Codex: Space Marines | Multi-Part Intercessor & Vanguard Vet Teaser | Legends Culling

[Wormwoods]

4 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Orks got the same amount of detachments in their codex and nobody has said anything 

I don't play orks and didn't bother looking. Presumably I would have the same opinion I apply to all of this detachment stuff: Put rules on models, and let me determine what my army does by choosing those models. I don't have a lot of 'back in my day' opinions, but on this one I'm going to be a grognard. Detachments as an extra layer of army rules, and dozens of them at that, sucks. 

[Mogger351]

49 minutes ago, RWJP said:

I think anyone expecting full Codexes for the divergent chapters is setting themselves up for massive disappointment... The reason they have supplements, not full Codexes, currently is because of just how many shared units there are. The God-Specific Chaos Legions work as separate Codexes because they don't share that many datasheets with regular Chaos Space Marines, and the core of their armies are unique datasheets. Every God-Specific Legion has it's own battleline unit for example while BA and DA don't.

Going back to full Codexes means one of two things happens in my eyes: Either you get massive duplication of datasheets, which leads to balancing issues, weird disparities between Codex Marines and Divergent Marines, Divergent Marines having to wait for stuff that Codex Marines have for a while etc etc, or you get a massively stripped down range of units available to you. Considering how many people here have expressed frustration at the loss of Firstborn I can certainly imagine they would also be very unhappy about losing other models!

You're sort of right but stuck living in the past here.

 

First of all maybe the divergent chapters will share fewer datasheets going forwards to reinforce their identity (which is unlikely, but some mild trimming is possible).

 

Duplication of datahseets is fine in isolation and in modern 40k allows them to sculpt more appropriate rules and costs for units that are otherwise identical based on chapter. This actually reduces balancing issues.

 

There won't be any waiting for shared units because they just day 1 pushed them out on the app. This isn't 4th ed when your book is 1-12 years away and the only rule source.

 

It could legitimately be a good thing on many levels. Imagine blood angels getting 15 detachments themed around their chapter and playstyle without having to knee jerk rebalance the units constantly because they accidentally overperform in space wolves or whatever.

 

Edited September 12 by Mogger351
Site farted and double posted

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 hour ago, Wormwoods said:

I don't play orks and didn't bother looking. Presumably I would have the same opinion I apply to all of this detachment stuff: Put rules on models, and let me determine what my army does by choosing those models. I don't have a lot of 'back in my day' opinions, but on this one I'm going to be a grognard. Detachments as an extra layer of army rules, and dozens of them at that, sucks. 

100% this.

All the extra excuses to add rules is  Power Ranger bad...

"With our powers combined, we form Super Duper Marines!!!" 

Just put the rules on the data sheets, with one (sub)faction rule list.

[Dark Shepherd]

Space Wolves will be interesting as one of their better detachments was basically doctrines

 

GW though LOVES to give us some mullarkey rules involving characters having to unlock abilties using the wizard key to get out of the dungeon on the cd rom

[Stargate_wars]

If the chapters are getting true codexes instead of supplements then i could see them doing what they did in old editions where units were replaced with a chapter version unit so Grey Hunters for Intercessors, Blood Claws for Assault Intercessors, Wolf Guard/Deathwatch terminators for Terminators, Deathwatch/Ravenwing Bikers for Outriders, etc

[Xenith]

Was it 5th or 6th ed where BA etc had a standalone codex with a different unit suite to codex marines? Heavy flamers on marines, storm ravens etc, and didn't have access to centurions, storm talons etc? 

 

Time is a flat circle. 

[jaxom]

Layering detachments is the new Chapter creation tool, but now everyone gets to do it.

[Evil Eye]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

Was it 5th or 6th ed where BA etc had a standalone codex with a different unit suite to codex marines? Heavy flamers on marines, storm ravens etc, and didn't have access to centurions, storm talons etc? 

 

Time is a flat circle. 

5th if memory serves; I recall it being a rather bit cheesy (though not as bad as the Grey Knights book that came shortly after, good lord) and accompanied with some really nice kits. Notably the excellent Death Company box.

[Karhedron]

The thing against standalone divergent codices is how many unique units GW have purged from each faction. Deathwing command squad,  Libby Dread, Furioso, stormfang/wolf gunships, Long Fangs. GW have basically stripped out the reasons for making standalone codices by wiping out those units. And I am sure there are more to come. I am sure that the Ravenwing command squad and Baal predator will be on the chopping block as soon as we get our proper codex/supplements. 

[Mogger351]

13 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

The thing against standalone divergent codices is how many unique units GW have purged from each faction. Deathwing command squad,  Libby Dread, Furioso, stormfang/wolf gunships, Long Fangs. GW have basically stripped out the reasons for making standalone codices by wiping out those units. And I am sure there are more to come. I am sure that the Ravenwing command squad and Baal predator will be on the chopping block as soon as we get our proper codex/supplements. 

Counter point, it didn't stop them with emperors children.

[RWJP]

6 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

First of all maybe the divergent chapters will share fewer datasheets going forwards to reinforce their identity (which is unlikely, but some mild trimming is possible).

 

So that's a net negative then. Like I said in my original comment, people are already unhappy about losing Firstborn units, and now you're suggesting an option that makes them lose more, newer, units. 
 

Quote

Duplication of datahseets is fine in isolation and in modern 40k allows them to sculpt more appropriate rules and costs for units that are otherwise identical based on chapter. This actually reduces balancing issues.

There won't be any waiting for shared units because they just day 1 pushed them out on the app. This isn't 4th ed when your book is 1-12 years away and the only rule source.

No, it's not 4th Edition, but I'm not referring to 4th Edition. I'm referring to issues as recent as 8th Edition which is the last time GW did fully separate out the Codexes. While they didn't have the app at the time, they were still releasing digital rules PDFs and there were numerous cases where GW missed out updates on units from one or more of the divergent Chapters.

Members of this forum and most online communities are quick to point out that GW isn't actually very good at reliably and consistently updating it's rules. Whether that's forgetting to mark points changes clearly, totally missing out information from update articles, obvious spelling/grammar mistakes or logical inconsistencies etc etc. We really don't need to have GW trying to make sure 5 different datasheets for Intercessors are accurate! 

But in the end all I am saying is this:

Everyone is reading into this way too deeply and should not be expecting a full, separate Codex for each of the divergent Chapters. We all know full well that sometimes what WarCom says and what GW does end up being two different things, so anyone reading what WarCom has said and taking it as gospel is being very foolish.

Edited September 12 by RWJP

[Mogger351]

8 minutes ago, RWJP said:

So that's a net negative then. Like I said in my original comment, people are already unhappy about losing Firstborn units, and now you're suggesting an option that makes them lose more, newer, units. 
 

No, it's not 4th Edition, but I'm not referring to 4th Edition. I'm referring to issues as recent as 8th Edition which is the last time GW did fully separate out the Codexes. While they didn't have the app at the time, they were still releasing digital rules PDFs and there were numerous cases where GW missed out updates on units from one or more of the divergent Chapters.

Members of this forum and most online communities are quick to point out that GW isn't actually very good at reliably and consistently updating it's rules. Whether that's forgetting to mark points changes clearly, totally missing out information from update articles, obvious spelling/grammar mistakes or logical inconsistencies etc etc. We really don't need to have GW trying to make sure 5 different datasheets for Intercessors are accurate! 

But in the end all I am saying is this:

Everyone is reading into this way too deeply and should not be expecting a full, separate Codex for each of the divergent Chapters. We all know full well that sometimes what WarCom says and what GW does end up being two different things, so anyone reading what WarCom has said and taking it as gospel is being very foolish.

Oh for sure, we have no idea what will happen, we can but what and see (tm).

[HeadlessCross]

52 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Counter point, it didn't stop them with emperors children.

And Emperor's Children has a total of 18 datasheets, most of which aren't unique.

 

GW only did that because of the other God Legions having their own and wanted to be consistent there for some reason. 

[HeadlessCross]

6 hours ago, Wormwoods said:

I don't play orks and didn't bother looking. Presumably I would have the same opinion I apply to all of this detachment stuff: Put rules on models, and let me determine what my army does by choosing those models. I don't have a lot of 'back in my day' opinions, but on this one I'm going to be a grognard. Detachments as an extra layer of army rules, and dozens of them at that, sucks. 

And this is different from make-your-own Chapter rules or choosing a Chapter trait how, exactly? Because it's allowed for Ultramarines to not always fight the same?

 

For people complaining about lack of customization, this sounds like complaining about customization. 

[Jukkiz]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

5th if memory serves; I recall it being a rather bit cheesy (though not as bad as the Grey Knights book that came shortly after, good lord) and accompanied with some really nice kits. Notably the excellent Death Company box.

Oh how mighty have fallen... 

So what´s the 11th edition rumour about codex situation? Do i need to buy rules and two space marine codexes to play again? 

[LSM]

48 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

And Emperor's Children has a total of 18 datasheets, most of which aren't unique.

 

GW only did that because of the other God Legions having their own and wanted to be consistent there for some reason. 

 

Codex: Emperor's Children has some general oddities. 

 

For example, page 17 of the Codex has a side-bar titled 'Warband Assets' which includes the following: "Besides squads and retinues of egotistical warriors, warbands can often call on other assets should the mood strike their commander. Some have covens of mortal Slaanesh worshippers in their thrall or packs of the Dark Prince's daemonic servants ready to be summoned from the warp. Others harbour armoured detachments of battle tanks and combat walkers, or super-heavy assets that can bring whole hive cities to their knees. Some warbands leash huge numbers of Daemon Engines to their command, while others have depraved Chaos Knights sworn to their cause by fell pacts." [Bolding mine.]

 

Slaanesh Cultists are not present in the Codex (future Kill Team release?). Combat Walkers... maybe the Maulerfiend would count, except the next sentence is about Daemon Engines; so I think this is a reference to absent Helbrutes. (There is also artwork which includes a Helbrute on page 32; and mention in the 'Sonic Weapons' section of "...warp amps built into the hulls of battle tanks and combat walkers which thrum with a non-stop dirge of spirit-twisting horror.")

 

Of course, the absence of a Defiler in the book led to thoughts of that model either being removed or updated, and the latter happened. Could the absence of Helbrutes and Chaos Predators likewise signal removal/updating of those models for all Chaos factions? (Perhaps ditto for Bikers, in regards to World Eaters/Emperor's Children.) The removal of Predators/Vindicators from SMs has me a little concerned about those of CSMs; if the moulds are going out of production...

 

//

 

Which is to say: the EC issues may have to do with behind-the-scenes production knowledge, rather than designer choice. It might be the case that Codex: Emperor's Children was intended to have Defilers, Helbrutes, Chaos Preds, Cultists, Bikers, etc. but their datasheets were put aside to wait upon new models.

 

Edited September 12 by LSM

[brother_b]

@Lsmith7606They’ve never been great at syncing lore and rules. I almost wonder with your example, if at the last moment, some units got pulled out of the EC codex.

 

 

[01RTB01]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

And Emperor's Children has a total of 18 datasheets, most of which aren't unique.

 

GW only did that because of the other God Legions having their own and wanted to be consistent there for some reason. 

They are as the EC units that aren't unique to them, are different to the other God legions as an ec maulerfiend is different to a TS mauler and so on.

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, RWJP said:

So that's a net negative then. Like I said in my original comment, people are already unhappy about losing Firstborn units, and now you're suggesting an option that makes them lose more, newer, units. 

 

I disagree. 

 

There are a lot of advantages to limiting units on a chapter by chapter basis. Everything from theming and lore all the way to game balance and reduction of bloat. Of course, it has to be done in a controlled and sensible matter.

 

In my opinion, there should be no circumstance in which Black Templars should be able to run Librarians. This should extend all the way to the unit being removed from their codex.

 

By the same token, why would Blood Angels have access to Apothecaries? They famously use Sanguinary Priests, and the model now exists (and if rumours are to be believed, Corbulo is also coming back in a future update). Having access to both is counter to their lore, and they feel thematically redundant.

 

And finally, we come to Space Wolves.

This chapter has more model and rule support than any other. They have access to bespoke Battleline options such as Grey Hunters AND Blood Claws - these are thematic alternatives to Intercessors and Assault Intercessors. I think that Space Wolves should lose access to the Codex variants of these units now that their range has been expanded, and it actually erodes their thematic identity to keep them.

(Intercessors and Bladeguard in particular don't feel like Space Wolf units, nor do the generic Terminator variants when they have the Wolf Guard)

 

The same extends to redundant Terminator, Librarian and other units options across all the chapters.

 

 

 

 

 

[01RTB01]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

And Emperor's Children has a total of 18 datasheets, most of which aren't unique.

 

GW only did that because of the other God Legions having their own and wanted to be consistent there for some reason. 

They are as the EC units that aren't unique to them, are different to the other God legions as an ec maulerfiend is different to a TS mauler and so on.

[HeadlessCross]

37 minutes ago, 01RTB01 said:

They are as the EC units that aren't unique to them, are different to the other God legions as an ec maulerfiend is different to a TS mauler and so on.

It's extremely weird the Legion Maulerfiends are treated different in terms of rules though. Iron Warriors, World Eaters, and Thousand Sons aren't using them different from each other. 

 

The only cool part that came from this was the Legion Rhinos having all different rules, which showed how absolutely useless the Repair rule is on base CSM and SM armies, and how it should've been removed a long time ago for something different. 

[Indy Techwisp]

1 hour ago, 01RTB01 said:

They are as the EC units that aren't unique to them, are different to the other God legions as an ec maulerfiend is different to a TS mauler and so on.

 

I see we're playing the "Do Cult Marines have their own stuff" game again.

 

I posted the answer to this earlier in the thread iirc.

 

On 9/7/2026 at 9:14 PM, Indy Techwisp said:

The fun numbers thing to do for Cults is how many of their units are actually unique to their faction (excluding CSM stealing their main cult Marine), especially now that the nightmare scenario is real and core Space Marines lost the Rhino chassis tanks.

 

EC have 8 unique units.

TSons have 8 unique units.

WE have 10 unique units.

DG have 21 unique units.

 

We are losing 17 units from the core Space Marine range.

If all the cult Marines lost 17 unique units only Death Guard would be left.

 

There's the previous post.

Cult Marines have barely anything unique (except DG).

Edited September 12 by Indy Techwisp

[templargdt]

3 hours ago, Jukkiz said:

Oh how mighty have fallen... 

So what´s the 11th edition rumour about codex situation? Do i need to buy rules and two space marine codexes to play again? 

Really shows in one spot how bad it's gotten.  Really sad.

[ggergnayr]

20 hours ago, Moonstalker said:

 

So Space Wolves are going to pass on their rules by oral recitation?  Special closed session at the local GW, where we bring in beer and meat and the blackshirt tells us our sagas?

Dang, I may become a Space Wolf Player if this comes true. 

[Blindhamster]

its really funny, ive been a blood angel player since these were death company:

 

And honestly, I much prefer the level of bling on them to the set we got in 5th edition. They look like blood angel space marines that painted their armour black and painted saltires onto it. 

Whereas the 5th edition ones looked like christmas trees where apparently someone etched the saltires into the armour instead. 

 

 

I quite liked the 3rd edition ones too:

Though again, sculpted saltires annoyed me.

Don't get me wrong, I bought multiple death company kits, but I always had to mix them with tactical or assault squad parts to tone them down dramatically, and never used sculpted saltires if I could avoid it.

 

IMO the blood angel tactical squad was much better for blood angel designs than the death company kit (though personally, even these I tended to mix with regular tactical squad):

 

But the tabards were bad (too wide) and the muscle armour details on the sergeant never sat well with me as the point was always it was artificer armour (same reason 10th edition blood angel captain having separate rules and NOT being a 2+ save annoyed me).

Anyway, long story short, whilst I appreciate the view some have of "how the mighty have fallen" comparing 5th edition DC to the upgrade kit, and agree with the general sentiment, I think the actual fall was losing a more subdued but undeniably distinctive kit like the blood angel tactical squad, NOT the death company squad. 

I'd personally like to see a "blood angel intercessor squad" one day with a slightly more aggressive mix of poses than the base ones and slightly more subtle bling and details like these had than a return to the 5th edition DC kit.