What if BA & DA got a "Codex Angels of Death" for 8th ed?

[fisheyedbunny]

Some of you may remember what was my favourite codex from back in the day, Codex Angels of Death. For those of you who have never seen it, it contained rules for both the Dark Angels and Blood Angels.

 

I was just wondering what the opinions of both of these groups of players would be if GW were to release the 8th edition rules for these guys like this. In my mind if they were to go this route it would be full codex's for both armies, not small mini dex's, just contained in one book.

 

So what is your thoughts on this?

[Frater Cornelius]

My main question would be "why?". With so much fluff, estsblished patterns (own upgrade sets, split books for a long time, a.s.o.) and unique units it seems rather counter-intuitive.

[Lord Marshal]

I wouldn't mind but I've always been an advocate for trimming down the number of loyalist Space Marine codexs.

 

It would never happen though. They make too much money off splitting the chapters into different £25 books to do it. It's why I'm surprised we never saw another Black Templars or some sort of dedicated Successor Chapters spin-off.

[fisheyedbunny]

My main reason for thinking it was to expedite the codex releases. With the GK and others getting their own dex I doubt they will do a double book but it would allow them to 2 for 1 and get the books out quicker.

[Kinstryfe]

Since they've already shown that they have no problem releasing 2 books at once, I doubt that they would combined for one book. They could very well do a simultaneous release. I could definitely see that.

 

As far as would I support the idea, absolutely. I'd say pack Space Wolves in as well. It'll compact all the Marine rules into (I believe) 3 books and leave room in the release cycle for more unexpected goodies.

[Schlitzaf]

BA and DA fans might murder me, I'd almost rather BA and DA got rolled into Vanilla Marines and MAYBE separate Templars. The biggest argument or reason is that DA and BA unlike Space Wolves share a lot of core units with Vanilla Marines (Tacticals, Assault Marines etc). Simply do as they did in the Index and how BA/DA players reference the apporiate data sheet. I'd only want to see Templars separated if that meant we got more Crusader Squads type units (Scouts + Marine combos) and lost access to various Vanilla Marine Toys. (Like how Wolves have Long Fangs instead of Devestators).

[Arkangilos]

Yeah, so we can have less fluff dedicated to our chapters, right? No thanks, I would rather us not get rolled, that way our whole chapters can be covered, and their successors.

 

As for the Angels of Death concept there is no need to. Even if it were to speed up releases, they would still need to write both before they could combine them, so it wouldn't be any faster.

[Claws and Effect]

BA and DA won't get combined for a couple reasons. 

 

1) As mentioned, they make too much off them being in separate Codex books. 

 

2) Too many unique units from both Chapters. Deathwing, Ravenwing, Death Company, Sanguinary Guard, etc.

 

3) They've shown they're not against releasing multiple books at once, so it's not unlikely both books could drop in the same week.

 

I had more, but it quickly evolved into something worth putting in its own topic.  

[the jeske]

My main question would be "why?". With so much fluff, estsblished patterns (own upgrade sets, split books for a long time, a.s.o.) and unique units it seems rather counter-intuitive.

they fit all the chaos legions in to one book, they can fit 2 loyalist chapters in to one book too. And it would save space [good for us]. Now if this is a good thing for GW, that is a separate matter. 1 book for two factions with a following would mean 1/2 the cash, if GW sold 2 or more books for eacch one.

[Cryptix]

 

 

My main question would be "why?". With so much fluff, estsblished patterns (own upgrade sets, split books for a long time, a.s.o.) and unique units it seems rather counter-intuitive.

they fit all the chaos legions in to one book, they can fit 2 loyalist chapters in to one book too. And it would save space [good for us]. Now if this is a good thing for GW, that is a separate matter. 1 book for two factions with a following would mean 1/2 the cash, if GW sold 2 or more books for eacch one.

Correction, they fit all but two I'm one book and its extremely likely that another two will be leaving soon anyway...

[the jeske]

Even if they do  separate all the cult legions, then 2 still are in the codex, but lets say we ignore those two too. It is still AL, NL, WB, BL and all the different renegades ranging from pirates to hurons legion sized force.

[Bryan Blaire]

Jeez guys, 10 responses in and we are already off topic...

[the jeske]

how is this off topic? the argument was that such a codex can not exist, because the two armies are too different. My counter argument was that they are already books [the csm one or the sm one] which cram multiple different forces in to one. Altough I did add to my argument the part that from a financial perspective GW won't probably do such a thing, because they would rather sell 2 books then one.

[Zodd1888]

GW and their market is aging. Admiration and rejuvenation of the past is a great way to tug on those heart strings. Copy format, copy fluff, expand slightly, data sheets and points. Easy release format.

[Ishagu]

BA and DA will get their own books, same as Space Wolves.

The idea is that these chapters are divergent and thus more unique.

[Ascanius]

I have had the same thought as Fisheyedbunny, and for the same reason that the Blood Angels and Dark Angels only have a few unique units.

 

However, if I think about things from what I imagine to be Games Workshop's perspective, the advantages of Blood Angels and Dark Angels having separate codexes goes beyond "selling another book."

 

In fact, I think that idea is no better than half-correct. For one thing, a dedicated Blood Angels player probably doesn't own Codex: Space Marines, so it's not "another book", it's "a different book instead." If book sales were the only metric, Games Workshop would roll everything into as few books as possible and consolidate their audience while cutting down on their production costs.

 

Instead, I suggest we should think about it in terms of not "another book", but "another brand". Warhammer 40,000 is a brand, but so are Space Marines - and so are Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves. Letting the latter three types of Space Marines stand apart has a value to GW as a business, while still branding them as Space Marines in addition to the more specific identity has value, too - it means GW doesn't have to produce a whole range of special Dark Angels models, just a few specific things central to the brand, while letting the main Space Marine range fill the void.

 

It seems pretty obvious to me that Games Workshop is experimenting with creating new brands out of its existing ranges; both the Thousand Sons and the Death Guard are perfect examples. The Thousand Sons, in particular, demonstrate it perfectly: the new range replaced two older products, the original Ahriman and the Rubricae upgrade pack, with six new SKUs and a forthcoming standalone codex. I imagine we can expect a similar setup for the full multipart Death Guard range, although I wouldn't be surprised if we saw individual clampack releases for the Tallyman et aliis, more like the three characters from Dark Imperium (if not necessarily monopose) rather than something like the box of three mix-and-match Exalted Sorcerers.

 

I imagine that Games Workshop would like to replicate the success of the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Grey Knights as "Space Marines but also their own thing" across as many of its ranges as possible. Look at the way the Militarum Tempestus were broken out as their own army, or the seemingly aborted attempt to establish the Adeptus Mechanicus faction as containing multiple brands right from the start. To this, you can add the Ynnari as a way to rebrand parts of the Craftworld Eldar, Drukhari, and Harlequins ranges as a unified force.

 

I think the force guiding whether Games Workshop splits out something as its own brand as opposed to leaving it as a possible version of a larger brand is going to be their perception of market viability. In other words, I think things like the Black Templars will remain part of Codex Chaos Space Marines despite being at least as distinct from a codex chapter as the Blood Angels, if not more so, until GW is convinced that people dig the Black Templars enough to support a separate range.

[MoK]

Ah but the hole in your argument is World Eaters. The Khorne Berzerker models are 20 odd years old, we only got a new Khârn model recently and yet despite the popularity of World Eaters we have been wrapped up into the Generic CSM Codex, with seriously weakened rules, just like the rest of Chaos, except TS and DG. In fact if GW had taken into account the fact that many people use AOS Khorne Models in 40k they could have given us rules in the Codex for using them. But we do still have the Index for that sort of thing. Just means carrying 3 books rather than 2.

[the jeske]

 

In fact, I think that idea is no better than half-correct. For one thing, a dedicated Blood Angels player probably doesn't own Codex: Space Marines, so it's not "another book", it's "a different book instead." If book sales were the only metric, Games Workshop would roll everything into as few books as possible and consolidate their audience while cutting down on their production costs.

But he probably does own the index. All you have to do for him to own both books, is do the way it happened to chaos. Bring out a BA book, and then leave some crucial or often used units/weapon configuration in the indeks only. this way the BA/DA player, will have to get the codex[relics/extra rules/droped points costs on some basic stuff], and the index, because lets say an important HQ on bike exists only in the indeks. This way even without FW, you can make people buying multiple books. And if you update the indeks each year, you can get a steady flow cash coming in.

[Tonius]

An "Angels of Death" codex like when we began wh40k would be cool ;)

[Ascanius]

Ah but the hole in your argument is World Eaters. The Khorne Berzerker models are 20 odd years old, we only got a new Khârn model recently and yet despite the popularity of World Eaters we have been wrapped up into the Generic CSM Codex, with seriously weakened rules, just like the rest of Chaos, except TS and DG. In fact if GW had taken into account the fact that many people use AOS Khorne Models in 40k they could have given us rules in the Codex for using them. But we do still have the Index for that sort of thing. Just means carrying 3 books rather than 2.

 

I'd say that the fact World Eaters haven't been broken out into their own codex suggests that Games Workshop doesn't think they are as popular as Thousand Sons or Death Guard - or at any rate isn't (yet) prepared to invest in the effort required to launch them as a separate brand.

 

I don't have much doubt that Games Workshop would like to try to establish World Eaters as their own brand eventually, with a Daemon Prince Angron and plastic Berzerkers and all that, but at the same time it wouldn't surprise me if they hold off on launching anything new from now until they've finished publishing codexes for every army. Given their "ten codexes by Christmas" promise, I expect they intend to finish rolling them out pretty quickly in 2018 and then move on to something new.

 

That could be a second loyal Primarch, of course, or it could be something entirely outside of that pattern like a major faction revamp or a new campaign a la Fate of Konor with accompanying entry-point starter sets. I wouldn't expect to see a full-blown starter like Dark Imperium, though anything is possible, but certainly smaller sets akin to Know No Fear and First Strike would be plausible for, say, an Armageddon campaign that let them revamp Astra Militarum and Orks with new plastics. Of course, Armageddon is a big enough theatre of war that it could also incorporate a second loyal Primarch and/or a new World Eaters release.

 

In any case, I definitely think any separate Legion rules past Death Guard and Thousand Sons will have to wait until every other faction has its codex out. I also suspect part of the issue is that it's harder (at least in GW's mind) to create World Eaters-specific units that are distinct from what any Chaos warband sworn to Khorne might field. Arguably, a World Eaters warband is less organisationally and tactically distinct from a "generic" Khorne warband than the Khorne Daemonkin idea.

 

The same goes for the Emperor's Children; yes, you can imagine Berzerker Terminators and Noise Terminators, but I can't imagine a reason why they couldn't exist in non-Legion warbands sworn to those gods. Heresy-era units like Red Butchers don't really make sense in a 40K context, for instance, past maybe using their name for a Berzerker Terminator unit without any of their distinct flavour. 

 

It's silly enough, if you ask me, that you're unable to field normal Chaos Space Marines or Chaos Terminators in a Death Guard army, and likewise that a CSM warband sworn to Nurgle apparently can't field whatever Plague Terminator unit is coming with the Death Guard release. Scarab Occult Terminators being exclusive to the Thousand Sons makes sense given the background, at least, as does restricting them from using regular CSM and Terminators (to a lesser extent), but it doesn't feel justifiable to me that the Death Guard are that distinct from other Nurgle forces - and it seems impossible to me to retcon the World Eaters and Emperor's Children into a similarly distinct niche.

 

Though, perhaps, the end idea is that people stop playing "generic" single-god Chaos Space Marines that aren't explicitly latter-day renegades, with access to the best god-specific toys restricted to those playing warbands from the Traitor Legions? I don't really like that idea much, so I hope not.

[Ascanius]

 

But he probably does own the index. All you have to do for him to own both books, is do the way it happened to chaos. Bring out a BA book, and then leave some crucial or often used units/weapon configuration in the indeks only. this way the BA/DA player, will have to get the codex[relics/extra rules/droped points costs on some basic stuff], and the index, because lets say an important HQ on bike exists only in the indeks. This way even without FW, you can make people buying multiple books. And if you update the indeks each year, you can get a steady flow cash coming in.

 

First, if a Blood Angels player owns the index and Codex: Blood Angels, and a Raven Guard player owns the index and Codex: Space Marines, that doesn't make any difference to my argument that GW isn't just publishing Codex: Blood Angels to make BA players buy "another" book, because they're not buying "another" book, they're buying a different book - one that GW has to invest time and resources in to write and illustrate and publish.

 

What justifies that decision, from a business point of view, is whether or not Blood Angels as a brand are popular enough to justify breaking them out in their own book despite their relative lack of distinctiveness from a Space Marines army in terms of actual models and organisation. Are Blood Angels popular enough to sell enough copies of their own codex to make it worthwhile, or could Blood Angels fans be satisfied with some extra pages added to Codex: Space Marines to cover their special characters and units?

 

That's not an idle question; Blood Angels are covered in 15 pages of Index Imperium 1, with another two for Flesh Tearers. For comparison, the Dark Angels take up 21 and the Space Wolves 39. Let's say it's 24 pages for Blood Angels in Codex: Space Marines so we can include a few pages of timeline, successor colours, and whatnot, like how the Black Legion has a bit more space in Codex: Chaos Space Marines than other Legions. There's really no gameplay reason that couldn't be the case; the Black Templars are covered in 11 pages.

 

It seems obvious to me that the reason GW is doing a standalone Blood Angels codex is not because they have to, to do the rules and units justice - it's because they know the book will sell well enough, because the brand is strong enough, because the customers are big enough fans of the Blood Angels to prefer it stand alone rather than be rolled in with all the other chapters. If that weren't the case, it'd be much better for GW for the Blood Angels players to be buying a slightly bigger Codex: Space Marines than to have to invest in publishing a whole separate book.

 

It's the same reason there's a specific Blood Angels Tactical Squad box, but there's only an Iron Hands Tactical Squad Upgrade Pack, and the vast majority of chapters don't have anything official at all: the brand is strong enough that it's worth the extra investment. Truthfully, I don't even think they'd have made the Iron Hands upgrade kit in the first place if it weren't for the fact that augmetic limbs can be used on just about any chapter, so it appeals to more than just people collecting Iron Hands.

 

Second, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that GW's plan is to keep the indexes relevant forever. They might always be necessary for people who insist on using models from previous editions that they don't want to replace, but I'm inclined to believe the more reasonable explanation that they mainly exist to give people 8th Edition rules for their models while they wait for their codex to come out.

 

If you really think an unavailable unit like the Chaplain on Bike is a unit that no Space Marines player can contemplate going without, or if you think GW is going to keep updating the indexes every year to make sure people have to keep rebuying them, I don't know what to tell you. Sure, people who already have Chaplains on Bikes might want to keep the index around so they can keep using it, but I'd suggest that's a vanishingly small proportion of the Space Marines playerbase.

 

I fully expect the indexes to never be reprinted once the full range of codexes is out.

[Blindhamster]

id hate to see an angels of death book.

 

if they are going to roll things back in together, i'd have preferred to see all marines in codex marines, a lot of the "unique" units of each of the chapters could easily be done as variants of existing ones, with only a few being genuinely unique.
 

[Indefragable]

What do BA and DA have in common with each other besides "Angels" in the name and feathers on their chapter symbols?

 

If there was something they shared in common (proclivity towards swords? doing their own thing?) then I could kinda maybe almost sorta possibly (on a weekend) see it.

[Skaorn]

I think it would depend on how viable GW think the market is for separate codexes or combined. I doubt there will be a combined codex personally but it is possible that they might decide that it isn't worth producing a BA codex based on past sales and market them with DA. In the past they did BA in a White Dwarf which leads me to believe they didn't want to invest in putting out a new codex. The BT got a codex and then went back to being in the basic codex which makes me think that BT sales weren't what they were hoping for, so why release another BT codex? If GW thinks a combined codex will meet a sales goal better than two separate codexes, I'm sure they'd go for it.