Subscribe Us

header ads

Space Marine Codex: A First Look Video



Its here, and we get our first chance to really see what is in the codex. This really is a nice codex, with some astounding artwork, and at first glance, a lot of attention to the details. I like how each chapter is broken down and really looked at.

So this is my first look at the codex. This next week we will be looking at some of the details within the codex, and just how they may end up playing out.

Post a Comment

78 Comments

  1. They are getting their own book, as are Space Wolves.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have the ipad edition and the much anticipated army building section (which incurred a cost) is AWOL. Also, many of the interactive elements are greyed-out.
    Not sure what's going on...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes mine is missing it too!!

      Delete
    2. I'm actually debating demanding a refund due to the fact it was advertised in the shots but hasn't materialised. What have I paid £5 extra for otherwise?

      Delete
    3. This is what their Facebook page has to say about it
      Games Workshop: Digital Editions Hi Robert,

      You are right, Force Requisition will exist within the iBook codex itself, but it is not there at the moment. We are hoping that once the technical issues are resolved at Apple, the upload will go smoothly and it should be available as an update within the week.

      It's worth noting that the initial update will contain the beta of Force Requisition, which for now has a limited functionality. Updates will be coming quickly over the next few weeks to make sure that every unit is covered and to root out any potential bugs.

      In the meantime, we are interested in your feedback to help us make this feature as great as it can be, so let us know what you think once you get your hands on it.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. I would demand a refund.

      It was not advertiesed as beta and available in a few weeks.

      And its Not statting the Full Version will be Free nore when it will exactly be available.

      You can always re buy it.

      Delete
    6. I hope Apple and GW enjoy the slew of refund requests they're going to get over the next few days (mine included) ... if the product DOESN'T have a main feature, then bloody well own up to it and put it in the description when you're downloading it.

      Delete
    7. That's a bit shocking - they should put that in the product description until it is fixed!

      Delete
    8. Yep was a bit let down when it was missing. I may take a screen shot of the pages I want and demand a refund :)

      Delete
    9. From what I experienced and what GW are saying, this is actually a problem on Apple's end. This morning I found that the codex wouldn't download at all. I wonder if something went wrong with the version with Force Requisition and they've had to pull that version, just so they could get out at least some version of the codex.

      What would cause more of a fuss, the codex without the Force Requisition for a little while (and which will receive updates over subsequent weeks to polish it off) or no digital codex at all for several weeks? Writing software is hard, and you sometimes encounter problems like this

      Delete
    10. Updating an item description is easy though ... and SHOULD be done. It's called customer service, something GW and Apple both seem to forget.

      Delete
    11. @ Martin

      They plan these things weeks or months in advance (or should at least) and any product should be tested before selling it. Its not apples fault if GW does an incomplet product. There are more than just GWs Books on the Apple Site.

      So either GW are Amateures on all levels of the company. Or they are just plain frauds selling something they dont jet even have in the Beta stage... and they are selling it for a week allready.

      Someone should have tested the download intern 3 weeks ago... A quality oriented company as Gw claim to be does that. So it must be deliberat!!! Since it will only be beta, wich are usually Free. Wich goes to show how GW handels customers or Fans. I wonder if it will ever Work properly if the sails dont meet their goal? Or if the working thing will cost extra?


      Delete
    12. We don't know whether GW intended to release without the Force Requisition tool at first. I suspect they did. As I say, earlier this morning there were many instances of people being unable to download the codex onto their iPads.

      The two things could be completely unrelated, but as GW is stating "We are hoping that once the technical issues are resolved at Apple, the upload will go smoothly and it should be available as an update within the week." it makes me think that the earlier download problems could be related to the Force Requisition tool.

      They will probably have done a lot of testing on it, but you cannot test the final download until you release to the public. As I said, software development is hard, and the digital codexes, especially Force Requisition, are a lot closer to software development than basic ebook creation

      Delete
    13. @ martin

      It says Beta....so we do know....but it did not before in the product discription.... So thats fals advertisment

      Yes they can Test it.
      Its called Test server.... No one just uploades something they never opend.
      GW just optet to live Test instead on oure cost

      Delete
    14. No apology or anything, just A FU, yeah thats rights we falsely advertised and what?!

      Just shows you how much GW actually respects its fanbase..

      Delete
    15. @seb12: Have you ever released anything via Apple's services? If so you'd realise that you can't test downloading through it. Sure you can set up a test server, but as that test server in no way mimics the real world situation, it's effectively testing nothing.

      Delete
    16. Untrue
      A test server is supposed to mimic real use or downloads. It does Not test nothing.

      Also see
      https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/test.html

      Apple also provides Test on Air options.

      Its the file GW made & uploaded.... Not Apple

      Delete
    17. Holy fuck! All of you people bitching about a small matter..... I'm so glad you guys are the Minority of the Hobbiests. You all sound like little kids right now, demanding refunds because you have to wait a little longer.

      Big releases rarely go to plan folks. Its just something you should expect. When SimCity released, their servers crashed due to the high influx of people... But did I run around screaming for a refund? No

      Delete
    18. Yes... becaus you have to wait longer and becaus you always can if youre Not saticfied you can demand a refund!

      If customers have to just "eat it" that Shows a very impressiv attitude to those paying the bills.

      Its fanboys like you that make GW think they can get away with everything.

      People payed in advance and are now waiting even longer for a half working beta that will someday come. They said it!


      Delete
    19. If they had released it with a errors and bugs, you would all be moaning about it. Instead, they are trying to fix the errors and you are moaning about that instead now.

      Delete
    20. And if they had fixed it before SELLing it people would be Happy.

      Its 100s of customers wasting Time trying to Update and find out why its not working instead of GW doing their Job right.

      Well i guess the customer is always fault. -_-

      Delete
    21. Prime if you bought anything that had major parts missing that you specifically paid extra for, I think even you would at least expect an apology.

      The fact it is still in BETA SHOULD have been made known before release. People paid extra for this because they we expecting it to be working 100% out of the box, if it wasn't they SHOULD have said that. At very least it is blatant disregard for their fans to just turn around now and say, "oh well yeah its buggy and still being worked on, what did you expect?" We expected a fully working product GW as you gave no indication it was anything less..

      Delete
    22. Its more a case of the customer does not exist once we have thier money in GW's case.

      Delete
    23. @seb12: The problem is that in order to create a test server you need to replicate one of the biggest online stores in the world, without knowing the vast majority of the implementation details. On top of that you then need to recreate the various apps that are used to download. This isn't a case of throwing a file up on a server and testing you can download it through a browser.

      As a seller you do not host the file, nor have any access to the servers where it is hosted. You also have no control over the apps that do the downloading. Effectively you submit the book/app/music/whatever you're selling, and it goes into the black box that is Apple.

      Also, if you're going to try to use the developer website against a professional iOS developer, I suggest a. not using the marketing material to make your point and b. at least reading that marketing material to see if it backs up your point. The point you're referring to is stating that you can test an app on a device in order to test real world network usage of your app. The codexes don't use the network, plus aren't fully fledged apps, so the point there is irrelevant.

      As I said before, it sounds like GW is linking it to problems on Apple's end that could have been responsible for the download problems earlier. It could very well have been that Force Requisition wasn't ready (the fact that they claim it will first be released in beta backs that up), but it seems like it wasn't their choice not to have that beta in the codex on release day

      Delete
    24. @ Martin

      How hardcore of a Fan are you?

      They upload it .... Suddenly Apple did something to the File and now its Not working????
      WTF???

      They have to Test it on their ipads inside of GW.
      They have to make sure filesize and all meets Apples requirments.
      Then they upload it and Test it again Live on the Apple sever.


      If its Not even finished... Aka typos
      Buggy and a Beta!!!!
      How can they upload it????

      What youre paying is a finished product.
      They did Not even get a buggy Beta working!!!!

      Blameing the Server (or the Postman) for GW Content is just lame. Why Do they use Apple if they are so Bad?

      I rather belive GW f..ed up AGAIN ...than Apple, a billion Dollar company that has 1000s of uploads to its Store (Server) every Day and no Time to mess with any Files, delibertly changed GW Beta.

      GW is Publisher...they are responciable for their Content.


      Its just redicules to say things like you cant Test it... So many banks go online, imagine their apps were buggy and would fail... deleting Mio of $$$ .... Lol

      Delete
    25. @seb12

      I'm not saying Apple did something to it. I believe that, if the download problems & missing Force Req are linked, it is likely 6 of one, half a dozen of the other as to who caused it. It may very well be a bug in some part of Apple's software, which was caused by something to do with GW's upload.

      Now GW will have tested this on iPads and made sure it meets all Apple's requirements. However, you cannot test it live on Apple's servers unless you actually release it for sale, as there is no way for you to download it from Apple's servers, expect via iTunes/iBooks.

      As for the bugs in the codex itself on release, it isn't any higher than any of the other digital codexes, but they've all had too high a number of broken links and typos at initial release. They could do with doing some more thorough testing, as some of them are rather obvious. However, it shows a distinct lack of appreciation for how much work it takes to produce these books to suggest that they have no broken links or typos at release.

      As for releasing a Beta, I agree that it's something companies should stop doing (Google is particularly bad at this (e.g. Gmail, Maps, etc), but Apple also has their fair share of betas (e.g. Siri)). However, again it underestimates the complexity in building an army builder, even a specialised one. It would have been better to have stated that it was initially a beta that they would be improving, but I'm not going to complain as long as they add it in and make it work well.

      Delete
    26. You have no idea how Computers Work.
      Trust me i have done a lot of Software stuff. And its never the Programm that does something nore the Server nore the company that Made it. Its always the guy operating (working) on it.
      Yes people can make misstakes... Thats why a Pro Tests his stuff and works with deadlines.

      They could have Made an imaginary Army builder and uploaded that... "if" it really was impossible to Test it at any point before it goes Live.


      you also go along and excuse it with things like "they always had unfinished Not working stuff" and "other company also have issues"

      Its Not oure Job to excuse or find the errors. Oure Job is to demand
      Everything we payed for instead of setteling for less


      Delete
    27. Based on your current showing "I have done a lot of software stuff" can only consist of "I know how to use a computer", and based on your posts I can only assume that doesn't include the use of a spellchecker.

      To claim that it's never the software that has issues but the person using it shows that, if you are genuinely a developer, you're both in denial and showing the upmost contempt for your users. All software has bugs, be it written by an individual, a non-tech company like GW or a multi-billion dollar tech company like Apple.

      If you bothered to read my posts you'll see that I'm not excusing things. GW's codexes have too many bugs at release. What I'm saying is that it's unreasonable to expect that they have absolute no bugs at release. I'd have the same opinion no matter what the book and whoever the publisher.

      As for the army builder, you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying they couldn't have tested the army builder, they definitely could have and most likely did (it's hard to build software without testing it). What I'm saying is, they could not have tested whether it would impact the ability to download it via iTunes in any way. It could be that it's completely unrelated, the only reason I'm linking the two is that what GW have stated seems to imply that there is something on Apple's end causing issues, and there were some issues on Apple's end with allowing users to download the codex soon after release.

      Delete
    28. There's an awful lot of assumption here considering the quote is from a press flack. Press people are notoriously bad at explaining technology, and may not even have all the details of whatever issue caused this problem. Add the fact that its in their interest to spread the blame, and you have a quote that doesn't give you enough detail to actually know who or what is responsible for the feature being greyed out. Relax, it will be up in a week. Did you throw out all your paper and forget google docs exists in the meanwhile? They're embedding software into iBooks, its inherently more buggy than building the book file itself, which is all done in a graphical editor. There's no debugging for a standard iBooks Textbook file, but there may be a lot they need to do for their new tool. We don't know what GW's software team looks like, its possible they didn't have enough staff to get all the testing done by launch, hell they may have decided to add this feature too late in the process to have it completely tested by launch. We just don't know.

      Delete
    29. What would impact the abilty to download it?

      The only reason could be that the Software contained a Virus or spyware and Apples System (Firewalls) removed that Part of the Software. Wich would only be worse if GW spys on their customers Computers. !?!

      Why els would it not work if the File format and Size are ok? Data does not just get lost or changed.

      I think its much more likely that GW just tryed to cash in without delivering or investing into actually makeing a functioning app on time. Or they are just amateures that have no idea how long they need for something or how to make it Work.

      Delete
    30. Seb, its possible Apple didn't approve the latest version due to a TOS violation, which forced GW to roll back to a prior version without the army list manager implemented. Its possible that the feature was only tested on new hardware and didn't work correctly on older devices due to ram restrictions. Its possible GW didn't have the final beta version done until this week, and didn't account for Apple's review process, which can take up to 2 weeks. We don't know anything, but in the end its GW's fault, because they should have had all this sorted out by the time they put up the pre-order. They didn't, but its going to be an extra week, maybe a few before the software is in its final, non beta form, this doesn't rank as anything more than a minor annoyance.

      Delete
  3. I was surprised that command squads couldn't take special weapons

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, kinda wierd when the box comes with them.

      And GW even got a plasma gun on one of the models in the new Reclusiam Command Squad box.

      But them, the tactical squad box got a regular marine with a Combi-Weapon...

      Delete
    2. and heavy flamers with tac marines... Oh GW.

      I mean it is in the rules in the BRB to alter or change stuff for fun, but a lot of purists freak at the very idea.

      Delete
    3. tac squads cant take heavy flamers, they're legion of the damned and sternguard only...

      Delete
    4. Aaah! This explains the puzzled look on the face of the Ultramarine on the limited edition cover. "... and they promised me a heavy flamer..."

      Delete
    5. They can have specialist weapons. "Any Veteran may take items from Melee Weapons and/ or Range Weapons lists." It's written above dedicated transports.

      Delete
    6. But there's a note on heavy flamers that only lotd and sternguard can take them

      Delete
    7. I was referring to the tac squad that "had" a heavy flamer in the latest white dwarf. Also "Ranged Weapons" and "Special Weapons" are two separate exclusive lists. Command Squads only have access to "Ranged".

      Delete
    8. I was talking to the guy who commented above me.

      Delete
    9. Yeah, very odd that Command Squads don't have access to the Special Weapons list. There are a number of photographs in the codex of Command Squad Veterans carrying plasma guns and the like.

      I'm hoping it's an oversight and the eventual FAQ will add the ability to take choices from the Special Weapons table.

      Delete
    10. back in 5th edition command squads could take plasma guns, chances are those are just old legacy models

      Delete
    11. Command Squads still can take Plasma, Flamers, Grav/Melta guns.

      Delete
    12. I guess this is the advantage of having the digital copy, it clarifies these misunderstandings. Also is say ranged and melee weapons and then gives examples.

      Delete
    13. I guess this is the advantage of having the digital copy, it clarifies these misunderstandings. Also is say ranged and melee weapons and then gives examples.

      Delete
    14. Does it say special too? Because that is where plasma/metla/etc are, not ranged. Or does the digital have those weapons under ranged too?

      Delete
    15. Yes they are under ranged weapons.

      Delete
    16. Just to be sure, you dont mean combi-weapons right? Otherwise the point of having a special weapons list, which has these weapons separated is close to nil.as most sarges would have access to them by that.

      Delete
  4. So Nafka can you finally tell us what Grav weps do to units without an armor save? lol

    ReplyDelete
  5. So Nafka can you finally tell us what Grav weps do to units without an armor save? lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry not sure why that double posted.. an hour later as well??

      Cheers for clearing that up though guys. I just hope people start investing a lot into them then when I face them with my Daemons lol

      Delete
    2. Sorry not sure why that double posted.. an hour later as well??

      Cheers for clearing that up though guys. I just hope people start investing a lot into them then when I face them with my Daemons lol

      Delete
  6. At the risk of opening up the floodgates of Black Templar player woe, did anyone come across the piece that was rumoured explaining why GW rolled them into the main codex? I thought it was supposed to be in White Dwarf but my scan through didn't catch it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was near the back in the Cruddace article ... was maybe 1-2 paragraphs? You'll be disappointed in the SM codex when you get it, BT got less description than anything else.

      Delete
    2. 2 double pages about fluff on BT (as all the chapter), 2 double pages about special unit (2 chars, EC, crusade squad).

      Cruddace didn't say anything relevant in his note. It was something like "they are all from the same men afterall, not very different, and you gain so fucking much new unit, be happy with that and let me in peace!" or something close.


      Regarding to the codex fluff, about BT, i'm really waitin for the v7, BT would finally get their librarian back (we are not hatin psykers anymore, only xenos psykers!)....

      Rip BT, welcome to black and white SM.

      Delete
    3. The WD Cruddace article reads:

      "It's probably worth talking more about the Black Templars, as collectors of the galaxy's most zealous Chapter may feel disappointed that they no longer have their own Codex. Let me reassure you that you're not missing out. In fact, you gain more than you lose as not only do you get to enjoy the rich tapestry of background that comes in Codex: Space Marines, but you still have your own chapter full of background on top of that. You also have access to more units than ever before and you're the only Chapter that can take Crusader Squads (with Land Raiders as dedicated transports) and Emperor's Champion. If anything, life is much sweeter for the merger.

      Delete
    4. Well, Crudface is full of stuff. There is no such thing as Black Templar anymore. Not having our own codex wasn't the deal, since for a number of reasons it makes a LOT of sense to roll all the loyalist Marines into one book with the specialist units broken out.

      So, GW tossed away the richer tapestry that was the Black Templar fluff, with all kinds of potential skullduggery and lore going back to the very foundation of the post-Heresy Imperium, with only the Wolves as potential competition for most non-Codex:Smurf compliance. Replacing it with the much poorer marginally heretical history of the Smurf compliant Marines.

      Okay, for the fanbois out there, I'll give you a Pollyanna moment to go with your "Gee, look, you get stuff like regular Marines. I mean, you BT guys really, really wanted that didn't you? Isn't that why you chose a group that didn't have all that, so you could really, really, really want to be just like the Boyz In Blue? Aren't you really, really, really sparkly and happy now?" male bovine excrement.

      Pollyanna: Oh look, all this massive retcon in fluff so that Black Templars really, really, really love witches and really, really, really wish they could have some of their own...it explains 100% perfectly, reasonably and logically why the Black Templars are the only Marine group the Sisters consider Desperate Allies instead of AoC.

      The real question? Which one of the more popular 40K forums will be the first one with the balls to shut down their Black Templar forum and shove them in with the rest of the smurf-compliant crowd? Alternatively, open up a bunch of new subforums to "celebrate" the various shades of blue now available to compliant chapters.

      Delete
    5. Seriously, you may know your own background but you don't know shit about other chapters or how divergent they really are. I'm guessing you've only read codex fluff, try reading some FW books or BL fiction.

      Black Templars are NOT popular or even that interesting. What difference is there between them and a crusade, of which there are many, with huge numbers of chapters involved.

      You all complain about fluff and individuality as the reason you're annoyed, well the previous books still have all that fluff and as I said before they've never been that individual and if it bothers you use the models rather than the rules to create individuality.

      You obviously haven't grasped the idea of the new codex at all if you think that all the armies will be the same, white scar bike company versus iron hands dreadnought army, very similar. If you think that all the first founding chapters are codex compliant then you're just ignorant.

      I am sick and tired of some boring Black Templar player telling me what my army is and how I'm going to use my codex, I play Minotaurs and my Chapter deviates from Ultramarines to the point of fielding kit stolen from other chapters, units kitted out and designed to operate in a completely different way. My chapter has wiped out an Ultramarine successor chapter to the man, fields units deployed in storm eagles armed with plasma. Not flamer/missile squads in rhinos which is codex. The entire first company is in terminator armour, the protocols for developing a marine are rushed and flawed, they regularly fight attrition battles as opposed to tactically decisive ones.

      Complain about your own army but stop being ignorant about everyone elses armies.


      Delete
    6. @polynikes, you're actually wrong about popularity. BT were very popular when the book was released it was only after so many years, when the codex became outdated, that people stopped playing them for obvious reasons. I bet if you did a survey of this board you'd be surprised how many people have their BT army stored away in their closet waiting for the day to be released again.

      I'm mixed on this new codex with concern to BT. Yes, gameplay wise they are better and may even be used a lot as a great CC army. However, they don't appear to be the same army that got me interested in them in the first place. GW take note, not everyone wants to play Ultramarines with an Emperors Champ, but I digress.

      Delete
    7. What does codex compliance have to do with using the same rulebook? BT's codex ignoring has nothing to do with their options on the table top, look at the previous codex, they did not lose access to a single unit, they still have terminators, they still have veterans, they just don't call the sword brethren, I'm not denying that some of the changes hurt the army's effectiveness, but there's nothing about BT's options on the table that was taken away, which makes me ask: How are they any more or less codex compliant now than they were last month? The answer is nothing has changed, BT were bland then, and are bland now. It sucks, but its not actually all that different, they just get to spam devastator centurions just like everyone else.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As a BT player a couple things I noticed right off the bat:

    + The army still looks good and gain a lot of new stuff

    - Fluff wise, oh man they are missing a lot of stuff.
    - No mention of Crusader Seals.
    - No real mention of what crusade badges are or what crusade they represent.
    - No mention whatsoever of why they wear chains around their weapons. This one got me the most because it is a tradition only seen in their Chapter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I imagine the supplement will fill in a LOT of that and proably elaborate on it as well

      Delete
  9. Book is garbage. Copy/paste from the last book. Almost no real differences. You really only need a couple pages from the new dex to play with the old. Truly a huge disappointment. Many ners & very few buffs. I will be returning my copy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think GW needed to reinvent the wheel here. If anything they pimped the wheel and made it smoother.

      But they are just spacemarines? What did you expect?

      Delete
    2. +1 Jay

      I learned a lot of peope are A. Jaded and B. saw the huge update Eldar and Tau got to become new and competitive and people want all sorts of crazy new things, but they conveniently forget that Tau and Eldar were 4th edition previously so it only made sense to get a huge update.

      Marines got more balanced points, new options and much more character. The new codex is good. Points efficiency is great from my first few read throughs and everything seems viable.

      Also all the people who complain about the Templar thing, they lost almost nothing and became, quiet possibly, the best CC loyalists in the game.

      Delete
  10. Man, you should have shown the whole lore entry of the Centurions...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well Natfka, I'm going to hang around to see if you have the sack to tell the truth about the smurfing of the Black Templar being assimilated into compliance and losing virtually everything unique about them except the paint job.

    Can you call it what it is? A Squatting by other means? Or did GW scare you too much earlier?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good grief dude . . . Not cool, not cool at all. Just because your upset doesn't mean everyone else needs to agree with your pity party.

      Natfka has more maturity and grace then most online figures have combined and it's refreshing.

      Grow up man, your better than that.

      Delete
    2. Dude, even I'm pissed about getting rolled. I've been collecting my crusade for 10 years. Back when they were really still only a paint scheme.

      But chill out. It is not Natfka's fault Templars got rolled in. He is just reviewing the codex. It is common knowledge what happened to our Black Templars so you shouldn't expect everyone who makes a video to explain why it happened and throw you your very own private pitty party. In fact, I'm going to do to you what Grimaldus did to those Salamanders in Helsreach. Reworded obviously to fit the current situation...

      GET THE F*** OUT OF MY CHAPTER! WE HAVE NO NEED FOR CHILDREN.

      Delete
  12. CSM=13pts
    SM=14pts
    So your telling me Combat Tactics, Combat Squad and ATSKNF is all worth 1 point?
    Yeah no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not being able to get Sweeping Advanced, the ability to split squads in half to give you more options as to where your firepower goes and double the amount of scoring units you have, and then! And then! The Chapter Tactics which are essentially your various Marks of Chaos for your whole army.

      I'd say that 1 point is worth it.

      Delete
    2. You can't compare directly, you have different options and supporting units.

      How about comparing a storm talon and helldrake or devastators and obliterators or chapter master and daemon prince or cultists and scouts. Why this one unit?

      Delete