BAD;, because screw you for actually wanting more then 1, ONE, squad of such terminators. (GW torwards WE players, probably)
Also you play, as stated above WE, so no double shooting aswell, and with a FURTHER CP for reroll you might manage to get that squad in, and yet they still are termites, WE termites btw, so good luck. ( Oh did we mention that you ain't playing psykers aswell, ya know that what is actually good for CSM, yeah that, you don't get that aswell.)
So not even for fun you can field more of these amazing Terminators from the fluff, because you are not allowed too and competitively an about 67% chance for a successfull charge, with no real help is not good.
So the problem with the strat is the fact that it’s limited to one use? I was assuming in my post that these strats would be multi use, otherwise, yeah it sucks.
Dandelion wrote: So the problem with the strat is the fact that it’s limited to one use? I was assuming in my post that these strats would be multi use, otherwise, yeah it sucks.
Well probably because it is marines you get "lucky"but even then as you can see there are caveats an meaning That it is just an upgraded other unit it might just take that baggage with it.
Castozor wrote:The whole pay x CP for upgrade just irks me. Both because more often than not it limits it to 1 unit per army, and because I'd much rather just factor it into my list building with a fixed cost rather than "magically" upgrade them at game start. Personal opinion of course.
While I see both points, I think the problem isn't in the fact it's a stratagem, but more that GW haven't allowed for taking multiple "unit upgrade" stratagems pre-game, which is something I also agree needs to be amended and corrected.
Stratagems like Ard Boyz, Red Butchers, Officio Prefectus Command Tank, etc etc should to be able to be taken multiple times, in an ideal world, and in my houserules.
Regarding factoring into list building, it would factor in, you just reserve X amount of command points on your roster instead of use actual points. So, for me, I always reserve some Command Points on my list for things like Chapter Master, or Command Tank, or so on, because that corresponds to the models I take, regardless of if they serve a specific purpose in that game.
Unit upgrade stratagems are stupid. This is what points are for. CP should only be for tricks during the play. Why sometimes better unit costs more points sometimes more CP? It's just arbitrary. And why making an army of Veteran Intercessors led by a Chapter Master nets you less CP for the actual game? Certainly an army of veterans led by an experienced commander should be able to execute more complex manoeuvres and tricks and not less?
It’s funny, because I feel that strats should all just be pregame mechanics and not actually have them be used mid game. They slow my games down since I don’t play often and I can’t remember most of them. Another point is that by using strat upgrades we don’t have to add vet intercessor datasheets, which would directly compete with regular intercessors.
Jokes on you! A different unit of mine can be Black Guardians, members of the standing army instead of militiamen, each turn.
This turn, my leftmost squad are standing forces with a great deal of battle experience, and everyone else are poets and basketweavers, going about their craft up until yesterday, when they'd been pressed into service in desperation.
Next turn, my leftmost squad hasn't seen combat in centuries, but my rightmost has been in active guardsmen of the Craftworld for what humans would call generations!
Bharring wrote: Jokes on you! A different unit of mine can be Black Guardians, members of the standing army instead of militiamen, each turn.
This turn, my leftmost squad are standing forces with a great deal of battle experience, and everyone else are poets and basketweavers, going about their craft up until yesterday, when they'd been pressed into service in desperation.
Next turn, my leftmost squad hasn't seen combat in centuries, but my rightmost has been in active guardsmen of the Craftworld for what humans would call generations!
Because that makes so much more sense.
Ah yes those are even better then the limited 1 upgrades or upgrade stratagems as a whole
Not to mention each time a CSM with ML want's to do AA duty he needs to vox in the Lord? Like why?
Bharring wrote: Jokes on you! A different unit of mine can be Black Guardians, members of the standing army instead of militiamen, each turn.
This turn, my leftmost squad are standing forces with a great deal of battle experience, and everyone else are poets and basketweavers, going about their craft up until yesterday, when they'd been pressed into service in desperation.
Next turn, my leftmost squad hasn't seen combat in centuries, but my rightmost has been in active guardsmen of the Craftworld for what humans would call generations!
Because that makes so much more sense.
Ah yes those are even better then the limited 1 upgrades or upgrade stratagems as a whole
Not to mention each time a CSM with ML want's to do AA duty he needs to vox in the Lord? Like why?
Hey those aa missiles are expensive! Can't just go firing them off willie nillie without approval! And filling out the appropriate forms ! In triplicate!
Bharring wrote: Jokes on you! A different unit of mine can be Black Guardians, members of the standing army instead of militiamen, each turn.
This turn, my leftmost squad are standing forces with a great deal of battle experience, and everyone else are poets and basketweavers, going about their craft up until yesterday, when they'd been pressed into service in desperation.
Next turn, my leftmost squad hasn't seen combat in centuries, but my rightmost has been in active guardsmen of the Craftworld for what humans would call generations!
Because that makes so much more sense.
Ah yes those are even better then the limited 1 upgrades or upgrade stratagems as a whole
Not to mention each time a CSM with ML want's to do AA duty he needs to vox in the Lord? Like why?
Hey those aa missiles are expensive! Can't just go firing them off willie nillie without approval! And filling out the appropriate forms ! In triplicate!
The darkmechanicum bureaucracy is the most vile and cruel existing bureaucracy there is in all of 40k.
Alternatively, using a Strat to upgrade a SINGLE unit is a good way to limit spamming said unit in every form of play (not just Matched Organized play). I could easily see this being GWs mentality for certain things.
It was thought that Primaris Marines were immune to the Black Rage, but they are not. But it should still be RARE for it to happen. Ergo, you get 1 unit per army period.
Crimson wrote: Unit upgrade stratagems are stupid. This is what points are for.
If it were points and the change was actually useful then the base unit would never be used.
No. That only happens if the upgrade is too cheap.
Basic Guardian squad - 10 Guardians - finds use as a min GEQ unit to hold a point and fill a slot.
Full Guardian squad - upgraded to 20 Guardians - finds use to blob a location or to DS alpha-strike something
An example of a unit where both the base unit and the upgraded version, paying only points for the upgrade, are useful.
Crimson wrote: Unit upgrade stratagems are stupid. This is what points are for.
If it were points and the change was actually useful then the base unit would never be used.
No. That only happens if the upgrade is too cheap.
Basic Guardian squad - 10 Guardians - finds use as a min GEQ unit to hold a point and fill a slot.
Full Guardian squad - upgraded to 20 Guardians - finds use to blob a location or to DS alpha-strike something
An example of a unit where both the base unit and the upgraded version, paying only points for the upgrade, are useful.
I believe he means an upgrade that can apply to a min unit for no points (like a strat or better yet and trait)
So to further your anology, it would be like 10 BLACK Guardians, in which any 10 Guardian unit can upgrade for free to get BS2+ by using a specific trait. There'd vertically no reason NOT to do that, hence the basic 10 Guardians are never used
If the upgrade is worth roughly it's points - and neither more nor less than that - then that's what you're calling a sidegrade?
Becuase how you're describing Ard Boyz - it's an upgrade. They now have 4+ armor. But it's not for free - you pay for it.
Similarly, taking another 10 Guardians is an 'upgrade' - the 20-man squad is clearly better. But by your construct, it's a 'sidegrade' - the 20man unit is not necessarily better (or worse) than the 10man unit, for the points you're paying for it.
All upgrades (and unit choices) should be "sidegrades" in that regard.
Bharring wrote: If the upgrade is worth roughly it's points - and neither more nor less than that - then that's what you're calling a sidegrade?
Becuase how you're describing Ard Boyz - it's an upgrade. They now have 4+ armor. But it's not for free - you pay for it.
Similarly, taking another 10 Guardians is an 'upgrade' - the 20-man squad is clearly better. But by your construct, it's a 'sidegrade' - the 20man unit is not necessarily better (or worse) than the 10man unit, for the points you're paying for it.
All upgrades (and unit choices) should be "sidegrades" in that regard.
An upgrade for me in game terms is, if an option is outright superior in most if not all cases.
A sidegrade for me is if it is a choice i willingly make.
in this case it was pay 4 more points and get actual armor, or go cheap.
Crimson wrote: Unit upgrade stratagems are stupid. This is what points are for.
If it were points and the change was actually useful then the base unit would never be used.
No. That only happens if the upgrade is too cheap.
But, if the upgrade is too expensive then it won’t be used. The point upgrade system only really works if the new unit is worth exactly what the base unit is worth, which is difficult to pull off and just leads to redundant units. Imo strat upgrades are a neat way to avoid this problem.
Crimson wrote: Unit upgrade stratagems are stupid. This is what points are for.
If it were points and the change was actually useful then the base unit would never be used.
No. That only happens if the upgrade is too cheap.
But, if the upgrade is too expensive then it won’t be used. The point upgrade system only really works if the new unit is worth exactly what the base unit is worth, which is difficult to pull off and just leads to redundant units. Imo strat upgrades are a neat way to avoid this problem.
Hence where the word "Balance" comes from in the phase "Balance".
Making sure choices - whether they're different units, or different upgrade configurations of the same unit - are worth the same value for their points is what balance is all about.
Strat upgrades don't fully avoid this problem. Why would I take the unupgraded unit for the same points, if I can't use the stratagem? The base unit is still replaced by the upgraded version if you only take one. You'd only be taking the base unit without the stratagem if you've already taken the upgraded version. But then, in that case, if the weaker option is worth it's points to you, the stronger option is certainly worth *more* than it's points to you.
Crimson wrote: Unit upgrade stratagems are stupid. This is what points are for.
If it were points and the change was actually useful then the base unit would never be used.
No. That only happens if the upgrade is too cheap.
But, if the upgrade is too expensive then it won’t be used. The point upgrade system only really works if the new unit is worth exactly what the base unit is worth, which is difficult to pull off and just leads to redundant units. Imo strat upgrades are a neat way to avoid this problem.
So would you remove vanguard veterans as an elite option and turn it into a 1cp strategem on assault squads?
Personally I'd love the option to pay 2 ppm to upgrade my raptors to have the vv stat line and equipment options.
Or to make csm into chosen for that matter. And give me my melta bombs back.
Bharring wrote: If the upgrade is worth roughly it's points - and neither more nor less than that - then that's what you're calling a sidegrade?
Becuase how you're describing Ard Boyz - it's an upgrade. They now have 4+ armor. But it's not for free - you pay for it.
Similarly, taking another 10 Guardians is an 'upgrade' - the 20-man squad is clearly better. But by your construct, it's a 'sidegrade' - the 20man unit is not necessarily better (or worse) than the 10man unit, for the points you're paying for it.
All upgrades (and unit choices) should be "sidegrades" in that regard.
An upgrade for me in game terms is, if an option is outright superior in most if not all cases.
A sidegrade for me is if it is a choice i willingly make.
in this case it was pay 4 more points and get actual armor, or go cheap.
This might be a terminology problem, but I've always seen unit options referenced as "upgrades".
But the construct you're referencing - "An outright superior option in most if not all cases" - is basically the definition of OP. Options in this game should never be "outright superior".
Crimson wrote: Unit upgrade stratagems are stupid. This is what points are for.
If it were points and the change was actually useful then the base unit would never be used.
No. That only happens if the upgrade is too cheap.
But, if the upgrade is too expensive then it won’t be used. The point upgrade system only really works if the new unit is worth exactly what the base unit is worth, which is difficult to pull off and just leads to redundant units. Imo strat upgrades are a neat way to avoid this problem.
So would you remove vanguard veterans as an elite option and turn it into a 1cp strategem on assault squads?
Personally I'd love the option to pay 2 ppm to upgrade my raptors to have the vv stat line and equipment options.
Or to make csm into chosen for that matter. And give me my melta bombs back.
But, if the upgrade is too expensive then it won’t be used. The point upgrade system only really works if the new unit is worth exactly what the base unit is worth, which is difficult to pull off and just leads to redundant units. Imo strat upgrades are a neat way to avoid this problem.
It doesn't avoid the problem, it moves the same problem into a less granular system, making balancing even harder.
I really do not understand how so many people seem to have a problem grasping the basic concept of points, a system this game has used for decades: units with more powerful rules cost more points.
I always viewed a "sidegrade" as an option where you gain something but lose something else. Like, in your 'Ard Boyz example, I'd say the option to get a 4+ Save is roughly equivalent to giving up Green Tide (+1 Attack if over 20 models). I'd call that a "sidegrade". Tacking a price onto something doesn't really make it less of an upgrade, any more than buying a new phone doesn't make it an upgrade of your current one. An upgrade should always be an improvement over the original.
Tldr; a sidegrade should be an option that is equal in value to the original, while an upgrade should be a superior choice, even if it costs you more.
Crimson wrote: Unit upgrade stratagems are stupid. This is what points are for.
If it were points and the change was actually useful then the base unit would never be used.
No. That only happens if the upgrade is too cheap.
But, if the upgrade is too expensive then it won’t be used. The point upgrade system only really works if the new unit is worth exactly what the base unit is worth, which is difficult to pull off and just leads to redundant units. Imo strat upgrades are a neat way to avoid this problem.
Hence where the word "Balance" comes from in the phase "Balance".
Making sure choices - whether they're different units, or different upgrade configurations of the same unit - are worth the same value for their points is what balance is all about.
Strat upgrades don't fully avoid this problem. Why would I take the unupgraded unit for the same points, if I can't use the stratagem? The base unit is still replaced by the upgraded version if you only take one. You'd only be taking the base unit without the stratagem if you've already taken the upgraded version. But then, in that case, if the weaker option is worth it's points to you, the stronger option is certainly worth *more* than it's points to you.
The idea is that you don’t have to waste time and effort balancing 2 redundant units. With strat upgrades, every cp spent prevents you from doing something else, so while the upgraded unit is better than the base unit, it still costs you more and prevents you from spamming the upgraded unit. Taking a vet unit would be rare but worth it (ideally). Plus, strats already boost a unit to more than its points are worth: fight twice, relics etc. so how is this different?
But, if the upgrade is too expensive then it won’t be used. The point upgrade system only really works if the new unit is worth exactly what the base unit is worth, which is difficult to pull off and just leads to redundant units. Imo strat upgrades are a neat way to avoid this problem.
It doesn't avoid the problem, it moves the same problem into a less granular system, making balancing even harder.
I really do not understand how so many people seem to have a problem grasping the basic concept of points, a system this game has used for decades: units with more powerful rules cost more points.
Don’t strats already give buffs disproportionate to a units points? A knight with a 4++ is better than one with a 5++, but costs the same points.
The idea is that you don’t have to waste time and effort balancing 2 redundant units. With strat upgrades, every cp spent prevents you from doing something else, so while the upgraded unit is better than the base unit, it still costs you more and prevents you from spamming the upgraded unit. Taking a vet unit would be rare but worth it (ideally). Plus, strats already boost a unit to more than its points are worth: fight twice, relics etc. so how is this different?
Costing more points also prevents you from doing something else, as you have less points do spend elsewhere. That is literally the whole bloody purpose of points!
One off tricks are different, that's what CP should be for. It is inelegant to have two different unit costing systems used at the same time. It is also counter-intuitive that forces comprised of more elite warriors and commanders are less tactically capable than similar but less experienced forces.
Crimson wrote: Unit upgrade stratagems are stupid. This is what points are for.
If it were points and the change was actually useful then the base unit would never be used.
No. That only happens if the upgrade is too cheap.
But, if the upgrade is too expensive then it won’t be used. The point upgrade system only really works if the new unit is worth exactly what the base unit is worth, which is difficult to pull off and just leads to redundant units. Imo strat upgrades are a neat way to avoid this problem.
Hence where the word "Balance" comes from in the phase "Balance".
Making sure choices - whether they're different units, or different upgrade configurations of the same unit - are worth the same value for their points is what balance is all about.
Strat upgrades don't fully avoid this problem. Why would I take the unupgraded unit for the same points, if I can't use the stratagem? The base unit is still replaced by the upgraded version if you only take one. You'd only be taking the base unit without the stratagem if you've already taken the upgraded version. But then, in that case, if the weaker option is worth it's points to you, the stronger option is certainly worth *more* than it's points to you.
The idea is that you don’t have to waste time and effort balancing 2 redundant units.
You can certainly trade away complexity for cost, so you have a simpler set of options with the same balance. It's a seperate balancing act. Reduce too many "redundant" options, and you're down to rock-paper-scissors. Include too many, and there's no real chance at balance.
With strat upgrades, every cp spent prevents you from doing something else
Just like points...
, so while the upgraded unit is better than the base unit, it still costs you more and prevents you from spamming the upgraded unit.
Just like Points. Only not points. So you need to balance the army around an even *more* complex equation, based on both Points and CP for resources. So you need to "streamline" (cut) options out of the game *much further* to make it viable to balance it the same way you'd need to by costing power by Points alone.
You're basically arguing we need two currencies for power, and ones that can't be directly traded. That makes balancing insanely difficult, and does a much worse job of ensuring you pay for what you're getting.
Taking a vet unit would be rare but worth it (ideally).
Just like making Vets cost more points?
Plus, strats already boost a unit to more than its points are worth: fight twice, relics etc. so how is this different?
First, it's not a good idea there either, imo. But that's an entirely different issue. Second, and more on topic, this is picking which units you're taking by paying a currently altogether different from points, in a game predicated on paying points for the units you're taking.
And third, more scary to me, there seems to be this idea that you should be able to pay points to get things that make you better *than the points are worth*. How does that work? That equation is tautological nonsense.
How is a one off trick fundamentally different from a buff that lasts the whole game? Both affect the in game value of the unit, but for some reason you feel the one is better than the other.
Edit, the whole idea that I’m proposing and defending is that strat upgrades don’t result in units with redundant roles, thus requiring no inter unit balance, which is practically impossible to achieve btw. Instead, players have access to buffs via a non point currency already, so why can’t those just be done before the game starts? The upgraded unit being better is fine, imo, because it’s an opportunity cost from other strats and is therefore self limiting. On the other hand, a vet datasheet risks just completely replacing the base version. Or, both options are equally worth their points and so choosing one over the other has no in game value, which begs the question of why we even have the vet unit.
Dandelion wrote: How is a one off trick fundamentally different from a buff that lasts the whole game? Both affect the in game value of the unit, but for some reason you feel the one is better than the other.
One is situational trick you may or may not choose to use with any eligible unit during the game, the other is a permanent chance fixed to one unit done before the battle begins. The latter is what points are for.
Dandelion wrote: How is a one off trick fundamentally different from a buff that lasts the whole game? Both affect the in game value of the unit, but for some reason you feel the one is better than the other.
One is situational trick you may or may not choose to use with any eligible unit during the game, the other is a permanent chance fixed to one unit done before the battle begins. The latter is what points are for.
I don’t see why that has to be the case though. I personally dislike the mid game buffs that strats offer, they interrupt my plays and I would much prefer to just label which unit has what and then forget strats exist for the rest of the game.
Btw, I edited my above comment before your comment posted, just FYI.
I don’t see why that has to be the case though. I personally dislike the mid game buffs that strats offer, they interrupt my plays and I would much prefer to just label which unit has what and then forget strats exist for the rest of the game.
Then you don't need strats at all! Just build army with one currency, the points, upgrades and everything. Having two different currencies for the same thing is just confusing and unnecessary.
Edit, the whole idea that I’m proposing and defending is that strat upgrades don’t result in units with redundant roles, thus requiring no inter unit balance,
If upgrade makes the base unit redundant, it will happen with CP as well.
which is practically impossible to achieve btw
Then certainly it is even more impossible to achieve in a less granular system!
Instead, players have access to buffs via a non point currency already, so why can’t those just be done before the game starts?
Because that's what points are for!
The upgraded unit being better is fine, imo, because it’s an opportunity cost from other strats and is therefore self limiting.
Just like with the points!
On the other hand, a vet datasheet risks just completely replacing the base version.
If the cost is wrong. Just like with the CP except CP is harder to balance.
Or, both options are equally worth their points and so choosing one over the other has no in game value, which begs the question of why we even have the vet unit.
By that logic we might as well remove most units in the game. Ignoring points, Space Marines do everything the Guardsmen do, except better. So why have Guardsmen?
Furthermore, upgrades affect certain capabilities of units, while they do not affect others. For example Veteran Intercessors are better at melee, but do not shoot better. Thus as long as I pay a non-negligible cost (in any currency) to upgrade them, I don't always want to upgrade all my Intercessors; the upgrade has little benefit for backfield campers that are unlikely to end up in a close combat.
Strat upgrades don’t make the base unit redundant because it is the base unit, it’s also much more limited. With just points, it’s possible to spam the vet unit until all your infantry are vets. By tying the upgrade to cp, you create a hard cap that is lower than the total points of the game, thus preventing vet spam.
Also strat cost can be balanced solely against the cost of other strats which seems far easier than balancing individual units.
As for your last point, the same can be done with cp. I wouldn’t spend all my cp on vets if I only need one or two squads to have it. They’re both point systems, obviously, but for some reason you feel that using cp pregame is worse than using them in game. I feel that either scenario has the same overall effect on game balance (where some units are worth more than their points) except the pregame ones require commitment to the unit but in game strats don’t.
Your second to last point misses the mark. Space marines and guardsmen are not in the same codex/faction and they don’t perform the same roles, they have different bases stats, different special rules and different gear. Guardsmen and guard vets, though, are fairly redundant and guard vets can be switched to being a stratagem instead of being overshadowed by their cheaper brethren as they are now.
Dandelion wrote: Strat upgrades don’t make the base unit redundant because it is the base unit, it’s also much more limited. With just points, it’s possible to spam the vet unit until all your infantry are vets. By tying the upgrade to cp, you create a hard cap that is lower than the total points of the game, thus preventing vet spam.
Or if you want "Limitne" on a unit, you could, you know, put "Limitne" on a unit. So you could be sure there's only one Avatar, for example.
This way you're not adding an entirely seperate currency for buying units, like you are with CP.
It's also more similar to what was already in the game. Becuase, you know, it is.
If you want to limit choices by having those choices cost a resource, we already have points (and to a lesser degree, slots). If you want to limit how many times a unit can be taken, we already have those limits. And those points and limits are already a really hard formula. Why add a whole new dimension to the equation in CP? You make balancing a lot harder, and gain nothing new.
Also strat cost can be balanced solely against the cost of other strats which seems far easier than balancing individual units.
As for your last point, the same can be done with cp. I wouldn’t spend all my cp on vets if I only need one or two squads to have it. They’re both point systems, obviously, but for some reason you feel that using cp pregame is worse than using them in game. I feel that either scenario has the same overall effect on game balance (where some units are worth more than their points) except the pregame ones require commitment to the unit but in game strats don’t.
What makes Strat points easier to balance? I can name a couple factors that make them harder:
-You're paying with a currency you produce via wonky fashion, instead of standard payment models for units (points)
-You have a much higher minimum variance - 1CP vs 2CP is a much bigger swing than 1pt vs 2pt. In this way, opting to balance units around CP costs is like saying Power Levels were too granular!
-You're using your reactive ability pool for proactive army construction - so you have reactive capabilities feeding proactive choices, which kinda defeats the purpose of having CP seperate from Points
-You're constraints are a lot more artificial - if you want to cost out what one unit is worth over another, points are a much better understood and much more relateable medium for value, and the "Limitne" facet is a lot less direct than actually saying "Limitne" (in addition to being a lot less flexible to "Limit:two" or "Limitne per detatchment/CM/whatever" concepts).
Using CP does not have the same overall effect on game balance. You cannot directly trade out that 1CP for a couple Flamers, but you can indirectly. So now you've introduced some arcane bartering that used to be a direct points tradeoff. Now you need to ask how many points and CP unit $X is worth, not just how many points. And because we now have two factors in that equation, there are now virtually infinite "correct" answers instead of one. How the hell do you balance that? Short answer, you don't. Long answer, nonnormal-space set theory isn't freshman level math.
Your second to last point misses the mark. Space marines and guardsmen are not in the same codex/faction and they don’t perform the same roles, they have different bases stats, different special rules and different gear. Guardsmen and guard vets, though, are fairly redundant and guard vets can be switched to being a stratagem instead of being overshadowed by their cheaper brethren as they are now.
Are Dire Avengers and Guardians redundant? Mostly the same rules. Sometimes I want militiamen (Guardians). Othertimes I want super specialist soldiers at Marine levels of ability (Dire Avengers). I can have both, and they can be balanced, at different points levels.
This adds more depth to the universe and the game. It takes more work to balance, but I'd argue it's worth it. Now, make those Dire Avengers "Buy Guardians, then pay CP", and we go from "A reasonable comparision to balance" to "How the holy hell do we balance two units with two currencies?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Pray tell how I'm spamming Vet units in my Marines and Chaos Marines, please.
Deathwatch for Marines. Cult Troops for Chaos Marines.
For various definition of "vet", of course - ever Marine is a vet.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Pray tell how I'm spamming Vet units in my Marines and Chaos Marines, please.
Because they suffer the opposite problem of paying points for upgrades, namely that it isn’t worth it. In your case you’re spamming the better version of the two units. (If either is any good that is) Make it a strat and it’s potentially worth it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ bharring
Tau players already have a limited unit and they hate it. Cp upgrades aren’t as hard and fast as “only one per army”. There’s room for personal interpretation and investment into units.
Also, you can balance strats by adjusting their affects and their cost. You can also make them affect multiple units at once. In addition, the standards for balancing strats are less than those of units. A strat only has to be worth using. A unit has to be better than another unit, which by its comparative nature, is more difficult. If it is used to the exclusion of other strats then you nerf it. If it is never used then you buff it. It’s more forgiving than unit points.
That said, I also believe CP should be based on the game size and not the detachments. But that should happen regardless of my above idea.
And again, I’m not adding a currency, it’s no different to what we have now, I’m just employing it differently. If I have 2 berserker units and only one gets to fight twice due to a strat, is that not an imbalance? What if I upgrade one of those berserker units before the game to have an additional attack? What’s the difference? In both cases you’re affecting the worth of a unit for CP instead of points. So unless you’re against strats entirely, then your concerns about imbalance are moot.
The fundamental difference is that you must commit to the buff before the game. Which imo makes the game more interesting and allows counterplay from the opponent. None of this “gotcha” nonsense. You can disagree with this, but you can’t say it’s less balanced since all the variables are otherwise the same.
Guardians and dire avengers are similar, but they still have different guns, a weapon platform, and a different save. They also operate differently, now with exarch buffs and the fact that avengers are intended for assault rather than camping. So, no, they are not eligible for the strat treatment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, we should wrap this up quick since we are wildly off topic, i think.
Just to be somewhat on topic: reducing vets to strats would reduce datasheet bloat and allow for consolidating marines. So there’s that too.
Tau players already have a limited unit and they hate it. Cp upgrades aren’t as hard and fast as “only one per army”. There’s room for personal interpretation and investment into units.
Eldar have had "Limit:One" in their book since at least 6E. And it's never generated hate.
Points upgrades have the same "Scale usage with the value you get per usage" advantage. Higher points means the stronger one gets used less. But, since it's based on the same currency you get the base unit for, it's a lot easier to compare and balance than CP-plus-points.
Also, you can balance strats by adjusting their affects and their cost. You can also make them affect multiple units at once.
But can you reasonably have 1CP upgrade 2/5ths of a unit? The smaller quantum makes it really, really hard to finetune. Either it's worth 1CP or 2CP, it can't be worth 1.5CP.
In addition, the standards for balancing strats are less than those of units. A strat only has to be worth using.
In what way is this an upside? The lower standard is because we know we can't balance it nearly as fairly. So it seems to work because you lower your standards for balance. That's a negative if you think it through.
A unit has to be better than another unit, which by its comparative nature, is more difficult.
CP doesn't change this. If it takes 1CP to upgrade $thing to $superThing, and $thing costs 50pts, then $superThing has to be worth 50pts + 1CP. While $thing has to be worth 50pts. So you still have the same differential value of {$superThing - $thing}. But now you have to express it in CP, not points. Which are far less granular, and really hard to consistently "point" compared to points.
If it is used to the exclusion of other strats then you nerf it. If it is never used then you buff it.
Same thing for points
It’s more forgiving than unit points.
As above, only because you lower your standards. Likewise, Power Level is "easier" to balance, because you expect worse balance from it. CP lack the clarity or granularity of points.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I see the appended part of your post - wasn't there when I posted.
I agree. We're off topic. Lets move on.
But first, let me say thank you for discussing our differing opinion in a civilized, intelligent, honest, and mature manner. It's always more productive that way.
Tau players already have a limited unit and they hate it. Cp upgrades aren’t as hard and fast as “only one per army”. There’s room for personal interpretation and investment into units.
The reason we hate the limit on commanders is because it didn't serve to actually fix the reason that commanders were being spammed.
It was a treatment for the symptom, not a cure for the disease.
Tau players already have a limited unit and they hate it. Cp upgrades aren’t as hard and fast as “only one per army”. There’s room for personal interpretation and investment into units.
The reason we hate the limit on commanders is because it didn't serve to actually fix the reason that commanders were being spammed.
It was a treatment for the symptom, not a cure for the disease.
Considering gw also knew the cure (differing points for weapons according to accuracy) makes it even more hillarious.
Tau players already have a limited unit and they hate it. Cp upgrades aren’t as hard and fast as “only one per army”. There’s room for personal interpretation and investment into units.
The reason we hate the limit on commanders is because it didn't serve to actually fix the reason that commanders were being spammed.
It was a treatment for the symptom, not a cure for the disease.
Considering gw also knew the cure (differing points for weapons according to accuracy) makes it even more hillarious.
Exactly. Paying the same cost for a weapon for very different statlines is ridiculous. Even between the commander units it is questionable that they should pay the same cost. A Coldstar has much better ability to make use of short range weaponry like Fusion Blasters and CIBs than the other suit types yet pays the same points for them.
Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?
Which makes the Commander overpointed when not toted out as a gunboat.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?
Which makes the Commander overpointed when not toted out as a gunboat.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?
Which makes the Commander overpointed when not toted out as a gunboat.
You're not using them for anything else, come on.
Which is totally good design, am I right? Who wants Commanders to COMMAND, that's just silly! /s
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?
The problem is that the weapons are overcosted for Crisis teams and undercosted for commanders.
Commanders are also limited in their ability to function well as anything but dakkamanders as they have no passive aura and their only non-drone controller, non-signature issue wargear buff can be used once per game, not even once per game per commander but once per game period unless you are running farsight or shadowsun. The signature wargear buffs they can give to other units often come at the expense of their own shooting and since they are pretty much always better at shooting than units around them it doesn't make sense to give up their shooting for a marginal buff to less effective shooting and so those buffing-relics go on ethereals and fireblades.
Tau players already have a limited unit and they hate it. Cp upgrades aren’t as hard and fast as “only one per army”. There’s room for personal interpretation and investment into units.
The reason we hate the limit on commanders is because it didn't serve to actually fix the reason that commanders were being spammed.
It was a treatment for the symptom, not a cure for the disease.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?
Which makes the Commander overpointed when not toted out as a gunboat.
You're not using them for anything else, come on.
Which is totally good design, am I right? Who wants Commanders to COMMAND, that's just silly! /s
Well even if Suits were better you wouldn't be using the Commander to buff them further.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?
The problem is that the weapons are overcosted for Crisis teams and undercosted for commanders.
Commanders are also limited in their ability to function well as anything but dakkamanders as they have no passive aura and their only non-drone controller, non-signature issue wargear buff can be used once per game, not even once per game per commander but once per game period unless you are running farsight or shadowsun. The signature wargear buffs they can give to other units often come at the expense of their own shooting and since they are pretty much always better at shooting than units around them it doesn't make sense to give up their shooting for a marginal buff to less effective shooting and so those buffing-relics go on ethereals and fireblades.
I mean I've been saying that Crisis Suits should be BS3+ standard. That would certainly help a bit.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Revamp =/= Bump their particular weapons. That's a whole different conversation.
That's true. But the issue I see is that a Commander is not actually commanding jack diddly-they're just a gunboat when used at their most effective.
While Captains and Lieutenants for Marines are smashy, they're also good at buffing. The Commander should be similar, if replacing the smashy with shooty though.
I know it's kinda off topic of the main thread, but do you think Commanders are well-designed? Independent of points cost, do they fulfill their stated role in an army?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Revamp =/= Bump their particular weapons. That's a whole different conversation.
That's true. But the issue I see is that a Commander is not actually commanding jack diddly-they're just a gunboat when used at their most effective.
While Captains and Lieutenants for Marines are smashy, they're also good at buffing. The Commander should be similar, if replacing the smashy with shooty though.
I know it's kinda off topic of the main thread, but do you think Commanders are well-designed? Independent of points cost, do they fulfill their stated role in an army?
In that instance, no I don't think they're well designed at all. However even if you doubled or even tripled the cost of their weapons, you don't have an incentive to use them for anything BUT gunboat.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Revamp =/= Bump their particular weapons. That's a whole different conversation.
That's true. But the issue I see is that a Commander is not actually commanding jack diddly-they're just a gunboat when used at their most effective.
While Captains and Lieutenants for Marines are smashy, they're also good at buffing. The Commander should be similar, if replacing the smashy with shooty though.
I know it's kinda off topic of the main thread, but do you think Commanders are well-designed? Independent of points cost, do they fulfill their stated role in an army?
In that instance, no I don't think they're well designed at all. However even if you doubled or even tripled the cost of their weapons, you don't have an incentive to use them for anything BUT gunboat.
And that's my point. They should be designed better.
A stopgap would be adjust the points of their weapons, so they're more in-line with other options, but the best way forward is to revamp the Commander entirely.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Revamp =/= Bump their particular weapons. That's a whole different conversation.
That's true. But the issue I see is that a Commander is not actually commanding jack diddly-they're just a gunboat when used at their most effective.
While Captains and Lieutenants for Marines are smashy, they're also good at buffing. The Commander should be similar, if replacing the smashy with shooty though.
I know it's kinda off topic of the main thread, but do you think Commanders are well-designed? Independent of points cost, do they fulfill their stated role in an army?
In that instance, no I don't think they're well designed at all. However even if you doubled or even tripled the cost of their weapons, you don't have an incentive to use them for anything BUT gunboat.
And that's my point. They should be designed better.
A stopgap would be adjust the points of their weapons, so they're more in-line with other options, but the best way forward is to revamp the Commander entirely.
At that point it's easier to make Crisis Suits better, and it wouldn't be hard either. Then maybe you would have incentive to tag the two along together.
A stopgap would be adjust the points of their weapons, so they're more in-line with other options, but the best way forward is to revamp the Commander entirely.
Points changes don't fix much, if the core of the problem are not the points, but lack of functional rules.
We aren't GW-we can do better than the lazy man's route.
Oh absolutely. I'm tired of creating fan rules though since nobody will use them. You know I worked for a straight month to better handle the new Marine codex just working out scenarios myself and what I would plan to do for other armies I had already planned out? I had base Vanilla Marines (with consolidated Angels), CSM, Necrons, and Space Wolves basically done and was planning to tackle Eldar next (though I had planned to ask for help on the traits).
We aren't GW-we can do better than the lazy man's route.
Oh absolutely. I'm tired of creating fan rules though since nobody will use them. You know I worked for a straight month to better handle the new Marine codex just working out scenarios myself and what I would plan to do for other armies I had already planned out? I had base Vanilla Marines (with consolidated Angels), CSM, Necrons, and Space Wolves basically done and was planning to tackle Eldar next (though I had planned to ask for help on the traits).
I scrapped everything because who cares?
"Who cares" is secondary. You could easily find enough players who *care*. You could easily get agreement that *something* should be done.
The real problem is *what* should be done. If you put 3 40k players in a room to come up with a complete rebalance, no two of them are likely to agree to the same complete rework.
It's very easy to look at a complex system and come up with a "solution"/"fix" that you "know" will "solve everything". That doesn't mean your "fix" actually solves anything. And it certainly doesn't mean anyone else will think your fix will solve anything. Worse yet, considering just about any individual's lack of ability, odds are your "perfect fix" will actually make things worse.
40k is a nontrivial system. I'm sure we could improve it. But it's very easy to make things worse if you don't know what you're talking about. And it's very easy to not know what you're talking about with how bloated and arcane the rules have gotten.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?
Unless you discard most of the weapon options, you actually can't.
Long story:
Spoiler:
Consider two units with two upgrade options:
You have two unit costs.
Lets say 10ppm for the cheaper, 20ppm for the stronger.
Cheaper is worth 5 units value. Stronger is worth 10 units of value.
They have 2 upgrade options.
One upgrade increases the model's value by 100%.
The other upgrade increases the model's value by 400%.
When considering the cheaper unit, the first upgrade should clearly be 10ppm - as selecting it provides as much value as adding another 10 points of models. And the second upgrade is clearly worth 40ppm. Any cheaper than that, and the upgrades are clearly better than getting more of the cheap model. Any more than that, and the upgrade is clearly not worth passing up taking more of the cheap model instead.
However, with those upgrades at 10ppm/40ppm - the only possibly fair value per above - they're a nobrainer for the stronger model. For only +10ppm, your stronger model goes from being worth 2 of the cheaper model, to being worth 4 of the cheaper model. In other words, you're paying 30ppm for 40pts worth of value. Same with the better upgrade - you're paying 60pts for the same value you'd get out of 100pts of the "cheaper" model.
So, in order to point the upgrades properly for the cheaper model, they are necessarily OP for the stronger model.
Now, improvements aren't pure factor improvements atop their base unit (most of the time). However, the value you get out of it does depend on the model upgraded. As such, there's no way to have constant point such that you have a weaker unit, stronger unit, weaker upgrade, and stronger upgrade, and they're each worth a constant point value regardless of which combination you take. Basic math.
Short version: Take a few math courses, if necessary. Constant values can't be variable...
This hurts T'au Commanders more than most for two reasons. The first is that the "cheaper" unit has BS4+, and the "stronger" unit is BS2+. Most other factions only vary by 1 point of BS, so the difference isn't felt as much. Second, T'au Commanders and Crisis share a very wide array of weapons options, both in terms of what to kit for and how powerful the weapons are.
We aren't GW-we can do better than the lazy man's route.
Oh absolutely. I'm tired of creating fan rules though since nobody will use them. You know I worked for a straight month to better handle the new Marine codex just working out scenarios myself and what I would plan to do for other armies I had already planned out? I had base Vanilla Marines (with consolidated Angels), CSM, Necrons, and Space Wolves basically done and was planning to tackle Eldar next (though I had planned to ask for help on the traits).
I scrapped everything because who cares?
"Who cares" is secondary. You could easily find enough players who *care*. You could easily get agreement that *something* should be done.
The real problem is *what* should be done. If you put 3 40k players in a room to come up with a complete rebalance, no two of them are likely to agree to the same complete rework.
It's very easy to look at a complex system and come up with a "solution"/"fix" that you "know" will "solve everything". That doesn't mean your "fix" actually solves anything. And it certainly doesn't mean anyone else will think your fix will solve anything. Worse yet, considering just about any individual's lack of ability, odds are your "perfect fix" will actually make things worse.
40k is a nontrivial system. I'm sure we could improve it. But it's very easy to make things worse if you don't know what you're talking about. And it's very easy to not know what you're talking about with how bloated and arcane the rules have gotten.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?
Unless you discard most of the weapon options, you actually can't.
Long story:
Spoiler:
Consider two units with two upgrade options:
You have two unit costs.
Lets say 10ppm for the cheaper, 20ppm for the stronger.
Cheaper is worth 5 units value. Stronger is worth 10 units of value.
They have 2 upgrade options.
One upgrade increases the model's value by 100%.
The other upgrade increases the model's value by 400%.
When considering the cheaper unit, the first upgrade should clearly be 10ppm - as selecting it provides as much value as adding another 10 points of models. And the second upgrade is clearly worth 40ppm. Any cheaper than that, and the upgrades are clearly better than getting more of the cheap model. Any more than that, and the upgrade is clearly not worth passing up taking more of the cheap model instead.
However, with those upgrades at 10ppm/40ppm - the only possibly fair value per above - they're a nobrainer for the stronger model. For only +10ppm, your stronger model goes from being worth 2 of the cheaper model, to being worth 4 of the cheaper model. In other words, you're paying 30ppm for 40pts worth of value. Same with the better upgrade - you're paying 60pts for the same value you'd get out of 100pts of the "cheaper" model.
So, in order to point the upgrades properly for the cheaper model, they are necessarily OP for the stronger model.
Now, improvements aren't pure factor improvements atop their base unit (most of the time). However, the value you get out of it does depend on the model upgraded. As such, there's no way to have constant point such that you have a weaker unit, stronger unit, weaker upgrade, and stronger upgrade, and they're each worth a constant point value regardless of which combination you take. Basic math.
Short version: Take a few math courses, if necessary. Constant values can't be variable...
This hurts T'au Commanders more than most for two reasons. The first is that the "cheaper" unit has BS4+, and the "stronger" unit is BS2+. Most other factions only vary by 1 point of BS, so the difference isn't felt as much. Second, T'au Commanders and Crisis share a very wide array of weapons options, both in terms of what to kit for and how powerful the weapons are.
1. 3 players stuck in a room could still do a better job at this point as they will eventually agree on something. That's not a good argument and you know that. Also getting rid of a lot of that unnecessary bloat is a good start!
2. IOW, the Commander still ends up being more expensive. Therefore you just add to the base cost. I've taken many math courses and your argument makes little sense. What you're describing is the same justification that made old units like Devastators have to pay more for their weapons, which was a bad idea in general.
If you raise the base cost of the Commander, the only weapon that really suffers is the Heavy Flamer, which you're not taking on a Commander anyway. So either you can have a Commander that's +20 points more expensive, or you can have a separate section of weapons and have to list them each as 10 points each more expensive. Seems like a waste of ink, doesn't it?
[...]
1. 3 players stuck in a room could still do a better job at this point as they will eventually agree on something. That's not a good argument and you know that. Also getting rid of a lot of that unnecessary bloat is a good start!
It's not an argument against discussing improvements. It's an argument against assuming whatever changes the speaker has come up with are unquestionably an improvement. We might all agree that Melta Guns need a buff. But that's not the same thing as deciding exactly what rules Melta Guns should have.
2. IOW, the Commander still ends up being more expensive. Therefore you just add to the base cost.
You've completely whiffed the example.
If you increase the Commander's points such that, with the biggest upgrade, he's now fair, if the cheaper unit (Crisis Suits) are fair with any upgrade, then the Commander is now, necessarily, overcosted either unupgraded or with the weaker upgrade.
You can balance any one unit/upgrade very easily enough against an existing scheme. But you can't balance the whole set of units/upgrades fairly, as shown above.
I've taken many math courses and your argument makes little sense.
Then you've forgotten a lot about degrees of freedom and rates of change.
Reminder:
Spoiler:
You can't use a linear function to map 3+ nonlinear points.
If you have three points {a, b, c} such that the rate of change between {a, b} is not equal to the rate of change between {b, c}, then there exists no constant rate of change between all members of {a, b, c}.
The rate of change on a line is constant. Thus, the rate of change between any two points on that line is the same.
Therefore, there exists no line that encompasses {a, b, c}. They are not "colinear".
For choices to be balanced, any given number of points must have the same value per point for each of the choices available. That is to say, none of the choices can be "overcosted" or "undercosted".
If you have units that cost {a, b}, and upgrades that cost {c, d}, then choices {a, b, a+c, a+d, b+c, b+d} all must have an equal point:value ratio. Meaning, if you plotted {point, value} on a graph, each of those 6 points must be colinear (and that line must also include the null set - {0, 0}).
This is where things become impossible, for a couple reasons. The one I'll go with is to break down each of these by parts.
The system requires that, for any fair option X, points(X) / value(X) be a constant value.
If points(c) are constant,
And points(a+c) / value(a+c) = points(b+c) / value(b+c)
Then value(a+c) - value(a) must equal value(b+c) - value(b).
To put that last line in plainer terms, the difference in value between the unupgraded and upgraded versions of unit A and unit B must be the exact same *constant* value - irrespective of the unit.
As long as the incremental value of c in (a+c) is different in any way than the incremental value of c in (b+c), {a, b, c} cannot have constant values.
Thus, there is no constant points value for each of {Crisis Suits, Commanders, Burst Cannons, and Flamers}, such that each possible option is balanced.
Short version: it's easy to balance any one option, if you forget about all the other options available.
All that said, you can generally get "close enough" in a lot of places. A Vyper and a WarWalker paying the same for a heavy weapon, for instance, isn't perfectly fair. But it's close enough.
Agreed with Bharring on weapons costing differently for different units.
The units having different stats is covered in their basic cost, but because those different stats may or may not be relevant in relation to the weapon they take (ie, flamers), their weaponry needs to be individually costed too. GW know about this, in the way that Scions pay more for their special weaponry than regular Guardsmen do, despite also costing more naturally.
Considering the exponential power boost a Tau Commander gets with their ranged weaponry, I think it only fair that they pay more, and not have their base cost increased instead (because screw anyone who wants flamers, right!)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Agreed with Bharring on weapons costing differently for different units.
The units having different stats is covered in their basic cost, but because those different stats may or may not be relevant in relation to the weapon they take (ie, flamers), their weaponry needs to be individually costed too. GW know about this, in the way that Scions pay more for their special weaponry than regular Guardsmen do, despite also costing more naturally.
Considering the exponential power boost a Tau Commander gets with their ranged weaponry, I think it only fair that they pay more, and not have their base cost increased instead (because screw anyone who wants flamers, right!)
The power boost the Commander gets is with the BS2+ he pays for. That's the thing that's costed low, not the weapons. Paying more for both at the same time doesn't make sense.
And Scions shouldn't need to pay that much more for their weapons. The easiest solution to that would be to make Hot Shots free, bump their base cost up, so that the Hot Shot Scions are the same but they pay a little more for their other weapons.
[...]
1. 3 players stuck in a room could still do a better job at this point as they will eventually agree on something. That's not a good argument and you know that. Also getting rid of a lot of that unnecessary bloat is a good start!
It's not an argument against discussing improvements. It's an argument against assuming whatever changes the speaker has come up with are unquestionably an improvement. We might all agree that Melta Guns need a buff. But that's not the same thing as deciding exactly what rules Melta Guns should have.
2. IOW, the Commander still ends up being more expensive. Therefore you just add to the base cost.
You've completely whiffed the example.
If you increase the Commander's points such that, with the biggest upgrade, he's now fair, if the cheaper unit (Crisis Suits) are fair with any upgrade, then the Commander is now, necessarily, overcosted either unupgraded or with the weaker upgrade.
You can balance any one unit/upgrade very easily enough against an existing scheme. But you can't balance the whole set of units/upgrades fairly, as shown above.
I've taken many math courses and your argument makes little sense.
Then you've forgotten a lot about degrees of freedom and rates of change.
Reminder:
Spoiler:
You can't use a linear function to map 3+ nonlinear points.
If you have three points {a, b, c} such that the rate of change between {a, b} is not equal to the rate of change between {b, c}, then there exists no constant rate of change between all members of {a, b, c}.
The rate of change on a line is constant. Thus, the rate of change between any two points on that line is the same.
Therefore, there exists no line that encompasses {a, b, c}. They are not "colinear".
For choices to be balanced, any given number of points must have the same value per point for each of the choices available. That is to say, none of the choices can be "overcosted" or "undercosted".
If you have units that cost {a, b}, and upgrades that cost {c, d}, then choices {a, b, a+c, a+d, b+c, b+d} all must have an equal point:value ratio. Meaning, if you plotted {point, value} on a graph, each of those 6 points must be colinear (and that line must also include the null set - {0, 0}).
This is where things become impossible, for a couple reasons. The one I'll go with is to break down each of these by parts.
The system requires that, for any fair option X, points(X) / value(X) be a constant value.
If points(c) are constant,
And points(a+c) / value(a+c) = points(b+c) / value(b+c)
Then value(a+c) - value(a) must equal value(b+c) - value(b).
To put that last line in plainer terms, the difference in value between the unupgraded and upgraded versions of unit A and unit B must be the exact same *constant* value - irrespective of the unit.
As long as the incremental value of c in (a+c) is different in any way than the incremental value of c in (b+c), {a, b, c} cannot have constant values.
Thus, there is no constant points value for each of {Crisis Suits, Commanders, Burst Cannons, and Flamers}, such that each possible option is balanced.
Short version: it's easy to balance any one option, if you forget about all the other options available.
All that said, you can generally get "close enough" in a lot of places. A Vyper and a WarWalker paying the same for a heavy weapon, for instance, isn't perfectly fair. But it's close enough.
Under that logic, Heavy Flamers should be almost zero points for the Commander compared to the other options. Even at a super lower cost you're not going to take it though. Upgrades are also mandatory for the Commander.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The power boost the Commander gets is with the BS2+ he pays for. That's the thing that's costed low, not the weapons. Paying more for both at the same time doesn't make sense.
Do Commanders pay more for flamers? They shouldn't, if they do.
And Scions shouldn't need to pay that much more for their weapons. The easiest solution to that would be to make Hot Shots free, bump their base cost up, so that the Hot Shot Scions are the same but they pay a little more for their other weapons.
But what about certain weapons being more efficient on Scions specifically, and not to others? For example, meltaguns/plasma guns vs flamers - flamers don't work in conjunction with 9" Deep Strike, and the BS bonus the Scions have is irrelevant in how flamers operate. Meanwhile, plasma guns and meltaguns benefit strongly from Scions, having Deep Strike to get close (and in the plasma gun' case, into rapid fire range, which synergises with their Regimental Doctrine), and the increased BS. Increasing the Scion cost only makes sense if you assume Scions ONLY carry plasmas and meltas, but they don't. Pure Flamer Command Squads would see a sharp increase in cost, but aren't a particularly threatening meta choice.
Flamers there suffer an issue from the core rules. That's not something that is going to be saved by point drops and ultimately why some people are complaining about the rules for ONE part of a Successor Tactic, even though it isn't broken itself.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Flamers there suffer an issue from the core rules. That's not something that is going to be saved by point drops and ultimately why some people are complaining about the rules for ONE part of a Successor Tactic, even though it isn't broken itself.
Perhaps, but I also like the fact that they don't need any kind of modification or interaction with the user's BS. So, with that in mind, if there were two models with the same statlines and rules and equipment (being both armed with a flamer), with their only difference being their BS (one being 6+, the other being 2+), should they cost differently?
A whole slew of characters plus a unique Lt (Talonmaster) Apothecary in terminator armour Champion in terminator armour Mixed Terminator squad (although this could be parceled out into assault and regular, but you do have to add the plasma cannon somehow, so an FAQ necessary) Deathwing Knights Bike apothecary Bike ancient Bike Champion darkshroud Vengeance speeder Black Knights Dark Talon Nephilim Jetfighter
basically, more entries than either Custodes or Harlequins
You can't say that they don't get these unique kits anymore...because models exist.
Ultramarines have a similar size of unique units in their supplement. They have:
Spoiler:
Guilliman Calgar Tigurius Sicarius Cassius Chronus Telion Chapter Ancient Chapter Champion Honour Guard Victrix Honour Guard Tyrannic War Veterans
By that count, they have 12 unique datasheets. By my count (so, not including the generic Deathwing datasheet, because the generic Terminator datasheet should also be mixed weaponry and have plasma cannons, and their Terminator Apothecary, who should likewise be generic - they already have a generic Terminator Ancient, why not the Apothecary?), the Dark Angels would have 19 unique datasheets (17, if you were to make the Interrogator-Chaplain options into stratagem upgrade for normal Chaplain units) - that's only 7 more than Ultramarines.
I'm absolutely fine with that. After all, the Ultramarines have more than Harlequins and just as many as Custodes.
You've counted all unique characters responding to a post that didn't count any ... For god sake can you have a little consistency and intellectual rigor when you respond to someone ?
Here is what the ultramarines actually have when you put unique characters aside (and they have the most out of all the supplement chapters) : Chapter Ancient Chapter Champion Honour Guard Victrix Honour Guard Tyrannic War Veterans
And here is what DA have : Interrogator-Chaplain Talonmaster Apothecary in terminator armour Champion in terminator armour Mixed Terminator squad (although this could be parceled out into assault and regular, but you do have to add the plasma cannon somehow, so an FAQ necessary) Deathwing Knights Bike apothecary Bike ancient Bike Champion darkshroud Vengeance speeder Black Knights Dark Talon Nephilim Jetfighter
You just can't compare those two. Have some honesty please : it's not 3rd ed anymore, DA are very different from normal SM and any discussion on them should at least start with an agreement on that simple and objective fact.
A whole slew of characters plus a unique Lt (Talonmaster)
Apothecary in terminator armour
Champion in terminator armour
Mixed Terminator squad (although this could be parceled out into assault and regular, but you do have to add the plasma cannon somehow, so an FAQ necessary)
Deathwing Knights
Bike apothecary
Bike ancient
Bike Champion
darkshroud
Vengeance speeder
Black Knights
Dark Talon
Nephilim Jetfighter
basically, more entries than either Custodes or Harlequins
You can't say that they don't get these unique kits anymore...because models exist.
Ultramarines have a similar size of unique units in their supplement. They have:
Spoiler:
Guilliman
Calgar
Tigurius
Sicarius
Cassius
Chronus
Telion
Chapter Ancient
Chapter Champion
Honour Guard
Victrix Honour Guard
Tyrannic War Veterans
By that count, they have 12 unique datasheets. By my count (so, not including the generic Deathwing datasheet, because the generic Terminator datasheet should also be mixed weaponry and have plasma cannons, and their Terminator Apothecary, who should likewise be generic - they already have a generic Terminator Ancient, why not the Apothecary?), the Dark Angels would have 19 unique datasheets (17, if you were to make the Interrogator-Chaplain options into stratagem upgrade for normal Chaplain units) - that's only 7 more than Ultramarines.
I'm absolutely fine with that. After all, the Ultramarines have more than Harlequins and just as many as Custodes.
You've counted all unique characters responding to a post that didn't count any ... For god sake can you have a little consistency and intellectual rigor when you respond to someone ?
Did you read the spoilered quote? "A whole slew of characters plus a unique Lt (Talonmaster)" - hence, "counting" DA characters, as I always have in my detailed breakdowns of just how many DA units are "unique".
Regarding consistency, I've been very consistent with my comparisons of how many unique units the DA have (always including unique characters as well as full units) compared to the Ultramarines. My point remains that the Ultramarines and Dark Angels have only just over half a dozen unique units difference. Just over half a dozen unique units doesn't make a full Codex - unless we're advocating that every single supplement should be a unique Codex (which, personally, I don't think should be the case, when they all share the vast majority of their units).
You just can't compare those two.
...yes I can, and yes, I did.
I've already shown my working out of what units are "unique" and what aren't in this thread (but if you want me to repeat, I'm happy to do so).
Spoiler:
Dark Angels: Asmodai
Azrael
Belial
Ezekiel
Interrogator Chaplain *
Interrogator Chaplain in Terminator Armour *
Talonmaster
Sammael (Corvex)
Sammael (Sableclaw)
Deathwing Champion **
Deathwing Knights
Ravenwing Ancient
Ravenwing Apothecary
Ravenwing Champion
Black Knights
Darkshroud
Land Speeder Vengeance
Nephilim
Dark Talon
*These could easily be treated as stratagem upgrades, much like how PA2 introduces things like Chief Apothecaries and Chief Librarians. It would also allow Primaris Chaplains to become Interrogator Chaplains too. When the only real difference is an extra Wound and their aura ability, I'm not sure a unique stratagem is needed. Hell, I'd rather just allow DA Chaplains to all gain the aura ability passively as part of their Chapter Tactic.
**I didn't include the Terminator Apothecary, because there's no reason for it not to be a generic option. Just like how regular Chapters all have Terminator Ancients, I don't see why they shouldn't have Apothecaries - and it's not like the Dark Angels are particularly well known for their apothecaries.
*Some of these units are actually not unique any more - as of PA2, you can create Chapter Champions and Ancients from the generic Champion and Ancient datasheets by spending Command Points. As a result, I'm not going to include the Ultramarine datasheet Champions and Ancients, because while they're unique *datasheets*, their function and flavour isn't.
So, on this revised analysis, 17 DA units compared to 10 UM ones. Huh. Just over half a dozen, as I said.
There are just over half a dozen unique DA entries than UM ones. Is that enough for a whole brand new Codex, or a larger supplement?
Have some honesty please : it's not 3rd ed anymore, DA are very different from normal SM and any discussion on them should at least start with an agreement on that simple and objective fact.
I haven't denied Dark Angels are *different* from other Chapters, even if they do share 85% of the same units. And you're right - we're not in 3rd edition - we're in 8th edition now, where Ultramarines are very different from Iron Hands, who are very different from White Scars, who are very different from Imperial Fists, who are very different from Raven Guard, who are very different from Salamanders. Why should it matter if Dark Angels happen to be different too? Are they different enough to not have a supplement? Why?
I'm starting from the "simple and objective fact" that ALL First Founding Space Marine Chapters now have unique rules, units, stratagems, warlord traits, psychic abilities, contained within a dedicated book. The real question is "if everything DA/BA/SW specific can be put in a supplement, as has been demonstrated to be possible by all the other now-unique Chapters, why shouldn't they?"
No he does not count them individually as you did, he wrote a "slew of characters" and you added all unique characters individually and argue that there as many ultramarine units as there are Custodes (like he did for DA) which is seriously a joke in itself. You can't build an army with the army specific units that the Ultramarine have, which is obviously not the case for DA or Custodes. Most of the ultramarine entry you count are just characters. You cannot argue that individual and unique characters are similar to full fledge units. Those are two very different type of units that have a very different role both in the lore and in an army.
And no the terminator champion cannot be a simple stratagem upgrade because the whole point of the DW champion is that he has a unique weapon that does not exist outside of the DA termi kit (and that only he can wield). Something you'd know if you'd know what you were talking about.
**I didn't include the Terminator Apothecary, because there's no reason for it not to be a generic option. Just like how regular Chapters all have Terminator Ancients, I don't see why they shouldn't have Apothecaries - and it's not like the Dark Angels are particularly well known for their apothecaries.
Because you don't understand why, because you have very little knowledge on DA, that's why. DA's first compagny, the DW, is entirely in terminator armor : that's why they have a champion, an ancient and an apothecary in terminator armor. You understand that you can paint a normal ancient unit as a first compagny ultramarine ancient right ? Same for the apothecary and the ancient on bike with the ravenwing. It's the same kind of arguments for the interrogator chaplain : what's the point of giving those to other chapter when their entire point is that they exist to INTERROGATE fallen ? lol
WhiteDog wrote:No he does not count them individually as you did, he wrote a "slew of characters" and you added all unique characters individually and argue that there as many ultramarine units as there are Custodes (like he did for DA) which is seriously a joke in itself.
Are characters not units? It says they are in the rulebook. I honestly don't care if they're single model units, or full 10 man squads - datasheets are datasheets.
Regardless if you like it or not, the difference between *datasheets* is very little - under a dozen.
You can't build an army with the army specific units that the Ultramarine have, which is obviously not the case for DA or Custodes.
Yes you can. Tyrannic War Veteran taskforce, led by Chaplain Cassius. Guilliman leading the Victrix Guard (both Primaris and Firstborn) into battle, with their commander, Captain Sicarius.
It's 8th edition - you can make an army of anything.
Most of the ultramarine entry you count are just characters. You cannot argue that individual and unique characters are similar to full fledge units. Those are two very different type of units that have a very different role both in the lore and in an army.
Why can't I? The whole point of me bringing up how DA and UM have similar amounts of *datasheets* is because people were claiming that "Dark Angels have so many datasheets, there's no way a supplement would have room" - but with just over half a dozen unique datasheets more than the UM, I could fit all the unique DA stuff on three extra pages, four if I was being generous with the spacing.
And again, regarding "different role in lore and army" - I don't see how. The Ultramarines and Dark Angels both have unique characters, alongside unique units that have distinctive aesthetic and gameplay properties. Just because the Dark Angels have a higher proportion of one and not the other tells us nothing.
And no the terminator champion cannot be a simple stratagem upgrade because the whole point of the DW champion is that he has a unique weapon that does not exist outside of the DA termi kit (and that only he can wield). Something you'd know if you'd know what you were talking about.
Something you'd know if you actually *read* my post was that I never claimed for a second that I wanted the Terminator CHAMPION to be a stratagem upgrade.
I said the Interrogator Chaplains should be a stratagem upgrade *unique to the Dark Angels*, but I was more than happy with the Terminator Champion being unique.
If you want to argue my suggestions, actually pick out my suggestions, not make up what I said.
**I didn't include the Terminator Apothecary, because there's no reason for it not to be a generic option. Just like how regular Chapters all have Terminator Ancients, I don't see why they shouldn't have Apothecaries - and it's not like the Dark Angels are particularly well known for their apothecaries.
Because you don't understand why, because you have very little knowledge on DA, that's why.
DA's first compagny, the DW, is entirely in terminator armor : that's why they have a champion, an ancient and an apothecary in terminator armor.
Funnily enough, I am aware of that. But I'm also aware that just because the Dark Angels deploy en masse in Terminator Armour doesn't mean that they have the monopoly on putting their Apothecaries in Terminator Armour, right? I mean, the Blood Angels aren't the only Chapter with assault marines, the White Scars aren't the only Chapter with bikes - so, while your Champion is actually unique (carrying a weapon that is flavoured to be unique to the Dark Angels for a reason), the Apothecary is just "yeah, we put our apothecary in Terminator armour but you can't, because reasons". After all, every First Founding Chapter has at least *some* Terminator armour, enough for all their Ancients!
You understand that you can paint a normal ancient unit as a first compagny ultramarine ancient right ?
You understand that Ultramarines have Terminator Ancients, right? Not just Dark Angels.
But hey, in the same way, you can paint a normal Terminator model bone-white, and it's "Deathwing"! /s
Same for the apothecary and the ancient on bike with the ravenwing.
The only reason I've allowed them as unique is because they have plasma talons. That's it. Without those plasma talons, I'd be wanting them made generic.
The Terminator Apothecary has no unique features - hell, they already exist in the Grey Knights book.
It's the same kind of arguments for the interrogator chaplain : what's the point of giving those to other chapter when their entire point is that they exist to INTERROGATE fallen ? lol
I didn't want Interrogator Chaplains being given out to every Chapter.
What I did say was that the entry should be removed, and made into a stratagem upgrade, like how Chief Librarian and Chief Apothecary are - but that that stratagem should be Dark Angels exclusive. I've claimed that position for some time now, in fact.
So no, I didn't want Interrogator Chaplains being made generic - I wanted them to stay DA specific, but as a stratagem.
But you want DA players to spend a resource on a pre game start, one that would likely not give an as good effect as other in game strats, while removing what is a defining character option from the army list because of what balance reason this time?
And you expect people to be thanking you for it?
It's clear this should be in proposed rules now. Because you clearly dont want any non Codex marine army to exist outside of startagems or paint schemes
Spend 1 CP and improve a single unit of Boyz from a 6+ Save to a 5+ Save.
Spend 1 CP and improve a single unit of Boyz from S4 to S5.
If the differences between Interrogator Chaplain and "normal" Chaplain are greater than that, then you win the upgrade Stratagem game!
The entire point of this thread is to debate whether or not those Factions should be separate or part of the larger Marine contingent. Providing examples of ways they could be part of the same Codex/Supplement system is a necessary part of that debate.
If you don't like what you're reading, you should construct a good counterargument. If you can't, at the very least you should accede that your opponent in the conversation has a valid point and attempt to argue your side from a different angle.
For the most part, this whole thing seems to have boiled down to:
"I think it's possible, and preferable, for them to be part of the larger Marine Faction and here's why."
And:
"I agree that it's possible, but it might be screwed up by GW, or would necessitate doing things I'd rather not do, so I'm against it in principle."
BroodSpawn wrote: But you want DA players to spend a resource on a pre game start, one that would likely not give an as good effect as other in game strats, while removing what is a defining character option from the army list because of what balance reason this time?
And you expect people to be thanking you for it?
It's clear this should be in proposed rules now. Because you clearly dont want any non Codex marine army to exist outside of startagems or paint schemes
Here's the thing though:
A lot of those "unique units and upgrades" used to straight be available to Vanilla Marines. They originally had Heavy Flamers available to everyone. They originally had Terminator Command Squads. They have, per index, Champions on Bikes.
Also if you're not Codex compliant you shouldn't have Doctrines. Agree or Disagree?
Two pages ago I argued that the DA as a distinct faction gave variety without causing harm to the game. I have yet to see an effective counter argument.
BroodSpawn wrote:But you want DA players to spend a resource on a pre game start, one that would likely not give an as good effect as other in game strats, while removing what is a defining character option from the army list because of what balance reason this time?
Not for balance - for consolidation. Balance-wise, I really don't care, I don't play for balance. But claiming something that is essentially just an extra title and special rule on an otherwise generic unit as unique? A stratagem would fill the role easily enough. Same as things like "Chapter Master" or the commissar tank stratagems. Actually, especially Commissar Tank! I run a Spearhead Leman Russ detachment with 10 tanks, one of them being the Tank Commander and 9 regular Leman Russes in my heavy support slots - I generate 1 Command Point with that detachment, and because the fluff of my list matters most for me (like you're claiming how the fluff matters most for the DA), I always spend it on the Commissar Tank stratagem for the one tank of mine which has a commissar on it. It's a completely useless stratagem, but I always take it, because the flavour means more to me than whatever else I'd use that command point on. But, that's just me.
You wouldn't *have* to spend resources on it, any more so than any other Marine player *has* to buy the Chapter Master upgrade. If you want to call your guy "Interrogator Chaplain" or "Chapter Master" without spending the Command Points, go ahead! But if you do want that extra effectiveness, how is it any different from things like the Chapter Master, Chief Librarian, Chapter Ancient, Chapter Champion, Chief Apothecary etc stratagems? Should there be a whole bunch of new datasheets just for those units? Because, personally, I don't think there should.
Because you clearly dont want any non Codex marine army to exist outside of startagems or paint schemes
That's a blatant misrepresentation of my argument, and you know it.
I want Dark Angels to have unique rules. I want Space Wolves to have unique rules. I want Blood Angels to have unique rules. But they don't need a unique Codex in order to have it, beyond vanity.
If it's having unique rules that's important to the identity of DA/BA/SW, I've accommodated for that, and provided realistic solutions.
If it's having a super duper special book all to themselves that's important to their identity, I have to question if that is an identity worth preserving.
flandarz wrote:For the most part, this whole thing seems to have boiled down to:
"I think it's possible, and preferable, for them to be part of the larger Marine Faction and here's why."
And:
"I agree that it's possible, but it might be screwed up by GW, or would necessitate doing things I'd rather not do, so I'm against it in principle."
I think that's about right, yeah.
And while I don't have a problem with people saying "I don't want GW to do it, because XYZ would happen", when I'm saying how *I* would do it, I would be interested to see what part of my possible solutions don't work, and why, beyond "they've always been different".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Two pages ago I argued that the DA as a distinct faction gave variety without causing harm to the game. I have yet to see an effective counter argument.
Mechanically, what distinct variety do the Dark Angels provide as a Codex that couldn't be provided via being a supplement?
Yes, they have lore variety (which could be reflected in their supplement).
Yes, they have unique units (which I've shown wouldn't take up an obscene amount of room in a supplement).
Yes, they have unique rules and stratagems (which could be reflected in a supplement, just like everyone else).
Yes, they have aesthetic variety (which could be reflected in a supplement, without confusing people as to why green Space Marines aren't in the Space Marine book).
But what intrinsically about being a Codex, standing alone, despite sharing features that every other Space Marine supplement also has, provides it with variety? Should all Space Marine supplements have been Codexes, to provide variety?*
Spoiler:
*note - if someone is of the belief that they'd rather have all Space Marine supplements scrapped and all turned into Codexes, then, as much as I disagree, I understand it and respect the equal treatment. My main grievance is with DA/BA/SW still being treated as super unique, when all the other Chapters are also unique.
If everyone is unique, surely they should all be treated the same - be that all with Codexes (not my preference), or all with supplements (my preference).
I made a counter argument of "does it really?" Is DA being it's own Codex, rather than sharing the same Codex the other Marines do, really give it more variety or just the illusion of variety? If nothing changes between the current Codex and becoming a Supplement (which has been demonstrated as possible already) then can you really say that the former provides more variety than the latter? If GW released "Codex: Goff" tomorrow, would it actually add variety if it was 85% a copy-paste job from the Ork Codex?
As for harm, I mentioned before that it harms the new player. The person who loves the Space Marine aesthetic and lore, but doesn't know which Chapter they like best. If they were to say to me "I like Space Marines! They're cool as tits! But I don't know which one I'd enjoy playing most." Right now I'd have to reply with "Alright, let's try Codex: SM, then if those aren't to your liking (or if you just wanna try out one of the "non-Codex compliant Chapters), we'll buy another Codex which is pretty much the same, with slightly different rules and units. And if that doesn't work, we'll buy another one, etc. And once you gave them all a shot, you can finally figure out which one you like most, and can thank GW for the opportunity to buy all these Codexes."
The Dark Angels have access to unique units and lose access to others - they are a different force. Why have a Supplement that tells you what you cannot have? Why have two books when one suffices? Your proposed design is the opposite of elegant.
Your argument seems to be "why the Dark Angels?" Well, they are a distinct Chapter with a distinguished history of being distinct. You may not like that they have some 25 years of being their own book/faction, but there it is. While they follow aspects of the Codex they are not a Codex Chapter. The latest WH Community updates goes along with that. You are allowed to dislike it, but what harm does it do to the game? Really?
Cheers,
T2B
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: I made a counter argument of "does it really?" Is DA being it's own Codex, rather than sharing the same Codex the other Marines do, really give it more variety or just the illusion of variety? If nothing changes between the current Codex and becoming a Supplement (which has been demonstrated as possible already) then can you really say that the former provides more variety than the latter? If GW released "Codex: Goff" tomorrow, would it actually add variety if it was 85% a copy-paste job from the Ork Codex?
As for harm, I mentioned before that it harms the new player. The person who loves the Space Marine aesthetic and lore, but doesn't know which Chapter they like best. If they were to say to me "I like Space Marines! They're cool as tits! But I don't know which one I'd enjoy playing most." Right now I'd have to reply with "Alright, let's try Codex: SM, then if those aren't to your liking (or if you just wanna try out one of the "non-Codex compliant Chapters), we'll buy another Codex which is pretty much the same, with slightly different rules and units. And if that doesn't work, we'll buy another one, etc. And once you gave them all a shot, you can finally figure out which one you like most, and can thank GW for the opportunity to buy all these Codexes."
I did read your post last week. You keep talking about 85%. The DA have unique units and miss out on others. That makes them distinct. I am guessing you think that's not enough. How much is enough for you?
How does the DA Codex harm a new player? Choice is a good thing.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The Dark Angels have access to unique units and lose access to others - they are a different force.
Are they, when they share 85% of the same stuff? And of the stuff they lose access to, I've only heard good reasoning IMO in the case of Sternguard and Venguard Veterans. Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons, Stormtalons and Stormhawks etc etc have no reason not to be present.
Why have a Supplement that tells you what you cannot have?
Don't the Black Templars have this? Are they not restricted from having Librarians? As they demonstrate, it's completely possible to have unique rules that prohibit certain units.
Why have two books when one suffices? Your proposed design is the opposite of elegant.
As opposed to reprinting 85% of the same units?
But, let's assume that you're right, and two book *is* inelegant. Do you support that ALL supplements should be fleshed out to full Codex size, and reprinted with the same generic units that they would normally have and stratagems? Because, as you say, why have two books when one suffices?
Your argument seems to be "why the Dark Angels?" Well, they are a distinct Chapter with a distinguished history of being distinct. You may not like that they have some 25 years of being their own book/faction, but there it is.
And that's all lovely, but why does that mean they need a Codex when a supplement will fulfil all the same MECHANICAL roles?
That's the point you're not addressing here. Yes, they're distinct - but so is EVERYONE ELSE. Yes, they have 25+ years of history of being a Codex - but this is 2019/2020. The old reasoning of "every other Chapter mechanically functions in exactly the same way, and we're the only faction that can have en mass Terminators" isn't relevant any more, and so the justification of why they still NEED a Codex needs to be revisited.
Look at the facts - supplements have demonstrated the simplicity of introducing unique and mechanically flavourful rules to factions operating from a single core book. This is something the Dark Angels were doing in all but name already. Now, everyone is doing it. Why should Dark Angels continue to do the same as everyone else functionally, but reprinting all the same units in a separate book?
While they follow aspects of the Codex they are not a Codex Chapter.
The Iron Hands aren't a Codex Chapter. The Black Templars aren't a Codex Chapter. They operate as supplements.
Just because you would draw units from """Codex"" Space Marines", it doesn't make you a Codex Chapter. I mean, they already do draw from those units anyway, just reprinted in the DA book.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I did read your post last week. You keep talking about 85%. The DA have unique units and miss out on others. That makes them distinct. I am guessing you think that's not enough. How much is enough for you?
More than 15% of unique units. 15% is not distinct enough to be a whole unique Codex.
If DA were truly to have a unique Codex in my eyes, they'd need to get rid of nearly every unit that wasn't currently Ravenwing or Deathwing, and operate as a "Space Marine" list like how the Deathwatch and Grey Knights do - ie, by getting rid of literally every core infantry unit, and making the existing generic ones super different (ie, Deathwatch have no Tactical Marines, but even on their Primaris units, they can form intermixed units, and how Grey Knight Terminators don't have power fists and other mundane power weapons, they have force weaponry and psychic powers).
So, "Dark Angels" would literally just become Deathwing and Ravenwing, with Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts and HQ choices to back them up.
Then, they'd become distinct enough. And I know that's a terrible idea, because there's so much more the Dark Angels than their two Wings, but the problem is that the Dark Angels, for all their unique bells and whistles, are just a Space Marine Chapter. They're a unique one, they're flavoursome and special and important, but they are just another First Founding Chapter, and like all First Founders, they're special. But none of the First Founders are special enough to be their own Codex, because their core identity is based on the fact that they're Space Marines first and foremost. 85% Space Marine first and foremost, in fact.
How does the DA Codex harm a new player? Choice is a good thing.
It is, until this happens:
Spoiler:
"What have you got there mate?" "Centurions, I think they look cool, so I'm getting a few units for my starter army." "That's awesome, what Chapter do you play?" "The green ones with the hoods." "Oh... you can't have those." "Why?" "Because... reasons"
or alternatively
"Hi, what can I do for you?" "Yeah, I'm just getting started, I love the look of the Space Marines!" "Yeah, they're a great army to get involved in. Well, if you want to play Space Marines, I can recommend you get the Codex here - just don't paint them green or red or blue-grey*!" "Why not?" "Well, because then they'd need to use *these* books!" "What if I paint them blue or yellow or black?" "That's fine, but god forbid you paint them green or red or blue-grey!" "Why not?" "Because then you'd need to buy these books instead!" "What's the difference? Aren't they also Space Marines?" "Well, they share 85% of the same stuff, and they are Space Marines, but..."
*obviously, there's Chapters that aren't DA/BA/SW that are these colours, but for the sake of the hypothetical exchange, let's ignore them?
Technically, every sub-Faction has unique units and misses out on others. So, they should all have their own Codexes, because even if it's only 1 unit they can't take and 1 unit that is wholly their's, just the fact they have these "options" makes them totally unique and different from any other sub-Faction they currently share a book with.
Or, in other words, where do YOU draw the line on what should share a book and what should not? My personal line is: "if over 50% of your units are shared by someone else, why waste the extra paper?"
I thought I was pretty clear on how it harms new players. Ie: this new player, eager to figure out what he wants to paint and play, now has to spend more money than he should have to in order to try out all his options. And you haven't really refuted any claims that being separate actually provides more options. If it could be included in the same book, then the number of options remains exactly the same. Only the false feeling of "uniqueness" is lost.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also bears mentioning that this wasn't a debate of "what does it hurt if they're separate". It was a discussion of whether or not they SHOULD be part of the main Codex. So, if you think they should be separate, then your argument should include the reasons why you think so. "Well, what does it hurt for them to be separate?" is essentially saying that they should be a supplement, but you don't want them to be.
I won't make a wall of text by dissecting your post line by line. My argument is that the Dark Angels add variety at minimal design cost to the game. They have unique units and lose access to others that the other Space Marines have. Putting aside Named Characters, what unique units do the Iron Hands have and which ones do they lose from the baseline Codex? Let's just park your Supplement/Stratagem idea. If you don't want the Dark Angels Codex then don't buy it. It seems you want to impose your choices on others. I say let the market decide.
Flandarz,
The current method wastes less paper - I have one book (well, for my army). The Dark Angels have their RW and DW units while losing access to a number of units that Codex Compliant Chapters have. Its good enough for me, and those who play Dark Angels.
Having the Dark Angels as their own faction with their own units does indeed add variety. If they didn't, then how could your new player be overwhelmed? So which is it?
The "minimal design" creates imbalance issues as already pointed out. Also you have yet to say whether or not you agree they and Blood Angels shouldn't get access to Doctrines, since they're oh so different.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The "minimal design" creates imbalance issues as already pointed out. Also you have yet to say whether or not you agree they and Blood Angels shouldn't get access to Doctrines, since they're oh so different.
Which imbalance issues? How are the Dark Angels at fault for any imbalance? Iron Hands seem pretty powerful now - go play them. They are more powerful then other Codex Compliant Chapters. Are you saying that all Space Marines should be the same? I am arguing that there should be variety.
As for Doctrines, we'll see what they give the Dark Angels. A rising tide raises all boats as they say back home. I have not said that the Dark Angels or SW/BA need to be 100% different. Indeed, the point is that they offer variety at minimal design cost by having something in common.
You do understand how book printing works, right? I'll put it in simple terms: if you write the same thing on two pieces of paper, you have, essentially, wasted one sheet of paper. Or, in essence, if 85% of your units are a copy-paste job from another book, then GW has wasted that many more sheets of paper than they had to.
I don't believe I ever alluded to a player being "overwhelmed by variety"... but ok. Let's do this then: we're all homo sapiens. Human beings. But tomorrow scientists decide that all people with red hair and grey eyes are part of an entire difference species. You, understandably, ask why. And the answer is "well, they're obviously different from the rest of us, so we decided they need a different classification". Essentially the same thing is happening here. DA shares 85% similarities with the other Marines, but you're arguing that makes them something else entirely. You can still have variety without having a separate book. Practically every other Faction already does this.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The "minimal design" creates imbalance issues as already pointed out. Also you have yet to say whether or not you agree they and Blood Angels shouldn't get access to Doctrines, since they're oh so different.
Which imbalance issues? How are the Dark Angels at fault for any imbalance? Iron Hands seem pretty powerful now - go play them. They are more powerful then other Codex Compliant Chapters. Are you saying that all Space Marines should be the same? I am arguing that there should be variety.
As for Doctrines, we'll see what they give the Dark Angels. A rising tide raises all boats as they say back home. I have not said that the Dark Angels or SW/BA need to be 100% different. Indeed, the point is that they offer variety at minimal design cost by having something in common.
Cheers,
Being separate causes imbalance issues in the first place. I mean, surely you can understand how the win rates work. Dark Angels have a lower win rate because they're based on the Vanilla codex, but not, which was based around Roboute rerolls and/or Fliers.
So instead of trying to pretend these are distinct armies, a rolled in Angel's benefit from new balance changes and access to Stratagems, such as Doctrines and Chapter Masters to Successors. This is why I ask you all: should the Angels have access to Doctrines? It's an easy question that you're avoiding.
What I think is interesting about this whole thing is that the Angels were given most of those unique models to justify having their own codex.
When they got their 4th Edition codex, the only unique models the DA had were their named characters. Everything else used all the same models and stats. The only structural differences were Terminator Weapon options and being able to purchase a Land Speeder with your Bike Squads. To add on to it, the only Space Marine codices which stated that they weren't Codex Chapters were Black Templars and Space Wolves. Both Angel codices have said for a long time that they were Codex Chapters, aside from the Wings and Death Company.
Terminator Apothecaries even existed in Codex: Space Marines when that DA codex was released, but they were part of the Command Squads. Those Terminator Command Squads didn't go away till 5th Edition. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out how to bring them back in the current edition, either (though with all the bloat it has and the renewed focus on Primaris...).
Charistoph wrote: What I think is interesting about this whole thing is that the Angels were given most of those unique models to justify having their own codex.
When they got their 4th Edition codex, the only unique models the DA had were their named characters. Everything else used all the same models and stats. The only structural differences were Terminator Weapon options and being able to purchase a Land Speeder with your Bike Squads. To add on to it, the only Space Marine codices which stated that they weren't Codex Chapters were Black Templars and Space Wolves. Both Angel codices have said for a long time that they were Codex Chapters, aside from the Wings and Death Company.
Terminator Apothecaries even existed in Codex: Space Marines when that DA codex was released, but they were part of the Command Squads. Those Terminator Command Squads didn't go away till 5th Edition. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out how to bring them back in the current edition, either (though with all the bloat it has and the renewed focus on Primaris...).
Brilliant idea : let's go back to 4th ed. Yeah there was less diversity back then...
Are characters not units? It says they are in the rulebook. I honestly don't care if they're single model units, or full 10 man squads - datasheets are datasheets.
Regardless if you like it or not, the difference between *datasheets* is very little - under a dozen.
This might be the most stupid argument I've seen on dakka. You cannot build an "army" with veteran, victrix, Guilliman and Cassius. That's a valable list in this ed., that's not an army deserving a specific codex because an army is not only a band or a group of units, it has coherence and must be able to face most if not all type of threat with specialized unit for each task, as it exist in all codexes.
You understand that Ultramarines have Terminator Ancients, right? Not just Dark Angels.
But hey, in the same way, you can paint a normal Terminator model bone-white, and it's "Deathwing"! /s
Again think a little, use your brain. The problem is not that others can or could have termi ancient, the problem is that DW players MUST have a termi Ancient, champion and apothecary because they cannot have non termi units.
The only reason I've allowed them as unique is because they have plasma talons. That's it. Without those plasma talons, I'd be wanting them made generic.
You have no right to allow or forbid anything. You're unable to give actual arguments outside a few hypocritical and caricatural comments
TangoTwoBravo wrote:SMy argument is that the Dark Angels add variety at minimal design cost to the game.
15% of their units do. The other 85% are just duplicates, and add nothing.
It would be an even smaller cost to the game to stop reprinting 85% of the same units, wasting paper, ink and time, and instead just putting all the DA exclusive stuff in their own book. The entire POINT of supplements was to do exactly as you describe - add variety at minimal design cost - so they didn't have to make full Codexes for factions that shared the vast majority of their units. And, like it or not, the vast majority of DA units are just reskinned generic ones.
What "variety" is gained by having "Codex" printed on the book, instead of "supplement"? If someone wants the variety of Dark Angels units, they can buy the supplement.
They have unique units and lose access to others that the other Space Marines have.
As does EVERY OTHER CHAPTER. I'm not denying your point, it's true, but you neglect to recognise that what you're claiming is a reason the DA should be unique just isn't something unique to them at all.
It would be like me claiming "Ultramarines should have their own Codex because they have unique units, and can't take other unique units" - it's not special, everyone has that! If DA/BA/SW have a reason to be separate, it needs to because of something that no other Chapter shares. And right now, none have been offered.
Putting aside Named Characters, what unique units do the Iron Hands have and which ones do they lose from the baseline Codex?
Why are we putting aside Named Characters? They're units, like any other.
Furthermore, even if we did ignore named characters, what about their stratagems, warlord traits, relics, psychic powers, and suchlike? Those are all unique features.
But, even if that's apparently not good enough, what about Chapters like the Black Templars and Ultramarines, who do have unique units. Should they have their own Codexes?
As for what they would lose - they lose the unique abilities that every other Chapters has, they lose access to things like Guilliman, or to Garadon, or to Vulkan. Again, those are still options they *could* have taken if they weren't Iron Hands, but they made that tradeoff.
Let's just park your Supplement/Stratagem idea. If you don't want the Dark Angels Codex then don't buy it.
It's not that I don't want it - it's that I see no point for it, when it could be easily added into the roster of supplements. If it were actually made into a supplement, there's a higher chance I'd actually buy it than as a waste of 85% of it's datatsheets.
It seems you want to impose your choices on others.
I'm making discussions and sharing opinions on the Internet. I'm not "imposing" anything on anyone - I have no power, no influence, and am literally just saying why I think XYZ would be better.
Is someone saying "I think Space Marines should have 2 Wounds each" *imposing* my choice on others? No, it's sharing an opinion/proposal, and discussing the merits of that proposal.
I say let the market decide.
Obviously?? But we're discussing if it should be like the way it is. That's how discussions about these kinds of things work.
It wouldn't exactly be useful if we were discussing "should every faction have something like Combat Doctrines", and then someone just said "well, let the market decide". That offers nothing to the discussion.
TangoTwoBravo wrote:Which imbalance issues? How are the Dark Angels at fault for any imbalance? Iron Hands seem pretty powerful now - go play them. They are more powerful then other Codex Compliant Chapters. Are you saying that all Space Marines should be the same? I am arguing that there should be variety.
Would Dark Angels not have variety if they were mechanically identical, but put in a supplement?
All I'm trying to get at is your idea of "variety" - are you talking mechanical variety (ie, Dark Angels get XYZ rules, units, etc etc), or variety of books to pick from? Because one of those kinds of variety, mechanical, could just as easily be implemented via supplement, and the other just feels pointless - variety for the sake of it, with no reason.
Or, to put it another way - if I were redesigning 40k's factions right now, in the current 8th edition ruleset and with the ability to make supplements, why should Dark Angels have a unique *Codex*, and not a unique *Supplement*? If it was just "because variety", I could just as easily make every First Founding Chapter have their own Codex - is that something you support?
Indeed, the point is that they offer variety at minimal design cost by having something in common.
But that's the problem! They have such a low design cost because they're just copy-pasting units from the core Space Marine book - if they're relying on so much from there (85%), then should they really be a separate Codex? Why shouldn't their actual unique units be printed in a smaller supplement, and their generic units which make up the vast majority of their options left in the core Codex?
Right now, your point there is "Dark Angels having loads of copypasted units from the Codex is more reason they should be a unique book" - if that's the case, then we shouldn't have ANY supplements, and every supplement Chapter should have their own unique Codex, because "they offer variety at minimal design cost by having something in common".
Is that something you support?
WhiteDog wrote:
Are characters not units? It says they are in the rulebook. I honestly don't care if they're single model units, or full 10 man squads - datasheets are datasheets.
Regardless if you like it or not, the difference between *datasheets* is very little - under a dozen.
This might be the most stupid argument I've seen on dakka. You cannot build an "army" with veteran, victrix, Guilliman and Cassius.
Yes, you can.
Vanguard Detachment:
HQ - Calgar (why not, he fought in the Tyrannic War)
HQ - Cassius
Elites - Tyrannic War Veterans
Elites - Tyrannic War Veterans
Elites - Tyrannic War Veterans
That's 25PL, or roughly a 500 point list. What's wrong with that list? Why isn't it an "army"?
Is a Tyranid army composed of a Broodlord and 3 units of Genestealers not an "army"? Why not?
When you can define what an "army" is, that doesn't disqualify both, then I might concede this. But so far, by all accounts, my Tyrannic War Vanguard detachment meets every GW-set critera.
That's a valable list in this ed., that's not an army deserving a specific codex because an army is not only a band or a group of units, it has coherence and must be able to face most if not all type of threat with specialized unit for each task, as it exist in all codexes.
Does my Tyranid "army" fulfil these? Nope.
My Tyrannic War army has coherence. And even regular "armies" aren't even capable of facing every threat - how well do mono-Harlequins do against mono-Knights?
You understand that Ultramarines have Terminator Ancients, right? Not just Dark Angels.
But hey, in the same way, you can paint a normal Terminator model bone-white, and it's "Deathwing"! /s
Again think a little, use your brain. The problem is not that others can or could have termi ancient, the problem is that DW players MUST have a termi Ancient, champion and apothecary because they cannot have non termi units.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that all Dark Angels lists are actually only made up of Deathwing, and that all Deathwing player MUST have to take an Apothecary, Ancient and Champion in their lists!
Oh, wait, they don't.
What reason do you have for Dark Angels being the only Chapter to have Terminator Apothecaries, especially in the light of Terminator Ancients? If it was because "only the Deathwing have so many suits of Terminator Armour", what reason is there for every other Chapter to have Terminator Ancients then?
Remember, "use your brain".
The only reason I've allowed them as unique is because they have plasma talons. That's it. Without those plasma talons, I'd be wanting them made generic.
You have no right to allow or forbid anything. You're unable to give actual arguments outside a few hypocritical and caricatural comments
Calm down a bit, mate. I don't have any authority over anything, I'm just saying what I would and wouldn't do with my own personal take on the DA. I'm not pretending that I have some kind of "right to allow or forbid anything".
But, regarding "unable to give arguments outside of a few hypocritical and caricatural comments" - is that so? Please, if you'd be so kind - where are these comments?
And why haven't I seen a good argument from you refuting my points?
Sorry, I wasn't aware that all Dark Angels lists are actually only made up of Deathwing, and that all Deathwing player MUST have to take an Apothecary, Ancient and Champion in their lists!
There are many pure DW players yes. There have been many pure DW players for years. You'd know it if you had some knowledge on the subject. The fact is you just cannot build a non termi ancient for a DA first compagny. The same goes for a Revenwing army, and many play those kind of armies. It's even coherent with the fluff of the game :
Calm down a bit, mate. I don't have any authority over anything, I'm just saying what I would and wouldn't do with my own personal take on the DA. I'm not pretending that I have some kind of "right to allow or forbid anything".
No you're writing nonsense at an alarming rate so I thought you needed some guidance. You have no take on DA, you don't play the army and barely understands its lore.
Does my Tyranid "army" fulfil these? Nope. My Tyrannic War army has coherence. And even regular "armies" aren't even capable of facing every threat - how well do mono-Harlequins do against mono-Knights?
You cannot even build more than one list with that one unit that GW resurrected for UM. Harlequins have weapons against mono-knights. They won't do well again such army, but skyweavers and voidweavers have weapons designed to face that kind of threat. Something that the tyranid war veteran just cannot do. In fact all the armies that have been quoted - Custodes, Harlequins, etc. - have specific tools to face knight-like threats and all the other kind of threats. It's just that those tools are, sometimes, weak or unsufficient : but they still have those ! Tyrannic war veteran do not, and it's normal because they are not thought as a cookie cutter unit that ultramarines should use to build a list : they are a fluff unit put in the supplement for the lol.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that all Dark Angels lists are actually only made up of Deathwing, and that all Deathwing player MUST have to take an Apothecary, Ancient and Champion in their lists!
There are many pure DW players yes. There have been many pure DW players for years. You'd know it if you had some knowledge on the subject.
Yes, I know that, thank you for the condescension. But that's not ALL Dark Angels players, any more so than all Ultramarine players are pure Tyrannic War Vets players (which there are some).
And again, you could just as easily play an all-Terminator army without needing to take an Apothecary. I have an all-Terminator Codex Marine army, but I don't have an Apothecary in it. It's almost like it's not compulsory!
But you know what - that doesn't even matter, because I WANT Dark Angels to have Terminator Apothecaries!
The fact is you just cannot build a non termi ancient for a DA first compagny. The same goes for a Revenwing army, and many play those kind of armies.
As I said, just don't take Apothecaries then. But, as I *also* said, I don't want to take Terminator/Ravewing Apothecaries away from the Dark Angels!
I want to make Terminator Apothecaries generic, just like how everyone else now has Terminator Ancients, because there's no reaso why ONLY Dark Angels should have them. This is where I feel you're not reading my posts - I haven't said anywhere that "Dark Angels shouldn't have Terminator Apothecaries". I said that "everyone should have Terminator Apothecaries".
Don't worry, pure Deathwing players wouldn't lose anything.
Read my posts before you argue against something I never claimed, please.
Calm down a bit, mate. I don't have any authority over anything, I'm just saying what I would and wouldn't do with my own personal take on the DA. I'm not pretending that I have some kind of "right to allow or forbid anything".
No you're writing nonsense at an alarming rate so I thought you needed some guidance. You have no take on DA, you don't play the army and barely understands its lore.
I understand it's lore just fine, and it's incredibly patronising that you think you know more.
I haven't said ANYWHERE that Dark Angels should just suck up and take normal Apothecaries in their Deathwing. I instead said that EVERY CHAPTER should have Terminator Apothecaries, because there's nothing specific about Dark Angels lore that says "they're the only Chapter with Terminator Apothecaries!!", much like how every Chapter now has Terminator Ancients.
Does my Tyranid "army" fulfil these? Nope. My Tyrannic War army has coherence. And even regular "armies" aren't even capable of facing every threat - how well do mono-Harlequins do against mono-Knights?
You cannot even build more than one list with that one unit that GW resurrected for UM. Harlequins have weapons against mono-knights. They won't do well again such army, but skyweavers and voidweavers have weapons designed to face that kind of threat. Something that the tyranid war veteran just cannot do.
That's why you take other things, because the Ultramarines faction, just like the Dark Angels, isn't just made up of unique units.
Yes, you *can* make an army made up only of unique units, if you wanted, for fluffy reasons, but you don't *have* to. Dark Angels, for all their unique units, still share 85% of their units with Codex: Space Marines.
So, sure, you *could* make an all Deathwing army, just like how you could make an all Tyrannic War army, both for fluffy reasons, but as you said - you have a full Codex to your disposal, and if you care more about being optimised and efficient, you could take units from that. However, in my Tyrannic War Vets case, I didn't want to. I wanted to take those units - and regardless of if it's "effective" or not, it's still an army, just like how a Broodlord and 20 Genestealers are an army, or how a carpet of Conscripts is an army.
It's 8th edition: you can make an army out of whatever you want, effective or not.
In fact all the armies that have been quoted - Custodes, Harlequins, etc. - have specific tools to face knight-like threats and all the other kind of threats. It's just that those tools are, sometimes, weak or unsufficient : but they still have those ! Tyrannic war veteran do not, and it's normal because they are not thought as a cookie cutter unit that ultramarines should use to build a list : they are a fluff unit put in the supplement for the lol.
Doesn't change the fact that I *can* make an army out of them, which is my point.
An army doesn't *have* to be optimised, or specific, or anything like that. An army is just a valid grouping of units that you have collected into a force. If I want to make an army out of Tyrannic War Vets, I will. If I want to make an army out of purely Victrix Guard units, I will.
Also, regarding the whole "tools are weak or insufficient" - we're in 8th Edition, every weapon can wound every target. An army out of even the weakest models most horribly unsuited for the task can still kill anything in the game, on paper.
TL;DR - A valid army can be made out of absolutely anything, so the idea that Dark Angels should have a Codex because they can make an army out of their unique units has absolutely no weight. I can make a valid army out of only Dreadnoughts, but it doesn't mean we need "Codex: Space Marine Dreadnoughts". A Dark Angels player can make an all Deathwing list just as easily in a supplement. Why do they need a Codex?
Sorry, I wasn't aware that all Dark Angels lists are actually only made up of Deathwing, and that all Deathwing player MUST have to take an Apothecary, Ancient and Champion in their lists!
There are many pure DW players yes. There have been many pure DW players for years. You'd know it if you had some knowledge on the subject.
Yes, I know that, thank you for the condescension. But that's not ALL Dark Angels players, any more so than all Ultramarine players are pure Tyrannic War Vets players (which there are some).
Are you seriously suggesting that there are ultramarine players out there that plays ONLY tyrannic war veterans + characters ? Are we really at that level of hypocrisy ? Everything I am saying, since the beginning, is that the DA have, and have had for a long time now, some specificity and that there are many players that play them as an original army with either a full ravenguard army or a full DW army and that you cannot compare the UM supplement to the DA codex. Your entire argument is based around a false and seriously stupid comparaison. There are no pure tyrannic war vet players : at most some UM players have tyrannic war vet, and that's it.
Calm down a bit, mate. I don't have any authority over anything, I'm just saying what I would and wouldn't do with my own personal take on the DA. I'm not pretending that I have some kind of "right to allow or forbid anything".
No you're writing nonsense at an alarming rate so I thought you needed some guidance. You have no take on DA, you don't play the army and barely understands its lore.
I understand it's lore just fine, and it's incredibly patronising that you think you know more.
I haven't said ANYWHERE that Dark Angels should just suck up and take normal Apothecaries in their Deathwing. I instead said that EVERY CHAPTER should have Terminator Apothecaries, because there's nothing specific about Dark Angels lore that says "they're the only Chapter with Terminator Apothecaries!!", much like how every Chapter now has Terminator Ancients.
You are arguing, with great ignorance as showed in the last hundred posts on this subject, that DA should lose ALL THEIR SPECIFICITY and all their restrictions. It's virtually the same as arguing for the discontinuation of a variety of DA specific units. Do you really think GW would bother producing nephilim jetfighters when they have the same exact tactical role as stormhawk ? That's stupid.
Does my Tyranid "army" fulfil these? Nope. My Tyrannic War army has coherence. And even regular "armies" aren't even capable of facing every threat - how well do mono-Harlequins do against mono-Knights?
You cannot even build more than one list with that one unit that GW resurrected for UM. Harlequins have weapons against mono-knights. They won't do well again such army, but skyweavers and voidweavers have weapons designed to face that kind of threat. Something that the tyranid war veteran just cannot do.
That's why you take other things, because the Ultramarines faction, just like the Dark Angels, isn't just made up of unique units.
Yes, you *can* make an army made up only of unique units, if you wanted, for fluffy reasons, but you don't *have* to. Dark Angels, for all their unique units, still share 85% of their units with Codex: Space Marines.
No you cannot. Tyranic war vet are marine that survived the tyrannic wars ... No army are entirely comprised of such vet and I assure you even during the tyrannic wars they had many non UM specific unit actually fighting... like tactical marines or devastator... lol You cannot compare the two, and it baffle me that you still continue with this stupid ass argument. You say that DA players take "other things" because the DA are not just "made up of unique units" : but I just told you many times that there are many players that play Ravenwings only or Deathwings only armies ????
In fact all the armies that have been quoted - Custodes, Harlequins, etc. - have specific tools to face knight-like threats and all the other kind of threats. It's just that those tools are, sometimes, weak or unsufficient : but they still have those ! Tyrannic war veteran do not, and it's normal because they are not thought as a cookie cutter unit that ultramarines should use to build a list : they are a fluff unit put in the supplement for the lol.
An army doesn't *have* to be optimised, or specific, or anything like that. An army is just a valid grouping of units that you have collected into a force. If I want to make an army out of Tyrannic War Vets, I will. If I want to make an army out of purely Victrix Guard units, I will.
Yes they do. An army is a coherent body made of different units with different tactical role. There are no codexes with only one non unique unit for OBVIOUS reasons understood by anyone that's not you.
TL, DR : Just play chess, there's very little diversity in the game and you can create all the fluff you want around the pieces. You can even paint them if you so desire.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except Vanilla Marines already had said units before or they're actually not unique as proven.
Nephilim Jetfighters = not specific to DA ? Darkshroud = not specific to DA ? Land Speeder Vengeance = not specific to DA ? Black Knights = not specific to DA ? Dark Talon = not specific to DA ?
All those units are specific to the Ravenwing. You can build an army around that, unlike tyranic war vets spam which is not an army. You've proved nothing, aside from a slight hypocrisy and bias in judgement. Your point about DA/BA/SW being in a supplement would have much more weight if you at least at the decency to acknowledge that the originality of those three chapter is, today, genuine, due to all the units and the lore that GW produced for them since the 2nd ed. By denying that specificity and arguing that nothing they have make sense or legitimate any kind of differenciation from other codex chapters, you just lose all credibility.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except Vanilla Marines already had said units before or they're actually not unique as proven.
Nephilim Jetfighters = not specific to DA ?
Darkshroud = not specific to DA ?
Land Speeder Vengeance = not specific to DA ?
Black Knights = not specific to DA ?
Dark Talon = not specific to DA ?
All those units are specific to the Ravenwing. You can build an army around that, unlike tyranic war vets spam which is not an army. You've proved nothing, aside from a slight hypocrisy and bias in judgement.
Your point about DA/BA/SW being in a supplement would have much more weight if you at least at the decency to acknowledge that the originality of those three chapter is, today, genuine, due to all the units and the lore that GW produced for them since the 2nd ed. By denying that specificity and arguing that nothing they have make sense or legitimate any kind of differenciation from other codex chapters, you just lose all credibility.
The Land Speeder without the defense aura really isn't that unique as FW gave us Land Speeders with heavier weapons than the usual Heavy Bolter and Flamer. The Dark Talon is the same as the Stormtalon due to the weapons all basically sharing the same profile, with the key difference that they have a different +1 to hit modifier. Black Knights aren't even that unique either. You can get the same thing with Combi-Plasma and Power Axes on Command Squads with no unreliable gimmick to do more damage.
I'm sure you're gonna bring up their super special grenade Launcher. LOL like anyone is gonna use that. Removed - BrookM
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yes, I know that, thank you for the condescension. But that's not ALL Dark Angels players, any more so than all Ultramarine players are pure Tyrannic War Vets players (which there are some).
Are you seriously suggesting that there are ultramarine players out there that plays ONLY tyrannic war veterans + characters ? Are we really at that level of hypocrisy ?
That's not what hypocrisy means, for a start.
And yes, I am. Why? Because I've played those kinds of lists. Things like Guilliman+Victrix Guard, Cassius/Calgar with Tyrannic War Vets. They make for very fun themed games.
Is it my only army, or a list I would show up with to any random game, no. Is it an army though? Yes.
Everything I am saying, since the beginning, is that the DA have, and have had for a long time now, some specificity and that there are many players that play them as an original army with either a full ravenguard army or a full DW army and that you cannot compare the UM supplement to the DA codex.
But yes, I can.
The only difference between the Dark Angels Codex and the various supplements for Space Marines is that the Dark Angels Codex simply reprints 85% of it's material so it can be purchased alone, with the only reason for it being so "because they've always been able to". Times have changed. If I were to combine the Ultramarines supplement and Codex into the same book, it would be functionally identical to the Dark Angels Codex. And, while I don't want that to happen, I'd rather that be the case, and all supplement Chapters got their own Codex, than those three "special"* Chapters having Codexes for no reason other than nostalgia.
*yes, I know they're actually unique and special - but so is every other Chapter.
Your entire argument is based around a false and seriously stupid comparaison.
You're saying that, but you're not telling me *why* it's false.
Dark Angels have unique units. Ultramarines have unique units. Armies can be made out of those units. They have unique lore and rules and heroes. They've always been regarded as "special".
In the current ruleset, what reason do the DA have to not be a supplement, ignoring nostalgia?
There are no pure tyrannic war vet players : at most some UM players have tyrannic war vet, and that's it.
That's a bold claim, and a wrong one. I have a full Tyrannic War Vets force, as I outlined above. I also have other Ultramarine units, but I don't field them when I play my "Tyrannic War Vets" army, just like how I don't take my 5th Company Marines when I'm playing my 2nd Company army.
Please, try again.
I understand it's lore just fine, and it's incredibly patronising that you think you know more.
I haven't said ANYWHERE that Dark Angels should just suck up and take normal Apothecaries in their Deathwing. I instead said that EVERY CHAPTER should have Terminator Apothecaries, because there's nothing specific about Dark Angels lore that says "they're the only Chapter with Terminator Apothecaries!!", much like how every Chapter now has Terminator Ancients.
You are arguing, with great ignorance as showed in the last hundred posts on this subject, that DA should lose ALL THEIR SPECIFICITY and all their restrictions.
No, they don't. I've always advocated for DA to keep certain unique units (Deathwing Knights, Black Knights, Nephilim, etc etc) because they have no easy equivalent, as well as later agreeing that certain units could remain inaccessible (Sternguard and Vanguard Vets). It's the units that could easily just be made mechanically identical despite using generic datasheets (regular Terminators and Bikes) and units that neither you or anyone else has provided as reason NOT to be available (Centurions, Thunderfire Cannons, etc etc).
Dark Angels should be unique units, but that doesn't mean they should have a full codex any more than the Ultramarines should.
It's virtually the same as arguing for the discontinuation of a variety of DA specific units. Do you really think GW would bother producing nephilim jetfighters when they have the same exact tactical role as stormhawk ? That's stupid.
The reason GW continue to produce them is because A) They already sell them and have rules for them, and B ) Because they wish to artificially create differences between the two factions.
In their own lore, there is no reason the Dark Angels shouldn't have both Nephilim and Stormhawks. And before you say it, no, I don't want Nephilim to be available to other Chapters, it's fine being unique.
That's why you take other things, because the Ultramarines faction, just like the Dark Angels, isn't just made up of unique units.
Yes, you *can* make an army made up only of unique units, if you wanted, for fluffy reasons, but you don't *have* to. Dark Angels, for all their unique units, still share 85% of their units with Codex: Space Marines.
No you cannot. Tyranic war vet are marine that survived the tyrannic wars ... No army are entirely comprised of such vet
Disproven by my very existence. Don't make blanket claims you can't prove.
and I assure you even during the tyrannic wars they had many non UM specific unit actually fighting... like tactical marines or devastator... lol
But they're not always deployed together in the aftermath. That's like saying "you can't take Dark Angels army without a Tactical Squad, they have Tactical Squads in XYZ Random Battle!!" There's more than enough room and scope in 40k for a battle to have taken place where only Tyrannic Wars Veterans were deployed. Like specifically anti-Tyranid missions, for example. "Chaplain Cassius, vengeful and ever-vigilant against the threat of the Tyranids, leading an elite strikeforce of his most trusted specialists to wipe out a tendril of the Devourer." There we are, a fluffy reason for a mono-Tyrannic War force.
The Tyrannic Wars aren't the ONLY time Tyrannic War Veterans were deployed.
You cannot compare the two, and it baffle me that you still continue with this stupid ass argument.
You're saying that, but you're not explaining how.
You say that DA players take "other things" because the DA are not just "made up of unique units" : but I just told you many times that there are many players that play Ravenwings only or Deathwings only armies ????
Yes, there are, I didn't deny that for a second. The thing you're oblivious to is that that's not special any more. With the changes to the Force Organisation Charts, there's also people who play all Dreadnought lists, and all Terminator Imperial Fist lists, and all Tyrannic War lists, and all mounted lists. Should they all have unique Codexes now?
No! If you want an all-XYZ list, you can do it with a generic Codex!
Yes they do. An army is a coherent body made of different units with different tactical role.
Not true - are the forces in box sets like Shadowspear or Blood of the Phoenix not armies then?
A 40k army is a collection of units. They don't have to be specialised, they don't need to be capable of taking on anything that comes in their way. The baseline requirement for an army is that it is made up of at least two or more different units (and even then, I'd still call two Knights an army in their own right).
You're coming up with definitions for "armies" that would disqualify forces that GW themselves have called armies. In that light, I reject your definition.
There are no codexes with only one non unique unit for OBVIOUS reasons understood by anyone that's not you.
Good thing that if they Ultramarines were arranged in a Codex like Dark Angels are now, they'd have many non-unique units, and even several unique ones (Honour Guard, Victrix Honour Guard, and Tyrannic War Vets).
TL, DR : Just play chess, there's very little diversity in the game and you can create all the fluff you want around the pieces. You can even paint them if you so desire.
Congratulations for completely missing my argument. Would you like a cookie?*
And you say that I wasn't using my brain.
*that's sarcasm, if you couldn't tell. I would advise you actually read my argument and know what my points are, instead of making up things I've said or claim to want to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WhiteDog wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except Vanilla Marines already had said units before or they're actually not unique as proven.
Nephilim Jetfighters = not specific to DA ? Darkshroud = not specific to DA ? Land Speeder Vengeance = not specific to DA ? Black Knights = not specific to DA ? Dark Talon = not specific to DA ?
All those units are specific to the Ravenwing.
Yes, something I'd want to keep specific to them.
You can build an army around that
buUt wHeRe Are ThE tROoPS?? Otherwise it's not fulfilling the roles of "proper" army!!
Obviously, that's a stupid take. They don't need to be capable of covering every role to be a valid army.
unlike tyranic war vets spam which is not an army.
Again, wrong. Your definition of "army" is simply not correct.
If I took 1000 points of only Termagants, is that not an army?
Your point about DA/BA/SW being in a supplement would have much more weight if you at least at the decency to acknowledge that the originality of those three chapter is, today, genuine, due to all the units and the lore that GW produced for them since the 2nd ed.
Yes, those three Chapters are original. Unfortunately, nowadays, so is everyone else.
They're different from other Chapters, in so much as Ultramarines are unique from every other Chapter. Therefore, there is no reason why either every Chapter should have their own Codex (not ideal), or everyone should have their own supplement (ideal).
Surely you're not so superficial that you think that Dark Angels wouldn't be the Most Super Duper Special Chapter if they *gasp* had to share the same book as those Filthy Peasant Codex Marines? Regardless of if their rules were in a supplement or Codex, if it's their lore and unique units that make them so special, it really wouldn't matter at all.
I am not avoiding your question - I said that a rising tide raises all boats. The Warhammer World teaser for CA19 mentions that "Chapter Approved gives the Dark Angels an update in line with their Codex-adherent kin." (So it turns out that the Dark Angels are not Codex-adherent). So perhaps they will received doctrines. I think that the DA should have a form of doctrines. I have never argued that they are completely different from the baseline chapters. We already share certain basic rules/concepts such as ATSKNF, Shock Assault and the Better Bolter Rules. I guess we'll see what either CA19 and/or Psychic Awakening bring the Dark Angels. If our weapons do less damage then I will indeed cry into my gruel on the Rock. Guess I'll have to decide if I keep playing them. The good news is that you don't need to if you don't want to. Free will is a good thing.
Flandarz,
Is your argument against the Dark Angels being distinct really based on paper usage? Heck, the current method saves paper if that's what your concern is. I only buy one book with no ink spent on datasheets that I cannot use. Boom. Environment saved. I am a little confused about your humanity analogy as I am not a biologist/geneticist. I am genuinely not sure what you are trying to say. Hair colour is cosmetic at the end of the day. If we changed a given animals DNA to be 15% different (going from your 85% number) then I imagine they would no longer be the same species. Anyhoo. We are talking about fictional factions and not about real people.
Sgt Smudge,
My argument is that having the Dark Angels as their own force/army/Codex brings variety to the game without causing undue harm. Part of that variety comes from the unique units and loss of access to other mainstream units. A Dark Angels player has two unique flyers and looses access to the other Space Marine ones. We have two unique Landspeeders. We have unique RW and DW Elites characters, never mind the two HQ choices. We have our DW Knights and our RW Knights. We lose access to a number of other units, and not just named characters. All of this makes a Dark Angels army look, feel and play different than a Codex-adherent chapter. Its a much different feel that two or three named characters. Again, lets park your design methodology of a supplement that only prints unique stuff and tells you what you can't take from the other book you would then have to buy. Nevermind Stratagem hoops that you want players to jump through to create what already exists in a more elegant design.
I am arguing the "what" while you seem to be mostly arguing about the "how." As a result we are often talking past each other. If you do not agree that the Dark Angels should be a distinct Chapter (the "what"), then we will certainly not agree on the "how" of their portrayal. I think I get that we are just two gamers/hobbyists talking across the Atlantic about a shared game system. We don't need to agree with each other. My point, though, is that the current method works and causes minimal harm while your method would be more complicated and would indeed cause harm to existing players. To allow me to at least fully understand where we differ, do you think that the Dark Angels should be a distinct force/army?
Warm regards,
T2B
ps - I am at a remote location during the week, so if I do not reply to someone promptly please do not think that I am being rude (for what it matters).
Obviously, that's a stupid take. They don't need to be capable of covering every role to be a valid army.
It's not a question of "role" as in troop/elite/fastattack/etc. but rather tactical role within the army. i.e. an army needs to have "something" to manage troops, mass, heavy units, etc. You can do all that with the above. Ravenwing, in previous edition, use to have an ability that permitted them to make bike units troops : it was made in order to permit full ravenwing armies (same for terminators for DW).
In this edition, it is not necessary, but it doesn't change the fact that a full ravenwing army can have a variety of units to face all type of challenge and thus is playable, unlike a complete tyrannic war vet.
But only a non hypocrite, slightly balanced and unbiased individual could agree with that simple fact.
The Land Speeder without the defense aura really isn't that unique as FW gave us Land Speeders with heavier weapons than the usual Heavy Bolter and Flamer. The Dark Talon is the same as the Stormtalon due to the weapons all basically sharing the same profile, with the key difference that they have a different +1 to hit modifier. Black Knights aren't even that unique either. You can get the same thing with Combi-Plasma and Power Axes on Command Squads with no unreliable gimmick to do more damage.
FW also have a heavy tank for SM similar to the guard heavies : let's "consolidate" those astra militarum and SM then since they have similar units with similar roles. After all, the dichotomy between scout and tactical squad basically mimic guardsmen and tempestus scions do they not ? ... Removed - Rule #1 please
Obviously, that's a stupid take. They don't need to be capable of covering every role to be a valid army.
That's a stupid comment as usual. It's not a question of "role" as in troop/elite/fastattack/etc. but rather tactical role within the army. i.e. an army needs to have "something" to manage troops, mass, heavy units, etc. You can do all that with the above. Ravenwing, in previous edition, use to have an ability that permitted them to make bike units troops : it was made in order to permit full ravenwing armies (same for terminators for DW).
In this edition, it is not necessary, but it doesn't change the fact that a full ravenwing army can have a variety of units to face all type of challenge and thus is playable, unlike a complete tyrannic war vet.
But only a non hypocrite, slightly balanced and unbiased individual could agree with that simple fact.
Because no one ever plays themed, fun forces that aren't necessarily bleeding-edge competitive!
Obviously, that's a stupid take. They don't need to be capable of covering every role to be a valid army.
That's a stupid comment as usual. It's not a question of "role" as in troop/elite/fastattack/etc. but rather tactical role within the army. i.e. an army needs to have "something" to manage troops, mass, heavy units, etc. You can do all that with the above. Ravenwing, in previous edition, use to have an ability that permitted them to make bike units troops : it was made in order to permit full ravenwing armies (same for terminators for DW). In this edition, it is not necessary, but it doesn't change the fact that a full ravenwing army can have a variety of units to face all type of challenge and thus is playable, unlike a complete tyrannic war vet. But only a non hypocrite, slightly balanced and unbiased individual could agree with that simple fact.
Because no one ever plays themed, fun forces that aren't necessarily bleeding-edge competitive!
Who would play entirely tyrannic war vet army ? It's not theme, it's nonsensical. From a fluff point of view tyrannic war vet are the remain of the defender of ultramar during the tyrannic wars : they are veterans that engage in very specific fight against the tyrannids, shoulder to shoulder with non tyrannic war vets. A themed army around them would give them an important tactical role in a scenario where tyrannids invade a planet or something, not as an army full of them in matched play.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: "Chaplain Cassius, vengeful and ever-vigilant against the threat of the Tyranids, leading an elite strikeforce of his most trusted specialists to wipe out a tendril of the Devourer."
There we are, a fluffy reason for a mono-Tyrannic War force.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: My argument is that having the Dark Angels as their own force/army/Codex brings variety to the game without causing undue harm.
My argument is that this variety can be brought to the game without needing a full Codex. If I were to cut out the 85% of generic units in the Dark Angels 'Codex', and add in about single page of rules explaining how generic Bikes and Land Speeders could gain Ravenwing rules, and how Terminators could gain Deathwing rules, as well as not being able to use <Vanguard Veteran> or <Sternguard Veteran> datasheets (still not convinced on why they can't have Thunderfire Cannons and Centurions), it would be functionally the same as a supplement.
Part of that variety comes from the unique units and loss of access to other mainstream units.
Whereas I don't think that Dark Angels need to lose access to anything to have variety, especially when there's no in-universe justification for *why* they don't have certain things.
Ultramarines have variety. Imperial Fists have variety. Black Templars have variety. They don't need Codexes to do that.
All of this makes a Dark Angels army look, feel and play different than a Codex-adherent chapter.
But do they? Do they play massively differently?
In previous editions, yes - they were the only Chapter capable of having so many Terminators and Bikes/Land Speeders. That's not the case any more.
And yes, they have their unique units and abilities, but they don't play so much more different to Ultramarines than Ultramarines do to Iron Hands and Raven Guard. When the supplements alone have just as many different looks, feels and different play mechanics from eachother as full Codexes do, do you not consider that the same variety could be provided via those supplements?
I am arguing the "what" while you seem to be mostly arguing about the "how." As a result we are often talking past each other. If you do not agree that the Dark Angels should be a distinct Chapter (the "what"), then we will certainly not agree on the "how" of their portrayal.
The problem doesn't seem to be the what. We both agree that the Dark Angels should be a distinct Chapter. The thing I don't think you're seeing is that the "Codex" Chapters are also distinct, and I'm getting the impression that you're treating them like they were in 5th edition and such, when there were no mechanical differences between how you painted your guys. That's not the case any more. The supplements have provided so much flavour and variety in how a Chapter fights that they're all distinct.
It's not that the Dark Angels aren't distinct. It's that everyone is now distinct in their own right. Think of it as something like a gifted-and-talented group, which starts off as one person. They're talented beyond the average ability of their classmates. Then, they're joined by other people who are also talented beyond the average ability of their classmates. It doesn't mean the first person is any less talented, it just means that there's other people who are just as talented.
I think I get that we are just two gamers/hobbyists talking across the Atlantic about a shared game system. We don't need to agree with each other. My point, though, is that the current method works and causes minimal harm while your method would be more complicated and would indeed cause harm to existing players.
Whereas for me, my approach makes it a lot easier for someone to collect Space Marines (because no matter what Chapter you eventually end up deciding on playing, you're nearly always using the same core units), and ensures that wide changes to the core Space Marine profile (things like Angels of Death and Bolter Discipline) can be amended in one book, instead of one book and three FAQs.
Both methods work (supplements have also proven to be fine for people to use), but it's a question why there needs to be two methods. Either everyone should have Codexes, or everyone should have supplements. Plus, it's no more harmful to existing players than it would be for any kind of edition change or update.
To allow me to at least fully understand where we differ, do you think that the Dark Angels should be a distinct force/army?
Yes, I do - in as much as any First Founder is a distinct force/army compared to other Chapters (which I believe they currently are, in supplement form). However, I believe that this can be done without them needing to be a full fledged Codex. They can be distinct just like how Ultramarines are distinct.
ps - I am at a remote location during the week, so if I do not reply to someone promptly please do not think that I am being rude (for what it matters).
Hope you enjoy yourself!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WhiteDog wrote:It's not a question of "role" as in troop/elite/fastattack/etc. but rather tactical role within the army. i.e. an army needs to have "something" to manage troops, mass, heavy units, etc.
Ah yes, because every single army ever made was completely capable of taking on every threat and asymmetrical battles were never a thing!
Oh, no, that's not true at all though.
But only a non hypocrite, slightly balanced and unbiased individual could agree with that simple fact.
Firstly, I suggest you actually read a dictionary, because you're not using the correct definition of hypocrite.
Secondly, I'm reporting that as rule 1. You've not been able to "prove" a single fact you're claiming, and being incredibly dismissive, condescending, and generally insulting.
Who would play entirely tyrannic war vet army ?
Me, because it's fluffy, and it's cool.
It's not theme, it's nonsensical.
According to you.
From a fluff point of view tyrannic war vet are the remain of the defender of ultramar during the tyrannic wars : they are veterans that engage in very specific fight against the tyrannids, shoulder to shoulder with non tyrannic war vets. A themed army around them would give them an important tactical role in a scenario where tyrannids invade a planet or something, not as an army full of them in matched play.
For someone who claimed to know so much about the lore, you don't seem to know what the Tyrannic War Veterans were, or what they still do.
They're both made up of the Veterans of the Tyrannic Wars, as well as those trained by those initial veterans to more expertly combat the Tyranid menace in the years since. As a result, there are many "Tyrannic War Veterans" who never actually fought in the Tyrannic Wars. Calgar specifically gave Chaplain Cassius his own authority to train up and deploy his own unique cadre of Tyranid hunters. There's no lore that says "they only fight in support of their non-specialised brethren", and prior formations in previous editions explicitly had mono-Tyrannic War formations, indicating that, yes, they did deploy independently.
As I said above, it's completely fluffy for something like "Cassius leading an elite team of Tyrannic War Veterans to hunt down and kill a Tyranid Leader Beast, not wishing to risk the lives of less experienced Ultramarines on this critical mission".
This discussion is nonsensical. You're just digging yourself a hole trying to argue that a tyranic war vet army in itself without any sort of non tyranic war vet unit is valid fluff wise.
From the UM supplement codex (p. 47) : "It was during a time of immense hardship that the Tyrannic War Veterans took their place in the Ultramarines Chapter. The Battle for Macragge saw their entire 1st Company slain, and it was Chaplain Cassius’ vision that its rebuilding should begin by assembling veterans of that terrible war so as to harness the hard-won lessons of the conflict. [...] After months, the Conclave of Hera concluded when the Tyranids attacked the Cardinal world of Espandor. Calgar decreed that the new body of warriors be formed to combat this threat. In that battle, and countless conflicts since, the Tyrannic War Veterans proved their worth, fighting Tyranid invasions at Brettik V, Jomm, Ichar IV and Saint Tylus, among many others. The Codex itself was amended to allow for their role. [...] The fighting over Saint Tylus against a splinter of Hive Fleet Ouroboris saw the infiltration of a vast bio-ship by the Tyrannic War Veterans. The first of its kind identified, this abomination was observed to be crafting fresh waves of living warships within a vast cradle of chitinous talons, then spewing them forth to overwhelm the system’s defence craft. Knowing a threat of this magnitude had to be annihilated, Chaplain Cassius, in partnership with an entire Deathwatch company from Fort Excalibris, led dozens of Tyrannic War Veterans in a desperate mission to board the spawn-ship and destroy it from within."
So here you have it : tyrannic war vet are veteran from the tyrannic war that function as a specific unit that fulfill of a specific role. It is not an army, but a small unit (similar to a kill team) deployed to support others in the fight against tyranids.
You are right that tyranic war vet still recruit marines that are not survivors from the tyranic wars, in order to pass on their experience, but that doesn't change anything I've said.
Secondly, I'm reporting that as rule 1. You've not been able to "prove" a single fact you're claiming, and being incredibly dismissive, condescending, and generally insulting.
Turns out I do in fact prove what I say, while you don't.
Those extracts literally said nothing though? All those extracts said were "Tyrannic War Veterans were made up of veterans of the battle of Macragge, which were made into their own unique role within the Chapter".
I mean, there's literally one you've just quoting saying that Cassius leads a small army of Tyrannic War Veterans! There's nothing that says they need to support others, only that they sometimes do, and other times don't. What, are you going to claim that all Terminator armies in other Chapters don't exist because they're usually deployed as support options? No, because that's simply not true.
There's just as much lore reason for a pure TWV army as there is for any other highly specialised force.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Those extracts literally said nothing though? All those extracts said were "Tyrannic War Veterans were made up of veterans of the battle of Macragge, which were made into their own unique role within the Chapter".
I mean, there's literally one you've just quoting saying that Cassius leads a small army of Tyrannic War Veterans! There's nothing that says they need to support others, only that they sometimes do, and other times don't. What, are you going to claim that all Terminator armies in other Chapters don't exist because they're usually deployed as support options? No, because that's simply not true.
There's just as much lore reason for a pure TWV army as there is for any other highly specialised force.
It specifically says that tyranic war vet is a "role" within the codex, and that the biggest most fierce squad of the tyranic war vet accounted to "dozens" of tyranic war vet helping a complete deathwatch compagny. So they are not an army. It's like saying it is fluff to build an army of devastator ... Come on ...
WhiteDog wrote: It specifically says that tyranic war vet is a "role" within the codex, and that the biggest most fierce squad of the tyranic war vet accounted to "dozens" of tyranic war vet helping a complete deathwatch compagny. So they are not an army.
Deathwing is a "role", that role being to hunt down the Fallen. It doesn't stop them deploying as an army in their own respect.
Again, I feel you need to review your definition of an "army".
It's like saying it is fluff to build an army of devastator ... Come on ...
... I don't know how to tell you this, but the 9th Company exists, and, despite being a reserve company, has been known to deploy on it's own (see - Vigilus).
So, yeah. All Devastator armies are absolutely a fluffy thing. I'm building one for my homebrew Chapter as we speak, actually.
No deathwing is a compagny. Deathwing Knights have a role within that compagny, next to DW terminators, apothecary, ancient, champion, land raiders, dreadnoughts...
The 9th compagny is not full of devastator lol. The 9th compagny is a compagny full of heavy support units - devastator, hellblaster, eliminator, and "many long ranged marksmen" (i.e. scouts - dixit ultramarine supplement). Plus they are not supposed to function alone but as a support to a non-reserve compagny : they do not take the field as a complete "army".
WhiteDog wrote: No deathwing is a compagny. Deathwing Knights have a role within that compagny, next to DW terminators, apothecary, ancient, champion, land raiders, dreadnoughts...
The latter two units which aren't Dark Angels unique units, eh? So much for "Dark Angel units make up an army unto themselves!"*
And I was talking about the Deathwing Terminators as a whole, not just the Knights. I never actually mentioned Knights once, in fact.
*which is true, but I find it amusing that you list generic units to prove your point that "Dark Angels don't need generic units to make an army".
The 9th compagny is not full of devastator lol. The 9th compagny is a compagny full of heavy support units - devastator, hellblaster, eliminator, and "many long ranged marksmen" (i.e. scouts - dixit ultramarine supplement). Plus they are not supposed to function alone but as a support to a non-reserve compagny : they do not take the field as a complete "army".
The 9th Company can be fielded as all Devastator, should it choose to. It did before the introduction of Centurions (which aren't compulsory, and aren't actually attached to Companies, they're actually part of the Chapter armoury, like Rhinos and Razorbacks), and did before Primaris were ever a thing. Look in the 5th Edition breakdown of the Ultramarines Chapter, and see for yourself.
They *can* take all the other fire support units, but are equally able to take purely Devastators.
And no, they do take to the field as a complete army in their own respect. See Vigilus, where half of the Ninth Company are deployed alone on defence of the Aquilarian Palace.
Just because they're a reserve company doesn't mean for a second that they only deploy that way. While their *main* purpose is in this regard, it is far from their only calling.
You know who else use land raiders and dreadnought but is not a codex compliant SM army ? Custodes ... So we are back to square one : DA is similar to Custodes in terms of unique entry.
Lol all this talk because you cannot agree that you were wrong about tyrannid war vet. Somewhere in the vast fluff you will find an anecdote to defend your dream of a full tyrannic war vet army.
My 3rd ed SM codex is in the basement but I'm so tempted to dig it just for the fun.
WhiteDog wrote: You know who else use land raiders and dreadnought but is not a codex compliant SM army ? Custodes
Custodes aren't Space Marines.
DA is similar to Custodes in terms of unique entry.
Custodes don't share 85% of their units with regular Space Marines. They're just as related to Space Marines as Sisters of Battle are. Which, just to clarify, are not Space Marines.
you cannot agree that you were wrong about tyrannid war vet.
Why would I agree that I was wrong on something that I was right about?
Somewhere in the vast fluff you will find an anecdote to defend your dream of a full tyrannic war vet army.
Exactly - so why on earth would you make the ridiculous claim that both Tyrannic War Veterans never deploy solo, and that no-one has ever played that army (hint, you're wrong about that one too, and I've not heard you concede that. )
WhiteDog wrote: You know who else use land raiders and dreadnought but is not a codex compliant SM army ? Custodes ... So we are back to square one : DA is similar to Custodes in terms of unique entry.
Lol all this talk because you cannot agree that you were wrong about tyrannid war vet.
DA and Custodes have one, maybe two units in common. (Land Raiders and possibly the Dread.)
DA and Codex Marines have...
Chaplains
Librarians
Lieutenants
Captains (renamed Masters in DA, but to my knowledge they're otherwise the exact same-please correct me if I'm wrong)
Techmarines
Incursors
Infilitrators
Intercessors
Tacticals
Scouts
Agressors
Apothecaries
Dreadnoughts
Invictors
Reivers
Servitors
Assault Squads
Inceptors
Suppressors
Eliminators
Hellblasters
Hunters
Land Raiders
Predators
Stalkers
Vindicators
Whirlwinds
Drop Pods
Impulsors
Land Speeder Storms
Razorbacks
Repulsors
Rhinos
Note that several of those units (Dreadnoughts, Librarians, etc.) are actually many different units just lumped under one name.
WhiteDog wrote: You know who else use land raiders and dreadnought but is not a codex compliant SM army ? Custodes ... So we are back to square one : DA is similar to Custodes in terms of unique entry.
Lol all this talk because you cannot agree that you were wrong about tyrannid war vet.
DA and Custodes have one, maybe two units in common. (Land Raiders and possibly the Dread.)
DA and Codex Marines have...
Chaplains
Librarians
Lieutenants
Captains (renamed Masters in DA, but to my knowledge they're otherwise the exact same-please correct me if I'm wrong)
Techmarines
Incursors
Infilitrators
Intercessors
Tacticals
Scouts
Agressors
Apothecaries
Dreadnoughts
Invictors
Reivers
Servitors
Assault Squads
Inceptors
Suppressors
Eliminators
Hellblasters
Hunters
Land Raiders
Predators
Stalkers
Vindicators
Whirlwinds
Drop Pods
Impulsors
Land Speeder Storms
Razorbacks
Repulsors
Rhinos
Note that several of those units (Dreadnoughts, Librarians, etc.) are actually many different units just lumped under one name.
Yes. And DA and Custodes have the same number of unique units in comparaison to the SM codex. Let's consolidate all that to simplify.
Smudge don't even understands what's written in the UM codex... what can I say.
WhiteDog wrote: You know who else use land raiders and dreadnought but is not a codex compliant SM army ? Custodes ... So we are back to square one : DA is similar to Custodes in terms of unique entry. Lol all this talk because you cannot agree that you were wrong about tyrannid war vet.
DA and Custodes have one, maybe two units in common. (Land Raiders and possibly the Dread.)
DA and Codex Marines have...
Spoiler:
Chaplains Librarians Lieutenants Captains (renamed Masters in DA, but to my knowledge they're otherwise the exact same-please correct me if I'm wrong) Techmarines Incursors Infilitrators Intercessors Tacticals Scouts Agressors Apothecaries Dreadnoughts Invictors Reivers Servitors Assault Squads Inceptors Suppressors Eliminators Hellblasters Hunters Land Raiders Predators Stalkers Vindicators Whirlwinds Drop Pods Impulsors Land Speeder Storms Razorbacks Repulsors Rhinos
Note that several of those units (Dreadnoughts, Librarians, etc.) are actually many different units just lumped under one name.
There's actually even more than that! Units like the "basic" Ravenwing Bikes and Land Speeder entries are only one special rule away from being exactly like normal Bikes and Land Speeders. And that's not to mention the fact that all White Scars Bikes have their own special rule, essentially making them just as unique as Ravenwing Bikers! Then, units like Cataphractii and Tartaros Terminators are essentially identical to their Codex equivalents, only with a single unique rule added (which could, just like the White Scars bike ability, be added as part of their Chapter Tactic!)
WhiteDog wrote: Yes. And DA and Custodes have the same number of unique units in comparaison to the SM codex. Let's consolidate all that to simplify.
Custodes share, at most, less than 20% of their Dex with Marines. (Way the hell less if you include Forgeworld.)
What percentage do Dark Angels share?
You are totally right I'm caricaturing Smudge. I was arguing that the DW is an original company that can be fielded as an original army. He responded that to function they have to use SM units like the land raider and dreadnought which is the exact same situation as Custodes. I'm pointing that out to show that his critic has no sense : the DW reliance on those two units do not makes them less original, which should be obvious for anyone but smudge who can't seems to understand anything.
If you are just trolling, I'd recommend making a post that explains what his position actually is, to demonstrate that you understand.
To me it seems like you guys are completly drenched in your own certainty that you can't even understand the point of the discussion. I do not need to demonstrate anything to someone who isn't even able to understand the difference between the DeathWing and tyrannic war vet. But, out of love for the spirit of the forum, and for the last time, I'll try to give you a good understanding of the topic at hand and after that I will leave you and your band into your own nonsensical arguments.
Smudge and his crew believe that DA/SW/BA should be consolidated in the SM codex and that their specificities should be in a codex supplement (like it was the case in the 3rd ed.) because they share many units with SM (which is totally true and valid). They add that it doesn't make sense for DA/SW/BA to have restrictions and that they should have access to the entire SM codex (this is a big problem of their argument) and all the units that makes them original should be shared with other SM chapters, aside from a few units that should be available via CP upgrades or unique entry in a codex supplement. The problem is that to defend their argument they are trying to minimize the originality of those three non SM codex chapters. One totally absurd exemple of that is Smudge argument that, somehow, tyranic war vet can exist as a single (and original) army for ultramarines similar to a DW army or a RW army. One other exemple is the fact that Smudge somehow believe that the number of army specific unit that the UM have is comparable to what the DA have, which is absurd (to do this absurd task he is counting all unique characters and totally disregarding everything that makes RW/DW special).
What I get from all that can be summarize in a few points : - first point is that, while the number of datasheet that DA have in common with SM is important, they also have a significant number of datasheet that are different from SM and that due to that significant number they cannot be compared to other codex compliant SM chapters, something Smudge and his crew are unable to get/contredict (it's not 3rd ed anymore ...). They are constantly trying to downplay DA/SW/BA specificity (as seen by Slayer's pityful comment on FW landspeeders/sanguinary priest, or Smudge arguments about tyrannic war vet). A coherent argumentation for that consolidation should start with acknowledging the specificities of those non codex chapters and thinking about ways to make it so that those chapters keep what makes their identity in the new frame they desire ;
- second point is that the consolidation they so desire, and specifically the end of all restrictions, would logically mean the discontinuation (and thus the loss of diversity) of many non-SM codex units, such as the nephilim jetfighter, because those units have the same tactical role as their SM only counterpart. They are arguing for DA to go back three ed in the past to gain nothing, or almost nothing ;
- third point is that overall their argument does not value diversity and is based around a flawed, subjective understanding of the game. They view simplification as the apex value, while others (most consumers actually according to econ theory) might value diversity and opportunity of choices above simplification. As such their arguments lack objectivity and cannot be taken seriously. For exemple Slayer and others are constantly arguing that X chapter specific unit is virtually the same as Y non chapter specific units (FW landspeeder), or that there are no reason as to why those units are specific to Z chapters - but two units that are relatively close in design (Nephilim vs Stormhawk) are not complete substitute but rather imperfect substitute and as such offer increased diversity out of minimal imbalance/differencies, something that should be valued (and is obviously valued by GW) ;
- finally, I want to add that everything they wish for is actually going in the exact opposite direction in regards to what GW is doing. GW is doing everything it can to diversify and distinguish factions from each others : one of the best exemple of that is the dévelopment of CSM factions and units that are getting more and more different from their SM counterpart (see the rise of deamon engine, the evolution of havocs, etc.). The new SM codex supplements are another exemple of that : rather than consolidating everything in a codex (with an inflation in the number of pages), they are adding diversity to accomodate players' desires. The return of tyrannic war vet. is actually an exemple of that. In fact, all SM first founding chapters (aside from SW/BA/DA) are now in the same situation that the DA/BA/SW were in the 3rd edition of the game and we can believe that in the few years to come those chapters will differentiate themselves more and more.
If you are just trolling, I'd recommend making a post that explains what his position actually is, to demonstrate that you understand.
I too would like to see this, because it honestly looks like they don't understand my points at all, and instead settle on being as condescending as possible to compensate.
Dark Angels, including Deathwing and Ravenwing, are a unique force, but they don't need a Codex in order to be unique. The exact same mechanical effects and theme of their uniqueness can be just as easily implemented via a supplement, saving out on the need to republish the same 85% of units, which function identically to their counterparts in the core Codex.
The measure by which a faction is unique is in their lore and mechanics, not in the arbitrary matter of if they have a Codex or not. Or, to put it another way - "A rose; By any other name would smell as sweet."
WhiteDog wrote: To me it seems like you guys are completly drenched in your own certainty that you can't even understand the point of the discussion.
WhiteDog, at the risk of sounding self-concieted, it a discussion of my proposal that I offered several pages back we're discussing here.
Implying that you know the discussion of my own thoughts and opinions better than I do is a tad arrogant.
I do not need to demonstrate anything to someone who isn't even able to understand the difference between the DeathWing and tyrannic war vet.
At the most simple level, they're both unique cadres within their respective Chapters. I'm not denying that they have their own niches and specialisms, but on the core level, they're not exactly opposites.
Smudge and his crew
Oooh, I have a "crew" now! Did I pay them to support my arguments? Do I lead a masked gang of forum users who go around and beat Dark Angels fans into the dirt?
You'd also know that my first post in this thread was actually disagreeing with someone who also supported consolidating units, because I disapproved of their inflammatory language. If I truly had this "crew", do you think I'd oppose someone who agreed with my overall viewpoint?
believe that DA/SW/BA should be consolidated in the SM codex and that their specificities should be in a codex supplement (like it was the case in the 3rd ed.) because they share many units with SM (which is totally true and valid). They add that it doesn't make sense for DA to have restrictions and that they should have access to the entire SM codex (this is a big problem of their arguments) and all the units that makes them original should be shared with other SM chapters, aside from a few units that should be available via CP upgrades or unique entry in a codex supplement.
Not quite. I freely conceded that *certain* units (Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans) could be kept locked off from Dark Angels lists. It was units that had no reason in lore (which is what I'm basing my interpretation of what I want DA to function like) not to be in the Dark Angels' arsenal, like Thunderfire Cannons and Centurions, that I had grievance with.
Dark Angels don't need restrictions to be unique. Cadians and Catachans are about as unique from eachother as you can get, lorewise, but they don't need restrictions to do that. Similarly, I don't think that Dark Angels suddenly getting access to Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons would change anything about their core identity.
If Dark Angels, somehow, didn't have any Primaris Marines (ignoring that this would be nearly impossible to do with Guilliman being in the position he's in), then I could actually support this idea of them being completely separate - throw in a lore reason why they don't have Primaris, and that then creates a VERY big gameplay and mechanical variety between the Dark Angels and every other Chapter. But saying they're totally unique because they don't have Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons? That's not exactly very important, is it?
I mean, would you call Raven Guard a totally unique Chapter if they didn't have Vindicators and Predators, but actually had Hawkclaw Ravenbombers? I wouldn't.
The problem is that to defend their argument they are trying to minimize the originality of those three non SM codex chapters.
Not at all. They can still be original without needing a Codex.
One totally absurd exemple of that is Smudge argument that, somehow, tyranic war vet can exist as a single (and original) army for ultramarines similar to a DW army or a RW army.
They can be taken as an army unto their own right, in the same way an Iron Hands player could take a whole army of Dreadnoughts or an Imperial Fist players with loads of Centurions.
The fundamental element is that Deathwing/Ravenwing don't NEED a Codex to be represented. They could have all their unique units added in via supplement. Having those units come from a Codex or supplement is utterly irrelevant.
One other exemple is the fact that Smudge somehow believe that the number of army specific unit that the UM have is comparable to what the DA have, which is absurd (to do this absurd task he is counting all unique characters and totally disregarding everything that makes RW/DW special).
Unique characters *are* Chapter specific units though.
And again, you mention "what makes the RW/DW special" - what does make them special? I'll go through a list, and explain why those things are either irrelevant, or can be added into a supplement: - Can deploy en masse: Under current FOC rules, any Chapter can already do that. However, I've explicitly said in this thread that I supported the idea of giving all <Deathwing> and <Ravenwing> detachments a Command Points boost, which could easily be done in a supplement. - Have unique rules: The majority of which on otherwise generic units, yes. As the Chapter Tactics for the White Scars have demonstrated, giving otherwise generic units a unique rule due to their keyword is trivially easy. Things like the Jink and Inner Circle rules can be provided to otherwise generic datasheets for the same effect as bespoke datasheets, without needing to create slightly different datasheets. - Hunt the Fallen: Represented by their rules, which I've addressed above. - Some unique datasheets: Yes, but only about a small handful more than what the Ultramarines have. I'm sure a supplement could easily afford a handful more pages.
If you have any more unique features, please, mention them politely, and I'll go over why it could probably be reflected without a Codex.
while the number of datasheet that DA have in common with SM is important, they also have a significant number of datasheet that are different from SM and that due to that significant number they cannot be compared to other codex compliant SM chapters, something Smudge and his crew is unable to get/contredict (it's not 3rd ed anymore ...). A coherent argumentation for that consolidation should start with acknowledging the specificities of those non codex chapters and thinking about ways to make it so that those chapters keep what makes their identity in the new frame they desire
They don't have that many differences though - less than 15% - and many of those differences are either trivially easy to replicate via Chapter Tactics (Bikers gaining Jink as part of their Chapter Tactic, becoming Ravenwing Bikers) or have no reason beyond nostalgia to not be included (Thunderfire Cannons and Centurions).
As you said, it's not 3rd Edition any more - which means that we can use things like keyword effects and suchlike to replicate Jink and Inner Circle.
The problem is mostly highlighted in your final sentence: we're working via opposite means. I am looking at the Dark Angels as they stand now, and questioning if their identity needs a Codex to reflect it. You are looking at the Dark Angels as something that needs a Codex to reflect it's identity, and want to change how they stand now in order to make them more unique. Or, to be more basic, I'm observing the test subject to reach a hypothesis, and you are changing the test subject to suit your pre-conceived hypothesis.
second point is that the consolidation they so desire, and the end of all restrictions, would logically mean the discontinuation (and thus the loss of diversity) of many non-SM codex units, such as the nephilim jetfighter, because those units have the same tactical role as their SM only counter part
Except for the parts when I explicitly said that I wanted to keep units like the Nephilim, even though they shared the same tactical role as other generic units that I would also wish the DA to have.
This shows your lack of understanding of my argument. I've made it very clear which units I want to keep unique, and which I want to make generic/stratagem'd. Nephilim Jetfighters, despite being in the same tactical role as other generic units, should not be made generic, because their weapon options are too different, their aesthetic design is too different, and their rules are not as similar as, say, Ravenwing Bikers and White Scars Bikers.
In other words, you make a leap of logic that I have not, and attribute it falsely to me.
third point is that overall their argument does not value diversity and is based around a flawed, subjective understanding of the game. They view simplification as a value, while others (most consumers actually according to econ theory) might value diversity and opportunity of choices. As such their arguments lack objectivity and cannot be taken seriously
Similarly, this would suggest that your arguments lack objectivity, as you do not view simplification as a value, and therefore cannot be taken seriously.
Newsflash - it's called an opinion. If I value simplification, that doesn't mean my argument cannot be taken seriously, any more so than if you do not.
So, in the interest of continuing to discuss opinions, I suggest dropping this kind of argument. No-one's argument "cannot be taken seriously" if they happen to have a different core belief.
finally, I want to add that everything they wish for is actually going in the exact opposite direction in regards to what GW is doing. GW is doing everything it can to diversify and distinguish factions from each others : one of the best exemple of that is the dévelopment of SMC factions and units that are getting more and more different from their SM counterpart (see the rise of deamon engine, the evolution of havocs, etc.). The new SM codex supplements are another exemple of that : rather than consolidating everything in a codex (with an inflation in the number of pages), they are adding diversity to accomodate players. In fact, all SM first founding chapters (aside from SW/BA/DA) are now in the same situation that the DA/BA/SW in the 3rd edition of the game.
Which is my reason as to why they should all be the same now. We're at a point where, as you say yourself, GW are adding diversity into factions that stem from a core book of units. Just because Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Blood Angels aren't part of that now, that doesn't explain why they shouldn't be in the future.
To make it clear - this is not a discussion about what GW will do, and as a result, I could not care less about what GW's trends are, what GW's plans are, and what GW would most likely do. This is a discussion about if they *should*, and if so, *how*.
As you say - all SM first founding Chapters are in the same place that those three unique Chapters were - showing that it's not a case of "only these three Chapters are unique enough to have their own rules!" When every Chapter is special, why do those three get special treatment? There are two solutions that are fair - either everyone gets Codex, and supplements are scrapped, or no-one gets a Codex, and everyone gets a supplement.
Except for the parts when I explicitly said that I wanted to keep units like the Nephilim, even though they shared the same tactical role as other generic units that I would also wish the DA to have.
This shows your lack of understanding of my argument. I've made it very clear which units I want to keep unique, and which I want to make generic/stratagem'd. Nephilim Jetfighters, despite being in the same tactical role as other generic units, should not be made generic, because their weapon options are too different, their aesthetic design is too different, and their rules are not as similar as, say, Ravenwing Bikers and White Scars Bikers.
I said I would not respond but Smudge it is you who do not understand : why would GW produce two exact same unit for the same faction ? In the long run all the consumers will inevitably only buy one of those two kit (the most efficient) and render the second useless. Not to mention there is a fluff reason as to why DA do not have stormhawk and the likes.
WhiteDog, at the risk of sounding self-concieted, it a discussion of my proposal that I offered several pages back we're discussing here.
Implying that you know the discussion of my own thoughts and opinions better than I do is a tad arrogant.
There have been thousands of comment/post on the idea that DA/SW/BA should not have codexes. You're not unique : it is a recurrent topic pushed by the same people over and over again. And as a DA player I find those topic seriously aggravating.
When every Chapter is special, why do those three get special treatment? There are two solutions that are fair - either everyone gets Codex, and supplements are scrapped, or no-one gets a Codex, and everyone gets a supplement.
So you indeed agree that having a codex is a special treatment that add originality to them - contradicting the beautiful flower metaphore you posted just a bit earlier. So it's about fairness, you feel cheated because DA/SW/BA have a unique codex ? ...
They don't have that many differences though - less than 15%
There's less genetical differences between a man and a pig than those 15%. In absolute numbers, the differences between DA and SM amount to the same datasheets as the custodes : this says a lot. And it's not all unique characters that were created for the fluff.
Charistoph wrote: What I think is interesting about this whole thing is that the Angels were given most of those unique models to justify having their own codex.
When they got their 4th Edition codex, the only unique models the DA had were their named characters. Everything else used all the same models and stats. The only structural differences were Terminator Weapon options and being able to purchase a Land Speeder with your Bike Squads. To add on to it, the only Space Marine codices which stated that they weren't Codex Chapters were Black Templars and Space Wolves. Both Angel codices have said for a long time that they were Codex Chapters, aside from the Wings and Death Company.
Terminator Apothecaries even existed in Codex: Space Marines when that DA codex was released, but they were part of the Command Squads. Those Terminator Command Squads didn't go away till 5th Edition. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out how to bring them back in the current edition, either (though with all the bloat it has and the renewed focus on Primaris...).
Brilliant idea : let's go back to 4th ed. Yeah there was less diversity back then...
Not the point, but go on thinking that was what I said. I was merely pointing out that a couple of the "unique" aspects being talked about were not so unique once upon a time, and some other things were bullied in to the codex just to justify their own codex, even while calling them Codex-adherent at the same time.
Oddly enough, there was a little more choice in that 4th Edition codex then there was in the current one. Currently, you are either of a Chapter or a Successor of one, and you follow all of their special rules. However, back then, you could customize a little. Want to run a combo of Iron Hands and Imperial Fists, there was a way. While there was usually a "Best Build" out that group, the fact that the choice was allowed and the dropped like a really bad habit in favor of Named Characters or codices with "brand new, but totally ancient units" is still a bit sour.
Charistoph wrote: What I think is interesting about this whole thing is that the Angels were given most of those unique models to justify having their own codex.
When they got their 4th Edition codex, the only unique models the DA had were their named characters. Everything else used all the same models and stats. The only structural differences were Terminator Weapon options and being able to purchase a Land Speeder with your Bike Squads. To add on to it, the only Space Marine codices which stated that they weren't Codex Chapters were Black Templars and Space Wolves. Both Angel codices have said for a long time that they were Codex Chapters, aside from the Wings and Death Company.
Terminator Apothecaries even existed in Codex: Space Marines when that DA codex was released, but they were part of the Command Squads. Those Terminator Command Squads didn't go away till 5th Edition. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out how to bring them back in the current edition, either (though with all the bloat it has and the renewed focus on Primaris...).
Brilliant idea : let's go back to 4th ed. Yeah there was less diversity back then...
Not the point, but go on thinking that was what I said. I was merely pointing out that a couple of the "unique" aspects being talked about were not so unique once upon a time, and some other things were bullied in to the codex just to justify their own codex, even while calling them Codex-adherent at the same time.
Oddly enough, there was a little more choice in that 4th Edition codex then there was in the current one. Currently, you are either of a Chapter or a Successor of one, and you follow all of their special rules. However, back then, you could customize a little. Want to run a combo of Iron Hands and Imperial Fists, there was a way. While there was usually a "Best Build" out that group, the fact that the choice was allowed and the dropped like a really bad habit in favor of Named Characters or codices with "brand new, but totally ancient units" is still a bit sour.
This argument is lackluster and do not understand the evolution of the game. If you go back to 3rd or 4th ed., Custodes or even ad mech were not a faction but a fluffy entity that had one or two existing models. GW did not "bully" uniqueness into those factions : they willingly created diversity to create a bigger demand for their product. And they started to build that diversity since the beginning, slowly growing the differencies between factions as they developped the game. It is a design choice, that goes hand in hand with the expansion of the lore. What you are pointing, and that's true, is that this diversity in models and factions came with a relative and incremental empoverishment of rules and customization (and that is obvious when one look at what was rogue trader) but I'd argue that is also a design choice made for business purposes. The end of warhammer battle and the birth of AoS can be seen in this light. To sumarize, and contrary to what you believe, the diversity that distinguish DA and other factions from SM is not that of fakeness but the result of an incremental development of the game that was already there, in germs, in the beginning.
Except for the parts when I explicitly said that I wanted to keep units like the Nephilim, even though they shared the same tactical role as other generic units that I would also wish the DA to have.
This shows your lack of understanding of my argument. I've made it very clear which units I want to keep unique, and which I want to make generic/stratagem'd. Nephilim Jetfighters, despite being in the same tactical role as other generic units, should not be made generic, because their weapon options are too different, their aesthetic design is too different, and their rules are not as similar as, say, Ravenwing Bikers and White Scars Bikers.
I said I would not respond but Smudge it is you who do not understand : why would GW produce two exact same unit for the same faction ?
Hunter and Stalker. Stormhawk and Stormtalon. Infiltrator and Incursor.
But I'd also like to tackle the idea of Nephilim being the same as Stormhawks, because they're really not - beyond simply "aircraft". While they *can* be armed in the same way (Nephilim with basic weapons vs Stormhawk with lastalon)*, they possess a suit of different rules. The Nephilim is tailored for air-to-ground hunting, with Strafing Run. Meanwhile, the Stormhawk is tailored for air-to-air combat, having resistances and advantages against other aerial threats.
Even the Stormtalon is unique, acting more as a hovering air-to-ground unit, which the jetfighter can't compete with, and the Dark Talon is a bomber, with vastly different weaponry.
*If we were to say that, because they can be armed similarly they fill the same role, how about Assault Marines and Vanguard Veterans?
Not to mention there is a fluff reason as to why DA do not have stormhawk and the likes.
Oh really - what is it?
Because I've been asking this question since I first started making my proposals, and no-one's answered it without creating a ton of inconsistencies with DA lore.
WhiteDog, at the risk of sounding self-concieted, it a discussion of my proposal that I offered several pages back we're discussing here.
Implying that you know the discussion of my own thoughts and opinions better than I do is a tad arrogant.
There have been thousands of comment/post on the idea that DA/SW/BA should not have codexes. You're not unique : it is a recurrent topic pushed by the same people over and over again.
But those same people aren't the ones pushing it here, and as SlayerFan and I have shown, we can still both be in support of consolidation for very different reasons and motivations.
From what I can see, it was my proposals, which I laid down in detail, that have provided the current cut-and-thrust of this particular discussion at this point in time. Therefore, implying that I 'just don't get' what this discussion is about is incredibly patronising, as well as incorrect.
When every Chapter is special, why do those three get special treatment? There are two solutions that are fair - either everyone gets Codex, and supplements are scrapped, or no-one gets a Codex, and everyone gets a supplement.
So you indeed agree that having a codex is a special treatment that add originality to them - contradicting the beautiful flower metaphore you posted just a bit earlier.
No, I don't agree with that at all - if you had been paying attention in all of my posts, instead of cherrypicking my comments, you'd see that I've consistently maintained that: A ) Chapters don't need Codexes to make them original, because supplements do that just fine. B ) I don't like the idea of individual Codexes, because they share so many of the same units, you might as well just put the shared units into the same book instead of wasting paper. In this regard, it becomes so much cheaper to collect multiple Chapters (because you already bought the core Codex).
My paraphrasing of Shakespeare was to signify that "it doesn't matter if you're a Codex or supplement, so long as you have the mechanical functions that made you unique in the first place". Not "Codexes don't give special treatment".
To say it again, just in case you try to cherrypick my posts again: As long as you have all the same mechanical function, it doesn't really matter if you have a Codex or a supplement, so long as everyone has the same thing. However, due to being cheaper for multiple collections and not having to reprint the same units over and over again, I feel that the supplements are superior to full Codexes.
So it's about fairness, you feel cheated because DA/SW/BA have a unique codex ? ...
Not "cheated", more "if everyone is special, why isn't everyone treated the same?"
I've never felt "cheated" by DA/BA/SW having their own books, because I played Ultramarines, and the basic Space Marine Codex was essentially Codex: Ultramarines in all but name (not a good thing, I'm sure anyone will agree). Back then, those Chapters had mechanical differences that actually made sense why they needed to have their own books (keywords didn't exist, the force org chart was more restrictive, etc etc) But with 8th edition, and every Chapter getting their own Chapter Tactics, and now their own supplements, unique units, abilities, stratagems, etc etc, the idea that DA/BA/SW were special never changed, but that everyone else was now special too. And if everyone else was special, why were the DA/BA/SW being treated differently all the same?
And so far, the only reason given for that has been "because they've always been like that" - which is an appeal to the status quo, and frankly isn't a good answer why the status quo shouldn't change.
They don't have that many differences though - less than 15%
There's less genetical differences between a man and a pig than those 15%.
Unfortunately, genetics and plastic models aren't related, so regardless of if 85% of our DNA is the same as a banana or not, it means literally nothing.
Charistoph wrote: I was merely pointing out that a couple of the "unique" aspects being talked about were not so unique once upon a time, and some other things were bullied in to the codex just to justify their own codex, even while calling them Codex-adherent at the same time.
Oddly enough, there was a little more choice in that 4th Edition codex then there was in the current one. Currently, you are either of a Chapter or a Successor of one, and you follow all of their special rules. However, back then, you could customize a little. Want to run a combo of Iron Hands and Imperial Fists, there was a way. While there was usually a "Best Build" out that group, the fact that the choice was allowed and the dropped like a really bad habit in favor of Named Characters or codices with "brand new, but totally ancient units" is still a bit sour.
This argument is lackluster and do not understand the evolution of the game. If you go back to 3rd or 4th ed., Custodes or even ad mech were not a faction but a fluffy entity that had one or two existing models. GW did not "bully" uniqueness into those factions : they willingly created diversity to create a bigger demand for their product. And they started to build that diversity since the beginning, slowly growing the differencies between factions as they developped the game. It is a design choice, that goes hand in hand with the expansion of the lore.
AdMech and Custodes are not a fair comparison because they are not being created by a piggyback procedure that at one point took 95% of another codex and just added a few Characters with some fluff to justify a full codex, then later adding more models because there really wasn't anything to justify them being by themselves otherwise. AdMech and Custodes were factions in the fluff, just without models, but they weren't Space Marines or Imperial Guard in any real form, while the Angels both were and are.
You just don't like me pointing out the history of this codex, which is part and parcel of the evolution of the game. So since you don't like it, you call it lackluster.
WhiteDog wrote: What you are pointing, and that's true, is that this diversity in models and factions came with a relative and incremental empoverishment of rules (and that is obvious when one look at what was rogue trader) but I'd argue that is also a design choice made for business purposes. The end of warhammer battle and the birth of AoS can be seen in this light.
Nowhere have I stated or implied that there was an impoverishment of the rules. I was merely stating what historically happened and that, in some cases, there was forced separation for the sake of diversity. This diversity has both helped and hindered both Angels in many cases since they were converted from supplement to unique codex, not the least of which is when new toys and standards come out for the Space Marine codex but would still fit in the fluff of the (self-stated) Codex-Adherent Angel chapters, yet the non-Codex-adherent Black Templar could access just fine.
WhiteDog wrote: To sumarize, and contrary to what you believe, the diversity that distinguish DA and other factions from SM is not that of fakeness but the result of an incremental development of the game that was already there, in germs, in the beginning of the game.
To reiterate what you have completely ignored, is that the diversity was forced FIRST, and then came the incremental development afterward. And to rather point out, most of this diversity could still be operating in a supplement (albeit a heavier one than say, Supplement: Raven Guard) with a smaller book and less catastrophic problems to the Angel Chapters.
Space Wolves, on the other hand, have their setup so wacky that it wouldn't work as a Supplement without truly impoverishing their ruleset. Black Templars used to have similar wackiness, but a lot of that was ignored when SM 6th came out.
What makes you say that it was "forced" aside from your own resentment towards the fact that some SM factions have more than others ?
AdMech and Custodes are not a fair comparison because they are not being created by a piggyback procedure that at one point took 95% of another codex and just added a few Characters with some fluff to justify a full codex, then later adding more models because there really wasn't anything to justify them being by themselves otherwise. AdMech and Custodes were factions in the fluff, just without models, but they weren't Space Marines or Imperial Guard in any real form, while the Angels both were and are.
No it is totally a fair comparison, especially considering what Custodes were in the lore at the beginning of the game. Bunch of men in panties with no perticular identity whatsoever in the lore aside from the fact that they guarded the emperor.
Thus codex adherant non codex adherant thingy that pops every time this discussion is made is short sighted, damn.
*If we were to say that, because they can be armed similarly they fill the same role, how about Assault Marines and Vanguard Veterans?
You just proved my point : nobody plays Assault Marine because Vanguard Veteran do better in any way. If the relative cost of assault marine change in favor of vanguard veteran, the opposite might come true. Those two units are totally redundant in this ed.
Um if you looked at the actual history of the codices it was forced. You can continue pretending it wasn't, but that's not doing you favors for your argument.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Um if you looked at the actual history of the codices it was forced. You can continue pretending it wasn't, but that's not doing you favors for your argument.
You mean the SM familly cried because GW forcefully took their siblings and the great 40K community couldn't react in time to prevent this crime ?
Are you being serious? Cuz, if so, I'm afraid you're demonstrating your ignorance. Even just from context clues, it's pretty clear that "forced", in regards to this conversation, means "GW saw that DA, SW, etc had a large number of players and, in order to make more money off these people, they separated them into individual Codexes and changed the lore to add more unique options order to justify doing this."
flandarz wrote: Are you being serious? Cuz, if so, I'm afraid you're demonstrating your ignorance. Even just from context clues, it's pretty clear that "forced", in regards to this conversation, means "GW saw that DA, SW, etc had a large number of players and, in order to make more money off these people, they separated them into individual Codexes and changed the lore to add more unique options order to justify doing this."
It's not "forced", it's a long run design choice to diversify their products... The 2nd ed angels of death supplement was already "forced" to "make more money" ? You're just expressing a frustration towards a long term GW strategy. What about the TS codex or the DG codex ? It's the exact same : GW create various units out of thin air to justify some sort of specificity and increase the diversity in the product line. Custodes is the same. GW would be doing that to all factions if there was a market for it. You cannot just disregard that kind of evolution because if you did you'd actually disregard the entire lore of the game : most of it was build month after month, release after release, with rewritings and inconsistencies. You cannot nitpick what you like and what you dislike in all that and argue that this if forced and that is not. Custodes is a good exemple of that : why are they not the men in panties that they were ? What justify their importance today in the lore of the first editions ?
JNAProductions wrote: The difference between something like Custodes and DA is that Custodes have unique units.
80% or more of their Dex is units they have and no one else does. They follow similar patterns (Bikes, Terminators, Troops) but are still distinct.
Untrue : the number of specific datasheet that the custodes have is basically the same as the unique datasheets the DA have.
WhiteDog, as a question, what's lost if DA become a supplement? Assume we're using Smudge's ideas, so it's not worst-case scenario.
Nothing if it is done right. I'm not against it, what I'm against is the stupid idea that DA are basically marine "with very few units that don't make sense" like some argued here. I'm not okay to go back to the time where the only difference between DA and UM was the color of the armor. DA have various unique units and many restrictions and it is fine that way and I would be fine if they were in a supplement with those restrictions and those unique units. But if your desire is to end the specificity of the DA because you are jealous like Slayer and Smudge (tyrannic war vet as an army for god sake please .....) then why would I agree with your plan ?
JNAProductions wrote: The difference between something like Custodes and DA is that Custodes have unique units.
80% or more of their Dex is units they have and no one else does. They follow similar patterns (Bikes, Terminators, Troops) but are still distinct.
Untrue : the number of specific datasheet that the custodes have is basically the same as the unique datasheets the DA have.
WhiteDog, as a question, what's lost if DA become a supplement? Assume we're using Smudge's ideas, so it's not worst-case scenario.
Nothing if it is done right. I'm not against it, what I'm against is the stupid idea that DA are basically marine "with very few units that don't make sense" like some argued here. I'm not okay to go back to the time where the only difference between DA and UM was the color of the armor. DA have various unique units and many restrictions and it is fine that way and I would be fine if they were in a supplement with those restrictions and those unique units. But if your desire is to end the specificity of the DA because you are jealous like Slayer and Smudge (tyrannic war vet as an army for god sake please .....) then why would I agree with your plan ?
To the first, that's because Custodes only have about a dozen units. But you're being disingenuous-what did I say that was untrue? 80% or more of the Custodes Dex is unique. 80% or more of the DA Dex is shared.
As for the latter... What specific issues do you have with Smudge's consolidation plan?
JNAProductions wrote: The difference between something like Custodes and DA is that Custodes have unique units.
80% or more of their Dex is units they have and no one else does. They follow similar patterns (Bikes, Terminators, Troops) but are still distinct.
Untrue : the number of specific datasheet that the custodes have is basically the same as the unique datasheets the DA have.
Ultramarines have as many specific datatsheets as Custodes and Harlequins have. That still doesn't make them any more of an independent faction, because their whole Codex consists of far more units.
Custodes, despite sharing 16% of their units with other Space Marines, are unique because the units they do have are so fundamentally different. Compare to Dark Angels, after sharing 85% of the same units, whose unique units are variants of otherwise normal units, but withe extra special rules and equipment. Or, to put it another way, converting a Deathwing Knight from normal Terminators would be far easier than converting an Allarus Custodian from the same Terminator.
WhiteDog, as a question, what's lost if DA become a supplement? Assume we're using Smudge's ideas, so it's not worst-case scenario.
Nothing if it is done right. I'm not against it, what I'm against is the stupid idea that DA are basically marine "with very few units that don't make sense" like some argued here.
Who's argued that? Dark Angels absolutely make sense having some of their unique units (no substitutes for things like Deathwing Knights or Black Knights!), but some of their units could, and should, be made generic (Terminator Apothecary), and there's many options they can't take (Thunderfire Cannons/Centurions) that there's no reason for them not to.*
That's the bit that doesn't make sense. But aside from that, that still leaves Dark Angels with 17 unique units, alongside all their unique stratagems and abilities, as well as Command Point boosts for pure Deathwing and Ravenwing armies - easily distinct, easily unique.
*obviously not Sternguard and Vanguard Vets.
I'm not okay to go back to the time where the only difference between DA and UM was the color of the armor.
Under my proposal, that wouldn't be happening. Dark Angels would have their own unique units, their own unique abilities, and their own unique playstyle. They'd be no more like Ultramarines than Iron Hands are (which they're not).
DA have various unique units and many restrictions and it is fine that way and I would be fine if they were in a supplement with those restrictions and those unique units.
The unique units, I get. Some of the restricted units (Sternguard/Vanguard), I understand. But for the few units that have literally no lore reason not to exist in that faction? Why would you be happy with that? If GW turned around and said "yeah, we're introducing this brand new unit into all Space Marine Chapters... except Dark Angels, for no reason", why is that acceptable?
Again, you claimed earlier that you had lore reasons why the Dark Angels don't have those units. I'd like to hear them.
But if your desire is to end the specificity of the DA because you are jealous
What have I got to be jealous of? My faction has the largest supplement choices. I'm happy with my Victrix Guard and Tyrannic War Vets.
What doesn't make sense is why, when presented with something that would preserve all of the Dark Angels' units and abilities and rules, in one form or another, you act like you lose everything because it's not called a "Codex", or *gasp* heaven forfend! you can actually take a few units that you couldn't take before for not reason!
like Slayer and Smudge (tyrannic war vet as an army for god sake please .....)
What's wrong with it? Does my fluff offend you?
Tyrannic War Vets are just as valid as a solo army as any other. Want all Devastators? Ninth Company. Want all Assault Marines? 8th Company. Want all Tacticals? 6th or 7th Company.
There's more than enough room in the lore for a Tyrannic War Veterans army.
JNAProductions wrote: The difference between something like Custodes and DA is that Custodes have unique units.
80% or more of their Dex is units they have and no one else does. They follow similar patterns (Bikes, Terminators, Troops) but are still distinct.
Untrue : the number of specific datasheet that the custodes have is basically the same as the unique datasheets the DA have.
WhiteDog, as a question, what's lost if DA become a supplement? Assume we're using Smudge's ideas, so it's not worst-case scenario.
Nothing if it is done right. I'm not against it, what I'm against is the stupid idea that DA are basically marine "with very few units that don't make sense" like some argued here. I'm not okay to go back to the time where the only difference between DA and UM was the color of the armor. DA have various unique units and many restrictions and it is fine that way and I would be fine if they were in a supplement with those restrictions and those unique units. But if your desire is to end the specificity of the DA because you are jealous like Slayer and Smudge (tyrannic war vet as an army for god sake please .....) then why would I agree with your plan ?
To the first, that's because Custodes only have about a dozen units. But you're being disingenuous-what did I say that was untrue? 80% or more of the Custodes Dex is unique. 80% or more of the DA Dex is shared.
As for the latter... What specific issues do you have with Smudge's consolidation plan?
You argued that "the difference between something like Custodes and DA is that Custodes have unique units" : it is untrue because they have the same exact number of unique units. You're right about the %, but you're taking this relative fact too far to push your own biased point of view. As for your question I've already aswered.
But for the few units that have literally no lore reason not to exist in that faction?
There are serious lore reasons as to why DA don't have stormhawk interceptors and the likes, you just don't know those. You're getting boring and boring repeating the same exhausted and blatantly false points. I'll tell you out of respect for the forum, even if I've already said that : DA don't give much tactical role to techmarines because they are affiliated to Mars/the adeptus mechanicus (and since they want to protect their secrets, you know this essential plot point that define the DA identity ...). DA flyers are pilotted by Ravenwing members (that's why they are painted in black) AND NOT techmarines like all other chapters, which is why DA have their own flyers (and not Stormtalon and Stormhawk who are built by the adeptus mechanicus exclusively), and also why they have more flyers than other chapters (techmarine are harder to form). This has been the case since ... the release of flyers in 40K. And the relationship between techmarines, the adeptus mechanicus and the DA was already discussed in the 3rd ed. codex (the head techmarine of the rock do not have access to much of the rock and never get induced into the deathwing and the inner circle because they don't trust him ...). And you know, I'm sure, that the dark talon has a prison within itself ? Since the pilot is a ravenwing, the Dark talon is used as transport for fallen that were captured... How could a techmarine do that ?
There is a good chance that there are lore reasons for most of the things you disagree with : you just don't know about it.
Ultramarines have as many specific datatsheets as Custodes and Harlequins have. That still doesn't make them any more of an independent faction, because their whole Codex consists of far more units.
Custodes, despite sharing 16% of their units with other Space Marines, are unique because the units they do have are so fundamentally different. Compare to Dark Angels, after sharing 85% of the same units, whose unique units are variants of otherwise normal units, but withe extra special rules and equipment. Or, to put it another way, converting a Deathwing Knight from normal Terminators would be far easier than converting an Allarus Custodian from the same Terminator.
We've already done that already : the datasheets that ultramarines have are only unique characters aside from the tyrannic war vet. and you can't make an army out of that. You can't compare that to the spammable units DW/RW and custodes have. Only your own ridiculous bias makes you able to spout such nonsense
To be clear, my line for "should this be it's own Codex" is: if you can remove all the unique unit options and STILL field everything you'd need for a 2k pt army, then you probably don't need your own book.
Don’t just say “it’s there, believe me”, educate us! We’re happy to learn.
Edit: because nothing there says why they can’t have a Ravenwing pilot in a normal marine vehicle.
In most marine vehicule, the pilot within has a pauldron with the adeptus mechanicus emblem signaling its affiliation to the adeptus mechanicus (it's the case in most marine kit, if not all). Ravenwing pilot pilot machine that have a role in the hunt for the fallen : the jetfighters are part of those (as I said, the Dark Talon is a moving prison) and so are bike, etc. But not troop transports or tanks such as the repulsor or the rhino, those are pilotted, like in any chapter, by marine affiliated to the adeptus mechanicus.
The dark angels are organized in a multitude of circle or trial, each circle giving to the initiate a bigger understanding of the treason that are the fallen. The RW and the DW are part of the few units that knows about the fallen, and even to them there are many secrets that are not accessible. Above the DW/RW there is the inner circle, and even amongst the inner circle only the grand master, Azrael, knew about the fact that Luther had a cell in the Rock. All this to say that you can be in the DA and don't know much about the true secret goal of the DA : this is why the DA can be both a codex compliant chapter (from the 3rd compagny up to the last) and a very distinct chapter with its own goal.
They are a necessity - the chapter still rely on the adeptus mechanicus for their most basic tech needs (bolter, armor, etc.). There's also a "master of the rock", head techmarine, that plug himself to the Rock and slowly die managing this huge infrastructure. But even he, as I said before, do not have access to some part of the Rock. The DA is a paranoid chapter.
They use jetfighters for recon and to transport prisonners - i.e. they use those flyers to hunt fallen. As I said, the Dark Talon is litterally a mobile prison. To transport basic troops the DA use the same stormraven and thunwerhawk like all the other chapters, it is just their small flyers that are different (unlike the SW).
Also the Dark Talon is mounted with some kind of archeo tech gun that no other chapter has aside from the 1rst legion because they are the first and thus were equipped and started crusading before the alliance between mars and terra.
JNAProductions wrote: Because they can only ever use fliers for one thing, and never have another purpose ever.
It's obvious that they use them for many things : the hunt for the fallen is just a very small part of what the DA do. But it is that small part that define all their rite, their hierarchical structure, their way of thinking and their behavior. They cannot let a non initiate know about the fallen, and giving too much freedom to techmarines, who are affiliated to the adeptus mechanicus, could be a problem in this regard.
I'd be all for DA (and BA/SW) being rolled into the SM codex as a supplement.
There's no reason that a supplement can't provide the extra
- Datasheets for the Characters and DW/RW.
- Chapter Trait and Super Doctrine trait
- An extra paragraph or two to show how Doctrines are different, i.e. Devastator Doctrine affects DEATHWING differently to the rest of the army etc
- Litanies table with an interrogation theme
- Obligatory WL Traits, Psyker table, Stratagems, Relics, Objectives
All the above is exactly how the other SM supplements are handled and they all work very well. Some have far less datasheets than others (compare UM to RG for example).
I say all this as a DA player since 3rd Ed (this isn't a boast to dismiss anyone's opinion, but to show that I've been invested in the DA lore and seen it develop for nearly 20 years.)
JNAProductions wrote: Because they can only ever use fliers for one thing, and never have another purpose ever.
It's obvious that they use them for many things : the hunt for the fallen is just a very small part of what the DA do. But it is that small part that define all their rite, their hierarchical structure, their way of thinking and their behavior. They cannot let a non initiate know about the fallen, and giving too much freedom to techmarines, who are affiliated to the adeptus mechanicus, could be a problem in this regard.
So why are Techmarines even allowed relics if they can't be trusted?
WhiteDog wrote: What makes you say that it was "forced" aside from your own resentment towards the fact that some SM factions have more than others ?
Apparently you didn't learn much about the Dark Angels until after they received 6th Edition Codex, otherwise you would know exactly what I was talking about. This is when they received their fancy new Ravenwing Vehicles and Deathwing models that everyone is using to justify their unique codex. You want to know what they had before that that wasn't Character? Zilch. Oh, there were some organizational differences here and there, like combining Assault Terminators with "Tactical" Terminators and allowing for the Land Speeder to be included in Bike Squadrons, and instead of adding in single models, they experimented with the squads being either demi or full (that part didn't go so well). Outside of that and some extra bling you could add to the models, there was as much difference between Dark Angels and Ultramarines as there was between the Black Templars and Ultramarines. And where did the Black Templars end up again? Oh, right.
So, yeah, it is forced when a supplement would have covered it just as well. Black Templars had more organizational peculiarities in their 4th Edition codex than Dark Angels had in theirs. One example of Black Templars is the lack of Scout units, with the Scout models being incorporated in to the regular Power Armor units. Another is that there were no Sergeants outside of the Command Squads. None. This required an alteration of unit options that neither Codex: Marines or Codex: Dark Angels had. Also consider the fact that they were forced to take a specific HQ, and above a certain game size, he did not take up a slot. Most of that got hand-waved away in 6th Edition for Black Templars. It really wouldn't have been too difficult to add new model units to their codex like what happened with the Angels, but they chose to incorporate them in with the Blueberries.
AdMech and Custodes are not a fair comparison because they are not being created by a piggyback procedure that at one point took 95% of another codex and just added a few Characters with some fluff to justify a full codex, then later adding more models because there really wasn't anything to justify them being by themselves otherwise. AdMech and Custodes were factions in the fluff, just without models, but they weren't Space Marines or Imperial Guard in any real form, while the Angels both were and are.
No it is totally a fair comparison, especially considering what Custodes were in the lore at the beginning of the game. Bunch of men in panties with no perticular identity whatsoever in the lore aside from the fact that they guarded the emperor.
Thus codex adherant non codex adherant thingy that pops every time this discussion is made is short sighted, damn.
False. You may as well bring up Dark Eldar or Necrons for all the relevance that Ad Mech and Custodes have in relationship to the Space Marine codex and Dark Angels, because you keep ignoring the very key point: Dark Angels are Space Marines, sharing the vast majority of their kit with the other codex. The number of unique models isn't the real issue, it is what they have (and should have!) in common which is the main point that you keep choosing to ignore.
JNAProductions wrote: To the first, that's because Custodes only have about a dozen units. But you're being disingenuous-what did I say that was untrue? 80% or more of the Custodes Dex is unique. 80% or more of the DA Dex is shared.
As for the latter... What specific issues do you have with Smudge's consolidation plan?
You argued that "the difference between something like Custodes and DA is that Custodes have unique units" : it is untrue because they have the same exact number of unique units.
So do the Ultramarines.
The difference is that those unique units make up the entire Custodes Codex, whereas they only make up 15% of the Dark Angels one.
As a Dark Angels player, would you be happy if all the generic units (including things like reskinned units like Ravenwing Bikes and Masters and suchlike, which are functionally identical to standard Codex units) were cut out, and *all* you had were your unique units? Because that's the only situation I'd be comfortable with DA having a Codex and everyone else not.
You're right about the %, but you're taking this relative fact too far to push your own biased point of view. As for your question I've already aswered.
Ah, so pointing out that the Dark Angels are 85% made up of generic units, despite being a fact, is being biased?
What's to say you're not being biased? After all, I believe you did freely admit that you're a Dark Angel player. Might that not mean you're biased too?
But for the few units that have literally no lore reason not to exist in that faction?
There are serious lore reasons as to why DA don't have stormhawk interceptors and the likes, you just don't know those.
So you've said, but it's been quite a few posts since you last claimed that, with no explanation. Just a lot of condescension.
DA don't give much tactical role to techmarines because they are affiliated to Mars/the adeptus mechanicus (and since they want to protect their secrets, you know this essential plot point that define the DA identity ...).
Yet they still have Techmarines in game. If they can have solo Techmarines, why can't they have Thunderfire Cannon Techmarines?
You'd have a very strong argument if this were not the case, but because this point is undermined by the fact the Dark Angels actually DO have Techmarines, it's worthless.
DA flyers are pilotted by Ravenwing members (that's why they are painted in black) AND NOT techmarines like all other chapters, which is why DA have their own flyers (and not Stormtalon and Stormhawk who are built by the adeptus mechanicus exclusively), and also why they have more flyers than other chapters (techmarine are harder to form).
So who flies their Thunderhawks? They get Ravenwing members to fly the non-Ravenwing and Deathwing transports?
Also, the articles I can find on the Nephilim state that their pilots regularly push their Techmarines to enhance their vehicles, demonstrating that the Dark Angels do have Techmarines who are adept in the maintenance of said flyers.
But, I think I've hammered that point home enough - the Dark Angels *do* have Techmarines, even if they're not deployed alongside their Ravenwing and Deathwing brethren - and that's fine. It absolutely makes sense for the flyers used by the Ravenwing not to be flown by Techmarines. But what about flyers used by other companies? Who says that 3rd-10th Companies can't be supported by more "traditional" aircraft flown by normal Techmarines, or Techmarines with Thunderfire Cannons? After all, not everything in the Dark Angels Codex is part of the Inner Circle and is privy to the secret knowledge - otherwise you wouldn't have any Troops choices, would you?
Basically, because of the existence of Techmarines in the Dark Angels, there is no reason for Thunderfire Cannons and "normal" flyers to be used by the Dark Angels Chapter in their non-Ravenwing and Deathwing companies.
This has been the case since ... the release of flyers in 40K. And the relationship between techmarines, the adeptus mechanicus and the DA was already discussed in the 3rd ed. codex (the head techmarine of the rock do not have access to much of the rock and never get induced into the deathwing and the inner circle because they don't trust him ...). And you know, I'm sure, that the dark talon has a prison within itself ? Since the pilot is a ravenwing, the Dark talon is used as transport for fallen that were captured... How could a techmarine do that ?
Keep the Dark Talons flown by Ravenwing, and have Stormtalons/Stormravens/Stormhawks flown by Techmarines in the Battle Companies?
Not everything about the Dark Angels is Deathwing or Ravenwing. They have 80% of their Chapter in the dark about that. What, should Dark Angels not have Tactical Marines because they aren't part of the Inner Circle?
There is a good chance that there are lore reasons for most of the things you disagree with : you just don't know about it.
There's an even higher chance there's no good lore reason, and you either don't know about it, or are being deliberately ignorant. As said above - the Dark Angels HAVE Techmarines. They give their Techmarines relics. Not all Dark Angels need to know about the Fallen. Therefore, Dark Angels Techmarines have no reason not be given Thunderfire Cannons and their own flyers, as long as they're kept in the Battle and Reserve Companies.
Ultramarines have as many specific datatsheets as Custodes and Harlequins have. That still doesn't make them any more of an independent faction, because their whole Codex consists of far more units.
Custodes, despite sharing 16% of their units with other Space Marines, are unique because the units they do have are so fundamentally different. Compare to Dark Angels, after sharing 85% of the same units, whose unique units are variants of otherwise normal units, but withe extra special rules and equipment. Or, to put it another way, converting a Deathwing Knight from normal Terminators would be far easier than converting an Allarus Custodian from the same Terminator.
We've already done that already : the datasheets that ultramarines have are only unique characters aside from the tyrannic war vet.
Honour Guard, Chapter Ancient, Chapter Champion and Victrix Guard disagree. There's five datasheets already, plus characters. And again, when I'm counting unique datasheets, it doesn't matter a bit if they're characters or not. I'm counting *datasheets* not "datasheets of non-characters".
and you can't make an army out of that.
Demonstrably disproven. An HQ and 3 Elites units is an army. Hell, an HQ and two Troops is an army. Even two model can be an army, if they're big enough.
You can't compare that to the spammable units DW/RW and custodes have. Only your own ridiculous bias makes you able to spout such nonsense
Don’t just say “it’s there, believe me”, educate us! We’re happy to learn.
Edit: because nothing there says why they can’t have a Ravenwing pilot in a normal marine vehicle.
In most marine vehicule, the pilot within has a pauldron with the adeptus mechanicus emblem signaling its affiliation to the adeptus mechanicus (it's the case in most marine kit, if not all). Ravenwing pilot pilot machine that have a role in the hunt for the fallen : the jetfighters are part of those (as I said, the Dark Talon is a moving prison) and so are bike, etc. But not troop transports or tanks such as the repulsor or the rhino, those are pilotted, like in any chapter, by marine affiliated to the adeptus mechanicus.
So why can't Stormtalons, Stormravens, and Stormhawks be piloted by "like in any Chapter, by marine affiliated to the adeptus mechanicus"??
You literally prove that some Dark Angels vehicles are piloted by non-Ravenwing personnel! So long as those flyers aren't deployed in Ravenwing or Deathwing armies, there is no reason not to have them!
If we were to be as obtuse as your restrictions suggest (that no generic flyers can exist because the idea of having different pilots for different companies is too far beyond you), then either Deathwing shouldn't be allowed Land Raiders, because they're not piloted by Deathwing members, or no-one else should have Land Raiders, because they're piloted by Deathwing members!
The dark angels are organized in a multitude of circle or trial, each circle giving to the initiate a bigger understanding of the treason that are the fallen. The RW and the DW are part of the few units that knows about the fallen, and even to them there are many secrets that are not accessible. Above the DW/RW there is the inner circle, and even amongst the inner circle only the grand master, Azrael, knew about the fact that Luther had a cell in the Rock. All this to say that you can be in the DA and don't know much about the true secret goal of the DA : this is why the DA can be both a codex compliant chapter (from the 3rd compagny up to the last) and a very distinct chapter with its own goal.
SO WHY DON'T THEY JUST HAVE NORMAL FLYERS IN THE 3RD TO LAST COMPANIES??
God, you get so close to the point, and then just miss it entirely. Not all Dark Angels are part of the Inner Circle, including Techmarines. Clearly Techmarines are fielded by the Dark Angels, just not in the Deathwing or Ravenwing. Therefore, if those Techmarines exist, why should they not use Thunderfire Cannons and generic flyers in those companies!
No-one's saying "Techmarines should fly Dark Talons!" or that "Stormtalons should be part of the Ravenwing!" Keep Ravenwing members flying Ravenwing flyers in the Ravenwing, and have generic Techmarines flying generic flyers in generic companies.
They use jetfighters for recon and to transport prisonners - i.e. they use those flyers to hunt fallen. As I said, the Dark Talon is litterally a mobile prison. To transport basic troops the DA use the same stormraven and thunwerhawk like all the other chapters, it is just their small flyers that are different (unlike the SW).
bbBbUt tHe sTorMrAVeN Is PiLOTeD bY TeChmaRiNEs aNd THaT's iLLEGAL!!
You literally prove the point - not all flyers are piloted by Ravenwing!
Also the Dark Talon is mounted with some kind of archeo tech gun that no other chapter has aside from the 1rst legion because they are the first and thus were equipped and started crusading before the alliance between mars and terra.
So. Keep. It. Flown. By. The. Ravenwing.
No-one's saying "all flyers should be flown by Techmarines." No-one's saying "generic flyers should be allowed into the Ravenwing and Deathwing." What people *are* saying is "in the generic Dark Angels companies, they should have access to Thunderfire Cannons and generic flyers, because the Dark Angels have already demonstrated that they are okay with having Techmarine pilots and personnel, so long as they are not involved with the Fallen and Inner Circle." Do you understand?
And in all of this, you still don't address why Dark Angels can't have Centurions.
If you'd like to contribute, would you like to provide a lore reason why the Dark Angels shouldn't have stormtalons and stormhawks? I think it's been made very clear that the Dark Angels are just as capable of having generic flyers, proven by Stormravens and Thunderhawks.
Similarly, what about Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons? Are there any reasons you can show us?
After all, if we're just "haters", it should be easy enough to disprove that with simple logic, no?
Amusingly enough, more than a few folks saying "they should be supplements" play (and main) those Chapters. Must be those self-hating Marine players, am I right?
Supplement for BA would have made sense now we get most of a PA book that costs more than a supplement and is almost the same thing but yet not.
We get some unique datasheets reprinted and all the phobo stuff but from what I know we dont get some stuff fixed because not everything got reprinted. So we have main codex Blood Angels and supplement psychic awakening. It isnt even cheaper being its own codex than a marine supplement. In a true supplement they would have had to reprint all our unique datasheets instead of Primaris datasheets and thus had a chance to fix Dante and Sanguinary guards wording. Would also have given us access to some useful warlord traits. BA have so bad traits that I actually use one of the 3 from the main rule book from time to time if I dont need a damage 4 hammer.
Would have been nice to have more psychic powers as well since I love them but only having 4(2 self buff and 2 unit buffs) powers to choose from make multiple Librarians a bit awkward while the other first founding get 2 tables to choose from.
Smudge, I've given you plenty of reasons in this thread alone. You ignore or dismiss them all, because they dont fit the narrative you want them to have.
If this was just a discussion about your proposals we'd be fine by now: supplement the chapters is fine, reworking the core codex and consolidating multiple unit and lots options to change these factions to how you say they should be is where the line is drawn.
Its pretty clear at this point that no one can answer your question because you've already decided every answer that does not agree with your sentiment is wrong. DA (and the rest) must be consolidated and any unique entries they have must be either remiced or give to every other marine army, a stance that if you dont have you've argued for over 30 pages of demands that we accept your proposals.
BroodSpawn wrote: Smudge, I've given you plenty of reasons in this thread alone.
And I've had a response for all of them.
Shouldn't have flyers? Disproven.
Shouldn't have TFC? Disproven.
Shouldn't have Centurions? Disproven.
Not enough room to print every unique datasheet? Disproven.
Not "unique" enough? Disproven.
You ignore or dismiss them all, because they dont fit the narrative you want them to have.
I've shown that, in the face of good logic and detailed debate, I'm happy to concede points (Sternguard and Vanguard being inaccessible). However, you can't call say what I'm doing is just "dismissing" arguments because "they don't fit my narrative", I'm dismissing them because they're not strong arguments.
If this was just a discussion about your proposals we'd be fine by now: supplement the chapters is fine, reworking the core codex and consolidating multiple unit and lots options to change these factions to how you say they should be is where the line is drawn.
Its pretty clear at this point that no one can answer your question because you've already decided every answer that does not agree with your sentiment is wrong. DA (and the rest) must be consolidated and any unique entries they have must be either remiced or give to every other marine army, a stance that if you dont have you've argued for over 30 pages of demands that we accept your proposals.
Or, alternarively, it's because you've not been able to provide me with a good enough reason why they should remain separate beyond "they've always been separate" - which is an appeal to the status quo, which, when we're discussing the validity of that, is counterproductive.
If you had a proposal of your own like "Dark Angels should be separate, and I'd be willing for them to lose even more of their generic units to reinforce that (such as Primaris Marines, or large elements of their vehicle pool)", then that would act as a very good counter-proposal.
Basically, either DA need to be made MORE unique (ie, they lose a good proportion of the 85% generic units) to justify a Codex, or they should be rolled into the supplements/other supplements given Codexes (because they share so many generic units, and their unique aspects can easily be covered via mechanics introduced in other books). And so far, with all due respect, none of your arguments have swayed me. That's not because I'm "biased" or because I'm just trying to make everything fit "my narrative" any more that you are, but simply because none of your arguments are convincing me. That's not meant with any kind of malice, and I respect that you hold those beliefs - but don't try and insinuate that I'm just being deliberately aggravating.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So why don't Dark Angels just have Sternguard and Vanguard? They CLEARLY have Veterans not in Terminator armor.
The only way it would work on a lore front (which I'm pretty big on) is if they introduce some kind of fluff blurb saying "while the Dark Angels do not deploy their Sternguard and Vanguard Veteran Squads as part of their 1st Company, like other Chapters, they do make use of them as standing Veterans within their Battle Companies, seeing the tactical merit in specialised skilled warriors to support the backbone of the Chapter."
I'm largely indifferent, but regardless, Sternguard/Vanguard shouldn't have access to the <Deathwing> keyword any more so than Tactical Marines. But, if it means that much that Dark Angels players not get those particular units, who am I to judge?
I don't think people should be thinking too hard on DA veterans. Treat them as Sternguard/Vanguard vets. If stratagems/abilities for Deathwing are intended to apply to Terminator units only, and not other power armored veterans, then just designate them to require the Terminator keyword.
The fact that DA dont have Sternguard/vanguard vets largely appears to be an artefact of paradigm shifts that just never got rolled over. DA's were the last marine book before they split veterans into Sternguard/Vanguard with the 5E SM book, and retained some other 4E artefacts that the 5E book dropped shortly after, the Vets thing is just one that GW never appeared to catch, despite doing so for Blood Angels.
Instead of just saying I'm not understanding it (which I think we're all doing a fine job of doing), perhaps make your argument more clear. Right now, you're arguing against things that no-one has claimed, and ignoring the things that people have.
Why can't non-Deathwing/Ravenwing Techmarines operate flyers in Battle Compaies? Why can't they have Thunderfire Cannons? Why can't they have Centurions?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So why don't Dark Angels just have Sternguard and Vanguard? They CLEARLY have Veterans not in Terminator armor.
The only way it would work on a lore front (which I'm pretty big on) is if they introduce some kind of fluff blurb saying "while the Dark Angels do not deploy their Sternguard and Vanguard Veteran Squads as part of their 1st Company, like other Chapters, they do make use of them as standing Veterans within their Battle Companies, seeing the tactical merit in specialised skilled warriors to support the backbone of the Chapter."
I'm largely indifferent, but regardless, Sternguard/Vanguard shouldn't have access to the <Deathwing> keyword any more so than Tactical Marines. But, if it means that much that Dark Angels players not get those particular units, who am I to judge?
Wait, wasn't that already in the 4th Edition Codex? Or was it the 6th? They were Veterans of the Battle Companies, but simply could not be introduced to The Secret, even on a Ravenwing level. Keeping them Sternguard or Vanguard, in terms of gear, just makes sense as even Marines can't do a mixed unit very well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So why don't Dark Angels just have Sternguard and Vanguard? They CLEARLY have Veterans not in Terminator armor.
The only way it would work on a lore front (which I'm pretty big on) is if they introduce some kind of fluff blurb saying "while the Dark Angels do not deploy their Sternguard and Vanguard Veteran Squads as part of their 1st Company, like other Chapters, they do make use of them as standing Veterans within their Battle Companies, seeing the tactical merit in specialised skilled warriors to support the backbone of the Chapter."
I'm largely indifferent, but regardless, Sternguard/Vanguard shouldn't have access to the <Deathwing> keyword any more so than Tactical Marines. But, if it means that much that Dark Angels players not get those particular units, who am I to judge?
Wait, wasn't that already in the 4th Edition Codex? Or was it the 6th? They were Veterans of the Battle Companies, but simply could not be introduced to The Secret, even on a Ravenwing level. Keeping them Sternguard or Vanguard, in terms of gear, just makes sense as even Marines can't do a mixed unit very well.
I don't remember that in 6th edition, and I don't think Sternguard and Vanguard existed in 4th.
However, your general point is right - power armoured Veterans in the Dark Angels aren't fielded in the same way as power armoured Veterans are in other Chapters, and it should be possible for Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans to be taken in Greenwing lists.
Charistoph wrote: Wait, wasn't that already in the 4th Edition Codex? Or was it the 6th? They were Veterans of the Battle Companies, but simply could not be introduced to The Secret, even on a Ravenwing level. Keeping them Sternguard or Vanguard, in terms of gear, just makes sense as even Marines can't do a mixed unit very well.
I don't remember that in 6th edition, and I don't think Sternguard and Vanguard existed in 4th.
However, your general point is right - power armoured Veterans in the Dark Angels aren't fielded in the same way as power armoured Veterans are in other Chapters, and it should be possible for Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans to be taken in Greenwing lists.
I have a digital version of the 6th Ed codex and the Company Veterans were there. I think they had an equivalent in the 4th Edition, mostly because Veteran Squads existed. In 6th Edition, they were much like Deathwing being able to mix and match between being close combat or ranged specialists, though lacking the Jump Pack option. Basically, just continuing the standards from the previous Codex: Space Marine Codices before the Guard split.
I haven't kept up with the codices since the end of 7th Edition, though, so no idea how they have changed since.
It's always been a terrible meme. It's intended to read as quoting the original speaker but in "stupid speak". Which is just as toxic and unproductive online as it is in person.
I may have misread which comment you considered apt.
It's always been a terrible meme. It's intended to read as quoting the original speaker but in "stupid speak". Which is just as toxic and unproductive online as it is in person.
I may have misread which comment you considered apt.
At a certain point you have to dismiss people, especially with the pro-separation people in this thread making mental gymnastics to pretend the Angels are SO unique they need to be different codices. The reality is they aren't special and are a cause for imbalances to happen. Ergo at a certain point why does anyone care what a fluff bunny has to say?
It's always been a terrible meme. It's intended to read as quoting the original speaker but in "stupid speak". Which is just as toxic and unproductive online as it is in person.
I may have misread which comment you considered apt.
At a certain point you have to dismiss people, especially with the pro-separation people in this thread making mental gymnastics to pretend the Angels are SO unique they need to be different codices.
There can be times when the best response is to ignore. There can even be times where the best response is to show that some argument *should be ignored by others*. But there's never a time when direct baseless mockery is the approprate next step. To discuss further is to re-litigate Rule # 1 on these boards - so I should leave this part here, and go no further. I'd suggest you reread that rule, reconsider what it means, and adjust accordingly, though.
Onto substance then.
The reality is they aren't special and are a cause for imbalances to happen.
If mockery is your primary proof of this assertion, it's not exactly on solid ground. There's been good, reasonable arguments in both direction in this thread, but this post references none of them (nor does it introduce another).
Ergo at a certain point why does anyone care what a fluff bunny has to say?
Because most of us think "fluff bunny" is a pejorative used to dismiss anyone who cares for more than the pure crunch. And since most people care about more than pure crunch, it applies to most people. Those of us who care about more than pure crunch clearly should, therefore, care what a "fluff bunny" has to say.
Since those wielding "fluff bunny" as pejoratives have a track record of weaker arguments and worse "solutions" than others, isn't it *that* group that should be given less credence?
(Note that I'd say the same about those wielding "WAAC" or "competitive" as a pejorative as well, but not those who use casual/competitive/etc as a non-pejorative descriptor.)
The reality is they aren't special and are a cause for imbalances to happen.
What's really unique is your own point of view on life. You're arguing that DA are the cause of imbalances ... lol you're unique man, truly unique.
Wanna pull up their win rate then and prove me wrong? Even BEFORE Space Marine Codex 2.0 both the Angels were doing fantastically worse, though at least Blood Angels provided Slamguinus (and that's literally it).
It IS a cause of imbalance as anyone playing Green or Red Marines is automatically at a disadvantage because of lack of access to Doctrines, Stratagems, and paying a premium for these "exclusive units" that are either no good or don't fulfill a role or are the basically whatever the Vanilla entry is but worse. Writing them as a separate army DOES cause imbalances and that's a fact that has been proven at tournaments.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Ergo at a certain point why does anyone care what a fluff bunny has to say?
C'mon, this again?
I fully agree that the DA/BA/SW aren't unique enough to warrant different treatment from other Space Marine Chapters (because they've also been made unique from eachother with their own rules and abilities), but you also know very well that I'm a "fluffbunny".
Also, my apologies generally for my use of the alternating caps format - I was frustrated by the answers I was getting not actually answering anything at all, but that doesn't excuse my use of that format, and I do not stand by it. However, I would also politely ask that certain users (on both 'sides') stop using direct jabs based on mistruths or just offensiveness - things like "fluffbunny" and dismissing otherwise valid points by calling them "ridiculous bias".
But yeah - there's no need to call people "fluffbunnies" just because they're opposing you. I'm proof that a "fluffbunny" can support your own argument, after all.
It's always been a terrible meme. It's intended to read as quoting the original speaker but in "stupid speak". Which is just as toxic and unproductive online as it is in person.
I may have misread which comment you considered apt.
At a certain point you have to dismiss people, especially with the pro-separation people in this thread making mental gymnastics to pretend the Angels are SO unique they need to be different codices.
There can be times when the best response is to ignore. There can even be times where the best response is to show that some argument *should be ignored by others*. But there's never a time when direct baseless mockery is the approprate next step. To discuss further is to re-litigate Rule # 1 on these boards - so I should leave this part here, and go no further. I'd suggest you reread that rule, reconsider what it means, and adjust accordingly, though.
Onto substance then.
The reality is they aren't special and are a cause for imbalances to happen.
If mockery is your primary proof of this assertion, it's not exactly on solid ground. There's been good, reasonable arguments in both direction in this thread, but this post references none of them (nor does it introduce another).
Ergo at a certain point why does anyone care what a fluff bunny has to say?
Because most of us think "fluff bunny" is a pejorative used to dismiss anyone who cares for more than the pure crunch. And since most people care about more than pure crunch, it applies to most people. Those of us who care about more than pure crunch clearly should, therefore, care what a "fluff bunny" has to say.
Since those wielding "fluff bunny" as pejoratives have a track record of weaker arguments and worse "solutions" than others, isn't it *that* group that should be given less credence?
(Note that I'd say the same about those wielding "WAAC" or "competitive" as a pejorative as well, but not those who use casual/competitive/etc as a non-pejorative descriptor.)
1. Well if the arguments actually had any substance they'd be worth listening to. However, that's not the case. Apparently Techmarines aren't trusted, except they are. For some reason Ravenwing can't pilot the regular Fliers. They're just really bad inconsistencies and they have got to go, simple as that. It's better for the health of the armies, ergo healthier for the game itself. Clearly GW cannot balance the Angels as separate armies, and clearly people here don't have good suggestions on keeping them separate. It's time to admit we need a change and a good one at that.
2. Tournament results are pretty readily available and that's a pretty quick proof of imbalance being caused. This was literally just dismissed a post below yours and called "a unique view of life". So clearly there are denial issues for ONE party and not the other. I'm simply being blunt about it.
3. Yes it is dismissive because that's the party of people that want no consolidation yet have to put up anything reasonable, and are the ones not looking at the overall health of the game + the armies involved. Spoiler Alert: you don't need 10+ special rules to represent fluff. Sometimes streamlining is better. Hell, look at the new Marine supplements that have been released if you don't believe me. This is what happens when a certain party wants rules just because.
So really, you can think of "fluff bunny" as an equivalent of "okay boomer" in that at some point the other party is in such denial they cannot be helped. I've laid out how to consolidate and even have rough drafts on how I'd have laid out the codex. Guess what? Nothing of importance was lost and you still got your fluff. As it turns out, you can still paint your Terminators white and hunt Fallen, or use your Priests to pick up dudes that died (which really was the only reason to use them, if at all).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Well if the arguments actually had any substance they'd be worth listening to. However, that's not the case. Apparently Techmarines aren't trusted, except they are. For some reason Ravenwing can't pilot the regular Fliers. They're just really bad inconsistencies and they have got to go, simple as that. It's better for the health of the armies, ergo healthier for the game itself. Clearly GW cannot balance the Angels as separate armies, and clearly people here don't have good suggestions on keeping them separate. It's time to admit we need a change and a good one at that.
I fully agree that those arguments lack substance, but that's no excuse to be just dismissing people as "fluffbunnies".
Criticise the argument, not the person. I'm happy to admit that I may have overstepped that, but just calling anyone you disagree with a "fluffbunny" ain't on.
So really, you can think of "fluff bunny" as an equivalent of "okay boomer" in that at some point the other party is in such denial they cannot be helped.
No, not really, because just calling people a "fluffbunny" isn't accurate at all. By your standards, I *should* be a "fluffbunny", but I'm not. Stop just labelling people - it's not productive at all. Call other out if they're being unproductive, but don't do it yourself.
The reality is they aren't special and are a cause for imbalances to happen.
What's really unique is your own point of view on life. You're arguing that DA are the cause of imbalances ... lol you're unique man, truly unique.
The argument is not that DA are rippling out into the game and causing imbalances. It's that by having them be a separate unique army they are yet another thing to balance when they are not actually unique enough to warrant being so. So either the DA fall behind (which they have been) or they jump ahead (which they haven't) but are either way imbalanced from the rest. DA the army does not cause the game to be imbalanced. DA the army can't help but be imbalanced as the game grows and changes. The best way to fix that is to turn them into the supplement they always should have been.
Let's try this approach instead. None of you pushing for rules consolidation have given a good reason to rewrite rules and fluff over at least 2 codices to justify the move.
DA and the rest are separate armies that share a model range only.
BroodSpawn wrote: Let's try this approach instead. None of you pushing for rules consolidation have given a good reason to rewrite rules and fluff over at least 2 codices to justify the move.
DA and the rest are separate armies that share a model range only.
Just because you deem them not good enough doesn't mean they aren't.
Also nobody here wanted to rewrite the fluff? So what even is that point.
Further: If the rules would allow for customization, there would be infintely more options to make what you want out of an army.
There is a reason why R&H literally dropped off after 7th because the complete removal of said customisation.
I'd also want to mention i have no dog in this fight but IF gw were to consolidate then i'd hope they would go for the following Setup:
The Core, basically the units. Build a trait. Then the more specific and special Chapters which get their restrictions mentionened, ther specialisation and specific to them Units there.
(basically like some of the mono god legions in the CSM book, except with actual thought behind it).
You'd have ALL the datasheets of SM in one book. You could finally fill the questionable lack of some things (cough Ravenwing etc.) and more importantly, if handled propperly with addendums you could make better second founding chapters aswell.
"DA and the rest are separate armies that share a model range only."
Yes. Just like Goffs and Deathskullz. Or Tau Sept and Farsight Enclaves. Or Cadians and Catachans. Need I go on? Every single sub-Faction in the game could have it's own Codex, based on "well the fluff is different and they have a handful of unique units and units that they cannot take."
flandarz wrote: "DA and the rest are separate armies that share a model range only."
Yes. Just like Goffs and Deathskullz. Or Tau Sept and Farsight Enclaves. Or Cadians and Catachans. Need I go on? Every single sub-Faction in the game could have it's own Codex, based on "well the fluff is different and they have a handful of unique units and units that they cannot take."
Goofs and Deathskullz haven't been presented as different factions, however - with the possible exceptions of Kult of Speed and Feral Orks, the Klanz have generally been presented as quite intermingled, not operating as different armies.
I don't think anyone would have much of a problem with a Farsight Enclave supplement, and I'd love to see a return of Codex: Catachans.
Goffs and deathskulls have just 1-2 named characters as specific clan units, anything else is exactly the same. Units, wargear and all the combinations between them aren't affected by choosing a specific clan or another one. SM stand alone chapters have several unique units instead and even some of the ones that are in common between chapters have actually different options available.
I don't get the point of consolidating all chapters into one book unless it comes from someone that plays more than a chapter and wants to use (and buy) a single book.
As a SW collector and player I want my 100+ pages about that specific chapter, I couldn't care less about Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, etc... At the same time I don't want a 1000 pages bible either.
For someone like me, who plays just one chapter that is already a stand alone one, consolidation is bad: I'll end up with less pages about my SW or with a bulkier (and likely more expensive) codex.
BroodSpawn wrote:Let's try this approach instead. None of you pushing for rules consolidation have given a good reason to rewrite rules and fluff over at least 2 codices to justify the move.
DA and the rest are separate armies that share a model range only.
If that's your take, then you probably weren't paying much attention to the previous posts and proposals.
No-one is advocating rewriting the fluff - at least, the actually IMPORTANT fluff. Long standing fluff like the Deathwing and Ravenwing no-one wants to change. Fluff that makes no sense and isn't really even elaborated on in their own Codex (like "no Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons") have no reason not to be amended.
Like, if you'd indulge me, go through all my proposals and tell me which ones "rewrite" the fluff, the established, iconic fluff. I'll give you a head start:
- Everyone gets Terminator Apothecaries - because there's nothing about DA lore that indicates they're the only Chapter capable of this. Given how every Chapter now has Terminator Ancients, the idea that DA get unique Terminator command units to show how they have so many suits of TDA is no longer consistent. There is no consistent reason why this unit should be unique.
- Everyone gets mixed squad Terminators - mixed squads Terminators are a thing in many non-Dark Angels Chapters in lore. No reason why the Dark Angels should be the only ones.
- Gaining Sternguard and Vanguard* - if they were treated like how the current Company Veterans are, ie, attached to the Battle and Reserve companies, and not the 1st Company, this wouldn't break any lore.
- Gaining generic flyers and Thunderfire Cannons - while Techmarines aren't trusted with knowledge of the Fallen, they are still used within the Chapters, even to repair equipment for the Inner Circle! So long as these generic flyers and Thunderfire Cannons weren't used in the Deathwing or Ravenwing, this would be fine.
- Gaining Centurions - I'm still waiting on someone, anyone, to tell me why the Dark Angels don't use these in lore. It's almost like there's no reason for it.
As for rules, again - mechanically, very few rules would actually change in my proposal. List a unique Dark Angels rule or ability, and I should be able to guarantee you that it would still be around in my proposal. I'll go through a few to start off:
- Inner Circle - the easiest one. Every unit with the <Terminator> keyword gains the <Deathwing> keyword, and all units with the <Deathwing> and <Librarian> keyword gain the Inner Circle rules.
- Jink - similarly easy. Add onto the existing Chapter Tactic (Grim Resolve) to say "units with the <Biker> and <Land Speeder> keywords gain a 4+ Invulnerable save on any turn they Advance", or something like my Inner Circle proposal - every unit with the <Biker> or <Land Speeder> keywords gains the <Ravenwing> keyword. Units with the <Ravenwing> keyword gain the Jink rule.
- Interrogator Chaplains, like how things like Chief Apothecaries and suchlike are represented, could be a 1CP upgrade for any <Chaplain> unit in your army. They gain an extra Wound, the <Deathwing> keyword, and the Aura of Dread rule.
- Plasma cannons being made generic (again, because there's no reason not to be - plasma weapon have been demonstrated on non-DA Terminators before) would still mean they have plasma weapons.
- The Watcher in the Dark could be made into a 1CP stratagem, with a guaranteed Denying the psychic power, and could work on any <Deathwing> unit, not just regular Terminators and Deathwing Knights.
So, mechanically, you don't lose anything. The only thing you *lose* is the special feeling of uniqueness by having "Codex" on the top of the book.
Dark Angels are a Space Marine subfaction, by virtue of sharing 85% of the same units as their generic brethren, largely the same keywords and aesthetics, and a prior history of being once part of the standard book.
Compare and contrast to other Codexes that share units and deserve to be kept separately (Custodes and Genestealer Cults). Both of these share a small fraction of their units with the armies they share it with (Space Marines Land Raiders and Contemptor Dreadnoughts, and Tyranids Genestealers respectively), instead of 85% of the same units. Both of these have drastically different units that make up the rest of their book compared to their shared counterparts (multiple wound, well equipped, heavily armoured Custodes vs the MEQ profile we all know and love, and ambush-deploying, vehicle heavy, guardsman-like Genestealer Cultists vs swarm of short range infantry and monstrous creature heavy Tyranids). Both of these have a very different aesthetic from their twin. Basically, the majority of their units are very different, their aesthetics being very different, and their lore largely being very distinct.
Dark Angels share the majority of their units, their core aesthetic is literally "Space Marines with a colour palette swap, robes, and wings"**, and their lore is largely "our first two Companies are unique, but the rest of the Chapter is pretty much "normal"."
*I'm still undecided on the Sternguard and Vanguard matter. On one hand, it would be trivial to write something in saying "Dark Angels armies cannot take <Sternguard Veterans> or <Vanguard Veterans>, but also from a fluff perspective, it would make complete sense for those units to be included in the same way as Company Veterans.
**that's not a criticism, I might add, that's a perfectly unique aesthetic and it does look cool. But it is "just" an aesthetic change.
Blackie wrote:I don't get the point of consolidating all chapters into one book unless it comes from someone that plays more than a chapter and wants to use (and buy) a single book.
If you want to play a First Founding Chapter with all their bells and whistles, you wouldn't be buying a single book though. You'd be buying two - Codex and supplement.
Only DA/BA/SW get to have their unique units and generic ones in one book, unlike everyone else.
As a SW collector and player I want my 100+ pages about that specific chapter, I couldn't care less about Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, etc... At the same time I don't want a 1000 pages bible either.
It's a good thing that this isn't the case then, isn't it?
As an Ultramarines player, I don't particularly care for the Raven Guard (cool Chapter, but not my cup of tea) - so I just don't buy their supplement. Simple. The only Raven Guard things in my Codex are probably taking up less than a page or two.
Likewise, in my proposal, if you wanted Space Wolves and not everyone else, then just don't buy their supplement. The generic units are still yours.
Or, am I to take this to mean you'd want all Space Marine First Founders to have their own Codex?
For someone like me, who plays just one chapter that is already a stand alone one, consolidation is bad: I'll end up with less pages about my SW or with a bulkier (and likely more expensive) codex.
So, just to clarify, you would support every First Founder having a unique Codex then, so they don't have a bulkier Codex?
I'd also like to point out that despite having the bulkiest Codex out there right now, the Space Marine Codex is just as expensive as other Codexes. I'm sure that adding the extra handful of pages for DA/BA/SW basic rules wouldn't be a problem. And then, the more bespoke stuff exclusive to those Chapters, like how it's been done with every other Chapter, is added in supplements. The unique SW/DA/BA units, like the unique Ultramarine units, would be added in via supplement.
The real best way fo fix this is to let SM players use their codex and their codex only. Supplements should never exist.
So all First Founders should have had their own Codexes? Or are you saying "screw those other first founders, they don't deserve unique rules?"
Wanna pull up their win rate then and prove me wrong? Even BEFORE Space Marine Codex 2.0 both the Angels were doing fantastically worse, though at least Blood Angels provided Slamguinus (and that's literally it).
You're saying they are weak then ? They are not the cause of any imbalance, the codexes with high winrate are. Them being weak is no argument, it's actually just dumb. Necrons have a low winrate, and nobody ask for the end of necron or their "consolidation" into something else. Plus supplements are a bigger balance problem than the DA/SW/BA ever have been. You should be up in arms against codex supplements for SM (7 release ! for almost no datasheet differences !).
The argument is not that DA are rippling out into the game and causing imbalances. It's that by having them be a separate unique army they are yet another thing to balance when they are not actually unique enough to warrant being so. So either the DA fall behind (which they have been) or they jump ahead (which they haven't) but are either way imbalanced from the rest. DA the army does not cause the game to be imbalanced. DA the army can't help but be imbalanced as the game grows and changes. The best way to fix that is to turn them into the supplement they always should have been.
Delete the entire xenos mini range then, it would greatly improve the balance of the game. Because everything you said is perfectly right for any codexes/faction in the game except. Nothing is specific to DA/SW/BA : what you criticize is the diversity of factions and rules that exist in 40K. As rules and mini are released, old codexes tend to "be imbalanced" (you mean weak). Making them a supplement would actually not fix ANYTHING because, ASWE NOW KNOW, supplement are a huge source of imbalance (see Iron Hands winrate ...).
As per my last post and the replies to it: the point was that if your only argument for having a separate Codex is "we have unique units and lore", then it's a poor argument because it can be applied to literally every sub-Faction in the game. If we want to argue the number of unique units, it's already been pointed out that DA only has about a handful more than UM does, so it's also a bad argument for separation.
As per Whitedog: so, your solution to imbalance is to get rid of every Xeno Faction, rather than consolidate less than a handful of incredibly similar Space Marine Codexes into a single book? Ok then.
flandarz wrote: As per my last post and the replies to it: the point was that if your only argument for having a separate Codex is "we have unique units and lore", then it's a poor argument because it can be applied to literally every sub-Faction in the game. If we want to argue the number of unique units, it's already been pointed out that DA only has about a handful more than UM does, so it's also a bad argument for separation.
As per Whitedog: so, your solution to imbalance is to get rid of every Xeno Faction, rather than consolidate less than a handful of incredibly similar Space Marine Codexes into a single book? Ok then.
Xenos factions create a way bigger imbalance problem than DA/SW/BA - and there is easy reason to that, the basic mechanism that are at the core of the DA/BA/SW is the exactly similar to the basis mecanism that are at the basis of the SM and the SMC codex (4 4 4 4 as stats and a 3+ save).
I'm not saying it's a good solution, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in your argument : you guys argue that DA/BA/SW are at the core of a balance problem while they are not, and you don't even mention the fact that some faction create way more balancing problem than DA/SW/BA : the SM supplements are a big balancing problem, xenos too, historically.
Wanna pull up their win rate then and prove me wrong? Even BEFORE Space Marine Codex 2.0 both the Angels were doing fantastically worse, though at least Blood Angels provided Slamguinus (and that's literally it).
You're saying they are weak then ? They are not the cause of any imbalance, the codexes with high winrate are. Them being weak is no argument, it's actually just dumb. Necrons have a low winrate, and nobody ask for the end of necron or their "consolidation" into something else. Plus supplements are a bigger balance problem than the DA/SW/BA ever have been. You should be up in arms against codex supplements for SM (7 release ! for almost no datasheet differences !).
The argument is not that DA are rippling out into the game and causing imbalances. It's that by having them be a separate unique army they are yet another thing to balance when they are not actually unique enough to warrant being so. So either the DA fall behind (which they have been) or they jump ahead (which they haven't) but are either way imbalanced from the rest. DA the army does not cause the game to be imbalanced. DA the army can't help but be imbalanced as the game grows and changes. The best way to fix that is to turn them into the supplement they always should have been.
Delete the entire xenos mini range then, it would greatly improve the balance of the game. Because everything you said is perfectly right for any codexes/faction in the game except. Nothing is specific to DA/SW/BA : what you criticize is the diversity of factions and rules that exist in 40K. As rules and mini are released, old codexes tend to "be imbalanced" (you mean weak). Making them a supplement would actually not fix ANYTHING because, ASWE NOW KNOW, supplement are a huge source of imbalance (see Iron Hands winrate ...).
If a codex has a persistently low win rate it is also imbalanced. This imbalance is exacerbated when units it shares with other books (i.e. tactical squads), get refined and buffed elsewhere. Why should a marine that gains move and fire as if it hasn't moved with -1ap then be reduced to be cheaper than a marine who hasn't been amended but shares the same core rules and profile? Or you have the core units drawn from the same source for ALL marines, as they are the same unit. The literal same unit.
Once the core overlaps are centralised those imbalances cease to exist and can be better controlled. you sprinkle in falvour units via supplement and price them accordingly based on the affect they have on the other units with their special rules, as you now have a consistent baseline.
As a SW collector and player I want my 100+ pages about that specific chapter, I couldn't care less about Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, etc... At the same time I don't want a 1000 pages bible either.
It's a good thing that this isn't the case then, isn't it?
As an Ultramarines player, I don't particularly care for the Raven Guard (cool Chapter, but not my cup of tea) - so I just don't buy their supplement. Simple. The only Raven Guard things in my Codex are probably taking up less than a page or two.
Likewise, in my proposal, if you wanted Space Wolves and not everyone else, then just don't buy their supplement. The generic units are still yours.
And then I'd have only some of the rules available for my army. Now with the SW codex I have everything for that army.
Or, am I to take this to mean you'd want all Space Marine First Founders to have their own Codex?
SM chapters that have 10+ unique datasheets and unique wargear should definitely have a codex of their own. Chapters that just have traits, relics, and stuff like that to make them different form other chapters should be included in the same book, like ork clans or drukhari obsessions.
For someone like me, who plays just one chapter that is already a stand alone one, consolidation is bad: I'll end up with less pages about my SW or with a bulkier (and likely more expensive) codex.
So, just to clarify, you would support every First Founder having a unique Codex then, so they don't have a bulkier Codex?
I'd also like to point out that despite having the bulkiest Codex out there right now, the Space Marine Codex is just as expensive as other Codexes. I'm sure that adding the extra handful of pages for DA/BA/SW basic rules wouldn't be a problem. And then, the more bespoke stuff exclusive to those Chapters, like how it's been done with every other Chapter, is added in supplements. The unique SW/DA/BA units, like the unique Ultramarine units, would be added in via supplement.
Again, I'd need to buy two books for having all the rules for my chapter. And the SW codex is 100+ pages, most of them are just fluff and models showcase. I wouldn't like a general book with just 5 pages of fluff and 5 of showcase for my army, but to have all the chapters equally represented in a merged codex you'll need 1000ish pages BEFORE getting to the rules part. No way dude.
The real best way fo fix this is to let SM players use their codex and their codex only. Supplements should never exist.
So all First Founders should have had their own Codexes? Or are you saying "screw those other first founders, they don't deserve unique rules?"
Unique rules can be included in the same book if they are just rules for the army. First founders that have the same exact datasheets aside a few named characters should be included in the same codex.
Like snakebites rules are all included into the ork codex because there isn't the need of having a stand alone book since wargear and datasheets are exactly the same of other clans.
WhiteDog wrote: you guys argue that DA/BA/SW are at the core of a balance problem
I've never said anything of the sort. Slayer might have, and while I don't share their motivation (striving for balance), I do share the end goal of consolidation. Not for balance reasons, but for simplicity for new players, cheaper means to get involved in multiple books, and ensuring that sweeping changes to all Space Marines are just that - sweeping. We've seen a prime example of why separate Codexes creates problems (DA/BA/SW have all needed emergency FAQs to bring them up to the new Marine standard).
Wanna pull up their win rate then and prove me wrong? Even BEFORE Space Marine Codex 2.0 both the Angels were doing fantastically worse, though at least Blood Angels provided Slamguinus (and that's literally it).
You're saying they are weak then ? They are not the cause of any imbalance, the codexes with high winrate are. Them being weak is no argument, it's actually just dumb. Necrons have a low winrate, and nobody ask for the end of necron or their "consolidation" into something else. Plus supplements are a bigger balance problem than the DA/SW/BA ever have been. You should be up in arms against codex supplements for SM (7 release ! for almost no datasheet differences !).
The argument is not that DA are rippling out into the game and causing imbalances. It's that by having them be a separate unique army they are yet another thing to balance when they are not actually unique enough to warrant being so. So either the DA fall behind (which they have been) or they jump ahead (which they haven't) but are either way imbalanced from the rest. DA the army does not cause the game to be imbalanced. DA the army can't help but be imbalanced as the game grows and changes. The best way to fix that is to turn them into the supplement they always should have been.
Delete the entire xenos mini range then, it would greatly improve the balance of the game. Because everything you said is perfectly right for any codexes/faction in the game except. Nothing is specific to DA/SW/BA : what you criticize is the diversity of factions and rules that exist in 40K. As rules and mini are released, old codexes tend to "be imbalanced" (you mean weak). Making them a supplement would actually not fix ANYTHING because, ASWE NOW KNOW, supplement are a huge source of imbalance (see Iron Hands winrate ...).
You seem to forget imbalances can be caused by the lower end of things, so lemme try and help you because you have a tough time understanding this basic concept.
Let's just assume, for a moment for whatever reason, all the current factions are balanced. Whatever. GW decides they're gonna release Codex: Cultists. The basic troop is the CSM Cultist, except s/he is 5 points compared to the regular one in the CSM codex. That's a bit weird, and they're now strictly worse despite being the same unit. Their HQ is the Dark Apostle, who is 100 points now because of how much more the army relies on him, rather than pricing him on his actual value. Their.Fast Attack slot is the Spawn, which will be 30 points again because you're paying for durability and speed in said army that doesn't have it.
Why justify it as it's own codex? Because something has been done with TLaD and RaD. Is that a good reason? Absolutely not. Now anyone who bought into this crap codex deals with an imbalance: the imbalance is caused by their army though and the army is inexplicably worse than everyone else being perfectly balanced.
Also I am 100% against the supplements as I'm 100% against rules bloat. They're not a unique faction like you say they are, the Angels are simply Loyalist Marines and they need to start being treated as such for the health of those armies rather than pleasing you, somehow thinking these are their own Factions and should be treated as such. It's quite clear, based on several years, this doesn't work.
Wanna pull up their win rate then and prove me wrong? Even BEFORE Space Marine Codex 2.0 both the Angels were doing fantastically worse, though at least Blood Angels provided Slamguinus (and that's literally it).
You're saying they are weak then ? They are not the cause of any imbalance, the codexes with high winrate are. Them being weak is no argument, it's actually just dumb. Necrons have a low winrate, and nobody ask for the end of necron or their "consolidation" into something else. Plus supplements are a bigger balance problem than the DA/SW/BA ever have been. You should be up in arms against codex supplements for SM (7 release ! for almost no datasheet differences !).
The argument is not that DA are rippling out into the game and causing imbalances. It's that by having them be a separate unique army they are yet another thing to balance when they are not actually unique enough to warrant being so. So either the DA fall behind (which they have been) or they jump ahead (which they haven't) but are either way imbalanced from the rest. DA the army does not cause the game to be imbalanced. DA the army can't help but be imbalanced as the game grows and changes. The best way to fix that is to turn them into the supplement they always should have been.
Delete the entire xenos mini range then, it would greatly improve the balance of the game. Because everything you said is perfectly right for any codexes/faction in the game except. Nothing is specific to DA/SW/BA : what you criticize is the diversity of factions and rules that exist in 40K. As rules and mini are released, old codexes tend to "be imbalanced" (you mean weak). Making them a supplement would actually not fix ANYTHING because, ASWE NOW KNOW, supplement are a huge source of imbalance (see Iron Hands winrate ...).
You seem to forget imbalances can be caused by the lower end of things, so lemme try and help you because you have a tough time understanding this basic concept.
Let's just assume, for a moment for whatever reason, all the current factions are balanced. Whatever. GW decides they're gonna release Codex: Cultists. The basic troop is the CSM Cultist, except s/he is 5 points compared to the regular one in the CSM codex. That's a bit weird, and they're now strictly worse despite being the same unit. Their HQ is the Dark Apostle, who is 100 points now because of how much more the army relies on him, rather than pricing him on his actual value. Their.Fast Attack slot is the Spawn, which will be 30 points again because you're paying for durability and speed in said army that doesn't have it.
Why justify it as it's own codex? Because something has been done with TLaD and RaD. Is that a good reason? Absolutely not. Now anyone who bought into this crap codex deals with an imbalance: the imbalance is caused by their army though and the army is inexplicably worse than everyone else being perfectly balanced.
No I'm not misunderstanding anything you're just wrong. DA have basically a 45-50 % winrate : they are not the source of any imbalance, they are at in the middle lower tier. SW and BA are basically the same : they are not extremly weak, nor are they better than average : they are just below average. This shows GW never had any problem in balancing them. Your arguments have no weight.
Also I am 100% against the supplements as I'm 100% against rules bloat. They're not a unique faction like you say they are, the Angels are simply Loyalist Marines and they need to start being treated as such for the health of those armies rather than pleasing you, somehow thinking these are their own Factions and should be treated as such. It's quite clear, based on several years, this doesn't work.
Then make a post about supplements and psychic awakening because they are a way bigger problem than DA/BA/SW will ever be. That's where you bias against factions you just don't know nor understand shows.
Not for balance reasons, but for simplicity for new players, cheaper means to get involved in multiple books
No you're just an ultramarine player that's a bit jealous some SM chapters have more identity than your ... There's plenty of ways to get into the game for cheap and simple, not everything has to be simplified.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I already made a thread against Supplements. I entitled it "Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne".
Also Dark Angels don't have a 45% win rate. They're more around 35%.
43.6 % winrate in monofaction, just a little below CSM and way above tyranids. Space wolves are above 46 %, and BA just below 40 % without the new PA release. https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report
And that's during the era of SM supplements, who are around 60 % winrate and represent a huge part of the faction played.
As a SW collector and player I want my 100+ pages about that specific chapter, I couldn't care less about Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, etc... At the same time I don't want a 1000 pages bible either.
It's a good thing that this isn't the case then, isn't it?
As an Ultramarines player, I don't particularly care for the Raven Guard (cool Chapter, but not my cup of tea) - so I just don't buy their supplement. Simple. The only Raven Guard things in my Codex are probably taking up less than a page or two.
Likewise, in my proposal, if you wanted Space Wolves and not everyone else, then just don't buy their supplement. The generic units are still yours.
And then I'd have only some of the rules available for my army. Now with the SW codex I have everything for that army.
What about people who play Ultramarines though? They don't get all of the rules available for their army in one book.
Now, if you want *all* unique Chapters to have their own Codexes, then fair enough. All I'm asking is "why the double standard"?
Either everyone gets a Codex, or everyone gets a supplement.
Or, am I to take this to mean you'd want all Space Marine First Founders to have their own Codex?
SM chapters that have 10+ unique datasheets and unique wargear should definitely have a codex of their own. Chapters that just have traits, relics, and stuff like that to make them different form other chapters should be included in the same book, like ork clans or drukhari obsessions.
So Ultramarines should have a Codex of their own?*
And what about those people who "don't want a bulkier (and likely more expensive) codex"? Why should an Imperial Fists player pay for Raven Guard rules they don't want, to use your own argument?
*Note, as an Ultramarines player myself, I don't want that. I'm more than happy with my supplement, because the majority of my available units, just like BA/DA/SW, are generic ones. A generic Codex, to make up the vast majority of generic options I get access to, makes absolute sense.
For someone like me, who plays just one chapter that is already a stand alone one, consolidation is bad: I'll end up with less pages about my SW or with a bulkier (and likely more expensive) codex.
So, just to clarify, you would support every First Founder having a unique Codex then, so they don't have a bulkier Codex?
I'd also like to point out that despite having the bulkiest Codex out there right now, the Space Marine Codex is just as expensive as other Codexes. I'm sure that adding the extra handful of pages for DA/BA/SW basic rules wouldn't be a problem. And then, the more bespoke stuff exclusive to those Chapters, like how it's been done with every other Chapter, is added in supplements. The unique SW/DA/BA units, like the unique Ultramarine units, would be added in via supplement.
Again, I'd need to buy two books for having all the rules for my chapter.
So does every other First Founder. Should they have all their rules in one book?
And the SW codex is 100+ pages, most of them are just fluff and models showcase. I wouldn't like a general book with just 5 pages of fluff and 5 of showcase for my army, but to have all the chapters equally represented in a merged codex you'll need 1000ish pages BEFORE getting to the rules part. No way dude.
The supplement model provides an alternative. You get a small section of your own Chapter's lore in the core Codex, and then you get a whole book dedicated to your specific Chapter in the form of the supplement.
You wouldn't lose any lore, any units, and pictures - arguably, you'd get more. You'd just have to have another book for it - which, if that's a problem for you, I understand, but do you also think that EVERY Chapter should then have their own book?
Basically, are you concerned about the cost/weight of having two books, or just holding SW/DA/BA to a different standard?
The real best way fo fix this is to let SM players use their codex and their codex only. Supplements should never exist.
So all First Founders should have had their own Codexes? Or are you saying "screw those other first founders, they don't deserve unique rules?"
Unique rules can be included in the same book if they are just rules for the army. First founders that have the same exact datasheets aside a few named characters should be included in the same codex.
But what about their lore and photographs? According to you, that'll just increase the cost of the book.
Similarly, their warlord traits, unique stratagems, psychic powers, relics, etc etc - Chapters like the Iron Hands and Imperial Fists don't have many unique datasheets, but they do have plenty of unique rules all the same. And, as you've said, you opposed Chapters you didn't care about being put in the same book because it would increase the cost of the book.
Like snakebites rules are all included into the ork codex because there isn't the need of having a stand alone book since wargear and datasheets are exactly the same of other clans.
In my opinion, Snakebites should have their own supplement. Practically *every* subfaction should have a supplement, except maybe the factions ones with ill-defined/poorly defined subfactions (ie, Harlequins).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I already made a thread against Supplements. I entitled it "Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne".
Also Dark Angels don't have a 45% win rate. They're more around 35%.
43.6 % winrate in monofaction, just a little below CSM and way above tyranids. Space wolves are above 46 %, and BA just below 40 % without the new PA release.
https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report
You do realize 40kstats is one of the worst sites to prove your point as they take anything, including dinky little local tournaments where nothing is even optimized by 50%. Try again.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I already made a thread against Supplements. I entitled it "Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne".
Also Dark Angels don't have a 45% win rate. They're more around 35%.
43.6 % winrate in monofaction, just a little below CSM and way above tyranids. Space wolves are above 46 %, and BA just below 40 % without the new PA release. https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report
You do realize 40kstats is one of the worst sites to prove your point as they take anything, including dinky little local tournaments where nothing is even optimized by 50%. Try again.
Then give your own source or just don't speak. You gave us a number that came from your own hat and I should accept it as gospel ? lol In the last ETC, there were plenty of DA allies with librarian played, or some talon master : they have a place un the game.
There's no reason a consolidated marine book would need to be a thousand pages, 90% of the fluff is shared (we don't need repeat fluff sections on the Rhino or Geneseed for each chapter), and a little bit of layout editing can cut down a huge amount of page space when they're not using full page color pictures (often of the same studio painted models or artwork we've seen for years or even decades) to inflate page count. Likewise, most unique units are just a generic SM unit with an equipment swap or an additional special rule, as opposed to being truly distinct new units, that could be handled in a much more compact fashion if GW chose to do so.
To further the point, everyone else deals with only a couple fluff pages of their niche subfaction in their codex, including Chaos Marines that are by all rights dramatically more divergent from each other, not sure why that's such a dealbreaker for SM's.
DA were literally the best marine faction before this new codex. They have the best characters. Landspeeder characters / azreal 4++ invune bubble. If they get a powerful super-doctrine and a reworked chapter tactic - they will likely be more powerful than ironhands.
4++ bubble alone is enough to make them the best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: There's no reason a consolidated marine book would need to be a thousand pages, 90% of the fluff is shared (we don't need repeat fluff sections on the Rhino or Geneseed for each chapter), and a little bit of layout editing can cut down a huge amount of page space when they're not using full page color pictures (often of the same studio painted models or artwork we've seen for years or even decades) to inflate page count. Likewise, most unique units are just a generic SM unit with an equipment swap or an additional special rule, as opposed to being truly distinct new units, that could be handled in a much more compact fashion if GW chose to do so.
To further the point, everyone else deals with only a couple fluff pages of their niche subfaction in their codex, including Chaos Marines that are by all rights dramatically more divergent from each other, not sure why that's such a dealbreaker for SM's.
OFC this is true. It's killing the game. Even other marine players are annoyed by it at this point. Because it's one thing to play gaurd and lose to eldar or something. To play marines and lose to a chapter with more bonkers rules is possibly the dumbest thing ever.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Not for balance reasons, but for simplicity for new players, cheaper means to get involved in multiple books
No you're just an ultramarine player that's a bit jealous some SM chapters have more identity than your ...
Thing is, that's where your bias comes in. Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels - they have their identity, and that's absolutely fine. I don't want to strip any of that away. But since when did "identity" entitle you to a Codex? Ultramarines, White Scars, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, Black Templars - if you don't think these Chapters have their own unique identities and histories and features, then I'm sorry to say it, but in your own words, "you're just wrong"*. With supplements being introduced and every Chapter getting their own unique rules to compliment their historic natural unique features, now has never been a better time for consolidation.
You haven't explained at all why DA/BA/SW should have a Codex beyond quoting inconsistent lore (where's your lore explanation for no Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons?), and this vague idea of "uniqueness". To me, Ultramarines are a perfectly unique Chapter, but you don't see me crowing for them to have their own Codex, because being a slightly special kind of Space Marine doesn't entitle you to a Codex.
Let's pretend that DA/BA/SW didn't have Codexes, or that we were looking at completely restructuring 40k from the ground up. If you'd be so kind, give your reasons why these three Chapters in particular need a Codex, and not a supplement, to enact their mechanical differences?
And of course, I think it's perfectly clear to see that I don't need to waste time on refuting your claim that "you only hate us 'cos you ain't us". What an excellent attempt of deflecting otherwise valid comments because there "must be a personal reason for it!"
*also an amazing form of argument, who needs facts and evidence and debate when you can just say "no you're wrong", eh?
There's plenty of ways to get into the game for cheap and simple, not everything has to be simplified.
Please, tell me how I can get into playing Ultramarines and Dark Angel's for cheaper than I can playing Ultramarines and Imperial Fists, without pirating rules?
It's simple maths. £25 for Codex: Dark Angels and £25 for Codex: Space Marines, plus the £17.50 for whatever unique Chapter I want = £67.50 vs £25 for Codex: Space Marines, plus £17.50 for whatever unique Chapter you want, and then another £17.50 for the other unique Chapter = £60
Also, why shouldn't collecting Space Marine be simpler? Why should I need to explain to someone picking up their first Tactical Squad that the rules for it could be in one of four books, depending on if they want to paint their Space Marines green or red or grey-blue or any other colour? What's wrong with being able to say "yup, if you want to do any kind of loyalist Space Marine, except these super diverse ones that don't use 85% of the same units, just pick up this core Codex, and if you're comfortable specialising into one of the nine unique First Founders, grab the respective supplement for extra stuff!"
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I already made a thread against Supplements. I entitled it "Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne".
Also Dark Angels don't have a 45% win rate. They're more around 35%.
43.6 % winrate in monofaction, just a little below CSM and way above tyranids. Space wolves are above 46 %, and BA just below 40 % without the new PA release.
https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report
You do realize 40kstats is one of the worst sites to prove your point as they take anything, including dinky little local tournaments where nothing is even optimized by 50%. Try again.
40kstats is certainly limited - the 45% win rate should be taken with a grain of salt, and keep in mind the source.
But the 35% winrate has absolutely no citation. It appears to be an off-the-cuff "feels right" stat asserted to prove a point. So it shouldn't be taken seriously, unless it can be backed up.
Bharring wrote: 40kstats is certainly limited - the 45% win rate should be taken with a grain of salt, and keep in mind the source.
But the 35% winrate has absolutely no citation. It appears to be an off-the-cuff "feels right" stat asserted to prove a point. So it shouldn't be taken seriously, unless it can be backed up.
Remember that a 45% win rate army against a 55% winrate army is way way way more loopsided than 45/55 in an actual game. The 55% winrate army have that winrate at the top table playing against the other strong lists while the 45% winrate army are playing at the bottom table against other low winrate armies. If you sre 0-4 in a Tournament you arent gonna play against IH or IF with your BA, you are gonna play against tyranids, DA, GK etc.
In a real match the 55% winrate army would probably have closer to 80-90% chance to win against the 45% army. Not 55%.
So being 45% winrate for some marines while others habe 55% isnt just a small 10% difference in actual winrate against each other but more like 100%! Its seriously imbalanced.
If the range of top to bottom were more like 48% for the bad and 52% for the good then it would be quite ok state but each % up or down from 50% is much bigger than people understand.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Thing is, that's where your bias comes in. Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels - they have their identity, and that's absolutely fine. I don't want to strip any of that away. But since when did "identity" entitle you to a Codex?
Since the original Codex: Space Wolves - a codex, let us not forget, which was released before the first "generic" Space Marine Codex, back in 2nd edition.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Ultramarines, White Scars, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, Black Templars - if you don't think these Chapters have their own unique identities and histories and features, then I'm sorry to say it, but in your own words, "you're just wrong"*. With supplements being introduced and every Chapter getting their own unique rules to compliment their historic natural unique features, now has never been a better time for consolidation.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - all eighteen of the original SM Legions should get their own Codex. Some of these books would require more development time than others as, to date, some of these factions have seen far less focus and development.
Notable Successor Chapters (CF, BT, FT) can feature as an appendix in their Progenitor's book.
What would being a Codex provide for them that they aren't already getting via the "main" book and supplement? For that matter, what does a Codex provide SW, DA, etc. that they'd be unable to get via a supplement?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Thing is, that's where your bias comes in. Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels - they have their identity, and that's absolutely fine. I don't want to strip any of that away. But since when did "identity" entitle you to a Codex?
Since the original Codex: Space Wolves - a codex, let us not forget, which was released before the first "generic" Space Marine Codex, back in 2nd edition.
Weren't Space Wolves originally just part of the general Space Marine faction in Rogue Trader and, *then* made separate when Codexes were released (those being Space Wolves, Angels of Death, and Ultramarines?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Ultramarines, White Scars, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, Black Templars - if you don't think these Chapters have their own unique identities and histories and features, then I'm sorry to say it, but in your own words, "you're just wrong"*. With supplements being introduced and every Chapter getting their own unique rules to compliment their historic natural unique features, now has never been a better time for consolidation.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - all eighteen of the original SM Legions should get their own Codex. Some of these books would require more development time than others as, to date, some of these factions have seen far less focus and development.
Notable Successor Chapters (CF, BT, FT) can feature as an appendix in their Progenitor's book.
In which case, I applaud your consistency. As long as you want all the Chapters to have the same treatment (because they're very much unique mechanically now), then that's my main concern. I still don't think a Codex each is necessary, because that would be a lot of generic units being shared out, and as the 30k books have demonstrated, two books, one for the generic units, and one covering every unique faction, is something that works. But, if everyone's brought level, that's my main grievance eliminated.
As flandarz says - what does a Codex do that a supplement doesn't?
"Create your own army" is better than "Choose between all those preset armies".
So having one unique book with enough flexibility to represent all kind of armies, including the already established ones, is better than having more, less flexible books to represent specific, set in stone factions.
Checkmate, codex-separatist!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - all eighteen of the original SM Legions should get their own Codex. Some of these books would require more development time than others as, to date, some of these factions have seen far less focus and development.
That game already exists, The Horus Heresy is an option for people interested in that. However, trying to fit in that many marine armies (armies that comprise some of the smallest and rarest forces in the setting, and where most of the Loyalist ones are ostensibly Codex Astartes adherent anyway), sharing 80-90% of the same content, while also trying to manage an array of far more varied armies like Orks, Guard, Tyranids, Eldar, Tau, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Sisters, Demons, etc, would be...silly, and there's a reason HH doesn't try for the most part (aside from AdMech and Solar Auxilia as an afterthought) and just does Marines.
In editions past, a page of supplement rules for each legion/chapter, or mix-n-match traits worked just fine. Many still see the 3.5E CSM codex as the epitome of gameplay fluff expression (despite whatever balance issues it had in other ways), and that codex managed to do the entirety of the Chaos Space Marine faction (with pictures and fluff) in 80 pages.
What I find interesting is that in 3rd Edition, they were all in supplemental form. Yeah, they had some unique set ups and labeled as Codex, but for the most part a lot of the entries were: "See: Codex: Space Marines". It wasn't until Codex: Black Templars came out that this started going away, and it hurt them when everyone else moved on to the new pricing formats.
And the first independent Codex: Dark Angels of that generation was during GW's Blue period which had Codex: Eldar and Codex: Chaos Space Marines with generic Daemons. Not good starting examples.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: "Create your own army" is better than "Choose between all those preset armies".
So having one unique book with enough flexibility to represent all kind of armies, including the already established ones, is better than having more, less flexible books to represent specific, set in stone factions.
Checkmate, codex-separatist!
Basically, are you concerned about the cost/weight of having two books, or just holding SW/DA/BA to a different standard?
Just the cost/weight of having two books and lots of pages that I wouldn't care about. What other players get doesn't interest me, I want a book that deals with my army and my army only. If it's unfair, and all chapters should get their own codex because they feel like they should be independent, fine, I don't see any trouble here. Truth is, I don't even consider SW as SM, but just another imperium army that share some similarities with SM like sisters because they're all imperium so it makes sense that they have some vehicles and weapons in common, but it's basically just that.
In my opinion, Snakebites should have their own supplement. Practically *every* subfaction should have a supplement, except maybe the factions ones with ill-defined/poorly defined subfactions (ie, Harlequins).
No, that's just dumb. All ork clans have exactly the same datasheets and wargear options, barring 1-2 named characters for a couple of spefic clans (deathskulls have 1, goffs have 2, blood axes also 1), they are nothing like stand alone chapters. If in the future each clan gets 10+ unique datasheets, unique psychic powers and unique wargear combinations maybe, at the moment splitting subfactions like ork clans into different books just don't make any sense. Lorewise also, orks don't really care about discipline and organization, they're not part of some military fascist imperium so orks from different clans can fight together with no trouble. Ork clans have definitely their history but they all join the biggest and most charismatic boss around them, regardless of the clan. With your suggestion I'd also have to buy 8 books (90+% all identical to each other ruleswise) just to play orks, lol
Armies like harlequins should have never been stand alone ones: the clowns with their 8 datasheets in total (4 of them characters) should have been included with a couple of obsessions in the drukhari codex.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - all eighteen of the original SM Legions should get their own Codex. Some of these books would require more development time than others as, to date, some of these factions have seen far less focus and development.
That game already exists, The Horus Heresy is an option for people interested in that.
Exactly this. 18 different SM armies????? Boring as hell, there are already too many SM armies around. If it was for me I'd just keep DA, SW, BA and a fourth generic army that I'd simply label SM. Inside it chapters bonuses like ork clans or drukhari obsessions. Basically the 8th edition SM codex, which was perfectly balanced.
What is your cut-off for "ok, you've got enough unique datasheets to be your own book"? Cuz DA, as already mentioned, is 85% similar and I imagine SW ain't too far off from that number. If 90% is too similar and 85% is dissimilar enough, where is the exact point where it tips?
Basically, are you concerned about the cost/weight of having two books, or just holding SW/DA/BA to a different standard?
Just the cost/weight of having two books and lots of pages that I wouldn't care about. What other players get doesn't interest me, I want a book that deals with my army and my army only. If it's unfair, and all chapters should get their own codex because they feel like they should be independent, fine, I don't see any trouble here. Truth is, I don't even consider SW as SM, but just another imperium army that share some similarities with SM like sisters because they're all imperium so it makes sense that they have some vehicles and weapons in common, but it's basically just that.
Sisters share about one, maybe two units with Space Marines (Rhinos). Space Wolves share about 72% of their units. So, out of all the First Founders, they're the closest to being unique (largely because of their HQ options with Thnderwolves and suchlike). But that's still 72% of otherwise identical units, plus the generic units that the Wolves don't have for undefined reasons (why do they have Stormhawks but not Stormtalons? Why don't they have Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons?).
But, as I've said before, at least you support the idea of all Chapters having equal treatment on the Codex front. While I might not agree with them needing *Codexes*, I do think that they deserve equal treatment in the current state of the game, and your viewpoint tells me that at least you're primarily concerned about cost/weight, instead of promoting some kind of "other Chapters don't deserve unique things!" agenda, which I respect.
In my opinion, Snakebites should have their own supplement. Practically *every* subfaction should have a supplement, except maybe the factions ones with ill-defined/poorly defined subfactions (ie, Harlequins).
No, that's just dumb. All ork clans have exactly the same datasheets and wargear options, barring 1-2 named characters for a couple of spefic clans (deathskulls have 1, goffs have 2, blood axes also 1), they are nothing like stand alone chapters. If in the future each clan gets 10+ unique datasheets, unique psychic powers and unique wargear combinations maybe, at the moment splitting subfactions like ork clans into different books just don't make any sense.
I didn't clarify that, but that's exactly what I'd want - at least one unique HQ or unit datasheet, but preferably more, unique psychic powers and relic options, as well as stratagems. Basically, the same as what Space Marine supplements are.
If there's any factions that deserve supplements, it's Imperial Guard and Chaos Marines (if loyalists get it, Chaos should too).
Lorewise also, orks don't really care about discipline and organization, they're not part of some military fascist imperium so orks from different clans can fight together with no trouble. Ork clans have definitely their history but they all join the biggest and most charismatic boss around them, regardless of the clan.
Honestly, the Ork Klan system in game is pretty flawed as is, because you're right, Ork often form up multi-clan armies. Therefore, the only way to properly show this would be to either allow Ork units to pick their Klan on a unit-by-unit basis, or reward Ork armies even further for taking multiple small detachments of individual Klans (ie, a Goff Detachment, an Evil Suns Detachment, and a Bad Moons Detachment). In the former example, supplements wouldn't really work, but in the latter, they'd work just fine.
With your suggestion I'd also have to buy 8 books (90+% all identical to each other ruleswise) just to play orks, lol
In all fairness, you wouldn't *have* to - if you wanted to play Orks, you'd pick up the base Codex, and as an optional purchase, pick up a supplement, same as Space Marines players now don't need to buy all the supplements, if they don't want to.
I don't know where your 72% or 85% comes from. Regarding SW, and completely ignoring the primaris (because I don't play them, so I assume they are exactly the same as SM ones) there are:
- 11 named characters, two with double datasheet.
- Wolf lord with different wargear than SM captain.
- Wolf priest with different special rules and wargear than the apotecary.
- Battle leaders different from SM lieutenants in wargear and unit composition/special rules.
- HQs on thunderwolf mount non included in SM codex.
- Rune priest with different profile, and wargear than librarians, ALL unique psychic powers.
- Iron priest with different profile and wargear than techmarines.
- Grey hunters with different profile (two sargents and 11 man squad) and wargear than tacs.
- Wolf guard with different wargear than SM veterans.
- Ven dread with different wargear, especially the axe and shield version.
- Long fangs with different profile (max 6 dudes plus a wolf guard), special rules and wargear.
- Scouts with a different role (elites) and different wargear.
- Skyclaws with different profile and wargear than SM assault squad.
- Swiftclaws with different profile and wargear than SM bikes, also the attack bike has only BS4+.
- 5 Unique units like blood claws, TWC, fenrisian wolves, wulfen dread and wulfen.
- 2 unique flyers
Some weapons that are not included in the SM codex, like the frost and hellfrost ones.
And there's probably more, this is just what came in my head without checking the codexes.
Basically just primaris and vehicles (not even all of them) are the same units included in SM book, pretty much anything else has something different or is completely different.
They're actually pretty different armies. In fact the lists I usually play have just a single unit that is exactly the same in the SM codex, the 2-3 razorbacks, which means 232 or 348 points out of a 2000 points list. Of course if you play primaris you may have the idea of SW just being a SM chapter, in reality they are much more.
But, as I've said before, at least you support the idea of all Chapters having equal treatment on the Codex front. While I might not agree with them needing *Codexes*, I do think that they deserve equal treatment in the current state of the game, and your viewpoint tells me that at least you're primarily concerned about cost/weight, instead of promoting some kind of "other Chapters don't deserve unique things!" agenda, which I respect.
If chapters are that much different between each other then yeah I support the idea of making them stand alone armies. If they just differ for 1-2 named characters no, they are the same exact army. But if I have to choose between a consolidation and giving a codex to all the chapters I'd rather have the latter. And I mean codex, not codex plus supplement. Having two books to play a single army (and even not only an army but also a subfaction!) makes no sense at all.
In all fairness, you wouldn't *have* to - if you wanted to play Orks, you'd pick up the base Codex, and as an optional purchase, pick up a supplement, same as Space Marines players now don't need to buy all the supplements, if they don't want to.
SM not-stand alone chapters should be treated like necrons dynasties, drukhari obsessions or ork clans. Why do I need to buy more than a book just to have all the rules for my faction is beyond me. In all fairness all those SM chapters had everything they needed in SM codex version 1. The supplements are just the answer to those players who wanted some power creep as their armies weren't the flavour of the month anymore.
Blackie wrote: I don't know where your 72% or 85% comes from. Regarding SW, and completely ignoring the primaris (because I don't play them, so I assume they are exactly the same as SM ones) there are:
Yeah, Space Wolves and Grey Knights are the only Space Marine Codices who really have no clue as to what Codex adherence is, nor have they ever claimed it like the Angels have been.
Model-wise, the only non-Character ones that they don't share some load outs from C:SM are Wolves, Terminators, and the Flyers. Some of the Power-Armored units share loadouts akin with Black Templar Crusader Squads and Jumpless Assault Marines, so.. Heck, I used a Grey Hunter box for a close combat-geared Crusader Squad of my Black Templar-style homebrew back in the day. Profiles are a bit different here and there, but usually only WS and BS, and those have been changed back and forth across the generations.
So, it really depends on what is being used to define that 72%, and that goes for both of you.
I think at this point its really just about model lines, GW wants to keep the factions with the most unique model kits as their own factions. I just did a quick count of unique model kits for each faction, not counting upgrade kits and doing my best to only count kits that can be built as two or more separate models once, and this is what I came up with:
Ultramarines - 9
Imperial Fists - 2
Crimson Fists - 1
Black Templars - 3
White Scars - 3
Salamanders - 2
Raven Guard - 1
Space Wolves - 24
Blood Angels - 18
Dark Angels - 16
I did this quickly so these numbers are probably not too accurate, but it paints a solid picture of which factions get their own codex and which ones get supplements.
I agree. Space Marines, in general, are always gonna have more unique units, simply because they have the largest unit range. Orkz, for example, have less than 50 units total in their Codex. That's, what, half what Marines get?
Orblivion wrote: I think at this point its really just about model lines, GW wants to keep the factions with the most unique model kits as their own factions. I just did a quick count of unique model kits for each faction, not counting upgrade kits and doing my best to only count kits that can be built as two or more separate models once, and this is what I came up with:
Ultramarines - 9
Imperial Fists - 2
Crimson Fists - 1
Black Templars - 3
White Scars - 3
Salamanders - 2
Raven Guard - 1
Space Wolves - 24
Blood Angels - 18
Dark Angels - 16
I did this quickly so these numbers are probably not too accurate, but it paints a solid picture of which factions get their own codex and which ones get supplements.
I'm curious what you are defining as "unique" for those kits. There's a lot of duplication across the lots. Deathwing Terminators can be used as regular Terminators or Terminator Wolf Guard, for example. Blood Angels have their own Tactical Marine kit is another example. Would the Terminator Wolf Guard be unique because the whole unit can field Power Swords, while only Sergeants can with the Codex Marines, but can still be build along either Terminator squad type? Wolf Pack kits are the same way, being able to take up any Veteran, Tactical, or Jumpless Assault Squad spot as well as the 3 SW datasheets the sprues are made for, but nobody else has anything similar to the Stormwolf.
As a side note of lists, this is what is on the shop page for total entries (note this will include books, upgrades, and kits which can be made in to two units):
Space Marines - 121
Ultramarines - 120 (-1)
Imperial Fists - 110 (-11)
Crimson Fists - *No Entry*
Black Templars - 99 (-22)
White Scars - 114 (-7)
Salamanders - 108 (-13)
Raven Guard - 109 (-12)
Space Wolves - 86 (-35)
Blood Angels - 122 (+1)
Dark Angels - 105 (-16)
But that's not removing stuff like datacards, transfer sheets, etc.
Charistoph wrote:So, it really depends on what is being used to define that 72%, and that goes for both of you.
That's fair enough, I'll post the metric of what units I've been counting for and against my DA and SW maths in spoilers. Bear in mind that I won't be including units that those Chapters realistically *should* have (so Stormtalons, Centurions, Thunderfire Cannons, etc etc), but for certain units which don't need bespoke datasheets (like Interrogator Chaplains), I'll be flat out omitting those, and making a note of it in my analyses).
Aggressors
Apothecary
Company Ancient (Chapter Ancient already exists as a stratagem upgrade for every Chapter now)
Company Champion
Company Veterans
Contemptor Dreadnought
Terminator/Deathwing Ancient
Terminator/Deathwing Apothecary (should be made available for everyone, so not counting as DA-specific)
Cataphractii
Tartaros
Deathwing Champion
Deathwing Knights Terminators/Deathwing Terminators (mixed Terminators should be generic)
Dreadnought
Invictor
Primaris Ancient
Primaris Apothecary
Ravenwing Ancient
Ravenwing Apothecary
Ravenwing Champion Redemptor Dreadnought
Reivers
Servitors
Venerable Dreadnought
Assault Squad
Inceptors
Ravenwing Attack Bikes (basically normal Attack Bikes)
Ravenwing Bikes (basically normal Bikes)
Black Knights
Darkshroud
Land Speeder Vengeance Ravenwing Land Speeders (basically normal Land Speeders)
Scout Bikes
Suppressors
Nephilim Jetfighter
Dark Talon Stormraven
Devastators
Eliminators
Hlelblasters
Hunter
Stalker
Land Raider
Land Raider Crusader
Land Raider Redeemer
Predator
Repulsor Executioner
Vindicator
Whirlwind
That's 17 units out of 83 generic units (not counting the generic units that realistically should be added, as I said above).
17/83=~20% unique units
Adding in those generic units (Thunderfire, Stormtalon, Stormhawk, Assault and Devastator Centurions, Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans and the Bike Captain - why do other Chapters get one, and not the DA? It wouldn't be hard to give them the <Ravenwing> and Jink rules), it goes to 17/91=~18%.
So, in all fairness, I was wrong about quoting 15% of unique units. I was off by 3%, and that's an unacceptable margin of error. I aim to use the correct total of 18% now. However, being off by 3% has not changed my general point that the vast majority of the Dark Angels book is made up of generic units.
As for Space Wolves, how I classify units will be rather reductive in places, as I feel that either more Chapters should have the ability to do it, or are "close enough". However, the Space Wolves are definitely *more* unique - whether they're "whole new Codex" unique is a different matter:
Spoiler:
Arjac Rockfist Phobos Battle Leaders (Lieutenants)
Bjorn the Fell-Handed
Canis Wolfborn
Harald Deathwolf
Iron Priest (eh, basically a Techmarine, but I'll leave it, as it does have unique gear)
Krom Dragongaze
Logan Grimnar
Njal Stormcaller
Njal Stormaller in Terminator Armour (is a second datasheet really needed? Eh, I'll keep it) Primaris Battle Leader (Lieutenant)
Primaris Rune Priest (Librarian)
Primaris Wolf Lord (Captain)
Primaris Wolf Priest (Chaplain) (In order to replicate Healing Balms, I would introduce a rule where any unit with the <Chaplain> keyword gets Healing Balms, like with White Scars Bikers)
Ragnar Blackmane Rune Priest
Phobos Rune Priest
Terminator Rune Priest
Ulrik the Slayer Wolf Guard Battle Leader (Lieutenant)
Wolf Guard Leader in Terminator Armour (realistically should be generic, but I'll let it slide for now) Wold Guard Battle Leader on Thunderwolf
Wolf Lord (Captain)
Cataphractii Wolf Lord
Gravis Wolf Lord
Phobos Wolf Lord
Terminator Wolf Lord
Wolf Priest
Terminator Wolf Priest
Logan Grimnar on Stormrider
Grey Hunters (essentially Tacticals - their Wolf Standard becomes part of their Chapter Tactic, active for everyone, and all Chapters gain access to their chainsword and double special weapon access - since many Chapters should also utilise their squads in this way - Carcharadons notably)
Incursors
Infiltrators
Intercessors
Drop Pod
Impulsors
LSS Razorback
Repulsor
Rhino
Aggressors
Contemptor Dreadnought
Dreadnought
Company Ancient
Company Champion
Invictor
Lukas the Trickster
Murderfang Primaris Ancient
Redemptor Dreadnought
Reivers
Servitors
Space Wolves Venerable Dreadnought (eh, iffy on this. Sure, let's call it unique.) Wolf Guard (basically Veterans)
Cataphractii
Tartaros
Terminators
Wolf Scouts (still generic, even if their lore is different, move over to Troops actually, moving them into Troops would encourage them to be taken as the core of the army, which shouldn't really be done, plus Wolf Guard Leaders - eh, unique)
Wulfen
Wulfen Dreadnought
Cyberwolves
Fenrisian Wolves Inceptors
Land Speeders
Skyclaws (AND Blood Claws - fold them into the same entry like how regular Assault Squads are, use Chapter Tactics to give them their unique rules)
Suppressor Squad
Swiftclaw Attack Bikes (literally just attack bikes)
Swiftclaw Bikes (literally just bikes)
Thunderwolf Cavalry Wolf Scout Bikers
Stormfang Gunship Stormhawk
Stormwolf
Eliminators
Hellblasters
Hunter
Stalker
Land Raider
Land Raider Crusader
Land Raider Redeemer
Long Fangs (Fire Discipline can either be represented via the signum/armorium cherub, or added via Chapter Tactics, otherwise generic)
Predator
Repulsor Executioner
Vindicator
Whilrwind
ADDENDUM - Insert a Chapter Tactic Ability into both the Space Wolves and Iron Hands Traits (and include also as a new Custom Chapter Tactic) wherein any Tactical, Assault (without Jump Pack) or Devastator Squads may replace their Sergeant with a Sergeant in Terminator Armour, who has access to all weapons on the Terminator Weapons Chart.
Okay, I'll admit, this is by far the hardest one to make fit into the Codex: Space Marines template, and honestly, it might just well be worth this being the *only* First Founder to be treated differently, just because of how divergent they really are. Unlike other "unique" Chapters that tack on a few extra units to an otherwise generic book, and omit others for no reason, the Space Wolves change up how the generic units themselves are used. Honestly, in terms of unique units, there's not a whole lot going on (mostly just character, Thunderwolves and Wulfen), but there's core changes to several otherwise "generic" units (Tacticals, Assault Marines, Devastators - the holy trinity - and all Chaplains and Techmarines too, as well as others.)
But, I said I'd deliver so, I counted 24 out of 85 generic units (not counting generic ones that also ought to be there, as above)
24/85=~28% unique.
But, as I did for the DA, adding in those generic units (Thunderfire, Stormraven, Stormtalon, Centurions of both types, Vanguard and Sternguard, and Bike Captains/Wolf Lords), then we hit about 24/93=~25% unique.
So, again, off by 3%, this time the other way around - apologies for bad data. However, I fully admit that for many units, this is a bit of a stretch, even for me, and if there's any Chapter that should have a unique Codex out of simplicity and me not wanting to see genuinely unique mechanical functions lost, it's the Wolves.
So, TL;DR, the Dark Angels are between 18-20% unique, and the Space Wolves between 25-28% unique. My opinion is unchanged on the Dark Angels (and Blood Angels, I can't imagine they're too different from them), but I am far more lenient about the Space Wolves having their own Codex, from a mechanical and lore-based standpoint.
My objectives for streamlining were to bring the Space Marine Chapters that were easy to combine together, and the Space Wolves represent a wrench in that system which is more sensible to be removed from my objective goals than ground down to fit them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Adding in those generic units (Thunderfire, Stormtalon, Stormhawk, Assault and Devastator Centurions, Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans and the Bike Captain - why do other Chapters get one, and not the DA? It wouldn't be hard to give them the <Ravenwing> and Jink rules), it goes to 17/91=~18%
To answer the bit in bold - their "Bike Captain" gets to ride a Jetbike or a Land Speeder, as he is the Master of the Ravenwing...
General point, unrelated to the above - adding Primaris has massively messed with how unique the BA/DA/SWappear to be, as aside from slight renaming, and one or two gear options on characters or Sergeants, no effort has been made to make them unique (especially in the case of the SW). Looking at your DA list, I count 23 Primaris datasheets in there. I wasn't going to recount for SW, but it should be the same (I don't think they didn't get access to any of the over-inflated Marines).
Knocking them on the head, and even allowing for some dubious definitions on your list, and you end up with 17/60 unique for DA and 24/70 for SW - or 28% unique for DA and 34% for SW.
And aren't a sub-faction of Marines, so your point is?
GK are marines though, and have the similar number of sets.
GK are, I feel, divergent enough to remain their own Dex.
Indeed. Not including the Characters, their Terminator Squad might be built for Space Wolves Wolf Guard Terminator Squad and their Strike Squad MIGHT be built off as some of the more melee focused Marines of other chapters.
BUT
The only things currently shared on the purchase page are Techmarines, Servitors, Chaplain, Librarian, Razorback, Rhino, Dreadnoughts, Flyers, and Land Raiders. Now, out of the 25 in the group (including Characters), that's 16 of the mix, but the Vehicles will probably see the most use out of those, and that's 10 of that sub-group.
Outside of those listed above, their datasheets are so incredibly different that it just isn't a real contest other than putting "See Codex: Space Marines" for the above mentioned Techmarines, vehicles, and such. Nor have they introduced Primaris to the Chapter as yet.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Adding in those generic units (Thunderfire, Stormtalon, Stormhawk, Assault and Devastator Centurions, Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans and the Bike Captain - why do other Chapters get one, and not the DA? It wouldn't be hard to give them the <Ravenwing> and Jink rules), it goes to 17/91=~18%
To answer the bit in bold - their "Bike Captain" gets to ride a Jetbike or a Land Speeder, as he is the Master of the Ravenwing...
There's no option for a "generic" Ravenwing Master? Not sure how I feel about that, even in armies with existing canon leaders (Calgar), you can still promote generic characters to those ranks (albeit not when he is present!)
General point, unrelated to the above - adding Primaris has massively messed with how unique the BA/DA/SWappear to be, as aside from slight renaming, and one or two gear options on characters or Sergeants, no effort has been made to make them unique (especially in the case of the SW). Looking at your DA list, I count 23 Primaris datasheets in there. I wasn't going to recount for SW, but it should be the same (I don't think they didn't get access to any of the over-inflated Marines).
Knocking them on the head, and even allowing for some dubious definitions on your list, and you end up with 17/60 unique for DA and 24/70 for SW - or 28% unique for DA and 34% for SW
Absolutely true, and while removing them does bump up the proportion of unique units to generic ones, I still believed that DA wouldn't exactly be unique at 28%, whereas Space Wolves probably would (mostly because of my aformentioned differences between how DA and SW implement their unique aspects - one taking otherwise specialist units and making them more specialist, and the other taking core units and putting a unique twist on them - the latter of which I feel is more "deserving" of a unique book).
But, all the same, GW *did* give Primaris to everyone and they are, for the most part, generic, for better or worse (I personally say for the better), but if it actually did turn out that DA/BA/SW didn't get Primaris and everyone else did, then I'd fully support them having unique Codexes, since they weren't sharing Primaris wargear, units, and stratagems.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Adding in those generic units (Thunderfire, Stormtalon, Stormhawk, Assault and Devastator Centurions, Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans and the Bike Captain - why do other Chapters get one, and not the DA? It wouldn't be hard to give them the <Ravenwing> and Jink rules), it goes to 17/91=~18%
To answer the bit in bold - their "Bike Captain" gets to ride a Jetbike or a Land Speeder, as he is the Master of the Ravenwing...
There's no option for a "generic" Ravenwing Master? Not sure how I feel about that, even in armies with existing canon leaders (Calgar), you can still promote generic characters to those ranks (albeit not when he is present!)
There isn't currently a generic Master of the Ravenwing (on a bike) datasheet, mainly because the Jetbike and Land Speeder are relics that are akin to a badge of office for them (along with his sword, whose name escapes me at present).
Slayer makes an interesting point regarding Successor chapters - I wouldn't necessarily have anything against a Master on a Bike which, through keywords shenanigans, was at least blocked from being fielded at the same time as Sammael (who can basically represent any MotR within the DA across their history). I'd possibly go so far as having a Master on a Bike available to DA Successors only, but I'm undecided on that at the moment.
The upcoming FW book, which expands on the six Wings, could be useful/interesting - we know two of them are in use to the present day, but it'll be interesting to hear about the other four, and maybe why they seem to have faded from view.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Adding in those generic units (Thunderfire, Stormtalon, Stormhawk, Assault and Devastator Centurions, Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans and the Bike Captain - why do other Chapters get one, and not the DA? It wouldn't be hard to give them the <Ravenwing> and Jink rules), it goes to 17/91=~18%
To answer the bit in bold - their "Bike Captain" gets to ride a Jetbike or a Land Speeder, as he is the Master of the Ravenwing...
There's no option for a "generic" Ravenwing Master? Not sure how I feel about that, even in armies with existing canon leaders (Calgar), you can still promote generic characters to those ranks (albeit not when he is present!)
There isn't currently a generic Master of the Ravenwing (on a bike) datasheet, mainly because the Jetbike and Land Speeder are relics that are akin to a badge of office for them (along with his sword, whose name escapes me at present).
Slayer makes an interesting point regarding Successor chapters - I wouldn't necessarily have anything against a Master on a Bike which, through keywords shenanigans, was at least blocked from being fielded at the same time as Sammael (who can basically represent any MotR within the DA across their history). I'd possibly go so far as having a Master on a Bike available to DA Successors only, but I'm undecided on that at the moment.
The upcoming FW book, which expands on the six Wings, could be useful/interesting - we know two of them are in use to the present day, but it'll be interesting to hear about the other four, and maybe why they seem to have faded from view.
You also forget the bike isn't going to be functioning all the time. You mean to tell me that the guy before Sammael died but the Jetbike was perfectly intact with no need for repairs.
GK don't deserve their own dex. GK deserve to be a part of a inquisition dex that includes other forces that can be mixed and matched. They are too specialized a force with too few units to justify being their own entire codex.
Lance845 wrote: GK don't deserve their own dex. GK deserve to be a part of a inquisition dex that includes other forces that can be mixed and matched. They are too specialized a force with too few units to justify being their own entire codex.
Exactly. I'm all for consolidating the dinky Inquisitor codex, Deathwatch, Sisters, and Grey Knights. It would STILL be significantly smaller than the current Marine codex.
Also just because it kinda fits the thread, the Vanguard crap having it's own Warlord traits and Psyker table? Yeah get rid of that bloat.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Adding in those generic units (Thunderfire, Stormtalon, Stormhawk, Assault and Devastator Centurions, Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans and the Bike Captain - why do other Chapters get one, and not the DA? It wouldn't be hard to give them the <Ravenwing> and Jink rules), it goes to 17/91=~18%
To answer the bit in bold - their "Bike Captain" gets to ride a Jetbike or a Land Speeder, as he is the Master of the Ravenwing...
There's no option for a "generic" Ravenwing Master? Not sure how I feel about that, even in armies with existing canon leaders (Calgar), you can still promote generic characters to those ranks (albeit not when he is present!)
There isn't currently a generic Master of the Ravenwing (on a bike) datasheet, mainly because the Jetbike and Land Speeder are relics that are akin to a badge of office for them (along with his sword, whose name escapes me at present).
Slayer makes an interesting point regarding Successor chapters - I wouldn't necessarily have anything against a Master on a Bike which, through keywords shenanigans, was at least blocked from being fielded at the same time as Sammael (who can basically represent any MotR within the DA across their history). I'd possibly go so far as having a Master on a Bike available to DA Successors only, but I'm undecided on that at the moment.
The upcoming FW book, which expands on the six Wings, could be useful/interesting - we know two of them are in use to the present day, but it'll be interesting to hear about the other four, and maybe why they seem to have faded from view.
You also forget the bike isn't going to be functioning all the time. You mean to tell me that the guy before Sammael died but the Jetbike was perfectly intact with no need for repairs.
Um nah I ain't buying that.
As it happens... yes? I think it was covered as a flashback in one of the books in the Legacy of CalibanBL anthology, but off the top of my head I can't remember which one.
Admittedly, I also can't remember how the previous Master died, but I don't think it was artillery or some super-weapon that you'd expect to destroy the bike.
Lance845 wrote: GK don't deserve their own dex. GK deserve to be a part of a inquisition dex that includes other forces that can be mixed and matched. They are too specialized a force with too few units to justify being their own entire codex.
Exactly. I'm all for consolidating the dinky Inquisitor codex, Deathwatch, Sisters, and Grey Knights. It would STILL be significantly smaller than the current Marine codex.
Also just because it kinda fits the thread, the Vanguard crap having it's own Warlord traits and Psyker table? Yeah get rid of that bloat.
Chuck in the assassins and the knights and call it agents of the imperium.
Lance845 wrote: GK don't deserve their own dex. GK deserve to be a part of a inquisition dex that includes other forces that can be mixed and matched. They are too specialized a force with too few units to justify being their own entire codex.
Maybe tyranids don't deserv theirs? Just make them run their models as counts as orks or something. Same with eldar just one codex, no multiple separate books.
Lance845 wrote: GK don't deserve their own dex. GK deserve to be a part of a inquisition dex that includes other forces that can be mixed and matched. They are too specialized a force with too few units to justify being their own entire codex.
Maybe tyranids don't deserv theirs? Just make them run their models as counts as orks or something. Same with eldar just one codex, no multiple separate books.
Were Tyranids and Orks all part of the same organization at one time? No.
Grey Knights were part of the Daemonhunters and the Sisters were part of Witch Hunters, both of which were part of the Inquisition, and they were quite tiny there. They were also doing Allied rules before such concepts were brought in at 6th Edition.
Lance845 wrote: GK don't deserve their own dex. GK deserve to be a part of a inquisition dex that includes other forces that can be mixed and matched. They are too specialized a force with too few units to justify being their own entire codex.
Maybe tyranids don't deserv theirs? Just make them run their models as counts as orks or something. Same with eldar just one codex, no multiple separate books.
The eldar should have 3 books. D eldar. Craftworlds, agents of the eldar that includes harlequins and all the ynarri stuff including how to combine forces from all 3 books under a single banner. Chuck in those dino riding eldar for fun too.
3 books for an entire ancient and split apart race.
As opposed to the imperiums proposed. 1 space marines 2 inquisition, 3 ad mech 4, astra militarum, 5 agents of. 5 books for a single united force.
That's just a symptom of the cycle GW has put themselves in. GW put out a lot of Marine material (models, books, etc), so it sold well. And because it sells well, GW continues to put out more and more material for them. If Eldar got the same attention that Marines got, they'd sell just as well. Same for any Faction.
Lance845 wrote: GK don't deserve their own dex. GK deserve to be a part of a inquisition dex that includes other forces that can be mixed and matched. They are too specialized a force with too few units to justify being their own entire codex.
Exactly. I'm all for consolidating the dinky Inquisitor codex, Deathwatch, Sisters, and Grey Knights. It would STILL be significantly smaller than the current Marine codex.
Also just because it kinda fits the thread, the Vanguard crap having it's own Warlord traits and Psyker table? Yeah get rid of that bloat.
Chuck in the assassins and the knights and call it agents of the imperium.
Assassins yes. Knights need to have a section dedicated to how to switch keywords for using Chaos Knights, so that they get all the same goodies that Loyalist scum get. The Chaos Knight codex as is was a total sham and cash grab reminiscent of the Legion of the Damned "codex" made for 6th edition.
flandarz wrote: That's just a symptom of the cycle GW has put themselves in. GW put out a lot of Marine material (models, books, etc), so it sold well. And because it sells well, GW continues to put out more and more material for them. If Eldar got the same attention that Marines got, they'd sell just as well. Same for any Faction.
That’s debatable. How much is the cycle and how much is Marines being a good seller is debatable.
However, the cycle most certainly EXISTS, it’s just a question of how much.
Lance845 wrote: GK don't deserve their own dex. GK deserve to be a part of a inquisition dex that includes other forces that can be mixed and matched. They are too specialized a force with too few units to justify being their own entire codex.
Maybe tyranids don't deserv theirs? Just make them run their models as counts as orks or something. Same with eldar just one codex, no multiple separate books.
The eldar should have 3 books. D eldar. Craftworlds, agents of the eldar that includes harlequins and all the ynarri stuff including how to combine forces from all 3 books under a single banner. Chuck in those dino riding eldar for fun too.
3 books for an entire ancient and split apart race.
As opposed to the imperiums proposed. 1 space marines 2 inquisition, 3 ad mech 4, astra militarum, 5 agents of. 5 books for a single united force.
Suck it up butter cup.
Eldar just doesn't sell enough. Suck it up.
Pretty sure Sisters of Battle has proven that if they make it, people will buy. It's a self fulfilling prophecy of "we don't sell enough to make more, but people don't buy any because they're old so we don't make more because it doesn't sell etc"
Lance845 wrote: GK don't deserve their own dex. GK deserve to be a part of a inquisition dex that includes other forces that can be mixed and matched. They are too specialized a force with too few units to justify being their own entire codex.
Maybe tyranids don't deserv theirs? Just make them run their models as counts as orks or something. Same with eldar just one codex, no multiple separate books.
The eldar should have 3 books. D eldar. Craftworlds, agents of the eldar that includes harlequins and all the ynarri stuff including how to combine forces from all 3 books under a single banner. Chuck in those dino riding eldar for fun too.
3 books for an entire ancient and split apart race.
As opposed to the imperiums proposed. 1 space marines 2 inquisition, 3 ad mech 4, astra militarum, 5 agents of. 5 books for a single united force.
Suck it up butter cup.
Eldar just doesn't sell enough. Suck it up.
Pretty sure Sisters of Battle has proven that if they make it, people will buy. It's a self fulfilling prophecy of "we don't sell enough to make more, but people don't buy any because they're old so we don't make more because it doesn't sell etc"
Except we don't know how many Sisters force sets were created to be sold. If just 100 were made, for example, then how are we able to be certain it was a great investment?
That's fair, JNA, but I'd say plastering Marines on pretty much everything GW does, giving them the widest range of models, making them the focus of every BL novel, and pushing the narrative that Marines are the defacto protagonists on 40k is certainly a large contributor.
Lance845 wrote: GK don't deserve their own dex. GK deserve to be a part of a inquisition dex that includes other forces that can be mixed and matched. They are too specialized a force with too few units to justify being their own entire codex.
Maybe tyranids don't deserv theirs? Just make them run their models as counts as orks or something. Same with eldar just one codex, no multiple separate books.
Were Tyranids and Orks all part of the same organization at one time? No.
Grey Knights were part of the Daemonhunters and the Sisters were part of Witch Hunters, both of which were part of the Inquisition, and they were quite tiny there. They were also doing Allied rules before such concepts were brought in at 6th Edition.
*cough*
There have been fewer editions without some form of Ally rules than there have been with them. Even excluding DH/WH shenanigans, at a bare minimum 2nd, 6th, 7th & 8th have featured allies, and I think they were a thing in RT too.
Allow for DH & WH as limited allies, and 3rd, 4th and 5th editions have some form of Allies, for some period of time.
Lance845 wrote: GK don't deserve their own dex. GK deserve to be a part of a inquisition dex that includes other forces that can be mixed and matched. They are too specialized a force with too few units to justify being their own entire codex.
Maybe tyranids don't deserv theirs? Just make them run their models as counts as orks or something. Same with eldar just one codex, no multiple separate books.
Were Tyranids and Orks all part of the same organization at one time? No.
Grey Knights were part of the Daemonhunters and the Sisters were part of Witch Hunters, both of which were part of the Inquisition, and they were quite tiny there. They were also doing Allied rules before such concepts were brought in at 6th Edition.
*cough*
There have been fewer editions without some form of Ally rules than there have been with them. Even excluding DH/WH shenanigans, at a bare minimum 2nd, 6th, 7th & 8th have featured allies, and I think they were a thing in RT too.
Allow for DH & WH as limited allies, and 3rd, 4th and 5th editions have some form of Allies, for some period of time.
For the sake of less bloat though, returning to the previous form of codex organization with slightly further consolidation is a good to create less printed material.
Dysartes wrote: There have been fewer editions without some form of Ally rules than there have been with them. Even excluding DH/WH shenanigans, at a bare minimum 2nd, 6th, 7th & 8th have featured allies, and I think they were a thing in RT too.
Allow for DH & WH as limited allies, and 3rd, 4th and 5th editions have some form of Allies, for some period of time.
I've only heard of 2nd Edition through anecdote with the Chaos and Ork codices. Nobody has mentioned allies there (probably because armies were generally smaller), or were Chaos or Orks given the option there. Not to mention, 8th Edition has a closer relationship to 3rd Edition than it does to 2nd, to say nothing of 6th & 7th.
Even from there, I still think that separating out the Inquisition was a "Bad Idea", even if they no longer need to worry about their ally rules to date. Ad Mech I can kind of see keeping separate so long as they were merged with the Knights (being able to be their Troops/LoD for each other, respectively).
I'm not sure what - if any - Ally options Chaos and Orks had, without going and finding my copies of the books.
Another point of inaccuracy from your previous post was that the SoB had always been the Chamber Militant for the Hereticus - in actual fact, they've always been the military arm of the church, not the Inquisition, outside of that one Witchhunters codex, as they were the loophole to get around the restriction the church faces about having "No man under arms", or something like that.
It was only the WH book that pushed them as a Chamber Militant - I'd argue/accept that they often would provide support for Inquisitors, particularly those that go after heretics, but they don't serve them.
Dysartes wrote: Another point of inaccuracy from your previous post was that the SoB had always been the Chamber Militant for the Hereticus - in actual fact, they've always been the military arm of the church, not the Inquisition, outside of that one Witchhunters codex, as they were the loophole to get around the restriction the church faces about having "No man under arms", or something like that.
It was only the WH book that pushed them as a Chamber Militant - I'd argue/accept that they often would provide support for Inquisitors, particularly those that go after heretics, but they don't serve them.
Check what I posted again. The term "always" was not used, just "were"/"was". That is perfectly accurate.
Dysartes wrote: I'm not sure what - if any - Ally options Chaos and Orks had, without going and finding my copies of the books.
Another point of inaccuracy from your previous post was that the SoB had always been the Chamber Militant for the Hereticus - in actual fact, they've always been the military arm of the church, not the Inquisition, outside of that one Witchhunters codex, as they were the loophole to get around the restriction the church faces about having "No man under arms", or something like that.
It was only the WH book that pushed them as a Chamber Militant - I'd argue/accept that they often would provide support for Inquisitors, particularly those that go after heretics, but they don't serve them.
What the actual organization is for the Sisters is irrelevant. What IS relevant is previous organization of the codices.
Dysartes wrote: I'm not sure what - if any - Ally options Chaos and Orks had, without going and finding my copies of the books.
Another point of inaccuracy from your previous post was that the SoB had always been the Chamber Militant for the Hereticus - in actual fact, they've always been the military arm of the church, not the Inquisition, outside of that one Witchhunters codex, as they were the loophole to get around the restriction the church faces about having "No man under arms", or something like that.
It was only the WH book that pushed them as a Chamber Militant - I'd argue/accept that they often would provide support for Inquisitors, particularly those that go after heretics, but they don't serve them.
What the actual organization is for the Sisters is irrelevant. What IS relevant is previous organization of the codices.
I would say thats not really important either. Whats REALLY important is what makes the most sense right NOW.
GK are falling behind with too few units and too specialized options. They don't fit with the rest of the SM and they don't have enough to sustain their own book. They fit in perfectly with the inquisition and other agents of the imperium. They have a place, it's just not their own book.
All of the factions that are even MOAR marines are ridiculous. Marines are already ridiculous, but the GK and DW are beyond the pale. DW and GK jobs should just be done by marines. I don't think DW or GK should exist.
Martel732 wrote: All of the factions that are even MOAR marines are ridiculous. Marines are already ridiculous, but the GK and DW are beyond the pale. DW and GK jobs should just be done by marines. I don't think DW or GK should exist.
I can see the argument on your side for Deathwatch stuff (and honestly I'm for removing the Primaris stuff from them for better tracking and balancing of rules for a consolidated Inquisition I've bee. talking about), but GKs are a whole different matter. They're definitely something that can't be replicated compared to the "unqiue" crap that the Angels have or even the Space Wolves.
I don't care if they can be replicated. All the "moar elite than the marines" factions are too stupid to live. Marines are already mary sue elite. IG hunt demons just fine with artillery. There's nothing even special about the GK mechanically vs demons that really makes them stand out. IH are much better at hunting everything. I don't want GK consolidated, I want them squatted along with DW.
Lance845 wrote:I would say thats not really important either. Whats REALLY important is what makes the most sense right NOW.
GK are falling behind with too few units and too specialized options. They don't fit with the rest of the SM and they don't have enough to sustain their own book. They fit in perfectly with the inquisition and other agents of the imperium. They have a place, it's just not their own book.
*cough* Knights *cough*
Martel732 wrote:I don't care if they can be replicated. All the "moar elite than the marines" factions are too stupid to live. Marines are already mary sue elite. IG hunt demons just fine with artillery. There's nothing even special about the GK mechanically vs demons that really makes them stand out. IH are much better at hunting everything. I don't want GK consolidated, I want them squatted along with DW.
Do you want that many Force Weapons opened up to the Ultramarines?
If GW wants such a specialized force of Marines, that's understandable, but it does make more sense to have them just as compartmentalized instead of their own independent force. Keeping them in the Inquisition makes organizational sense, even now.
GK Force Weapons are something of a weird relic. Initially force weapons were dedicated anti-daemon weapons in earlier editions. Eventually as editions came and went, the mechanics changed to "insta-kill big beasty things with a pyschic test" power weapons (which didn't ignore invul saves and Daemons were immune to ID, ironically making Force Weapons utterly pointless against Daemons), and now they're just multidamage power weapons that aren't particularly specialized at anything but hit harder than a typical power sword or the like.
That said, GK's really should be part of a combined Inquisition book, they're the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Malleus, having them gallavant around on their own is a bit silly. From GW's "we don't make a game for competitions but instead narrative gameplay" they should be murder on Chaos stuff and psykers, and out of their element against other foes.
Martel732 wrote: I don't care if they can be replicated. All the "moar elite than the marines" factions are too stupid to live. Marines are already mary sue elite. IG hunt demons just fine with artillery. There's nothing even special about the GK mechanically vs demons that really makes them stand out. IH are much better at hunting everything. I don't want GK consolidated, I want them squatted along with DW.
I hate snowflake marines just as much as the next guy but...GK are the most unique space marine chapter and they are special. The are immune to the taint of the warp. I'd be totally fine with them just being choices inside an inquisition codex though.
I'd like to see something between guardsmen and marines. Like maybe guardsmen in power armor ala starcraft marines. The game focus too much on imperial elites already. There aren't enough marines to appear in even 1% of the battles. They shouldn't be a focus.
BA should probably be squatted too by the bugs. That bit of fanfiction, what I read of it, was absurd.
Martel732 wrote: I'd like to see something between guardsmen and marines. Like maybe guardsmen in power armor ala starcraft marines. The game focus too much on imperial elites already. There aren't enough marines to appear in even 1% of the battles. They shouldn't be a focus.
BA should probably be squatted too by the bugs. That bit of fanfiction, what I read of it, was absurd.
I mean fully fleshed out armies with model lines like space marines. For as few marines as GW claims there are, they would not have the insane variety of units and equipment.
My primary solution is chop a lot of marine power armor out of the game. Like killing off BA completely with the bugs. And get rid of SW because SW.
Martel732 wrote: I mean fully fleshed out armies with model lines like space marines.
What part of the Sisters range isn't fully fleshed out? (obviously talking about in early 2020, when their army is finally given the multipart plastic kit treatment).
And I'd say the Scions have a fleshed out list, maybe not a Marine levels, but then hardly ANY factions are at Marine levels, except maybe Chaos Space Marines - they have leaders, infantry, both ground and aerial vehicles, and even support units. Who cares if they don't have dedicated Heavy Supports and Fast Attacks?
I left out some of the somewhat redundant groups, but as we can see, most of the Xenos don't even match half of what Space Marines carry. Obviously, this doesn't count data sheet entries, as many of those kits are to be used for multiple sheets, but it still gives one some perspective. Even if we combined both Sisters, Assassins, Grey Knights, and Deathwatch in to one codex, we still end up with the number of kits being far fewer than Space Marines (and that's even doubling up on things like Rhinos and Razorbacks and multiple Inquisitor models).
Lance845 wrote: I look forward to the eventual old marine purge. Primaris only here we come. The sm line will be greatly reduced soon enough.
What if they don't purge them completely, but lock them in to one specific codex, like say, Crimson Fists, Black Templars, or even Dark Angels, and everyone else goes Primaris?
Heck, just the idea of how to fit Primaris in to Deathwing and Ravenwing boggles my mind at the moment. They'd really have to be unique at this point. Of course we could be looking at melee Gravis and Phobos Bikers for the first time, too.
Lance845 wrote: I look forward to the eventual old marine purge. Primaris only here we come. The sm line will be greatly reduced soon enough.
What if they don't purge them completely, but lock them in to one specific codex, like say, Crimson Fists, Black Templars, or even Dark Angels, and everyone else goes Primaris?
Heck, just the idea of how to fit Primaris in to Deathwing and Ravenwing boggles my mind at the moment. They'd really have to be unique at this point. Of course we could be looking at melee Gravis and Phobos Bikers for the first time, too.
Any thought that old marines are not being squatted is delusional at this point. Primaris hover bikes will come out. A gun ship will come out. Melee gravis will exist. There is zero reason to not primaris everything and replace the old line. They are already doing it. As the named characters get replaced with primaris versions its just a done deal.
You know that legacy site they made? Old marines are gunna end up there at the start of next edition. Sure, you can still "play them". But they won't receive updates and won't be considered when balancing the game and moving forward.
Charistoph wrote: Heck, just the idea of how to fit Primaris in to Deathwing and Ravenwing boggles my mind at the moment.
Why? If I'm not mistaken, surely they only need to be very well trusted Dark Angels and get keep up with the general mission premise of their Firstborn brothers? We're at a point where a newly made Primaris Space Marine could well have worked up the ranks and been inducted into one of the Wings purely on merit - just like any other Battle Brother, without the fear of "they're just a green Ultramarine!"
If that were the case, I don't see why Aggressor Squads couldn't function in the Deathwing, or things like Impulsors, Repulsors, or Repulsor Executioners couldn't fit in the Ravenwing as skimmers (obviously if they do any Primaris Bikes of some kind, they would obviously be a perfect fit).
Charistoph wrote: Heck, just the idea of how to fit Primaris in to Deathwing and Ravenwing boggles my mind at the moment.
Why? If I'm not mistaken, surely they only need to be very well trusted Dark Angels and get keep up with the general mission premise of their Firstborn brothers? We're at a point where a newly made Primaris Space Marine could well have worked up the ranks and been inducted into one of the Wings purely on merit - just like any other Battle Brother, without the fear of "they're just a green Ultramarine!"
If that were the case, I don't see why Aggressor Squads couldn't function in the Deathwing, or things like Impulsors, Repulsors, or Repulsor Executioners couldn't fit in the Ravenwing as skimmers (obviously if they do any Primaris Bikes of some kind, they would obviously be a perfect fit).
Also, the Rubicron Primaris allows regular marines to become primaris marines. The inner circle and the wings could just BECOME primaris marines instead of newly created primaris working their way up the ranks.
Lance845 wrote:Any thought that old marines are not being squatted is delusional at this point. Primaris hover bikes will come out. A gun ship will come out. Melee gravis will exist. There is zero reason to not primaris everything and replace the old line. They are already doing it. As the named characters get replaced with primaris versions its just a done deal.
You know that legacy site they made? Old marines are gunna end up there at the start of next edition. Sure, you can still "play them". But they won't receive updates and won't be considered when balancing the game and moving forward.
We've seen them do crazier and more stupid actions in their business than not squat a series of models, especially ones that have brought a lot of profit in the past. Of course, they've squatted stuff that would have been fine, they just quit supporting them, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy in dropping them for cause.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Why? If I'm not mistaken, surely they only need to be very well trusted Dark Angels and get keep up with the general mission premise of their Firstborn brothers? We're at a point where a newly made Primaris Space Marine could well have worked up the ranks and been inducted into one of the Wings purely on merit - just like any other Battle Brother, without the fear of "they're just a green Ultramarine!"
If that were the case, I don't see why Aggressor Squads couldn't function in the Deathwing, or things like Impulsors, Repulsors, or Repulsor Executioners couldn't fit in the Ravenwing as skimmers (obviously if they do any Primaris Bikes of some kind, they would obviously be a perfect fit).
Because I was looking at their current kit and how they function and how it doesn't quite match the current base Deathwing Squad setup. Honestly, going just Agressors would be a reason to ditch Deathwing as a reason to keep Dark Angels as their own codex. They made those Knights as a reason to justify their own codex. We may see Gravis Deathwing Knights come out and be an Angels exclusive, along with those Phobos Bikes I mentioned (too bad you cut my quote off early, or you may have remembered that). Tacticus Bikes would be the realm of the mainline codex and not available to the Angels.
ne" on a unit, you could, you know, put "Limit
jk
