Who do you think deserves a Codex of their own?

[Lord Raven 19]

All first founding with inbuilt rules for successors.

Let's hope chapter tactics are for everything though.

 

With regards for balancing out the chaos side, give each legion a codex and some unique stuff and have a renegades book too with the vigilus renegades rules

[Marshal Reinhard]

Honestly I'd be perfectly fine if there was Codex: Sons of Dorn that included sections for Imperial as well as Crimson fists and Black Templars.

[The Unseen]

All roughly codex-compliant marine factions should have 1 book with a handful of special characters and a unique unit or two, and have a supplement for each gene-line ala angels of death for more flavor.

So your outliers should be Wolves and Grey Knights, as they basically share vehicles and nothing else.

 

All the other first founding along with Deathwatch can be fairly easily be done similarly to the 30k legion list, with a couple of unique things for each first founding+successors, along with a tactic, 3 relics, and warlord trait, in 1 big book.

 

Assuming of course GW gets off their ass and actually makes some chapter specific units for people other than the ultras, ba, or da.

 

And then you can flesh out specific chapters more with their own smaller book, and so marine factions get to be fleshed out, without making the main marine dex even more bloated, but people who want to play an unknown founding and mix up what tactic they use sometimes can just have 1 main book.

 

"The Last Wall" for the sons of Dorn, (Imperial, Crimson, and Templar) "Angels of Death" for DA and BA, "Forgemasters" for Iron Hands and Salamanders, "Unseen Blades" for Deathwatch and Ravenguard, and maybe "Outriders" for White Scars and some unknown founders.

 

But that's just me.

[ERJAK]

There's too many GD marine codexes as it is.

[Claws and Effect]

I've noticed a few times the lump the Carcharodons into the Raven Guard pile. May be premature as their latest novel had a few hints suggesting they aren't RG successors at all. A Sons of codex series could clear up some of this sort of community speculation if nothing else.

Nah, they are.

 

They just have a geneseed line from before instances of the sable brand died out among the Raven Guard. The sable brand is all but unheard of in the modern Raven Guard Chapter, but still very much a thing with the Carcharodons.

 

If they are descended from the Terran Raven Guard rather than the Deliverance Raven Guard it makes sense.

[Biscuittzz]

Just do what 30k does and make a Codex: Astartes and then bring out another book/codex with special rules and a few units for every other first founder and possibly a few select others, mainly BT. 

[Lord_Caerolion]

I agree with the idea that if 30k could manage to have the Legions playing all incredibly differently with just "Legion Tactics" and special units, then we can do the same with 40k. If anything, just continue with the idea of Specialist Detachments, much in the same vein that the Heresy had their Rites of War.

[Marshal Arthur]

Honestly, as much as I’d love to see a BT codex I’d rather GW trim down the unit entries for space marine codices. Instead of having different data sheets for nearly identical units roll them together and just give all the different weapon and equipment options needed to make the available units. Have a veteran squad that can built as company, vanguard, or sternguard. Have a landraider datasheet with all the weapon options so you can build your own landraider. Have a rhino datasheet that can sacrifice troop space to add different weapons (Razorback, stalker, whirlwind, predator, etc.). Trim down the ultra characters and turn some into generic HQs (sgt chronus and Telion being prime examples where the ultras have access to a unique type of hq that other chapters should have access to). And please please please cut down on all the unnecessary elite options from the old command squads (no one uses company champions and I really only see Primaris ancients hot the field). Then, with it trimmed give each major chapter one unique unit or equipment option alongside a named character and the abundance of wargear will help each chapter tailor lists to their strengths.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

Ooh. I was just thinking that about Dreadnoughts last night. Like, I think they should trim down (normal Castraferrum-pattern) Dreadnoughts into 5 variants (counting FW Chaplain), each of which can take any weapon combo. Although I'm not opposed to Death Company Dreads being required to take blood talons and Librarians being forced (ba-dum-tss) to take Force Halberds. Special abilities get separate variants, but weapons are one big soup. (Can take Ironclad Assault Launchers or Magna-Grapple, regardless of weapons, can take two different ranged weapons without missiles like a more customizable Mortis, etc.)

[Dracos]

 

I've noticed a few times the lump the Carcharodons into the Raven Guard pile. May be premature as their latest novel had a few hints suggesting they aren't RG successors at all. A Sons of codex series could clear up some of this sort of community speculation if nothing else.

Nah, they are.

 

They just have a geneseed line from before instances of the sable brand died out among the Raven Guard. The sable brand is all but unheard of in the modern Raven Guard Chapter, but still very much a thing with the Carcharodons.

 

If they are descended from the Terran Raven Guard rather than the Deliverance Raven Guard it makes sense.

 

 

Nice, I hardly ever hear mention of the Terra origins. I thought that lore had been lost :)

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

I run company champions and normal ancients, but I don't play primaris, and never will. If SM are eventually replaced by primaris then I wont' be playing SM anymore. To that end, I'd prefer that old marines stick around, as they are still my favorite faction.

 

I can see the value of having a single data sheet for champions that you can give all the various weapon upgrades to, but that'd take a pretty hefty re-write to get working. If we do wind up reducing the number of marine books, then I'm fine with one SM codex with no special characters or units in it at all, and generic army things, then each chapter gets its own index that adds special characters and special units. That can't work in 8th edition though. Too much of the material is based around their keyword system and so on. They'd have to re-write a fourth of the mechanics to change it.

 

For example, if they were to get rid of company champions, they'd have to immediately re-write the Vigilus Sword Brothers detachment for BT, meaning if they dont' want that book to be even more useless than it already is they have to go through and work on all that stuff again. I don't suspect sweeping changes, so eh. Until 9th, BT codex or bust.

[MARK0SIAN]

The problem with single data sheets for a lot of roles like veterans is the rule of 3. It would really limit how many you could bring to the table if a lot of the veteran roles shared the same sheet.

[MajorNese]

To be honest, having played heresy for quite some time, I doubt we need half a dozen codices just for loyalist chapters, but a lot more wargear choices and upgrades. What would be way less work for GW and much more useful for everyone would be an extended selection of wargear, especially primaris, and do the rest with index articles and specialist detachments/unit upgrade strats. CC options for intercessors might be the most fitting (out of the C:SM chapters) for BT, but that doesn't mean other chapters couldn't find them useful.

 

Centralizing the unit profiles to flexible "vanilla" options mean they won't run out of support (like BT did in 5th edition). No one cares if that guy is called captain, khan, iron captain or castellan, if wargear and rules are fitting. Or the veterans are draaksward, sword brethren, invictarus or something similar - make the wargear flexible enough to fit the description, and use upgrades/strats (like Veteran Intercessors, but chapter specific) to give them back their flavor. This edition was streamlined a lot, most named characters or special units are basically the vanilla unit with slightly different wargear, a special rule and maybe relic included.

 

Something that was discussed on events - how long are the index options supported? The answer was a bit vague - they will be, as long as they are compatible with the rulebook. The sheer amount of old unit entries is a huge overhead, that probably won't survive another radical edition change like the one to 8th edition. It's a lot of work for models that never existed or went OOP some time ago, so it's questionable how much time and effort can be invested into those for the years to come. If the regular codex got split into half a dozen books and every chapter got different entries for 95% identical units, you can do the math about their continued support. The codex supplements of 7th edition already disappeared, and having codices for individual chapters just to run out of support again would be a lot worse than just losing access to a special rule for some time.

[Chaplain Killmer]

I have been playing DA sind the early 90s or better when the Angels of Death codex came out. The only thing that i really remembering romantically is the illustrations that made me play the green marines. The couple of pages that formed the background could be easily enrolled into one codex. I guess that the gras is always greener on the other side but waiting for a new edition to get the units like Stormravens that other chapters had for a while isn't always fun.

 

Integrating them all into one codex would open up resources to new interesting variants like they did in the Vanguard Codex. Which isn't really the shockingly awesome powerhouse but reinvents stuff that was here for nearly 30 years without any real update.

[MajorNese]

I have been playing DA sind the early 90s or better when the Angels of Death codex came out. The only thing that i really remembering romantically is the illustrations that made me play the green marines. The couple of pages that formed the background could be easily enrolled into one codex. I guess that the gras is always greener on the other side but waiting for a new edition to get the units like Stormravens that other chapters had for a while isn't always fun.

 

Integrating them all into one codex would open up resources to new interesting variants like they did in the Vanguard Codex. Which isn't really the shockingly awesome powerhouse but reinvents stuff that was here for nearly 30 years without any real update.

Yeah, the grass is always greener on the other side. As we've seen with the Iron Father - if the most famous chapters get something, it's "long overdue". Once a different chapter gets something, it's "outrageous" that GW didn't just release a generic unit instead, for all to use. More codices would mean even more stuff that most people can't use because of different keywords.

 

The Vanguard codex is a good addition - pretty much everyone can use it, except for those chapters with non-sneaking fluff. Though even those can profit in some way - Suppressors fit IH for example, or the vanguard LT could serve as rules base for any CC-oriented HQ (RG or BT) to run with Reivers ("primaris assault squad"). Only the wargear/squad size limitations are an issue for most units in there...

[Tamiel]

This thread is basically "What chapter do you play?". So on that note, Ultramarines. I want to be Romans in space, not basic space marines: the chapter.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Personally I think there are two factors that determine if a Chapter should get its own codex.

 

1) Amount of Unique units/characters because these just take up a lot space and they are the hooks for a lot of these chapters so they deserve a lot of attention.

 

2) Whether it would sell and if they have room in the release schedule for them.  

[Canadian_F_H]

Well... obviously I will say black templars.

 

Reasons...

Hidden Content

 

Between the Armageddon codex and the 4th edition codex we had a great deal of unique units that were largely unavailable to others as the time.

 

Crusader squads

Crusader bike squads (Armageddon)

Assault squads with power weapons and storm shields (in 3rd Ed armageddon way before vanguard vets)

Neophyte banner bearer

Land raider crusader (in Armageddon templars could take them and all other chapters were hard limited 0-1 per army)

Emperor's champion (he is barely a special character, more of a special character type)

 

Vows

No libbies

Used to "fall back" towards the enemy when moral from shooting

 

Miscellaneous things in leaving out.

 

Just as important were our omissions.

Librarians, scouts, tacticals...

 

 

 

I would like to see some of the other chapters get their old options back, If not crunchy, at least fluffy.

 

In Codex armageddon, Salamanders could take thunderhammer and storm shields terminators in their tactical terminator squads, which is a backwards way of saying they could take heavy weapons in their hammernator squads.

[MajorNese]

 

So on that note, Ultramarines. I want to be Romans in space, not basic space marines: the chapter.

Wait...the regular codex is basically "UM and misc.", so I guess you rather want 40k UM closer to 30k UM, not just more paper on how heroically standardized they are. Comparable to SW - vikings in space (30k) vs. Wolfy McWolfWolves (40k). FW was a lot more mature about the fluff, UM are not the only ones better represented in HH than in 40k.

 

Well... obviously I will say black templars.

Well...to be honest, your list of reasons doesn't really make it "obvious". Except for two units, the listed ones are in the current codex. "Falling forwards" is no different to saying "old SftS was waaaay better than the FAQed version". I agree that vows would be something truly unique and would restore some of the flavor, but that can easily be done with an index article, it doesn't require 150 pages of copypasta codex.

[Canadian_F_H]

I meant that it was obvious that "I" would say Black Templars. Obvious because they have been my core 40k army for nearly 20 years, And other obvious things per my presence and activity on BnC.

 

 

But I can elaborate, tho i may be more curious about reasons other chapters should get a codex...

Hidden Content

compare, 3rd and 4th edition BT were more divergent in many ways than other alternative chapter codecies. Assuming they had gotten the same treatment over the years that DA, SW, BA recieved they would still be as divergent from the core SM Codex as the big 3 deviants were.

 

Bear in mind that in 3rd, while BT had crusader squads, crusader bike squads, the LRC, assault squads with power weapons and storm shields, a unique character (that wasn't treated like other special characters which were "with your opponent's permission only" at the time) and the various Vows and other rules and limitations.

 

BA had deathcompany, sanguinary priests, the assault cannon version of the Baal predator, a few special rules and could give their veterans and command squads jump packs. They were described as being very codex compliant aside from the few above units.

 

Likewise a similar comparison could be made in 4th edition. BT only lagged behind by not getting a codex in 5th and being rolled into vanilla in 6th. It's just an apples and oranges thing. Have you look at same edition to same edition.

 

 

 

I think it would be nice to see a modernized 8th edition codex elaborating on the Forgeworld chapter tactics and throw them some more unique rules and units.

 

Sort of a codex space marines part 2. The best comparison I can think of is how in some editions of DnD there was a players hand book with all the races and classes everyone has heard of and then a player's hand book part 2 with a whole other batch of classes and races etc.

[MajorNese]

Ah okay, that makes more sense. Back in the day they could have well continued to have their own codex, but GW only streamlined that part in favor of BA/DA. I remember a local BT player from 5th - just house ruling the new units in there, which suddenly became rather strong with BT buffs. BT rolling into the regular codex lost a lot of flavor, but at least the incompatibility problem ended, which is why he was fine with it in the end.

 

Since 6th, no BT player in our area wanted to go back to a separate BT codex and its issues, so I was rather surprised people around here want a separate codex though almost every unit from back in the day is playable again. For IH, GW went a more frustrating route - all things that were against the codex were just retconned. Back in 5th, SW was the most fitting IH codex - HQ dreadnoughts, terminators as leaders for PA squads (as TDA was extremely rare but inspiring) and so on.

 

But I guess with primaris, the cards will be shuffled anew. Except for individual characters and bodyguard, everything can be used by anyone equally. Only different codex in regards to primaris is DW, which can throw models from different squads into one unit, but still at the same loadout per model.

[Bryan Blaire]

I’m going to attack this from the actual way GW the Business will approach it:

 

The Space Marine Chapters that deserve their own Codexes are those ones that have an extent of ideas behind them that get our designers excited enough to provide pitch ideas that provide a worth-while expanse of range to produce and that will get the thumbs-up from manufacturing and marketing.

 

Given the current situation, that basically amounts to “Do you have a historic Codex line that ‘We’ have an interest in keeping separate” or “Can we make a new set of Primaris Marines and a Codex for them.”

 

I get the impression right now that while the current crop of designers appreciate the historical 40K situation, they actually don’t want/aren’t excited enough about historical Chapters to make new material for things like Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Black Templars, Space Wolves, etc. The studio may have actually decided to do no additional Marine diversification until they finish the Primaris line, and then they will look at new Chapter materials.

[Dracos]

Stupid business model given it’s a niche industry and easy access to the consumers through the internet. With all due respect to designers , I don’t care what excites you , I care what excites my customers. Do your research and get to work.

 

If 40k was a new product it might have to throw stuff at the wall and we what stuck for a few years hoping not to go under until they grabbed traction. Thing is they have a solid consumer base and not using the tools available to plan around their desires would be negligent.

 

I don’t pretend to know what the results of that market research would be. I’m definitely not the kind of person to provide ancedotal “evidence” and hate it when others do. But lord if I was an invester and heard designer whim and not research was guiding the company vision I’d be looking to fire someone.

[RandyB]

Stupid business model given it’s a niche industry and easy access to the consumers through the internet. With all due respect to designers , I don’t care what excites you , I care what excites my customers. Do your research and get to work.

 

If 40k was a new product it might have to throw stuff at the wall and we what stuck for a few years hoping not to go under until they grabbed traction. Thing is they have a solid consumer base and not using the tools available to plan around their desires would be negligent.

 

I don’t pretend to know what the results of that market research would be. I’m definitely not the kind of person to provide ancedotal “evidence” and hate it when others do. But lord if I was an invester and heard designer whim and not research was guiding the company vision I’d be looking to fire someone.

Exhibit 1: Hero Games. They followed the "designer passion" model, and now they are barely an intellectual property management business for the Hero System.

[Panzer]

It's good to listen to the designers since you notice a dramatic increase of quality when the designers actually had fun designing the models and rules in 40k, but yeah you need a balance of things.