Ideas and Hopes for the next Codex

[Beta galactosidase]

in regards to las weapons, didn’t cawl make the las talon and the las sniper rifles primaris snipers use?

And stubbers just look cooler than storm bolters that’s why.

And as for melee weapons I’d like power weapons (and force weapons) to all be under that single generic title with the same stats tbh.

Las Fusils are easy to remember because they’re named after a type of pasta.

 

Very 40k relevant, out of the many many military units called fusiliers, the first one ever was formed by a French named Prestre Vauban. Vauban is also the name of the guard officer Kastelan Vauban, who cut off Honsou’s hand in Storm of Iron by Graham McNeil.

 

alongside such a codex they could release a lore compendium. Something like an illustrated encyclopedia that dives into the details of the chapters, their heroes, wargear and histories.

Now I’ll do the rules relevant part. This would be terrible.

 

The codexes, instead of comprehensive codexes for any and all marine armies at any time, need to be campaign books. That’s like the Siege Assault or Tyrant’s Legion lists from forge world. those types of list are better than a comprehensive list for an entire chapter or for all chapters.

 

For example, a descent of angels list is very useful for Blood Angels, hawk lords, raven guard, night lords, and just about any other chapter since most of them use air drop tactics part of the time. People have always códex hopped anyway.

 

This is really important in the case of the old blood angels codex. There was a time when they were allowed huge numbers of assault squads due to their live of jumó packs and close combat, but it was also meant to be a comprehensive codex.

 

What resulted was that one of the most popular lists in the entire game was five or more razorbacks filled with assault marines who didn’t have packs and didn’t get out of the transport until the last turn of the game.

 

So no vanilla codex or comprehensive BA, DA etc codex. Just campaign books. One book about a single company doing an airborne raid on a specific planet, and this can be used for any chapter at any time, then books for armored lists, TDA spearheads, etc.

 

This idea of there being a comprehensive history and details of every single company in a chapter drives me bananas.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Sounds like armies of renown… which tend to be busted . For example Cult of Strife for Drukhari -> that’s called "more win".

Edited June 1, 2022 by Black Blow Fly

[Subtleknife]

I very much disagree with the notion that supplements should be removed. Either every first founding gets one or none do imo. Fairest way to cut it. Edited June 1, 2022 by Subtleknife

[Guest Triszin]

I very much disagree with the notion that supplements should be removed. Either every first founding gets one or none do imo. Fairest way to cut it.

Ive always been of the mindset of,

 

There should be 2 loyal marine books.

Codex: compliant

Codex: noncompliant

 

But I'm fine with supplements :/

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

I very much disagree with the notion that supplements should be removed. Either every first founding gets one or none do imo. Fairest way to cut it.

Ive always been of the mindset of,

 

There should be 2 loyal marine books.

Codex: compliant

Codex: noncompliant

 

But I'm fine with supplements :/

would noncompliant be a stand alone or a supplement?

Sort of like AoD codex, or would it be only the unique units for noncompliant chapters?

Edited June 1, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[DesuVult]

I don't feel codex compliance is a completely binary thing.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I don't feel codex compliance is a completely binary thing.

not completely binary, but close enough that it’s not really worth it too try to parse it out on a detailed spectrum.

[jaxom]

 

I don't feel codex compliance is a completely binary thing.

not completely binary, but close enough that it’s not really worth it too try to parse it out on a detailed spectrum.

Yeah, for the purposes of a game codex it’s more about chapter unique units.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

 

Dark Angels don't use Gravis armor for Deathwing, but Bladeguard Armor. So they need a unique veteran Bladeguard unit, a separate set of Bladeguard command squad units, and more importantly still need some sort of line unit to get obsec in a Deathwing Vanguard detachment.

 

Similar is needed for Ravenwing, further bike command squad, a bike veteran unit, MPK for outriders that can take more than three per squad.

 

So just for that one, they have a long way to go to make reasonably functional Ravenwing/Deathwing detachments.

 

...

 

That said, I'm not certain how tenable maintaining 11 supplements or whatever is now, so it'd be nice to see some sort of compendium for them at some point. I just don't think that many books works with how slowly they're rolling out books these days.

11 supplements is 100% unnecessary.

Chapters that are codex compliant do not need their own book.

I’m sorry but it’s true. Just played WS, and they’re a codex compliant chapter that has no unique non-character units, to justify a whole book.

 

10th/9.5 codex whatever is next, should have a section of datasheets, labeled ‘heroes of the space marines’ or something that then has datasheets for chapter specific special characters

 

 

So did you just stop reading at the datasheet section and miss the nine pages of chapter-specific rules that had nothing to do with special character models?

 

Granted, a couple of those pages could be excised with 9th-Ed rules but then you'd have to figure on that page count being reclaimed by the addition of Crusade rules.

 

So you're *only* asking for a minimum of 54 pages to be added to the main Space Marine Codex... plus datasheets and descriptive passages for any new models.

 

Which is it? Is the current book too bloated or does it need to bulk up?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

Dark Angels don't use Gravis armor for Deathwing, but Bladeguard Armor. So they need a unique veteran Bladeguard unit, a separate set of Bladeguard command squad units, and more importantly still need some sort of line unit to get obsec in a Deathwing Vanguard detachment.

 

Similar is needed for Ravenwing, further bike command squad, a bike veteran unit, MPK for outriders that can take more than three per squad.

 

So just for that one, they have a long way to go to make reasonably functional Ravenwing/Deathwing detachments.

 

...

 

That said, I'm not certain how tenable maintaining 11 supplements or whatever is now, so it'd be nice to see some sort of compendium for them at some point. I just don't think that many books works with how slowly they're rolling out books these days.

11 supplements is 100% unnecessary.

Chapters that are codex compliant do not need their own book.

I’m sorry but it’s true. Just played WS, and they’re a codex compliant chapter that has no unique non-character units, to justify a whole book.

 

10th/9.5 codex whatever is next, should have a section of datasheets, labeled ‘heroes of the space marines’ or something that then has datasheets for chapter specific special characters

So did you just stop reading at the datasheet section and miss the nine pages of chapter-specific rules that had nothing to do with special character models?

 

Granted, a couple of those pages could be excised with 9th-Ed rules but then you'd have to figure on that page count being reclaimed by the addition of Crusade rules.

 

So you're *only* asking for a minimum of 54 pages to be added to the main Space Marine Codex... plus datasheets and descriptive passages for any new models.

 

Which is it? Is the current book too bloated or does it need to bulk up?

I never asked for any of that.

I simply stated the few special characters produced for compliant chapters just be put in the main codex. Compliant chapters literally have nothing special about them that requires more than that, that’s why they spent 20 years being vanilla marines. They don’t need 54 pages, I’d be surprised if all compliant chapter characters filled 6 pages back and front.

 

And one can advocate the combination of all gravis captains to a single datasheet, same for Phobos captains, and tacticus captains, same for LTs, and extremely similar multi model units while saying compliant chapter characters be in the codex.

 

Bloat is unnecessary datasheets. Including unique characters that are not closely replicated anywhere else in the codex is not bloat.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The thing is if you have the app you just scroll and is easy thing to do. Embrace the tech.

[UnkyHamHam]

 

 

 

 

Dark Angels don't use Gravis armor for Deathwing, but Bladeguard Armor. So they need a unique veteran Bladeguard unit, a separate set of Bladeguard command squad units, and more importantly still need some sort of line unit to get obsec in a Deathwing Vanguard detachment.

 

Similar is needed for Ravenwing, further bike command squad, a bike veteran unit, MPK for outriders that can take more than three per squad.

 

So just for that one, they have a long way to go to make reasonably functional Ravenwing/Deathwing detachments.

 

...

 

That said, I'm not certain how tenable maintaining 11 supplements or whatever is now, so it'd be nice to see some sort of compendium for them at some point. I just don't think that many books works with how slowly they're rolling out books these days.

11 supplements is 100% unnecessary.

Chapters that are codex compliant do not need their own book.

I’m sorry but it’s true. Just played WS, and they’re a codex compliant chapter that has no unique non-character units, to justify a whole book.

 

10th/9.5 codex whatever is next, should have a section of datasheets, labeled ‘heroes of the space marines’ or something that then has datasheets for chapter specific special characters

So did you just stop reading at the datasheet section and miss the nine pages of chapter-specific rules that had nothing to do with special character models?

 

Granted, a couple of those pages could be excised with 9th-Ed rules but then you'd have to figure on that page count being reclaimed by the addition of Crusade rules.

 

So you're *only* asking for a minimum of 54 pages to be added to the main Space Marine Codex... plus datasheets and descriptive passages for any new models.

 

Which is it? Is the current book too bloated or does it need to bulk up?

I never asked for any of that.

I simply stated the few special characters produced for compliant chapters just be put in the main codex. Compliant chapters literally have nothing special about them that requires more than that, that’s why they spent 20 years being vanilla marines. They don’t need 54 pages, I’d be surprised if all compliant chapter characters filled 6 pages back and front.

 

And one can advocate the combination of all gravis captains to a single datasheet, same for Phobos captains, and tacticus captains, same for LTs, and extremely similar multi model units while saying compliant chapter characters be in the codex.

 

Bloat is unnecessary datasheets. Including unique characters that are not closely replicated anywhere else in the codex is not bloat.

Really grateful you don't work for GW.

 

I for one hated the era of sameness unless your Chapter was Wolves or Angels. I very much enjoy the additional rules and flavor of being other chapters. The mentality above is just so backwards and boring. And frankly it's selfish.

 

You mine as well just be saying: "I hate carrying a heavy book and can't be bothered to turn pages, so I want to impose my will upon the game system and strip the fun and flavor others enjoy out of it."

 

I feel like Microsoft telling people to go play old Xbox if they can't get with program, but it sounds like you'd be better suited to play 3rd-5th edition 40k when things were simpler and Marines were tasteless.

 

Edit: To add more to my thoughts, it really seemed the only reason Wolves and Angels were special in the past, was arbitrary favoritism and limited production capability.

 

With the popularity of the Heresy and the expansion on the character and uniqueness of Legions that aren't the big 4,GW has realized they have a bottomless well of content to sell us.

 

Honestly would be very surprised if each First Founding doesn't get a unique special Primaris unit next book/edition. They really just need to copy/paste design concepts from 30k and Primaris-fy them. Like Primaris Phalanx Warders/Breachers, or Primaris Dark Furies. There's plenty of opportunities.

Edited June 2, 2022 by UnkyHamHam

[Guest Triszin]

 

 

I very much disagree with the notion that supplements should be removed. Either every first founding gets one or none do imo. Fairest way to cut it.

Ive always been of the mindset of,

 

There should be 2 loyal marine books.

Codex: compliant

Codex: noncompliant

 

But I'm fine with supplements :/

would noncompliant be a stand alone or a supplement?

Sort of like AoD codex, or would it be only the unique units for noncompliant chapters?

I'd argue a completely stand alone thing.

 

Could have same units but cost more as they flip slots.

Ex. What is an elite for compliant, is a troop for non compliant, but it's cost is increased.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Triszin

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

With the rumored full on missile launcher squad, I’m just curious if there’s anyone here who actually wants that as an option?

like did anyone hear that rumor and react like “ oh hell yeah!” Or is this just GW bloating the codex even more with yet another option people just won’t take?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I haven’t given too much attention to Phobos units, but I was just thinking a demolition charge special rule or more likely strat for a saboteur based Phobos unit could be cool.

something like

”during the shooting phase, while in a terrain feature, this unit may set demolition charges instead of shooting. As long as the unit that set the charges or your warlord are on the table, the demolition charges can be detonated in any phase after being set. If a demolition charge is detonated, it causes 2d3 mortal wounds to every unit within that terrain feature.”

or something like that. I think one of the phobos units is supposed to be a saboteur type unit but doesn’t really fill the niche based on what I’ve read. Mix that with some sort of ‘cawl pattern krak missile launcher’ that’s like S7 and I think that’s a unit that would see a decent amount of play.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

There's already a rule for the Phobos Saboteur (deal mortal wounds to a VEHICLE or MONSTER when falling back), but it's currently locked to the Vanguard Spearhead AoR. I expect that will be genericized in the next codex.

[XeonDragon]

On 5/3/2022 at 9:50 AM, Orange Knight said:

Raven Guard: Units more than 18" from enemy count as being in light cover. Units in this army inflict 1 additional damage for any unsaved wound inflicted on a character unit. Core units using Close Combat weapons gain an extra point of AP.

 

I just want the RG light cover ability to stack when actual light cover is available. If they are so sneaky as to get +1 to save when 18" in the open, they can get +2 to save when 18" and hiding in ruins. That single change would make Raven Guard so much more survivable, at least for turn 1 and maybe turn 2 if they are well hidden. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Lord Nord said:

There's already a rule for the Phobos Saboteur (deal mortal wounds to a VEHICLE or MONSTER when falling back), but it's currently locked to the Vanguard Spearhead AoR. I expect that will be genericized in the next codex.

I think a more universal version would be so much more useful without be OP or an autopick 

[UnkyHamHam]

I think the Primaris Missile unit is a fine enough concept. But it will really come down to models and rules. Like if they have a selection of cool warheads, I'm down. I mean that's why eliminators are fun, and why Sternguard and Thunderfires use to be. 

Also, what if they are Omnis pattern armor and are a multikit with Suppressors? That could be interesting too! 

Also, hoping AoR Vanguard stuff is generalized into the codex. 

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

10 hours ago, UnkyHamHam said:

Also, hoping AoR Vanguard stuff is generalized into the codex. 

I've been assuming that's what will happen as it's a direct mirror to how things went down in 8th with all of the Intercessor stratagems initially being locked to the "Indomitus Veterans Specialist Detachment" in Vigilus Defiant and then being put into gen pop with the 8.2 codex.

[Lemondish]

My biggest hope is a massive pruning of stratagems, relics, and warlord traits. I know folks will dislike losing things, but there's so many trap choices that just make things so unnecessarily bloated. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

We do have a lot of strats and some are better than others… I’m sure some will change and some will go by the way side… but one you might think is useless could well be a go to strat for somebody else.

[Lemondish]

8 minutes ago, Black Blow Fly said:

We do have a lot of strats and some are better than others… I’m sure some will change and some will go by the way side… but one you might think is useless could well be a go to strat for somebody else.

I would be very interested in meeting the person who uses some of the worst examples lol

But as far as the bloat goes, I'm a huge fan of smashing together a few of these disparate data sheets. I've said it before, but I think the Storm Speeder and Gladiator tanks would be much more interesting units if all their weapon options could be mix-and-matched on one platform instead of having three different units. 

 

[Blindhamster]

occurs to me they could have:

• Scout armour = 4+ save and +1 Mov
• Phobos armour = 4+ save with AoC and +1 Mov
• Tacticus/earlier mks of armour = 3+ save with AoC
• Crusade armour = 3+ save with AoC and +1 W (what bladeguard wear, perhap extend it to be a veteran armour thing
• Gravis armour = 3+ save with AoC and +1 T and W (IMO, also bring back run and shoot assault weapons with no penalty)
• Artificer armour = 2+ save with AoC and 5++
• Terminator armour = 2+ save with AoC and +1 W and 5++

differentiates the types of armour

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Black Blow Fly said:

We do have a lot of strats and some are better than others… I’m sure some will change and some will go by the way side… but one you might think is useless could well be a go to strat for somebody else.

Most strats seem like they could just be special rules included in datasheets.

general bonuses that can be used on all units are the only thing that should be in strats.

If it can’t be used on everyone and it can’t be put into a datasheet do we really need it?