because it would destroy the company. The closest thing to a single space marine codex that we'll get is if GW decide to just continue on with the Space Marine codex and leave the Blood Angels, Dark Angels etc. as they are and FAQ them every edition, which will never happen.

But whatever, it's just my opinion.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Condensing codices won't work unless GW condenses the majority of them.

Right now there is an even number of Imperial codices vs xeno/chaos codices. If they were to just condense down the SM books that would leave us with 4 Imperial books vs 8 xeno/chaos books. Just wouldn't be fair to Imperial players 

If they did condense down the books I would like to see it go something like this:

Xeno/Chaos:
Forces of Chaos (Daemons and CSM in one book)
Eldar (Dark Eldar and Eldar in one book)
Necrons
Tau
Tyranids

Imperium:
Space Marines (All SM chapters)
Inquisition (Current GK book, it covers all the bases pretty much)
Sisters of Battle (fluff fixed so they are not attached to the Inquisition)
Imperial Guard
Squats/Ad Mech

But even if they did that it wouldn't help the problem that people seem to be having. Lets say all Space Marine chapters were condensed into 1 book, now instead of 4 separate armies that can be played (somewhat) differently we have a MASSIVE book with 5 different army special rules with butchered fluff (kiss TWC, Sang Guard, Ravenwing, Deathwing, and any other flavor good bye). Sammael replaces Khan, Belial replaces Lysander, Grimnar replaces Kantor, Meph replaces Tigurius, Dante Replaces Shrike, Tycho replaces Vulkan, Helbrect replaces Telion, Grimaldus replaces Cassius, and Blackmane replaces Chronos. All SC's have now been reduced to applying minor changes to an army to give it special rules to make them more like their home chapter.

Doing all of that doesn't fix the issue of having too many SM armies. It's just going to make players angry that the flavor of their army is gone. 

Then you have the Eldar and Dark Eldar. Their books have almost 0 in common besides race (Harlequins being it). Combining the two in one book means one sides fluff goes out the window or the aspect warriors and other Eldar units have a rule equivalent on the Dark Eldar side. I don't really see that flying with a good amount of the community, at least the vocal part.

Condensing the books would take away from the flavor of the game and hurt all armies that got condensed.


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

Hammer49 said:


> Sounds like a very good idea to streamline the SM codexs. Unfortunately its unlikely to happen as GW would lose money with people buying fewer codexes.
> I would personally like the chaos SM codex to include daemons like it did before as I think it should be the chaos codex.



They would not lose money or diversity. You have a big codex for $45 that includes all base units and special changes or new units for different SM chapters. As in:

White Scars: (or BA or DA or BT whatever)
Chapter Tactics: Blah blah
Options: May take bikes as troops, honor guard may take bikes for xxpts per model.
Restrictions: No dreadnaughts

Anyone who wanted a specialized SM army just buys a defferent codex. Same money different source.

Something like this. It would make room for many more Xenos. GO XENOS!


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

Samules said:


> They would not lose money or diversity. You have a big codex for $45 that includes all base units and special changes or new units for different SM chapters. As in:
> 
> White Scars: (or BA or DA or BT whatever)
> Chapter Tactics: Blah blah
> ...


$45?

Fuck that.

I'll pay 40 quid for the hardback rulebook with loads of fluff and information on the 40k universe, but I sure as shit ain't paying it again just for a codex. I don't care how big or great it is.

30 quid is my absolute maximum for a codex.

That is the day that I will stop playing the current edition of 40k at that time.


----------



## docgeo (Jan 8, 2010)

Well I think we should lump all the Mutant, hertic, and alien books into one and make seperate Marines codexs for 100's of chapters!!!

Give the Marines some love everyone...lol


DOC


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

People say they want all the SM codices in one codex, but if they did it could end up being 2-4 times the size of an average codex, would cost more, and it would only result in everyone who is now bitching about the number of codices SM have changing their minds and bitching about the new SM codex being so much better than theirs and the current SM players bitching about the increased cost.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Why would they need less codices exactly?

The system is fine as it is, bring on more I say.


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

Weapon said:


> $45?
> 
> Fuck that.
> 
> ...



Dude that's 27 pounds. Also your paying that for FIVE codecies. Sounds like a good deal to me.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

GrizBe said:


> Pretty much all the space marine ones. You don't need several seperate codexs detailing what is basically the same army, but with slight rules changes and different unit names. You could do the job by just having a single mega-codex, with seperate fluff sections and then a 'use this instead of' section for unique units.


But then you'll have a codex costing £50...


----------



## docgeo (Jan 8, 2010)

DeathKlokk said:


> Why would they need less codices exactly?
> 
> The system is fine as it is, bring on more I say.


I agree the more the better. It gives players a larger varity of armies to play and play against.


DOC


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

Chaos codex is so simple atm, the previous codex was alot better.


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

What they need to Do to make everything balanced and people happy is more or less make these codex's....

Chaos
==========
-Codex Black Legion (abbadons goons)
-Codex Traitor Legions (Cultists and so on)
-Codex Chaos Daemons

Space Marines
==========
Codex SpaceMarines (Codex Chapters and Dark Angels)
Codex Blood Angels
Codex Black Templar
Codex Space Wolves

Imperial Gaurd
============
Codex Imperial Guard
Codex Imperial Navy

Eldar
=====
Codex Craftworld
Codex Corsairs
Codex Dark Eldar

Other Xeno
========
Codex Necrons
Codex Tau Empire
Codex Orkz

Tyranids
=======
Codex Tyranids
Codex Genestealer Cult

Inquisition
========
Codex Grey Knights
Codex Sisters of Battle
Codex Inquisition (Inquisitor's and so on)

There Everyone has there own special books! Everyone gets to play what ever they want problem solved.


----------



## demon bringer (Oct 14, 2008)

i say mpore codex's 

split the eldar into factions and craft worlds etc
tau are starting to show rifts between castes etc split them up a bit
split CSM into chapters like the imperium


i could go on with my tounge in cheek rant but i don't feel like it, i like the system the way it is. If you move the SM codexs all in one book you either get armies with less fluff and troops or a huge book with all the fluff and troops in all the codex's combined that acheives nothing.

if you start cutting down codex's its only fans who loose out, anyone remember the eye of terra codex, i had a large wulfen army, codex left the shalf and i lost a cool army with alot of individuality, i'm sure anyone else collecting an army in that book felt the sting too.

i for one wouldn't want SW lumbered in with the rest of the SM and does anyone remeber when the blood angels got left out of the last update mustn't have been fun to be a BA player for quite a while

i've lost my point now and its late and i want sleep and i'm off to warhammer world tomorrow. have fun everyone


----------



## docgeo (Jan 8, 2010)

Honestly I feel that Every original Legion should have a codex...could be a smaller supplement. I would also love some pre-heresy codexs so I can play loyalist TS and World eaters with out having to use the BA or GK codexs.

Doc


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

I know it might sound like trolling but I have never thought Grey Knights should be a playable army. They're too few, to specialized and should be too epic to see on the table every other day.

Gray Knights rules should be as simple as:
1) if there is a Demon on the battlefield the GKs Win.
2) if there is no Demon on the battlefield the GKs Lose because there is no reason for them to be there.

An =I= army with GKs as elite choices would be cool but a whole army of them fighting anything but Deamons seems a bit wrong to me.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

I don't get this 'all marines in one codex' that's utter nonsense. Back when they started splitting them out they were very similar and they had the mini dexes that all referee to the space marine main codex. Back then it would have made sense. Now, that's just plain silly. Space wolves share no units with normal space marines, the only similarity are the tanks. Blood angels share 50% of the units, black Templars share almost no units. Grey knights aren't even space marines (in the way that space wolves are). I know they are 'technically' space marines, but they share no similarities in weapons and almost none of the same rules.

So, you could make a slightly thicker space marine codex and squeeze in dark angels, they are 95% a codex chapter anyway. To put on blood angels and black Templars would be silly as that would double the unit count in the book
To put spacewolves in would be no different to putting the chaos marines in, there is that little similarity, and the grey knights are even worse.


----------



## Ashkore08 (Feb 12, 2011)

The codex's are perfectly fine the way they are right now. Especially the marine codex's. 
If GW had to mash together the marine codex's into one big one, that would be pretty fucking stupid. Essentially, right now i can pick any marine codex i want and start playing. I would be getting what i paid for. Now if i bought the big condensed codex, i would be paying for every marine codex, not the ONE codex i want to play with. So lest say it would be about R600. I would be playing with R100 of that big codex. 
And i cant remember who, but someone in this thread said that we were paying money for 5 marine codex's. Why? To play marines we don't need all five. Just one.

No mashing of Marine codex!


----------



## a_bad_curry (Mar 10, 2011)

Seriously, people dissing these ideas. Chaos and eldar and so and so and so manage to deal with combining craftworlds, legions, castes etc. Do the chaosy sorta thing and add _certain units_ to the codex to add to fluff and so on. Like say, to play space wolves they add long fangs or whatever those recruit things are called. Or Blood angels add variant dreadnaughts, MoK equivalent for melee things or something. Get the picture?

I can understand power players taking advantage of this, but all it takes is to make them all expensive elite choices

But thats all i think should be done...


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

It has already been said, but Marines should be in one book. And Daemons should be in the Chaos book.

If they really have to have certain SM chapters outside the main codex, it should be just SW and BA. Both BT and DA aren't special enough to warrant their own codex, their rules could be covered in 4-5 pages of the vanilla codex.

GK and SoB's should be 1 book as well.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

docgeo said:


> I agree the more the better. It gives players a larger varity of armies to play and play against.
> 
> 
> DOC


You haven't been stuck waiting for 5-7 years for GW to replace a turd codex I guess.

You SM idiots probably don't know the first thing about what it's like being stuck with a shit codex like the Necron, SoB, Tau or Tyranid ones.

The current Tyranid codex is shit and it's barely just released!

No, we need less codices and that's that.


----------



## darknightdrako (Mar 26, 2010)

I know this is a loooong shot but it would be interesting if GW made codices downloadable for tablets/Ipads/E-readers. That way if the codex is outdated they can easily update the codex file with minor tweaks and rule changes instead of having errattas/amendments. Then if GW decides to release a brand new codex with new rules and fluff they will make you pay it just like any other new codex  . 

Also it would be nice if GW releases special faction rules in the monthly WD. 

For Example:
Codex: Space Marines - Aurora Chapter -
*insert fluff*
Special Rule: Armored Assault - Forces of the Aurora Chapter may take up an extra Predator or Landraider (and their varients) when the HS slot if full.
- Predators and Landraiders become fast vehicles for 20 pts.
Then they could add in special character/unit/vehicles/wargear and for customability have the options similar to the current codex.

Yeah if they did that then I would be interested in buying a WD.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> It has already been said, but Marines should be in one book. And Daemons should be in the Chaos book.


Agree with daemons and chaos marines.



> If they really have to have certain SM chapters outside the main codex, it should be just SW and BA. Both BT and DA aren't special enough to warrant their own codex, their rules could be covered in 4-5 pages of the vanilla codex


.

Black templars are far more divergant than the blood angels - I lost that discussion the other day. Dark angels i wil agree with.



> GK and SoB's should be 1 book as well.


I dont get that - the same arguement would be for imperial guard and Space Marines being in the same codex. They arent part of the same army, they dont fight together (in normal circumstances) and they share no rules or models (appart from the inquisitors)


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Black templars are far more divergant than the blood angels - I lost that discussion the other day. Dark angels i wil agree with.


Maybe in fluff, but not in rules. BA really need a good 20-25 pages worth of rules, the BT do not.



Maidel said:


> I dont get that - the same arguement would be for imperial guard and Space Marines being in the same codex. They arent part of the same army, they dont fight together (in normal circumstances) and they share no rules or models (appart from the inquisitors)


Well it's not so much because they should _be together_ it's more that they are the two least played armies in all of 40K and if I got my way, they'll be put in 1 book together as Imperial Allies that any Imp player could take for their army - with rules on how to field standalone armies of both inside.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Maybe in fluff, but not in rules. BA really need a good 20-25 pages worth of rules, the BT do not.


At least the blood angels share termiinator, tactical, assault and devestator squads with normal marines. Black templars have different terminators, differnt troop choice, they dont even have devestators.

the problem is the rules would be so horribly complicated - you would have a list of 'if you take a marshal then you can take these, if you take a dark angel captain then these squads are elite and this is X'

It just wouldnt work - look how complicated the previous chaos marine codex was.




> Well it's not so much because they should _be together_ it's more that they are the two least played armies in all of 40K and if I got my way, they'll be put in 1 book together as Imperial Allies that any Imp player could take for their army - with rules on how to field standalone armies of both inside.


They are phasing out the allies rules because they were broken. Please dont argue for them to come back again!


----------



## docgeo (Jan 8, 2010)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> You haven't been stuck waiting for 5-7 years for GW to replace a turd codex I guess.
> 
> You SM idiots probably don't know the first thing about what it's like being stuck with a shit codex like the Necron, SoB, Tau or Tyranid ones.
> 
> ...


Nice insult...was that needed. We are all just expressing our opinions and just like your opinion ours are just as important. I feel for the players waiting long periods of time for new codexs but it doesn't in anyway change the fact that more, smaller, supplemental chapter specific codexs would be great *in my opinion*. This allows for more favor in games and greater diversity in modeling. Not to mention for non-spacemarine players it will be fun also. Do you really want to only play against vanillia marines?

Thanks,
Doc


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

docgeo said:


> Nice insult...was that needed. We are all just expressing our opinions and just like your opinion ours are just as important. I feel for the players waiting long periods of time for new codexs but it doesn't in anyway change the fact that more, smaller, supplemental chapter specific codexs would be great *in my opinion*. This allows for more favor in games and greater diversity in modeling. Not to mention for non-spacemarine players it will be fun also. Do you really want to only play against vanillia marines?
> 
> Thanks,
> Doc


Noone is saying this will make all marines vanilla marines. Simply put it would be only beneficial to marine players:

-One marine codex to fill release slots, divided into 5 sections, 1 for each army. This will let other armies to get updated more frequently so they wouldn't be forced to quit for extended periods of time so much.

-Codex jumpers will be obsolete. Know any of those little SM kids who switches codices as soon as a new more powerful marine codex comes out? Yeah? So do I. They are a disease on our game. A disease.

-Although 1 SM codex will take longer to produce, we save a lot of time which will smooth out the problematic long waits as of now.

-Fledgling SM players wouldn't have to pay out their butt to do research on which army they want to play.


----------



## docgeo (Jan 8, 2010)

I agree with some of your responses. They are thoughtful and true from a point of view possibly affected by frustration over the release distrubtion of codex races. I could agree to one massive Marine codex if..and I mean *IF* it included everything for mutilple, individualized SM armies. If that was the case I would buy it but I doubt that GW will do that. I just wish said giant codex included more units to make other chapters.

Thanks for the dialogue,

Doc


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> -Codex jumpers will be obsolete. Know any of those little SM kids who switches codices as soon as a new more powerful marine codex comes out? Yeah? So do I. They are a disease on our game. A disease.


You realise that that 'disease' is in fact keeping the hobby alive buying new models and rules?



> -Although 1 SM codex will take longer to produce, we save a lot of time which will smooth out the problematic long waits as of now.


And how, pray tell - would they be able to produce all the space marine models, for each army, as they do now?



> -Fledgling SM players wouldn't have to pay out their butt to do research on which army they want to play.


Whats wrong with that?


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Codex hoppers never learn to play their army, and lose, so they switch again. I have no problem playing people who are bandwagoners and lose.

Metalhanky, I pretty much disagree with everything you've stated here. Of course it's just internet ranting and GW will _*NEVER*_ do it so I'll let it go.

They squashed the Squats more than 10 years ago and people STILL bitch about it. GW won't just drop a codex from the game. They definitely won't combine chapters with 20+ years of individualized rules into one codex.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

I want genestealers to have their own codex. 

And kroot. 

And Mechanicus. 

No reason, I just think they`d be fun to play.


----------



## 1Foxman (Jan 30, 2011)

The Mechanicus one would have to include Knight titans and Skitari Serp otherwise it would suck, not just any skitari the have the be 8 limbed drug stuped pycopaths from either Titanicus, or the HH Mechanicum book then i would accept it anything less and they could be xeno scum for all i care.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I want different armies available, but less dexes.

Daemons and CSM should be in 1 book, but playable as seperate armies, or 1 combined force if certain choices are made.
EG- heralds allow for daemons of that god to be taken. Marine characters allow for marines to be taken. Could have summoned daemons same as now but have them dedicated to one of the gods. Having something like a bloodthirster that you could eitehr DS or choose to summon it replacing a champion would be cool.

Same for 
Tyranids/genestealer cult.
Imperial Guard/Adeptus Mechanicus
Tau/Kroot (I would love to see a viable, all kroot army)
Marines/DA/BA/SW/BT
Inquisition (GK/Sisters of Battle)
Eldar/Dark Eldar (odd one, but some sharded units/equipments could be fun).

I recon that we could have 9 codexs instead of the current 14 and yet have a much richer gaming scene. Though there would be a knock on effect of this: codexes would ahve to be thicker, containing more fluff since they represent more armies. But then that gives them a reason to be hardbacks (as GW is doing with WFB) and with an increase in price (to offset the few number that would be sold, not that I think it would be that many: there aren't a vast number of people who own multiple different marine dexs).


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

Condensing armies leads to seeling less books, but also likely means selling more miniatures. 

I'm a CSM player. If it's combined with daemons and Traitor Guard, I'll also be looking into getting daemon models other than a price, Guard tanks, and other related material (paints, etc) to take care of them. I dare guess that the $$ value will amount to more than that of a 106-page book. The same is true for Inquisition mixes.

With Space Marines, it's not as obvious a plus, market-wise. Then again, few people buy more than, say, two or three codices. They might want to look into doing a book for Codex Chapters, akin to the current vanilla book, and then another book for non-codex chapters expanding/detailing the different units and HQs armies like BT, SW and others get.


----------



## AlexHolker (Apr 27, 2011)

I'm currently working on a two-book version of the the Loyalists and Renegades codices: "Codex Astartes" (the core rules) and "Heroes of the Space Marines" (special characters and other per-Chapter special rules). Anyone who claims that the Black Templars need an entire codex to represent their differences obviously hasn't tried making an efficient ruleset.

And if I worked for GW, I'd give Chaos one big codex that supports CSM, CSM/Daemons, LatD, LatD/Daemons and LatD/CSM armies.

I would not do this to hurt these armies. On the contrary, I'd do it so that all Space Marines and all Chaos players get to do what they want, instead of stripping armouries to the bone or making CSM armies incapable of summoning proper daemons.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

AlexHolker said:


> I'm currently working on a two-book version of the the Loyalists and Renegades codices: "Codex Astartes" (the core rules) and "Heroes of the Space Marines" (special characters and other per-Chapter special rules). Anyone who claims that the Black Templars need an entire codex to represent their differences obviously hasn't tried making an efficient ruleset..


They tried to make an efficent rule set - it was called Chaos Space Marine Codex (4th edition) - everyone hated (hates) it.


Will people please remember that GW is in it to sell models and make money. Each release is cooler than the last with a bigger bang and a load of new models. One big space marine codex would have to be put out with about 40+ new plastic box sets - effectively you close down GW model making department for 2 years to produce them all.

By which time GW has gone bust.


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

C'Tan Chimera said:


> Just lump all the Mehreens codexes into one big one. Simple as that.


No look, what you can do is have one Space Marine codex and one Space Wolf codex, then there's only two codices....


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

Anyway, codices aren't just about rules or rule sets, they are about the history of that army, inspirational art, background, fiction. You couldn't lump that all in to one codex, I don't think they put in enough for each army as it is.


----------



## AlexHolker (Apr 27, 2011)

Maidel said:


> They tried to make an efficent rule set - it was called Chaos Space Marine Codex (4th edition) - everyone hated (hates) it.


 _No, they didn't._ Efficiency is about doing more for less. 4th edition Chaos is defined by offering less (almost no wargear, no per-Legion options, etc.) in twice as many books.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

AlexHolker said:


> _No, they didn't._ Efficiency is about doing more for less. 4th edition Chaos is defined by offering less (almost no wargear, no per-Legion options, etc.) in twice as many books.


I said 'tried'. 


But 40K players dont like efficeny or taking away any of the toys they used to have. Its why razorbacks still have the option for lascannons and twin linked plasma guns.

and its the reason why Im really annoyed that Guard sergeants dont have the option to take a lasgun anymore - because all of mine are modelled with one!


----------



## AlexHolker (Apr 27, 2011)

Maidel said:


> I said 'tried'.


 And you are wrong. If they "tried" to make the army more efficient, they would not have started by doubling the number of books required.



> But 40K players dont like efficeny or taking away any of the toys they used to have. Its why razorbacks still have the option for lascannons and twin linked plasma guns.
> 
> and its the reason why Im really annoyed that Guard sergeants dont have the option to take a lasgun anymore - because all of mine are modelled with one!


Removing these things is actually an example of _inefficient_ design: as you say, removing the lasgun sargeant option annoyed their customers, and for what? to make a 100 page book one line shorter?


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

AlexHolker said:


> And you are wrong. If they "tried" to make the army more efficient, they would not have started by doubling the number of books required.


Sorry - Im not wrong - the chaos marine codex was an attempt to make the chaos codex more efficent. They then tied in the daemons codex with a fantasy daemons codex to make that more 'efficent' - they failed, mainly for the reasons that you mentioned - but that was their intention.




> Removing these things is actually an example of _inefficient_ design: as you say, removing the lasgun sargeant option annoyed their customers, and for what? to make a 100 page book one line shorter?


How is making something 'similar' an example of innefficent design. It was actually more efficent than the previous codex as all guard units come with a sergeant with a pistol and chainsword and they had to add in a line to say he could swap them for a lasgun, they simply reverted to back to how previous codexes were.

If you dont think removing things is an example of efficent design - I think we need further explaination.


----------



## AlexHolker (Apr 27, 2011)

Maidel said:


> If you dont think removing things is an example of efficent design - I think we need further explaination.


Like I already said, "efficiency is about doing more for less". Doing less (removing the option for a fluffy way to personalise your army) for a _tiny_ bit less (a single line of easily understood text) is not efficient.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

AlexHolker said:


> Like I already said, "efficiency is about doing more for less". Doing less (removing the option for a fluffy way to personalise your army) for a _tiny_ bit less (a single line of easily understood text) is not efficient.


Could you expand on the 'removing the option for a fluffy way to personilize your army'

because that sounds exactly like what they did with the CSM codex...


----------



## Hammer49 (Feb 12, 2011)

Doing the same as the CSM and to some extent the dark angels is not a good idea. Codexes are to limited. Cant stamp your personality on it to any great extent.


----------



## ChaosDefilerofUlthuan (Jan 25, 2011)

Words_of_Truth said:


> I'd like a new Chaos Codex including the demons and traitor guardsmen.


 As a csm player it would benefit me (& most of heresy) to condense them as we can use deamons in our army as well as ordinary CSM's (Hello Epidemius,tallyman of Nurgle) But if the SM codices then space marines would have twice as much choice half the armies put together!


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

I can't understand how anyone would think that getting rid of SM codices is a good idea.
Part of the point of Space Marines is that the different chapters are highly individual.

Space Wolves are probably the most unique, they NEED their own codex.
Blood Angels are largely by the codex, but they are different enough to deserve their own codex.
Dark Angels could, I'll admit, be merged into the core SM codex, their differences aren't too significant for a mini-dex.
Black Templars are significantly different and also deserve their own codex.
With Grey Knights there isn't even a question on the matter.


Just because they're all fundamentally the same army doesn't mean they should be merged, that's like saying the Craftworld, Exodite and Dark Eldar should be merged! Not that Exodites have a codex at the moment.


CSM and Daemons should have a shared codex with the option to play all Daemons, even if it means it's twice or even three times as large as a normal codex, they fucking deserve it.


----------



## docgeo (Jan 8, 2010)

Serpion5 said:


> I want genestealers to have their own codex.
> 
> And kroot.
> 
> ...


Mechanicus would be a nice supplement addition for use with IG and SM. It would add more diversity and flavor.

Doc


----------



## AlexHolker (Apr 27, 2011)

Winterous said:


> I can't understand how anyone would think that getting rid of SM codices is a good idea.
> Part of the point of Space Marines is that the different chapters are highly individual.


Making the army lists more compact does not make the armies less individual, if you know what you're doing. As a trivial example, look at the Chapter Master and Captain entries in Codex: Space Marines. Remove the Chapter Master listing entirely, and add "Orbital Bombardment (Chapter Master only)" to the Special Rules and "Upgrade to a Chapter Master...25 pts" to the Options for the Captain, and what have you lost?


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

AlexHolker said:


> Making the army lists more compact does not make the armies less individual, if you know what you're doing. As a trivial example, look at the Chapter Master and Captain entries in Codex: Space Marines. Remove the Chapter Master listing entirely, and add "Orbital Bombardment (Chapter Master only)" to the Special Rules and "Upgrade to a Chapter Master...25 pts" to the Options for the Captain, and what have you lost?


You used to have the option in the guard codex to have either a colonel or a captain as your HQ and it was one entry. They don't have that any more. I agree with the current marine codex those 2 entries could be merged, but the reason I expect they haven't is that those two options used to be very different with very different stat lines.

But why stop there? Why not have an HQ box. In it put the chapter master, captain, chaplain and librarian. You can easily merge those options and keep the items specific.

None of that would make it any easier to cram in all the rules for all the other chapters. I don't think anyone who is arguing your point actually understands GWs marketing practices. A codex launch is accompanied by all the new models which the codex is basically a huge advert for. If they crammed in all the marines in one codex (which isn't difficult, you could put the rules for each army into one book if you so wanted) they would either not release any models for a couple of years in preparation for a massive release, or, most of the units in the book would have no models for them.

So why the heck would they do it? Where is the benifit?


----------



## AlexHolker (Apr 27, 2011)

Maidel said:


> If they crammed in all the marines in one codex (which isn't difficult, you could put the rules for each army into one book if you so wanted)..., or, most of the units in the book would have no models for them.


Okay, there is obviously no reasoning with you, but I have to point out that the Space Marines are the best supported faction in the entire game - they've got as many plastic kits as the Sisters, Necrons, Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tyranids put together. There is no way that what you say can have any resemblance to the truth unless GW starts shovelling Space Marine moulds into a blast furnace.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

AlexHolker said:


> Okay, there is obviously no reasoning with you, but I have to point out that the Space Marines are the best supported faction in the entire game - they've got as many plastic kits as the Sisters, Necrons, Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tyranids put together. There is no way that what you say can have any resemblance to the truth unless GW starts shovelling Space Marine moulds into a blast furnace.


You seem to have completely misinterpreted what he meant.
What he was saying is that if they release a single codex for 8 different variants, then a lot of those models will go without updates for a long time; whereas what they're doing NOW is releasing a codex with a bunch of new models as well.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

AlexHolker said:


> Okay, there is obviously no reasoning with you, but I have to point out that the Space Marines are the best supported faction in the entire game - they've got as many plastic kits as the Sisters, Necrons, Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tyranids put together. There is no way that what you say can have any resemblance to the truth unless GW starts shovelling Space Marine moulds into a blast furnace.


...



Winterous said:


> You seem to have completely misinterpreted what he meant.
> What he was saying is that if they release a single codex for 8 different variants, then a lot of those models will go without updates for a long time; whereas what they're doing NOW is releasing a codex with a bunch of new models as well.


What he said.


Ill expand for those who simply do not want to understand.


GW exist to sell models - they do not keep old ranges and let them die - they constantly update models and replace them. Sure certain kits will last a long time (current eldar falcon is about 15 years old if memory serves) whereas others will be replaced within 5 years (especially metal models that are then released as plastics - space marine devestators lasted about 4-5 years as a part metal part plastic kit before being replaced by an entirely plastic kit.)

When GW do an army codex they will release a whole load of new models. EG - spacewolves got brand new wolf packs and terminators to replace old metal terminators and a plastic troop set + other bits. Grey knights got a storm raven, new plastic terminators, plastic marines and the dread knight.

What they dont do is update the rules and go - buy all these models that have been around for 5+ years, they are still great, honest.

It doesnt matter if the space marines are currently the largest proportion of a GW shops model ranges, when the time comes those kits will be updated and replaced because GW exists solely to sell models - you cant run the company on selling rules and novels.


therefore, if GW were to update all the codexes for the space marines at the same time they would 

A) have to create models for all the new units. (if you consider the last few space marine codexes just new models include the storm raven, sanginary guard, sternguard and vangard, techmarine and big gun, dreadknight and a whole load of new characters).

B) Update a least half the range into new kits (same as above you are looking at 2 space wolf kits, 2 grey knight kits and loads of replaced characters and metal models)

C) Update all of the rules at the same time, play test them and ensure that you cant make any accidental cheesy combos like vulkan he'stan and baal predators.


Effectively that would shut down the studio in its entirety for maybe a year and a half. (assuming roughly 1 codex is released normally every 2-3 months, and that includes fantasy!)


I realise what you are implying is simply a rules update, and get them all into one codex - but GW will simply not do this as it will categorically not sell them more models and thus, wont be commercially worthwhile.

Does this make sense now?


----------



## El Mariachi (Jun 22, 2008)

Bugger that, I think the best solution is scrap most of the codicies out there and merge them all into Codex: Not Space Marines




















:laugh:

Okay seriously, i think the status quo isn't bad at the moment but I think Winterous has got it spot on here:




Winterous said:


> I can't understand how anyone would think that getting rid of SM codices is a good idea.
> Part of the point of Space Marines is that the different chapters are highly individual.
> 
> Space Wolves are probably the most unique, they NEED their own codex.
> ...


----------



## Hellhammer (May 1, 2011)

Dark Angels are almost the exact same thing as standard SM except they can't take 10 man Termie squads. They need to be removed.


----------



## Ashkore08 (Feb 12, 2011)

If they merge all the SM codex's, i would be paying for 5 or 6 rulesets, when i am only really going to play with one ruleset (BA). Which would decrease their sales as people realize this fact.

Also, releasing new models to coincide with a new codex release.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Hellhammer said:


> Dark Angels are almost the exact same thing as standard SM except they can't take 10 man Termie squads. They need to be removed.


Sarcasm I presume, tough to tell on the internet.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> Sarcasm I presume, tough to tell on the internet.


He's half right though, the Dark Angels codex is extremely similar to normal Marines, but with a few key differences, Deathwing and Ravenwing stuff, and their codex being older means their normal Marines can take special guns at 5 men.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

got to love all the SM hate. But l will say my eldar feel a tad unloved like my SoB and my DA but.

l think they should keep all of them however and this might be a new crazy idea. They hire more people to get the work done faster as it really seems as they have to few people to get the job done. As when you add the other games LotR and Fan done by the same team it seems to much.


----------



## Diatribe1974 (Jul 15, 2010)

Karak The Unfaithful said:


> There are alot of codexes and armies these days, If GW keep making new ones for new armies we will have too many. So which codex do you think should be scrapped? or are you the sort of person who would keep them all?


It's far, FAR better to have all these codices, than to not have them. It's like someone saying "I don't like the fact that we have too many ways of saying the same thing. It's too descriptive. REMOVE WORDS!"


----------



## docgeo (Jan 8, 2010)

DA aren't hugly different from codex SM so either develop them more(YES!!!) or combine them into the SM codex. I fell that the SM codex should be further developed without the addition of the SW, BA, BT. It should have more rules and special characters for the other original legions and some later founding chapters. As earlier talked about some of this could be in the form of "rules" that could be taken for points by chaptermaster or captain units. IA doesn't have a problem with adding specific chapter favor!

But all of this is wishful thinking and speculation because GW won't do any of our ideas unless it will increase their bottomline....they are a buisness after all.


Doc


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

sybarite said:


> got to love all the SM hate. But l will say my eldar feel a tad unloved like my SoB and my DA but.
> 
> l think they should keep all of them however and this might be a new crazy idea. They hire more people to get the work done faster as it really seems as they have to few people to get the job done. As when you add the other games LotR and Fan done by the same team it seems to much.


From a 'general' GW fan and fluff monster I would love this. I would love a new codex every month and expansion of the ranges (eg mechanicus, eldar exodites etc). However the issue is GW knows it has a limited fan base - releasing loads of new codexes and loads of new models in close succession makes them conflict with each other and loses the company money.


Think of each codex as a music single. West life (bare with me!) released one single and it was at no. 1 for 15 weeks. In the 16th week when they were about to take the record for the longest running no. 1 single another single from their album was released and they knocked themselves off the no. 1 spot! (doh! and :laugh.

What does this have to do with GW - well each time they release a new codex, especially a really popular one, they get a big spike in sales. They try to drag it out over a couple of months, or get a mini spike 6+months later by releasing another set of models for the same codex (second wave dark eldar next month for example).

What they dont want to do is 'knock themselves' off the top spot by releasing another codex too soon. The same people that by one army, are often the same people that buy another. Unless you can find 2 codexes that categorically are not played by the same people (obviously impossible) releasing 2 codexes close together simply means that those players are going to buy half as much, whereas if they were 3 months to 3 years appart from each other, chances are they are going to buy new shiny models from both armies.


So if you doubled the size of the design studio and model designers and release the codexes twice as fast GW would need to see a doubling of profits for it to be viable for them. The problem is, people dont suddenly have twice as much money or twice as many people wont suddenly start playing and thus GW will actually lose money.

Personally I would love to see GW releasing rules sets (like warhammer 30K for example) that lets people make their own models, but gives armies offical rules (eg each of the legions). But again they wont do it because its a lot of development money, for no real product to sell at the end of it (rule books and codexes dont make enough money in themselves).

So the 'fan' part of me utterly agrees with you - the logical 'money' side of me unfortunately doesnt. :don-t_mention:


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

l agree with the money part but, l find the same person doing many things. take for example McNeill, Graham who did or had a part with SM, Tau, IG, WH, DH, CSM, and Necron on top of all his Black Library books he has done.

can also be said for some of the other people at GW which l find very odd.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

sybarite said:


> l agree with the money part but, l find the same person doing many things. take for example McNeill, Graham who did or had a part with SM, Tau, IG, WH, DH, CSM, and Necron on top of all his Black Library books he has done.
> 
> can also be said for some of the other people at GW which l find very odd.


Ill be honest - I was shocked when I found out that almost half the design studio had left a few years back, and when people like Jervis dont appear to be doing anything other than writing a column in white dwarf (seriously - what rules has he written recently?).

It does appear to be working - they are getting out a codex or warhammer armies about once every 1-2 months. I think many of these people are work-aholics, mainly because their work is their hobby - so you fill find them working 8 hour days writing rules, spending 5 hours a night painting their armies and then writing a novel at the weekends.


----------

