Mmmpi wrote:

Sgt_Smdge wrote:Tell me why it would be less flavourful.

Tell my why it would be just as flavorful.

Okay, I'll bite.
I'm going to work on the assumption that the actually flavourful parts of the Deathwing Terminators are that they have the Watchers in the Dark, and Inner Circle (because having extra plasma makes sense for any First Founding or well supplied Chapter, such as the Minotaurs, and mixable squad weaponry is something that any Chapter should have, and has been demonstrated in non-DA Chapters in the fluff too, such as the Blood Angel Terminators in Space Hulk). So if the important part is that Deathwing have a one-use Watcher ability and a unique keyword passive ability, why can't I apply the latter via the use of a faction-wide rule written in the supplement (ie, 'all Dark Angels units with the <Terminator> keyword gain the <Deathwing> keyword. Units with the <Deathwing> keyword gain the "Inner Circle" ability.')

Then make the Watcher a stratagem*, and more than one use (aka, "use this stratagem if a friendly <Deathwing> unit is the target of a psychic power. On a 3+, this power has no effect on the unit.")

There you go, the exact same rules, only you need a command point for one of them (but when paired with my proposed boost to all <Deathwing> detachments. Now, answer my question: why is this less flavourful?

*For what it's worth, things like armorium cherubs and haywire mines should also use these rules, just like how Cluster Mines have been made into a stratagem.

I've already explained it. Again, just because you don't like that explanation doesn't mean it's not there.

No, you haven't explained anything beyond screaming "bUt iT WOULD have lEss FLAvOur".

Detail, depth, and actual reasoning, beyond just saying what amounts to a glorified "no u".

Then I suggest you actually read my posts.

I have, and found them lacking anything that resembled an answer to that question.
What happens when you take a regular unit of Terminators, and give them the same rules that Deathwing Termies have? Oh, wait, they become the same as Deathwing Termies. My proposed rules do this.

Again, what about Chapter Masters and Chief Librarians? Hellfire shells and hunter killer missiles? What should they be? How about the "flavour" of my Ultramarines to be able to have overlapping Overwatch? Should that be automatic too?

I already flat out said both CM and CL should be their own data sheets.

Perhaps they should be - but, as you demonstrate in this thread "That's not the case, and I'll have to live with it until GW changes it's mind." So, if GW have decided that's how they'd rather do things, maybe we should be ensuring that everything with that kind of effect should be equal?

Basically, everyone should work under the same logic. If my Chapter Masters can't be guaranteed, and my Veteran Intercessors can just be denied, why shouldn't yours? Sounds a bit like you just want a double standard that favours you.

More room than every single generic datasheet? Ridiculous.

I've already gone over this in length about how adding them to Codex:Space Marines takes up tons of space.

No, you haven't done that either. You've claimed that "the number of rules wouldn't change", and that "25% of DA units are unique" (which isn't really true, I counted about 13 distinctly unique units that wouldn't easily translate to a simple keyword swap and a faction rule tacked onto them, out of a Codex of what would be roughly 86 units, which is just over 15%). That's not a ton of space at all. 13 unique things, 7 of which are characters (two of those basically being the same one!) isn't unreasonable, especially because you're not "adding them to Codex:Space Marines". You're adding them to a supplement book.

You know what is taking up tons of space? The other 85% of generic datasheets in Codex: Dark Angels, which already exist in another book! That's the waste of space here.

Let's make a compromise, shall we?

No. Not anymore.

Cute, but I'll continue.

Let's say you get all your unique datasheets, and we include a single page (because that's all it would take) saying what units you can't take in a DA army (so anything with the <Terminator> keyword, etc etc). You still think that would be longer than a whole Codex filled with the same generic stratagems and units that make up the main Codex? Absolutely not. You'd have a slightly larger supplement, that's for sure, but it wouldn't even come close to the size of the generic Codex, not even by a long shot. And, because I'm so generous, I wouldn't charge you any more for it than any other supplement.

So, answer me - what's wrong with that?

Nope. The current system is better.

And there we go again - just a statement, no actual reasoning, no explanation, just "no u". If you want to convey your point in a more sensible option, you may want to consider explaining why that is the case, beyond "nuh uh!"

I've explained my logic - the units that have easily comparable datasheets get folded into one because a small section using keyword shenanigans to grant special rules is easier than reprinting a whole datasheet and explaining how you can't use the other one, and because ~85% of the DA Codex is just generic units which don't need reprinting, and because it ensures that all Space Marines are working from the same baseline, which they already were in all but name - now, explain what's faulty with it, if you have such a problem with my proposal.

I rest my case.

Besides that, you're already forcing people to buy another book.

Just like how every other First Founding Chapter was? Double standards much?

Just because you wouldn't, doesn't mean GW wouldn't charge more.

But we're talking about a hypothetical here, not GW's proposal. In *my* proposal, that's not a problem. So, to say again, what problem do you have with *my* proposal?

Ah, I see what it is. You haven't got a problem with everyone else having to pay for their extra flavour and special characters ("yeah, I mean, screw the Iron Hands, if they want to take a single unique character, I guess they need to by a supplement!"), but if that were asked of you, that's completely out of line! /s

You need to work on your sarcasm.

You need to work on your arguments. Right now, they don't exist.

Should we release an Iron Hands Codex too? All the generic units, plus their Iron Hands flavour aspects? Ultramarines too? Every Chapter with any kind of unique rules? Or are they not "special" enough?

Yes. Any chapter with enough unique rules and units stretching back for over two decades should have it's own codex.

Sorry, did you think I was going to be taken aback and declare you a genius for posting this?

No, but now I know that you're just unconcerned about reprinting the same rules over and over again because having to carry two books is unreasonable for you. Personally, I can't understand this logic at all, because I don't see what's so sacrosanct about having all your rules in one place and having the vaunted title of "Codex" instead of "supplement" on your book, but hey, that's just me.

Again, according to your "GW would charge people anyways!" logic, if GW are happy to charge UM players more for having their two books right now, why would it matter if they were both put in one? Surely, by your logic, GW would be forcing the non-DA/BA/SW Chapters to pay more regardless.

You clearly have enough interest to keep discussing this. I'm not asking you to keep typing out "each unit's change to equipment and rules" - I'm asking you to do it to the Deathwing alone, beyond just saying "they're different!!!1!". So you say, but you're not saying why.

I have said why. Read my posts. And no, I'm not going to do it for deathwing now either.

No, you haven't, I've already have read them. They're just as shallow as the difference between regular Terminators and Deathwing.

But, because I got bored of waiting for you, I looked myself. And yeah, I can see why you didn't want to answer that question: there is literally nothing "special" about them. You get a one-use ability (easily replaceable by a stratagem, like so many other units have had their abilities translated to), and a faction-wide keyword ability, which is exactly what I advocated for.

Unless there's something I'm missing, I cannot see why on earth they can't have all of that and more if they were moved into a supplement.

I suggest you start doing your reading.

I have. I suggest you stop hiding behind this obtuse facade, and actually back up your points beyond shallow nonsense.

By all means, continue just saying "they'd be different because they'd be different", but I'm sure it's pretty clear to anyone reading that it's a facade of an argument.

Sure it's a facade of an argument when you ignore 90% of the words I used.

If only you had used any words to flesh out your argument at all.

Let me pose to you a maths question: 2+2=5. Now, let me ask you another: "why is this sum wrong". At the moment, your answer is "it's wrong because it's not correct". That's not an answer, that's telling me absolutely nothing new or what I want to know.

I hate to break it to you, but "It's not correct" actually is an answer, and one that accurately describes the issue.

Good luck passing a mathematics test by doing that.
That's not an answer at all, it's a pithy smart-ass remark. It doesn't resolve the question, it doesn't present a solution, it just repeats the question to me without any new context.

"Why was this man shot?" "Someone shot him."
"Where are my shoes?" "Somewhere."
"What is your dog's name?" "The name I gave it."

As you are (might) be able to see, these are non-answers.

But as to my posts, read them. I gave you actual answers. Again, you just don't like them. You can stop begging the question.

No, you haven't. I've scoured your posts for meaning, for something beyond "they have flavour because they have flavour" and "you can't do that, it would get rid of flavour", but no kind of elaboration on any other them.

The closest you've come to elaborate is "[Deathwing have]...Different rules, different equipment choices." However, when I've argued why putting these rules in another place (via stratagem for the WitD and Inner Circle granted via keywords) and how critical the different equipment actually is to the identity of the Deathwing Terminators (yayyyy a plasma cannon that honestly all First Founding Chapters should have? that's totally worth a whole new datasheet for! maybe we should make a whole new datasheet for Salamanders Tactical Marines because they should have heavy flamers!), you've been unable to argue against that, and just repeated the ol' "I ALREAdy tOld YoU" line.

I'm asking you to clearly point out to me *exactly* why the Deathwing Terminators datasheet is different to normal Codex Terminators, beyond "they're different". Why are they different, in what way are they different? At the moment, you're getting no marks - no passing the exam: because you're not answering the question.

I suggest reading my answers then. Because I did say why. I didn't type out every single difference, but I have no incentive to do that. I just said what differences there are. Again, I'm fairly sure you don't know how to constructively read.

No, you simply haven't.

If you want to show me where you actually do elaborate, I'll be happy to see, but so far, I can't see it anywhere. But as far as I can see, you've said nothing of the sort.

Turning rules units had in to stratagems that can be used only on one unit, one time per turn is a very bad idea. I am speaking here from personal expiriance, so maybe it ain't worth much.

Also double standards in rules aren't anything new as far as GW goes.

Karol wrote:
Turning rules units had in to stratagems that can be used only on one unit, one time per turn is a very bad idea. I am speaking here from personal expiriance, so maybe it ain't worth much.

Fair point, but in the same respect, at least my option can be used multiple times per game, as opposed to the one per game that the normal WitD has. I'd probably only be charging 1CP for it anyways. I still want that flavour of the Deathwing (even if the upgrade is completely optional!), but I just don't want a whole datasheet tied to it when so much of it is just a copypaste of a regular Terminator Squad.

Plus, I don't think I'd mind if it were an automatic effect (ie, no 3+, you play the stratagem, and the psychic power has no effect). But then, there's a great many stratagems where I wish it was an automatic effect instead of a "on a X+, you do Y" (contenders for this are orbital bombardment and similar stratagems - paying Command Points for no guarantee of any damage at all ain't exactly great).

Also double standards in rules aren't anything new as far as GW goes.

True, but that doesn't mean I can't at least want to change that.

Well I am skewed. to me a basic stratagem cost 2CP. not against fixing double standards, but saying that just because something would be one, doesn't mean GW would not do it. Again not against. I would want all codex to have good rules.

Karol wrote:
Well I am skewed. to me a basic stratagem cost 2CP. not against fixing double standards, but saying that just because something would be one, doesn't mean GW would not do it. Again not against. I would want all codex to have good rules.

Agreed. I'd want GK stratagems to require less cost, because them getting CP in the first place is difficult as is, without Guardsmen batteries. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that CP earned by one faction shouldn't be usable by another.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
He also just described most of the difference between eldar and IG as well. A stat or two and equipment. If he was really interested in consolidation, why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.

The disingenuity here is magical!

Not really. It's just the same argument taken a level higher.

If you speed by 1 MPH, you're unlikely to even get pulled over.

If you speed by 20 MPH, you'll get a ticket if you get caught.

If you speed by 100 MPH, that's a gorram felony.

Degree matters-taking something to its extreme is not accurately representing it.

It's not the argument's fault that cops are lazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Karol

"and if you have a car doing that, the police will fear that you are either mob, politicians, both "

In most of the US, and much of Europe, cops will still chase you down for doing it, and usually give you a ticket/arrest you when they do catch you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, you haven't explained anything beyond screaming "bUt iT WOULD have lEss FLAvOur".

I stopped reading your post at this point.

You can't be bothered to actually read what I post, I'm just going to say you're wrong as a reply from now on, and move on. Other people actually want to have adult conversations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Turning rules units had in to stratagems that can be used only on one unit, one time per turn is a very bad idea. I am speaking here from personal expiriance, so maybe it ain't worth much.

This is a very good point on why they should stay rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Fair point, but in the same respect, at least my option can be used multiple times per game, as opposed to the one per game that the normal WitD has. I'd probably only be charging 1CP for it anyways. I still want that flavour of the Deathwing (even if the upgrade is completely optional!), but I just don't want a whole datasheet tied to it when so much of it is just a copypaste of a regular Terminator Squad.

You're wrong.

Granted, the 1 use per phase restriction is a Matched Plsy rule.

Narritive doesn't have that limit, and also has lots of interesting rules.

I just think they can be part of the Faction traits. Not a fan of Stratagems that give you units that should be free with a Faction (like Skarboyz), but don't necessarily think it requires a whole new datasheet to represent those units. For example, Skarboyz could literally just be:

Goff: exploding 6s in CC and all ORK units with this Kultur use the Strength value on their Datasheet, or gain a Strength Value of 5, whichever is higher.

Could work just as well with all the special units in DA or whatever.

"[Unit name] with the Dark Angels Keyword gain [Ability or bonus]."

Easy peasy.

Mmmpi wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, you haven't explained anything beyond screaming "bUt iT WOULD have lEss FLAvOur".

I stopped reading your post at this point.

You can't be bothered to actually read what I post, I'm just going to say you're wrong as a reply from now on, and move on.

I mean, I *have* looked through your comments on this thread, and there is absolutely nothing. You can say all you like about how you've explained your point, but it just ain't there. Now, if you have actually done so, if yourself or anyone else could just show me where, I can move on, but I've been going back and there's actually nothing that tells me why. My only assumption at this point is that you're arguing in bad faith.

Other people actually want to have adult conversations.

And you don't seem to be one of them.

Karol wrote:
Turning rules units had in to stratagems that can be used only on one unit, one time per turn is a very bad idea. I am speaking here from personal expiriance, so maybe it ain't worth much.

This is a very good point on why they should stay rules.

But is it a good enough point on why it should become a whole new datasheet? I don't think so. Perhaps there could be a "Chapter upgrades" list within the supplement, not attached to any datasheets, which allows for <Deathwing> units to buy a Watcher for X points, but a whole new datasheet? That's wasteful.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Fair point, but in the same respect, at least my option can be used multiple times per game, as opposed to the one per game that the normal WitD has. I'd probably only be charging 1CP for it anyways. I still want that flavour of the Deathwing (even if the upgrade is completely optional!), but I just don't want a whole datasheet tied to it when so much of it is just a copypaste of a regular Terminator Squad.

You're wrong.

Why?
Go on, tell me why, because you still haven't explained what is a genuine difference between the two, barring the Watcher in the Dark, and the Inner Circle rule.

Blndmage wrote:Granted, the 1 use per phase restriction is a Matched Plsy rule.

Narritive doesn't have that limit, and also has lots of interesting rules.

Ooh, forgot about that. Good catch!

flandarz wrote:I just think they can be part of the Faction traits. Not a fan of Stratagems that give you units that should be free with a Faction (like Skarboyz), but don't necessarily think it requires a whole new datasheet to represent those units. For example, Skarboyz could literally just be:

Goff: exploding 6s in CC and all ORK units with this Kultur use the Strength value on their Datasheet, or gain a Strength Value of 5, whichever is higher.

Could work just as well with all the special units in DA or whatever.

"[Unit name] with the Dark Angels Keyword gain [Ability or bonus]."

Easy peasy.

Also true!

Why?
Go on, tell me why, because you still haven't explained what is a genuine difference between the two, barring the Watcher in the Dark, and the Inner Circle rule.

dont the DW termintors have separate rules and load outs right now, that other termintors can not use. If they were to use the same core unit as the base of a termintor unit, then either the gear and unit set up options would have to be removed, or be given to other marines too. I could imagine that a DA player does not want to be forced to buy 2 books, while at the same time suddenly see either his stuff removed or given to other armies.

My army doesn't share much with 1ksons besides being magical marines. But it irks me a lot that 1ksons get special bolter ammo and normal smite on their dudes, while my do not. And as I said we aren't even the same grand faction.

people are willing to give up something, to get something other won't get. They may not be always happy about it, but it is a thing. But give up stuff to get higher costs on stuff, and everyone can use it? To stuff like that people say no.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I mean, I *have* looked through your comments on this thread

Evidence shows this to be untrue.

Next!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Why?
Go on, tell me why, because you still haven't explained what is a genuine difference between the two, barring the Watcher in the Dark, and the Inner Circle rule.

dont the DW termintors have separate rules and load outs right now, that other termintors can not use. If they were to use the same core unit as the base of a termintor unit, then either the gear and unit set up options would have to be removed, or be given to other marines too. I could imagine that a DA player does not want to be forced to buy 2 books, while at the same time suddenly see either his stuff removed or given to other armies.

My army doesn't share much with 1ksons besides being magical marines. But it irks me a lot that 1ksons get special bolter ammo and normal smite on their dudes, while my do not. And as I said we aren't even the same grand faction.

people are willing to give up something, to get something other won't get. They may not be always happy about it, but it is a thing. But give up stuff to get higher costs on stuff, and everyone can use it? To stuff like that people say no.

Yes they do. It's a more limited equipment list than WG if I remember correctly, but not as limited as tactical or assault terminators.

Except that "flexible loadout" is never used. Nobody is gonna throw 1 of each Terminator in a squad just because they can, as it wouldn't do anything but get on the table and do jack gak.

So if the argument really does boil down to that, you don't have an argument.

Rather than let DA have a mix and match terminator squad everyone should have. The 4 terminator datasheets shouöd just be a single one for everyone.

Scouts can be CC weapon, 2 kinds of mid range shooty, snipers with or without camo cloaks and/or have heavy bolter/missile launcher. All in a single datasheet and work fine if you want to mix and match, never seen anyone do it though. Why not terminators?

Karol wrote:

Why?
Go on, tell me why, because you still haven't explained what is a genuine difference between the two, barring the Watcher in the Dark, and the Inner Circle rule.

dont the DW termintors have separate rules and load outs right now, that other termintors can not use.

No, not really.
Deathwing Terminators can mix and match having the standard ranged Terminator loadouts (ie, storm bolter/power fist) and melee loadouts (ie, thunder hammer/storm shield) within the same squad, although there is no reason why every other Chapter cannot also do that - especially seeing as we have lore about other Chapters doing just this.
Deathwing Terminators have access to a plasma cannon, as part of their Terminator Heavy Weapons. Again, why is this not available to other Chapters who are just as established? It's not like it's a totally unique plasma weapon like a plasma talon. Basically, well supplied and well connected Chapters should certainly have at least one on hand, such as any First Founding Chapter.
Deathwing Terminators have access to a Watcher in the Dark (which I've demonstrated could be reflected via a stratagem or purchasable via an entry on the page outlining the Chapter's special rules and suchlike), and have the Inner Circle rule (which I've also shown can be implemented without a whole unique datasheet!).

Basically, the Deathwing only have two truly unique and flavourful things, which can easily be represented without a datasheet, which is my whole point.

If they were to use the same core unit as the base of a termintor unit, then either the gear and unit set up options would have to be removed, or be given to other marines too. I could imagine that a DA player does not want to be forced to buy 2 books, while at the same time suddenly see either his stuff removed or given to other armies.

But that's the thing - none of their stuff is being removed - at least, the stuff that's truly unique.
Why should having combined Terminator Squads be unique? Nothing justifies that in lore, so why shouldn't it be so for every Chapter (regardless of if people would take advantage of it or not)?

And again, regarding the "forced to buy two books" - tell that to people who play any other First Founding Chapter. Why should DA be any different?

My army doesn't share much with 1ksons besides being magical marines. But it irks me a lot that 1ksons get special bolter ammo and normal smite on their dudes, while my do not. And as I said we aren't even the same grand faction.

Thousand Sons have always had special bolter ammo, and is explained in the lore why they're the only CSM to have it. But I do agree with you on why GK get a nerfed Smite but Thousand Sons don't. I'm not excusing that, and I would support Grey Knights having proper Smite.

Mmmpi wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I mean, I *have* looked through your comments on this thread

Evidence shows this to be untrue.

What evidence? You're the one who hasn't produced any supporting your notion that you "explained" why Deathwing were unique.
If you want this silly charade over, just show me your "evidence", and I'll proceed to discuss that, but in absence of your supposed "explanations", I'm going to continue presuming that you are arguing in poor faith.

Yes they do. It's a more limited equipment list than WG if I remember correctly, but not as limited as tactical or assault terminators.

That's because they just combined the two datasheets, like every other Chapter should - where's the "unique Dark Angels flavour" in that?. That's not unique. Unique is the Inner Circle rule, and the Watcher in the Dark.

Klickor wrote:Rather than let DA have a mix and match terminator squad everyone should have. The 4 terminator datasheets shouöd just be a single one for everyone.

Kinda agreed: all Terminators (except Grey Knights, obviously) should be put in one datasheet, and embedded in that datasheet should be a rule allowing for the entire squad to wear a different kind of Terminator Armour (Cataphractii reduces speed, but increases Invuln save, etc etc). Obviously, no "only Tartaros Terminators can have autocannons!" - open it up to the whole squad, and add autocannons and plasma cannons into the standard arsenal.

Scouts can be CC weapon, 2 kinds of mid range shooty, snipers with or without camo cloaks and/or have heavy bolter/missile launcher. All in a single datasheet and work fine if you want to mix and match, never seen anyone do it though. Why not terminators?

Exactly. What lore/flavour reason do DA have for having a mixed weapon squad instead of every other Chapter?

Sgt - you are being to logical, accurate and making too much sense - its not going to work.....

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sgt - you are being to logical, accurate and making too much sense - its not going to work.....

Yeah. People can have disagreements on whether or not Codecs should be unified, and how to go about it, even if they agree they should be unified.

But what Mmmpi is doing is not a valid, reasonable debate about disagreements in the direction they think 40k should go. It's blatant rejection of arguments without any support of their own.

Let's go through this shall we. Sticking to Deathwing terminators as an example for why the DA (and BA, SW, etc) are separate:

Differences:
Lore - outside of the Unforgiven no other chapters deploy there 1st company exclusively (as in - only and never any other way) as Terminators. This then impacts in how they're used in the lore.
Lore - before a certain BA expansion in 7th, the general rule was Terminator armour is a rarity even amongst the Astartes. Except for the Unforgiven who had it in seemingly abundance (see previous lore point).
Lore - the Unforgiven have access to technologies from the Crusade, back when the 1st legion had access to technology no other Legion had access to. Experimental weaponry, Warp-tech, etc that was not shared acorss the other. At the end of the Heresy/Caliban incident the 1st Legion (and subsequent chapters) still had access to a LT more tech than there counterparts in the other Legions.

Rules - for multiple editions the Deathwing have had a mixed single unit to emphasise the lore aspect of how they deploy. They're treat as a swiss army knife or toolbox in the lore, and as such train in that approach. No Other Chapter Trains Like This! So the datasheets reflect this on both sides (Deathwing being mixed, everyone else's being specialised).
Rules - Deathwing Terminators have access to a couple of weapon/wargear options that no-one else gets. This is also based on the Lore for them (see above).
Rules - 8th Deathwing have stratagems that are focussed on the shock/teleport assault they're known for. 7th (and other editions) had similar rules baked into the units rules. This again represents an element of the lore (see above).
Rules - the DA do not get Combat Doctrines, a decision made when the 8th edition codex was released.

So that's a small list of differences, but the important ones. This is why the unit has not been condensed into a 'generic' option. Notice how much of the units rules are based on the lore, or trying to put that lore onto the tabletop. And this is the same idea for things like the Ravenwing, there flyers, skimmers, characters. And for the unique units for the BA and SW. That's what makes them different from Ultramarines/'vanilla' Marines.

--

Okay so if you don't like that these differences exist and your argument is 'but, but why can't my special snowflake marines have that stuff' the answer is: check the lore, because that's what it boils down to. Then check the rules, because these are clear differences and the reasons why they exist. Granted that's a lot harder in 8th with the blandification of Marine factions but there was a greater mechanical difference not so long ago.

And I can already hear you saying 'but those reasons don't justify why Terminators can't be mixed, or why the DA get Plasma Cannons. It's not different, so everyone should get it!' at which point you are being intentionally obtuse or you're ignoring all the writing out there (of which I just gave you a very brief summary above). So let's do a little thought exercise and condense the Deathwing into the generic Terminators -

Pro's: Same rules for everyone
Con's: No need to have different models available for DA/BA/SW/Generic Terminators

Oh.. oh why is that a con? Because there's not a 'generic' plasma cannon available. So that falls into the 'no model, no rules' traps doesn't it. And then oh look, no more Deathwing terminator models. So of course you remove it as a wargear option for 'everyone', even though only 1 faction actually had the option originally. See, generic terminators everyone can have now.

And once you start applying that approach to one unit whilst condensing the DA into the generic list, you have to apply it to all. So you start cutting models. And your reason for that is what... rules parity? That's not a good reason to start removing model options considering how much noise this forum has generated on the loss of DE characters getting bikes, or bits for Orks, etc.

Now could they put the DA out as a supplement in the same way as Iron Hands? Sure, they could. But they could have given them Doctrines in the big update when the codex came out, they decided not to do that for a reason that is currently unclear outside of 'The DA operate differently to a 'codex' chapter to a more significant degree than say the White Scars'. It's all about design decisions and which route they want to go for. They DA could end up as a supplement with a list of core units that are not allowed to be 'DA' or they could just remake the codex (again).

Now I hope that clears up why the not-Codex-compliant chapters are different (reason 1: lore, reason 2: wargear options based on the lore). If that's not a good enough reason for you then I have no idea what will be now.

So only look at the lore which supports your own argument for why your "special snowflake marines can have that stuff' - gotcha.

"No model, no rules" is GW's design philosophy. That doesn't make it the best-of-all-worlds greatest possible way to design the game. If you go with the theory that the rules should be written only to include bits that are in the kits you're buying why are Deathwing Terminators not limited to one TH/SS model per squad? There's only one thunderhammer in the kit, isn't there? Why is shield/storm bolter not a loadout? The shields are on the left arm the storm bolters are on the right, isn't that how they're supposed to go together?

The other problem with the argument that BA/DA/SW should get unique Codexes because their rules are too different is that options get taken away from generic Marines to make them more special. In 4e/5e all Tactical Marines either had or had the option to have bolter/chainsword/pistol, but in 6e they took that away because they were stepping on the Grey Hunters' toes. In 4e any Space Marines could have two special weapons instead of special/heavy in their Tactical squads, they took that away in 5e because that was stepping on the Grey Hunters' toes. Is the only reason Terminators are assault or tactical to avoid stepping on the Dark Angels' toes? Or is it just because GW makes only assault terminators/tactical terminators boxes? You can mix lightning claws and bolter/fist when you're taking Tartaros or Cataphractii armour but Indomitus armour limits the tactical flexibility of the wearers?

BroodSpawn wrote:Let's go through this shall we. Sticking to Deathwing terminators as an example for why the DA (and BA, SW, etc) are separate:

Differences:
Lore - outside of the Unforgiven no other chapters deploy there 1st company exclusively (as in - only and never any other way) as Terminators. This then impacts in how they're used in the lore.

Accepted. This could be represented via an ability wherein a <Deathwing> Vanguard detachment gains extra CP. Does not need a full Codex to show this.

Lore - before a certain BA expansion in 7th, the general rule was Terminator armour is a rarity even amongst the Astartes. Except for the Unforgiven who had it in seemingly abundance (see previous lore point).

As above - although any First Founding Chapter should have more Terminator Armour than their successors, and that's including even Unforgiven ones. But, yes, this can be represented via giving <Deathwing> (aka, Terminator) detachments a boost in CP to actually encourage taking all Terminator armies. This can be done via supplement.

Lore - the Unforgiven have access to technologies from the Crusade, back when the 1st legion had access to technology no other Legion had access to. Experimental weaponry, Warp-tech, etc that was not shared acorss the other. At the end of the Heresy/Caliban incident the 1st Legion (and subsequent chapters) still had access to a LT more tech than there counterparts in the other Legions.

But all First Founders have lots of resources and political clout. Yes, the Dark Angels have some unique technologies (such as their more ready access to old school grav-vehicles and unique plasma talons), but things like plasma cannons on Terminators? That's not exactly something that should be "unique" any more so than Ultramarines having an Honour Guard (which I fully think should be made generic). Again, is that really enough to justify having a Codex where 85% of the units are exactly the same as their Codex brethren?

Rules - for multiple editions the Deathwing have had a mixed single unit to emphasise the lore aspect of how they deploy. They're treat as a swiss army knife or toolbox in the lore, and as such train in that approach. No Other Chapter Trains Like This! So the datasheets reflect this on both sides (Deathwing being mixed, everyone else's being specialised).

And the "no other Chapter trains like this" is both already reflected (Inner Circle rules), and also not exactly true in regards to mixed unit deployment. We also see that Blood Angels in the Space Hulk game and novel have mixed unit Terminators. The Space Marine Heroes line features this too. The Cataphractii and Tartaros datasheets feature this too.

It's literally only a feature of the Tactical and Assault Terminator rules, and with no reason for why. It's time to get rid of that.

Rules - Deathwing Terminators have access to a couple of weapon/wargear options that no-one else gets. This is also based on the Lore for them (see above).

Rules and lore that could easily be represented in the other ways I have described. No reason for a whole new datasheet and Codex.

Rules - 8th Deathwing have stratagems that are focussed on the shock/teleport assault they're known for. 7th (and other editions) had similar rules baked into the units rules. This again represents an element of the lore (see above).

I wouldn't want to get rid of those Stratagems, because just like everyone else's unique supplements, you'd have your own. They would obviously be part of your supplement, just like everyone else.

Rules - the DA do not get Combat Doctrines, a decision made when the 8th edition codex was released.

Do not get Combat Doctrine yet. And, from a lore perspective, why not? They should have Combat Doctrines just as rightly as Iron Hands (who flaunt the Codex even more than the DA do).

So that's a small list of differences, but the important ones. This is why the unit has not been condensed into a 'generic' option. Notice how much of the units rules are based on the lore, or trying to put that lore onto the tabletop.

Notice how all of my suggestions and proposals acknowledge the core features of this lore, and implement them in a way that, in some cases, is even more reflective of the Dark Angels methodology than what you already have?

You don't need a full Codex and unique datasheet to have flavour. The supplement I propose would have all of that.

And this is the same idea for things like the Ravenwing, there flyers, skimmers, characters. And for the unique units for the BA and SW. That's what makes them different from Ultramarines/'vanilla' Marines.

But it really doesn't, because, as I've pointed out, most of those traits you've listed don't reflect on how they're used in game.

My prime example: you say the Deathwing deploy en masse, and that's how they're specially trained to operate, but nothing about their mechanical rules supports mass deployment of Deathwing units! Mine does.

--

Okay so if you don't like that these differences exist and your argument is 'but, but why can't my special snowflake marines have that stuff' the answer is: check the lore, because that's what it boils down to. Then check the rules, because these are clear differences and the reasons why they exist. Granted that's a lot harder in 8th with the blandification of Marine factions but there was a greater mechanical difference not so long ago.

You've cited the lore and reasons why, which is more than some bad faith debaters here, but the problem is that the lore you've given doesn't really do any favours.

What part of their lore says they are the only Chapter to have plasma cannons on Terminators that none of the other First Founders shouldn't have had access to over 10,000 years? I mean, we literally have an Ultramarines Terminator Captain who carried a plasma blaster into battle - which is rarer than any plasma cannon. What part of their lore says they're the only Chapter smart enough to mix squad weapons, even when we have plenty of other sources saying the exact opposite?

The only parts of the lore that define the Deathwing apart is how they're deployed and their culture within the Chapter (oh, and the Watchers). My proposals address all these points, and arguably improve (especially on deployment).

And I can already hear you saying 'but those reasons don't justify why Terminators can't be mixed, or why the DA get Plasma Cannons. It's not different, so everyone should get it!' at which point you are being intentionally obtuse or you're ignoring all the writing out there (of which I just gave you a very brief summary above). So let's do a little thought exercise and condense the Deathwing into the generic Terminators -

Pro's: Same rules for everyone
Con's: No need to have different models available for DA/BA/SW/Generic Terminators

Oh.. oh why is that a con? Because there's not a 'generic' plasma cannon available. So that falls into the 'no model, no rules' traps doesn't it. And then oh look, no more Deathwing terminator models. So of course you remove it as a wargear option for 'everyone', even though only 1 faction actually had the option originally. See, generic terminators everyone can have now.

I didn't say anywhere about getting rid of models for DA/BA/SW. I would love for them to still be around, but I don't see why you need a unique datasheet for it. The models look rad, don't get rid of them, but there's no real need for them to be anything more than the same Terminators everyone else gets (obviously excepting for things like Deathwing Knights, who have entirely unique weapon options).

And, for what it's worth, I don't believe in "no model, no rules".

So, what's your problem with plasma cannons for everyone? You're telling me that no other Chapter either had, or was able to otherwise procure, a plasma cannon weapon for their Terminators?

And once you start applying that approach to one unit whilst condensing the DA into the generic list, you have to apply it to all. So you start cutting models. And your reason for that is what... rules parity? That's not a good reason to start removing model options considering how much noise this forum has generated on the loss of DE characters getting bikes, or bits for Orks, etc.

Yeah, now that's where things move away from what I was arguing. I didn't advocate or support getting rid of models of units that had no easy direct equivalent. I'm asking what would you lose from simply folding Deathwing Terminators into the same datasheet as normal ones, and saving your Codex from 85% of the generic units that have already been printed elsewhere, and adding all your genuinely unique and flavourful stuff into a supplement.

Now could they put the DA out as a supplement in the same way as Iron Hands? Sure, they could. But they could have given them Doctrines in the big update when the codex came out, they decided not to do that for a reason that is currently unclear outside of 'The DA operate differently to a 'codex' chapter to a more significant degree than say the White Scars'.

Even though the Iron Hands have historically resisted the Codex for longer than either the Dark Angels or Blood Angels? And they got Doctrines?
Mark my words, DA, if they get a Codex (which, let's be honest, they will, if I like it or not), they will have a form of Combat Doctrines in it. The reason GW haven't done that is simple - they don't update all the Space Marine factions at once, and only really update (beyond giving everyone a basic PDF of the generic units they all share - which make up ~85 of the Dark Angels) armies when they have a Codex!
Did all factions get stratagems at the same time? Do they all have stratagems now?

Now I hope that clears up why the not-Codex-compliant chapters are different (reason 1: lore, reason 2: wargear options based on the lore). If that's not a good enough reason for you then I have no idea what will be now.

The problem is that your lore and options based on the lore don't explain why they shouldn't have a supplement.

Let's say I'm wrong, and Deathwing Terminators are genuinely unique. Lovely. Why shouldn't we still strip out the ~85% of generic units and put them in a supplement?
That's the core of my argument. You share so many units in common, and so many of your "unique" units (not all, obviously) are just reskins of existing ones. Now all First Founding Chapters have their own stratagems and warlord traits and psychic power tables - what makes DA/BA/SW special any more to warrant a full Codex and not just a slightly larger supplement?

What's so bad about being a supplement, if it actually did include all your unique units (including Deathwing)?

If the lore difference you really want to go with is "oh Deathwing are deployed in mass", then you should have a minimum you have to take the moment you want to use them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If the lore difference you really want to go with is "oh Deathwing are deployed in mass", then you should have a minimum you have to take the moment you want to use them.

I'd also add a limit to non Deathwing Terminators honestly. A big problem with the Chapters is how much GW blurs the line between them like with Scouts.

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If the lore difference you really want to go with is "oh Deathwing are deployed in mass", then you should have a minimum you have to take the moment you want to use them.

I'd also add a limit to non Deathwing Terminators honestly. A big problem with the Chapters is how much GW blurs the line between them like with Scouts.

I don't see the need for a limit for any Terminators. We just really need a consolidated entry for them. I already have one I finalized on for homebrew stuff, but I'm bad at creating codex layout and nobody uses the stuff anyway.

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If the lore difference you really want to go with is "oh Deathwing are deployed in mass", then you should have a minimum you have to take the moment you want to use them.

I'd also add a limit to non Deathwing Terminators honestly. A big problem with the Chapters is how much GW blurs the line between them like with Scouts.

Whilst I can see what you mean, what if you want to play a game where you're actually taking the full 1st Company? I could be wrong, but don't most First Founders (barring Dropsite Massacre survivors) have a full compliment of Terminator Armour, but they just don't advocate deploying them all like the Dark Angels do?

 Mr Morden wrote:
So only look at the lore which supports your own argument for why your "special snowflake marines can have that stuff' - gotcha.

Sure, let's go with that obtuse take on it. You want everything to be the same and are willing to re-write parts you don't like to have it that way. The 'but other chapters could have this stuff too' argument only works if GW had written that they had it. Which, I would like to point out quite explicitly here, they didn't. Ultarmarines don't have Deathwing style terminators because they 'wrote the book*' on how terminators should e used and follow it. DA ignore that part of the book*. Thus differences, thus why Deathwing exists as the toolbox specialist styled variant to terminators that they are. There's really nothing else beyond that reason at the core of it.

I understand you don't like that the answer 'because they wrote it that way', but there's no other fundamental reason for why things are different. I'm trying to present to you that side of it, in as clear a manner as I can. Without those differences there would only be 1 Space Marine army list. And now I think I get your side of the argument, you only want there to be 1 army list for ALL Marines no matter any pre-existing stories, lore, models or differences.


*Codex Astartes, as writting by Guilliman, y'know that special lore thing that sets out how Marines operate(d).

The other problem with the argument that BA/DA/SW should get unique Codexes because their rules are too different is that options get taken away from generic Marines to make them more special. In 4e/5e all Tactical Marines either had or had the option to have bolter/chainsword/pistol, but in 6e they took that away because they were stepping on the Grey Hunters' toes. In 4e any Space Marines could have two special weapons instead of special/heavy in their Tactical squads, they took that away in 5e because that was stepping on the Grey Hunters' toes.

I guess the answer is yes, they removed options from the generics to make the more unique variants stand-out as being a variant. They forced a situation of 'this is why Grey Hunters are different to Tactical marines'. Note I'm not saying that was a good or bad decision, just what that decision has done.

"No model, no rules" is GW's design philosophy. That doesn't make it the best-of-all-worlds greatest possible way to design the game. If you go with the theory that the rules should be written only to include bits that are in the kits you're buying why are Deathwing Terminators not limited to one TH/SS model per squad? There's only one thunderhammer in the kit, isn't there? Why is shield/storm bolter not a loadout? The shields are on the left arm the storm bolters are on the right, isn't that how they're supposed to go together?

First off I'm neither a model designer nor a rules writer, so the specifics on exactly why you can't have a storm shield/storm bolter option are.. honestly I have no idea. But if your counterpoint to 'no model, no rules' is they put a single weapon in a box then.. I dunno, can you show me that generic Plasma Cannon somewhere? Because that's my point when going down that thought experiment, there isn't one. So GW has 2 options: sculpt a new non-Primaris kit for a unit that probably wont sell well enough (there's 5? 7? Terminator kits out there as is) with options to cover everything or remove the options from the rules, remove the models from sale. Since it's a non-Primaris kit I'd be erring on them removing kits from the range instead of sculpting a kit to replace the rest.

Is the only reason Terminators are assault or tactical to avoid stepping on the Dark Angels' toes? Or is it just because GW makes only assault terminators/tactical terminators boxes? You can mix lightning claws and bolter/fist when you're taking Tartaros or Cataphractii armour but Indomitus armour limits the tactical flexibility of the wearers?

Really it's probably down to model designs and why they decided to have Deathwing mix 'n' match and regular terminator kits not. I'd argue that it's not step on toes but down to when they made the actual kits and so they've stuck with that approach, which also has a narrative backing to it (see Deathwing = toolbox, Ultramarines Terminators = specialise in a role for example).

Cataphractii and Tartaros kits were aimed at the Heresy crowd first, and so had options based on the Heresy options (and resin kits they replaced). They're also a lot newer than the other Termintor kits. Why the tactical flexibility in 40k then - because they had to make 40k rules otherwise people would have been very, very angry about it and just went with a 'okay let's give them options based on what's in the kit and not split them up like before'. Frankly Heresy related models should not exist in 40k rules, but that's another issue and just a personal opinion. There's probably no good answer for that one. Anyway I'd put it down to model designs/kit release dates inferring into the rules on this one. Which is also how GW works funnily enough.

The thing I don't really understand about the whole "Deathwing Terminators should be versatile, but normal ones are specialised" is that it actually makes no sense from an organisational perspective.

Think about it - the "normal" Chapters deploy Terminators sparingly, mostly as a supplement to larger forces (exceptions include Space Hulks and things like the Ultramarines' Deliverance of Thrax) - so with less Terminators available, surely they'd want them to be more versatile?

Compare and contrast to the Deathwing, who deploy en mass, and overwhelm targets with a wave of Terminator armoured bodies and the stench of ozone - surely, with more units at their disposal, they could afford to specialise and work at a macro level instead of a micro one?

Basically, surely it makes more sense for the Dark Angels to have the specialised specific squads, and the "normal" Chapters to need to cover more bases with mixed-weapon units? Not that I'd advocate for DA to have fixed squads, I just think we should get rid of the notion of fixed squads altogether.

Just drop this idea of consolidating the datasheets of snowflake units, you can't. Just putting the DW datasheet inside the regular terminator datasheet would make it really messy and unreadable.

Discussing the possibility that the DA should become an SM supplement has a merit, since it does have many units which are just vanilla, but we should do that with the idea that it would be a supplement with a lot of unique datasheets.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The thing I don't really understand about the whole "Deathwing Terminators should be versatile, but normal ones are specialised" is that it actually makes no sense from an organisational perspective.

Think about it - the "normal" Chapters deploy Terminators sparingly, mostly as a supplement to larger forces (exceptions include Space Hulks and things like the Ultramarines' Deliverance of Thrax) - so with less Terminators available, surely they'd want them to be more versatile?

Compare and contrast to the Deathwing, who deploy en mass, and overwhelm targets with a wave of Terminator armoured bodies and the stench of ozone - surely, with more units at their disposal, they could afford to specialise and work at a macro level instead of a micro one?

Basically, surely it makes more sense for the Dark Angels to have the specialised specific squads, and the "normal" Chapters to need to cover more bases with mixed-weapon units? Not that I'd advocate for DA to have fixed squads, I just think we should get rid of the notion of fixed squads altogether.

I can see the argument for this, but this is where you and I are gonna disagree. Because I'll look at something like 'Guilliman decreed Tactical Terminators will shoot, and Assault terminators will hammer' (which was always low-key the in-universe reason for the units being split) and the DA saying 'yeah sod that, our Terminators do our own thing' as being a good enough reason for the units (rules and in-lore) to be operating in the different manners that they do. It's a very 40k thing, a decision made thousands of years ago that is followed to the letter, 'because that's what space-book says to do/they're more guidelines than actual rules' (in-lore).

Deathwing deploy on-mass, so each squad should be a toolbox. Ultramarine terminators are sent to do a specific job, thus they have a specific loadout. That's the difference I'm seeing, and that's why I think those units are separated as they are.

Now again, I can see your side on this. I don't think it's a good one because I can honestly see them removing options for everyone (including and especially models) instead of giving more options to everyone.

And as for the thing earlier where you pulled apart my answers with 'but they could do something like 'x' instead'. Yes they could. My answers are based on what is currently known, what they have currently done and shown to be done. I am making some educated guesses on 'why' these are the way they are, but if you want to rewrite the units to be more a 'this is how I'd have done it' fine. That's not how GW have done it, and right now it's not something I'm expecting them to do.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If the lore difference you really want to go with is "oh Deathwing are deployed in mass", then you should have a minimum you have to take the moment you want to use them.

I'd also add a limit to non Deathwing Terminators honestly. A big problem with the Chapters is how much GW blurs the line between them like with Scouts.

Whilst I can see what you mean, what if you want to play a game where you're actually taking the full 1st Company? I could be wrong, but don't most First Founders (barring Dropsite Massacre survivors) have a full compliment of Terminator Armour, but they just don't advocate deploying them all like the Dark Angels do?

Then you play with some stern/vanguard as well as Terminators. It's called a tradeoff.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Deathwing deploy on-mass, so each squad should be a toolbox. Ultramarine terminators are sent to do a specific job, thus they have a specific loadout. That's the difference I'm seeing, and that's why I think those units are separated as they are.

And for me, that's why it makes more sense for the DA to be specific (because they have multiple units), and the UM to be mixed (because they have to make their unit flexible).
But, that's probably just our perceptions on it.

Now again, I can see your side on this. I don't think it's a good one because I can honestly see them removing options for everyone (including and especially models) instead of giving more options to everyone.

Oh, if GW did go down the route of just removing kits and things, I wouldn't like that. Thing is, I don't think I'm arguing from a position of "what would GW do", more from a "what I'd like GW to do", which is, I suppose, the whole point of a personal proposal. In reality, I'm sure GW are fine how things are, but in my own magical make believe world, I'd like to hope my proposal could work too.

And as for the thing earlier where you pulled apart my answers with 'but they could do something like 'x' instead'. Yes they could. My answers are based on what is currently known, what they have currently done and shown to be done. I am making some educated guesses on 'why' these are the way they are, but if you want to rewrite the units to be more a 'this is how I'd have done it' fine. That's not how GW have done it, and right now it's not something I'm expecting them to do.

True - which is worth me reiterating, my viewpoint isn't from a "what GW have done and will likely do", it's a "let's assume I had full creative control to a certain degree - what would I do" kind of hypothetical. Obviously, I wouldn't want units getting deleted with no appropriate support, and just questioning "why" it's so essential that DA have a Codex when so many of their things are done in the core SM books.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
True - which is worth me reiterating, my viewpoint isn't from a "what GW have done and will likely do", it's a "let's assume I had full creative control to a certain degree - what would I do" kind of hypothetical. Obviously, I wouldn't want units getting deleted with no appropriate support, and just questioning "why" it's so essential that DA have a Codex when so many of their things are done in the core SM books.

I guess they tried that in 3rd and it didn't work out for them (at the time). The problem that we're running into (on my side at least) is that the answer to 'why' has already been given. Lore, models, rules separation done in previous editions, etc. Those are all reasons for why the DA (and BA, SW, etc) aren't just supplements. They have a lot of crossover, but they also have a lot that doesn't (Centurions, heck in 7th when they made 40k rules for Cataphractii armour it wasn't available to non-Codex marines like the DA, and I'm sure there's more but I'm primarily a Heresy player nowadays). The DA list is really a 'take these 2/3rd's of the common Marines, ignore this 1/3rd so there's some differences in options and replace those with DA specific variants or flavour pieces like the flyers/skimmers/bikes/terminators'. So they could supplement it easily, here's my caveat to that - you add a list which contains the 1/3rd of common Marine units they don't get AND you don't cut or condense any current DA units. Then as a supplement it could work.

But likewise they could just drop those units in codex DA, switch out Combat Doctrines for a DA specific variant (The Lion's Tactical Scribbles) and have those keywords and rules all printed in one book, thus less flipping between 2 or three books for information.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...I can see the argument for this, but this is where you and I are gonna disagree. Because I'll look at something like 'Guilliman decreed Tactical Terminators will shoot, and Assault terminators will hammer' (which was always low-key the in-universe reason for the units being split) and the DA saying 'yeah sod that, our Terminators do our own thing' as being a good enough reason for the units (rules and in-lore) to be operating in the different manners that they do. It's a very 40k thing, a decision made thousands of years ago that is followed to the letter, 'because that's what space-book says to do/they're more guidelines than actual rules' (in-lore)...

But at that point you're dictating other peoples' lore to them in order to 'protect' your own. "Yeah, you're all stooges who follow Guilliman's doctrine religiously no matter how little sense it makes, better be Space Wolves/Dark Angels if you want your Terminators to do anything different", and you're telling this to the Blood Angels? The Salamanders? The Black Templars? And nobody's later-founding Chapter is allowed to be even slightly Codex-deviant unless they're a Space Wolves or Dark Angels successor?

It's almost as though they don't have a leg to stand on to pretend Deathwing are "unique".

They have different, often unique gear, and a different unit structure and how they arm them. that is like saying grey hunters and tacticals are the same thing.

Karol wrote:
They have different, often unique gear, and a different unit structure and how they arm them. that is like saying grey hunters and tacticals are the same thing.

They are, though. The only difference is that Grey Hunters can take Chainswords and two specials at 10 instead of one special, one heavy.

Karol wrote:
They have different, often unique gear, and a different unit structure and how they arm them. that is like saying grey hunters and tacticals are the same thing.

And the fact that Grey Hunters and Tactical Marines are different things means that Tactical Marines in non-Space Wolf Legions somehow forget how chainswords work? The White Scars are so committed to the ideals of Guilliman that they insist every Tactical Squad has a heavy weapon, thereby nailing its feet to the floor, instead of two special weapons, because otherwise they'd step on the Space Wolves' toes?

That's actually part of how I want to consolidate Grey Hunters and Tactical Marines into the same entry.
1. Stick with the current 12 points
2. Extra Chainsword for 1 point
3. Special/Heavy at minimum squad, and then two of your choice of the opposite at 1p man squads, giving inventive to max the squad size

Karol wrote:
They have different, often unique gear, and a different unit structure and how they arm them.

As per my point, no, they really don't.

The only lore-wise unique features of the Deathwing are their preference for deploying en mass (which isn't something that can be represented by a unique datasheet), their unique style of combat (which every Chapter has and is reflected in their Chapter Tactic - for the Deathwing, this manifests via the Inner Circle rule), and a one-use-only Watcher in the Dark (which I've already proposed alternative methods for).

So, if I add a Watcher in the Dark to a unit of Codex: Space Marine Terminators, what's the difference between them and some Deathwing?

that is like saying grey hunters and tacticals are the same thing.

Is this a joke?

They literally are the same unit. The only difference is Space Wolves get chainswords (for some unknown reason, because there's plenty of Codex Chapters in lore that should have chainswords on their Tacticals - Flesh Tearers, Carcharadons, White Scars, Black Templars, etc etc), and get two special weapon options, instead of needing a special and heavy (again, literally all of the above Chapters also would make more sense, ESPECIALLY the non-Codex Black Templars, to have two specials per 10 men).

Honestly, there's very few Space Wolf units that genuinely should be unique, because so many are just reskins of the basic Codex units. Off the top of my head, the only unique ones I can think of (barring the special characters) are Wolf Lords on Thunderwolves, Thunderwolf Cavalry, Fenrisian Wolves, their unique flyers, Wolf Priest (idk, maybe? They combine Chaplains and Apothecaries), Wulfen, and Cyberwolves.

The rest can be covered via keyword shenanigans, stratagems, and suchlike. The largest issue I can see if in mixing Terminator Wolf Guard with regular squads, but that's also something the Iron Hands should have, and I think would be far cheaper to do with a single page explaining how XYZ units can give their Sergeant Terminator Armour and XYZ weaponry than reprinting all the units that can do it.

So, if I add a Watcher in the Dark to a unit of Codex: Space Marine Terminators, what's the difference between them and some Deathwing?

plasma canons that are wrist mounted, for example.

The rest can be covered via keyword shenanigans, stratagems, and suchlike. The largest issue I can see if in mixing Terminator Wolf Guard with regular squads, but that's also something the Iron Hands should have, and I think would be far cheaper to do with a single page explaining how XYZ units can give their Sergeant Terminator Armour and XYZ weaponry than reprinting all the units that can do it.

which means SW would be losing a SW only option and giving it to other factions. That is not merging of codex, that is just removing of the SW codex. Considering allt he other SW units are non primaris. We may as well expect GW to just limit SW to a character or two that gets changed from normal marine to primaris. And that would be stupid. they already purged normal marines from the supplement books, with their over focus on primaris stuff.

Karol wrote:
And that would be stupid. they already purged normal marines from the supplement books, with their over focus on primaris stuff.

Do you ever get tired of being utterly wrong Karol? they did not "purge normal marines from the supplement books due to over focusing on primaris"

there are no primaris specific strats in ANY of the supplements. every supplement also has relics that are old marine specific.

Karol wrote:

So, if I add a Watcher in the Dark to a unit of Codex: Space Marine Terminators, what's the difference between them and some Deathwing?

plasma canons that are wrist mounted, for example.

And why shouldn't every Chapter have them? Same as chainswords on Tacticals as an option, considering how well connected certain Chapters can be, and how large the 40k universe is, the idea that only Dark Angels (and their successors, who have less political clout and infrastructure than any First Founder) have plasma cannons on their Terminators is baffling.

The rest can be covered via keyword shenanigans, stratagems, and suchlike. The largest issue I can see if in mixing Terminator Wolf Guard with regular squads, but that's also something the Iron Hands should have, and I think would be far cheaper to do with a single page explaining how XYZ units can give their Sergeant Terminator Armour and XYZ weaponry than reprinting all the units that can do it.

which means SW would be losing a SW only option and giving it to other factions.

They're not losing anything that wasn't already essentially the same as generic options.

If Space Wolves were only a unique Codex because their Tacticals could have chainswords, then that a terrible excuse for why they should be a unique Codex. Plenty of Chapters should have the same, and nothing is stopping the Wolves from having exactly what they had before.

That is not merging of codex, that is just removing of the SW codex.

But Karol! They're "gaining" Tactical Marines, by that logic - they're losing what are essentially knock-off Tacticals, and getting them replaced with exactly the same thing, only everyone can (and should) access it. If it's not about protecting the *idea* of exclusivity, what is it about?

Considering allt he other SW units are non primaris.

Errr, what? Space Wolves have Primaris units too, and it doesn't take a genius to work out that nearly all of their units are just renamed and reskinned versions of generic units.
Grey Hunters = Tactical Marines
Blood Claws = Assault Marines without jump packs, or just Tacticals with no bolters
Skyclaws = Assault Marines with jump packs
Swiftclaws = Bikers
Wolf Guard Terminators = Terminators
Long Fangs = Devastators

Just like Dark Angels and Blood Angels, the vast majority of the Space Wolves Codex is just reskinned and renamed generic units, who may as well just use the same datasheets as the ones everyone else uses.

We may as well expect GW to just limit SW to a character or two that gets changed from normal marine to primaris. And that would be stupid. they already purged normal marines from the supplement books, with their over focus on primaris stuff.

Okay, now this is actually ridiculous. What units got removed from new Codex because of the Primaris Marines? Huh. None, as far as I can tell.
Hell, what about the supplements! The Ultramarines supplement actually has MORE old Marine units than new ones! (Calgar, Tigurius, and the Victrix Honour Guard, vs Cassius, Sicarius, Telion, Chronus, Tyrannic War Veterans, and the THREE Honour Guard variant units.)

Has Lysander been removed? Nope. What about Kantor? Nope as well.
Vulkan He'stan? Still there.
Sure, the Raven Guard had their one guy upgraded, and the Iron Hands got their first character!, but they're just two Chapters.

And, according to the previews on Faith and Fury, Helbrecht isn't a Primaris Marine either.
If this is a purge, it's a poor one.

Old Marines aren't gone. That might be a yet, but as of right now, this is simply not correct, and pretending that Primaris are swooping in and stealing from regular Space Marines is just not a statement supported by any fact. Tactical Marines weren't nerfed, they weren't replaced, they even gained power due to the sweeping changes and buffs in their Codexes and supplements.

You know what I give up. I've spent multiple threads trying to argue the defence for why units are different.
Lore isn't a good enough defence for some people
Models aren't a good enough defence for some people.
Rules differences aren't good enough because they're all based on space marines, and well those can just be changed anyway.

I'm so done with this now. You want to blandify all marines go for it. You're just gonna find new ways of whining when you dont get what you want. Have at it, you won.







Not like GW are going to do it your way anyhow.

Your arguments were bad is the problem. You didn't have a defense to begin with.

The thing is... why does it need to be separate to be fluffy or to adhere to the lore? I got the Ork Codex, and if I wanna make a fluffy and lore-adherent list, I take the appropriate models/options and don't take the ones that aren't appropriate. Like if I'm running Evil Sunz, and I want it to be "fluffy", I take Buggies, Bikers, etc. and don't include "slow" units. If I'm trying to make a Goff list that stays with the lore, I don't include a lot of heavy shooters, but I DO take a bunch of CC units. That's how most Factions work. We don't need a separate Codex for all the sub-Factions to build a flavorful list that sticks to the lore. We just use the options we're given to do it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Your arguments were bad is the problem. You didn't have a defense to begin with.

And your counter to everything was 'it's bad becuz I say so'. Kind of hard to have a reasoned discussion when one side is so stubborn in there opinion they cant see it's not fact.
Show me where I've been factually inaccurate in what I've said. Prove to me that theres no differences, shouldnt be too difficult for you to do should it.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
You know what I give up. I've spent multiple threads trying to argue the defence for why units are different.
Lore isn't a good enough defence for some people

Lore is a great defence, when it's actually accurate. I made it clear - the lore saying that Deathwing deploy en mass should be respected, via my proposal of extra CP for <Deathwing> detachments.

The lore that claims "only Deathwing deploy in mixed squads" isn't a good defence, because we see several times non-DA Terminator Squads having mixed weaponry.
The lore that claims "only Deathwing should have terminators with plasma" isn't a good defence, because it makes sense for famous Chapters to have *some* terminator plasma, and some Terminators like Captain Invictus of the Ultramarines explicitly have it.

Models aren't a good enough defence for some people.

No-one wants to get rid of the models, they're awesome models. But that doesn't mean that they need a whole new datasheet for it, and maybe the wargear on those models could be made available for everyone, because the lore implies they should be able to.

Should only Salamanders Intercessor Sergeants have thunder hammers, because only the Salamanders upgrade pack comes with any?

Rules differences aren't good enough because they're all based on space marines, and well those can just be changed anyway.

When we're talking about *changing* those rules to suit the lore more accurately (at least, from my perspective) and to reduce the amount of units being repeated with just a slight reskin, why should the rules be the prime concern? And again, all of my proposals allow for existing rules to stay in the game, albeit in different representations.

I'm so done with this now. You want to blandify all marines go for it.

My main question was "why can't DA/BA/SW settle for a supplement, even if it happened to have all of their unique units, stratagems, and all the provisions in the world to create exactly the same things you already could with your existing armies". Not "blandifying" them. Consolidating them, and getting rid of the 85% of copy-pasted units that dwelt in their Codexes.

If the DA/BA/SW didn't have nearly as many of these generic units ported over, maybe I could see it, much like how the GSC Codex and Tyranids share some units (the Broodlord/Patriarch and Genestealers), but they're two units, not 85%.

Not like GW are going to do it your way anyhow.

True, but then if we all took that attitude, what would be the point in our Proposed Rules forum, or half the posts in General Discussions?

I've made it clear that my proposals are just that - my personal, imaginary, hypothetical ideas.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Karol wrote:
They have different, often unique gear, and a different unit structure and how they arm them. that is like saying grey hunters and tacticals are the same thing.

They are, though. The only difference is that Grey Hunters can take Chainswords and two specials at 10 instead of one special, one heavy.

yes, and GK are different from other marines because they have a poker and a stormbolters instead of a bolter. If we went with this logic, an orc is not much different from a marine. Same T, strenght doesn't matter on basic infantry only on squad leaders, save doesn't matter because of high AP spam, both have 1W etc.

And why shouldn't every Chapter have them?

because the lore, just like the one for baal predators, special speeders etc says they are the only one who know how to build and maintain those. As the political power argument, I don't see how it could be a valid one. They have the tech, so they use it. Imperial technology is based on old human technology that was ment to be used by untrained colonists. If those could use it, then DA techmarines can use their forges to build and maintain them.

Same reason why BA are the only ones who can create heavy flamers that work with space marine power armour.

If Space Wolves were only a unique Codex because their Tacticals could have chainswords, then that a terrible excuse for why they should be a unique Codex. Plenty of Chapters should have the same, and nothing is stopping the Wolves from having exactly what they had before.

But they are not tacticals. they don't use heavy weapons, they have totems, and can bring in squad leaders from outside of giving them termintor armored models in majority power armored units. they can take melee weapons and special weapons in larger number thanks to that, then tacticals.

But Karol! They're "gaining" Tactical Marines, by that logic - they're losing what are essentially knock-off Tacticals, and getting them replaced with exactly the same thing, only everyone can (and should) access it. If it's not about protecting the *idea* of exclusivity, what is it about?

If my trainers would suddenly decide to merge the male and female teams for hammer throw, and then gave the school the option to pick out of those the 4 best to represent our school at events, I can tell you the girls here would not be happy about it.
And it is about selfishness. If GW gets rid of BA/DA/SW/BT, then next thing they are going to do is put my army, without ever fixing it, in to legends.

Errr, what? Space Wolves have Primaris units too, and it doesn't take a genius to work out that nearly all of their units are just renamed and reskinned versions of generic units.

yes, but there are no primaris wulfen, no primaris wolf riders etc Ergo with the focus on primaris from GW, the options would sooner then later be cut. And SW players would be left with playing grey coloured ultramarines.

Also BC, GH etc are not like marines units. They have different gear options, different unit size and different upgrades. and while yes one could give each chapter four pages of special, about how thier tacticals can take termintor squad leaders , and tough luck all the gear people would have to replace because of it not being legal or having rules, it would not help with the goal of making the number of rules smaller, or even making the number of marine books being fewer. Only the names would change, it would no longer be a codex, but a supplement. With a small difference that now instead of one codex DA or SW, a person would have to buy two books. And if mid edition one of the books would get updated, they would have to buy the book too. So if codex marines comes out twice per edition, the minimum of rules books, not counting CA and core rules, would be three. Nice upgrade from one, if someone is responsible for making GW make more money. Not very fun for anyone else.

I'm typing on a tablet so let's do the lore bit first. Other 1st founding chapters could have plasma terminators is purely theoretical. There is no evidence for it. Until that evidence is printed then no, they dont get them.but that's not good enough is it, so let's make up lore to change something. Your answer to this seems to be 'I think they could have this stuff' which is different from how its been presented and is pure wishlisting. I cant argue that because you're wilfully disregarding the elements of the lore you dont like.

Mixed squads. Okay sure, they've been done once or twice by other chapters. Have at it, I'm too tired to care anymore.

Models. Oh come on, we both know if you want a generic plasma cannon that means resculpting the sprue. If the data sheet is being condensed and all options are equally available to everyone the GW has to either sculpt a new kit or remove wargear and remove models. Doesn't matter if you like them, that's the 2 options. I can guess heavily which it will be, you can think otherwise but I'm doubtful they're ever making a new non Primaris kit again. So yes, this is entirely why I think condensing the rules is a bad idea.
And yeah I'd be fine with only Salamanders having hammers, it makes them more unique by having options others dont. But that's not the kind of options that are allowed in this discussion. Its either everyone gets it or noe one, because unique weapon or wargear isn't good enough to keep something different.

Rules. I've said I dont mind the supplement route, had it during 3rd. Where i draw the line is condensing options for the sake of it. Dont duplicate tactical marine sheets sure, but DA dont use regular terminators they have Deathwing instead. The problem is that's not a good enough compromise, Deathwing must use the regular terminators sheet but then have a page somewhere with extra rules tacked on to make them unique again. Apart from being counterintuitive to the condensing process at what point does tacking on extra rules to a unit not justify that unit having a separate data sheet like the already do now? Like yes, staying focused on Deathwing should make this really easy, but in practice if I have to jump through 4 to 6 pages over 2 books to find all the extra rules my single unit should have it's a failure on a designers part. Currently I need to look st potentially 2 (chapter tactics page and unit entry).

I'm not sure where else to go with this now. Like maybe head over to the games design subforum, because that's what this seems to want to become a homebrew thing? Because I honestly cant give better answers than j have and frankly I'm tired of them being dismissed put of hand

 BroodSpawn wrote:

Models. Oh come on, we both know if you want a generic plasma cannon that means resculpting the sprue. If the data sheet is being condensed and all options are equally available to everyone the GW has to either sculpt a new kit or remove wargear and remove models.

Just to chime in, but this is false. Or at least there is precedence for GW condensing multiple kits into one datasheet that I know of: Guard infantry squads. Catachan squads have a boltgun, but cadians don't. And yet, cadians are allowed to take boltguns as well because they share the datasheet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:


yes, and GK are different from other marines because they have a poker and a stormbolters instead of a bolter. If we went with this logic, an orc is not much different from a marine. Same T, strenght doesn't matter on basic infantry only on squad leaders, save doesn't matter because of high AP spam, both have 1W etc.

grey knights are psykers though...

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
He also just described most of the difference between eldar and IG as well. A stat or two and equipment. If he was really interested in consolidation, why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.

The disingenuity here is magical!

Not really. It's just the same argument taken a level higher.

Taking it orders of magnitude higher is being disingenuous, yes!

Karol wrote:
yes, and GK are different from other marines because they have a poker and a stormbolters instead of a bolter. If we went with this logic, an orc is not much different from a marine. Same T, strenght doesn't matter on basic infantry only on squad leaders, save doesn't matter because of high AP spam, both have 1W etc.

Woah, exactly the same disingenuous argument!

Karol wrote:
Same reason why BA are the only ones who can create heavy flamers that work with space marine power armour.

You realize Sisters have always been able to do that and it wasn't even considered something worth mentioning to them?
lol.

yes, but there are no primaris wulfen, no primaris wolf riders etc

Yet.
I expect as time goes by that'll change. it's too soon in the primaris cycle to bring this stuff in, once primaris are all fleshed out, (and we get that expected third wave) we can expect to see new unique units. in fact assuming further supplements continue to be things we could even see all the first founding units get their own units. Salamander "Flamer bearers" as flamer equipped intercessors, etc. if GW thinks it'll sell they'll do it

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except that "flexible loadout" is never used. Nobody is gonna throw 1 of each Terminator in a squad just because they can, as it wouldn't do anything but get on the table and do jack gak.

So if the argument really does boil down to that, you don't have an argument.

You mean besides the fact that people have replied with the fact that they have and do?

It's almost like you're ignoring things you don't like to hear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sgt - you are being to logical, accurate and making too much sense - its not going to work.....

I provide evidence, he doesn't like it and demands I write out everything verbatim. That wasn't going to happen, so he's claiming I'm lying for the lulz.

Sorry facts don't match your feelings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sgt - you are being to logical, accurate and making too much sense - its not going to work.....

Yeah. People can have disagreements on whether or not Codecs should be unified, and how to go about it, even if they agree they should be unified.

But what Mmmpi is doing is not a valid, reasonable debate about disagreements in the direction they think 40k should go. It's blatant rejection of arguments without any support of their own.

You mean I'm not reprinting codex material verbatim. Because that literally the only thing I haven't done to support my arguments.

Sorry this is hard for you.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except that "flexible loadout" is never used. Nobody is gonna throw 1 of each Terminator in a squad just because they can, as it wouldn't do anything but get on the table and do jack gak.

So if the argument really does boil down to that, you don't have an argument.

You mean besides the fact that people have replied with the fact that they have and do?

It's almost like you're ignoring things you don't like to hear.
.

Slayer-fan basicly assumes everyone plays just like him and if they don't they're stupid and shouldn't be catered to. which proably explains why he champions consolidation. heck he proably thinks GW should just stop producing army books he doesn't play, I mean "Orks suck anyway, no one of worth plays them so just get rid of them!"

Amen


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
So only look at the lore which supports your own argument for why your "special snowflake marines can have that stuff' - gotcha.

Good job missing all the nuance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If the lore difference you really want to go with is "oh Deathwing are deployed in mass", then you should have a minimum you have to take the moment you want to use them.

I'd also add a limit to non Deathwing Terminators honestly. A big problem with the Chapters is how much GW blurs the line between them like with Scouts.

I don't see the need for a limit for any Terminators. We just really need a consolidated entry for them. I already have one I finalized on for homebrew stuff, but I'm bad at creating codex layout and nobody uses the stuff anyway.

We really don't, and no one cares about your homebrew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If the lore difference you really want to go with is "oh Deathwing are deployed in mass", then you should have a minimum you have to take the moment you want to use them.

I'd also add a limit to non Deathwing Terminators honestly. A big problem with the Chapters is how much GW blurs the line between them like with Scouts.

Whilst I can see what you mean, what if you want to play a game where you're actually taking the full 1st Company? I could be wrong, but don't most First Founders (barring Dropsite Massacre survivors) have a full compliment of Terminator Armour, but they just don't advocate deploying them all like the Dark Angels do?

In fluff, most 1st company deploy as vanguard and sternguard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's almost as though they don't have a leg to stand on to pretend Deathwing are "unique".

It's almost like you expect us to automatically follow your opinion blindly.

Sgt Smudge,

Your sense of design would take us in the wrong direction. Right now, I can buy one decent-sized book for my Dark Angels. That book has the datasheets required for my army, along with the stratagems, relics etc without cluttering it up with other armies. I only have to manage the datasheets that I care about, and my unique datasheets do not clutter up some other book that would be bought by someone who doesn't want to play Dark Angels. Your design model would have a huge Space Marines book with cluttered datasheets and USRs. I cannot see what the benefit would be.

The Dark Angels have had distinct Deathwing and Ravenwing (in various forms/degrees) since 2nd Ed. Its not a new thing. The lore supports it. There are several ways in which the Deathwing are different in the datasheet. Just because some don't like it our respect it doesn't make it untrue. The Deathwing have distinct morale rules, stratagems, support characters and weapon load-outs. And yes, some folks do indeed put a Thunderhammer Stormshield in a squad with Storm Bolters. All of this is supported by years of lore. Ditto for the Ravenwing. Dark Angels have their own flyers and landspeeders.

I still fail to see the harm that the distinct books/factions causes to players who choose not to buy them. The established Dark Angels lore/models/rules are not stopping the creation of some awesome new Xenos faction. If you don't like them don't buy them. Its really simple.

I don't see any harm in it. I just don't know *why* it has to be distinct from other Space Marines. Like, I wouldn't complain if GW dropped a Codex: Deathskullz, Codex: Hive Fleet Hydra, or Codex: Farsight Enclaves (fleshed out with slight variations of existing units and unique stuff), but I'd still wonder why they needed their own book, when they can operate just fine (both competitively and narratively) out of the same book the rest of the Faction uses.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And why shouldn't every Chapter have them? Same as chainswords on Tacticals as an option, considering how well connected certain Chapters can be, and how large the 40k universe is, the idea that only Dark Angels (and their successors, who have less political clout and infrastructure than any First Founder) have plasma cannons on their Terminators is baffling.

Because GW said they don't all get them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
You know what I give up. I've spent multiple threads trying to argue the defence for why units are different.
Lore isn't a good enough defence for some people
Models aren't a good enough defence for some people.
Rules differences aren't good enough because they're all based on space marines, and well those can just be changed anyway.

I'm so done with this now. You want to blandify all marines go for it. You're just gonna find new ways of whining when you dont get what you want. Have at it, you won.







Not like GW are going to do it your way anyhow.

Got it in one.
They dismiss everything for 'reasons' then declare no logic was used, while using slurs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Your arguments were bad is the problem. You didn't have a defense to begin with.

Says the guy who ignores 90% of people's posts in favor of his own misguided opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Lore is a great defence, when it's actually accurate. I made it clear - the lore saying that Deathwing deploy en mass should be respected, via my proposal of extra CP for <Deathwing> detachments.

your answer isn't good enough. And before you say anything, remember, that's the same argument you've been giving me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:

Models. Oh come on, we both know if you want a generic plasma cannon that means resculpting the sprue. If the data sheet is being condensed and all options are equally available to everyone the GW has to either sculpt a new kit or remove wargear and remove models.

Just to chime in, but this is false. Or at least there is precedence for GW condensing multiple kits into one datasheet that I know of: Guard infantry squads. Catachan squads have a boltgun, but cadians don't. And yet, cadians are allowed to take boltguns as well because they share the datasheet.

This has more to do with GW's inconsistancy. GW has stated that the removal is the way they intend to do it, therefor it's the safest assumption when the situation arises.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
He also just described most of the difference between eldar and IG as well. A stat or two and equipment. If he was really interested in consolidation, why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.

The disingenuity here is magical!

Not really. It's just the same argument taken a level higher.

Taking it orders of magnitude higher is being disingenuous, yes!

I only took it one step higher, out of marines into general 40K. So...no.

Good to see you only have ad hominum responses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except that "flexible loadout" is never used. Nobody is gonna throw 1 of each Terminator in a squad just because they can, as it wouldn't do anything but get on the table and do jack gak.

So if the argument really does boil down to that, you don't have an argument.

You mean besides the fact that people have replied with the fact that they have and do?

It's almost like you're ignoring things you don't like to hear.
.

Slayer-fan basicly assumes everyone plays just like him and if they don't they're stupid and shouldn't be catered to. which proably explains why he champions consolidation. heck he proably thinks GW should just stop producing army books he doesn't play, I mean "Orks suck anyway, no one of worth plays them so just get rid of them!"

The evidence is clear you're correct about play style. Not as clear about removing army books.

I think the "it's this way because GW said it's this way" argument isn't a great one. It's an argument of complacency and laziness. If there's good reasons for something, you should be able to present that argument with actual examples instead of "well, it's this way because GW said so". Have you done so? Maybe? But I wanted to address this particular part of your discourse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You actually took it 2 steps higher, as Marines also have the Imperium keyword. Just FYI. And considering that, at most, there's only 3 steps between "all of 40k" and "individual unit", a 2 step jump IS a big one.

 flandarz wrote:
I think the "it's this way because GW said it's this way" argument isn't a great one. It's an argument of complacency and laziness. If there's good reasons for something, you should be able to present that argument with actual examples instead of "well, it's this way because GW said so". Have you done so? Maybe? But I wanted to address this particular part of your discourse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You actually took it 2 steps higher, as Marines also have the Imperium keyword. Just FYI. And considering that, at most, there's only 3 steps between "all of 40k" and "individual unit", a 2 step jump IS a big one.

People have said more than "Because GW said so". Those answers were also dismissed as 'irrelevant'. This conversation is like arguing with creationists.

I took it one step higher. Sorry you have a different idea of what that means.

That doesn't really refute my point that "because GW said so" is a poor argument. Maybe you're frustrated, but it doesn't help your stance to fall back on on that point.

Your example of "one step up" was from Marines to all of 40k. I disagreed because Marines are also part of the Imperium Keyword (which is why they can "soup" with them). It's also why you can play Knights with Militarum; they share a common Keyword. That's kinda just how steps work.

 Mmmpi wrote:
...People have said more than "Because GW said so". Those answers were also dismissed as 'irrelevant'. This conversation is like arguing with creationists...

Usually "because GW said so" is irrelevant because in six months they may about-face, revise the lore, and say "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT EVERYONE HAS ALWAYS HAD MIXED TERMINATOR SQUADS WITH PLASMA CANNONS". Things GW says now directly contradict things GW has said in the past. Armies people may have built in the past may contain illegal models or configurations because GW has taken them away to give the special-Codex Chapters more unique things, or tomorrow they may give you a new configuration to force you to buy a bunch of new models to keep up with the power curve.

What GW says now is a bad justification for claiming things have always been that way (they haven't) or that they will always be that way (they won't) or that they should always be that way (they shouldn't).

I like how the goal of this post went from:

"There are no real differences between vanilla units and snowflake units, so we should just consolidate them together"

to

"There are no real differences between vanilla units and snowflake units if you take what makes those units unique and give it to everyone because reasons"

Spoletta wrote:
I like how the goal of this post went from:

"There are no real differences between vanilla units and snowflake units, so we should just consolidate them together"

to

"There are no real differences between vanilla units and snowflake units if you take what makes those units unique and give it to everyone because reasons"

When the things that make those units unique were taken away from vanilla units to make those units unique I question whether those units are actually unique. It's like Inquisitor Coteaz. Go back to the 3e Daemonhunters book and literally everything he does was a thing you could give any Inquisitor, in 5e during the culling of the armouries they took them away from everyone else and made them Coteaz' unique thing. People are complaining about the snowflakiness because it feels like GW is forcing us to play crappy Mary Sue fanfiction of their stories instead of making up our own; every battle needs to have all the named Chapter Masters in it and be First Founding Chapters against First Founding Chapters, want to play something you made up yourself? Too bad, all your stuff has been cannibalized to make our cool things cooler.

If I wanted to play a game of only-named-characters-with-defined-lore I could go play Warmachine and at least the game would be better-designed. The point of 40k is that it's supposed to be a thing where you can make up your own stuff and tell your own stories (see the general refrain of "We know the game isn't balanced, f*** off and play narrative"), so it'd be nice if GW stopped punishing us for doing that instead of turning our brains off and going to join the special-character thunderdome.

That's kind of a good point. Having certain things only belonging to certain sub-Factions DOES hinder your ability to build "your" army. I can't, for instance, have a small group of Iron Hands who, after fighting alongside the DA for a few centuries, saw the effectiveness of some of their weaponry, tactics, and other such things and decided to incorporate it into their strategy. Even if it'd be an entirely realistic thing to have happen.

 flandarz wrote:
That doesn't really refute my point that "because GW said so" is a poor argument. Maybe you're frustrated, but it doesn't help your stance to fall back on on that point.

Your example of "one step up" was from Marines to all of 40k. I disagreed because Marines are also part of the Imperium Keyword (which is why they can "soup" with them). It's also why you can play Knights with Militarum; they share a common Keyword. That's kinda just how steps work.

You might not like it, but it's the single biggest reason why things are the way they are. GW writes the fluff that made it this way. GW writes the rules that made it this way. GW publishes the books, and makes the models.
In this situation it's a more comprehensive answer than saying 'just cuz' because GW does have so much control over things, and much of it is based on their whims. That makes the answer relevant, if unsatisfying.

Or it's a half step. Potatoes potatoes. I don't really care.

Black Templars cant have chainswords on tacticals. Salamanders cant have flamers or melta on their assault marines nor have a flamer predator nor heavy flamer on normal infantry.

But I can build a complete long range vehicle park as BA without a single jump pack or flying vehicle. It will be crap though because BA has 0 rules to support it.

We already have situations that dont allow fluffy builds but allow weird and bad unfluffy ones. Its mostly artificial limitations to justify them being unique despite it not making that much sense. If everyone have mire choices you could build lists that dit your chapter better.

Lets say that we do as smudge has said but instead of making it a supplement every first founding get a codex with every data sheet printed but they all get more options. Would that be fine? You still get your separate book with all the options but now everyone else can also have chainswords on tacticals and flamers or meltas on assault marines etc. But you lose nothing and everyone else gains something, including DA/BA/SW. Why wouldnt this be fine? They are all marines after all and they arent stupid and should all be able to do some very basic stuff.

Black Templars very much can have chainswords on Tacticals; it's called a Crusader Squad and still exists despite efforts to remove anything that is different.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Black Templars very much can have chainswords on Tacticals; it's called a Crusader Squad and still exists despite efforts to remove anything that is different.

Arent they just a normal codex marine chapter at the moment?

Nvm. White scars or Blood Angels cant have chain swords on their tacticals.

 Mmmpi wrote:
I only took it one step higher, out of marines into general 40K. So...no.

Good to see you only have ad hominum responses.

I was explicitly attacking the argument, not you as a person, but if you nonetheless feels like it is an ad hominem, please do click on the Yellow Triangle of Friendship to warn the mods! I'm not worried, because anyone can clearly see I'm fully within the rules of Dakka by posting this.
And I'll even go on to explain why your argument is wrong. Do you know why my argument works on a chapter-to-chapter scope and not on a entirely-different-species scope, as you want to put it? Because of the scale of 40k!
- If 40k was like 30k (or flames of war, for that matter, or ...) where the different factions are all from the same species, with relatively similar wargear, then sure, the slight difference in culture, organization and wargear should be represented. Because those would be relevant in regard of the scope of the game.
- If 40k was like Epic 40k, or Battlefield Gothic, or Aeronautica Imperialis, where the difference between two type of infantry is not necessarily relevant due to them not being the focus of the game, and being overshadowed by the other game pieces (titans, spaceships, planes, ...) then sure, it makes sense to have a few shared profiles, like one for rookie infantry, one for elite infantry, .... Or even just one for all infantry.

But given the scope of 40k, it is extremely obvious that two different units representing troopers from literally two different species, using wargear based on entirely different technology, should be represented by two different sets of rules. Because those differences are just very relevant at the scope the game is trying to cover. But two different units representing troopers from the same species, modified in similar ways using the same technology, with extremely similar wargear built using the exact same technology, doesn't involve differences that are relevant at the game's scope. Because those difference, as even you agreed, are a whole step below the above mentioned difference.

Same datasheet for Cadians, Chem Dogs, Vostroyans and Catachans, and those units are FAR more different from each others than marines are. All marines are elite, Cadians and Catachans are elite while Chem dogs aren't. All marines have power armor, Catachans don't get anywhere near the level of armor that Cadians get. All marines have extremely similar bolters, Vostroyans get very good lasgun while Chem dogs get only what they can find. If some faction should get different datasheet for subfactions, with the lore and the scope of the game, it's definitely Imperial Guard.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I only took it one step higher, out of marines into general 40K. So...no.

Good to see you only have ad hominum responses.

I was explicitly attacking the argument, not you as a person, but if you nonetheless feels like it is an ad hominem, please do click on the Yellow Triangle of Friendship to warn the mods! I'm not worried, because anyone can clearly see I'm fully within the rules of Dakka by posting this.
And I'll even go on to explain why your argument is wrong. Do you know why my argument works on a chapter-to-chapter scope and not on a entirely-different-species scope, as you want to put it? Because of the scale of 40k!
- If 40k was like 30k (or flames of war, for that matter, or ...) where the different factions are all from the same species, with relatively similar wargear, then sure, the slight difference in culture, organization and wargear should be represented. Because those would be relevant in regard of the scope of the game.
- If 40k was like Epic 40k, or Battlefield Gothic, or Aeronautica Imperialis, where the difference between two type of infantry is not necessarily relevant due to them not being the focus of the game, and being overshadowed by the other game pieces (titans, spaceships, planes, ...) then sure, it makes sense to have a few shared profiles, like one for rookie infantry, one for elite infantry, .... Or even just one for all infantry.

But given the scope of 40k, it is extremely obvious that two different units representing troopers from literally two different species, using wargear based on entirely different technology, should be represented by two different sets of rules. Because those differences are just very relevant at the scope the game is trying to cover. But two different units representing troopers from the same species, modified in similar ways using the same technology, with extremely similar wargear built using the exact same technology, doesn't involve differences that are relevant at the game's scope. Because those difference, as even you agreed, are a whole step below the above mentioned difference.

Same datasheet for Cadians, Chem Dogs, Vostroyans and Catachans, and those units are FAR more different from each others than marines are. All marines are elite, Cadians and Catachans are elite while Chem dogs aren't. All marines have power armor, Catachans don't get anywhere near the level of armor that Cadians get. All marines have extremely similar bolters, Vostroyans get very good lasgun while Chem dogs get only what they can find. If some faction should get different datasheet for subfactions, with the lore and the scope of the game, it's definitely Imperial Guard.

sure and I'd support a Catachan supplement without hesitation, I don't however play guard so I'd not buy it, but I'd support the idea of it. the reason for marine subfaction codices/supplements though is DEMAND. GW isn't shoveling crap no one wants down people's throats. Marine players, who make up a large percentage of the player base, have long said they want rules to better represent the marine subfactions. GW thus saw there was a market for the product and... capitalized on it.
For the record, I think there'd proably be a market for CSM and IG supplements. imagine if GW put out supplements for each of the famous guard regiments, releasing a plastic kit of guardsmen from said regiment to go with it. that's something I'd LOVE to see

The reaction is kind of a fast though. marines were okey in 7th right, and they weren't totaly bad most of the 8th, so they fixed and rewrote marine rules in under an edition. Some factions have been asking for a fix for multiple editions and nothin is happening.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I only took it one step higher, out of marines into general 40K. So...no.

Good to see you only have ad hominum responses.

I was explicitly attacking the argument, not you as a person, but if you nonetheless feels like it is an ad hominem,

Sorry, that was intended for someone else. Apparently I accidentally deleted the quote box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

And I'll even go on to explain why your argument is wrong. Do you know why my argument works on a chapter-to-chapter scope and not on a entirely-different-species scope, as you want to put it? Because of the scale of 40k!
- If 40k was like 30k (or flames of war, for that matter, or ...) where the different factions are all from the same species, with relatively similar wargear, then sure, the slight difference in culture, organization and wargear should be represented. Because those would be relevant in regard of the scope of the game.
- If 40k was like Epic 40k, or Battlefield Gothic, or Aeronautica Imperialis, where the difference between two type of infantry is not necessarily relevant due to them not being the focus of the game, and being overshadowed by the other game pieces (titans, spaceships, planes, ...) then sure, it makes sense to have a few shared profiles, like one for rookie infantry, one for elite infantry, .... Or even just one for all infantry.

But given the scope of 40k, it is extremely obvious that two different units representing troopers from literally two different species, using wargear based on entirely different technology, should be represented by two different sets of rules. Because those differences are just very relevant at the scope the game is trying to cover. But two different units representing troopers from the same species, modified in similar ways using the same technology, with extremely similar wargear built using the exact same technology, doesn't involve differences that are relevant at the game's scope. Because those difference, as even you agreed, are a whole step below the above mentioned difference.

Same datasheet for Cadians, Chem Dogs, Vostroyans and Catachans, and those units are FAR more different from each others than marines are. All marines are elite, Cadians and Catachans are elite while Chem dogs aren't. All marines have power armor, Catachans don't get anywhere near the level of armor that Cadians get. All marines have extremely similar bolters, Vostroyans get very good lasgun while Chem dogs get only what they can find. If some faction should get different datasheet for subfactions, with the lore and the scope of the game, it's definitely Imperial Guard.

The scale is irrelevant to how things interact. Stats interact, special rules modify that.

In 8th especially, those differences are muted, and even before that, most weapons were just tweaked versions of other weapons. A shuriken catapult is a rending stormbolter with half range (in 7th), and a half range assault bolter with rending in 8th. A las gun in 8th is just bolter with -1 strength.

Literally the only thing separating armies is fluff and access to equipment and special rules.
Cadians, ect only have one rule in difference from one another. One. The only difference from marines are the options available, and a reduced stat line for less points. That's it. They still interact the same way on the board.
And yes, I do think guard, eldar and most other armies do deserve supplements.

Please no more supplements. They’re just poor rules management. I’m still baffled as to why marine players like them.

I like my guard all in one book, thank you.

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't however play guard so I'd not buy it, but I'd support the idea of it. the reason for marine subfaction codices/supplements though is DEMAND.

Well okay, but that's irrelevant to what I was saying. I was just explaining why one specific comparison, for an argument separate from the one you are making, was disingenuous .

 Mmmpi wrote:
The scale is irrelevant to how things interact.

The scale does inform which kind of differences between units are relevant enough to warrants different rules.

 Mmmpi wrote:
The only difference from marines are the options available, and a reduced stat line for less points. That's it.

And special rules. Oh, and keywords.
The only difference between guards and marines are different statlines, different wargear, different options, different special rules, different faction keyword, different unit keywords.
I am not sure how they could be made more different, because I don't see what other difference the system allow for.

Hey don't worry everyone - the poor super neglected Marines just got a whole load of new Relics, Strats and other stuff in the new PA book.

Spoilering to avoid walls of text.

Excellent post

I didn't enter in the who and why of generic versus snowflake, i was just commenting that at the start of this thread we were trying to understand if it was possible to consolidate snowflake units into vanilla units, since they seemed to be like just a datasheet option away from being identical.

Now we are discussing if it is correct that they get to be special... We are getting a bit OT.

Sgt Smudge,

Well, you didn't offer any harm that the current model poses - you say consistency but the Dark Angels are not Codex Compliant and have consistently had their own Codex each edition. It's not a new thing. You method of consolidation makes the datasheets more convoluted, and as you admit I would then have to have two books where one sufficed. 40K has moved away from USRs etc - you seem to want to move back towards that. Leave me with my nice, tight Codex and stop trying to help me by making me buy two more convoluted books!

Regarding choices, choosing to play Dark Angels opens up units to me that others do not have access to while restricting me from choosing some that other Chapters can take. It's part of the deal - you gain and you lose. I am not going to flip the table if other Chapters get to mix weapon load-outs with their Terminators, but at a certain point if everybody can take everything the distinctiveness of the Chapters suffers. I like having choices that have consequences.

It's all academic, of course, since nobody here is a decision-maker outside of our own decision regarding what we play and don't play.

Warm regards,

T2B

BrianDavion wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except that "flexible loadout" is never used. Nobody is gonna throw 1 of each Terminator in a squad just because they can, as it wouldn't do anything but get on the table and do jack gak.

So if the argument really does boil down to that, you don't have an argument.

You mean besides the fact that people have replied with the fact that they have and do?

It's almost like you're ignoring things you don't like to hear.
.

Slayer-fan basicly assumes everyone plays just like him and if they don't they're stupid and shouldn't be catered to. which proably explains why he champions consolidation. heck he proably thinks GW should just stop producing army books he doesn't play, I mean "Orks suck anyway, no one of worth plays them so just get rid of them!"

Yeah, when you can show off several battle reports of people using Terminator squads with 1 pair of LCs, 1 TH/SS, 1 Assault Cannon, 1 Chainfist, and 1 Sarge with the Power Sword and doing anything worthwhile you let me know.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Sgt Smudge,

Well, you didn't offer any harm that the current model poses - you say consistency but the Dark Angels are not Codex Compliant and have consistently had their own Codex each edition.

Maybe check the lore of the Dark Angels? and I QUOTE from latest canon information (WD Vol no 37)

The Dark Angels are, for the most part, strict Adherents of the Codex in terms of their Chapter's structure

There are some cosemetic and cultural differences to other Chapters that have IMO sadly been massively flansderised over recent editions but they are a pretty average Chapter in terms of deviation from the base line of the Codex.

 Mr Morden wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Sgt Smudge,

Well, you didn't offer any harm that the current model poses - you say consistency but the Dark Angels are not Codex Compliant and have consistently had their own Codex each edition.

Maybe check the lore of the Dark Angels? and I QUOTE from latest canon information (WD Vol no 37)

The Dark Angels are, for the most part, strict Adherents of the Codex in terms of their Chapter's structure

There are some cosemetic and cultural differences to other Chapters that have IMO sadly been massively flansderised over recent editions but they are a pretty average Chapter in terms of deviation from the base line of the Codex.

Thanks, I have that WD. Mostly compliant does not mean compliant. The Codex offers that the Dark Angels "did not strictly adhere." Yes they have somethings in common, but they have unique organizations and units and have had them for multiple editions. It's not some new fad.

If your concern is about so-called "flanderization" then I guess we are really arguing about tastes. Our tastes may indeed differ, and that's OK.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, when you can show off several battle reports of people using Terminator squads with 1 pair of LCs, 1 TH/SS, 1 Assault Cannon, 1 Chainfist, and 1 Sarge with the Power Sword and doing anything worthwhile you let me know.

First, let me say that I actually wouldn't mind if DA were done as a supplement. It would be annoying to have data sheets that I couldn't take, and it would feel weird to have significantly more unique content than most chapters, but whatever. But this specific argument is really, really bad, can feel lot like gatekeeping, and make it sounds like you don't even acknowledge non-tournament perspectives.

As it happens, that is *exactly* the load out I use with my DW squad. I take it because I like it and I feel that a squad that can, in-universe, handle almost any type of (vaguely human-sized) individual is exactly what would be sent to work with an otherwise-greenwing force. It feels like a load out uniquely suited to the DW agenda (where they might not know exactly what they're going to face) as opposed to traditional terminator squads which typically have very specific, predetermined missions.

Is it great on the table? No, of course not. It's not intended for super-competitive play. But I take it because it feels very unique and specific to the Unforgiven. Not everyone takes units for raw in-game power.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Sgt Smudge,

Well, you didn't offer any harm that the current model poses - you say consistency but the Dark Angels are not Codex Compliant and have consistently had their own Codex each edition.

Maybe check the lore of the Dark Angels? and I QUOTE from latest canon information (WD Vol no 37)

The Dark Angels are, for the most part, strict Adherents of the Codex in terms of their Chapter's structure

There are some cosemetic and cultural differences to other Chapters that have IMO sadly been massively flansderised over recent editions but they are a pretty average Chapter in terms of deviation from the base line of the Codex.

Thanks, I have that WD. Mostly compliant does not mean compliant. The Codex offers that the Dark Angels "did not strictly adhere." Yes they have somethings in common, but they have unique organizations and units and have had them for multiple editions. It's not some new fad.

If your concern is about so-called "flanderization" then I guess we are really arguing about tastes. Our tastes may indeed differ, and that's OK.

Mostly compliant - like pretty much all Chapters - many are less compliant than the Dark Angels but that can;t be represented because.......

Because they don't have an existing history of books, fans buying stuff etc. There maybe some mega non codex chapter, and maybe even it has official lore writen 30 years ago. But if it is last mentioned 30 years ago, in a single issue of WD, they are just not worth a risk to get rules.

Karol wrote:
Because they don't have an existing history of books, fans buying stuff etc. There maybe some mega non codex chapter, and maybe even it has official lore writen 30 years ago. But if it is last mentioned 30 years ago, in a single issue of WD, they are just not worth a risk to get rules.

Still missing the point - the Dark Angels are not particuarily divergent - they are NOT unusual - but you can;t represent similarly non repreentive Chapters becuase they have to pretend that the Angels adn the Wolves are so so very different

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Sgt Smudge,

Well, you didn't offer any harm that the current model poses - you say consistency but the Dark Angels are not Codex Compliant and have consistently had their own Codex each edition.

Not exactly correct. The Dark Angels are a Codex compliant Chapter, just like how the Blood Angels are (and funnily enough, it's Chapters like the Black Templars and Iron Hands who, despite historically being organised in a very different way from the Codex Astartes, are actually integrated into the core Space Marine book!).

The reason for the Dark Angels being unique is because of their plethora of unique units and their method of fighting (aka, en mass deployment of the Deathwing and Ravenwing). In previous editions, this was actually incredibly different - you couldn't take all Terminator and all Bike/Land Speeder armies without being Dark Angels. However, with detachments being a lot more open, the advent of keyword shenanigans, more granular Chapter Tactics, and unique stratagems, it's hard to ignore that they share 85% of the same units as everyone else, just with reskins of existing generic ones.

When every other first founding Chapter now also has unique rules, units, stratagems, etc etc and are making do with supplements, why should the Dark Angels not do the same?

You method of consolidation makes the datasheets more convoluted

Not at all? The datasheet stays exactly the same. What changes is that you can apply extra rules to an otherwise generic datasheet by simply looking at a single page in your supplement.

My proposed idea could literally work with the current publication of Codex: Space Marines (adding in the DA/BA/SW Chapter Tactics rules that have been printed in books like the Vanguard Primaris Marines booklet and the Kill Team: Elites book without issue). All I'd need to do is write a supplement book.

and as you admit I would then have to have two books where one sufficed.

Which is exactly what every other First Founding Chapter has had to do! Why is the idea of Dark Angels players having to buy a new book to play their army any worse than Ultramarines players having to do the same?

Note, this isn't a defence of GW forcing people to pay for supplements to play their armies. It is a "why should DA/BA/SW players be exempt from the same conditions other Space Marine players deal with?"

40K has moved away from USRs etc - you seem to want to move back towards that.

No? I'm doing the same kind of keyword applications that they've been implementing on their new books since 8th edition.
It's simple - call out which keyword you want to target, and assign units with that keyword a rule. That's literally the foundation of the Chapter Tactics system that nearly every faction has!

Leave me with my nice, tight Codex and stop trying to help me by making me buy two more convoluted books!

Yeah, screw those other Space Marine players! Who cares if they have to pay to have their Chapter rules, even though my Codex is 85% the same as theirs! /s

I'd love to leave you with your nice tight Codex, but what about Ultramarines players? What about Iron Hands players? The ones you share 85% of your units with?

Regarding choices, choosing to play Dark Angels opens up units to me that others do not have access to while restricting me from choosing some that other Chapters can take.

This would be a fair point, if it weren't for the fact that you already share 85% of the same units. Sure, Genestealer Cult and Tyranids share some units (Broodlords/Patriarchs and Genestealers), but they make up a very small fraction of their respective Codexes. Dark Angels share a majority of units, can't take others for seemingly random and arbitrary reasons (seriously, why can't Dark Angels have Centurions? There's no lore reason why not, beyond the idea of artificially creating a divide between the Dark Angels and every other Chapter), and a great many of their "unique" units are unique in name only.

I'm all for keeping the differences that are actually meaningful (Dark Angels not having access to Ultramarines Victrix Honour Guard, for example), but there isn't a meaningful difference why they can't take Centurions, or why their Bikers are a unique datasheet because they have a unique special rule that could just as easily be applied via their Chapter Tactics.*

*I say this, because as the White Scars <Biker> units all ignore penalties for moving and firing Heavy Weapons, but this is included as part of their Chapter Tactic.
According to how the Dark Angels Biker units were treated, surely it should make sense for all White Scars biker units to be given unique datasheets which have that rule built in to their unique datasheet?
My proposal would treat the Dark Angels <Biker> and <Land Speeder> units much like how the White Scars <Biker> units are - add a rule to the basic Dark Angels Chapter Tactic saying "Dark Angels <Bike> and <Land Speeder> units gain a 4+ Invulnerable Save on any turn they Advance".

It's part of the deal - you gain and you lose. I am not going to flip the table if other Chapters get to mix weapon load-outs with their Terminators, but at a certain point if everybody can take everything the distinctiveness of the Chapters suffers. I like having choices that have consequences.

So are Ultramarines not distinct from Iron Hands? After all, they share the same core units, but the plethora of special rules, stratagems, relics, and units that are supplied in their supplements create distinct factions.

As an Ultramarines player, I lose out on bonuses that other Space Marine factions from the core Codex get, but that's fine. I don't need an arbitrary list of units I can't take for no other reason to reflect that. My choice of playing the boys in blue has consequences.

It's all academic, of course, since nobody here is a decision-maker outside of our own decision regarding what we play and don't play.

Quite so - this is purely my hypothetical solution, and trying to figure out why it is rejected by some.

Warm regards,

T2B

Pleasure discussing!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aelyn wrote:It would be annoying to have data sheets that I couldn't take, and it would feel weird to have significantly more unique content than most chapters, but whatever.

Something I feel my proposal hasn't made clear - I would want Dark Angels armies to have full access to Codex: Space Marine units - no reason they can't have Centurions and suchlike, I'd love to see Dark Angels Centurions.

Is it great on the table? No, of course not. It's not intended for super-competitive play. But I take it because it feels very unique and specific to the Unforgiven. Not everyone takes units for raw in-game power.

I love this take, and fully agree with it. I absolutely don't want to take unique options away, I only want to make them more accessible where it makes sense.

DA should have mixed Terminators just as much as Ultramarines should, and by that, I mean they both should have them.

I don't think that having a Dark Angels book has inflicted anything on the Space Marine players who run other Chapters. Heck, we have more books now with more specialization. I think it's a good thing. Time will tell if Iron Hands etc players are happy having Supplements.

Me, I am content with my Codex. I would like a refresh in the next year, but I am happy losing access to some units while gaining others. I don't want to dig through extra books/sheets for my units. It's working just fine right now with a single Codex. Now, if you value tabletop dominance over everything else and you are a Dark Angel then this is not a great time...The worm will turn.

We risk losing flavour by consolidating. Let the hyper-competitive run Iron Hands for now. I'm quite happy with my Dark Angels and your proposal will dilute part off what I like about them while adding nothing (that I can see).

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, when you can show off several battle reports of people using Terminator squads with 1 pair of LCs, 1 TH/SS, 1 Assault Cannon, 1 Chainfist, and 1 Sarge with the Power Sword and doing anything worthwhile you let me know.

First, let me say that I actually wouldn't mind if DA were done as a supplement. It would be annoying to have data sheets that I couldn't take, and it would feel weird to have significantly more unique content than most chapters, but whatever. But this specific argument is really, really bad, can feel lot like gatekeeping, and make it sounds like you don't even acknowledge non-tournament perspectives.

As it happens, that is *exactly* the load out I use with my DW squad. I take it because I like it and I feel that a squad that can, in-universe, handle almost any type of (vaguely human-sized) individual is exactly what would be sent to work with an otherwise-greenwing force. It feels like a load out uniquely suited to the DW agenda (where they might not know exactly what they're going to face) as opposed to traditional terminator squads which typically have very specific, predetermined missions.

Is it great on the table? No, of course not. It's not intended for super-competitive play. But I take it because it feels very unique and specific to the Unforgiven. Not everyone takes units for raw in-game power.

Trying to use the "competitive" argument doesn't work because it doesn't even work in a casual setting. So honestly you made me care even less.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I don't think that having a Dark Angels book has inflicted anything on the Space Marine players who run other Chapters. Heck, we have more books now with more specialization. I think it's a good thing. Time will tell if Iron Hands etc players are happy having Supplements.

The main issue I have with having DA/BA/SW running around with what is 85% the same book as every other Space Marine player is that, as I will address below, when changes are made to the core Space Marine line, DA/BA/SW also have those changes made, but because Codexes are not updated simultaneously, it means that DA/BA/SW players have to settle for a half-baked FAQ and external sources to add in the units that regular Marines got. Having them work off the same central core (which they do, in all but name) would eliminate this need for emergency FAQs and PDFs, and if/when the core Codex gets an update, ALL non-Ordo Space Marines are updated together. If my proposal was in place a few months ago, DA/BA/SW players would all have immediate access to all new Primaris units immediately, in essentially two hardback publications, as well as updated Relics lists, stratagems, Combat Doctrines, points balancing, and so on. You'd all have the Bolter Discipline and Shock Assault rules on hand too.

Basically, with all Space Marines working from the same core (which, as I've pointed out, 85% of Dark Angels units are literally just core Space Marine units), they can be updated together.

Me, I am content with my Codex. I would like a refresh in the next year, but I am happy losing access to some units while gaining others.

I understand your contentedness, but why do you oppose my proposal? Deathwing Terminators are literally the only unit that is affected in a meaningful way (the Watcher in the Dark becomes either a stratagem or an externally purchased upgrade), and in return, you get full access to all Space Marine units, updated stratagems, psychic powers, relics, and warlord traits, for literally nothing.

You wouldn't lose anything mechanically (barring literally only the Watcher in the Dark, and only in it's current form), and gain a hell of a lot more, that there was no lore or flavour reason not to have anyway.

I don't want to dig through extra books/sheets for my units.

Unfortunately, you already are. Where else do you get the Shock Assault and Bolter Discipline rules? Where else can you play with the new Primaris units?

It's working just fine right now with a single Codex. Now, if you value tabletop dominance over everything else and you are a Dark Angel then this is not a great time...The worm will turn.

Perhaps, but if I'm assuming correctly, I'm just as unperturbed about tabletop dominance as you are. This isn't about making Dark Angels stronger, or weaker, or making everyone else stronger or weaker.
It's out streamlining datasheets and sources. With every Space Marine Chapter being based off the same core (which, I've said before, you essentially already are), it means that changes made to basic Marine units can affect all Chapters in just one publication. No need to wait for the worm to turn, no need to need half a dozen FAQs and PDFs just so you can use Shock Assault and Bolter Discipline. Everything all in one place, and you can expand from that as you see fit.

Not only that, but supplements encourage people to diversify and play multiple Chapters - the buy-in to other Chapters becomes a lot lower when you don't need to pay for the same core 85% units over and over again. Say I wanted to collect the main three Chapters of the Imperium Secundus, UM, DA, and BA. Under current pricing, I'm paying out around £92.50 for those three Chapters, and a significant portion of that is just the same units being duplicated. Under my proposed supplement idea, it would cost much less - £77.50 for the three of them, with no duplication, and enough money left over that you could nearly buy a whole other supplement!

We risk losing flavour by consolidating. Let the hyper-competitive run Iron Hands for now. I'm quite happy with my Dark Angels and your proposal will dilute part off what I like about them while adding nothing (that I can see).

I have to ask, what are you losing in my proposal?

I respect that you feel it would "dilute" what you have, but what exactly is getting watered down?

As for gaining, you would have the same core stratagems, psychic powers, units, and such that every other Chapter has (much of which you don't already have, either printed in your own Codex, or even available, and no real reason why you shouldn't have it*). Aka, you would be treated to the same core of units that every other Chapter has, as well as free access to your own unique units.

*A non-exhaustive list includes:

If you give DA everything that standard Marines, then remove options that make them different (and right now I frankly don't care how you would change them, right now from rules to lore to models they ARE different whether you are willing to accept that fact or not) then yes you have now removed any reason for the DA to be different. Congrats, thought exercise over, if you had design control and had your way that's how it would be and feth anyone that disagrees because 'well it's now better for you because I said so'.

The original question as I understand it was 'what makes those Chapters different'. If you remove the differences then you're right, there's nothing different about them. I assume you'll be using the same design paradigm and explaining why Chaos Marines don't justify having a faction. I mean, after all, they can be represented with non-Chaos Marines, right?




I thought I was out but no, looks like I can't keep away from this. So let me ask you a serious question Smudge:
Can you accept that right now, without putting your own personal 'this is how I want them to be' take on it, can you accept that there are differences within lore, rules and models that define factions like the DA (and BA and SW) being separate entities to generic Space Marines?

Nope thats not what was said

Remove the false "unique" elelments that are already used by other Chapters in the lore and just have the actual (very few) unique differences as unit upgrades or similar specific to DA Chapter tactics.

See nothing gone. Other Chapters can have the stuff they actually have.

You and others are already saying feth everyone else because they want their DA thier way.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, when you can show off several battle reports of people using Terminator squads with 1 pair of LCs, 1 TH/SS, 1 Assault Cannon, 1 Chainfist, and 1 Sarge with the Power Sword and doing anything worthwhile you let me know.

First, let me say that I actually wouldn't mind if DA were done as a supplement. It would be annoying to have data sheets that I couldn't take, and it would feel weird to have significantly more unique content than most chapters, but whatever. But this specific argument is really, really bad, can feel lot like gatekeeping, and make it sounds like you don't even acknowledge non-tournament perspectives.

As it happens, that is *exactly* the load out I use with my DW squad. I take it because I like it and I feel that a squad that can, in-universe, handle almost any type of (vaguely human-sized) individual is exactly what would be sent to work with an otherwise-greenwing force. It feels like a load out uniquely suited to the DW agenda (where they might not know exactly what they're going to face) as opposed to traditional terminator squads which typically have very specific, predetermined missions.

Is it great on the table? No, of course not. It's not intended for super-competitive play. But I take it because it feels very unique and specific to the Unforgiven. Not everyone takes units for raw in-game power.

Trying to use the "competitive" argument doesn't work because it doesn't even work in a casual setting. So honestly you made me care even less.

I don't take it for power. I take it for coolness and because it feels appropriate to the lore.

That unit consistently - as in 100% of the time - does exactly what I want it to.

Morden I'm saying feth this argument. Because when asked what are the differences it gets dismissed because the reply we get is 'but but I think these other chapters should have the same things' with very little, if anything, to back it up outside 'I'm right, you cannot prove me wrong'.

You think it's 'false'. How? Where? Proof? 25yrs+ of Dark Angels (the ones I follow story, models and have dipped in regularly for so I have a decent grasp on them) being separate, being shown as separate, being treat as separate EXCEPT during 3rd ed. backs up my argument that the are different. But you're going to dismiss all of that material again.

And yet you cannot accept these differences, you dismiss them because 'you now better' and... your argument is what? The BA Space Hulk game and associated fiction and nothing else? Where's the 100+ Terminator deployments from the Ultramarines (it wasn't against the Tyranids on Macragge), where's the dedicated fast weapon platforms the Salamanders are known for, where's the mutating Raven Guard that must be corralled and only released when no-one is looking? 'They could have them' is not a good enough reason to decide that factions that 'do' have that as part of there identity should be watered down so that everyone now has exactly the same.. lore? Rules? Models?

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...Can you accept that right now, without putting your own personal 'this is how I want them to be' take on it, can you accept that there are differences within lore, rules and models that define factions like the DA (and BA and SW) being separate entities to generic Space Marines?

Turn this on its head for a moment. Why are BA, DA, and SW their own Codexes, while Iron Hands, White Scars, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, Ultramarines, and Salamanders stuffed in their own books? FW sure found enough stuff to give them all unique units and Rites of War in 30k, didn't they?

The fact that SW, BA, and DA are 'different enough to be separate entities' isn't an immutable fact, it is a design decision. GW could turn around and choose to stuff them back into one Codex with a supplement like the other Chapters tomorrow. They're their own Codexes now, the fundamental disagreement of this thread is whether there's enough reason to keep them separate Codexes. Why aren't all the First Founding Chapters on equal footing? Why do some get unique units and some don't? Is "but we have non-character datasheets we don't share with everyone else" a reason something has to be its own Codex and not a supplement? What would be wrong with putting the Deathwing/Ravenwing datasheets into a supplement? There's even rules precedent in 8e for saying "This sub-faction gets (units X, Y, Z, etc.) from the main book but doesn't get (units A, B, C, etc.)", see Krieg and Elysians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...'They could have them' is not a good enough reason to decide that factions that 'do' have that as part of there identity should be watered down so that everyone now has exactly the same.. lore? Rules? Models?

Wouldn't saying "here's the core book and then here's the supplement with all the stuff that's unique to this sub-faction" be easier than saying "every sub-faction must have a unique standalone Codex"?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...Can you accept that right now, without putting your own personal 'this is how I want them to be' take on it, can you accept that there are differences within lore, rules and models that define factions like the DA (and BA and SW) being separate entities to generic Space Marines?

Turn this on its head for a moment. Why are BA, DA, and SW their own Codexes, while Iron Hands, White Scars, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, Ultramarines, and Salamanders stuffed in their own books? FW sure found enough stuff to give them all unique units and Rites of War in 30k, didn't they?

The fact that SW, BA, and DA are 'different enough to be separate entities' isn't an immutable fact, it is a design decision. GW could turn around and choose to stuff them back into one Codex with a supplement like the other Chapters tomorrow. They're their own Codexes now, the fundamental disagreement of this thread is whether there's enough reason to keep them separate Codexes. Why aren't all the First Founding Chapters on equal footing? Why do some get unique units and some don't? Is "but we have non-character datasheets we don't share with everyone else" a reason something has to be its own Codex and not a supplement? What would be wrong with putting the Deathwing/Ravenwing datasheets into a supplement? There's even rules precedent in 8e for saying "This sub-faction gets (units X, Y, Z, etc.) from the main book but doesn't get (units A, B, C, etc.)", see Krieg and Elysians.

Emphasised because I've answered that question before: I'd love to see Raven Guard, etc get fully expanded into dedicated books. GW have not put that level of effort into them. You want to try to reason out the finnicky trade/sales/marketing/design decisions made by GW, ask one who made that decision. All I can say is 'because that's what GW focused on'. Anything else is guesswork at best, and wishful thinking at worst. DA/BA were made as separate entities back in 2nd edition. They have been separate for a very long time.

I have also said I have no issue with DA being a supplement (how many times have I said that line so far), the line in the sand is condensing units like the Death/Ravenwing(s) to be 'take terminators/bikers from core book then add x,y,z' instead of just leaving the datasheets alone and simply having a list of 'no terminators from the core book, use the Deathwing datasheet instead'. That's the sticking point here.

As I see it, those advocating the blandification of of Deathwing into 'terminators but you have to pay for these extra upgrades if you want them to actually be Deathwing terminators' don't like that those units are separate and have decided that all teminators must be the same (again picking on Deathwing as it's an easy unit to use for examples) even if extra wargear options/loadouts are the key mechanical and narrative differences (which I can almost bet someone is going to say that's not good enough to have them separate and that everyone should have those options, not just a unit to make it 'unique'... yeah, dismissing what makes them different is not a good argument for condensing them).

BroodSpawn wrote:If you give DA everything that standard Marines, then remove options that make them different (and right now I frankly don't care how you would change them, right now from rules to lore to models they ARE different whether you are willing to accept that fact or not) then yes you have now removed any reason for the DA to be different.

That's not my proposal whatsoever? Or are you not responding to mine?

Let's go over DA comprehensively, shall we?
My proposed changes:

Include a phrase on the Dark Angels supplement that states "Friendly Dark Angels <Terminator> units gain the <Deathwing> faction keyword. Friendly Dark Angels <Biker> and <Land Speeder> units gain the <Ravenwing> faction keyword."
Remove Bikers, Land Speeders, and Attack Bikes, but add a sentence into the existing Dark Angels Chapter Tactics that says "<Biker> and <Land Speeder> units with this Chapter Tactic gain a 4+ Invulnerable Save on any turn they Advance." (which is exactly the same as what they already have, mechanically).
Remove the Deathwing Terminator, Deathwing Cataphractii, and Deathwing Tartaros datasheets. Combine the Assault Terminator and Terminator Squad datasheets in the same way that Deathwing do, in Codex: Space Marines. Add plasma cannons to the Terminator Heavy Weapons list in Codex: Space Marines. Then, add a rule to the Dark Angels supplement or Chapter Tactic, I don't mind which, stating "<Deathwing> units gain the 'Inner Circle' rule." Reprint the existing Inner Circle rule into the supplement.
Finally, either Watchers in the Dark becomes a stratagem with a 1CP cost, or as an option in the Dark Angels supplement, stating "Friendly units with the <Deathwing> keyword may purchase a Watcher in the Dark for X points, or 1 Power Level."
Remove all of the obviously generic entries (Tactical Squads, etc etc)
This leaves us with a core of unique Dark Angels units:

All stratagems, relics, warlord traits, psychic powers, etc etc are added into the supplement, as well as Relics for successor Chapters, and certain added stratagems where needed.
In addition, you also gain Combat Doctrines, and a boost suitable to DA specifically (ie, while Tactical Doctrine is active, XYZ), and rules to the effect of "any Dark Angels detachment made up exclusively of units with the <Deathwing> or <Ravenwing> keyword gains 4 extra Command Points."

You also gain all the standard units of Codex: Space Marines, with no restrictions.

Congrats, thought exercise over, if you had design control and had your way that's how it would be and feth anyone that disagrees because 'well it's now better for you because I said so'.

I mean, I've yet to see someone argue why my proposal doesn't work without misrepresenting my argument.

As you've demonstrated in this post here, you've vastly overestimated just how much I was getting rid of.

The original question as I understand it was 'what makes those Chapters different'. If you remove the differences then you're right, there's nothing different about them.

But artificial difference when it makes no sense in lore is just making excuses. Why shouldn't DA have certain Codex wargear options, and why shouldn't Codex Marines have certain DA traits?

As you can see from my proposal, I've kept the Lion's (heh) share of unique units, only stripping out the most basic of them. If your entire sovereignty, as it were, revolved around just one Terminator Squad getting to stubbornly have plasma and mixed weapons when it makes absolute sense for everyone else to also have it, maybe you shouldn't have been sovereign to begin with.

I assume you'll be using the same design paradigm and explaining why Chaos Marines don't justify having a faction. I mean, after all, they can be represented with non-Chaos Marines, right?

Aside from all the Daemons and entirely different keywords and lack of access to completely generic wargear like grav-weaponry, you mean.

Again, I don't think the Chaos Space Marines Codex shares 85% of it's units almost word for word the same as the Space Marines Codex.

Can you accept that right now, without putting your own personal 'this is how I want them to be' take on it, can you accept that there are differences within lore, rules and models that define factions like the DA (and BA and SW) being separate entities to generic Space Marines?

Lore, yes, just as much as there are differences between Ultramarines and Iron Hands.
Rules, for the 15% of DA units that aren't generic? Yes, there are differences, as much as there are between Ultramarines and Iron Hands.
Models, yes, but as I've made clear, I don't support GW's policy of "no model, no rules", and it's clear that they don't even implement it evenly themselves (see Salamanders being the only source of Primaris thunder hammers, but all Primaris Marines, including DA ones, having access to them).

And I'd want to agree on your final point, and very nearly said that I did, but then drop it just on the last three words.
See, I would absolutely agree that DA/BA/SW are all separate entities, just like in the way that Ultramarines, White Scars, Iron Hands, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, Salamanders, and Black Templars are all separate entities: in that they all share a common core of units, and expand on that core with a cast of unique characters, units, stratagems, special rules, psychic powers, and so on.
But that's not what you said.
You claimed that DA/BA/SW were separate entities from "generic Space Marines" as if such a thing really existed any more. As I'm sure you'll agree, Ultramarines and Iron Hands are just as different and separate from eachother, but why are they both treated as "generic". And that is where I think the problem lies - in perception.
See, as per my proposal, you really do lose nothing. Nothing except the illusion of sovereignty, the *idea* that you're more unique, more deserving, not worth being even related to the "generic" Chapters, as if they were some kind of massive indistinguishable collection of flavourless mush.
Maybe there was a time when DA/BA/SW genuinely WERE worth not being related, I know they certainly were when I started. Back then, Codex: Space Marines was so "generic" that you could literally take characters from one Chapter into another! Kantor, leading the Iron Hands, with his trusty Captain Lysander by his side and Chief Librarian Tigurius supporting them.
But now? Every one of the main Chapters has a unique book. They have their own traits, rules, units, characters, stratagems, etc etc, and they're STILL all based on the same core book, just like how DA/BA/SW are based on that core of 85% of the same units. And there's plenty of difference between the supplements, I don't think you'll find anyone saying that Ultramarines feel just like Iron Hands, who feel just like Raven Guard, who feel like White Scars. So, if there can be that much difference given by supplements only between the "generic" Marines, why would a supplement take that away from you?

What is *wrong* with a supplement done well? What's wrong with cutting loose those 85% of units that everyone else already has, and just changing your name from "Codex" to "Supplement"?

 Mr Morden wrote:

Karol wrote:
Because they don't have an existing history of books, fans buying stuff etc. There maybe some mega non codex chapter, and maybe even it has official lore writen 30 years ago. But if it is last mentioned 30 years ago, in a single issue of WD, they are just not worth a risk to get rules.

Still missing the point - the Dark Angels are not particuarily divergent - they are NOT unusual - but you can;t represent similarly non repreentive Chapters becuase they have to pretend that the Angels adn the Wolves are so so very different

Karol's point is actually bang on. in partiuclar I draw your attention to "they are just not worth the risk"
a new army is a risk for GW, developing rules releasing the book (which takes up shelf space etc) DA, BA SW all have their own codex because GW has detirmined it's more profitable to do it that way. if they genuinely felt that those codices where a waste of shelf space... they'd not do it.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
I have also said I have no issue with DA being a supplement (how many times have I said that line so far), the line in the sand is condensing units like the Death/Ravenwing(s) to be 'take terminators/bikers from core book then add x,y,z' instead of just leaving the datasheets alone and simply having a list of 'no terminators from the core book, use the Deathwing datasheet instead'. That's the sticking point here.

But when they end up having exactly the same mechanical effect, what is the objection? Sentiment? Pride of seeing the words "Deathwing" on an otherwise generic unit?

My whole point is to condense datasheets where possible, and save space where possible too. And writing my proposed rules for using the pre-existing keyword system to manipulate keywords into affording units unique rules takes up far less space than explaining what units you can and can't take, and then having to fill out full datasheets for those replacements.

My proposal saves about 6 units worth of space - Deathwing, Cataphractii Deathwing and Tartaros Deathwing being replaced by generic versions (generic Terminators rewritten to feature mixed weapons, just how it should be even without this merging), and Ravenwing Bikes, Attack Bikes and Land Speeders being replaced by their generic versions.

That's about two to three pages of space that could be used for, well, anything else.

As I see it, those advocating the blandification of of Deathwing into 'terminators but you have to pay for these extra upgrades if you want them to actually be Deathwing terminators' don't like that those units are separate and have decided that all teminators must be the same (again picking on Deathwing as it's an easy unit to use for examples) even if extra wargear options/loadouts are the key mechanical and narrative differences.

My proposal doesn't force anyone to pay more for their Deathwing than they already did (aside from the Watcher, which was already a squad upgrade, and again, I'm not decided if it should be a stratagem or not). You wouldn't need to pay any more than you already do - the extra melee weapons cost points, the plasma cannon costs points, etc etc.
Again, I'm happy leaving the Inner Circle rule as a perk of being <Dark Angels> - no need to pay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
Karol's point is actually bang on. in partiuclar I draw your attention to "they are just not worth the risk"
a new army is a risk for GW, developing rules releasing the book (which takes up shelf space etc) DA, BA SW all have their own codex because GW has detirmined it's more profitable to do it that way. if they genuinely felt that those codices where a waste of shelf space... they'd not do it.

Perhaps, but just like with a lot of GW's decisions, it doesn't mean it's always right, and alternatives shouldn't be constructively discussed.

Which is why I'm happy, in my magical imaginary dream world, to propose ideas irrespective of what GW's current policy is right now. Yes, I'm aware they probably won't change anything, but I am at least curious to see what my proposal overlooks.

I think constantly saying "GW should get rid of codexes" isn't a good thing, imagine coming to these forums as a new member and the first thing you see are a buncha people screaming how your codex shouldn't even exist.

BrianDavion wrote:
I think constantly saying "GW should get rid of codexes" isn't a good thing, imagine coming to these forums as a new member and the first thing you see are a buncha people screaming how your codex shouldn't even exist.

Imagine coming to these forums as a new Ork or Necron player and the first thing you see is a bunch of people screaming about how it'd be an unbearable injustice if Space Marines had fewer than five Codexes while you're stuck with one.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I think constantly saying "GW should get rid of codexes" isn't a good thing, imagine coming to these forums as a new member and the first thing you see are a buncha people screaming how your codex shouldn't even exist.

Imagine coming to these forums as a new Ork or Necron player and the first thing you see is a bunch of people screaming about how it'd be an unbearable injustice if Space Marines had fewer than five Codexes while you're stuck with one.

Except very rarely do people say anything of that nature.
People just do what you're doing and pretend that their 'opposition' is arguing the point they want them to argue rather than the point that was actually made.

I cannot think of any time where I've seen anyone even remotely come close to arguing the point you're trying to pretend has been made. I think the closest argument might be that Kult of Speed is less of a "full codex" in and of itself but rather a supplement?

text removed.

Reds8n

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Balance in the game is far more important than you feeling special you make bad unit design choices.

For you, maybe. Not to Aelyn, and not to myself.

If someone wants to take a varied loadout, I won't stop them, and I'd rather see a squad of guys bedecked with cool and esoteric weapons than everyone holding the same one because it's more effective.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Balance in the game is far more important than you feeling special you make bad unit design choices.

For you, maybe. Not to Aelyn, and not to myself.

If someone wants to take a varied loadout, I won't stop them, and I'd rather see a squad of guys bedecked with cool and esoteric weapons than everyone holding the same one because it's more effective.

Slayer isn't interested in any opinion but the one he has decided is right.

As for unique loadouts .....Yeah its fun, and a bit of tactical as it seems to hearken to a fluff choice the Unforgiven made... A small thing but a nice little bit. I think a rules difference that was slightly more pronounced would work.

Also leave my cataphractii alone! Lol The 4++ makes lightning claws a more viable choice. However if they were condensed I wouldn't care that much. It's just not that important

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, when you can show off several battle reports of people using Terminator squads with 1 pair of LCs, 1 TH/SS, 1 Assault Cannon, 1 Chainfist, and 1 Sarge with the Power Sword and doing anything worthwhile you let me know.

First, let me say that I actually wouldn't mind if DA were done as a supplement. It would be annoying to have data sheets that I couldn't take, and it would feel weird to have significantly more unique content than most chapters, but whatever. But this specific argument is really, really bad, can feel lot like gatekeeping, and make it sounds like you don't even acknowledge non-tournament perspectives.

As it happens, that is *exactly* the load out I use with my DW squad. I take it because I like it and I feel that a squad that can, in-universe, handle almost any type of (vaguely human-sized) individual is exactly what would be sent to work with an otherwise-greenwing force. It feels like a load out uniquely suited to the DW agenda (where they might not know exactly what they're going to face) as opposed to traditional terminator squads which typically have very specific, predetermined missions.

Is it great on the table? No, of course not. It's not intended for super-competitive play. But I take it because it feels very unique and specific to the Unforgiven. Not everyone takes units for raw in-game power.

Trying to use the "competitive" argument doesn't work because it doesn't even work in a casual setting. So honestly you made me care even less.

I don't take it for power. I take it for coolness and because it feels appropriate to the lore.

That unit consistently - as in 100% of the time - does exactly what I want it to.

It dies? Wonderful. I couldn't care less. Balance in the game is far more important than you feeling special you make bad unit design choices.

Strange, since your original point was:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except that "flexible loadout" is never used. Nobody is gonna throw 1 of each Terminator in a squad just because they can, as it wouldn't do anything but get on the table and do jack gak.

So if the argument really does boil down to that, you don't have an argument.

I was pointing out that, in fact, people (such as myself) do play that exact sort of unit and are happy with it being somewhat underpowered. You then moved the goalposts to say "but the unit is bad in game, so I don't care about the fact that people like it."

You're not qualified to comment on whether or not something has a reason to exist unless you're able to at least understand where both sides are coming from, and claiming that an entire play style either doesn't exist or doesn't matter proves that you don't.

That's why that attitude weakens your position. People feel justified ignoring you on the basis that they see you as ignoring them.

Would people be less against Consolidation if the consolidation would lead to more customizability options?

F.E. You get a Tac profile that can use any of the others speciality and be therefore used to represent all of the subfactions?
Aswell as traits (chosing between subfactions having special formations etc?)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
The only difference from marines are the options available, and a reduced stat line for less points. That's it.

And special rules. Oh, and keywords.
The only difference between guards and marines are different statlines, different wargear, different options, different special rules, different faction keyword, different unit keywords.
I am not sure how they could be made more different, because I don't see what other difference the system allow for.

Those special rules and keywords are part of the mentioned options. You pick one set, and that detachment doesn't get to use others.







Sorry you can't seem to read my posts. Once you gain that ability, I suggest you check again. Literally the only thing I didn't do was type out a list of each special rule and equipment change for three codexes.

It's like arguing with a creationist.




You'll just claim that people 'aren't playing right' like you do every time this comes up. People have posted them to you in the past. Nope, you just move the goalposts again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


It doesn't work because you're lost in your own universe. I don't know anyone who uses your load out, but I know a few players who have some variation on SSx3, Heavy weapon, sargent, or SSx1, Heavy weapon, SBx3.
If you don't care, just stop posting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Nope thats not what was said

Remove the false "unique" elelments that are already used by other Chapters in the lore and just have the actual (very few) unique differences as unit upgrades or similar specific to DA Chapter tactics.

See nothing gone. Other Chapters can have the stuff they actually have.

You and others are already saying feth everyone else because they want their DA thier way.

You do realize that we would have to agree on what qualifies as a 'false' unique unit right? So far in 14 pages this hasn't happened yet, and you've given no one any incentive to agree with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...Can you accept that right now, without putting your own personal 'this is how I want them to be' take on it, can you accept that there are differences within lore, rules and models that define factions like the DA (and BA and SW) being separate entities to generic Space Marines?

Turn this on its head for a moment. Why are BA, DA, and SW their own Codexes, while Iron Hands, White Scars, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, Ultramarines, and Salamanders stuffed in their own books? FW sure found enough stuff to give them all unique units and Rites of War in 30k, didn't they?

The fact that SW, BA, and DA are 'different enough to be separate entities' isn't an immutable fact, it is a design decision. GW could turn around and choose to stuff them back into one Codex with a supplement like the other Chapters tomorrow. They're their own Codexes now, the fundamental disagreement of this thread is whether there's enough reason to keep them separate Codexes. Why aren't all the First Founding Chapters on equal footing? Why do some get unique units and some don't? Is "but we have non-character datasheets we don't share with everyone else" a reason something has to be its own Codex and not a supplement? What would be wrong with putting the Deathwing/Ravenwing datasheets into a supplement? There's even rules precedent in 8e for saying "This sub-faction gets (units X, Y, Z, etc.) from the main book but doesn't get (units A, B, C, etc.)", see Krieg and Elysians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...'They could have them' is not a good enough reason to decide that factions that 'do' have that as part of there identity should be watered down so that everyone now has exactly the same.. lore? Rules? Models?

Wouldn't saying "here's the core book and then here's the supplement with all the stuff that's unique to this sub-faction" be easier than saying "every sub-faction must have a unique standalone Codex"?

You do realize that many of the people here who are arguing against consolidation have all said they're fine with more expanded sub-factions right?
GW could turn around and put them back into the codex, or make them a supplement. So far they haven't, and have said they aren't planning on it.
The other FF chapters aren't because GW decided not to. Maybe back in 2nd they weren't as popular. Maybe GW felt that their vision for those chapters fit better in the marine book. Maybe GW was just lazy.
Krieg and Elysians are forgeworld, not straight GW. There has been little cross pollination between their their writing teams in terms of what makes it into most GW codexes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Would people be less against Consolidation if the consolidation would lead to more customizability options?

F.E. You get a Tac profile that can use any of the others speciality and be therefore used to represent all of the subfactions?
Aswell as traits (chosing between subfactions having special formations etc?)

No, pretty much because there are large enough differences between the three chapters and the core chapters to make that system work well, without being a troublesome mess. There's also the fact that the three also have quite a large following, almost as many as core space marines in general, who would probably be appalled to lose their army. For them emotionally it would be like telling Dark Eldar players that they were being pushed into the Craftworld Eldar book.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Would people be less against Consolidation if the consolidation would lead to more customizability options?

F.E. You get a Tac profile that can use any of the others speciality and be therefore used to represent all of the subfactions?
Aswell as traits (chosing between subfactions having special formations etc?)

I mentioned that in one of my earlier posts, but I want to say it again. This would be a great solution to give people alot of customisation. Should be done for all factions. Dark Angels for example could then be portrayed by a pre selection of the options available. Maybe give an incentive to take preconfigured factions. Similar to FF and successor traits right now.

How would that happen if GW limits rules to what model options they have and their models come very rare with more then one weapon option. Codex consolidation could end up with something like a thundar hammer chapter master being gone from the options, because GW does not produce one right now. All the cool marine melee stuff gets a lot less potent if the guy using it is moving on foot up the board with a speed of a snail.

All the datasheets already exist so we are past the point of "no model, no rule".

All the options are there, just not in one single box.

Mmmpi wrote:Sorry you can't seem to read my posts. Once you gain that ability, I suggest you check again. Literally the only thing I didn't do was type out a list of each special rule and equipment change for three codexes.

Which is, funnily enough, evidence. If you didn't supply that (as you now freely admit to doing), then you didn't supply evidence.

Again, instead of wasting time screaming "bbBBuT i dID provIdE eVIdeNcE", why don't you show us? It's not just me who can't see anything, and I don't see anyone barring yourself claiming that you did provide evidence. The onus is on you.

It's like arguing with a creationist.

Strange. I was under the impression that the person not supporting any of their points with any kind of facts or evidence when called upon to do so was exhibiting those kind of traits.

Say what you like, but I'm at least supporting my arguments with data and fully explained proposals. You, my friend, are not.

No, pretty much because there are large enough differences between the three chapters and the core chapters to make that system work well, without being a troublesome mess.

Again, are there? DA share ~85% of the same units with no further changes, and a not-insignificant portion of their unique units (notably the Ravenwing bikes, attack bikes, and land speeders) are only one rule away from being generic, which is exactly the same as some of the Codex: Space Marine units*. When DA were the only Chapter (other than Grey Knights) capable of taking all Terminator or all Bike/Land Speeder armies, yes, then they would have been widely unique enough, especially considering that supplements weren't a thing at the time!

But now, the infrastructure exists to combine them in a relatively painless way. I mean, you call consolidation a "troublesome mess" - did you read my proposal? It's smooth, doesn't feature any kind of "you can take this, but you can't take this!" shenanigans, and ensures a common baseline that DA already have in everything but name. Meanwhile a whole seperate Codex creates the kind of problems we saw with the Vanguard Primaris releases and the recent updates to Codex: Space Marines - of DA/BA/SW getting emergency FAQs and PDF datasheets to bring them to the same standard the other Chapters were. Now, if DA/BA/SW didn't get all those new things, maybe you could argue that this clearly shows GW's intent to keep them completely unrelated and increasingly distinct via active rejection of the new abilities: but no, GW gave BA/DA/SW all the same new units and abilities, clearly showing that they want those Chapters to work from the same core units and abilities.

*such as White Scars bikers and Ravenwing bikers being only one rule away in difference - should White Scars be a unique Codex while everyone else remains as a supplement, purely because of this?

There's also the fact that the three also have quite a large following, almost as many as core space marines in general, who would probably be appalled to lose their army. For them emotionally

So it's a sentimental reason. Despite the fact that my proposal would literally take none of their autonomy away or ability to play what they already have, the fact that they lose the status of being a solo Codex and have to share their core units (yanno, like they already do) with the 'boring generic Codex Marines' is the problem?

Because honestly, if that is the case, that's incredibly elitist.

it would be like telling Dark Eldar players that they were being pushed into the Craftworld Eldar book.

If Dark Eldar shared 85% of their units with Craftworld Eldar, I'd be advocating for it. But they don't.

I've made this point before with Genestealer Cults and Tyranids. Despite being closely related in fluff, and even sharing a few units, the vast majority of each book is incredibly distinct and unique in terms of their units. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Space Wolves are not this. They still share ~85% (in the Dark Angels' case, haven't calculated what it is for the others) of the same units, and some (not all) of their unique features either make no sense being unique in the first place(Blood Angel flamers, Space Wolves chainsword Tacticals, and Dark Angels mixed Terminators).

That's the point I'm getting at here - the DA didn't share so many of their units with "regular" Space Marines, then I would support them being independent, like I do with the Grey Knights. But 85% is a lot of units, and if everyone else is getting supplement treatment, I don't see why DA can't suck it up and bite the bullet too.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
How would that happen if GW limits rules to what model options they have and their models come very rare with more then one weapon option. Codex consolidation could end up with something like a thundar hammer chapter master being gone from the options, because GW does not produce one right now. All the cool marine melee stuff gets a lot less potent if the guy using it is moving on foot up the board with a speed of a snail.

That's not a problem with consolidation, that's a problem with GW's 'no model, no rules' policy.

The 'no model, no rules' policy would have this effect on thunder hammer jump Captains even if consolidation didn't occur.

Your consolidation is only not a mess in your opinion. I and others have disagreed.

I've also roughly listed rules differences in units, but from your most recent reply you're dismissing them because it's not verbatim typed.

With the respect I think this topic deserves, you've made your point about how you think things should be and those opposing you have made ours about how things are. Dislike it if you must, but stop dismissing it because you have a valid idea (I didn't say good idea, just that it's a valid one I personally dont want to see in print by GW).

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Your consolidation is only not a mess in your opinion. I and others have disagreed.

Yes, but with all due respect, the reasons for it being a mess haven't exactly been clear.

There's this idea of "but it's not the same flavour", but when my supplement includes all the same mechanical functions as the old Codex, barring literally one (the Watcher in the Dark), it's hard to see what this idea of "flavour" means without further explanation.

As far as I was aware, the flavour was in the result of the game mechanics you got (A --> B). My mechanics are different, but lead to the same result (A ---->B). However, if that is a problem, then must not be about the result of the mechanics, but the fact that something was implemented in a certain way (represented by the shorter arrow, in my bracketed examples). If that is the case, then it completely irrelevant what rules you actually get, so long as you get to cling to the idea of separation and being more unique than everyone else.

Which, if that's so, kinda smells like a bit of elitism to me.

I've also roughly listed rules differences in units, but from your most recent reply you're dismissing them because it's not verbatim typed.

If you want me to understand your points properly without bringing up how you guys haven't really explained them in detail, maybe it's worth having be verbatim typed.

I've also mentioned these differences in units, and I've approached each one with either a way to implement it as a unique ability afforded via keywords or stratagems, or pointed out how it has no real reason to be a difference in the first place. And before anyone says it, "it's always been like that" doesn't affect if the discussion is "why is it like that?"
Deathwing being given some kind of CP boost if they take all Deathwing units? That makes sense as a mechanical reward for all-Deathwing armies. Deathwing being the only Chapter to have mixed units? Why does this make sense?

With the respect I think this topic deserves, you've made your point about how you think things should be and those opposing you have made ours about how things are.

And other people have made their points on why my proposal should not be. I am trying to get people to elaborate on why that is the case, with a greater depth than many responses are right now.

So far, the main gist seems to be "they're different because they always have been" (ignoring that times have changed and now nearly all Chapters are different in some respect mechanically), "they'd lose their flavour" (despite my proposal resulting exactly the same mechanical effect, and none of their options being removed, only renamed), and "that would make them less exclusive" (which is the only one I can't argue against, but then I would call that point of view kind of elitist, because then it's not about mechanics or having your own flavour at that point, it's about having the prestige of having your own Codex and not having to be associated with the other Chapters).

If the best you can do is just insult other users, then it's best you don't post at all.

Or you won;t be posting.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Your consolidation is only not a mess in your opinion. I and others have disagreed.

I've also roughly listed rules differences in units, but from your most recent reply you're dismissing them because it's not verbatim typed.

With the respect I think this topic deserves, you've made your point about how you think things should be and those opposing you have made ours about how things are. Dislike it if you must, but stop dismissing it because you have a valid idea (I didn't say good idea, just that it's a valid one I personally dont want to see in print by GW).

Smudge knows what they are, he talks about them with familiarity. He's just trying to find a reason to ignore logical arguments. Nevermind the forum has rules against just flat out posting rules and stats.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Your consolidation is only not a mess in your opinion. I and others have disagreed.

I've also roughly listed rules differences in units, but from your most recent reply you're dismissing them because it's not verbatim typed.

With the respect I think this topic deserves, you've made your point about how you think things should be and those opposing you have made ours about how things are. Dislike it if you must, but stop dismissing it because you have a valid idea (I didn't say good idea, just that it's a valid one I personally dont want to see in print by GW).

Smudge knows what they are, he talks about them with familiarity. He's just trying to find a reason to ignore logical arguments. Nevermind the forum has rules against just flat out posting rules and stats.

Smudge has presented a lot of good arguments.

I have not seen the same from you.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Smudge has presented a lot of good arguments.

I have not seen the same from you.

In good faith, I'm willing to concede that they may have posted some kind of evidence in this thread. I haven't seen it, but perhaps I've missed it, in each of the various times I've looked through their posts. I'm not infallible.

But in the interest of resolving it, I ask that Mmmpi show me their detailed evidence that they claim to have posted previously in the thread. It would be much easier than dragging this out.

(Also, regarding flat out posting rules and stats, I believe the main restriction was on reposting rules in verbatim, and specifically detailed points costs. Not a basic rundown of what an ability does.)

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Your consolidation is only not a mess in your opinion. I and others have disagreed.

I've also roughly listed rules differences in units, but from your most recent reply you're dismissing them because it's not verbatim typed.

With the respect I think this topic deserves, you've made your point about how you think things should be and those opposing you have made ours about how things are. Dislike it if you must, but stop dismissing it because you have a valid idea (I didn't say good idea, just that it's a valid one I personally dont want to see in print by GW).

Smudge knows what they are, he talks about them with familiarity. He's just trying to find a reason to ignore logical arguments. Nevermind the forum has rules against just flat out posting rules and stats.

Smudge has presented a lot of good arguments.

I have not seen the same from you.

Sorry to read that.
I'm sure if you go back about 10 pages you'll see the ones he's been pretending didn't apply.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Sorry to read that.
I'm sure if you go back about 10 pages you'll see the ones he's been pretending didn't apply.

Would you care to show us, please?

Mmmpi, if you've got the evidence and whatnot to back up your statements, just repost 'em.

I'm relatively certain the evidence boils down to "GW says they should be separate", "I like having my own, separate Codex", and "but what if I lose units and flavor".

Basically, I'm asking you to justify the mechanical differences of generic units that require them to need a seperate datasheet, that cannot just be covered by stratagems, Vigilus-style Formations, or bespoke Chapter Tactics, beyond "they've always had separate entries!", because that wasn't true prior to "Angels of Death".

Me.

You mean besides different squad sizes, special rules, and at the time equipment options? Sure the current specialty speeders weren't around. But for a time, RW got unique speeders, and even after they became shared out, they still had rules that regular marines didn't get.
Justification done. Remember, stratagems cost CP, still take up room in the book, and can be countered by other stratagems. Formations require more space in books, you're really not saving space.

So yeah, I did point out the differences. I just refused to list EVERY difference in EVERY unit, in EVERY non-codex marine army for over twenty years.

This is just one of several posts.

I should also point out, another poster DID list much of the above, only to have it dismissed out of hand.
It's not hard to tell when the goalposts are shifting. I've spoken to enough creationists to be familiar with it when it happens.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Basically, I'm asking you to justify the mechanical differences of generic units that require them to need a seperate datasheet, that cannot just be covered by stratagems, Vigilus-style Formations, or bespoke Chapter Tactics, beyond "they've always had separate entries!", because that wasn't true prior to "Angels of Death".

Me.

You mean besides different squad sizes, special rules, and at the time equipment options? Sure the current specialty speeders weren't around. But for a time, RW got unique speeders, and even after they became shared out, they still had rules that regular marines didn't get.
Justification done. Remember, stratagems cost CP, still take up room in the book, and can be countered by other stratagems. Formations require more space in books, you're really not saving space.

So yeah, I did point out the differences.

At the risk of kicking the hornet's nest, no, not really. Look at the bolded sections.
My post can be broken down to "justify why they're different".
Your post? "They have different things".


This is exactly my point - there was no detail, no elaboration or attempt to "justify" why there were those differences beyond that they existed. Now, perhaps this was just a poor misunderstanding and you missed what I was actually saying, fair enough, we all make mistakes - but now that I've laid it out more clearly, could you actually answer the question? (Specifically the "justify why" part.)

I just refused to list EVERY difference in EVERY unit, in EVERY non-codex marine army for over twenty years.

The burden of proof was on you. And obviously I didn't expect every single difference of every single unit, but surely there must have been something critical, some crucial difference that sets them apart. And I didn't even get that.
Something like "Ravenwing Bikers are deserving of a different datasheet because they all have the Jink ability!" (which I would have immediately countered with how White Scars Bikers also possess a unique ability that other Chapters' Bikers don't get, and that they do just fine with being a supplement - but that's irrelevant) would have sufficed.

That I was more willing to go out and discover them myself in order to have a better understanding of your argument doesn't change how you essentially refused evidence. And that wouldn't really be an issue, if that was where you stopped interacting. But when this has been carrying on for several pages now of "you didn't post anything"/"yes I did", and now you admit that you didn't really go into your point in detail, maybe it would have been worth just posting the details sooner.

At the risk of kicking the hornet's nest, no, not really. Look at the bolded sections.
My post can be broken down to "justify why they're different".
Your post? "They have different things".

isn't justification enough, the fact that they had separate and different rules in the past. All different law systems work like that. Why do states no just use other states medical research when approving drugs. Or why countries just don't decided that instead of trying to figure out their own stuff for 200-300 years, they are just going to take the british or german common law and use that. DA/SW/BA rules existed as separate rule sets, with different rules from marine ones for multiple decades. Saying that they are not different, and asking for proof seems very strange. Aren't the 30 years of separate books proof enough?

And the second argument in favour of separate rules is that fandom for those factions exist. They had their books forever, it makes no sense to antagonise them by removing those books. And don't tell me they would lose nothing, because there is no way that there would be as much stuff in one book+supplement, as their is in one full codex for any given faction.

In fact you know what, Your arguments are of the same kind Russians used against Poles in the XIX and XX century. why they shouldn't be using the polish languge, change to being ortodox even by force and practicaly turn to be russians themself? I mean they are practicaly the same type of people.

That last little jab was pretty extreme. It'd be like saying that the arguments for keeping the Codexes separate are the same kind segregationists used against African Americans during the Jim Crow era. "It's been this way for a long time." and "We like it this way." These comparisons don't apply in this situation because we aren't discussing basic human rights.

They probably wouldn't lose anything through consolidation, if the argument that they share 85% of their data sheets and rules with the rest of the Marines is true. But, as with your argument that they would definitely lose something, it's impossible to know unless/until it happens, so arguments about losing fluff/uniqueness are inherently grounded in speculation.

Lastly, arguments based on "well it's been this way for a long time, so why rock the boat?" always irk me, because it's an argument of stagnation. Imagine if we used this in our "real lives". "Hey, I invented this round thing that helps to carry heavy loads from one place to another. I call it the wheel!" "Ok, but why do we need this? We've been carrying stuff on our backs for a long time and it's been fine."

Karol wrote:

At the risk of kicking the hornet's nest, no, not really. Look at the bolded sections.
My post can be broken down to "justify why they're different".
Your post? "They have different things".

isn't justification enough, the fact that they had separate and different rules in the past.

When the question is "why should they still have this", no, it's not a very sturdy justification at all.

All different law systems work like that.

The law also requires evidence and explanation to be provided.

However, we're not trying to make legal precedent. We're talking about if plastic models should use one set of numbers over another.

DA/SW/BA rules existed as separate rule sets, with different rules from marine ones for multiple decades.

I'm not contesting that. I am contesting why they still should have separate Codexes (but still separate rules!) when the state of the game around them has changed.

Saying that they are not different, and asking for proof seems very strange.

That's not what my argument has been at all. I've been saying all along that they're different. But Ultramarines are different from Iron Hands, yet still both use the core book.
Different doesn't mean "you should have a Codex", because they could also have a supplement. Why shouldn't Dark Angels?

Aren't the 30 years of separate books proof enough?

Not when the argument being made is why they are different.

Let's play out how this discussion is going:
"Why are they separate?"
"Because they've always been separate."
"Yes, but why?"
"Because they have unique units and abilities."
"Yes, but so do supplement Chapters. Why are DA/BA/SW separate in particular?"
"Because they've been separate for longer."
"Yes, but why should they be separate now?"
"Because they have unique abilities and units."
"So do supplement Chapters. Why aren't DA/BA/SW supplement Chapters?"
"Because..."
And so on and so forth.

And the second argument in favour of separate rules is that fandom for those factions exist. They had their books forever

Not really. They've had them since 2nd ed, but Ultramarines also had a full Codex back then too. Black Templars had their own too. Not to mention that the state of the game has moved on significantly from that point. Back when they were properly made separate, DA, as far as I'm aware, were the only Space Marine faction capable of having all Bike/Land Speeder armies, and all Terminator armies. Nowadays, anyone can do that.

The reason DA were unique wasn't because of unique units, it was because of unique organisation. My proposal takes from both - I wish to keep unique units that have significant reason to be unique, and boost DA with command benefits that reward taking pure Ravenwing/Deathwing.

it makes no sense to antagonise them by removing those books.

Like what happened to Ultramarines and Black Templars?

Furthermore, if everything in those books is kept (which my proposal does), why would that antagonise people? If they wanted Dark Angels to be an army built upon a core of Space Marine units, with unique rules and units sprinkled over the top, does it matter if it says 'Codex' or 'Supplement' on it?

And don't tell me they would lose nothing, because there is no way that there would be as much stuff in one book+supplement, as their is in one full codex for any given faction.

Why not?

Again, the Dark Angels Codex shares 85% of it's units with Codex: Space Marines. That's only 15% of unique stuff, stuff that I listed in an above post, which would easily fit in a supplement FOR Codex: Space Marines. What reason do you have why that wouldn't that fit in a supplement?

As for your "there's no way book+supplement would have more stuff than any full Codex" - what about, oh, Codex: Space Marines and any of it's supplements compared to any other Codex? Codex: Space Marines alone has more units than nearly any other Codex in the game, without including the supplements that you can apply on top of it.

In fact you know what, Your arguments are of the same kind Russians used against Poles in the XIX and XX century. why they shouldn't be using the polish languge, change to being ortodox even by force and practicaly turn to be russians themself? I mean they are practicaly the same type of people.

Wow.
There is a considerable difference between the eradication and suppression of real world cultures, and the removal of game rules for little plastic soldiers.

With all due respect, that is not applicable here.

People without answers don't like your questions.....

We can answer what the differences are. We can say x is different to y because of those differences.

But we cant give you more than that. No one outside of GW can give you that. Demanding we constantly answer further levels of 'but why ' is impossible after we get to the 'GW decided to split them in 2nd edition and haven't changed that decision '.

You're asking the impossible while constantly saying how you want it to be, and if we cant answer another layer of why its dismissed.

So, why should they be the same?

 BroodSpawn wrote:
We can answer what the differences are. We can say x is different to y because of those differences.

But we cant give you more than that. No one outside of GW can give you that. Demanding we constantly answer further levels of 'but why ' is impossible after we get to the 'GW decided to split them in 2nd edition and haven't changed that decision '.

Thank you. This is the crux of my argument - there is no real reason why they haven't changed that decision - and that's okay for [GW to do that. But I'm not GW.

All I ask is that my proposal is judged without the lens of "but GW kept them separate". I'm asking what mechanically and thematically is lost in my proposal, in a vacuum.

You're asking the impossible while constantly saying how you want it to be, and if we cant answer another layer of why its dismissed.

If you can't answer another layer of "why", maybe that's a sign that there wasn't much difference anyway.
I'm not asking for the impossible here.

So, why should they be the same?

What, aside from the fact that they share 85% of the same units? (Just done some vague estimates, I think Blood Angels would have roughly the same amount shared as Dark Angels, Space Wolves are the most unique, at just over 30% distinctly unique units - so, as I'm still making my mid up about SW, I'll address BA and DA for now).

They should be the same because the vast majority of their Codex is, and has been since their inception, mostly made up of generic Space Marine units. They should be consolidated because the mechanics of the game have changed to include stratagems that can permanently affect the abilities of an otherwise generic unit in game, and the potential exists to release a smaller book adding unique abilities and traits to an existing Codex, fulfilling the requirements of why the Dark Angels and Blood Angels once had separate Codexes. Adding to this the removal of the standard Force Organisation Chart, and the ability for anyone anywhere to build an army out of what were otherwise rarer units, some of the unique elements of the Dark Angels and Blood Angels (all Terminator armies and all jump pack armies) have already been long lost. Furthermore, the consolidation of the DA/BA into the standard Codex removes the need for emergency stand-in datasheets and FAQs when new units are added to Codex: Space Marines, as well as providing an incentive for existing Codex: Space Marine players to branch out into DA/BA Chapters, seeing as the buy-in is cheaper (£17.50 compared to £25), and vice versa. As proof of this general concept working, one only needs to look at the Legion lists in 30k to see how they achieve similar results from a shared core book, and at the existing supplements, which are proof of the successful diversification of otherwise "generic" Space Marine Chapters in the modern 40k ruleset.

But why should generic space marines have lore updated to signify the rules change?
Why should the Deathwing be relegated to just a terminator unit in your proposal?

Why should these changes be made on a fundamental level? Also you'll find that the 30k rule set uses a different design paradigm where even the chaos forces come from the same list, is that a statement in agreement that Chaos marines should be folded into a generic marine book? Chaos marine squads share an awful lot of similarities with Grey Hunters after all...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
We can answer what the differences are. We can say x is different to y because of those differences.

But we cant give you more than that. No one outside of GW can give you that. Demanding we constantly answer further levels of 'but why ' is impossible after we get to the 'GW decided to split them in 2nd edition and haven't changed that decision '.

Thank you. This is the crux of my argument - there is no real reason why they haven't changed that decision - and that's okay for [GW to do that. But I'm not GW.

All I ask is that my proposal is judged without the lens of "but GW kept them separate". I'm asking what mechanically and thematically is lost in my proposal, in a vacuum.

Then go put your "proposal" where it should be - in 40k Proposed Rules, not within threads in 40k General Discussion.

In General Discussion, we have to deal with what currently is and what historically has been, not what theoretically might be if someone else designs the system.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
We can answer what the differences are. We can say x is different to y because of those differences.

But we cant give you more than that. No one outside of GW can give you that. Demanding we constantly answer further levels of 'but why ' is impossible after we get to the 'GW decided to split them in 2nd edition and haven't changed that decision '.

Thank you. This is the crux of my argument - there is no real reason why they haven't changed that decision - and that's okay for [GW to do that. But I'm not GW.

All I ask is that my proposal is judged without the lens of "but GW kept them separate". I'm asking what mechanically and thematically is lost in my proposal, in a vacuum.

Then go put your "proposal" where it should be - in 40k Proposed Rules, not within threads in 40k General Discussion.

In General Discussion, we have to deal with what currently is and what historically has been, not what theoretically might be if someone else designs the system.

Given the topic of the thread at hand, it's pretty relevant to discuss how one could make the various full-Codex Marines supplements.

Except you cant argue with a valid idea. And when that idea is to change up thematic units in both the core codex and the new to be supplement... what else can we do? State how things are, get called to explain what makes things different and then get pulled into a design discussion that we're not here for?

The topic used to be what are the differences, now its 'justify why you dont like my design proposal'

All right, ya’ll have convinced me. Spikey marines should just be a supplemental codex for the base SM codex.

And I’m being serious.

 Stormonu wrote:
All right, ya’ll have convinced me. Spikey marines should just be a supplemental codex for the base SM codex.

And I’m being serious.

You're not wrong, it would certainly be an improvement over the current state of the game.

Currently putting any CSM unit on the table is an exercise in futility as you are using objectively inferior units.

 Stormonu wrote:
All right, ya’ll have convinced me. Spikey marines should just be a supplemental codex for the base SM codex.

And I’m being serious.

Renegades could work, but the Legions (with all their Daemon engines and whatnot) should probably be a separate book, similar to GK.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Renegades could work, but the Legions (with all their Daemon engines and whatnot) should probably be a separate book, similar to GK.

The only Daemon Engine I would be sad to lose would be the Lord of Skulls, the rest of them are mediocre at best.

 Stormonu wrote:
All right, ya’ll have convinced me. Spikey marines should just be a supplemental codex for the base SM codex.

And I’m being serious.

I'm all for relegating Renegades into the Loyalist codex actually. It makes more sense than the current way of handling it.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Renegades could work, but the Legions (with all their Daemon engines and whatnot) should probably be a separate book, similar to GK.

The only Daemon Engine I would be sad to lose would be the Lord of Skulls, the rest of them are mediocre at best.

Just make them something marines use. the dino chaos demons, just a melee or shoty leviathan. lord of skull, just a some very big knight or a small titan. bug lords of different types a primaris dreadnought, just with a character trait.

Orcs and eldar could be redone like that too.

Don't mind me, just dropping by for my daily intake of salt, shade and tea.

IMHO the thread should be closed. Until GW does make DA/BA/SW into a supplement or not, all this arguing is a Moot point.

For the record I like SW, and I wouldn't mind a supplement or a new codex, I'll still have my Wolves wolves!

Sgt Smudge,

The Dark Angels have unique units (before even talking about Named Characters) and do not have access to a slice of units that mainline Chapters have. I have my Dark Talon and Dark Shroud but miss out on Centurians etc. I have flexible Terminators but miss out on Vanguard Veterans/Sternguard. That is why they have a Codex and not a Supplement. They also have plenty of long-existing distinct lore. The DA Codex is fairly tight and is not hurting anybody. Saving $10 on a supplement is not a saving when I also have to buy the Space Marine Codex and now I have to bring both to game night.

Your proposal makes it confusing/convoluted and requires two books where one suffices. I do. It want to go back to the days of Index 1. Yes I need the Phobos update FAQ but that is a temporary free patch. Everybody has FAQs.

Now, I think at the designers missed an opportunity with the Deathwing and Ravenwing to make them count as Troops in certain circumstances, but that is beside the point.

Cheers,

T2B

The thread has kinda gotten off track from it's beginnings, but I don't see any need to close it. Just get back to discussing the OP's topic: is there a practical reason why these sub-Factions have their own Codex instead of being a supplement?

Over the last 15 pages, I've yet to see any practical reasons for the separation, but have seen (and understand) plenty of subjective reasons for it. I've also seen a lot of strawmen and other poor debate tricks, so there's that too.

Hopefully this thread is winding down. Feels like it.

I think my preferred solution would be fro DA/BA/SW to be supplements. Possibly large supplements, losing nothing, though. Done as additional options atop existing units for their super special things (Azrael shouldn't be generic), but as additional baseline options for most upgrades (Heavy Flamer Tacs, etc).

GK likely should remain seperate. There are a few shared entries, so could be "based" on Marines. But they don't share any Marines themselves. Just support.

In a perfect world, even Chaos Marines could be a Marine supplement. In fact, I think CSM would be better off following a merge/supplement model than they are now - as Death Guard and Thousand Sons should really be supplements. And if you wanted a pure VOTLW force, that's never recruited a single body since the Great Crusade ever, that could be yet another supplement (but doesn't need to be).

But putting almost all Chaos Marines in the Marine book and making the CSM book VOTLW-only would be completely backwards. Now you're duplicating 90% of the book in two places, just so people can feel better fielding pure-VOTLW armies. There's no actual upside here. Why would you print Sorcerers and Marks and Daemon Princes in the Loyalist book, too? Besides, to play most Legions, you'd need both books - most legions have recruited at least some members since the Great Crusade.

BroodSpawn wrote:But why should generic space marines have lore updated to signify the rules change?

In all fairness, my proposal changes very little lore about how Space Marine Chapters are portrayed (mixed squads and chainsword Tacticals already exist in fluff).

Why should the Deathwing be relegated to just a terminator unit in your proposal?

Because aside from two things (Inner Circle rule, which can be represented by Chapter Tactics or similar, and a Watcher in the Dark), they have no lore reason why they shouldn't be.
Look at it this way - Dark Angels have the "unique" Deathwing Cataphractii and Deathwing Tartaros datasheets. Aside from the Inner Circle rule alone, they are identical to the ones found in Codex: Space Marines. And yet they bear the "Deathwing" name.

They're relegated (such a loaded phrase, it implies they lose something - which, in my proposal, they don't) to being normal Terminators, because they basically are.
Deathwing Knights? Now they're unique.

Why should these changes be made on a fundamental level? Also you'll find that the 30k rule set uses a different design paradigm where even the chaos forces come from the same list, is that a statement in agreement that Chaos marines should be folded into a generic marine book? Chaos marine squads share an awful lot of similarities with Grey Hunters after all...

The reason Chaos and Loyalists are mixed in 40k is because the two hadn't grown separate enough. By 40k, Chaos forces have far more Daemonic and corrupted units, and 40k Marines have new post-Heresy units and equipment. Now, representing Renegade Chapters with C:SM rules? There's something in that. Representing the Traitor Legions? Far too much difference.

For what it's worth, about 35% of the Chaos Codex is directly equivalent to their Loyalist brethren. That's not enough for me to warrant combining.

Jimbobbyish wrote:IMHO the thread should be closed. Until GW does make DA/BA/SW into a supplement or not, all this arguing is a Moot point.

While true, it would also make a great many threads on Dakka irrelevant as a result. But, you have a point.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Sgt Smudge,

The Dark Angels have unique units (before even talking about Named Characters) and do not have access to a slice of units that mainline Chapters have. I have my Dark Talon and Dark Shroud but miss out on Centurians etc. I have flexible Terminators but miss out on Vanguard Veterans/Sternguard. That is why they have a Codex and not a Supplement.

Okay, but why don't they have Centurions? Why don't they also have Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans? Even if their 1st Company don't use them, they still have Company Veterans, surely there's nothing stopping them strapping on a jump pack?

I don't have a problem with having Dark Talons and Darkshrouds, they're completely unique, but I don't understand why this means they can't take Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons, beyond creating artificial differences. That's my main point here - many of the "differences" don't really have a reason to exist in lore. What about Centurions means that Dark Angels don't take them? What about mixed Terminator Squads, that have been seen used by other non-Unforgiven Chapters?

They also have plenty of long-existing distinct lore.

And most of that lore is about how the Deathwing are deployed en masse, which is the reason they're unique - not because they're the only Terminators with mixed arms.

And regarding long existing distinct lore (which I'm not disputing) - don't all the First Founders have that kind of lore? Iron Hands and Black Templars specifically? (Yes, I know they're not First Founding, but they got thrown in there too).

The DA Codex is fairly tight and is not hurting anybody. Saving $10 on a supplement is not a saving when I also have to buy the Space Marine Codex and now I have to bring both to game night.

But that's a bit of a double standard for the other Chapters that are just as unique lore-wise, yet got lumped in together.

Not only that, but even now, you're having to take multiple books to the table, if you want the Angels of Death abilities and Phobos Marines.

Now, I think at the designers missed an opportunity with the Deathwing and Ravenwing to make them count as Troops in certain circumstances, but that is beside the point.

There is no mechanical reason for them to be Troops. The main reason Troops are valued if because they grant easy access to high amounts of Command Points via Battalions and Brigades. Instead, I think a better solution is to reward players for leaning into that "Deathwing and Ravenwing deploy en mass" feeling by giving detachments only made up of their respective keyword a large bonus of Command Points. That way, we get to utilise the existing infrastructure in the game to pull this kind of stuff off!

Before we had these super customisable detachments, I would have agreed with you, but right now, with the resources the game provides, I think it's worth taking advantage of.

Bharring wrote:I think my preferred solution would be fro DA/BA/SW to be supplements. Possibly large supplements, losing nothing, though. Done as additional options atop existing units for their super special things (Azrael shouldn't be generic), but as additional baseline options for most upgrades (Heavy Flamer Tacs, etc).

Absolutely as large supplements, though I wouldn't want to charge more. I'm okay "losing" units that are basically copypaste jobs (Sanguinary Novitiate? It's an Apothecary with a new name!), but I wouldn't want to make any list invalid.

Basically, I want DA/BA/SW to be able to have the same lists they always have (and even more stuff, such as my Deathwing CP buff idea), but is there anything wrong with drawing their core units from another book, which is already what they're doing in everything but name?

A bonus to being a supplement is that when "generic" Marines get updates (like their new Codex), you'll also get those benefits, instead of having to wait for GW to eventually "get around to it". That's a big thing to me: getting quicker rules and changes.

 flandarz wrote:
A bonus to being a supplement is that when "generic" Marines get updates (like their new Codex), you'll also get those benefits, instead of having to wait for GW to eventually "get around to it". That's a big thing to me: getting quicker rules and changes.

Much less awkward as well with having the same rules for all loyalist marines. I have seen some succesful soup lists that have included both BA(still have the most reliable smash captains) and some of the new codex marines. Now of course they didnt take tactical marines with different costs but a Thunderhammer costs very different in the 2 detachments as well as having access to 2 slightly different versions of the standard marine stratagems. Exactly the same name but different wording. The 2 "Honour the Chapter" stratagems have a very important difference in that the new one needs an enemy within 1" and works on any adeptus astartes unit (except for the red ones in the same army list for some reason) and not just infantry or bike. If using Dante and Shrike in the same list their Chapter Master ability would work differently, thankfully Dante suck too much for that to ever happen...

This bothers me more than pure balance reasons. If I want to play something more powerful I can just use Raven Guard or White Scars rules for my Blood Angels but having different versions of the same rules really suck.

 flandarz wrote:
I'm relatively certain the evidence boils down to "GW says they should be separate", "I like having my own, separate Codex", and "but what if I lose units and flavor".

I don't know what is hard to understand. It's not the players that keep them seperate, GW has shown it doesn't give a crap what we like or not as far as why the other marine books have unique books. While it would make them a touch more money to have all the marine sub factions in supplement books, it also serves a purpose to have their their own books. It gives them capability to spread marine releases out over a longer period.

They drop core marine stuff, spend a whole season promoting and dropping marine stuff, spend a couple months then bam, BA drops, more kits that are that army specific and they can squeeze in some vanilla kits with it too take a month with that, wait a month..Bam SW drop, do the same stuff, etc, etc. It lets them trickle our marines of all the various flavors over the course of a couple years before they begin the process again. Makes it feel more organic that way and less forced then it all dropping with the core codex. Though who is to say they may not eventually do supplements for even those books ? Like for SW, Supplements for the notable Great Companies, etc, etc.

I think if we’re honest with ourselves, we all know the actual reason these books are separate codexes and not supplements. As with everything that GW do, it comes down to money.

My guess is that GW believe that they can sell a SW/DA/BA player two codexes using this model - the SM primary one and their chapter specific one. Why would a player of these factions buy the SM codex? Because it is always released earlier and always buffs marines. GW likely assume that players of those factions will proxy as another chapter until their own snowflake book is released, at which point they’ll snap it up (even if it’s not competitive).

Why sell a person a codex and less expensive supplement, when they can sell two codexes? It makes no business sense and from this thread we can see that players are absolutely fine with it. The only risk with this model is that the SW/BA/DA player doesn’t purchase the base SM codex, but I guess GW have stats on that and know that this method is more profitable.

The only other reasonable explanation I can think of, if the above is false, is that GW believe the backlash of consolidating the snowflake chapters into the base SM codex with supplements would be so heinous that they avoid it to appease the players. Again, this has somewhat evidenced itself during this thread.

I still can't see why it would cause such an outrage to change the stated marine codices to supplements.

It shouldn't be a problem for all of them to keep their unique datasheets. Maybe some "basic-marine" datasheets need point adjustments, maybe some weapon options need to be slightly different, but all that could be done within a supplement, couldn't it?

Making them supplements, regarding basic marine rule interactions, updates, erratas and faqs, doesn't have to mean, that they loose their unique flavour (and they shouldn't loose that, because every single one of them has it's place within the fluff for years).

It shouldn't be a problem for all of them to keep their unique datasheets. Maybe some "basic-marine" datasheets need point adjustments, maybe some weapon options need to be slightly different, but all that could be done within a supplement, couldn't it?

yes, and it would require so many pages of rules, that if the lay out for supplements was suppose to be upheld, by which I mean the number of pictures, history of all 10 companies, chapter history etc you would get a supplement book the size of a codex.

Karol wrote:

It shouldn't be a problem for all of them to keep their unique datasheets. Maybe some "basic-marine" datasheets need point adjustments, maybe some weapon options need to be slightly different, but all that could be done within a supplement, couldn't it?

yes, and it would require so many pages of rules, that if the lay out for supplements was suppose to be upheld, by which I mean the number of pictures, history of all 10 companies, chapter history etc you would get a supplement book the size of a codex.

and that's a problem because...?
So let's make those supplements as thick as a codex, doesn't matter. Nobody says, a supplement is not allowed to have more pages than (fill in a random number).

Just leave the basic units, that all marine armies share out of the supplement, just throw in the fluff, the unique things, the traits... you know where this is going. And if you don't know, well, look at the existing supplements. That's exactly what GW did.
Why paint the horse for the space wolfs in a different color? (again, take whatever chapter you like the most as an example)

edit: grammar

Well, if it's true that 85% of the units are shared with the main Codex, you would, at the very least, have a supplement with approximately 85 fewer pages than a Codex.

Nibbler 781960 10628512 wrote:

and that's a problem because...?
So let's make those supplements as thick as a codex, doesn't matter. Nobody says, a supplement is not allowed to have more pages than (fill in a random number).

edit: grammar

Because being forced to buy 2 books, when in the past you got it in one, and you still could easily get it in one is not good. Well unless maybe if you have a large number of GW stock, then anything that makes them more money is good. bigger sales equal bigger dividend.

Karol wrote:
Because being forced to buy 2 books, when in the past you got it in one, and you still could easily get it in one is not good.

Ultramarines, White Scars, Iron Hands, Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, Crimson Fists, and Black Templars, and all of their successors say hi.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:
Because being forced to buy 2 books, when in the past you got it in one, and you still could easily get it in one is not good.

Ultramarines, White Scars, Iron Hands, Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, Crimson Fists, and Black Templars, and all of their successors say hi.

Just because they've been wronged, doesn't mean others should be.

I'd rather we saw most of those getting an individual full 'dex (exception being having Imperial Fists and Crimson Fists in one book), with the Ultra's one doubling as the "standard" SM book, with each of the FF Chapters getting more development time and more unique options. One example that's been referenced multiple times here would be IH squad Sergeants (presumably in proper Marine squads, rather than Overly-Inflated Marine squads) having Terminator armour as an option.

The Codex: SM plus supplements approach is a halfway house, and as a result isn't really a good solution either way. Maybe we'll see full Codex releases for some additional FF chapters whenever the next codex cycle occurs, depending on how well they sell this time.

How many times have you been hosed, though, because the SM book came out, and suddenly you were overpaying for Tacs/Rhinos/etc, or some new kit came out that was "SM" so you didn't get it, or your book came out and suddenly you're underpaying for Tacs/Rhinos/etc, or designers were hesitant to properly point your stuff because it's shared across too many books?

The big upside in the parent-child dex/subdexes model is that, with the subdexes expanding upon a primary source for Space Marine rules, Space Marines can be managed in one rulesset and "inherited" by all those that use it. So there's one definition of a Tac Marine squad. This means that, if it needs to change, an FAQ only touches one book. Today, changing Marine rules means changing 7+ books. That seems awfully "WET" ("Write Everything Twice") to me.

An alternate model that'd probably be doable as an FAQ would be if the DA/BA/SW books said "And they can take the following units from the SM book... Their current datasheets are printed here, alongside any additional variance (such as "Tac Squads" are called "Grey Hunters"), but the SM book takes precedence."

That model would give all the benefits of consolidation, with the exception of some extra rule pages in the not-quite-child-dexes. But it'd also have the upside of being able to play (non-competitively) without having the SM book. If GW wanted to be super-awesome, they could even make sure the sub-Marine rules were fully correct just from using the subbooks+FAQ - so that you really don't have to buy two books. Many players still would want to - but those who want to could, those who don't want to wouldn't need to.

This model won't truly happen, but it's not far from where we are. Just a single medium-sized FAQ.

Something I've just realised in this whole debate. You dont need the Iron Hands supplement to play Iron Hands. Chapters traits are still in the core codex. Iron Hands layers dont need to buy 2 books, they get a benefit from it bu it's not mandatory.

DA as a supplement would be a mandatory purchase. Not an optional one. So you do force us to spend more than others to be able to function on a base level.

Or are you now also rewriting the core Codex for a 3rd time to make it capable of running DA without needing to supplement?

Food for thought, I already have a feeling the reaction though

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Something I've just realised in this whole debate. You dont need the Iron Hands supplement to play Iron Hands. Chapters traits are still in the core codex. Iron Hands layers dont need to buy 2 books, they get a benefit from it bu it's not mandatory.

DA as a supplement would be a mandatory purchase. Not an optional one. So you do force us to spend more than others to be able to function on a base level.

Or are you now also rewriting the core Codex for a 3rd time to make it capable of running DA without needing to supplement?

Food for thought, I already have a feeling the reaction though

So you're saying that a Dark Angels list made up solely of the 85% of generic units that exist in the Space Marine Codex too isn't actually a Dark Angels list?

In case I didn't make it clear, I actually did want to rewrite Codex: Space Marines - I thought I made that clear. I wished to rewrite it to the point where mixed Terminator Squads were generic, Terminator plasma cannons were generic, heavy flamers, chainswords, and paired special weapons on Tacticals were generic, Baal Predators and Land Raider Terminus Ultras were generic (much like how the canon Redeemer, Prometheus, and Crusader variants, despite being pioneered by certain Chapters, were distributed amongst the Astartes), Honour Guard were generic, etc etc, and including Chapter Tactics on the Chapter Tactics page for the Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Space Wolves, based off of the core ones that already exist.

I'm not that negligent. You'd still have unique rules, in the same way that Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves were given unique rules in Kill Team and the Vanguard Primaris Marines booklets - Chapter Tactics, like everyone else. If you wanted more, you'd pay for them, like everyone else has to.

I think you inferred something when I said they weren't in the current book. I didn't say a Dark Angel army made of Tactical/Devastator/Primaris marines wasn't a Dark Angel army. I simply stated something I'd realised after 15 pages of this discussion.

You want to rewrite all Space Marines in the way you see fit. You've heard arguments and had questions answered about why the sub-factions are treat differently. You still want to rewrite it all (lore included and retconned to how you see it I might add, because you can't plump units together mechanically and then not expect to make some kind of narrative change to that large group of people that spend money on the narrative side of the hobby).
And you have a valid idea to pseudo return to the 3rd edition setup (which we don't even know if DA are going to stay a separate codex at this point, though gut feeling is they will and just get something different than Combat Doctrines in it's place).

Apart from 'because it's better for you', which I disagree with because I do like the current differences it options across units/wargear/stratagems/etc., I'm not seeing a good reason to remove what makes those codices stand-alone other than 'you're just using the same models*' .

*Well mostly the same models for 'core' units but there's a good number of models in the core codex DA don't get and that's fine with me personally speaking.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
I think you inferred something when I said they weren't in the current book. I didn't say a Dark Angel army made of Tactical/Devastator/Primaris marines wasn't a Dark Angel army.

True, I believed that you were implying that a DA army is only a DA army if it has Deathwing and unique units in it, my mistake and apologies.

You want to rewrite all Space Marines in the way you see fit.

Pretty much, yeah. That doesn't mean that the "way I see fit" isn't governed by my view on Space Marine lore and flavour though.

You've heard arguments and had questions answered about why the sub-factions are treat differently. You still want to rewrite it all (lore included and retconned to how you see it I might add, because you can't plump units together mechanically and then not expect to make some kind of narrative change to that large group of people that spend money on the narrative side of the hobby).

As someone on the narrative side of the hobby, the idea that you need a unique Codex and datasheet to preserve that narrative is simply not ticking for me.

You mention how I want to retcon things: in what way? It's canon that other Chapters have mixed Terminator Squads (Space Hulk), and canon that non-Dark Angels have plasma weaponry on their Terminators (Invictus) - meanwhile, there is no canon that says anything to the effect of "only the Dark Angels and their descendants deploy mixed weapon Terminator Squads".

And you have a valid idea to pseudo return to the 3rd edition setup (which we don't even know if DA are going to stay a separate codex at this point, though gut feeling is they will and just get something different than Combat Doctrines in it's place).

They probably *will* stay as a Codex. The point is that I don't care what GW will do, because this is my imaginary proposal.

Apart from 'because it's better for you', which I disagree with because I do like the current differences it options across units/wargear/stratagems/etc., I'm not seeing a good reason to remove what makes those codices stand-alone other than 'you're just using the same models*' .

*Well mostly the same models for 'core' units but there's a good number of models in the core codex DA don't get and that's fine with me personally speaking.

You mention difference between units/wargear/stratagems. In my proposal, what are those differences that I don't replicate?
Stratagems would be unchanged, I never said anything otherwise.
Units, the only real unit changes (Deathwing Terminators, Cataphractii, Tartaros, Ravenwing Bikers and Land Speeders) would be absolutely identical in every mechanical effect (barring the Deathwing Terminators' lack of Watchers in the Dark), because of my application of keywords and amendments to the existing Chapter Tactics.
Wargear, likewise - you would lose nothing.

The only thing you lose is exclusivity on units that, as I've been demonstrating, have very few reasons to be exclusive (ie, there's canon mixed unit squads, and canon plasma Terminators).

Of course, if there's something I'm missing, I'm more than happy to acknowledge it!

Stratagems would be unchanged, I never said anything otherwise.
Units, the only real unit changes (Deathwing Terminators, Cataphractii, Tartaros, Ravenwing Bikers and Land Speeders) would be absolutely identical in every mechanical effect (barring the Deathwing Terminators' lack of Watchers in the Dark), because of my application of keywords and amendments to the existing Chapter Tactics.
Wargear, likewise - you would lose nothing.

DA have storm shield and caliban mace termintors. And they have plasma cannons on their termintors as arment option. So those are at least two things they would be losing.

The way I understood Sgt_Smudge the plasma cannon would be available to everybody and those mace Terminators will remain unique to DA. So nothing lost for DA players.

Karol wrote:

Stratagems would be unchanged, I never said anything otherwise.
Units, the only real unit changes (Deathwing Terminators, Cataphractii, Tartaros, Ravenwing Bikers and Land Speeders) would be absolutely identical in every mechanical effect (barring the Deathwing Terminators' lack of Watchers in the Dark), because of my application of keywords and amendments to the existing Chapter Tactics.
Wargear, likewise - you would lose nothing.

DA have storm shield and caliban mace termintors. And they have plasma cannons on their termintors as arment option. So those are at least two things they would be losing.

No, they wouldn't.

Deathwing Knights (the ones with the shield and mace/flail) are not the same unit as Deathwing Terminators (the ones with all the other stuff, like storm bolters, power fists, and other standard Terminator weaponry). I've said repeatedly that I wanted to get rid of the Terminator entry, but keep the Knight entry, because that is unique.

Likewise with the plasma cannon, I don't want to get rid of it completely. I want to make it a generic option. Because, as I said, don't want anyone to be "losing" anything. Dark Angels Terminators would have plasma cannons, just like how Ultramarines Terminators would.

I'm pretty sure that this consolidating is never going to happen, but I think it's funny how people come up with "but [insert unit here] is unique to my chapter" when stuff like the hurricane Landraider, Dark Apostles and Spiritseers exist (all of them where unique to a certain craftworld, chapter, legion once, as far as I know).

 BroodSpawn wrote:
25yrs+ of Dark Angels (the ones I follow story, models and have dipped in regularly for so I have a decent grasp on them) being separate, being shown as separate

Yeah but what about all those other chapters that you haven't followed that are different too? Shouldn't those get enough customization in Codex SM to be properly represented on the table? Why shouldn't the C:SM be flexible enough to allow for chapters very different from Ultramarines, including the dark angels?

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
The only difference from marines are the options available, and a reduced stat line for less points. That's it.

And special rules. Oh, and keywords.
The only difference between guards and marines are different statlines, different wargear, different options, different special rules, different faction keyword, different unit keywords.
I am not sure how they could be made more different, because I don't see what other difference the system allow for.

Those special rules and keywords are part of the mentioned options. You pick one set, and that detachment doesn't get to use others.

I don't understand what you are saying.

In the scope of the game, the difference in biology, skill and wargear between an imperial guard and an eldar (or a marine), is definitely relevant enough to warrant different special rules, different keywords, different profiles, etc., i.e. a different datasheet. However, the difference between a dark angel tactical and a crimson fist tactical, or between a deathwing terminator and a rainbow warrior terminator doesn't warrant more than a different chapter tactic and possibly access to different stratagems. Not a different datasheet.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:

Stratagems would be unchanged, I never said anything otherwise.
Units, the only real unit changes (Deathwing Terminators, Cataphractii, Tartaros, Ravenwing Bikers and Land Speeders) would be absolutely identical in every mechanical effect (barring the Deathwing Terminators' lack of Watchers in the Dark), because of my application of keywords and amendments to the existing Chapter Tactics.
Wargear, likewise - you would lose nothing.

DA have storm shield and caliban mace termintors. And they have plasma cannons on their termintors as arment option. So those are at least two things they would be losing.

No, they wouldn't.

Deathwing Knights (the ones with the shield and mace/flail) are not the same unit as Deathwing Terminators (the ones with all the other stuff, like storm bolters, power fists, and other standard Terminator weaponry). I've said repeatedly that I wanted to get rid of the Terminator entry, but keep the Knight entry, because that is unique.

Likewise with the plasma cannon, I don't want to get rid of it completely. I want to make it a generic option. Because, as I said, don't want anyone to be "losing" anything. Dark Angels Terminators would have plasma cannons, just like how Ultramarines Terminators would.

I think we have slight disagreement here in the intended goal.

As far as I can see you want all Space Marines Terminators to have mixed versatile loadouts. Which I don't mind.

Giving them our plasma Cannon.... I'd rather not because it does feel like our little thing I would prefer we just have a unique entry for the plasma Cannon in our combined Deathwing entry in a supplement

Honest question: Would you really want to keep the plasma cannon unique to yourself if it means you get to use literally everything else from all the other Space Marine factions?

I've been for us being moved to a supplement off Ultras like the other first founding chapters with our uniqueness included. You could do the same thing with Blood Angels.

Only Space wolves are that unique imo.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Honest question: Would you really want to keep the plasma cannon unique to yourself if it means you get to use literally everything else from all the other Space Marine factions?

Honestly yes.

Otherwise what's the difference between one faction of marines and another? If the goal is that every Marine chapter is exactly the same then you remove options that make them different, which is part of what the suggestion is. DA not having Centurions is a difference because Ultramarines don't have plasma cannons on Terminators. It gives an interesting option for all kinds of players and collectors when sub-factions have tangible differences (no, not everyone goes by the 'but people only play the most powerful units' style of playing/collecting so don't even bother with that please). Which means choices matter. Removing these distinctions makes those choices irrelevant for not only older players but new ones too.

As for the 'why can't other Chapters get cool things, why does DA (etc.) deserve to have things like that?' question - I've said before I'd love to see Raven Guard, etc expanded with there own divergent units (and army restrictions on what they have access to) to make them different or to exemplify those differences. Concatenating DA (etc.) down doesn't make those factions any more unique, it just removes the uniqueness from others.

'Why doesn't the core codex allow you to make divergent chapters?' - Isn't it because the design point of that is to represent all the Chapters that don't diverge from each other that much? Excluding the Black Templars, the other named Chapters in that book operate to a greater degree in the same way, though some favour certain approaches over others. The design of that book is to cover the 90% of Space Marines that that exist., especially since it's canon that the most common Founding Legion was the Ultramarines. Why do extra work to show divergence from that in the same book that is supposed to be showing that level of commonality. Or have I missed the what makes this core codex different from the DA/Space Wolves/BA factions and successors.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...Otherwise what's the difference between one faction of marines and another?...

Relics, Warlord Traits, Stratagems, psychic disciplines, unique characters.

Or are you saying the Salamanders, Iron Hands, Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, Raven Guard, and White Scars are all identical?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...Otherwise what's the difference between one faction of marines and another?...

Relics, Warlord Traits, Stratagems, psychic disciplines, unique characters.

Or are you saying the Salamanders, Iron Hands, Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, Raven Guard, and White Scars are all identical?

Y'know there's no good answer to this. Either I say 'yes' in which case I'll be accused of being ignorant or dismissive, or I have to say 'no' at which the next step is 'so DA should be brought inline with them and have stuff taken away/given to everyone so that they're only as different as the IH are to the RG'.

You do seem to have missed my point though, especially by pulling half a sentence out of context. So let me reiterate: the best thing would be to expand the Codex Compliant chapters to show more differences. Removing what makes a Codex Divergent chapter different does not make those that are Compliant any more different or unique than they already are.

My question is: is having unique load-outs really necessary for them to be different or unique? Should GW, for example, add 10-15 unique units and load-outs to every sub-Faction in the game (Chaos, Nids, Orkz, etc.) and make them all their own Codex? Or are they different and unique enough without them? And, if so, why should the Codex Divergent Chapters have their own Codex? Not to he condescending, but just wondering why their own Codex with their own special load-outs and such is NECESSARY for them to be unique? If the answer is "because I like it that way" then I ain't gonna argue you down. You're entitled to like things the way you like them. But the OP's topic was "what practical reasons are there for these Chapters have their own Codex?" and answers such as "because GW says so", "because they've been that way for a long time", and "because players like it that way" aren't practical reasons.

Tough one. Not because it's difficult to justify different sub-factions for Marines existing, but because asking why something is NECESSARY for a game like 40k is impossible to really answer in a dispassionate manner. For example of what I mean by this here's a few extensions to that base question:

Are any of the Xenos factions really needed when the game is Imperium vs Chaos?
Do Chaos Marines need to exist independently when you could just swap a singular keyword on a generic Marine datasheet?
Can someone justify Sisters of Battle existing as a playable faction?

Those stem from the same place 'give me a practical reason for 'x' to exist in this game'. Just change the 'x' as you see fit and see how difficult it is to answer without falling back on 'that's what was released to purchase and what people have bought and supported over time (in most cases)'.

In the most literal sense - they is no practical reason for any of them to exist, or for there to be any form of divergence (Chapter Tactics) in Space Marines.

However we can all agree that without even something as simple as Chapter Tactics (which practically doesn't need to exist for a Marine to be a Marine) allowing for people to have different options it allows for more ways to interact with both the hobby and the game. People like White Scars focus on rapid, mobile units (bikes) which is a difference to Iron Hands more armoured company (infantry + tanks) approach. Expanding that so certain units in certain sub-factions only having access to certain equipment others doesn't is a further expansion of those options. It's not needed in the most practical of terms, but it makes things more interesting and gives us more options in what we want to collect or how we go about that.

Why do DA (etc) have there own codex? Because there were enough differences in units they were allowed access to or had that were divergent from the 'core' in editions past to warrant it. Do they need it to just be a Space Marine army - no. Is it a good thing that they do have one since it gives players a choice and some specific models that are different from the generics? In my opinion yes.

I think it might be a bit extreme to go from "is it necessary for DA to have their own book, instead of sharing one with the other Chapters, to be unique and different?" to "is it necessary for Orkz to even exist?" But maybe that's just me.

Should also mention that many, MANY other Factions have unique units, Relics, Stratagems, Traits, and load-outs for certain sub-Factions while still being in the same book. These Codexes have also given players "a choice and specific models that are different from the generics".

 flandarz wrote:
I think it might be a bit extreme to go from "is it necessary for DA to have their own book, instead of sharing one with the other Chapters, to be unique and different?" to "is it necessary for Orkz to even exist?" But maybe that's just me.

In the most practical sense though where does the line get drawn on what is and isn't 'needed'. After we concatenate Space Marines into 1 list, how do we justify 3 factions of Eldar? How do we justify certain Xenos races when they add nothing of value to the primary setting/story.
I'm just pushing that argument to it's more extreme ends at this stage, but I'm trying to prove the point - you can't justify anything is actually needed or practical in 40k. It's not really a good justiification (in my eyes) to start removing units or re-writing multiple codices just because the trying to justify why something exists in this game is so difficult (as can be attested to in just how difficult it is to prove the differences in these units since someone will always use the 'I don't think that's a good enough reason' argument).



And here's the question back at you that I'm being made to answer: justify why those units should not be generic versions available to all? Why should they be different, what value does it bring, are they truly NEEDED to be able to represent that sub-faction?

 BroodSpawn wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I think it might be a bit extreme to go from "is it necessary for DA to have their own book, instead of sharing one with the other Chapters, to be unique and different?" to "is it necessary for Orkz to even exist?" But maybe that's just me.

In the most practical sense though where does the line get drawn on what is and isn't 'needed'. After we concatenate Space Marines into 1 list, how do we justify 3 factions of Eldar? How do we justify certain Xenos races when they add nothing of value to the primary setting/story.
I'm just pushing that argument to it's more extreme ends at this stage, but I'm trying to prove the point - you can't justify anything is actually needed or practical in 40k. It's not really a good justiification (in my eyes) to start removing units or re-writing multiple codices just because the trying to justify why something exists in this game is so difficult (as can be attested to in just how difficult it is to prove the differences in these units since someone will always use the 'I don't think that's a good enough reason' argument).

Spoiler:

Should also mention that many, MANY other Factions have unique units, Relics, Stratagems, Traits, and load-outs for certain sub-Factions while still being in the same book. These Codexes have also given players "a choice and specific models that are different from the generics".

And here's the question back at you that I'm being made to answer: justify why those units should not be generic versions available to all? Why should they be different, what value does it bring, are they truly NEEDED to be able to represent that sub-faction?

Well seeing as Eldar vs Dark Eldar are actually functionally different compared to Marines and other Marines, that might be how.
For eliminating armies, Harlequins don't need their own codex for example.

Just my 2 cents:

I personally feel that a space marine is a space marine. DA, BA and SW are all just space marines at the end of the day. That is to say, they play the same way. You have your tacs, assaults, devs, predator, rhino land raider etc. and Primaris are all identical. The minor differences between them are so minute as to matter too little for the overall playstyle (except probably SW, due to wulfen). At this point even Deathwatch (with all the primaris) are slowly becoming just another chapter.

The way I see it, if the majority of your units are equivalent/same then you should be merged into one book so that everyone gets updated simultaneously. There are already plenty of BA/DA players who would like to get doctrines and such. If they shared a book, they would have gotten them by already.

As for why other factions should not be merged:
- Chaos Marines aren't even Imperium so that would be wonky, plus only 1/3 of their codex are equivalent to imperial marines anyway. That said, DG and TS could be merged into the main chaos marine book. I would make 4 subsections dedicated to WE, EC, DG, TS with their own gear but still sharing the same codex.
- Eldar. D eldar and harlequins share 0 units between them afaik, so merging is pointless. Though harlies are small enough that they could be printed into both craftworlds and d eldar with their own subsection.

As far as i'm concerned, a codex is just a collection of rules, and the more rules you can fit in there without overloading it the better.
I would be very dissappointed if GW split other factions like they did marines: e.g catachans/cadians getting a codex/supplement would bum me out since it's unnecessary and a waste of money, paper, time and space. The codexes should be designed so that it can represent and respect significant subfactions. GW resorting to supplements is an indication that their codex design is insufficient/poor and should be revised.

The indexes despite their balance flaws were better laid out imo. With just one book I could play an Inquisition led guard army with knight support. Now, I need 2 codexes AND the index. I would love it if things like the inquisition/knights/assassins were just rolled into every imperial codex under its own subsection. Or at least the guard/admech ones.
I actually liked sharing my index between tau, orks and nids because it felt like I was getting more bang for my buck. I had an old ork army I was even able to use even though I never really planned on using them at all.

Dandelion wrote:
Just my 2 cents:

I personally feel that a space marine is a space marine. DA, BA and SW are all just space marines at the end of the day. That is to say, they play the same way. You have your tacs, assaults, devs, predator, rhino land raider etc. and Primaris are all identical. The minor differences between them are so minute as to matter too little for the overall playstyle (except probably SW, due to wulfen). At this point even Deathwatch (with all the primaris) are slowly becoming just another chapter.

The way I see it, if the majority of your units are equivalent/same then you should be merged into one book so that everyone gets updated simultaneously. There are already plenty of BA/DA players who would like to get doctrines and such. If they shared a book, they would have gotten them by already.

As for why other factions should not be merged:
- Chaos Marines aren't even Imperium so that would be wonky, plus only 1/3 of their codex are equivalent to imperial marines anyway. That said, DG and TS could be merged into the main chaos marine book. I would make 4 subsections dedicated to WE, EC, DG, TS with their own gear but still sharing the same codex.
- Eldar. D eldar and harlequins share 0 units between them afaik, so merging is pointless. Though harlies are small enough that they could be printed into both craftworlds and d eldar with their own subsection.

As far as i'm concerned, a codex is just a collection of rules, and the more rules you can fit in there without overloading it the better.
I would be very dissappointed if GW split other factions like they did marines: e.g catachans/cadians getting a codex/supplement would bum me out since it's unnecessary and a waste of money, paper, time and space. The codexes should be designed so that it can represent and respect significant subfactions. GW resorting to supplements is an indication that their codex design is insufficient/poor and should be revised.

The indexes despite their balance flaws were better laid out imo. With just one book I could play an Inquisition led guard army with knight support. Now, I need 2 codexes AND the index. I would love it if things like the inquisition/knights/assassins were just rolled into every imperial codex under its own subsection. Or at least the guard/admech ones.
I actually liked sharing my index between tau, orks and nids because it felt like I was getting more bang for my buck. I had an old ork army I was even able to use even though I never really planned on using them at all.

Absolutely agreed. Shove all the marines into one codex, separate the options based on the different flavours of mehreens.
We do NOT need a new book every two months rehashing the same damn content. It's literally just a book that contains 10-20 excel spreadsheet statlines. We can do better than that, we deserve better than that.

Or at the very least market this gak better so anyone who plays Xenos or CSM DOESNT feel like it's a damn NPC race. This is an egregious disaster.
Hell, to make matters worse there's rumors that the design team had Space Marines a LOT weaker in the beta, with Super Doctrines not stacking with normal doctrines but GW told them "Yea naw fam push that gak 4 sales" and so we have what we've got now.

It's the same gakking company shoveling gakware for gakkers but with a semi-decent (until recent) PR company running the community.

I never said that DA (and other non-Compliant Chapters) should have "generic" options. I'm asking, if you share 85% of the same options, why do you need a separate book? Why is it necessary to have your own Codex, if the little differences that you DO have can be easily included in the same book the rest of the Marines are using? Differences are great, but do these Codexes have ENOUGH differences to justify a separate book? Eldar and Orkz are different enough from each other (they share literally 0 data sheets, rules, lore, etc.) to justify being separate books. Can you say the same for DA and the other Codexes?

You already know the answer to that. I think there's enough differences for them to exist, you don't.

I'm actually wasting my time trying to answer a question you can't in my place.