I was going to agree with you, but upon second thought, I actually don't think I do.
Weapons, and particular the type of a cc weapon are one of the more defining visual characteristics of a character, and so people like to have discrete options there. I mean, I get the "power weapon is a power weapon" thing from 3rd and 4th too. But I think having interesting options to give your hero is ultimately good.
The problem is that they're ultimately not actually that interesting, "wound you on 4's and you save on 6's vs wound you on 3's and you save on 5's vs the option you're never going to take because it's objectively inferior to the other two" isn't really worth splitting out into separate options, especially when most characters only have few attacks and may only swing once or twice a game. Yes there are circumstances in which the differences can be made more profound, but they're still niche enough to not really justify needing the different types power weapons.
Ah, but my argument isn't really about the utility of the options. It's about the experience of explicitly defining your characters image. I agree that the actual in-game difference is minimal, and could easily just be "power weapon". But I think giving the player the explicit choice is honestly more "choice for the sake of choice", and I think in some places that's justified.
I know, it's weird. This is coming from my experience with customization in video games though, in which cosmetics are literally doing nothing, and people still love having the explicit choice of customizing their stuff.
If it were just Characters, I might agree, but such options aren't limited to just Characters, but often are made available to entire units, even units that are Troops in many armies. There can be multiple different kinds of melee weapons, Character's have always had several options, stuff like Powerfists and Lightning Claws, that offered radically different and much more meaningful options and flavor, without needing to care about exactly what form the blade or head of the weapon took. I think getting into whether someone is wielding a sword vs an axe is pretty pointless in a game where they may be facing a tank company as easily as a lance of BattleMechs or a horde of gibbering nightmares that aren't wearing armor anyway.
EDIT: also, personally at least, I'm a much greater fan of just being able to stick whatever I think looks coolest on and not have to deal with the micro-minuatae of "well, this edition X are better, I should break Y off and convert it to an X" or "hrm, I need to cut 1pt somewhere but the only way to do that is to exchange Weapon A for Weapon B because they're now slightly different costs for something that makes minimal difference on the table but will require spending the time to convert the model" or even worse "welp, looks like the Z option I built the model with is no longer legal..."
Also for reference we did get a generic version of a datasheet and nobody complained. Remember when everyone wanted their own Scout Captain that operated like Tellion? We got the Phobos Captain, and literally none of the Ultramarines players had their world's collapse.
I was going to agree with you, but upon second thought, I actually don't think I do.
Weapons, and particular the type of a cc weapon are one of the more defining visual characteristics of a character, and so people like to have discrete options there. I mean, I get the "power weapon is a power weapon" thing from 3rd and 4th too. But I think having interesting options to give your hero is ultimately good.
The problem is that they're ultimately not actually that interesting, "wound you on 4's and you save on 6's vs wound you on 3's and you save on 5's vs the option you're never going to take because it's objectively inferior to the other two" isn't really worth splitting out into separate options, especially when most characters only have few attacks and may only swing once or twice a game. Yes there are circumstances in which the differences can be made more profound, but they're still niche enough to not really justify needing the different types power weapons.
Ah, but my argument isn't really about the utility of the options. It's about the experience of explicitly defining your characters image. I agree that the actual in-game difference is minimal, and could easily just be "power weapon". But I think giving the player the explicit choice is honestly more "choice for the sake of choice", and I think in some places that's justified.
I know, it's weird. This is coming from my experience with customization in video games though, in which cosmetics are literally doing nothing, and people still love having the explicit choice of customizing their stuff.
But nobody is saying get rid of the bits. In fact we are saying use even more bits to represent that power weapon however you want to add individual flavor. Want it to be a Halberd? Do that. Want a giant claymore? Do that. Want a little gladius? Go nuts. It's not the cosmetic options that are being proposed to be consolidated. In fact they are being proposed to be opened up. It's the stats that need to be consolidated.
SecondTime wrote: We had one table flip and four quits over just conscript armies in 8th ed. I told the guy don't play the other guy with your conscript army, but he wouldn't listen...
Letting that get through testing (among other things) is why I don't give them many props for 8th.
damn, you werent kidding when you said your store was toxic.
SecondTime wrote: We had one table flip and four quits over just conscript armies in 8th ed. I told the guy don't play the other guy with your conscript army, but he wouldn't listen...
Letting that get through testing (among other things) is why I don't give them many props for 8th.
damn, you werent kidding when you said your store was toxic.
Why shouldn't someone be able to play their Conscript army though?
SecondTime wrote: We had one table flip and four quits over just conscript armies in 8th ed. I told the guy don't play the other guy with your conscript army, but he wouldn't listen...
Letting that get through testing (among other things) is why I don't give them many props for 8th.
damn, you werent kidding when you said your store was toxic.
Why shouldn't someone be able to play their Conscript army though?
never said they shouldn't, but flipping a table or quitting a game just because of the list your opponent brought is pretty toxic imo.
Ive seen plenty of complaining online about certain armies (''ill just refuse to play against marines'') but ive never actually seen someone act on it.
I was going to agree with you, but upon second thought, I actually don't think I do.
Weapons, and particular the type of a cc weapon are one of the more defining visual characteristics of a character, and so people like to have discrete options there. I mean, I get the "power weapon is a power weapon" thing from 3rd and 4th too. But I think having interesting options to give your hero is ultimately good.
The problem is that they're ultimately not actually that interesting, "wound you on 4's and you save on 6's vs wound you on 3's and you save on 5's vs the option you're never going to take because it's objectively inferior to the other two" isn't really worth splitting out into separate options, especially when most characters only have few attacks and may only swing once or twice a game. Yes there are circumstances in which the differences can be made more profound, but they're still niche enough to not really justify needing the different types power weapons.
Ah, but my argument isn't really about the utility of the options. It's about the experience of explicitly defining your characters image. I agree that the actual in-game difference is minimal, and could easily just be "power weapon". But I think giving the player the explicit choice is honestly more "choice for the sake of choice", and I think in some places that's justified.
I know, it's weird. This is coming from my experience with customization in video games though, in which cosmetics are literally doing nothing, and people still love having the explicit choice of customizing their stuff.
If it were just Characters, I might agree, but such options aren't limited to just Characters, but often are made available to entire units, even units that are Troops in many armies. There can be multiple different kinds of melee weapons, Character's have always had several options, stuff like Powerfists and Lightning Claws, that offered radically different and much more meaningful options and flavor, without needing to care about exactly what form the blade or head of the weapon took. I think getting into whether someone is wielding a sword vs an axe is pretty pointless in a game where they may be facing a tank company as easily as a lance of BattleMechs or a horde of gibbering nightmares that aren't wearing armor anyway.
EDIT: also, personally at least, I'm a much greater fan of just being able to stick whatever I think looks coolest on and not have to deal with the micro-minuatae of "well, this edition X are better, I should break Y off and convert it to an X" or "hrm, I need to cut 1pt somewhere but the only way to do that is to exchange Weapon A for Weapon B because they're now slightly different costs for something that makes minimal difference on the table but will require spending the time to convert the model" or even worse "welp, looks like the Z option I built the model with is no longer legal..."
I 100% get your position, I just think that there's a critical mass of fans that actively get something out of that stuff, and it largely doesn't impact the game in a bad way. Also, smaller games can be played that aren't company sized, and it's ok to have a little more texture.
The bloat of Bolt weapons though? I could go on all day about that $%#.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Like, did you forget about all the complainers about modifiers to begin with? We're now at the pendulum balance of nothing over -1 to hit because GW is infinitely wise.
On a larger scale you can create more granularity with -1 to hit Eldar and then the extra sneaky ones after that with an additional -1 to hit. Modifiers themselves aren't a problem, but they are on the D6 no matter how many people say "Oh you can get the same effect....", except not without a bunch of garbage Dakka×3 on a BS5+ becoming basically almost BS4+. Is it terribly necessary?
The scheme you were replying to would provide more granularity than straight penalties on a higher die count.
You keep tilting at this dice granularity windmill because you're trying to solve these problems in the sort of clunky way GW does it. There are many, many, many ways to affect a die roll besides a base value and layered bonuses/penalties, let alone effecting the desired outcome without modeling it as a die roll modifier.
I was going to agree with you, but upon second thought, I actually don't think I do.
Weapons, and particular the type of a cc weapon are one of the more defining visual characteristics of a character, and so people like to have discrete options there. I mean, I get the "power weapon is a power weapon" thing from 3rd and 4th too. But I think having interesting options to give your hero is ultimately good.
The problem is that they're ultimately not actually that interesting, "wound you on 4's and you save on 6's vs wound you on 3's and you save on 5's vs the option you're never going to take because it's objectively inferior to the other two" isn't really worth splitting out into separate options, especially when most characters only have few attacks and may only swing once or twice a game. Yes there are circumstances in which the differences can be made more profound, but they're still niche enough to not really justify needing the different types power weapons.
Ah, but my argument isn't really about the utility of the options. It's about the experience of explicitly defining your characters image. I agree that the actual in-game difference is minimal, and could easily just be "power weapon". But I think giving the player the explicit choice is honestly more "choice for the sake of choice", and I think in some places that's justified.
I know, it's weird. This is coming from my experience with customization in video games though, in which cosmetics are literally doing nothing, and people still love having the explicit choice of customizing their stuff.
I see your point, but I think your example works against your argument: Videogame cosmetics offer you the opportunity to change your appearance without affecting stats, allowing players to customize to their heart's content. When those cosmetics are tied to ingame stats, though, then you get the 'but the stats are great' hodgepodge that everyone admits looks awful but is necessary for ingame performance. And then you have to decide between looking cool or having a gear combo that actually works, and that's no fun.
The old power weapon rules, if we're using that as an example, let you customize your model pretty much however you wanted. Does he have a melee weapon of some variety with electrical bits on it? Cool, power weapon. Is it ornate? Cool, master-crafted. Go nuts.
I can't remember who it was that brought up the Horus Heresy in one of these discussions, but it's a great example of how this choice goes- the weapons are pretty similar, but the power axe is objectively the best. If you want your character to be a fencer or knight and give him a power sword, you're actively choosing a suboptimal weapon and get penalized for it. So everyone in the Heresy is running around with an axe because it's the best, and your cosmetic choices are curtailed.
I'm not saying we should have generic profiles with no choices, but the choices should be about battlefield purpose and capability. Taking 3rd-5th as an example, choosing between footslogging, a jump pack, or a bike was significant- and you were free to model your jump pack as wings, or your bike as a dinosaur mount or centaur body or whatever. Choosing between a CCW, a power weapon, or a power fist was also significant, and all three offered a lot of flexibility in modeling. In 9th, choosing between a power sword, axe, or maul isn't much of a choice; they all do the same thing, one's generally the best, and you're locked into strict WYSIWYG.
Edit: To be clear, like I said in an earlier post I am totally cool with that level of granularity for a small-scale game like Kill Team, where those sorts of differences matter in personal combat. At the scale of a company-sized engagement, the broader picture of what capabilities are enabled by the wargear is more important.
^I disagree about the game customization thing. If you raise the action by one abstraction level, the point is that theres a "push button" choice to interact with, and the game value or lack thereof is beside the point. Choosing the type of power weapon is essentially a cosmetic choice in the grand scheme of the game, but only providing an infinitely mutable "power weapon" item actually denies you the act of explicit choice for your character.
I understand that's a little counterintuitive, but does the argument make sense? The fact that you can model whatever you want is separate. It takes a while and you gotta paint stuff and you have to really commit to a model to actually achieve your aesthetic goal. The choice of power weapon interaction is more focused on character building at the listbuilding stage, as listbuilding is it's own major point of engagement to the hobby.
It only makes sense if both there are no other options but power weapons and the weapons themselves are distinct enough to fufill distinct roles. Neither of those things are true.
The choice of power weapon generally is all going after the same target and one of those power weapons are going them better then the others. Something else like a powerfist shifts your optimal target to a different band of targets. Choosing between power weapon and power fist is an actual choice that optimizes your loadout for different jobs. A sword or a mace? No.
Lance845 wrote: It only makes sense if both there are no other options but power weapons and the weapons themselves are distinct enough to fufill distinct roles. Neither of those things are true.
The choice of power weapon generally is all going after the same target and one of those power weapons are going them better then the others. Something else like a powerfist shifts your optimal target to a different band of targets. Choosing between power weapon and power fist is an actual choice that optimizes your loadout for different jobs. A sword or a mace? No.
Vaktathi wrote:I never found generic power weapons to be flavorless or an issue in that regard, especially when most of the non-powered equivalents weren't differentiated, and I much preferred just being able to stick whatever weapon I thought looked coolest on instead of having to worry about which weapons did what and what weapon combo is now illegal or underpowered and whatnot.
Absolutely. I hold my hands up that I was initially very excited about different weapon profiles, but seeing what it ended up doing (causing everyone to use axes because they were the strongest option in most circumstances) put me off that.
People should be taking axes because axes look cool. Not scouring for axeheads because they'll give you a gameplay advantage on Sergeant #3. Without a gameplay reason to incentivise certain choices, you're giving that freedom of representation to the player.
Plus, think about the options that opens up - now with all these Primaris heroes with their new "power WEAPONS", you now have explicit support for customising your Captains, Librarians, Bladeguard, Judicars, etc etc with things that AREN'T swords! Maces, axes, halberds, lances, flails, etc
Lance845 wrote:But nobody is saying get rid of the bits. In fact we are saying use even more bits to represent that power weapon however you want to add individual flavor. Want it to be a Halberd? Do that. Want a giant claymore? Do that. Want a little gladius? Go nuts. It's not the cosmetic options that are being proposed to be consolidated. In fact they are being proposed to be opened up. It's the stats that need to be consolidated.
Vaktathi wrote:I never found generic power weapons to be flavorless or an issue in that regard, especially when most of the non-powered equivalents weren't differentiated, and I much preferred just being able to stick whatever weapon I thought looked coolest on instead of having to worry about which weapons did what and what weapon combo is now illegal or underpowered and whatnot.
Absolutely. I hold my hands up that I was initially very excited about different weapon profiles, but seeing what it ended up doing (causing everyone to use axes because they were the strongest option in most circumstances) put me off that.
People should be taking axes because axes look cool. Not scouring for axeheads because they'll give you a gameplay advantage on Sergeant #3. Without a gameplay reason to incentivise certain choices, you're giving that freedom of representation to the player.
Plus, think about the options that opens up - now with all these Primaris heroes with their new "power WEAPONS", you now have explicit support for customising your Captains, Librarians, Bladeguard, Judicars, etc etc with things that AREN'T swords! Maces, axes, halberds, lances, flails, etc
Lance845 wrote:But nobody is saying get rid of the bits. In fact we are saying use even more bits to represent that power weapon however you want to add individual flavor. Want it to be a Halberd? Do that. Want a giant claymore? Do that. Want a little gladius? Go nuts. It's not the cosmetic options that are being proposed to be consolidated. In fact they are being proposed to be opened up. It's the stats that need to be consolidated.
Exactly.
funny you mention primaris as primaris with their more restricted loadouts come out ahead that way. model a primaris captain with an axe and it's not a boig deal because it's weapon will be treated like a sword etc. it's lead to some fun conversions out there that I've seen
BrianDavion wrote: funny you mention primaris as primaris with their more restricted loadouts come out ahead that way.
Only if you KNOW that a Primaris Captain can't have a power axe.
If someone didn't have that knowledge, they might see a Primaris Captain with a power maul and assume that they were actually armed with that weapon. I'm totally on board with how the Captain has a mono-loadout, but it shouldn't be called "power sword" or "master-crafted power sword". It should be "power weapon".
So, in concept, the Captain does a great job, but it'd be even easier if they just used a generic "power weapon" stat.
model a primaris captain with an axe and it's not a boig deal because it's weapon will be treated like a sword etc. it's lead to some fun conversions out there that I've seen
Again - it's not a big deal after you explain how it's a proxy - like how I could model a Tactical Marine with a giant sniper rifle, and say it's a count-as lascannon to represent it's single shot strength - but it doesn't change how there's initial confusion for someone not familiar with what you're doing.
Whereas a simple "power weapon" stat means that ANY power weapon has the same stats, not needing to worry about what you're trying to proxy it as. Or, what about cases of models which have a partially limited power weapon selection - such as Sororitas Sister Superiors, who have access to both power mauls and swords, but not axes. If I assemble one with an axe, how can I expect someone to understand what I'm doing?
Lance845 wrote: I understood it. I was saying that having 3 weapons that do the same job but one does it better isnt a choice. Its the illusion of choice.
But having 3 gives you a bigger chance that when ever GW rewrites the rules for them one of the weapons may get a good rule set. Or if a nerf comes in to a specific weapon type, often not even caused by your army, you can switch to something that maybe at least costs fewer points.
If all weapons have the same rule and GW decides that nemezis weapons should be bad, then all the melee you pay points for is bad, and there is zero chance for it to be fixed till two years later considering the speed with GW produces and rethinks updates.
It also doesn't cover the different interactions. heavy version of bolt weapons may be bad for an army like white scars or SW that try to get as close as possible, but it is not going to be bad for armies that do not want to engage in melee. Same with with assault versions of bolt weapons.
BA players with their buff to wounding maybe don't want to buy fists or hammers for their sgts, like every other chapter that does melee. So cheaper power weapons are better for them. The thing about options being an illusion is only true if someone thinks that all marines are more or less the same army, that all play the same way.
model a primaris captain with an axe and it's not a boig deal because it's weapon will be treated like a sword etc
only it is not GW seems to be thinking about the game, as a gravis captin and a gravis captin with a long range gun are two separate entries in the SM codex for 9th ed. Same with chaplains and chaplains on bikes etc
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion 793401 10975540 wrote:
funny you mention primaris as primaris with their more restricted loadouts come out ahead that way. model a primaris captain with an axe and it's not a boig deal because it's weapon will be treated like a sword etc. it's lead to some fun conversions out there that I've seen
until GW decides to give a powerful relic or weapon option to your army, and suddenly the cool ax is a thunder hammer or powerfist in some games. And at best it just allows people to make mistakes giving gear to units that can't take it, and worse it lets people play dumb when they cheat on unit load outs.
EDIT: also, personally at least, I'm a much greater fan of just being able to stick whatever I think looks coolest on and not have to deal with the micro-minuatae of "well, this edition X are better, I should break Y off and convert it to an X" or "hrm, I need to cut 1pt somewhere but the only way to do that is to exchange Weapon A for Weapon B because they're now slightly different costs for something that makes minimal difference on the table but will require spending the time to convert the model" or even worse "welp, looks like the Z option I built the model with is no longer legal..."
I'm a fan of playing with the models I have, with the loadout I gave them. If what I modeled is not the most effective combination of options at the moment, amen, I couldn't care less. I'd rather have 3 slightly different options with X being the best take in 7th, Y in 8th, and W in 9th than a single Z option.
For example I'm cool with claws, swords, axes, fists and hammers, and I'd hate to see them reduced to just 1-2 options.
Lance845 wrote: I understood it. I was saying that having 3 weapons that do the same job but one does it better isnt a choice. Its the illusion of choice.
Negative, because
A: The power weapon choices could be better balanced.
B: Upgrade potential for the weapons can be different.
C: There is still potential for different power weapons to be better against different targets.
D: Some people will still choose aesthetics over function.
E: Even if one choice is "obvious" a mechanical choice is still there.
Not really my original point, but just tangentially:
Going back to older editions, during 2nd a sword allowed you to force a reroll of an opponents attack dice, making it a more defensive weapon. If we used the old Wound charts, a Power Maul would wound T4 on a 2+. There's two options for equalizing the power weapons instead of having "auto-axe". Also, when a pistol anc CC weapon gave a model an extra attack, it helped balance with Lightning Claws as they would only gain a second attack if they were paired with another Lightning Claw.
Lance845 wrote: I understood it. I was saying that having 3 weapons that do the same job but one does it better isnt a choice. Its the illusion of choice.
Negative, because
A: The power weapon choices could be better balanced.
B: Upgrade potential for the weapons can be different.
C: There is still potential for different power weapons to be better against different targets.
D: Some people will still choose aesthetics over function.
E: Even if one choice is "obvious" a mechanical choice is still there.
Not really my original point, but just tangentially:
Going back to older editions, during 2nd a sword allowed you to force a reroll of an opponents attack dice, making it a more defensive weapon. If we used the old Wound charts, a Power Maul would wound T4 on a 2+. There's two options for equalizing the power weapons instead of having "auto-axe". Also, when a pistol anc CC weapon gave a model an extra attack, it helped balance with Lightning Claws as they would only gain a second attack if they were paired with another Lightning Claw.
Your memory is hilarious. Nobody was taking dual Lightning Claws over the AP2 of the Axe, and Mauls were so much cheaper than the Claws even those were taken more.
Lance845 wrote: I understood it. I was saying that having 3 weapons that do the same job but one does it better isnt a choice. Its the illusion of choice.
Negative, because
A: The power weapon choices could be better balanced.
1) Debatable. 2) It's not JUST the power weapon options. As I showed in my example with the tyranid warrior the design space is limited. We are not just talking about units that get access to a single power weapon or only the 3 power weapons but units that get access to the 3 power weapons a relic blade power fist etc etc...
EACH option on that datasheet should be filling a niche. And if you start spreading the power weapons out to fill different niches then they start consuming the design space of the other options on the datasheet. This isn't JUST about power weapons. It's about cleaning up the wargear options for the entire army so that the datasheets have actual options across the entire spectrum.
B: Upgrade potential for the weapons can be different.
I am happy to see your proposal for this. Not just the power weapons though. What is the SM data sheet that has the most options for melee weapons including multiple power weapon profiles? Give me a break down of each of it's options and their primary targets (MEQ/TEQ/Monsters/Light vehicles etc..) and show me how you would adjust all the profiles for every weapon so that they each fulfill a role without making something else useless.
C: There is still potential for different power weapons to be better against different targets.
Not when you start factoring in all the other SM wargear.
D: Some people will still choose aesthetics over function.
It's possible. Probable even. Some people absolutely gimp themselves for aesthetics. But that is not an argument about balance and what I am arguing is balance and design.
E: Even if one choice is "obvious" a mechanical choice is still there.
The illusion of choice is still there. If the choice isn't meaningful then it's not actually a choice.
Not really my original point, but just tangentially:
Going back to older editions, during 2nd a sword allowed you to force a reroll of an opponents attack dice, making it a more defensive weapon. If we used the old Wound charts, a Power Maul would wound T4 on a 2+. There's two options for equalizing the power weapons instead of having "auto-axe". Also, when a pistol anc CC weapon gave a model an extra attack, it helped balance with Lightning Claws as they would only gain a second attack if they were paired with another Lightning Claw.
We won't be using the old wound charts. I am glad you are looking back at old editions and saying how these things functioned mechanically under an entirely different rule set. That is very relevant.
Your memory is hilarious. Nobody was taking dual Lightning Claws over the AP2 of the Axe, and Mauls were so much cheaper than the Claws even those were taken more.
Totally incorrect post, but it's nice of you to support the fact that Axes weren't "auto take" anyways.
Lance845 wrote: I understood it. I was saying that having 3 weapons that do the same job but one does it better isnt a choice. Its the illusion of choice.
Negative, because
A: The power weapon choices could be better balanced.
1) Debatable. 2) It's not JUST the power weapon options. As I showed in my example with the tyranid warrior the design space is limited. We are not just talking about units that get access to a single power weapon or only the 3 power weapons but units that get access to the 3 power weapons a relic blade power fist etc etc...
EACH option on that datasheet should be filling a niche. And if you start spreading the power weapons out to fill different niches then they start consuming the design space of the other options on the datasheet. This isn't JUST about power weapons. It's about cleaning up the wargear options for the entire army so that the datasheets have actual options across the entire spectrum.
B: Upgrade potential for the weapons can be different.
I am happy to see your proposal for this. Not just the power weapons though. What is the SM data sheet that has the most options for melee weapons including multiple power weapon profiles? Give me a break down of each of it's options and their primary targets (MEQ/TEQ/Monsters/Light vehicles etc..) and show me how you would adjust all the profiles for every weapon so that they each fulfill a role without making something else useless.
C: There is still potential for different power weapons to be better against different targets.
Not when you start factoring in all the other SM wargear.
D: Some people will still choose aesthetics over function.
It's possible. Probable even. Some people absolutely gimp themselves for aesthetics. But that is not an argument about balance and what I am arguing is balance and design.
E: Even if one choice is "obvious" a mechanical choice is still there.
The illusion of choice is still there. If the choice isn't meaningful then it's not actually a choice.
Not really my original point, but just tangentially:
Going back to older editions, during 2nd a sword allowed you to force a reroll of an opponents attack dice, making it a more defensive weapon. If we used the old Wound charts, a Power Maul would wound T4 on a 2+. There's two options for equalizing the power weapons instead of having "auto-axe". Also, when a pistol anc CC weapon gave a model an extra attack, it helped balance with Lightning Claws as they would only gain a second attack if they were paired with another Lightning Claw.
We won't be using the old wound charts. I am glad you are looking back at old editions and saying how these things functioned mechanically under an entirely different rule set. That is very relevant.
100% disingenuuous post not worth spending time on.
If your argument is that different weapons can't possibly be better against different targets, and we should never bother looking at older editions for examples of balancing techniques, there's really no point in engaging.
Cool. I am so glad that your answer to providing evidence is either "No." or "Back when there was a different wound chart and pistols functioned entirely differently things were different"
EDIT: also, personally at least, I'm a much greater fan of just being able to stick whatever I think looks coolest on and not have to deal with the micro-minuatae of "well, this edition X are better, I should break Y off and convert it to an X" or "hrm, I need to cut 1pt somewhere but the only way to do that is to exchange Weapon A for Weapon B because they're now slightly different costs for something that makes minimal difference on the table but will require spending the time to convert the model" or even worse "welp, looks like the Z option I built the model with is no longer legal..."
I'm a fan of playing with the models I have, with the loadout I gave them. If what I modeled is not the most effective combination of options at the moment, amen, I couldn't care less. I'd rather have 3 slightly different options with X being the best take in 7th, Y in 8th, and W in 9th than a single Z option.
For example I'm cool with claws, swords, axes, fists and hammers, and I'd hate to see them reduced to just 1-2 options.
Why? What value is actually added except extra pagespace taken up? Especially when most of the time most of the options will be functionally identical and you'll have either one clear standout best or worst option otherwise, that to me is just an illusion of choice, not actually anything meaningful or relevant.
More to the point, the way GW executed them doesnt even make sense. The mace should be the anti armor weapon, swords and axes historically are garbage at defeating armor, and were for fighting soft targets, maces and hammers and picks were historical weapons for defeating armor, but GWs rules work pretty much the exact opposite way
Lightning claws or Powerfists make sense to differentiate. An axe from a sword is getting into details even many RPGs dont always bother with, and that 40k generally certainly doesn't try to bother with it there isnt a power field attached.
Insectum7 wrote: If your argument is that different weapons can't possibly be better against different targets
I think the point is more that while they may have slightly different optimal targets, the difference between S+2/AP-1 and S+1/AP-2 is so minute in practice that it doesn't affect tactics, and one of the two will generally be better just due to target prevalence. To me that's the sort of detail that is appropriate for a Kill Team game, but feels out of place in 40K.
In contrast, the old choice between CCW, Power Weapon, or Powerfist was significant, since it slotted you into anti-chaff (or just 'not a melee fighter'), anti-heavy-infantry, or anti-vehicle respectively. Going from basic attacks to ignoring armor was a big deal, as was doubling your strength but fighting last.
If we wanted to to give users lots of choice of melee weapons, then rather than create a bunch of different flavors of power weapon, I think it would make more sense to consolidate power weapons into one option, but then provide a variety of non-power weapons as well with distinct strengths and weaknesses. So maybe a power weapon gives you bonus AP but doesn't affect your strength, while a big hammer/maul/axe gives you lots of bonus strength but no AP, and then a powerfist does both but is slow/hard to hit with/whatever as a drawback. Make them more substantially different such that it both drives and reflects what you intend to do with the unit, rather than a 'flavor choice' that contains one right answer and a couple of wrong ones, and keep the weapon types non-specific enough to allow for creative modeling.
Edit: Like Vaktathi said, it does seem odd to me that a knife and a club and an axe and a sword are all functionally interchangeable, but when you add a power field then they all get their own bespoke statline. Personally I wouldn't feel starved for choice if my options were Melee Weapon, Power Weapon, Heavy Weapon, or Heavy Power Weapon, but YMMV.
Comes with a bolt pistol, master crafted bolt gun, and a chain sword. He also gets grenades but thats irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
Bolt gun can be swapped for... -Chainsword -Lightning Claw -Powerfist -Power Axe -Power Sword -Power Maul -Thunder Hammer
The chainsword can be swapped for... -Relic Blade -Lightning Claw -Powerfist -Power Axe -Power Sword -Power Maul -Thunder Hammer -Stormshield.
Lets look at those profiles. -------------------------Str-------AP------D-----Ability -Chainsword___User(4)___-_____1___+1 Attack -Lightning Claw__U(4)____-2____1___ If equiped with 2 +1 attack. Reroll wounds -Power Sword____U(4)___-3 ____1 -Power Axe_____+1(5)___-2____1 -Power Maul_____+2(6)___-1____1 -Relic Blade____+2 (6)___-3____d3 -Powerfist_______x2 (8)__-3____d3__-1 to hit -Thunder Hammer_x2(8)__-3_____3__-1 to hit
So first of all. Thunder hammers and power fists are the same damn weapon. They are both the high strength armor cracking weapon to deal damage to tough monsters and vehicles or destroy TEQ.
You might notice that there is no relic axe/relic sword/relic maul. It's just relic blade. It's also a flat upgrade to the power weapon profiles by combining all their best features and giving it a potential boost to damage to boot. I like the relic blade. The power weapons should be the axe profile. Middle of the road. 5 str and -2 ap. Which means the relic blade upgrade turns a regular power weapon into a relic with +1 str -1AP and dd3.
The lightning claw has 2 interesting features. Rerolling to wounds and +1 attack. It's kind of a upgrade version of the chain sword. And the chain sword is the stock weapon.
So what you get is Stock weapon (weak. more attacks. Upgrade to stock weapon (some ap more attacks reroll wounds) Anti MEQ melee weapon (Bonus to strength and some AP) Upgrade to Anti MEQ to be anti TEQ (Bonus strength, AP, and D. Anti Monster/tank (-1 to hit. Highest str, highest AP (tied with relic blade)
8 weapon options become 5 and the 5 you have have more modeling options while covering all the bases that the 8 were covering. 3 of those weapon options were a waste of space.
Quite frankly outside how relics work right now there's no reason you'd go generic Power Weapon over the Hammer/Fist or Relic Blade. Why shouldn't the Relic Blade for a Captain be the next step over the Chainsword?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm thinking Chainsword to Relic Blade to Fist to Hammer/Chainfist
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Quite frankly outside how relics work right now there's no reason you'd go generic Power Weapon over the Hammer/Fist or Relic Blade. Why shouldn't the Relic Blade for a Captain be the next step over the Chainsword?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm thinking Chainsword to Relic Blade to Fist to Hammer/Chainfist
I MOSTLY agree.
I am just noting that the difference in profiles do shift the power weapon from a MEQ killer to a TEQ killer and that is a distinction even if it isn't much of one. The relic blade would be just as good killing MEQ as it would TEQ and there really isn't much of a reason to not take it.
The Captain Datasheet should really be
Chain Sword, Relic Blade Lightning Claws Heavy Power Weapon
The basic Power Weapon profile can show up on other datasheets where Relic Blades are not an option.
JNAProductions wrote: Insectum, what different stats would you give to the Axe/Maul/Sword to make them mechanically distinct? Don't worry about points costs.
My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter, but mechanically being given a choice can feel important/fun even though it doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Esp. for characters.
My opinion as to how they should be balanced doesn't matter to the argument.
JNAProductions wrote: Insectum, what different stats would you give to the Axe/Maul/Sword to make them mechanically distinct? Don't worry about points costs.
My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter, but mechanically being given a choice can feel important/fun even though it doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Esp. for characters.
My opinion as to how they should be balanced doesn't matter to the argument.
To me, it feels like there are already meaningful, fun, and important choices present in most cases without needing to differentiate between a mace and an axe (particularly when nobody cares if it doesn't have a power field attached most of the time). Most characters have options for stuff like powerfists or lightning claws and ranged weapons like combimeltas and plasma pistols or other equipment like stormshields that offers dramatically more meaningful differentiation and customization while still offering a reasonable array of options. I don't think the illusion of choice just for its own sake (particularly specifically for Characters) is worth the tradeoffs in dealing with the other issues (dealing with CSM terminator WYSIWYG for example, when the kits just come with a small random smattering of weapons to begin with that's barely enough to arm the whole squad with a melee weapon of some sort), especially when it encompasses units composed of normal models instead of characters.
Insectum7 wrote: My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter, but mechanically being given a choice can feel important/fun even though it doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Esp. for characters.
My opinion as to how they should be balanced doesn't matter to the argument.
I really don't mean to harp on it, but what makes largely-inconsequential upgrades feel more important/fun than having a variety of substantial, meaningful upgrades that allow for greater creativity in modeling?
I mean, like with the list Lance posted and how it could be condensed into a handful of weapons, it's not like we're suggesting fixed loadouts a la Age of Sigmar, just rolling the redundant wargear together.
Insectum7 wrote: My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter, but mechanically being given a choice can feel important/fun even though it doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Esp. for characters.
My opinion as to how they should be balanced doesn't matter to the argument.
I really don't mean to harp on it, but what makes largely-inconsequential upgrades feel more important/fun than having a variety of substantial, meaningful upgrades that allow for greater creativity in modeling?
I mean, like with the list Lance posted and how it could be condensed into a handful of weapons, it's not like we're suggesting fixed loadouts a la Age of Sigmar, just rolling the redundant wargear together.
Most obviously, where the line is drawn for "Substantial/meaningful" is something that will be pretty subjective. Secondly, if your priority is making a cool conversion, you're not going to be stopped by differences that you find "insubstantial", and that is if you value your rules over your conversion idea in the first place (and a lot of people don't, in my experience).
Personally, I liked the reintroduction of the differentiation, and I enjoy the consideration of weapon type along with the idea of how it will change the models appearance. It's also a fun way to squeeze points out from time to time, depending on edition. As someone who like fiddling around with the list building aspect of the hobby, I appreciate it.
My question in return is this: If the differences between power weapons are "insubstantial" to you, how does it harm the game in having them?
My question in return is this: If the differences between power weapons are "insubstantial" to you, how does it harm the game in having them?
Because it interferes with the modelling aspect. If all power weapons are all the same you can model it however you want and whatever you think looks coolest.
If each weapon is different you’re restricted to a particular choice by the game outcome you want.
My question in return is this: If the differences between power weapons are "insubstantial" to you, how does it harm the game in having them?
Because it interferes with the modelling aspect. If all power weapons are all the same you can model it however you want and whatever you think looks coolest.
If each weapon is different you’re restricted to a particular choice by the game outcome you want.
See the post above for the catch 22 about that. If you care about the model, "insubstantial" differences shouldnt bother you. If you find the differences are enough to care about. . . Well, then they have value.
All generic datasheets that are easy to grasp, no wonky bespoke rules to reflect random gear or background quirks, basically perfect game balance for competitive play, miniature details completely left to aesthetic preference / hobby-whims.
Insectum7 wrote: See the post above for the catch 22 about that. If you care about the model, "insubstantial" differences shouldnt bother you. If you find the differences are enough to care about. . . Well, then they have value.
Why is it good to have a profile that no one ever uses? Especially on the most commonly available type of power weapon.
Insectum7 wrote:If your priority is making a cool conversion, you're not going to be stopped by differences that you find "insubstantial", and that is if you value your rules over your conversion idea in the first place (and a lot of people don't, in my experience).
On the other hand, if someone's priority is a cool conversion, why do they need bespoke rules?
It's bad because it occupies developer time and space. GW literally sits there each time they put out a new data sheet and goes "well we made this lt. and he's got a sword so we will put down the sword stat line. But what if later we make one with an ax? Is that now a new data sheet or is it the same guy?
"Nope they are different. New data sheet"
Not only does the page count go up, but your time as a player goes up shifting through nonsense options. But what if that axe one was a SW Lt? Even thought your generic captain can take axes so your chapter has them THIS guy can't because GW decided to give THAT one a special keyword.
It's objective that consolidation is better in terms of design.
Lance845 wrote: It's bad because it occupies developer time and space. GW literally sits there each time they put out a new data sheet and goes "well we made this lt. and he's got a sword so we will put down the sword stat line. But what if later we make one with an ax? Is that now a new data sheet or is it the same guy?
"Nope they are different. New data sheet"
Not only does the page count go up, but your time as a player goes up shifting through nonsense options. But what if that axe one was a SW Lt? Even thought your generic captain can take axes so your chapter has them THIS guy can't because GW decided to give THAT one a special keyword.
It's objective that consolidation is better in terms of design.
dude, the space wolf leuitenant is a horriable example considering it's literally like a single sentence on the leuitenant datasheet
Lance845 wrote: It's bad because it occupies developer time and space. GW literally sits there each time they put out a new data sheet and goes "well we made this lt. and he's got a sword so we will put down the sword stat line. But what if later we make one with an ax? Is that now a new data sheet or is it the same guy?
"Nope they are different. New data sheet"
Not only does the page count go up, but your time as a player goes up shifting through nonsense options. But what if that axe one was a SW Lt? Even thought your generic captain can take axes so your chapter has them THIS guy can't because GW decided to give THAT one a special keyword.
It's objective that consolidation is better in terms of design.
dude, the space wolf leuitenant is a horriable example considering it's literally like a single sentence on the leuitenant datasheet
I ask that you focus instead on the actual point instead of a singular example.
Datasheets can be consolidated. Wargear can be consolidated. And it would be better for everyone if it was.
Lance845 wrote: It's bad because it occupies developer time and space. GW literally sits there each time they put out a new data sheet and goes "well we made this lt. and he's got a sword so we will put down the sword stat line. But what if later we make one with an ax? Is that now a new data sheet or is it the same guy?
"Nope they are different. New data sheet"
Not only does the page count go up, but your time as a player goes up shifting through nonsense options. But what if that axe one was a SW Lt? Even thought your generic captain can take axes so your chapter has them THIS guy can't because GW decided to give THAT one a special keyword.
It's objective that consolidation is better in terms of design.
dude, the space wolf leuitenant is a horriable example considering it's literally like a single sentence on the leuitenant datasheet
I ask that you focus instead on the actual point instead of a singular example.
Datasheets can be consolidated. Wargear can be consolidated. And it would be better for everyone if it was.
except then you use as an example something that isn't a seperate datahseet. which just makes you look like you dunno what you're talking about
frankly it's nonsesne, a lord with Terminator armour is still a CSM lord, no need to separete him out of the regular lord entry... (changes could easily be applicable with equipment option, or modifying the datasheet) it's also a serious issue that requires FAQ'ing regularly, cue DP spam f.e.
except then you use as an example something that isn't a seperate datahseet. which just makes you look like you dunno what you're talking about
Lance845 wrote: I ask that you focus instead on the actual point instead of a singular example.
Datasheets can be consolidated. Wargear can be consolidated. And it would be better for everyone if it was.
No. What makes someone look like they don't know what they are talking about is when people in this thread are fighting for pages right up until I post actual examples of the datasheets and consolidations with the tyranid warrior and the SM captain and then you all stop talking because you have no argument. If you want to claim that the wargear can be balanced and those options have value then do the work and show us.
Insectum7 wrote: See the post above for the catch 22 about that. If you care about the model, "insubstantial" differences shouldnt bother you. If you find the differences are enough to care about. . . Well, then they have value.
Why is it good to have a profile that no one ever uses? Especially on the most commonly available type of power weapon.
ask the RG players if they were happy about the fact that their chapter had access to centurions, which before 2.0 no one used. Or if SW players right now are unhappy about those TWC models they had laying around their boxs. If their TWC got consolidated in in to lets say outriders, then they would not only have WYSIWYG problems because all those storm shields, hammer and claws on their models, but they would also get a much worse unit, which in general would make the whole SW codex much weaker. Worse GW may get some strange ideas and remove the TWCHQ unit options, because they don't exist as outridder bike ones, and leave them with just canis and air sled guy.
Insectum7 wrote: See the post above for the catch 22 about that. If you care about the model, "insubstantial" differences shouldnt bother you. If you find the differences are enough to care about. . . Well, then they have value.
Why is it good to have a profile that no one ever uses? Especially on the most commonly available type of power weapon.
ask the RG players if they were happy about the fact that their chapter had access to centurions, which before 2.0 no one used.
Lets not misconstrue the argument with absurdisms again. Nobody is suggesting the models go away or the meaningful options. Consolidating data sheets doesn't mean you wipe out entire entries willy nilly. It means you eliminate overlap by putting like things together.
Or if SW players right now are unhappy about those TWC models they had laying around their boxs. If their TWC got consolidated in in to lets say outriders, then they would not only have WYSIWYG problems because all those storm shields, hammer and claws on their models,
As I showed with the captain, he kept all his choices and there were no wysiwyg problems. Even if wysiwyg was a rule, which it isn't, everything would have been fine.
but they would also get a much worse unit, which in general would make the whole SW codex much weaker.
There is no SW dex. There is a SM dex.
Worse GW may get some strange ideas and remove the TWCHQ unit options, because they don't exist as outridder bike ones, and leave them with just canis and air sled guy.
And GW can decide to do that at any time anyway. Just look at the Dark Eldar and their booming cast of character support.
If a better example is needed than Lieutentants, why does a Space Marine Captain in Gravis Armor need a unique datasheet to run a heavy bolt rifle instead of a Bolstorm Gauntlet? Especially with literally zero options and a static wargear loadouts on both datasheets. That's already on top of having both Primaris/Non-Primaris options and datasheets for two different kinds of armor options for each (and not getting into Special Characters).
By comparison, any IG officer (that isn't an SC) above the platoon level junior lieutenant, across literally billions of Regiments, all use the same generic "Company Commander" unit entry regardless of weapons/role/equipment/rank/armor/etc (not that I have a problem with that, we don't need a gazillion different officer datasheets).
Karol wrote: If their TWC got consolidated in in to lets say outriders, then they would not only have WYSIWYG problems because all those storm shields, hammer and claws on their models,
As noted by the OP post (emphasis mine below), the suggestion regarding consolidation would carry over those wargear options. It's not impossible to write that unit entry. It was very clear that such a concern was addressed at the outset.
VladimirHerzog wrote: So i've been lurking in the various Houds of morkai threads and it made me think about what does having specific datasheet for so many models actually do for the game.
an example that was brought was the Thunderwolf cavalry vs Outrider and how they both could be on the same "Space marine cavalry" datasheet instead.
Theyre both fast units, that get extra attacks because of their mounts, why couldnt they be the same datasheet?
Let's assume that we had the power to redo all of the kits to include the bonus options (storm shield + thunderhammer as a valid option for all Space marine cavalry). Would the flavor really be lost? You could still have the information that White scars use bike as cavalry and SW use McWolfes as cavalry.
but they would also get a much worse unit, which in general would make the whole SW codex much weaker. Worse GW may get some strange ideas and remove the TWCHQ unit options, because they don't exist as outridder bike ones, and leave them with just canis and air sled guy.
Given GW's current design paradigm, these are things that could (and can, and have) just happen anyway without any relation to consolidating datasheets. If it happens, it likely would have happened regardless. I don't think consolidating datasheets adds to that risk, rather whether GW produces a current kit appears to be the determination of availability.
Vaktathi wrote: If a better example is needed than Lieutentants, why does a Space Marine Captain in Gravis Armor need a unique datasheet to run a heavy bolt rifle instead of a Bolstorm Gauntlet? Especially with literally zero options and a static wargear loadouts on both datasheets. That's already on top of having both Primaris/Non-Primaris options and datasheets for two different kinds of armor options for each (and not getting into Special Characters).
in that case he doesn't I agree THAT is rediculas.
Lets not misconstrue the argument with absurdisms again. Nobody is suggesting the models go away or the meaningful options. Consolidating data sheets doesn't mean you wipe out entire entries willy nilly. It means you eliminate overlap by putting like things together.
People are saying that TWC should be marged with bikers, as should other sm faction specific units and weapons. How is that not removing meaningful options?
As I showed with the captain, he kept all his choices and there were no wysiwyg problems. Even if wysiwyg was a rule, which it isn't, everything would have been fine.
How is going from 2x5 squads with powerful melee options and synergies with the SW codex, to 3 models per unit with no melee weapon upgrades considered fine. That is like saying that if eradictors suddenly start running around with bolters, they would be fine too. And GW actualy did remove some SW options in a way that makes no sense. There is the special HQTWC dude, and there is the Lt TWC dude in the codex, but the captin/lord option was removed.
And saying the wysiwyg aint' a rule is like saying the rule of 3 wasn't a rule in 8th.
There is no SW dex. There is a SM dex.
you know just because GW decided to make SW players buy two box and name the SW codex a supplement doesn't change the fact that it is a codex.
And GW can decide to do that at any time anyway. Just look at the Dark Eldar and their booming cast of character support.
Yes, and that is why having more options is better then having fewer options. Intercessor, and primaris in general, units have 3 types of weapons to pick for their squads, regular, assault and heavy. They work different with different chapters, but in general one option is generaly the best one. The problem with fewer option is, that the best, if all those units had 1 gun type, could still very well mean that unit is bad. Having more options lets people have a safer army, and not be forced in to rebuying their marine collection every 3-6 months, specialy if they magnetise stuff. I have seen and had to play in an edition where the best option was still not good, and there were no other options to replace it. Having fewer unit or gear types per unit is not better, it is worse every time. It is only a bad thing for people with armies that don't get the options regular armies get vide what happened to Tau or knights in 9th ed.
Lets not misconstrue the argument with absurdisms again. Nobody is suggesting the models go away or the meaningful options. Consolidating data sheets doesn't mean you wipe out entire entries willy nilly. It means you eliminate overlap by putting like things together.
People are saying that TWC should be marged with bikers, as should other sm faction specific units and weapons. How is that not removing meaningful options?
People are saying TWC are not different enough to actually be it's own entry. Nobody is saying "just use the outrider data sheet". They are saying outriders and TWC could use a combined consolidated datasheet that has the meaningful options to represent both.
As I showed with the captain, he kept all his choices and there were no wysiwyg problems. Even if wysiwyg was a rule, which it isn't, everything would have been fine.
How is going from 2x5 squads with powerful melee options and synergies with the SW codex, to 3 models per unit with no melee weapon upgrades considered fine. That is like saying that if eradictors suddenly start running around with bolters, they would be fine too. And GW actualy did remove some SW options in a way that makes no sense. There is the special HQTWC dude, and there is the Lt TWC dude in the codex, but the captin/lord option was removed.
See above. You don't understand what is being suggested.
And saying the wysiwyg aint' a rule is like saying the rule of 3 wasn't a rule in 8th.
Incorrect. In fact rule of 3 was a rule in 8th and wysiwyg has not been a rule for quite a few years.
There is no SW dex. There is a SM dex.
you know just because GW decided to make SW players buy two box and name the SW codex a supplement doesn't change the fact that it is a codex.
Yes it does. Or do you think Ultramarines have their own codex now? Black Templar? Ironhands?
And GW can decide to do that at any time anyway. Just look at the Dark Eldar and their booming cast of character support.
Yes, and that is why having more options is better then having fewer options. Intercessor, and primaris in general, units have 3 types of weapons to pick for their squads, regular, assault and heavy. They work different with different chapters, but in general one option is generaly the best one. The problem with fewer option is, that the best, if all those units had 1 gun type, could still very well mean that unit is bad. Having more options lets people have a safer army, and not be forced in to rebuying their marine collection every 3-6 months, specialy if they magnetise stuff. I have seen and had to play in an edition where the best option was still not good, and there were no other options to replace it. Having fewer unit or gear types per unit is not better, it is worse every time. It is only a bad thing for people with armies that don't get the options regular armies get vide what happened to Tau or knights in 9th ed.
If your best option isn't good then having more worse options isn't better. This is just catastrophizing.
Lets not misconstrue the argument with absurdisms again. Nobody is suggesting the models go away or the meaningful options. Consolidating data sheets doesn't mean you wipe out entire entries willy nilly. It means you eliminate overlap by putting like things together.
People are saying that TWC should be marged with bikers, as should other sm faction specific units and weapons. How is that not removing meaningful options?
Nobody is saying just straight use the current Outrider rules in place of TWC. That wasn't the original suggestion at all.
The suggestions was to take the various marine rules representing units that all effectively function as Cavalry (which yes, SM bikes do, and their rules lineage comes directly from Fantasy cavalry rules) and have one unit entry that is able to offer all those options instead of a multitude of different datasheets. The suggestions put forward have repeatedly noted that consolidation would carry over the upgrade/weapons options, and that'd be relatively easy to denote by keyword. Model count availability could be adjusted just as easily (and is something that can also change regardless of datasheet consolidation, and has for many units over time).
Lets not misconstrue the argument with absurdisms again. Nobody is suggesting the models go away or the meaningful options. Consolidating data sheets doesn't mean you wipe out entire entries willy nilly. It means you eliminate overlap by putting like things together.
People are saying that TWC should be marged with bikers, as should other sm faction specific units and weapons. How is that not removing meaningful options?
Nobody is saying just straight use the current Outrider rules in place of TWC. That wasn't the original suggestion at all.
The suggestions was to take the various marine rules representing units that all effectively function as Cavalry (which yes, SM bikes do, and their rules lineage comes directly from Fantasy cavalry rules) and have one unit entry that is able to offer all those options instead of a multitude of different datasheets. The suggestions put forward have repeatedly noted that consolidation would carry over the upgrade/weapons options, and that'd be relatively easy to denote by keyword. Model count availability could be adjusted just as easily (and is something that can also change regardless of datasheet consolidation, and has for many units over time).
And as far as I can tell the only reason the outrider has been suggested is future proofing. There will come a day, as much as others don't like it, that the SM line will be all primaris. That means TWC will be primaris too. Either the wolves themselves will be retired and you will get wolfy outriders or somehow they will make bigger wolves to carry primaris on.
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.
(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options.
(Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit.
(Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability.
(Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1
(Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.
Notice how a datasheet like this actually gives you MORE options
Lets not misconstrue the argument with absurdisms again. Nobody is suggesting the models go away or the meaningful options. Consolidating data sheets doesn't mean you wipe out entire entries willy nilly. It means you eliminate overlap by putting like things together.
People are saying that TWC should be marged with bikers, as should other sm faction specific units and weapons. How is that not removing meaningful options?
Nobody is saying just straight use the current Outrider rules in place of TWC. That wasn't the original suggestion at all.
The suggestions was to take the various marine rules representing units that all effectively function as Cavalry (which yes, SM bikes do, and their rules lineage comes directly from Fantasy cavalry rules) and have one unit entry that is able to offer all those options instead of a multitude of different datasheets. The suggestions put forward have repeatedly noted that consolidation would carry over the upgrade/weapons options, and that'd be relatively easy to denote by keyword. Model count availability could be adjusted just as easily (and is something that can also change regardless of datasheet consolidation, and has for many units over time).
And as far as I can tell the only reason the outrider has been suggested is future proofing. There will come a day, as much as others don't like it, that the SM line will be all primaris. That means TWC will be primaris too. Either the wolves themselves will be retired and you will get wolfy outriders or somehow they will make bigger wolves to carry primaris on.
Well if the later happens expect a hounds of morkai level unit, aka it's a reiver with an upgrade sprue, this case it would be a slightly upscaled TWC, but no option beyond barebones left...
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.
(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options.
(Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit.
(Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability.
(Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1
(Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.
But why all those silly options? Just stick with the base profile, irrespective of whether it's modelled with a hammer or sword or spear or whatever. Why have two separate stats for BS and WS? Should be fine to consolidate that into one stat.
A move stat. A consolidated to hit/wound/kill enemy stat (just one number). Done.
Defensive stats like Wounds, Armour, Invuls can probably all be rolled into an attackers stat to kill enemy models on a X+ roll (perhaps not a D6 to have a bit more variance).
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.
(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options.
(Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit.
(Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability.
(Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1
(Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.
But why all those silly options? Just stick with the base profile, irrespective of whether it's modelled with a hammer or sword or spear or whatever. Why have two separate stats for BS and WS? Should be fine to consolidate that into one stat.
A move stat. A consolidated to hit/wound/kill enemy stat (just one number). Done.
Defensive stats like Wounds, Armour, Invuls can probably all be rolled into an attackers stat to kill enemy models on a X+ roll (perhaps not a D6 to have a bit more variance).
No need to be so finicky, really.
Keep the sarcasm to yourself, youre really not bringing anything to the conversation.
Hooray! Sunny side ip returns with nonsense arguments. If your going to consolidate why stop there!? Every model can move 10". Pick an enemy model it can see and roll 1d6. On a 4+ it dies!
This is what people are talking about and a totally valid argument!
An exaggeration perhaps, but it shows that you still haven't defined any objective criteria for what is "too much detail" and what is "too much abstraction" and why the right balance should be where you decide it is (or why the perfect balance isn't perhaps met already by the current ruleset).
Gentlemen, can we please calm down?
yes it was a bad argument but there IS a ignore button...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: An exaggeration perhaps, but it shows that you still haven't defined any objective criteria for what is "too much detail" and what is "too much abstraction" and why the right balance should be where you decide it is (or why the perfect balance isn't perhaps met already by the current ruleset).
Again, i made an exemple you not understanding it is a you issue:
CSM lords and Terminator CSM lords...
It's the same spanker, with the same job except one is a bit more tanky then the other? Why do i need a separate entry when i could just handle it like the jumppack lord?
Not only that but it leads to issues in regards to RO3... Which then requires FAQing again...
And frankly the whole separate Datasheet for slightly diffrent but really same unit is also again anti consumer behaviour, because feth everyone with a custom Leutnant with an illegal weapons combination, or who has painted a specific TM chapter TM leutnant in other colors and now owns an illegal leutnant, because GW lost a bloody lawsuit in regards to their IP and is now completly wonky.
Again, i made an exemple you not understanding it is a you issue:
CSM lords and Terminator CSM lords...
It's the same spanker, with the same job except one is a bit more tanky then the other? Why do i need a separate entry when i could just handle it like the jumppack lord?
Not only that but it leads to issues in regards to RO3... Which then requires FAQing again...
Sure. And that Chaos lord is the exact same thing that is done by an Archon in a Dark Eldar army or a Canoness in a Sisters Army.
Just get the mini a generic „army-leader-guy(can be modeled as a girl)“ profile that all armies can pick. Done.
Again, i made an exemple you not understanding it is a you issue:
CSM lords and Terminator CSM lords...
It's the same spanker, with the same job except one is a bit more tanky then the other? Why do i need a separate entry when i could just handle it like the jumppack lord?
Not only that but it leads to issues in regards to RO3... Which then requires FAQing again...
Sure. And that Chaos lord is the exact same thing that is done by an Archon in a Dark Eldar army or a Canoness in a Sisters Army.
Just get the a generic „army-leader-guy“ profile that all armies can pick. Done.
Theres a difference between consolidating redundant stuff in a single codex and doing it cross codex..... You know this but you're obviously just trying to stir gak up. Youre using terrible debating strategies so your opinion really isnt transmitted properly
Theres a difference between consolidating redundant stuff in a single codex and doing it cross codex..... You know this but you're obviously just trying to stir gak up. Youre using terrible debating strategies so your opinion really isnt transmitted properly
Isn't Codex-bloat often criticised.
But sure. You can consolidate redundant stuff inside the Codex too.
Have a basic infantry profile.
Move 6, Hits on 3+, 2 Wounds.
To that, add a few options for customisation (pick one).
a) Gives re-roll 1 to nearby units (all HQ infantry models)
b) Hits on 2+, 3 Wounds (all Elite infantry models)
c) Has ObSec (all Troop infantry models)
d) Has double move (all Fast Attack Infantry models)
e) Does double damage against all enemies over 12" away (all Heavy Support infantry models).
Lance845 wrote: It's bad because it occupies developer time and space. GW literally sits there each time they put out a new data sheet and goes "well we made this lt. and he's got a sword so we will put down the sword stat line. But what if later we make one with an ax? Is that now a new data sheet or is it the same guy?
"Nope they are different. New data sheet"
Not only does the page count go up, but your time as a player goes up shifting through nonsense options. But what if that axe one was a SW Lt? Even thought your generic captain can take axes so your chapter has them THIS guy can't because GW decided to give THAT one a special keyword.
It's objective that consolidation is better in terms of design.
Datasheet bloat has nothing to do with whether power weapons should be a single profile, since there is a myriad of ways to present options other than datasheets. Totally separate ossues.
Theres a difference between consolidating redundant stuff in a single codex and doing it cross codex..... You know this but you're obviously just trying to stir gak up. Youre using terrible debating strategies so your opinion really isnt transmitted properly
Isn't Codex-bloat often criticised.
But sure. You can consolidate redundant stuff inside the Codex too.
Have a basic infantry profile.
Move 6, Hits on 3+, 2 Wounds.
To that, add a few options for customisation (pick one).
a) Gives re-roll 1 to nearby units (all HQ infantry models)
b) Hits on 2+, 3 Wounds (all Elite infantry models)
c) Has ObSec (all Troop infantry models)
d) Has double move (all Fast Attack Infantry models)
e) Does double damage against all enemies over 12" away (all Heavy Support infantry models).
Done.
Redundancy in the codex consolidated.
When you are done with strawmanning arguments and positions by making them look like they demand reductio ad absurdum type positions, can i have that straw? I might be able to sell the straw to my neighbour which is a peasant.
When you are done by strawmanning arguments and positions by making them look like they demand reductio ad absurdum type positions, can i have that straw? I might be able to sell the straw to my neighbour which is a peasant.
Why are my proposals for reduction in specificity strawman arguments and your proposals something people should take serious?
When you are done by strawmanning arguments and positions by making them look like they demand reductio ad absurdum type positions, can i have that straw? I might be able to sell the straw to my neighbour which is a peasant.
Why are my proposals for reduction in specificity strawman arguments and your proposals something people should take serious?
When you are done by strawmanning arguments and positions by making them look like they demand reductio ad absurdum type positions, can i have that straw? I might be able to sell the straw to my neighbour which is a peasant.
Why are my proposals for reduction in specificity strawman arguments and your proposals something people should take serious?
Because you're making nonsense arguments in bad faith. If you want to be taken seriously, please, make a serious argument.
I love how people keep responding to reductio ad absurdum style arguments as "bad faith,"
"strawman" and "not serious" .
They can not comprehend their own arbitrary lines of when/if something should be consolidated are based purely in subjective opinion.
TWC and etc are in a seperate faction supplement. Why do you guys get to decide that those books don't count as a separate factions but an elder codex does count as a separate faction ?
Sure,,, they are 'marines.' but guess what,,, t hey all have 'legs'. Sure, there is overlap, so what about GSC and IA ? ...
don't call my point here disingenuous. you ARE making an arbitrary unsubstantiated choice of where to draw your lines of what should and shouldnt be consolidated. By virtue of the fact that people disagree with treating SW as the same faction you can not say it is anything but subjective.
You can not argue with the fact that people do feel this is a separate faction with unique units that should be preserved. You disagreeing with them is as subjective and unfounded as them telling you Aldari and Marines are the same faction...
Sorry. Even though GW made SWs a supplement, they are preserving the unique units and unique rules of this faction... if you can't understand that this is to appeal to the people who believe and play SWs and other power armor as separate factions, you are kidding yourselves.
The supplement system was an attempt to consolidate the units that were actually EXACTLY the same. Not to start removing unique units.
So unless you can acknowledge that blurring the line between SWs unique units would be as useful to the game as bluring the lines between any factions unique units,,, your points are moot.
I can entertain an idea for complete consolidation, but you don't get to pick and choose based on your opinion of what should and shouldnt...
The fact that people are really under the impression that their opinion on what counts as a seperat faction and what doesnt is an objective truth is really what is driving the ridiculousness of this conversation.
No one is strawmannig, they are trying to show you that your arguments are arbitrary, unfounded and beased on subjective opinion and not some universal set of truths or facts.
Its very possible Sunny and Type are 14 year old kids who legit do not understand how bad of an argument they are making. This is the internet. We can't see them. We don't know who we are talking to.
At Type: There is a big difference between craftworlds vs sm and sm vs ultramarines/blacktemplar/sw/da/ba.
To start sm and craftworlds share 0% units and wargear. They also dont share atsknf or bolter discipline or angles of death or chapter tactics or doctrines and stratagems and so on and so forth.
Your refusal to accept or understand that hinders your position in this discusion.
Lance845 wrote: Its very possible Sunny and Type are 14 year old kids who legit do not understand how bad of an argument they are making. This is the internet. We can't see them. We don't know who we are talking to.
At Type: There is a big difference between craftworlds vs sm and sm vs ultramarines/blacktemplar/sw/da/ba.
To start sm and craftworlds share 0% units and wargear. They also dont share atsknf or bolter discipline or angles of death or chapter tactics or doctrines and stratagems and so on and so forth.
Your refusal to accept or understand that hinders your position in this discusion.
LOL you ... you crack me up.
First of all ... power swords... counter offensive... other strats and basic abilities like set defence and overwatch... unaligned units.... base rules.... I can arbitrarily point out similarities too.
Second of all.
We arn't talking about what they share... for the last fething time... We know the things they share should be consolidated XD for feth sake we are talking about what they DO NOT SHARE.
If an elf is not a marine,
Then a wolf isn't a bike or a "giant lizard"
or
An elf can be marine
A wolf can be a bike or a lizard
you don't get to pick a mix of both arbitrarily and then tell people they are being disingenuous by pointing that out.
Your refusal to understand that you are making a subjective choice to treat these unique units as the same but not other unique units as the same is an arbitrary choice based on nothing but your own subjective opinion.
Now if we are talking about 14 year old boys, again, you are the one making up college degrees not me, so there is no need to once again try and attack me based on "qualifications" or age instead of based on actual arguments... is that your best play when you are wrong and refuse to step back and think : "listen, I am older, smarter and have higher qualifications of you so that makes me correct" whilst you were lying about your qualifications even.
Stop embarrassing yourself and leave your fake appeal of personal authority argumentation at home.
First of all i was legit saying we dont know who you are. You COULD be 14. I dont know. And i could be 90. Nobody knows.
I do know you bowed out of the conversation when i gave you examples as evidence for my argument and didnt respond when prompted to provide your own.
All you have are absurdisms. Its cool. I get it. You like stuff and want stuff no mater the reason. Your position isnt based on logic or reason. Its based on emotion. If you had any logic or reason you would use it instead of the absurdisms. Thats fine. You are entitled to your feelings. It just doesnt add anything to this discussion.
Type40, do you not understand the difference between consolidating something that's already 80% or more the same, and consolidating two things that share around 1% of their abilities and gear?
Because, yes, Eldar have Power Swords, and the Generic Strats. They don't share any units. They don't share any psychic powers. They don't even have Litanies.
Type40 wrote: I love how people keep responding to reductio ad absurdum style arguments as "bad faith,"
"strawman" and "not serious" .
They can not comprehend their own arbitrary lines of when/if something should be consolidated are based purely in subjective opinion.
TWC and etc are in a seperate faction supplement. Why do you guys get to decide that those books don't count as a separate factions but an elder codex does count as a separate faction ?
To validate an reductio ad absurdum instead of having only a logical fallacy and therefore not an argument you need to classify as to WHY a demand is indeed as radical and only a slight extension. As of now, you don't have done that. and still will not.
Sure,,, they are 'marines.' but guess what,,, t hey all have 'legs'. Sure, there is overlap, so what about GSC and IA ? ...
don't call my point here disingenuous. you ARE making an arbitrary unsubstantiated choice of where to draw your lines of what should and shouldnt be consolidated. By virtue of the fact that people disagree with treating SW as the same faction you can not say it is anything but subjective.
Now we're cooking, actually you'd have a point if GW wouldn'0t have consolidated the marines AND wouldn't have consolidated SOME of the HQ's allready, cue my CSM lord exemple were the regular and Jetpack lord are consolidated, yet the terminator lord is not. That is an issue because GW also implemented the Rule of three for balance sake, why do you need all these leutnants instead of having leutnant with the list for equipment instead. That would cover ALL variations and make the book smaller whilest having still all leutnants legal, unlike the system right now were only specific combinations are wysiwyg legal forcing options tied to specifc leutnant models?
You can not argue with the fact that people do feel this is a separate faction with unique units that should be preserved. You disagreeing with them is as subjective and unfounded as them telling you Aldari and Marines are the same faction...
Gw seems to disagree with you, mind you, solely for monetary reasons
Sorry. Even though GW made SWs a supplement, they are preserving the unique units and unique rules of this faction... if you can't understand that this is to appeal to the people who believe and play SWs and other power armor as separate factions, you are kidding yourselves.
that isn't the point beeing made, the point beeing made is, that a customizable enough datasheet would probably be BETTER (especially with subfaction specific update allowances) to keep the core of a faction intact and therefore the uniqueness. You don't however need 3 dozen entries for leutnants for that
The supplement system was an attempt to consolidate the units that were actually EXACTLY the same. Not to start removing unique units.
Missing the point beeing made
So unless you can acknowledge that blurring the line between SWs unique units would be as useful to the game as bluring the lines between any factions unique units,,, your points are moot.
Missing the point
I can entertain an idea for complete consolidation, but you don't get to pick and choose based on your opinion of what should and shouldnt...
Actually, considering GW or f.e. me, the worst you'd have to deal with in regards of consolidation of my branch is that units are now upgrades instead (granted i'd not consolidate the TWC cav, but there are other obvious candidates that should be represented via an upgrade option unlocked via subfaction choice like scouts and wolf scouts but alas...) or GW which tends to just, decide that former leutnants without a model conforming to predetermined models of leutnants get^s illegal. (without going into the tendency that we now also have chaplain dreads beeing in legends, etc, which as a concept could've been done easily as an upgrade to a dread body but feth owners of said dread and options i guess.
The fact that people are really under the impression that their opinion on what counts as a seperat faction and what doesnt is an objective truth is really what is driving the ridiculousness of this conversation.
You mean to tell me, that GW has nothing to do with it? and the recent consolidation was the idea of the playerbase? wait let me call the ceo of GW i am sure he will listen to me exclusively in order to spite you further via removale of any SW oldmarine choice.... /sarcasm is sarcasm:
No one is strawmannig, they are trying to show you that your arguments are arbitrary, unfounded and beased on subjective opinion and not some universal set of truths or facts.
Disproven GW considers supplements not as separete factions.
Lance845 wrote: First of all i was legit saying we dont know who you are. You COULD be 14. I dont know. And i could be 90. Nobody knows.
For feth sake man,,, what does me being "14" have to do with the argumentation I am using. You are bringing it up to appeal as a position of authority, you arn't as smart as you think you are and these type of argumentation is irrelevant apart from disingenuous attempts to discredit
I do know you bowed out of the conversation when i gave you examples as evidence for my argument and didnt respond when prompted to provide your own.
if anyone would like to go back through the posts, I have left plenty of quality examples, however @Lance would simply say "no that's not good enough" or focus in on one small part of a response and refuse to acknowledge the rest of the response thus taking argumentation of context. I bowed out of acknowledging Lance for a while because he started making up qualifications to discredit me rather then actually responding to argumentation. Stop lying @Lance,,, its actually really embarrassing for you and its quite obvious if someone goes back through the posts.
All you have are absurdisms. Its cool. I get it. You like stuff and want stuff no mater the reason. Your position isnt based on logic or reason. Its based on emotion. If you had any logic or reason you would use it instead of the absurdisms. Thats fine. You are entitled to your feelings. It just doesnt add anything to this discussion.
You dont understand what reductio ad absurdum is, this is clear from this statement LOL, you continue to embarrass yourself. You can not comprehend your own opinion could be subjective and you base your entire argumentation on a subjective stance. You have done nothing in this thread but force circular argumentation, page after page after page. You feel like power armor shouldn't be treated as subjective factions... sure,,, thats, like, your opinion man. Your flaw this entire time is that you literally do not seem to be able to comprehend that this is a subjective opinion based in 0 foundational basis.
Again, stop diverting the argument. You are attacking me instead of my argumentation. Your attempting to discredit me not my argumentation AND you claim my position isn;t based on logic or reason and is based on emotion with literally no examples on how that is true,,, again as an attempt to discredit me not my argumentation LOL ... you are very one track minded, and i guess thats ok, you do you.
p.s. reductio ad absurdum is a form of argumentation where one takes a line of argumentation to the extreme to show that in practice the line of logic would break or be absurd. This not the same as an "absurdism" LOL. Now please go learn about what you are responding to before you bother actually responding people,,, you are really making your self look stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Type40, do you not understand the difference between consolidating something that's already 80% or more the same, and consolidating two things that share around 1% of their abilities and gear?
Because, yes, Eldar have Power Swords, and the Generic Strats. They don't share any units. They don't share any psychic powers. They don't even have Litanies.
Are you saying TWC is 80% the same as another unit in the game ? Which unit and how ?
again, i am not talking about the units that are the same, I am talking about the units that are different.
You guys are so conserned with what is the same that you are forgetting that there are things that are different.
Again, of course things are the same, when you remove what is different lol... again,,, this is bad argumentation... I am all for consolidating that 80% that is the same,,, i am not for consolidating the 20% that is different... is this really so hard to figure out XD a wolf is not a bike friends...
You don't see the distinction between consolidating Space Marines (which share 80% or more of everything with each supplement), and combining Eldar and Space Marines (who's shared things can be counted on my fingers)?
And TWC are some of the 20% or less that Space Wolves have unique. People have presented a datasheet that retains all their options, but still allows other SM chapters to run cavalry too.
Though if you want to get technical...
They share a move of 10" (with Inceptors) They share WS and BS 3+ (with the majority of Marine Units) They share S4 (same deal) They share T5 (with Centurions, Bikers and Gravis models) They share W4 (with Centurions and Outriders) They share A2, A3 on Sergeants (with Intercessors and a lot of other units) They share a 3+ save (with most Marine units) They share Bolt Pistols They share Astartes Chainsword They share Frag Grenades and Krak Grenades They share Storm Shields They share Boltguns They share Plasma Pistols They share the entire Melee Weapons list
Their Crushing Teeth and Claws are unique. Their Ld8 on both normal guys and Sergeants may be unique, I'm not sure.
Lance845 wrote: It is not 1%. Sm have over 100 datasheets and over 40 different wargear options. It is in fact 0.0 Some fraction of shared content.
The only things that the SM codex and Craftworld codex have in common is:
Power swords
Flamers
Generic stratagems and abilities (set defense) don't count because theyre in the BRB, unaligned units dont count because theyre from outside the codex.
I dunno man. It seems like more people feel like your argument holds no water then not. But please, keep telling us the same gak without proof. It might stick this time.
JNAProductions wrote: You don't see the distinction between consolidating Space Marines (which share 80% or more of everything with each supplement), and combining Eldar and Space Marines (who's shared things can be counted on my fingers)?
And TWC are some of the 20% or less that Space Wolves have unique. People have presented a datasheet that retains all their options, but still allows other SM chapters to run cavalry too.
I have also responding with how this is a bad approach.
1. the increase in design time needed for customizable datasheets.
2. the increase in design maintenance for customizable datasheets.
3. you are giving generic SMs even MORE options and opportunities and strength as a faction.
4. you are robbing unique rules and identity from one particular faction by generalizing the faction into another faction.
TWC is currently as different as eldar jetbikes... i don't give a flying feth about the rest of the two factions,,, those two units are different,,, this isn't about what in the two factions have overlap and what doesnt or to what percent it is . This is about the units themselves... take the 80 % of overlap and consolidate... why are you proposing to put more work into removing the few things that make these other power armor factions unique ? its more work, more time away from none power armor, and it kills the bit of variety that does exist.
p.s. reductio ad absurdum is a form of argumentation where one takes a line of argumentation to the extreme to show that in practice the line of logic would break or be absurd. This not the same as an "absurdism" LOL. Now please go learn about what you are responding to before you bother actually responding people,,, you are really making your self look stupid.
again, it still requires an argument be shown to be ridicoulus, however hyperbole does not qualify else you end with an continuum fallacy..
JNAProductions wrote: You don't see the distinction between consolidating Space Marines (which share 80% or more of everything with each supplement), and combining Eldar and Space Marines (who's shared things can be counted on my fingers)?
And TWC are some of the 20% or less that Space Wolves have unique. People have presented a datasheet that retains all their options, but still allows other SM chapters to run cavalry too.
I have also responding with how this is a bad approach.
1. the increase in design time needed for customizable datasheets.
2. the increase in design maintenance for customizable datasheets.
3. you are giving generic SMs even MORE options and opportunities and strength as a faction.
4. you are robbing unique rules and identity from one particular faction by generalizing the faction into another faction.
TWC is currently as different as eldar jetbikes... i don't give a flying feth about the rest of the two factions,,, those two units are different,,, this isn't about what in the two factions have overlap and what doesnt or to what percent it is . This is about the units themselves... take the 80 % of overlap and consolidate... why are you proposing to put more work into removing the few things that make these other power armor factions unique ? its more work, more time away from none power armor, and it kills the bit of variety that does exist.
Lance845 wrote: The choice of army is not arbitrary. And if the choice of army was arbitrary then they should be consolidated. If traitor marines were just regular marines then you could have one codex with rules to present chaos chapter tactics. But you don't. Because the chaos army has access to units and rules that are nothing like what general space marines have which makes them a distinct choice and not the illusion of choice. Traitor marines do not and should not play like loyalist marines. If they did, again, I would argue for consolidation.
What is your threshold for consolidation? Is it some specific percentage of shared rules hard and objective or is it an 'I'll know it when I see it' style judgement call?
I told you before that game design is math, psychology, and art. So the answer to your question is all 3. There is a psycological element to it, there is a math element to it and there is an art element to it. There is no math that wholly explains that synapse is different from mob rules. But we can all agree that it is and that tyranids (at least in part) because of synapse function differently from other armies right? It's objective right? Tyranids as an army do not play like other armies.
But when one unit in the army can choose between a bunch of guns.. like say the tyranid warrior. They get spinefists, devourers, deathspitters, or they can swap them for a pair of scytal. (these are swaps 1 for 1. There are other options that are not relevant to this discussion.
So you have a stock gun that shoots 3 times. a better gun that also shoots 3 times but with better ap and higher str. A gun that shoots (Attack) times with worse strength and no ap. And a melee weapon.
I'm going to cut your explanation for the sake of brevity, I assure you that I did read it.
My argument is that these weapons should be balanced not removed. For example, we could give the Devourer back it's old ability to reroll wounds which then does make it an actual choice between it and a Deathspitter based on expected targets. Spinefists could be strength user rather than S3 and that would make them an interesting choice actual use cases. If you always cut options the second they underperform you're going to end up with a boring game while also limiting your options to change the balance at a later date. If this were GWs design philosophy we'd be much closer to generic armies, which we can all agree are bad, than to anything interesting and unique.
Hey man, but what about PvNP and all that, right? You are talking about a massive increase in the developers time spent to balance a game they already cannot keep up with.
The ability to reroll wounds is already on termagants in units of 20+. See how you are stepping on the limited design space? And don't change it to rerolling to hit. Because thats what Tervigons give them. But even if you did do that, 6" extra range +1 str and -1 ap would STILL make the devourer a non-choice. Rerolling wounds doesn't change the intended target. They are BOTH made to take out lower save infantry. They both have the same rate of fire. The deathspitter is just better at it. So you would need to up the devourers rate of fire. Lets say we give it 5 shots? (meaning termagants now shoot 150 times rerolling 1s to hit and wound with tervigon support) But we also need to make the deathspitter better at heavier save targets otherwise the deathspitter becomes the illusion of choice. SO we make it AP-2. But now why the hell would I ever pay points to take the anti infantry biocanon on the warriors? See how they are stepping on each others toes? A random number of shots with blast but the same str with less AP. MSU and marine prevalence means blast is nigh useless. The higher AP or the 5 shot devourers would be far more reliable.
As for your spinefist suggestion. SO they become 12" pistol A(3) str 4 ap- d1 versus the devourers 18"assault 3 str4 ap- D1 reroll 1s to wound. And while spinefists are free, they also mean you loose out on a second pair of scything talons which means you are loosing out on an extra str 4 attack in melee that reroll to hit. Would YOU trade a crap pistol for rerolling to hit attacks in melee? I wouldn't. It not only still looses to the devourer it also looses out to the scytal.
PvNP. What do you think? Is time spent developing and balancing a multitude of datasheets and wargear that fulfill the same role on the same units within the same army or should they consolidate and focus on balancing the meaningful options that actually get used so players have good meaningful choice?
Nobody is suggesting to cut things because they underperform. They are saying cut and consolidate so that the distinct roles are filled. It's about removing overlap more than anything so that the choices actually matter.
Merging armies isn't what we are talking about. Merging 3 different datasheets for terminators and giving you all your meaningful choices on one data sheets is. Just like someone suggested I could have gaunts and gants on a single datasheet with options for melee or shooting on it. Yeah. I could. It wouldn't hurt at all to do it and nothing of value would be lost.
So merge these units, keep all the same restrictions on load-outs, and gain what exactly? You don't change anything in terms of gameplay by doing this unless you remove options or change restrictions as part of the merger. You do however make the rules denser and more difficult for some players to read by filling a single sheet with lists of exceptions and if statements.
It only gets more difficult to read if the formatting is difficult to read. That is a interface issue and unrelated to the mechanics being discussed. You keep the meaningful options. By now having them on a single sheet it's easier to see what is and is not meaningful and consolidate where needed to create actual choice. The much fought over TWC is an example where the attacks from the wolf are not doing anything meaningful compared to the bike. they both impact targets basically the same way. You COULD argue the on the charge element and I am even inclined to agree with you. Which can be solved with some 2-3 point option on the "cavalry" datasheet called "War Steed" or some gak to make the attacks every round instead of just on the charge. Then if salamanders want to ride big lizards they can. And if my homebrew wants to ride dinosaurs they can. Options are gained and nothing of value is lost.
If you are playing competitively and/or enjoy crunching the numbers having meaningful choices is all you were paying attention to anyway and we have made it easier for you to do that.
We made every answer on this multiple-choice test C, the test is now impossible to fail and therefore not worth studying for. Do you see why some players might take an issue with this approach?
Another absurdum/strawman. Nobody is saying that. You also misrepresent the purpose of a test. This statement is meaningless. Further, if some players issue is "BUT I WANT MORE THINGS EVEN IF THEY DO NOTHING AND BLOAT THE GAME" then I don't care about their issues. I want a better game.
If you like fluffy narrative stuff then merging things like the power weapons into a single power weapon profile has given you more narrative options then you do now by allowing you to present that power weapon as whatever the hell you want it to be.
So there are no cases where the current differentiation of power weapons change anything? If this is the case there's already no need for balance, but otherwise, every weapon has, at least in theory, a niche to fill.
Incorrect. As pointed out by me and others repeatedly in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I want to reiterate this. If somehow you gave deathspitters, devourers, and spinefists the correct point costs to perfectly balance their impact versus their shared intended targets then all you have done is given players a no choice. You either want the greatest impact per model which is the deathspitter or you want the lowest cost per model which is the spine fists (which also means you have basically no impact so why the platform is worth anything at this point is anyones guess). It's 3 options to equip a tyranid warrior to do the exact same job.
See how its NOT making things more difficult or time consuming? Go check out the SM captain for another example. Please. Dont just SAY it. Prove it.
Point 4. They are not a faction. They are a subfaction.
2. the increase in design maintenance for customizable datasheets.
Adding an errata to a single datasheet is a lot quicker than adding an errata to multiple datasheets, its also more consistent and helps GW not forget about a datasheet like theyve done multiple times in the past.
4. you are robbing unique rules and identity from one particular faction by generalizing the faction into another faction.
This one i can kind of agree, but then again, its not robbing since you can still use your TWC exactly as they currently are. And the real flavor of TWC come from the strats/chapter tactics more than from the wolf being able to attack, something that ALL cavalry gets.
And TWC are some of the 20% or less that Space Wolves have unique. People have presented a datasheet that retains all their options, but still allows other SM chapters to run cavalry too.
Though if you want to get technical...
They share a move of 10" (with Inceptors AND OTHER FACTIONS UNITS)
They share WS and BS 3+ (with the majority of Marine Units AND OTHER FACTIONS UNIT)
They share S4 (same deal)
They share T5 (with Centurions, Bikers and Gravis models AND OTHER FACTIONS UNITS)
They share W4 (with Centurions and Outriders AND OTHER FACTIONS UNITS)
They share A2, A3 on Sergeants (with Intercessors and a lot of other units AND OTHER FACTIONS UNITS)
They share a 3+ save (with most Marine units AND OTHER FACTIONS UNITS)
They share Bolt Pistols
They share Astartes Chainsword
They share Frag Grenades and Krak Grenades (WRONG)
They share Storm Shields
They share Boltguns
They share Plasma Pistols
They share the entire Melee Weapons list (yes, some war gear)
Their Crushing Teeth and Claws are unique.
Their Ld8 on both normal guys and Sergeants may be unique, I'm not sure.
ALSO SWIFT HUNTERS AND MULTIPLE UNIQUE STRATAGEMS IN THE NEW SUPLEMENT.
ALSO THERE BASE SIZE (THOUGH IT IS SHARED WITH MANY UNITS IN THE GAME)
So as we know. a unique unit is made up of many different factors... what you have seem to have shown here is that a TWC is closer to a inceptor then anything else but still not really... so is what you are saying is that a wolf is the same as a jump pack primaris marine ?
Again, the combination of traits on TWC is what makes it unique as well as its own unique traits. It is simply NOT the same as anything else in the game... sorry. not even 80%. It has some of the same wargear... are individual sisters of battle units supposed to be consolidated because they share most stats and wargear with marines ? come on.... this was one of the most arbitrary lists of seen so far.
JNAProductions wrote: You don't see the distinction between consolidating Space Marines (which share 80% or more of everything with each supplement), and combining Eldar and Space Marines (who's shared things can be counted on my fingers)?
Of course theres some difference. But the difference is only where one draws the line in their personal notion of how far to take consolidation. If I understand Type40s argument, that's the point. Where that line is drawn can be very subjective.
Which is why Lance's "evidence" of a suggested consolidation isn't much worth responding to. It's just their personal subjective take on how something could be consolidated, but it makes little argument for it. It's beside the greater point.
JNAProductions wrote: You don't see the distinction between consolidating Space Marines (which share 80% or more of everything with each supplement), and combining Eldar and Space Marines (who's shared things can be counted on my fingers)?
Of course theres some difference. But the difference is only where one draws the line in their personal notion of how far to take consolidation. If I understand Type40s argument, that's the point. Where that line is drawn can be very subjective.
Which is why Lance's "evidence" of a suggested consolidation isn't much worth responding to. It's just their personal subjective take on how something could be consolidated, but it makes little argument for it. It's beside the greater point.
I do agree that reasonable people can disagree on what should and shouldn't be consolidated.
But I also think we can agree that it's disingenuous to say anyone here is advocating for combining entirely disparate Codecs.
1. the increase in design time needed for customizable datasheets.
Adding an option to a single datasheet is a lot quicker than adding a whole new datasheet
whether or not information is displayed on a single datasheet or multiple has no bearing on design space, computation time or design time... I have repeatedly shown how this is the case.... its quite silly to believe this TBH .... how does representing something on 1 1 page datasheet change the design effort of representing it on 2 half page datasheets...
2. the increase in design maintenance for customizable datasheets.
Adding an errata to a single datasheet is a lot quicker than adding an errata to multiple datasheets, its also more consistent and helps GW not forget about a datasheet like theyve done multiple times in the past.
you just managed to reduce the need to add 3 x number of datasheets with similar rule to the FAQ v.s. the exponential increase of design and balance maintenance brought on by increased customizable variables.....GW forgetting about a datasheet is a different problem and I agree it should be addressed, but to help GW not forget a datasheet is not a reason to introduce a plethora of new problems to the game
3. you are giving generic SMs even MORE options and opportunities and strength as a faction.
Yes? How is that a bad thing?
because there is already a problem of SMs being too powerful due to having more access to options and less restrictions then any other faction ? There is already too much design time and space given to SMs and increasing customization exponentially increases time needed to correctly implement rules in a faction (which is common game design knowledge and somethin i have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread using common game design considerations).
4. you are robbing unique rules and identity from one particular faction by generalizing the faction into another faction.
This one i can kind of agree, but then again, its not robbing since you can still use your TWC exactly as they currently are.
It is robbing it.
If you give general SMs a jetbike, that has rising cresendo, haywire cannons, plasma grenades, 16" movement an auto 6 advance and zepherglaives... even though Harlequins still have it doesn't mean harlequins havn't just been robed of their unique identity... it doesn't make it better just because they are both wearing power armor (and please don't give me the bs of "ELDAR ARNT MARINES" gak here this is a legit exaggeration to demonstrate the point).
You can remove what makes a faction unique by A: deleting it or B: giving everyone else the same thing so it is not unique.
The argument that SW unique units are not unique because we can just give their units to everyone else or that we can just remove what make them unique is just ridiculous... yes, of course they wouldn't be unique if everyone else had access to it... yes they are losing their unique identity and their unique rules by cloning them and giving them to everyone else. I have chosen to take rules restrictions, army restrictions and game restrictions so I can have access to this unit.
If you won a tennis tournament and everyone at the tournament who didn't win got the exact same 1st place trophy as you, would you feel the same as if you just had your own ? how would you feel if someone then said to you "well, you still have a trophy, you arn't losing anything" .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I also think we can agree that it's disingenuous to say anyone here is advocating for combining entirely disparate Codecs.
Again, that's the point. no one is saying anyone here is advocating for that. We are bringing it up as an exaugurated example of arbitrary choices in consolidation.
No one would say the aldari jetbikes should be consolidated into space marines,,, because they are different units,,, so why TWC if they are different units ?
and yes, I will continue to bring up TWC because Cpt.s and Lt.s WERE CONSOLIDATED ... because they are a part of the 80% that are the same... and that's ok,,, no one thinks they shouldnt have been.
TWC and similar are were the problem lies... that 20% that isn't the same shouldn't be consolidated because arbitrarily we are deciding they are the exact same as something that they are not the exact same of... in the same way we don't advocate for eldar units that are completely different from marine units to be consolidated together.
Lets drop the TWC if it triggers you so much and use the lieutenant/Captain datasheets instead for the example.
FFFSSSSSSSS YES LETS SHUT THE feth UP ALREADY ABOUT THESE TWCs...
That's the fething point isn't it. Lt.s and Cpt.s DID GET CONSOLDIATED no gak you want to bring up the two that ARE exactly the same as examples of what IS exactly the same LOL.
So lets go back to talking about what ISNT exactly the same like the TWC ... yes consolidate what is exactly the same... fine ,,, do that... now talking about things that are not (you know, this entire thread) no, there is no merit in consolidating things that are not the fething same.
You can remove what makes a faction unique by A: deleting it or B: giving everyone else the same thing so it is not unique.
1 . SW are a subfaction of the Space Marines faction
2. Can you stop with the SW? Use the Captain/Lieutenant consolidation instead so youre not so emotively attached to a fething example.
1. Congrats. they are subfaction with unique units... good job, we all get this, and whether you call it a faction or subfaction doesn't change that this is true.
2. I don't give a flying feth about what happens to captains/lieutenants... I fething care that the unique subfactions / factions get to keep their unique units... changing what we are talking about doens't make the point any more valid. LOL, oh your just emotional lol ... still doesnt change the points I am making XD... Your the one who is getting pissed of that I keep using it as an example... and do you know why I use it as an example... because compared to CPTs and LTs a TWC is NOTHING like anything else in marines XD and you clearly don't like it aa an example because it is so easy to prove consolidation doesn't make sense to consolidate everything when using that as an example... a wolf just simply isn't a bike or a lizard or anything else general marines have XD lol.
3. the problem with consolidating Cpt.s and Lt.s is just that you are acomplishing nothing but making a bigger, more confusing datasheet and that MAYBE GW wont forget one in an FAQlol ... congrats.
Insectum7 wrote: My question in return is this: If the differences between power weapons are "insubstantial" to you, how does it harm the game in having them?
As with the glut of bolt weapons, it imposes additional cognitive burden in remembering the exact stat profile for whichever weapon happens to be relevant. If I have a couple of characters with different weapons, I know I'm going to need the book out because there are no straightforward heuristics to remember their effects.
Because of the increased number of weapons in the design space, it also magnifies the potential for imbalance or unintended consequences; possibly resulting in either a noticeably imbalanced state (ie one weapon is significantly better than the others, biasing the performance of the unit) and/or designers needing to spend design effort correcting the internal balance on a couple of functionally interchangeable pieces of wargear.
That's why I was saying I'm fine with nitty-gritty wargear in a game like Kill Team- I only have a handful of units that likely boil down to 3-4 types, and don't need to keep track of the stats of a bunch of heavy ordnance, so there's less design overhead to manage and less cognitive burden to play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Type40 wrote: 2. I don't give a flying feth about what happens to captains/lieutenants... I fething care that the unique subfactions / factions get to keep their unique units... changing what we are talking about doens't make the point any more valid.
In that case you should be fine with consolidating Space Wolves into the Marine codex, with a couple of SW-only units to represent things like Wulfen and TWC, right? Is there anything else they have that's substantially different from a codex unit, and couldn't be represented as a SW-only upgrade?
I'm sitting here in silence recalling the horror done to Blood Angels after Stormravens were made available to Ultramarines and other Dreadnoughts finally figured out they too could swap their right arms for an additional dreadnought combat weapon. Loyalist Space Marines have never been the same after the Vindicator got made available to those Chaos boys. How does one possibly represent a Veteran Sergeant without an upgrade for Terminator Honors? Space Wolves just can't possibly feel right after gaining Combat Doctrines and Hunters/Stalkers. Grey Knights having Terminators as Troops, and Detachments allowing entire armies to be made of Terminators, clearly destroyed the Deathwing, and oh man did White Scars erase the identity of the Ravenwing. Chaplains were wholesale ruined when the Master of Sanctity upgrade went away. Predators losing distinct unit profiles and entries for Annihilator and Destructor variants was the worst thing to ever happen to them. Thank god GW preserved the flavor of Terminators by splitting them between dudes who can carry a gun and those who carry only melee weapons into different units, but having a Relic Terminator squad that allows you to freely mix and match much of that wargear totally doesn't feel weird. Chaos Space Marine Terminators feel so bland now that Loyalists remembered where they stashed their old Reaper Autocannons. The Land Raider Crusader just never seemed the same after it was rolled out to every Space Marine chapter and not just Black Templars, who obviously also lost all their flavor after being forced to take Captains and Chapter Masters instead of Castellans and Marshals
A lot of the stuff being clung to here as essential flavor is exactly the kind of thing that routinely changes or gets shared by GW with other factions, particularly when GW's already made so many subfactions that naturally occupy many of the same niches and philosophies and share the bulk of their lore, statline, wargear, etc. More ominously, if GW does indeed intend eventually squat/retire/legends/etc the non-primaris stuff at some point, then there's going to be a whole lot less unique subfaction stuff anyway, as I don't think we have any chapter specific Primaris stuff at this point do we besides characters?
Insectum7 wrote: My question in return is this: If the differences between power weapons are "insubstantial" to you, how does it harm the game in having them?
As with the glut of bolt weapons, it imposes additional cognitive burden in remembering the exact stat profile for whichever weapon happens to be relevant. If I have a couple of characters with different weapons, I know I'm going to need the book out because there are no straightforward heuristics to remember their effects.
Because of the increased number of weapons in the design space, it also magnifies the potential for imbalance or unintended consequences; possibly resulting in either a noticeably imbalanced state (ie one weapon is significantly better than the others, biasing the performance of the unit) and/or designers needing to spend design effort correcting the internal balance on a couple of functionally interchangeable pieces of wargear.
That's why I was saying I'm fine with nitty-gritty wargear in a game like Kill Team- I only have a handful of units that likely boil down to 3-4 types, and don't need to keep track of the stats of a bunch of heavy ordnance, so there's less design overhead to manage and less cognitive burden to play.
Alright, I definitely agree with that principle in the broad sense. But I'd say that part of good design is deciding where any areas of "increased design fidelity" are warranted. I'll argue until blue in the face against the incredible bolt weapon bloat, 100%. However, since CC weapons (particularly on Space Marines) tend to be distributed on "leader models" such as Sergeants and Captains, I think that the design space can be a little higher fidelity than the ideal baseline norm. Sergeants are a common place to imbue more character into a unit, likewise captains. Because of that I'm far more inclined to allow the particular CC choice of weapon to "say something", even if it's minor.
My ideal would ultimately be to cut the SM weapons (mostly the shooting ones) down by . . . 60-70% maybe? I'd just choose to keep the Power Maul/Sword/Axe. So more specifically to you, my question is why specifically combine the maul/sword/axe? From my perspective, while it's true they are only different stats-wise in minor ways (they could be further differentiated though, potentially), what I think is important about them is their individual shape/style/character/sihlouette/etc, which are far more visible and recognizable than the myriad of bolter types. Different bolter types don't really change the look of a model, while a big axe does. In a basic use case, I can tell an axe from a sword from across the table. One of 16 types of bolters, much less so.
. . .
I've posted it before but it's a good time to post it again, the grand comparison of 8th to 4th. And 9th has added even more weapons. . . The armaments of the Heavy Intercessors are entirely new, are they not?
In that case you should be fine with consolidating Space Wolves into the Marine codex, with a couple of SW-only units to represent things like Wulfen and TWC, right? Is there anything else they have that's substantially different from a codex unit, and couldn't be represented as a SW-only upgrade?
Isn't this precisely what is happening ?
Sure we could consildate the WG termies, the grey hunters, bloodclaws and what not. But i like my datasheets seperate and easier to read. Simply consolidating datasheets for physical space in the book doesnt make a big difference in terms of design time and space... it just changes how the data is represented. I am fine with either choice, I just prefer easier to read datasheets then complicated confusing ones... Now if consolidating the datasheets would fix the fact that they are releasing each suplement over 6 months... i am on your side, i just think it would have been better if they could have released it all at once. The problem isn't that design space is being hogged, its that GW prefered to do a trickle release instead of just giving us everything together...
@Vaktathi I distinctly do remember being upset everytime parts of their faction identities were robbed like that yes. especially in the case of the terminators as troos and the stormravens... did you know players back then ? I did and they were pretty annoyed. but your also being a facetious with doctrines... it was announced that the other power armor and etc would get them right from the beginning. But honestly, if wolves never got them... I would have been fine with that, SMs could have that added to their identity. why the hell not, I don't need to be so upset that other factions are getting things and I am not. I jsut don't want my stuff robbed and diluted because of some arbitrary notion that giving other people more options is gonna decrease design needs in that very same faction XD.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm sitting here in silence recalling the horror done to Blood Angels after Stormravens were made available to Ultramarines and other Dreadnoughts finally figured out they too could swap their right arms for an additional dreadnought combat weapon. Loyalist Space Marines have never been the same after the Vindicator got made available to those Chaos boys. How does one possibly represent a Veteran Sergeant without an upgrade for Terminator Honors? Space Wolves just can't possibly feel right after gaining Combat Doctrines and Hunters/Stalkers. Grey Knights having Terminators as Troops, and Detachments allowing entire armies to be made of Terminators, clearly destroyed the Deathwing, and oh man did White Scars erase the identity of the Ravenwing. Chaplains were wholesale ruined when the Master of Sanctity upgrade went away. Predators losing distinct unit profiles and entries for Annihilator and Destructor variants was the worst thing to ever happen to them. Thank god GW preserved the flavor of Terminators by splitting them between dudes who can carry a gun and those who carry only melee weapons into different units, but having a Relic Terminator squad that allows you to freely mix and match much of that wargear totally doesn't feel weird. Chaos Space Marine Terminators feel so bland now that Loyalists remembered where they stashed their old Reaper Autocannons. The Land Raider Crusader just never seemed the same after it was rolled out to every Space Marine chapter and not just Black Templars, who obviously also lost all their flavor after being forced to take Captains and Chapter Masters instead of Castellans and Marshals
A lot of the stuff being clung to here as essential flavor is exactly the kind of thing that routinely changes or gets shared by GW with other factions, particularly when GW's already made so many subfactions that naturally occupy many of the same niches and philosophies and share the bulk of their lore, statline, wargear, etc. More ominously, if GW does indeed intend eventually squat/retire/legends/etc the non-primaris stuff at some point, then there's going to be a whole lot less unique subfaction stuff anyway, as I don't think we have any chapter specific Primaris stuff at this point do we besides characters?
As I already pointed out, the request for a generic Telion was done with the Phobos Captain and literally NO Ultramarines player cried about it.
Because by the time it happened it was a meh options, comparing to eliminators. Ask what ultramarines would have thought about Gulliman being used in other factions, specialy at the begining of 8th when he was a power house.
Didn't we get the chaos/imperium souo trait nerf, because of exactly that being done by the way?
Karol wrote: Because by the time it happened it was a meh options, comparing to eliminators. Ask what ultramarines would have thought about Gulliman being used in other factions, specialy at the begining of 8th when he was a power house.
Didn't we get the chaos/imperium souo trait nerf, because of exactly that being done by the way?
You really don't have a point because a generic Scout Captain has been a long requested thing. Plus since Roboute does give various benefits to Imperium armies they kinda do have that access to him.
I've posted it before but it's a good time to post it again, the grand comparison of 8th to 4th. And 9th has added even more weapons. . . The armaments of the Heavy Intercessors are entirely new, are they not?
Strictly speaking, yes they're entirely new. Practically speaking Heavy Intercessors are a budget Saggitarum Custodian with a Rapid Fire 1 version of the Assault 3 Adrastus Bolt Caliver and a downgraded armor save
@Vaktathi I distinctly do remember being upset everytime parts of their faction identities were robbed like that yes. especially in the case of the terminators as troos and the stormravens... did you know players back then ? I did and they were pretty annoyed.
I did play back then during those eras. Pretty much everyone noted that the Stormraven would get spread throughout most SM armies as soon as they saw it, and that's exactly what happened, first GK's getting it with their release and SM's getting more widespread access to it thereafter, and while I recall some being upset about that, it was a very tiny group who got over it very quickly and the overwhelmingly vast majority of people didn't care or see anything wrong, and I don't think there's a rational argument that Blood Angels meaningfully suffered for it nor anyone who really still cares today. I don't recall anyone being terribly upset at GK Terminators being made Troops for that army, I certainly can't find any posts or threads doing a search that reveal such. I'll note that I'm not terribly bothered by loyalists getting Reaper Autocannons or Combibolter terminators, despite such having been a defining hallmark of CSM terminators since 2E (as they couldn't get Assault Cannons or Stormshields or Stormbolters), nor have I seen any such complaints. I've yet to find any Black Templars players particularly irritated by the presence of Land Raider Crusaders in Space Wolf armies.
but your also being a facetious with doctrines... it was announced that the other power armor and etc would get them right from the beginning.
Back when they were introduced in 2019? That's news to me, they certainly waited a while to do so for a separate subsequent book release in the next edition instead of adding Doctrines to SW's right away, but if my recollection in that instance is incorrect (which is possible, I'm actually far more familiar with older editions than stuff in the last couple years), then it would appear to be a pretty identical situation to the Stormraven.
But honestly, if wolves never got them... I would have been fine with that, SMs could have that added to their identity. why the hell not, I don't need to be so upset that other factions are getting things and I am not. I jsut don't want my stuff robbed and diluted because of some arbitrary notion that giving other people more options is gonna decrease design needs in that very same faction XD.
I get that, however you seem to be largely reacting to an example rather than really addressing the fundamental concept. An example was put forth as to how consolidation *could* be done with Outriders and TWC. Your replies largely seem to be interpreting that as a call to "delete TWC", and the central argument against this has been to rail against that specific example based on how "special" it makes subfactions feel, and extrapolate the problems you see there with the entire concept, but what people are pointing out is that that the argument for a unique datasheet just for its own sake over a consolidated unit entry isn't a compelling counterargument if it can be done and still have the unit effectively fill its tabletop role and carry its signature wargear options, and the stuff you're getting so attached to is exactly the sort of thing that can and does change and get shared or have more close equivalents released in different factions with every release, particularly among factions that already share the overwhelming bulk of their stuff to begin with (EDIT: especially when such factions are currently undergoing the most rapid and intense design-space expansion in the game's history, going from an army of T4 W1 models to now being entirely multiwound models and edging upwards in Toughness to now include nearly Custodes level T5 W3 Troops). There are plenty of such examples of stuff getting consolidated, shared, etc without spelling significant calamity.
Karol wrote:Because by the time it happened it was a meh options, comparing to eliminators. Ask what ultramarines would have thought about Gulliman being used in other factions, specialy at the begining of 8th when he was a power house.
I'm cool with Guilliman being widely available, because I don't define my army on what goodies I have those others don't get.
Vaktathi wrote:I get that, however you seem to be largely reacting to an example rather than really addressing the fundamental concept. An example was put forth as to how consolidation *could* be done with Outriders and TWC. Your replies largely seem to be interpreting that as a call to "delete TWC", and the central argument against this has been to rail against that specific example based on how "special" it makes subfactions feel, and extrapolate the problems you see there with the entire concept, but what people are pointing out is that that the argument for a unique datasheet just for its own sake over a consolidated unit entry isn't a compelling counterargument if it can be done and still have the unit effectively fill its tabletop role and carry its signature wargear options, and the stuff you're getting so attached to is exactly the sort of thing that can and does change and get shared or have more close equivalents released in different factions with every release, particularly among factions that already share the overwhelming bulk of their stuff to begin with (EDIT: especially when such factions are currently undergoing the most rapid and intense design-space expansion in the game's history, going from an army of T4 W1 models to now being entirely multiwound models and edging upwards in Toughness to now include nearly Custodes level T5 W3 Troops). There are plenty of such examples of stuff getting consolidated, shared, etc without spelling significant calamity.
Again, why do we draw the line at the unique units in SWs, DA, or DW , why not have everything share everything ? like IA and SMs they share a lot of the same wargear as well. I would love it if the SWs could take lemun ruses again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, I am not making a "ridiculous" or "disingenuous" argument. What makes it so easy to fold in this sub/faction unique unit instead of any other unique unit. I am legit asking why this arbitrary line v.s. any other arbitrary line... how much overlap is "enough" overlap? why do you get to decide this v.s. anyone else ?
Why not just another system with one giant customizable datasheet ? there are other games that work like this.
Again, why do we draw the line at the unique units in SWs, DA, or DW , why not have everything share everything ? like IA and SMs they share a lot of the same wargear as well. I would love it if the SWs could take lemun ruses again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, I am not making a "ridiculous" or "disingenuous" argument. What makes it so easy to fold in this sub/faction unique unit instead of any other unique unit. I am legit asking why this arbitrary line v.s. any other arbitrary line... how much overlap is "enough" overlap? why do you get to decide this v.s. anyone else ?
Why not just another system with one giant customizable datasheet ? there are other games that work like this.
Do you believe what you're saying? Do you honestly want that? And, if you don't, has anyone else indicated they want what you're proposing?
Again, why do we draw the line at the unique units in SWs, DA, or DW , why not have everything share everything ? like IA and SMs they share a lot of the same wargear as well. I would love it if the SWs could take lemun ruses again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, I am not making a "ridiculous" or "disingenuous" argument. What makes it so easy to fold in this sub/faction unique unit instead of any other unique unit. I am legit asking why this arbitrary line v.s. any other arbitrary line... how much overlap is "enough" overlap? why do you get to decide this v.s. anyone else ?
Why not just another system with one giant customizable datasheet ? there are other games that work like this.
No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.
Do you believe what you're saying? Do you honestly want that? And, if you don't, has anyone else indicated they want what you're proposing?
Again, extreme use of the same logic.
Precisely, I do not want that, no one does. So why do people think it is ok for one group of people playing the game and not others XD ... this is the crux of this issue.
If its good for one group and if the logic makes sense for one group how can you possibly justify it isn't ok for everyone?
Think about what you guys are saying ? if consolidating datasheets because of overlap in their factions/subfactions is the best most logical thing for the game how can it be nothing but good to do that for other factions. IA and SM have so much overlapping wargear ? is this where we are drawing the line ? or are we drawing the line at similar stats, because other factions have models with similar stats ?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander (as my grandmother used to say) . So ya. why do IA and SM even have different tanks... they all cary similar or the same wargear 1 datasheet for all the tanks in both factions should be more then enough ?
Oh and SOB have even MORE wargear in common... we can roll them into the SM codex as well. a CANONESS can totally just be like a SM LT or CPT , just got to add to W and -1 to T and S with a few different rules... just as many changes and new customizations as some of the other roll togethers being proposed here.
Again, why one thing and not the other ? your argumentation 100% applies to SOB for sure.
@JNA you know I don't believe this, and you know I don't want this. I am obviously making an exaugurated statement to show the ridiculousness of the logic. Stop playing like you do not understand, we have already gone over this once or twice.
@Vaktathi I distinctly do remember being upset everytime parts of their faction identities were robbed like that yes. especially in the case of the terminators as troos and the stormravens... did you know players back then ? I did and they were pretty annoyed.
I did play back then during those eras. Pretty much everyone noted that the Stormraven would get spread throughout most SM armies as soon as they saw it, and that's exactly what happened, first GK's getting it with their release and SM's getting more widespread access to it thereafter, and while I recall some being upset about that, it was a very tiny group who got over it very quickly and the overwhelmingly vast majority of people didn't care or see anything wrong, and I don't think there's a rational argument that Blood Angels meaningfully suffered for it nor anyone who really still cares today. I don't recall anyone being terribly upset at GK Terminators being made Troops for that army, I certainly can't find any posts or threads doing a search that reveal such. I'll note that I'm not terribly bothered by loyalists getting Reaper Autocannons or Combibolter terminators, despite such having been a defining hallmark of CSM terminators since 2E (as they couldn't get Assault Cannons or Stormshields or Stormbolters), nor have I seen any such complaints. I've yet to find any Black Templars players particularly irritated by the presence of Land Raider Crusaders in Space Wolf armies.
The difference, as I see it, is that some units are more "signature" than others. The Storm Raven looks like "generic space marine plane". The Crusader is a Land Raider with a different set of weapons. They're very easy to "translate" from one chapter to the next.
Thunderwolf Cavalry, much less so. Black Templars Crusader Squads might be yet another point on that range, probably somewhere in between "tank variant no. 43" and "cavalry based on homeworld fauna". Another example, for BA you have "Dreadnought with two CC weapons" and then you have Death Company. One is clearly more 'signature' than another, and be a more substantial loss to the faction if it were genericized.
Like the ill-fated debates about USRs, it's not a binary choice between all-USRs-all-the-time vs. 'bespoke', it's a matter of where you draw the lines and why. TWCs, as much as I dislike them, are 'signature' enough to warrant their own datasheet over lumping them into a generic "SM Cavalry" entry that handled Bikes and TWCs. Blood Claws, not so much. I'd think those could be handled with addendums to the generic Assault Squad.
No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.
No, that's what you guys do not seem to get.
You are advocating for the same logic you are just arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere. For what ever reason you guys think it is ok to roll the subfactions in together but you can't comprehend how using the same logic we can't do that with everything else ? for real guys. Your choice is to do it to the subfactions is arbitrary. I can make every single one of the arguments you are making for all the unique space wolf units for every unique Sisters of Battle unit and even a lot of the IG.
Do you believe what you're saying? Do you honestly want that? And, if you don't, has anyone else indicated they want what you're proposing?
Again, extreme use of the same logic.
Precisely, I do not want that, no one does. So why do people think it is ok for one group of people playing the game and not others XD ... this is the crux of this issue.
If its good for one group and if the logic makes sense for one group how can you possibly justify it isn't ok for everyone?
Think about what you guys are saying ? if consolidating datasheets because of overlap in their factions/subfactions is the best most logical thing for the game how can it be nothing but good to do that for other factions. IA and SM have so much overlapping wargear ? is this where we are drawing the line ? or are we drawing the line at similar stats, because other factions have models with similar stats ?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander (as my grandmother used to say) . So ya. why do IA and SM even have different tanks... they all cary similar or the same wargear 1 datasheet for all the tanks in both factions should be more then enough ?
Oh and SOB have even MORE wargear in common... we can roll them into the SM codex as well. a CANONESS can totally just be like a SM LT or CPT , just got to add to W and -1 to T and S with a few different rules... just as many changes and new customizations as some of the other roll togethers being proposed here.
Again, why one thing and not the other ? your argumentation 100% applies to SOB for sure.
@JNA you know I don't believe this, and you know I don't want this. I am obviously making an exaugurated statement to show the ridiculousness of the logic. Stop playing like you do not understand, we have already gone over this once or twice.
I like chocolate. Therefore, I must be compelled to consume every bit of chocolate I ever come across, damn the consequences!
Or, perhaps, it's alright to believe that something is desirable without wanting it in excess of everything else.
No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.
No, that's what you guys do not seem to get.
You are advocating for the same logic you are just arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere. For what ever reason you guys think it is ok to roll the subfactions in together but you can't comprehend how using the same logic we can't do that with everything else ? for real guys. Your choice is to do it to the subfactions is arbitrary. I can make every single one of the arguments you are making for all the unique space wolf units for every unique Sisters of Battle unit and even a lot of the IG.
How's this for a line?
Stuff from the same faction (as-in, features in the same Codex, like Cadians and Catachans, or Black Heart and Poisoned Tongue) should be consolidated, for the most part. They can retain their identity with their unique subfaction ability, and perhaps a few strats, relics, and maybe a psychic power or something.
Stuff from different factions (such as Imperial Guard and Marines, or Eldar and Dameons) should remain separate, and should have a good long look at what makes them distinct, so that way there can be a more focused design.
Stuff from the same faction (as-in, features in the same Codex, like Cadians and Catachans, or Black Heart and Poisoned Tongue) should be consolidated, for the most part. They can retain their identity with their unique subfaction ability, and perhaps a few strats, relics, and maybe a psychic power or something.
Some of stuff, or all of stuff? If not all, why not all? If all, why all?
And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.
Do you believe what you're saying? Do you honestly want that? And, if you don't, has anyone else indicated they want what you're proposing?
Again, extreme use of the same logic.
Precisely, I do not want that, no one does. So why do people think it is ok for one group of people playing the game and not others XD ... this is the crux of this issue.
If its good for one group and if the logic makes sense for one group how can you possibly justify it isn't ok for everyone?
Think about what you guys are saying ? if consolidating datasheets because of overlap in their factions/subfactions is the best most logical thing for the game how can it be nothing but good to do that for other factions. IA and SM have so much overlapping wargear ? is this where we are drawing the line ? or are we drawing the line at similar stats, because other factions have models with similar stats ?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander (as my grandmother used to say) . So ya. why do IA and SM even have different tanks... they all cary similar or the same wargear 1 datasheet for all the tanks in both factions should be more then enough ?
Oh and SOB have even MORE wargear in common... we can roll them into the SM codex as well. a CANONESS can totally just be like a SM LT or CPT , just got to add to W and -1 to T and S with a few different rules... just as many changes and new customizations as some of the other roll togethers being proposed here.
Again, why one thing and not the other ? your argumentation 100% applies to SOB for sure.
@JNA you know I don't believe this, and you know I don't want this. I am obviously making an exaugurated statement to show the ridiculousness of the logic. Stop playing like you do not understand, we have already gone over this once or twice.
I like chocolate. Therefore, I must be compelled to consume every bit of chocolate I ever come across, damn the consequences!
Or, perhaps, it's alright to believe that something is desirable without wanting it in excess of everything else.
No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.
No, that's what you guys do not seem to get.
You are advocating for the same logic you are just arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere. For what ever reason you guys think it is ok to roll the subfactions in together but you can't comprehend how using the same logic we can't do that with everything else ? for real guys. Your choice is to do it to the subfactions is arbitrary. I can make every single one of the arguments you are making for all the unique space wolf units for every unique Sisters of Battle unit and even a lot of the IG.
How's this for a line?
Stuff from the same faction (as-in, features in the same Codex, like Cadians and Catachans, or Black Heart and Poisoned Tongue) should be consolidated, for the most part. They can retain their identity with their unique subfaction ability, and perhaps a few strats, relics, and maybe a psychic power or something.
Stuff from different factions (such as Imperial Guard and Marines, or Eldar and Dameons) should remain separate, and should have a good long look at what makes them distinct, so that way there can be a more focused design.
Why do you get to decide what the right amount of chocolate is for me ? I respect how much chocolate you want, but why do you get to decide how much chocolate EVERYONE gets... all you keep saying is that chocolate is amazing and everyone should eat x amount of it... so why can't I say "no no, thats too much chocolate " your line is subjective and arbitrary and you refuse to acknowlege it.
I reject the line you are drawing. "stuff from different factions should remain seperate." My line is "stuff from differe subfactions should remain seperate and should have a good long look at what makes them destinct, so that way there can be a more focused design"
Why do you get to make this arbitrary line ? seriously, do you really not understand that this is a subjective opinion and based on nothing but the fact that you feel like that's where the line should be drawn ?
s
because it is an arbitrary line the same arguments can be made for the following "Stuff from different major alliances should remain seperate". Why not roll together all imperium, tyranid, aldari and etc ? We can use the same line of arguments everyone is making in this thread to justify it ? why not just consilidate the entire game into one list of datasheets ? again same line of argumentation.
Your personal preference insn't a good enough reason. Your personal preferences are all this is. I don't care how much chocolate you think everyone in the world should have.
If you are going to make arguments for consolidation, make it a global argument or justify why it shouldn't be global. You can't keep going "This will be perfect for what you play, but because I feel like it, its no good for anyone else" and OF COURSE i don't think every faction should be rolled together, thats why i am arguing for my one faction/subfaction not to be arbitrarily rolled in together because people on the internet feel like that's where they should draw an arbitrary line based on nothing but there personal feelings about SWs not being uniquee enough.
For christ sake. Do you get how subjective your arbitrary line is ? Do you really not get that ?
I believe, specifically, that it has been said that these kinds of consolidations can happen in every army. Nobody has suggested this only happen to sm. It has, however, been said that sm are in the most need of it since their.... 100+ datasheets makes for more than any other 2-3 armies combined.
Thats just a fair assessment of the current landscape.
Again, why do we draw the line at the unique units in SWs, DA, or DW , why not have everything share everything ?
Nobody is saying they *have* to share everything.
What people are saying is:
1: That it's possible for them to potentially do so and in some instances could make sense to do so.
2: That the various Space Marines generally share the overwhelmingly vast majority of their units, wargear, statlines, options, etc to begin with.
3: That when there's a reasonable way to consolidate multiple datasheets into one (with the caveats previously described) where there is a case for multiple factions to share something (even if visually portrayed very differently) that insisting on them being different datasheets just for the sake of feeling special above and beyond anything else, is not a particularly compelling counterargument. That does not mean counterarguments do not exist, only that "but its special" is going to need a backup argument, particularly in light of #5
4: The expanding design space and evolving concept of Space Marines, as noted previously being T4 W1 across the board to now in some cases being T5 W3 for things like basic troops and what appears to be an entire model revamp across the entire line, opens up options for #1 and is likely to accelerate #5 in the case of existing units.
5: The stuff you're really on about as being important to keep unique is exactly the kind of thing GW likes to share, change, copy, consolidate, or retire looking at the history of the various product lines and codex entries over the editions.
This is not the same as saying that marines have to share everything. I'll note however that in the examples previously mentioned of such sharing, nobody's worlds ended.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.
There's a lot that can be done.
Same argument but I am going to roll SOB into the same. As a chapter trait they will have -1 T and -1 strength and removal of bolter discipline and doctrines.
Of course they can have special wargear options but maybe they have a successor group next to a t erribly radiating cancer giving sun and up with mutants on top of that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.
There's a lot that can be done.
Same argument but I am going to roll SOB into the same. As a chapter trait they will have -1 T and -1 strength and removal of bolter discipline and doctrines.
Of course they can have special wargear options but maybe they have a successor group next to a t erribly radiating cancer giving sun and up with mutants on top of that.
I mean if certain unique units can be offered to various Sisters Orders thats fine but none of them like Mutants sooooooo you failed that part already.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.
There's a lot that can be done.
I basically never agree with Slayer, but this is also right. You can make "generic" versions of some of the more signature units, and make them "unlockble" through some mechanic or another. Instead of TWC you have Marines riding dinosaurs or whatever. (which btw will immediately get hate from any Exodite fans)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.
There's a lot that can be done.
I basically never agree with Slayer, but this is also right. You can make "generic" versions of some of the more signature units, and make them "unlockble" through some mechanic or another. Instead of TWC you have Marines riding dinosaurs or whatever. (which btw will immediately get hate from any Exodite fans)
My heart goes out to those lovingly converted armies.
And yeah the base founding Chapters will be "stuck" with certain ones, but with proper restrictions AND options at the same time, as I demonstrated, you can do a lot of customization for your dudes. I'll never complete writing that homebrew as I'm still making sure I don't break anything.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.
There's a lot that can be done.
I basically never agree with Slayer, but this is also right. You can make "generic" versions of some of the more signature units, and make them "unlockble" through some mechanic or another. Instead of TWC you have Marines riding dinosaurs or whatever. (which btw will immediately get hate from any Exodite fans)
Yeah, this is exactly what people calling for consolidation are mostly asking for - generic units, which the previously unique units have direct analogues and equivalents to.
When we talk about "getting rid of TWC" - we mean "getting rid of TWC as a unique entry". There should be provision for TWC to be taken in the same mechanical context - but as a subtype of a generic cavalry option.
Again, why do we draw the line at the unique units in SWs, DA, or DW , why not have everything share everything ?
Nobody is saying they *have* to share everything.
some people ARE saying that
What people are saying is:
1: That it's possible for them to potentially do so and in some instances could make sense to do so.
sure, we are just disagreeing on where it makes sense to do so.
2: That the various Space Marines generally share the overwhelmingly vast majority of their units, wargear, statlines, options, etc to begin with.
except for where they do not.
3: That when there's a reasonable way to consolidate multiple datasheets into one (with the caveats previously described) where there is a case for multiple factions to share something (even if visually portrayed very differently) that insisting on them being different datasheets just for the sake of feeling special above and beyond anything else, is not a particularly compelling counterargument. That does not mean counterarguments do not exist, only that "but its special" is going to need a backup argument, particularly in light of #5
great, lets roll together SOB then and completely other factions... not sure why they get to have unique units just because "its special" if its not good enough excuse for one faction/subfaction then its not a good enough for any of them ? or is it good enough for some of them and we are refusing to acknowledge drawing the line here is based on subjective opinion.
4: The expanding design space and evolving concept of Space Marines, as noted previously being T4 W1 across the board to now in some cases being T5 W3 for things like basic troops and what appears to be an entire model revamp across the entire line, opens up options for #1 and is likely to accelerate #5 in the case of existing units.
great, even more design space if we roll in the SOB and potentially other factions... right ? if its so good for the one set of factions/subfactions why not others ? are we drawing arbitrary lines again?
5: The stuff you're really on about as being important to keep unique is exactly the kind of thing GW likes to share, change, copy, consolidate, or retire looking at the history of the various product lines and codex entries over the editions.
This is not the same as saying that marines have to share everything. I'll note however that in the examples previously mentioned of such sharing, nobody's worlds ended.
Again,,, #5 is your opinion,,, you know what they hav't done that with , TWC and most of the unique space wolf units... you are 100% wrong by virtue of it not actually happening to things I am arguing should stay unique XD ... realistically your point #5 can be made for literally anything in the game... do you remember in RT when orks used the same wargear as SM ? did you notice those Aldari units that share a BS with SMs XD... your poimt #5 can literally be applied to every rule and unit in the game XD ....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Type40, is it good for the game to have "Gravis Captain with MC Heavy Bolt Rifle" and "Gravis Captain" in the same book?
No, not as separate datasheets when did I say it was XD ? lol.
Again, I am talking about the stuff that is actually different.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.
There's a lot that can be done.
I basically never agree with Slayer, but this is also right. You can make "generic" versions of some of the more signature units, and make them "unlockble" through some mechanic or another. Instead of TWC you have Marines riding dinosaurs or whatever. (which btw will immediately get hate from any Exodite fans)
Yeah, this is exactly what people calling for consolidation are mostly asking for - generic units, which the previously unique units have direct analogues and equivalents to.
No no, there's definitely stuff to cut. Such as probably 20 "bolt weapons". There is too much *%#@!
Gravis Captain has a different weapon than the Gravis with MC Heavy Bolt Rifle. They're totally different!
But, clearly, if you want to roll those two datasheets together, you absolutely HAVE to be in favor of rolling Daemons into the Eldar Codex. It's only logical!
Sarcasm aside, you really are doing a poor job demonstrating good faith argumentation, Type40. You're not really addressing the points that are raised, you're just repeating things no one has denied and don't prove your point, or taking arguments to their ridiculous extremes that no one has advocated for.
When we talk about "getting rid of TWC" - we mean "getting rid of TWC as a unique entry". There should be provision for TWC to be taken in the same mechanical context - but as a subtype of a generic cavalry option.
Right, robbing a factions/subfaction of its unique rules and creating more customization for the most customizable faction in the game XD.
But for what ever reason. We can't do the same with harlequins.
Why not give SM cavalry the option to move 16" , auto 6" advance, advance and charge, fallback and shoot, fallback and charge, haywire cannons and zephergalives ? "why couldn't a SM successor have come from a planet where people are taught to dance and make plays about the aldari whilst simultaneously finding a stock of jet bikes"
Again... why the arbitrary lines ? why are we saying it is ok to rob one faction/subrfaction of their unique rules but its not the same to do it with a different one ?
No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.
No, that's what you guys do not seem to get.
You are advocating for the same logic you are just arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere. For what ever reason you guys think it is ok to roll the subfactions in together but you can't comprehend how using the same logic we can't do that with everything else ? for real guys. Your choice is to do it to the subfactions is arbitrary. I can make every single one of the arguments you are making for all the unique space wolf units for every unique Sisters of Battle unit and even a lot of the IG.
More catastrophizing. Sure, everything can be dumbed-down to the point the game is played by each player using the exact same single mini. No-one has suggested that. What is being discussed is consolidating redundant unit entries and weapons. What you don't understand is that making 40k a one-mini game per my example would make the game boring, therefore it hasn't been considered by anyone but you. This is not "arbitrary." We're discussing how to improve gameplay and accessibility.
TWC do not make SW unique.
DC do not make BA unique.
RWBKS and dark shrouds do not make my DA unique.
Those are unit entries, which are varying degrees of "unique." No more, no less. As Catbarf said pages ago, much of what can be done to make subfactions and armies unique is at the macro level, in the core mechanics, so tat varying play styles and strategies are available to players. Not whether a chapter's dudes ride motorcycles or wolves, or like swords more than bolters.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.
There's a lot that can be done.
I basically never agree with Slayer, but this is also right. You can make "generic" versions of some of the more signature units, and make them "unlockble" through some mechanic or another. Instead of TWC you have Marines riding dinosaurs or whatever. (which btw will immediately get hate from any Exodite fans)
Yeah, this is exactly what people calling for consolidation are mostly asking for - generic units, which the previously unique units have direct analogues and equivalents to.
No no, there's definitely stuff to cut. Such as probably 20 "bolt weapons". There is too much *%#@!
I don't mind the three different Bolt options for the basic troops. What I do mind is Inceptors just not using an existing entry, making Eliminators and Scouts just use the same potentially buffed Sniper rifle, Suppressors not just using an Autocannon entry when the Autocannon needs to have such a rule anyway to be a pinning weapon, etc.
When we talk about "getting rid of TWC" - we mean "getting rid of TWC as a unique entry". There should be provision for TWC to be taken in the same mechanical context - but as a subtype of a generic cavalry option.
Right, robbing a factions/subfaction of its unique rules and creating more customization for the most customizable faction in the game XD.
But for what ever reason. We can't do the same with harlequins. Why not give SM cavalry the option to move 16" , auto 6" advance, advance and charge, fallback and shoot, fallback and charge, haywire cannons and zephergalives ? "why couldn't a SM successor have come from a planet where people are taught to dance and make plays about the aldari whilst simultaneously finding a stock of jet bikes"
Again... why the arbitrary lines ? why are we saying it is ok to rob one faction/subrfaction of their unique rules but its not the same to do it with a different one ?
Not faction/subfaction. Just subfaction.
Space Wolves are a subfaction of Loyalist Marines. If anything deserves to be separated out of Codecs into their own thing, it'd be the three Dark Eldar factions (Covens, Kabals, and Wych Cults) or the different gods in the Daemon Codex. Seeing as the DE factions share... Three units? I'm not sure off-hand, and it's definitely just three for the Daemons.
Edit: For clarity's sake, I do play Daemons, so I may have a bias there.
JNAProductions wrote: Gravis Captain has a different weapon than the Gravis with MC Heavy Bolt Rifle. They're totally different!
But, clearly, if you want to roll those two datasheets together, you absolutely HAVE to be in favor of rolling Daemons into the Eldar Codex. It's only logical!
Sarcasm aside, you really are doing a poor job demonstrating good faith argumentation, Type40. You're not really addressing the points that are raised, you're just repeating things no one has denied and don't prove your point, or taking arguments to their ridiculous extremes that no one has advocated for.
Gravis captains and gravis captains with MC heavy bolt rifles are from the same book and codex and currently available to all those subfactions and factions XD ...
TWC are not available to all the generic SMs .... are you really not getting that ?
THEY ARE DIFFERENT SUBFACTIONS YOUR EXAMPLE IS NOT. and just because you are arbitrarily saying that "they might as well be treated exactly the same" doesn't mean jack gak. You don't get to decide that and it is a SUBJECTIVE opinion. Do you really not get this ?
When we talk about "getting rid of TWC" - we mean "getting rid of TWC as a unique entry". There should be provision for TWC to be taken in the same mechanical context - but as a subtype of a generic cavalry option.
Right, robbing a factions/subfaction of its unique rules and creating more customization for the most customizable faction in the game XD.
Read my last post.
But for what ever reason. We can't do the same with harlequins.
Why not give SM cavalry the option to move 16" , auto 6" advance, advance and charge, fallback and shoot, fallback and charge, haywire cannons and zephergalives ? "why couldn't a SM successor have come from a planet where people are taught to dance and make plays about the aldari whilst simultaneously finding a stock of jet bikes"
Again... why the arbitrary lines ? why are we saying it is ok to rob one faction/subrfaction of their unique rules but its not the same to do it with a different one ?
You don't even have an argument. You're running in circles waving your hands, screeching "I don't like this! I don't understand it, but I'm sure it's bad! I'm scared!"
JNAProductions wrote: Gravis Captain has a different weapon than the Gravis with MC Heavy Bolt Rifle. They're totally different!
But, clearly, if you want to roll those two datasheets together, you absolutely HAVE to be in favor of rolling Daemons into the Eldar Codex. It's only logical!
Sarcasm aside, you really are doing a poor job demonstrating good faith argumentation, Type40. You're not really addressing the points that are raised, you're just repeating things no one has denied and don't prove your point, or taking arguments to their ridiculous extremes that no one has advocated for.
Gravis captains and gravis captains with MC heavy bolt rifles are from the same book and codex and currently available to all those subfactions and factions XD ...
TWC are not available to all the generic SMs .... are you really not getting that ?
THEY ARE DIFFERENT SUBFACTIONS YOUR EXAMPLE IS NOT. and just because you are arbitrarily saying that "they might as well be treated exactly the same" doesn't mean jack gak. You don't get to decide that and it is a SUBJECTIVE opinion. Do you really not get this ?
I dunno, that distinction seems pretty arbitrary to me. What's the difference between combining two similar units that should really be one, and combining two entirely different Codecs? Clearly, if you want one, you MUST want the other.
JNAProductions wrote: Gravis Captain has a different weapon than the Gravis with MC Heavy Bolt Rifle. They're totally different!
But, clearly, if you want to roll those two datasheets together, you absolutely HAVE to be in favor of rolling Daemons into the Eldar Codex. It's only logical!
Sarcasm aside, you really are doing a poor job demonstrating good faith argumentation, Type40. You're not really addressing the points that are raised, you're just repeating things no one has denied and don't prove your point, or taking arguments to their ridiculous extremes that no one has advocated for.
Gravis captains and gravis captains with MC heavy bolt rifles are from the same book and codex and currently available to all those subfactions and factions XD ...
TWC are not available to all the generic SMs .... are you really not getting that ?
THEY ARE DIFFERENT SUBFACTIONS YOUR EXAMPLE IS NOT. and just because you are arbitrarily saying that "they might as well be treated exactly the same" doesn't mean jack gak. You don't get to decide that and it is a SUBJECTIVE opinion. Do you really not get this ?
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why. Folding TWC into a generic marine bike/cavalry entry is merely one idea that has been suggested as a potential change. We aren't in this thread, writing 40k 10th edition for GW.
No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.
No, that's what you guys do not seem to get.
You are advocating for the same logic you are just arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere. For what ever reason you guys think it is ok to roll the subfactions in together but you can't comprehend how using the same logic we can't do that with everything else ? for real guys. Your choice is to do it to the subfactions is arbitrary. I can make every single one of the arguments you are making for all the unique space wolf units for every unique Sisters of Battle unit and even a lot of the IG.
More catastrophizing. Sure, everything can be dumbed-down to the point the game is played by each player using the exact same single mini. No-one has suggested that. What is being discussed is consolidating redundant unit entries and weapons. What you don't understand is that making 40k a one-mini game per my example would make the game boring, therefore it hasn't been considered by anyone but you. This is not "arbitrary." We're discussing how to improve gameplay and accessibility.
TWC do not make SW unique.
DC do not make BA unique.
RWBKS and dark shrouds do not make my DA unique.
Those are unit entries, which are varying degrees of "unique." No more, no less. As Catbarf said pages ago, much of what can be done to make subfactions and armies unique is at the macro level, in the core mechanics, so tat varying play styles and strategies are available to players. Not whether a chapter's dudes ride motorcycles or wolves, or like swords more than bolters.
Get your emotions under control.
Do you really think there isn't enough meaningful difference between Bikes and wolves? Because imo that's pretty "bad faith". Death Company is definitely more of a signature unit than "Gravis Captain with bolt-weapon-14". Not admitting to a difference between those options is head-in-sand, imo.
No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.
No, that's what you guys do not seem to get.
You are advocating for the same logic you are just arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere. For what ever reason you guys think it is ok to roll the subfactions in together but you can't comprehend how using the same logic we can't do that with everything else ? for real guys. Your choice is to do it to the subfactions is arbitrary. I can make every single one of the arguments you are making for all the unique space wolf units for every unique Sisters of Battle unit and even a lot of the IG.
More catastrophizing. Sure, everything can be dumbed-down to the point the game is played by each player using the exact same single mini. No-one has suggested that. What is being discussed is consolidating redundant unit entries and weapons. What you don't understand is that making 40k a one-mini game per my example would make the game boring, therefore it hasn't been considered by anyone but you. This is not "arbitrary." We're discussing how to improve gameplay and accessibility.
TWC do not make SW unique.
DC do not make BA unique.
RWBKS and dark shrouds do not make my DA unique.
Those are unit entries, which are varying degrees of "unique." No more, no less. As Catbarf said pages ago, much of what can be done to make subfactions and armies unique is at the macro level, in the core mechanics, so tat varying play styles and strategies are available to players. Not whether a chapter's dudes ride motorcycles or wolves, or like swords more than bolters.
Get your emotions under control.
Do you really think there isn't enough meaningful difference between Bikes and wolves? Because imo that's pretty "bad faith". Death Company is definitely more of a signature unit than "Gravis Captain with bolt-weapon-14". Not admitting to a difference between those options is head-in-sand, imo.
I'll agree with Insectum here-there's enough difference between "Bike" and "Animal Mount" that I can see them being different datasheets.
They could be combined, as has been demonstrated earlier, but I wouldn't mind them being separate either.
No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.
No, that's what you guys do not seem to get.
You are advocating for the same logic you are just arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere. For what ever reason you guys think it is ok to roll the subfactions in together but you can't comprehend how using the same logic we can't do that with everything else ? for real guys. Your choice is to do it to the subfactions is arbitrary. I can make every single one of the arguments you are making for all the unique space wolf units for every unique Sisters of Battle unit and even a lot of the IG.
More catastrophizing. Sure, everything can be dumbed-down to the point the game is played by each player using the exact same single mini. No-one has suggested that. What is being discussed is consolidating redundant unit entries and weapons. What you don't understand is that making 40k a one-mini game per my example would make the game boring, therefore it hasn't been considered by anyone but you. This is not "arbitrary." We're discussing how to improve gameplay and accessibility.
TWC do not make SW unique.
DC do not make BA unique.
RWBKS and dark shrouds do not make my DA unique.
Those are unit entries, which are varying degrees of "unique." No more, no less. As Catbarf said pages ago, much of what can be done to make subfactions and armies unique is at the macro level, in the core mechanics, so tat varying play styles and strategies are available to players. Not whether a chapter's dudes ride motorcycles or wolves, or like swords more than bolters.
Get your emotions under control.
Do you really think there isn't enough meaningful difference between Bikes and wolves? Because imo that's pretty "bad faith". Death Company is definitely more of a signature unit than "Gravis Captain with bolt-weapon-14". Not admitting to a difference between those options is head-in-sand, imo.
I'll agree with Insectum here-there's enough difference between "Bike" and "Animal Mount" that I can see them being different datasheets.
They could be combined, as has been demonstrated earlier, but I wouldn't mind them being separate either.
Honestly, this is basically Type40s entire argument (as I follow it). He's just trying to find where to draw the line.
When we talk about "getting rid of TWC" - we mean "getting rid of TWC as a unique entry". There should be provision for TWC to be taken in the same mechanical context - but as a subtype of a generic cavalry option.
Right, robbing a factions/subfaction of its unique rules and creating more customization for the most customizable faction in the game XD.
But for what ever reason. We can't do the same with harlequins.
Why not give SM cavalry the option to move 16" , auto 6" advance, advance and charge, fallback and shoot, fallback and charge, haywire cannons and zephergalives ? "why couldn't a SM successor have come from a planet where people are taught to dance and make plays about the aldari whilst simultaneously finding a stock of jet bikes"
Again... why the arbitrary lines ? why are we saying it is ok to rob one faction/subrfaction of their unique rules but its not the same to do it with a different one ?
Not faction/subfaction. Just subfaction.
your obsession with this distinction highlights your prejudice and where your arbitrary lines are coming from
Space Wolves are a subfaction of Loyalist Marines.
congrats, as of a few months ago they officially became a subfaction of Loyalist Marines after years of officially not being. What is the difference between a subfaction full faction btw other then overalap ? you realize that as of now it just means there is unit overlap and for some reason it influences your prejudice and where the arbitrary line of what should rolled in together and what shouldnt should be.
If anything deserves to be separated out of Codecs into their own thing, it'd be the three Dark Eldar factions (Covens, Kabals, and Wych Cults) or the different gods in the Daemon Codex. Seeing as the DE factions share... Three units? I'm not sure off-hand, and it's definitely just three for the Daemons.
I 100% agree or at least be made into distinct sub faction supplements which get to maintain their own unique units as well as having some overlap in a main codex
Edit: For clarity's sake, I do play Daemons, so I may have a bias there.
I do not play Dark Eldar, though.
Ya, I totally agree with you...
But you are trying to tell me that things like this should get less separation not more. You are saying instead of allowing my subfaction to continue to maintain their existing unioque units that they should just all be mixed together. Do you think that all the lesser daemons should be rolled into together ? do you think that bloodletters should be able to take deamonette gear ? do you think that a bloodthirster should be able to take all the psykick powers a lord of change can ? Why is it ok for me to want my subfaction to keep their unique units without allowing their rules to be robbed and consilidated if not other units and factions...
I propose
1 datasheet
lesser deamon
1 datasheet
Greater deamon
Done... what's the difference other then arbitrary lines being drawn ? (by the way i don't believe in this as much as I believe in a generic datasheet for SM cavalry, it totally robs identity and unique rules rewards for adhering to restrictions)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle
If that's what you think, you should take a look at their datasheets again... wow...
There is more similarities between an eldar jetbike then an SM biker then a TWC and a SM biker ...
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why.
100% disagree. For starters, the wolves don't fire guns out of their mouths.
If there's one thing nine editions have taught us, it's that units can't possibly have the option of swapping a ranged weapon (twin-bolter) for a melee weapon (teeth)...
You seem hung up on "arbitrary" as if that's the cincher to everything.
Ultimately, everything in the game is arbitrary. It's fictional-there's no laws of 40k that have to be followed when the game is being designed.
So, let me try a new tact-what new strategies do the SW units allow for that is unique among the Marines? What strategy cannot be replicated if you miss TWC, Fenrisian Wolves, or Cyberwolves?
JNAProductions wrote: You seem hung up on "arbitrary" as if that's the cincher to everything.
Ultimately, everything in the game is arbitrary. It's fictional-there's no laws of 40k that have to be followed when the game is being designed.
So, let me try a new tact-what new strategies do the SW units allow for that is unique among the Marines? What strategy cannot be replicated if you miss TWC, Fenrisian Wolves, or Cyberwolves?
XD for feth sake XD ...
Ya just push that post.
The fact that I am using the word "arbitrary" to describe that you are choosing to draw a line on the marine subfactions based on nothing but your opinion isn't the same thing as the arbitrariness of working out fictional laws and tabletop rules as an existential question. We don't have to deliberately misrepresent what I am saying because you can't comprehend that your choice to draw the line on the subfactions is a completely baseless choice other then on your own opinions and nothing else.
to answer your question; as many tactics that you wouldn't be able to replicate if you took out any 3 unique units from the game. as these 3 units have their own set of stats, wargear, unique rules, unit numbers, unit composition, access to stratagems and keywords... you know, like literally every unique unit in the game XD.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So do you, or do you not agree that we could have 1 datasheet for all of the lesser deamons and 1 for all of the greater daemons ?
If Nurglings were removed from my Daemons, I'd no longer have access to pregame board control. That's a strategy that I'd lose access to if I lost that unit-no other unit can replicate it in the Daemon's Dex.
So, I ask again:
What actual strategies could you not do if you were forced to run SW without their Supplement/Index? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To your edited point: No, I don't believe so. I do believe that there should be more distinctions between the Daemon Gods, since right now they're mostly just melee beaters, but even then, they've got less in common than SW have with Ultras, or White Scars with iron Hands.
No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.
No, that's what you guys do not seem to get.
You are advocating for the same logic you are just arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere. For what ever reason you guys think it is ok to roll the subfactions in together but you can't comprehend how using the same logic we can't do that with everything else ? for real guys. Your choice is to do it to the subfactions is arbitrary. I can make every single one of the arguments you are making for all the unique space wolf units for every unique Sisters of Battle unit and even a lot of the IG.
More catastrophizing. Sure, everything can be dumbed-down to the point the game is played by each player using the exact same single mini. No-one has suggested that. What is being discussed is consolidating redundant unit entries and weapons. What you don't understand is that making 40k a one-mini game per my example would make the game boring, therefore it hasn't been considered by anyone but you. This is not "arbitrary." We're discussing how to improve gameplay and accessibility.
TWC do not make SW unique.
DC do not make BA unique.
RWBKS and dark shrouds do not make my DA unique.
Those are unit entries, which are varying degrees of "unique." No more, no less. As Catbarf said pages ago, much of what can be done to make subfactions and armies unique is at the macro level, in the core mechanics, so tat varying play styles and strategies are available to players. Not whether a chapter's dudes ride motorcycles or wolves, or like swords more than bolters.
Get your emotions under control.
Do you really think there isn't enough meaningful difference between Bikes and wolves? Because imo that's pretty "bad faith". Death Company is definitely more of a signature unit than "Gravis Captain with bolt-weapon-14". Not admitting to a difference between those options is head-in-sand, imo.
I said at this scale. This is the same problem we had with monstrous creatures using toughness instead of AV and getting USRs on top of that, versus vehicles possessing more restrictive rules and dying to a a sneeze, thanks to hull points. Whether wolf or bike, it's still carrying a rider faster than that rider could walk or run, and operates in the same way.
Of courseDC are a signature BA unit- especially for their lore. Mechanically, they're a better assault squad. Thats' it. This is the problem with attempts at differentiating subfactions at a micro level. There aren't core mechanics that special rules could interact with to make the BA play style different than vanilla marines, or dark green marines, or self-parody marines.
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why.
100% disagree. For starters, the wolves don't fire guns out of their mouths.
Because they couldn't mount guns to the harness, if they wanted to....
What benefit is it to the game for Giant Wolf carrying space marine, and Giant Motorcycle carrying space marine, to exist as separate units? The differences between the two on a data sheet are minor, for to bits that fill the same role.
Heck, make the wolf's attacks a weapon upgrade for the unit, if you want to, Or maybe make living mounts and motorcycles significantly different enough to be worth existing.
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why.
100% disagree. For starters, the wolves don't fire guns out of their mouths.
If there's one thing nine editions have taught us, it's that units can't possibly have the option of swapping a ranged weapon (twin-bolter) for a melee weapon (teeth)...
Damocles, I think you know there's a little more to it than picking from a hand weapon.
I understand that you CAN do it. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying you gotta choose, and for some things it makes less sense.
This isn't simply a game design consideration either, this is a product design decision that acknowledges that people like their models to feel special.
If Nurglings were removed from my Daemons, I'd no longer have access to pregame board control. That's a strategy that I'd lose access to if I lost that unit-no other unit can replicate it in the Daemon's Dex.
So, I ask again:
What actual strategies could you not do if you were forced to run SW without their Supplement/Index?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To your edited point: No, I don't believe so. I do believe that there should be more distinctions between the Daemon Gods, since right now they're mostly just melee beaters, but even then, they've got less in common than SW have with Ultras, or White Scars with iron Hands.
Wowoeowoweo... Your not losing anything. All the lesser daemons will be able to do what the nurglings do. You ll have More customization options not less... I am not saying you should lose it, they should be rolled into together... You wouldn't be losing anything.
Why should you be able to make the argument of making your units more distinct. I thought the goal was to open design space my consolidating datasheet together? And how do two greater demons have less in common then a Wolf v. s. a mechanical bike?
Why my unique units and not yours XD... Seriously. Apply all your arguments to your faction and your demons arnt even seperaed by supplements. P. S. I am on the side that your sub factions should act seperately. I do think you should keep your unique stuff and I do think rolling it all together would detract significantly from the game.
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why.
100% disagree. For starters, the wolves don't fire guns out of their mouths.
If there's one thing nine editions have taught us, it's that units can't possibly have the option of swapping a ranged weapon (twin-bolter) for a melee weapon (teeth)...
Damocles, I think you know there's a little more to it than picking from a hand weapon.
I understand that you CAN do it. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying you gotta choose, and for some things it makes less sense.
This isn't simply a game design consideration either, this is a product design decision that acknowledges that people like their models to feel special.
Which is fine, unless it negatively impacts gameplay. I'm not advocating for cavalry and bikes to be consolidated, I'm looking at them in terms of mechanics, and there are more similarities than differences presently.
What is more special? Minor differences with a slapped-on band-aid SR? Or deep mechanics and high customization that allows you to build "your dudes" and use them "your way?"
The problem with GW is that they make "unique" minis, instead of providing options for players to make their minis unique, and build a force of minis from their chosen army that they like, and suit their preferred play style.
JNAProductions wrote: Because Daemons don't occupy 85% of the design space of the game. Marines do.
But, if you really want to design a Lesser Daemon datasheet that retains all options, let's see it. Until then, can you answer my question?
I don't want to design crap. I want the lesser deamons to be restricted instead of completely customizable... just like my marines.
There is no way SWs take up 85% of the design space XD lol... come on. Again this arbitrary forced assumption that there is either MARINES or NOT MARINES XD and nothing inbetween XD.
And again, what's good for one faction should be good for all factions, so why should it mater how much design space marines are taking up. Lets free as much design space as possible no ? (not acknowledging that doing this in any faction, let alone marines would require incredible amounts of design time, design resources and of course with customization there is an exponential increase of balancing computation and therefor maintenance [common game design fact] ).
You don't have an answer to the question. That's okay, I don't either-as far as I can tell, there's no unique STRATEGIES actually available to SW that other chapters of Marines don't have.
JNAProductions wrote: Because Daemons don't occupy 85% of the design space of the game. Marines do.
But, if you really want to design a Lesser Daemon datasheet that retains all options, let's see it. Until then, can you answer my question?
I don't want to design crap. I want the lesser deamons to be restricted instead of completely customizable... just like my marines.
There is no way SWs take up 85% of the design space XD lol... come on. Again this arbitrary forced assumption that there is either MARINES or NOT MARINES XD and nothing inbetween XD.
And again, what's good for one faction should be good for all factions, so why should it mater how much design space marines are taking up. Lets free as much design space as possible no ? (not acknowledging that doing this in any faction, let alone marines would require incredible amounts of design time, design resources and of course with customization there is an exponential increase of balancing computation and therefor maintenance [common game design fact] ).
Being a marine and being something else is mutually exclusive, actually.
That word you keep using- I do not think it means, what you think it means. Especially after having explained why consolidation is not "arbitrary."
You have nothing to contribute but "lol I don't like that XD. Arbitrary. Arbitrary. ARBITRARY!!!!!" Why are you even in this thread?
Again, why do we draw the line at the unique units in SWs, DA, or DW , why not have everything share everything ?
Nobody is saying they *have* to share everything.
some people ARE saying that
It wasn't the point of the OP post in making the thread, it's not what most people are saying, and certainly wasn't what I was saying when you asked me directly why SM's had to share everything. If you cannot accept this fundamental concept and engage on the OP's proposal or at least my posts, instead of chasing this dragon, it would go better
sure, we are just disagreeing on where it makes sense to do so.
Yes, and your response hasn't been to constantly rail against a single example and not articulate anything deeper than "because I want it to be special", aside from attempting to push arguments to extreme logical absurdities, such as calling for having no differences, that nobody is advocating for.
2: That the various Space Marines generally share the overwhelmingly vast majority of their units, wargear, statlines, options, etc to begin with.
except for where they do not.
Ok, and what was this pointless truism adding to the conversation? Doesn't sound like we're disagreeing here unless you have some sort of additional detail to get into.
3: That when there's a reasonable way to consolidate multiple datasheets into one (with the caveats previously described) where there is a case for multiple factions to share something (even if visually portrayed very differently) that insisting on them being different datasheets just for the sake of feeling special above and beyond anything else, is not a particularly compelling counterargument. That does not mean counterarguments do not exist, only that "but its special" is going to need a backup argument, particularly in light of #5
great, lets roll together SOB then and completely other factions...
Here's those logical absurdities I was referring to above. You're taking an extreme position and presenting it as an unfocused rhetorical question that's not actually looking for a response by leaving it so vague and open ended as to be impossible to actually nail down.
What are we rolling SoB into in this scenario? What's the basis for doing so? If we're simply going to handwave away every qualification/caveat I make as not existing, you can make anything sound stupid, but that doesn't mean it's actually a valid response to what I'm saying.
The original post asked, if there's an argument for other SM chapters to have fearsome Primaris Biker CC units, then why not have them and the TWC's use the same unit entry if they're fundamentally doing the same thing and their relevant options made available? If the only reason is "bike isn't wolf", when both bike and wolf are actually inherently fundamentally developed from rules for horses, that's a bit silly, particularly when they're both WS3+ BS3+ S4 T5 W4 A2, both have Astartes Chainswords, Bolt Pistols, ATFKNF, Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault, and Combat Doctrines, and both otherwise have a similar speed enhancement special rule and movement rate.
If you want to make it out like this is the same thing as just folding SoB into another faction or something, go for it, but it doesn't hold any water.
4: The expanding design space and evolving concept of Space Marines, as noted previously being T4 W1 across the board to now in some cases being T5 W3 for things like basic troops and what appears to be an entire model revamp across the entire line, opens up options for #1 and is likely to accelerate #5 in the case of existing units.
great, even more design space if we roll in the SOB and potentially other factions... right ? if its so good for the one set of factions/subfactions why not others ? are we drawing arbitrary lines again?
You're intentionally missing the point here. The point was that GW is saturating the marine design space, lots of it steps on each others toes already and that is only likely to continue to expand as they do so, and finding places where it's possible to consolidate datasheets can help manage that while still offering a wide unit selection without anyone actually losing their ability to field anything.
However, that said, we're already getting SM troops that are treading solidly into Custodes territory with T5 W3 and sporting similarly stat'd guns, encroaching into *their* "special" zone if you want to get into that, so maybe we talk about SM's staying in their own lane...
5: The stuff you're really on about as being important to keep unique is exactly the kind of thing GW likes to share, change, copy, consolidate, or retire looking at the history of the various product lines and codex entries over the editions.
This is not the same as saying that marines have to share everything. I'll note however that in the examples previously mentioned of such sharing, nobody's worlds ended.
Again,,, #5 is your opinion,,, you know what they hav't done that with , TWC and most of the unique space wolf units... you are 100% wrong by virtue of it not actually happening to things I am arguing should stay unique XD
Ah yes, "you're wrong because all the examples you gave actually happened, but it hasn't happened yet to the specific thing I'm talking about, therefore it's impossible to ever happen and has no basis for being discussed".
You can do better than that.
... realistically your point #5 can be made for literally anything in the game... do you remember in RT when orks used the same wargear as SM ? did you notice those Aldari units that share a BS with SMs XD... your poimt #5 can literally be applied to every rule and unit in the game XD ....
Sure, if we want to go back a quarter century for the last meaningful crossovers, however, with regards to Space Marines we have much more relevant examples from every edition where armies have actually had a codex up to and including the present one.
JNAProductions wrote: You don't have an answer to the question. That's okay, I don't either-as far as I can tell, there's no unique STRATEGIES actually available to SW that other chapters of Marines don't have.
honestly, for feth sake. you don't think there is a difference between how a unit that moves 10 with advance and charge, incredibly versitile wargear, 4 wounds, and 3 extra ap attacks might have different tactics then you know,,, stuff that doesnt have that stuff ?
You can read the goonhammer article. Its quite long... space wolves do have a lot of unique tactics, units and play options after all.
So how about we stop pretending SWs paly exactly like everyother marine faction, that their unique units don't do anything different and for the love of god stop asking me to try and explain how the unique units can play differently v.s. literally everything else in the game... I don't have to explain their tactics to see they have a completely different datasheet. Different stats, wargear options, unit size, unit composition, stratagems, abiltiies and keywords... when ALL those things are different, a unit plays different, because the unit IS different... its as simple as that.
please go read that article. it will explain all the SW unique stuff to you and the unique SW tactics to you because you better believe I am not going through that much information with you in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Being a marine and being something else is mutually exclusive, actually.
That word you keep using- I do not think it means, what you think it means. Especially after having explained why consolidation is not "arbitrary."
Being a wolf and being something else is mutually, exclusive actually.
That word I keep using- I know exactly what it means. Especially after having explained why what you are choosing to consolidate IS "arbitrary."
@Vaktathi
Its not an absurdism to roll SOB in with SMs... take literally all the arguments for rolling TWC into a generic bike squad in this thread and apply. Stop dismissing it because you drew a line on the subfactions and I am drawing the line at imperium... we have just as much base and argumentation to support this position. Shared wargear and some shared rules... done. We don't care whether or not we are rolling a wolf and a bike, so why not a SOB and a Marine ? Honestly ? they have the same wargear even ? why not ? is it just because SWs are a subfaction and not a faction ? is that seriously why my suggestion is SO SO SO absurd ?
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why.
100% disagree. For starters, the wolves don't fire guns out of their mouths.
If there's one thing nine editions have taught us, it's that units can't possibly have the option of swapping a ranged weapon (twin-bolter) for a melee weapon (teeth)...
Damocles, I think you know there's a little more to it than picking from a hand weapon.
I understand that you CAN do it. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying you gotta choose, and for some things it makes less sense.
This isn't simply a game design consideration either, this is a product design decision that acknowledges that people like their models to feel special.
Which is fine, unless it negatively impacts gameplay. I'm not advocating for cavalry and bikes to be consolidated, I'm looking at them in terms of mechanics, and there are more similarities than differences presently.
What is more special? Minor differences with a slapped-on band-aid SR? Or deep mechanics and high customization that allows you to build "your dudes" and use them "your way?"
The problem with GW is that they make "unique" minis, instead of providing options for players to make their minis unique, and build a force of minis from their chosen army that they like, and suit their preferred play style.
"More similarities than differences" by what criteria? They're both have a faster than standard movement rate and higher resilience, but that's about it. One is a combined ranged and CC unit, and another is dedicated CC with a host of options in that regard. They're arguably more different than the difference between a Tactical and Devastator squad. A Devastator Squad is basically a Tactical Squad with MOAR big guns.
I don't think GW sees it as a problem at all that there are so many different units. More units is more products to sell, etc. Also, listbuilding-wise having more discrete choices is a fun thing to have in general. So where to find compromises between these things is really the key. Imo looking at it from a pure game perspective is just going to miss the mark.
So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?
oh man,,, you should seriously take a second glance at that article...
They explain and take note of unique synergizes, play options and tactics in every section of this article... for feth sake its what these guys are famous for.
check out the section "How They’ll Play" and "Army Lists"
lol... seriously... stop being disingenuous or do I really have to start copy and pasting XD ? We are talking about a website that has commentary on tactics and unit playstyles from some of the best competitive players in the world... please when they write a section called "How They'll Play" and procced to talk about their unique palystyle... I would fething listen.
Do you really want me to start copy and pasting from the article or can you handle reading it yourself ?
Unless you are trying to get REALLY disingenuous and then I can ask what unique thing can you do with a bloodletter that you can't do with anything else XD ... like,,, its a different unit... just because they are "fighty" doesnt make them the same as everything else that is "fighty" . please there is a lot more to tactics then 5 word descriptions,,, "fast and fighty" "slow and shooty" sure lots of things in the game can be described this way it doesnt magically mean all those units tactically paly the same if they have completely different datasheets.
So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?
It literally doesn't matter. Imagery is just as important (actually more important) than gameplay in 40K. I'm dead serious.
That is a fair stance to have. I disagree, but respect that position.
Well here's part of the problem with marines, is that they've given marines of all colors access to basically everything. There's a whole active thread on it right now. For a long time, only Blood Angels had access to veterans with Jump Packs and power weapons/fists. Then they gave generic SM chapters Vanguard, and filled in the gap.
That said, TWC (from an outsiders perspective) are pretty easily differentiated by acting as a heavy cavalry unit that is fast, tough, and has access to hard-hitting CC weapons and Storm Shields. As opposed to Vanguard which are fast but not tough, Terminators which can hit hard but are slow, and Bikes which are tough and fast, but have limited access to CC weapons.
@Vaktathi
Its not an absurdism to roll SOB in with SMs... take literally all the arguments for rolling TWC into a generic bike squad in this thread and apply. Stop dismissing it because you drew a line on the subfactions and I am drawing the line at imperium... we have just as much base and argumentation to support this position.
No, when you straight up ignore the qualifications and caveats I put in and just jump straight to a logical extreme that I pointedly note is beyond what I'm discussing, I'm going to go ahead and feel free to call it an absurdism.
Shared wargear and some shared rules... done.
They share a handful of weapons and a vehicle platform. They share very little else.
We don't care whether or not we are rolling a wolf and a bike, so why not a SOB and a Marine ? Honestly ? they have the same wargear even ? why not ? is it just because SWs are a subfaction and not a faction ? is that seriously why my suggestion is SO SO SO absurd ?
Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.
That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.
We don't care whether or not we are rolling a wolf and a bike, so why not a SOB and a Marine ? Honestly ? they have the same wargear even ? why not ? is it just because SWs are a subfaction and not a faction ? is that seriously why my suggestion is SO SO SO absurd ?
Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.
That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.
Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TWC than Tactical Squads and Devastators.
What can they do that Ultras can’t? Or White Scars?
Because the “how they play” section was short. And not unique to SW.
lol read it again XD ... you are officially being facetious ... the “how they play” section specifically talks about how to paly the TWC and you are trying to say its not unique to SWs and doesn't explain something that ultras and white scars cant do...
Come on, now you are deliberately acting dumb. You are honestly going to tell me that this entire goonhammer article dedicated to reviewing the new tactics inside the SWs supplement does not explain the unique units XD ... are you even going to bother reading it or are you going to keep asking me for what I have clearly given you XD.
here is the link again.
goonhammer.com/codex-supplement-space-wolves-the-goonhammer-review/
But fine,,, you don't think there is a difference, tactically between units that can get a charge off turn 1 reliably, who are geared incredibly well for close combat, and a whole host of other things... you know, due to DIFFERENT stats, wargear options, unit size, unit composition, stratagems, abilities and keywords then anything else in the game ? do you really not understand how those things make a unit tactically different from other things ? Do you really want me to sit hear and make up all the hypothetical situations where TWC are going to do something nothing else in the game can't XD ? is that what your expecting ? what are you actually asking for here ?
Ok , there is TWC and a bike squad 24" away from an enemy,,, the TWC will advance and charge the enemy with very effective CC... v.s. the outriders who do not have nearly as good CC gear or CC strats and wont as reliably make the charge.
But of course if they just had the same datasheet and the outriders had more customizablity they would be the same XD right lol ? XD
I am not going to go through every little hypothetical because you are DEMANDING it... learn tactics yourself. the fact that the datasheet is like nothing else in the game should be enough to show you they are tactically different.
We don't care whether or not we are rolling a wolf and a bike, so why not a SOB and a Marine ? Honestly ? they have the same wargear even ? why not ? is it just because SWs are a subfaction and not a faction ? is that seriously why my suggestion is SO SO SO absurd ?
Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.
That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.
Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TCS than Tactical Squads and Devastators.
Right now bikes aren't really a CC unit, agreed, and I currently wouldn't support the idea of merging TWC and Outriders, but the idea was predicated on "if there's an argument for other SM chapters to have fearsome Primaris Biker CC units" as I noted earlier in an earlier response of mine (and that at least felt implied in the OP's example). If such was the case, when they already share a profile and special rules and keywords to the extent they do, then I think combining the profiles makes sense unless there's a bigger reason beyond "I want them to be different just because", particularly when people make biker to cav conversions (and vice versa) all the time for units. If one wanted an example of a bigger reason, one could point to base size for example as a meaningful mechanistic difference, one's on an oval 60mm base and the other on a 70x25mm base IIRC, that could be something to talk about, but if we're just mad that something doesn't have a unique datasheet for its own sake that's harder to buy.
EDIT: if we want to talk tacs and devs, that's a good one. Notably, the first Dawn of War noticed this, and Tactical squads could take up to 4 or 5 heavy weapons (depending on the edition) in a squad They absolutely could be consolidated (maybe Assault Marines too), particularly given the much greater expansion of Space Marine units, though I don't think the current datasheet format has a way to accommodate multiple FoC slots, but that could be worked around.
Anyone can do a fast, hard-hitting block of ObSec with Bladeguard and a tactic (or stratagem) to advance and charge. Since objectives aren't scored T1, if you really need a T1 charge, just take an Outrider squad or two. They can get a first turn charge more reliably, 14" to an average of 13.5".
Yes, TWC are (currently) unique. But they don't really fill a unique niche.
So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?
It literally doesn't matter. Imagery is just as important (actually more important) than gameplay in 40K. I'm dead serious.
Consolidating power swords, axes, mauls, and lances into one profile does that......
Nice try, but if you go back to my argument about that, I make the point that part of the hobby/game is in the minutiae of list building. Also, whether combing them into one 'item' results in better gameplay is also up for debate.
We don't care whether or not we are rolling a wolf and a bike, so why not a SOB and a Marine ? Honestly ? they have the same wargear even ? why not ? is it just because SWs are a subfaction and not a faction ? is that seriously why my suggestion is SO SO SO absurd ?
Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.
That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.
Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TWC than Tactical Squads and Devastators.
Why not? Let bikers take power weapons, fists, and storm shields if they want.
So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?
It literally doesn't matter. Imagery is just as important (actually more important) than gameplay in 40K. I'm dead serious.
Consolidating power swords, axes, mauls, and lances into one profile does that......
Nice try, but if you go back to my argument about that, I make the point that part of the hobby/game is in the minutiae of list building. Also, whether combing them into one 'item' results in better gameplay is also up for debate.
No, you made an argument that people feel like they're making a choice, even if that choice doesn't matter during the game, therefore they should stay.
We don't care whether or not we are rolling a wolf and a bike, so why not a SOB and a Marine ? Honestly ? they have the same wargear even ? why not ? is it just because SWs are a subfaction and not a faction ? is that seriously why my suggestion is SO SO SO absurd ?
Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.
That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.
Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TCS than Tactical Squads and Devastators.
Right now bikes aren't really a CC unit, agreed, and I currently wouldn't support the idea of merging TWC and Outriders, but the idea was predicated on "if there's an argument for other SM chapters to have fearsome Primaris Biker CC units" as I noted earlier in an earlier response of mine (and that at least felt implied in the OP's example). If such was the case, when they already share a profile and special rules and keywords to the extent they do, then I think combining the profiles makes sense unless there's a bigger reason beyond "I want them to be different just because", particularly when people make biker to cav conversions (and vice versa) all the time for units. If one wanted an example of a bigger reason, one could point to base size for example as a meaningful mechanistic difference, one's on an oval 60mm base and the other on a 70x25mm base IIRC, that could be something to talk about, but if we're just mad that something doesn't have a unique datasheet for its own sake that's harder to buy.
Ok, but I disagree with the premise. You don't have to merge all the chapters and give them all the same abilities. I think the ideal is to make them mostly homogenous and then give a couple of them some notable differences with tradeoffs. Definitely not as much as they have now, but something. TWC seem like a good candidate for that.
Anyone can do a fast, hard-hitting block of ObSec with Bladeguard and a tactic (or stratagem) to advance and charge. Since objectives aren't scored T1, if you really need a T1 charge, just take an Outrider squad or two. They can get a first turn charge more reliably, 14" to an average of 13.5".
Yes, TWC are (currently) unique. But they don't really fill a unique niche.
Doesn't matter, again. Lots of armies can play to similar strategies, even if the way they do it is different.
@Vaktathi
Its not an absurdism to roll SOB in with SMs... take literally all the arguments for rolling TWC into a generic bike squad in this thread and apply. Stop dismissing it because you drew a line on the subfactions and I am drawing the line at imperium... we have just as much base and argumentation to support this position.
No, when you straight up ignore the qualifications and caveats I put in and just jump straight to a logical extreme that I pointedly note is beyond what I'm discussing, I'm going to go ahead and feel free to call it an absurdism.
What qualifications and caveats XD lol... you arn't consistent... is it because of their wargear ? is it because they overlap with SOME of their units ? XD (you know we are talking about specific units that are not overlapped right ?) I should call your constant insistence that SWs shouldn't be allowed to have their unique factors preserved absurd ... in fact is is absurd to me, you just refuse to comprehend that someone can think your baseless choice to draw the lines where you did arn't the same place other players draw lines on where one unique army starts and where another one ends.
Shared wargear and some shared rules... done.
They share a handful of weapons and a vehicle platform. They share very little else.
A battle sister squad shares just as much if not more in common with a tactical marine squad then a TWC shares with anything in the marine dex... XD . but you keep insisting for some reason we are talking about entire sets of units in the SM and Supplements as a whole whilst i keep insisting that I only care abut the unique subfaction specific ones in this conversation... I don't care whether or not there is overlap with the 80% of the armies, what I care about is how similar individual units are to each other. And if BS cant be rolled into TAC marines because they are too different how could you possibly suggest TWC could be rolled in somewhere.
We don't care whether or not we are rolling a wolf and a bike, so why not a SOB and a Marine ? Honestly ? they have the same wargear even ? why not ? is it just because SWs are a subfaction and not a faction ? is that seriously why my suggestion is SO SO SO absurd ?
Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including sub faction designation.
That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.
LOL Both a SOB and a Marine are stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both are bipedal humans wearing power armor. They are identical unit profile, sharing half a dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, some keywords that have relevant game purposes and mechanics.
You should read the SOB datasheets its far more then simply a bolter XD ... they share ALL the same wargear as SMs ... stormbolters, bolters, powerweapons, flamers... all of them. You really have to play down their similarities if you seriously do not see that that a BS squad has just as much or more in common with a tac marine squad then a TWC has with anything ...like,,, and why can't SOB have the same subfaction designation ? more customizability is good right. We just give all the unique options and unique keywords the BS squad has to tac marines ? i thought that was the solution we were going for ? the SOB wont lose anything from this, you'll totally still be able to take all of their options ? I don't understand what the problem is ?
We don't care whether or not we are rolling a wolf and a bike, so why not a SOB and a Marine ? Honestly ? they have the same wargear even ? why not ? is it just because SWs are a subfaction and not a faction ? is that seriously why my suggestion is SO SO SO absurd ?
Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.
That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.
Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TWC than Tactical Squads and Devastators.
Why not? Let bikers take power weapons, fists, and storm shields if they want.
Sure homogenize everything and make chapter identity meaningless. . . Imo not good product design, especially when lots of sales come from people who collect multiple SM armies.
So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?
It literally doesn't matter. Imagery is just as important (actually more important) than gameplay in 40K. I'm dead serious.
Consolidating power swords, axes, mauls, and lances into one profile does that......
Nice try, but if you go back to my argument about that, I make the point that part of the hobby/game is in the minutiae of list building. Also, whether combing them into one 'item' results in better gameplay is also up for debate.
No, you made an argument that people feel like they're making a choice, even if that choice doesn't matter during the game, therefore they should stay.
That wasn't entirely my argument, but games are about fun, and fun is about feels, so "feels" can still be a valid motivation to do things.
So, Insectum-as a reasonable person I disagree with, may I ask what you'd like to see the Marine's MO be? And do you feel it should be substantially different for each Chapter, or they should have only variations on the same theme?
JNAProductions wrote: Space Wolves are a subfaction of Loyalist Marines. If anything deserves to be separated out of Codecs into their own thing, it'd be the three Dark Eldar factions (Covens, Kabals, and Wych Cults)
Please, for the love of God, no.
GW basically already did this with the most recent codex and it makes the army play like absolute arse. All it actually means is that each subfaction has bugger-all options and bugger-all synergy.
Seriously, splitting DE was one of the worst decisions of 8th edition and one I'm badly hoping gets reversed in their 9th edition book.
JNAProductions wrote: Space Wolves are a subfaction of Loyalist Marines. If anything deserves to be separated out of Codecs into their own thing, it'd be the three Dark Eldar factions (Covens, Kabals, and Wych Cults)
Please, for the love of God, no.
GW basically already did this with the most recent codex and it makes the army play like absolute arse. All it actually means is that each subfaction has bugger-all options and bugger-all synergy.
Seriously, splitting DE was one of the worst decisions of 8th edition and one I'm badly hoping gets reversed in their 9th edition book.
Fair-as I said, I'm not a DE player, so I don't really grok that.
Would you still be opposed to it if they were significantly more fleshed out, and could still mix, kinda like Chaos can?
Anyone can do a fast, hard-hitting block of ObSec with Bladeguard and a tactic (or stratagem) to advance and charge. Since objectives aren't scored T1, if you really need a T1 charge, just take an Outrider squad or two. They can get a first turn charge more reliably, 14" to an average of 13.5".
Yes, TWC are (currently) unique. But they don't really fill a unique niche.
uhhh yes they can,,, sometimes people go second,
You don't understand how having a greater threat range or having lack of shooting or having strong CC vs having shooting gives a player and their opponent different tactical considerations ? are you really trying to say that ?... you really are going to dilute every thing in the game to 3 - 5 word battlefield roles like "fast and hitty" as the extent of tactical palyability.... damnn ya... there is a bit more to the game then that... i know you know that so I am not jsut going to call you stupid.
but if we are just going to dilute everything then we can easily say TWC and harlequin jetbikes have the exact same tactical capability or is this not what your saying ?. Please stop acting dumb here. can you really not see the difference ? because if that is really the case, then no wonder we are having this conversation ... if you really can not see how a unit with a datasheet that has a different combination and set of stats, unique wargear options, unit composition, unit size, unique abilities, keywords and unique stratagems would play tactically different from anything else in the game then no wonder you think things should be rolled in together XD... but also you can't be very good at this game if you cant understand that units have different tactical advantages and disadvantages based on, you know, their differences, even when they have similar roles.
JNAProductions wrote: Space Wolves are a subfaction of Loyalist Marines. If anything deserves to be separated out of Codecs into their own thing, it'd be the three Dark Eldar factions (Covens, Kabals, and Wych Cults)
Please, for the love of God, no.
GW basically already did this with the most recent codex and it makes the army play like absolute arse. All it actually means is that each subfaction has bugger-all options and bugger-all synergy.
Seriously, splitting DE was one of the worst decisions of 8th edition and one I'm badly hoping gets reversed in their 9th edition book.
Fair-as I said, I'm not a DE player, so I don't really grok that.
Would you still be opposed to it if they were significantly more fleshed out, and could still mix, kinda like Chaos can?
I'd say that while I'd certainly like them to be fleshed out a little more, I honestly don't see the need to split the army up in this manner. They're still supposed to fight and function as a coherent whole, after all.
It seems akin to separating the Wraith units from Eldar into their own dedicated subfaction, which can't go in the same detachment as normal Eldar, nor benefit from any of their abilities or psychic powers. Or having Codex: Chaos Possessed.
I guess I'm just unclear on what problem you're trying to solve by splitting DE up in this manner.
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why. Folding TWC into a generic marine bike/cavalry entry is merely one idea that has been suggested as a potential change. We aren't in this thread, writing 40k 10th edition for GW.
Actually the thread has been completely derailed by Type40 and his idiotic victim complex.
Its never been specifically about the TWC/Outriders yet here we are after 10+ pages of his circular non-logic.
When i tried changing the example to Captain/Lieutenants, multiple times, he kept coming back to his poor furries.
This is quite infuriating because the other posters have actually contributed to the discussion only for their voices to be lost in his whining.
We don't care whether or not we are rolling a wolf and a bike, so why not a SOB and a Marine ? Honestly ? they have the same wargear even ? why not ? is it just because SWs are a subfaction and not a faction ? is that seriously why my suggestion is SO SO SO absurd ?
Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.
That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.
Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TWC than Tactical Squads and Devastators.
Why not? Let bikers take power weapons, fists, and storm shields if they want.
Sure homogenize everything and make chapter identity meaningless. . . Imo not good product design, especially when lots of sales come from people who collect multiple SM armies.
That is not what I am saying. Homogeneity is boring.
Unique units should stay where it contributes to gameplay, like DC, Darkshroud/LSV, Bloodclaws, Wolf Scouts, Lone Wolf, Baal Preds, etc. TWC need to be significantly different from bikers, particularly bikers with melee weapons, to be an impactful choice. Saying "bikers can't have melee weapons, that's what makes TWC unique" is silly, and highlights the problem. TWC don't do anything bikers can't, except carry melee weapons for some reason.
Further, the idea that grabbing a chainsword and riding a "mount" to close with the enemy, is something that only SW and their successors would think of, is absurd.
The game needs a core ruleset that allows more meaningful decisions and strategies.
So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?
It literally doesn't matter. Imagery is just as important (actually more important) than gameplay in 40K. I'm dead serious.
Consolidating power swords, axes, mauls, and lances into one profile does that......
Nice try, but if you go back to my argument about that, I make the point that part of the hobby/game is in the minutiae of list building. Also, whether combing them into one 'item' results in better gameplay is also up for debate.
No, you made an argument that people feel like they're making a choice, even if that choice doesn't matter during the game, therefore they should stay.
That wasn't entirely my argument, but games are about fun, and fun is about feels, so "feels" can still be a valid motivation to do things.
Fun is a feeling. Fussing over the difference in S and AP between a sword or maul is irrelevant when building a list as well as using that unit in games. Irrelevant choices evoke a feeling called "frustrating." 40k being all about listbuiding is "frustrating." The goal is to make the game less frustrating, and more fun.
Consolidating redundant entries helps everyone. Listbuilding is more fun and impactful when the choices really matter.
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why. Folding TWC into a generic marine bike/cavalry entry is merely one idea that has been suggested as a potential change. We aren't in this thread, writing 40k 10th edition for GW.
Actually the thread has been completely derailed by Type40 and his idiotic victim complex.
Its never been specifically about the TWC/Outriders yet here we are after 10+ pages of his circular non-logic.
When i tried changing the example to Captain/Lieutenants, multiple times, he kept coming back to his poor furries.
This is quite infuriating because the other posters have actually contributed to the discussion only for their voices to be lost in his whining.
Yes, I know. I fell into that because others kept sticking to TWC and SW.
We don't care whether or not we are rolling a wolf and a bike, so why not a SOB and a Marine ? Honestly ? they have the same wargear even ? why not ? is it just because SWs are a subfaction and not a faction ? is that seriously why my suggestion is SO SO SO absurd ?
Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.
That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.
Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TCS than Tactical Squads and Devastators.
Right now bikes aren't really a CC unit, agreed, and I currently wouldn't support the idea of merging TWC and Outriders, but the idea was predicated on "if there's an argument for other SM chapters to have fearsome Primaris Biker CC units" as I noted earlier in an earlier response of mine (and that at least felt implied in the OP's example). If such was the case, when they already share a profile and special rules and keywords to the extent they do, then I think combining the profiles makes sense unless there's a bigger reason beyond "I want them to be different just because", particularly when people make biker to cav conversions (and vice versa) all the time for units. If one wanted an example of a bigger reason, one could point to base size for example as a meaningful mechanistic difference, one's on an oval 60mm base and the other on a 70x25mm base IIRC, that could be something to talk about, but if we're just mad that something doesn't have a unique datasheet for its own sake that's harder to buy.
Ok, but I disagree with the premise. You don't have to merge all the chapters and give them all the same abilities. I think the ideal is to make them mostly homogenous and then give a couple of them some notable differences with tradeoffs. Definitely not as much as they have now, but something. TWC seem like a good candidate for that.
I agree with this. It's just as important what a faction can't do or take as what it can. If all the chapters can do everything, and have basically the same units, it would make having different chapters meaningless. It would be like the Legions in the 4th edition codex. And 6th. And 8th, for the most part.
But I thought this was about merging all the redundant datasheets, like all the various loyalist HQs with slightly different wargear, or Chaos Lords with/without terminator armour. All I'm seeing is TWC, TWC, TWC.
JNAProductions wrote: So, Insectum-as a reasonable person I disagree with, may I ask what you'd like to see the Marine's MO be? And do you feel it should be substantially different for each Chapter, or they should have only variations on the same theme?
You mean without completely junking Primaris?
I'd combine a lot of stuff. I don't have the time to do an exhaustive list, but a bunch of stuff could be combined without difficulty.
I'd still leave some space for 'special' chapters to get some special units that are notable to them. TWC, Deathwing (I think), Death Company, stuff like that. A few signature units for each.
I'd provide a list of custom traits with which to design your own chapter with, and use the same traits to define the various named chapters.
I'd prefer to do it all in one book, and drop the supplements. Orrr, possible small, pamphlet style supplements in the style of 3rd ed. Primarily lore, then a smattering of characters and units. not $30 hardbacks. (*spits)
Cull the range of weapons considerably. Like I said earlier, like 60% at least.
Institute a "weapon mod" keyword system for ALL races. Maybe 5 keywords, tops. Examples:
"Hardened" - Hardened weapons have +1 Strength.
"Master Crafted" - Master Crafted weapons do double damage and have an additional -1 AP.
So Eldar could have a Master Crafted Shuriken Catapult, and everybody who knew what a Shuriken Catapult was would know exactly what that meant. The big gun on the Executioner could become a Hardened, Master Crafted Lascannon (or whatever) as another example. This replaces "bolter bloat" with a universal system that can be used for all weapons. You'd get more more options but in a much less confusing way because it translates to every faction. Because I'm not the GW design team, it doesn't get out of hand.
Insectum7 wrote: Ok, but I disagree with the premise. You don't have to merge all the chapters and give them all the same abilities. I think the ideal is to make them mostly homogenous and then give a couple of them some notable differences with tradeoffs. Definitely not as much as they have now, but something. TWC seem like a good candidate for that.
Sure, for now TWC are a good candidate for what you're talking about. If we get Stormshield and power weapon wielding primaris bikers with the next marine expansion however, maybe that changes. That's really the basic fundamental point I was attempting to support. At this point, as noted, this thread got sidetracked and beat to death over a misconception that this was a call to squat TWC's or something and taken to la-la land, and skipped right by all other attempts to right it, so I'll leave the TWC commentary there. It felt like on most other units brought up, like the commanders, got broad agreement around consolidation when people would engage on those subjects, particularly the Gravis captains.
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why. Folding TWC into a generic marine bike/cavalry entry is merely one idea that has been suggested as a potential change. We aren't in this thread, writing 40k 10th edition for GW.
Actually the thread has been completely derailed by Type40 and his idiotic victim complex.
Its never been specifically about the TWC/Outriders yet here we are after 10+ pages of his circular non-logic.
When i tried changing the example to Captain/Lieutenants, multiple times, he kept coming back to his poor furries.
This is quite infuriating because the other posters have actually contributed to the discussion only for their voices to be lost in his whining.
LOL He IS literally advocating for TWC and outriders AND he isn't the only one XD but its all about your opinion isn't it ... Also, everytime you "try to change the example to "captain/lieutenants" I agree with you that they could be put into the same datasheet at the cost of readability with no real benefits to freeing up game design and then we go back to the argument that is actually happening. So, I know you like to hate on me and you also don't seem to be capable of following what has ACTUALLY been sugested in this thread v.s. what people, like myself, have ACTUALLY agreed with you on but its all in writing soo ,, why don't you stop.
I have a simple position which I am arguing for that people do not seem to be ok with.
I argue that unique datasheets, units, models and unit rules for sub factions should remain unique and that giving the generic SMs all their unique options, rules and flavour would be deterimental to the game because
a: providing more customization options decreases design space
b: providing more customization options with no restrictions to a faction that is already overpowered due to to much customization is probably a problem.
c: robbing a subfaction/faction of their unique rules by removing them or cloning them and giving it as an option to everyone removes the uniqueness people have signed up for some of the more iconic subfactions to get.
d: the arguments people are making to consoldiate these subfaction units into the mainfaction can be made for any full faction in the game if we really wanted to and the choice to do this to subfactions is arbitrary and baseless,,, no one has yet to give me any base other then "SUBFACTION" and "MAHRINES." One argument was sharing wargear,,, but aparently SOB don't count so i guess that is also moot.
So please... if you are going to try and accuse me of derailing .... why don't you actually get on board with the conversation everyone is having instead of proposing Captains v.s. Lieutenants as though peopel A:actually disagree with that or B: are actually talking about units that share 90% of the same rules... of course datasheets that share 90% of the same thing can be consolidated ... why not,,, the question in that case is only about how to best represent data,,, it changes nothing else. So,,, can I agree with you on cpt/s and LTs and then can we move back on to the fact that people are trying to homogenize the sub factions because of an arbitrary decision about sub faction units not being allowed to be unique like full faction units can be ?
JNAProductions wrote: So, Insectum-as a reasonable person I disagree with, may I ask what you'd like to see the Marine's MO be? And do you feel it should be substantially different for each Chapter, or they should have only variations on the same theme?
You mean without completely junking Primaris?
I'd combine a lot of stuff. I don't have the time to do an exhaustive list, but a bunch of stuff could be combined without difficulty.
I'd still leave some space for 'special' chapters to get some special units that are notable to them. TWC, Deathwing (I think), Death Company, stuff like that. A few signature units for each.
I'd provide a list of custom traits with which to design your own chapter with, and use the same traits to define the various named chapters.
I'd prefer to do it all in one book, and drop the supplements. Orrr, possible small, pamphlet style supplements in the style of 3rd ed. Primarily lore, then a smattering of characters and units. not $30 hardbacks. (*spits)
Cull the range of weapons considerably. Like I said earlier, like 60% at least.
Institute a "weapon mod" keyword system for ALL races. Maybe 5 keywords, tops. Examples:
"Hardened" - Hardened weapons have +1 Strength.
"Master Crafted" - Master Crafted weapons do double damage and have an additional -1 AP.
So Eldar could have a Master Crafted Shuriken Catapult, and everybody who knew what a Shuriken Catapult was would know exactly what that meant. The big gun on the Executioner could become a Hardened, Master Crafted Lascannon (or whatever) as another example. This replaces "bolter bloat" with a universal system that can be used for all weapons. You'd get more more options but in a much less confusing way because it translates to every faction. Because I'm not the GW design team, it doesn't get out of hand.
That's what I got off the top of my head.
Double damage feels a little much, to nitpick your off-the-cuff idea. A MasterCrafted Thunderhammer is now 6 damage-same as a Knight Titan's melee weapon!
But, in general, I hear what you're saying, and I agree. I'd rather have a simpler system that allows you to customize your guys how you want, than 100 bespoke datasheets without much customization.
Blastaar wrote: Fun is a feeling. Fussing over the difference in S and AP between a sword or maul
Subjective.
If you don't care to fuss about it, just pick one and move on. Easy.
The problem is that one of them is strictly better than the other options. I like swords. A spear might be cool. But if they're ineffective in games, that isn't fun. I want to pick the power weapon I think looks cool, or fits the background and fighting style I created for the character.
A Mod note here, this thread has been something of a free fire zone regarding personal attacks from multiple sides, and it's time to end that, please comport yourselves accordingly from here on out.
Also, OP (thats you @VladimirHerzog) used it as his first example and argued for it for almost 2 pages which also lead others to argue for it for many more pages... which has also lead to the TWC into generic Cavalary argument... if everyone thinks those two options are bad. Then great, they are bad options.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: A Mod note here, this thread has been something of a free fire zone regarding personal attacks from multiple sides, and it's time to end that, please comport yourselves accordingly from here on out.
JNAProductions wrote: So, Insectum-as a reasonable person I disagree with, may I ask what you'd like to see the Marine's MO be? And do you feel it should be substantially different for each Chapter, or they should have only variations on the same theme?
You mean without completely junking Primaris?
I'd combine a lot of stuff. I don't have the time to do an exhaustive list, but a bunch of stuff could be combined without difficulty.
I'd still leave some space for 'special' chapters to get some special units that are notable to them. TWC, Deathwing (I think), Death Company, stuff like that. A few signature units for each.
I'd provide a list of custom traits with which to design your own chapter with, and use the same traits to define the various named chapters.
I'd prefer to do it all in one book, and drop the supplements. Orrr, possible small, pamphlet style supplements in the style of 3rd ed. Primarily lore, then a smattering of characters and units. not $30 hardbacks. (*spits)
Cull the range of weapons considerably. Like I said earlier, like 60% at least.
Institute a "weapon mod" keyword system for ALL races. Maybe 5 keywords, tops. Examples:
"Hardened" - Hardened weapons have +1 Strength.
"Master Crafted" - Master Crafted weapons do double damage and have an additional -1 AP.
So Eldar could have a Master Crafted Shuriken Catapult, and everybody who knew what a Shuriken Catapult was would know exactly what that meant. The big gun on the Executioner could become a Hardened, Master Crafted Lascannon (or whatever) as another example. This replaces "bolter bloat" with a universal system that can be used for all weapons. You'd get more more options but in a much less confusing way because it translates to every faction. Because I'm not the GW design team, it doesn't get out of hand.
That's what I got off the top of my head.
Double damage feels a little much, to nitpick your off-the-cuff idea. A MasterCrafted Thunderhammer is now 6 damage-same as a Knight Titan's melee weapon!
But, in general, I hear what you're saying, and I agree. I'd rather have a simpler system that allows you to customize your guys how you want, than 100 bespoke datasheets without much customization.
Your missing the part where he advocates for chapter specific units being preserved... which is also exactly what I am advocating for. I couldn't care less about removing the bloat. I have a problem with squatting or homogenizing the unique sub faction units and i can't understand why people seem to think this is ok but they wouldn't dare do it to a full faction .
Blastaar wrote: Fun is a feeling. Fussing over the difference in S and AP between a sword or maul
Subjective.
If you don't care to fuss about it, just pick one and move on. Easy.
The problem is that one of them is strictly better than the other options. I like swords. A spear might be cool. But if they're ineffective in games, that isn't fun. I want to pick the power weapon I think looks cool, or fits the background and fighting style I created for the character.
Easy solution, balance them better. Or play counts-as, most metas I've played in have been fine with that.
What I'd like to see for marines is one book, with different lists/force orgs for the chapters that need it, including their unique units.
I want to see my DA something like this:
Captain- termie armor, bike, jump pack, power weapon, power fist, lightning claw(s) bolter, stalker bolter, combi-weapon, bolt, plasma, grav pistols, maybe all special weapons
Lietenant (there's only one captain in a company, after all) same as above
Librarian- bike, jump pack, termie armor, force weapon, bolt, grav, plasma pistols, psychic powers by points codicier/epistolary upgrades
Chaplain- bike, jump pack, termie armor, crozius, grav, plasma, bolt pistols, upgrade to interrogator
Blastaar wrote: Fun is a feeling. Fussing over the difference in S and AP between a sword or maul
Subjective.
If you don't care to fuss about it, just pick one and move on. Easy.
The problem is that one of them is strictly better than the other options. I like swords. A spear might be cool. But if they're ineffective in games, that isn't fun. I want to pick the power weapon I think looks cool, or fits the background and fighting style I created for the character.
Easy solution, balance them better. Or play counts-as, most metas I've played in have been fine with that.
My solution to balancing them is to give them one profile. What do you suggest?
Blastaar wrote: Fun is a feeling. Fussing over the difference in S and AP between a sword or maul
Subjective.
If you don't care to fuss about it, just pick one and move on. Easy.
The problem is that one of them is strictly better than the other options. I like swords. A spear might be cool. But if they're ineffective in games, that isn't fun. I want to pick the power weapon I think looks cool, or fits the background and fighting style I created for the character.
Easy solution, balance them better.
The problem becomes, at that level, balancing them in a way that doesn't just leave them all identical is hard with the extremely limited design space available (and especially if we want to make them all the same cost). Going from a power weapon to a power fist is a fairly reasonable shift given what there is to work with, monkeying about with essentially just 4 "points" to play with split between two stats (strength and AP) among 3+ different weapons doesn't really work as well.
Or play counts-as, most metas I've played in have been fine with that.
Which is essentially just treating them all as being the same thing anyway.
Insectum7 wrote:Imagery is just as important (actually more important) than gameplay in 40K. I'm dead serious.
So if imagery is more important than rules, is that not an argument in favour of generic rules that you "flavour" through model aesthetics? (And, for what it's worth, I actually agree. Imagery is more important than gameplay. But I think we have different ideas of imagery, because I don't need rules/gameplay to inform my imagery. My imagery is more along the lines of "my guy carries a great two handed axe into battle to reflect his role as an executioner - it uses a thunder hammer profile to represent the massive weight and heft of it" than "I need a great-axe profile because I built my guy with a big axe".)
Sure, your "melee weapon" could be the rusty bayonet or ornate chainsword, both very different in flavour and imagery, but mechanically (gameplay) the same.
Insectum7 wrote:Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it.
Veteran Bikers (which TWC are much closer to, having also Veteran statlines) are equipped for melee though, and aside from 2", different types of mount attack, and Swift Attack (which, let's face it, SW bikers should have) - they're not different.
Insectum7 wrote:Sure homogenize everything and make chapter identity meaningless
Chapters can already take CQC Bikers. They're called Veterans on Bikes.
Imo not good product design, especially when lots of sales come from people who collect multiple SM armies.
I thought the important part was the imagery, not the gameplay? It shouldn't matter if all SM have the same mechanical rules, it's down to the players to take the imagery GW provides and run with that for their own flavour.
Vaktathi wrote:
Insectum7 wrote: Or play counts-as, most metas I've played in have been fine with that.
Which is essentially just treating them all as being the same thing anyway.
EXACTLY! If you're just saying "well, we just count-as the best weapon, regardless of WYSIWGY", isn't that just an implicit endorsement of "well, we should just have a good weapon profile which covers this whole bracket of weapons".
Otherwise, what happened to that "imagery over gameplay" that you were talking about?
Blastaar wrote: Fun is a feeling. Fussing over the difference in S and AP between a sword or maul
Subjective.
If you don't care to fuss about it, just pick one and move on. Easy.
The problem is that one of them is strictly better than the other options. I like swords. A spear might be cool. But if they're ineffective in games, that isn't fun. I want to pick the power weapon I think looks cool, or fits the background and fighting style I created for the character.
Easy solution, balance them better.
The problem becomes, at that level, balancing them in a way that doesn't just leave them all identical is hard with the extremely limited design space available (and especially if we want to make them all the same cost). Going from a power weapon to a power fist is a fairly reasonable shift given what there is to work with, monkeying about with essentially just 4 "points" to play with split between two stats (strength and AP) among 3+ different weapons doesn't really work as well.
Or play counts-as, most metas I've played in have been fine with that.
Which is essentially just treating them all as being the same thing anyway.
No imagination, my friend! There's always bespoke special rules .
Opening bid:
Axe as is.
Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model
Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
Insectum7 wrote: Opening bid:
Axe as is.
Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model
Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
What about daggers? Rapiers? Halberds? At a certain point, do I just have to play count-as?
Insectum7 wrote: No imagination, my friend! There's always bespoke special rules .
Opening bid:
Axe as is.
Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model
Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
Rather than asking how we can differentiate these weapons to the point where we could conceivably justify not merging them, might it be more sensible to start from the other direction?
As in, what is the end goal here? What are we trying to achieve by keeping these weapons separate?
Do we want these weapons to each fulfil different roles? If so, what are those roles and how do they differ from the roles of weapons such as Lightning Claws and Power Fists?
Blastaar wrote: Fun is a feeling. Fussing over the difference in S and AP between a sword or maul
Subjective.
If you don't care to fuss about it, just pick one and move on. Easy.
The problem is that one of them is strictly better than the other options. I like swords. A spear might be cool. But if they're ineffective in games, that isn't fun. I want to pick the power weapon I think looks cool, or fits the background and fighting style I created for the character.
Easy solution, balance them better.
The problem becomes, at that level, balancing them in a way that doesn't just leave them all identical is hard with the extremely limited design space available (and especially if we want to make them all the same cost). Going from a power weapon to a power fist is a fairly reasonable shift given what there is to work with, monkeying about with essentially just 4 "points" to play with split between two stats (strength and AP) among 3+ different weapons doesn't really work as well.
Or play counts-as, most metas I've played in have been fine with that.
Which is essentially just treating them all as being the same thing anyway.
No imagination, my friend! There's always bespoke special rules .
Opening bid:
Axe as is.
Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model
Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
Opening up different things can be interesting, but in this case all kinda ends up the same way.
Assuming 2 base attacks, WS3+
S4 with Axe vs T4 3+ = 0.74074 wounds
S4 with Axe vs T3 5+ =1.11 wounds
S4 with Axe vs T7 3+ =0.2962 wounds
S4 with Sword (assuming AP remains -3 and +1S is removed in favor of +1A) vs T4 3+ =0.833 wounds
S4 with Sword (assuming AP remains -3 and +1S is removed in favor of +1A) vs T3 5+ =1.333 wounds
S4 with Sword (assuming AP remains -3 and +1S is removed in favor of +1A) vs T7 3+ =0.555 wounds
S4 with Maul vs T4 3+ =0.555 wounds
S4 with Maul vs T3 5+ =0.926 wounds
S4 with Maul vs T7 3+ =0.333 wounds
The Sword is clearly better at each task than every other option, and the Maul struggles to find any value. EDIT: miscalculated for Maul vs T7 3+ originally as being better than it is.
I looked at what bumping the Sword down to just AP-2 did instead of AP-3, but while that makes the Axe more attractive, it's still flat out as good or better than the Maul.
By comparison, a Lightning Claw and a Powerfist give us
LC vs T4 3+=1 wound
LC vs T3 5+=1.776 wounds
LC vs T7 3+=0.74074
PF vs T4 3+= 0.69 wounds/1.38 wounds (doubled for a multiwound model)
PF vs T3 5+=0.8333/1.66 wounds (doubled for a multiwound model)
PF vs T7 3+=1.11/2.22 wounds (doubled for a multiwound model)
The -1 to hit option to represent a sword parry in place of the +1A could be more interesting, but its value would be harder to determine, and would dramatically drop the Sword's offensive performance to the bottom.
Insectum7 wrote: No imagination, my friend! There's always bespoke special rules .
Opening bid:
Axe as is.
Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model
Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
Rather than asking how we can differentiate these weapons to the point where we could conceivably justify not merging them, might it be more sensible to start from the other direction?
As in, what is the end goal here? What are we trying to achieve by keeping these weapons separate?
Do we want these weapons to each fulfil different roles? If so, what are those roles and how do they differ from the roles of weapons such as Lightning Claws and Power Fists?
The point is to have a selection of choices for list fiddling and potential datasheet character, in the sense that some units may have access to only some options. Choice for model aesthetic/character/potential role.
Insectum7 wrote: Opening bid:
Axe as is.
Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model
Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
What about daggers? Rapiers? Halberds? At a certain point, do I just have to play count-as?
Blastaar wrote: Fun is a feeling. Fussing over the difference in S and AP between a sword or maul
Subjective.
If you don't care to fuss about it, just pick one and move on. Easy.
The problem is that one of them is strictly better than the other options. I like swords. A spear might be cool. But if they're ineffective in games, that isn't fun. I want to pick the power weapon I think looks cool, or fits the background and fighting style I created for the character.
Easy solution, balance them better.
The problem becomes, at that level, balancing them in a way that doesn't just leave them all identical is hard with the extremely limited design space available (and especially if we want to make them all the same cost). Going from a power weapon to a power fist is a fairly reasonable shift given what there is to work with, monkeying about with essentially just 4 "points" to play with split between two stats (strength and AP) among 3+ different weapons doesn't really work as well.
Or play counts-as, most metas I've played in have been fine with that.
Which is essentially just treating them all as being the same thing anyway.
No imagination, my friend! There's always bespoke special rules .
Opening bid:
Axe as is.
Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model
Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
Opening up different things can be interesting, but in this case all kinda ends up the same way.
Assuming 2 base attacks, WS3+
S4 with Axe vs T4 3+ = 0.74074 wounds
S4 with Axe vs T3 5+ =1.11 wounds
S4 with Axe vs T7 3+ =0.2962 wounds
S4 with Sword (assuming AP remains -3 and +1S is removed in favor of +1A) vs T4 3+ =0.833 wounds
S4 with Sword (assuming AP remains -3 and +1S is removed in favor of +1A) vs T3 5+ =1.333 wounds
S4 with Sword (assuming AP remains -3 and +1S is removed in favor of +1A) vs T7 3+ =0.555 wounds
S4 with Maul vs T4 3+ =0.555 wounds
S4 with Maul vs T3 5+ =0.926 wounds
S4 with Maul vs T7 3+ =0.333 wounds
The Sword is clearly better at each task than every other option, and the Maul struggles to find any value. EDIT: miscalculated for Maul vs T7 3+ originally as being better than it is.
I looked at what bumping the Sword down to just AP-2 did instead of AP-3, but while that makes the Axe more attractive, it's still flat out as good or better than the Maul.
By comparison, a Lightning Claw and a Powerfist give us
LC vs T4 3+=1 wound
LC vs T3 5+=1.776 wounds
LC vs T7 3+=0.74074
PF vs T4 3+= 0.69 wounds/1.38 wounds (doubled for a multiwound model)
PF vs T3 5+=0.8333/1.66 wounds (doubled for a multiwound model)
PF vs T7 3+=1.11/2.22 wounds (doubled for a multiwound model)
The -1 to hit option to represent a sword parry in place of the +1A could be more interesting, but its value would be harder to determine, and would dramatically drop the Sword's offensive performance to the bottom.
So we tweak it a bit. But remember, not everybody has access to lightning claws, and we can restrict some units to not have all options as well. There's plenty of room once you realize that these can be universal weapons regardless of faction.
Insectum7 wrote: No imagination, my friend! There's always bespoke special rules .
Opening bid:
Axe as is.
Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model
Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
Rather than asking how we can differentiate these weapons to the point where we could conceivably justify not merging them, might it be more sensible to start from the other direction?
As in, what is the end goal here? What are we trying to achieve by keeping these weapons separate?
Do we want these weapons to each fulfil different roles? If so, what are those roles and how do they differ from the roles of weapons such as Lightning Claws and Power Fists?
The point is to have a selection of choices for list fiddling and potential datasheet character, in the sense that some units may have access to only some options. Choice for model aesthetic/character/potential role.
What is the point of list fiddling if the choices are meaningless? Part of the point of rolling swords and stuff into "power weapon" is to increase character and aesthetic choices so that players are not disadvantaged by taking the weapon they think looks cool, but sucks.
This minutiae would be great in a skirmish game, though, where you only have around 20 minis who act independently.
Insectum7 wrote: Opening bid:
Axe as is.
Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model
Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
What about daggers? Rapiers? Halberds? At a certain point, do I just have to play count-as?
Blastaar wrote: Fun is a feeling. Fussing over the difference in S and AP between a sword or maul
Subjective.
If you don't care to fuss about it, just pick one and move on. Easy.
The problem is that one of them is strictly better than the other options. I like swords. A spear might be cool. But if they're ineffective in games, that isn't fun. I want to pick the power weapon I think looks cool, or fits the background and fighting style I created for the character.
Easy solution, balance them better.
The problem becomes, at that level, balancing them in a way that doesn't just leave them all identical is hard with the extremely limited design space available (and especially if we want to make them all the same cost). Going from a power weapon to a power fist is a fairly reasonable shift given what there is to work with, monkeying about with essentially just 4 "points" to play with split between two stats (strength and AP) among 3+ different weapons doesn't really work as well.
Or play counts-as, most metas I've played in have been fine with that.
Which is essentially just treating them all as being the same thing anyway.
No imagination, my friend! There's always bespoke special rules .
Opening bid:
Axe as is.
Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model
Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
Opening up different things can be interesting, but in this case all kinda ends up the same way.
Assuming 2 base attacks, WS3+
S4 with Axe vs T4 3+ = 0.74074 wounds
S4 with Axe vs T3 5+ =1.11 wounds
S4 with Axe vs T7 3+ =0.2962 wounds
S4 with Sword (assuming AP remains -3 and +1S is removed in favor of +1A) vs T4 3+ =0.833 wounds
S4 with Sword (assuming AP remains -3 and +1S is removed in favor of +1A) vs T3 5+ =1.333 wounds
S4 with Sword (assuming AP remains -3 and +1S is removed in favor of +1A) vs T7 3+ =0.555 wounds
S4 with Maul vs T4 3+ =0.555 wounds
S4 with Maul vs T3 5+ =0.926 wounds
S4 with Maul vs T7 3+ =0.333 wounds
The Sword is clearly better at each task than every other option, and the Maul struggles to find any value. EDIT: miscalculated for Maul vs T7 3+ originally as being better than it is.
I looked at what bumping the Sword down to just AP-2 did instead of AP-3, but while that makes the Axe more attractive, it's still flat out as good or better than the Maul.
By comparison, a Lightning Claw and a Powerfist give us
LC vs T4 3+=1 wound
LC vs T3 5+=1.776 wounds
LC vs T7 3+=0.74074
PF vs T4 3+= 0.69 wounds/1.38 wounds (doubled for a multiwound model)
PF vs T3 5+=0.8333/1.66 wounds (doubled for a multiwound model)
PF vs T7 3+=1.11/2.22 wounds (doubled for a multiwound model)
The -1 to hit option to represent a sword parry in place of the +1A could be more interesting, but its value would be harder to determine, and would dramatically drop the Sword's offensive performance to the bottom. So we tweak it a bit. But remember, not everybody has access to lightning claws, and we can restrict some units to not have all options as well. There's plenty of room once you realize that these can be universal weapons regardless of faction.
At the scale of this game, is it relevant or fun to represent parries? That's abstracted into WS, anyway. Modifers do not necessarily make playing the game more fun.
What is the purpose of standardizing weapons across armies? There will be similarities, and probably some weapons that are identical to what other armies have, but they aren't, and shouldn't be, all the same. Not to mention Nids..........
I agree that bespoke special rules can be useful, but they need to be though-out. and used with intention to supplement what is already there, not to make a thing unique because the main rules do not provide those tools.
All of that is just details to be sorted out if we were actually responsible for implementation. Like I said, this is my opening bid for overall organization and an initial proposal for power weapons. Everything would be tied to a whole host of relationships between units and rules, much of which would be adjusted and have various fallout.
The main reason for the power weapon proposal is to illustrate that you have more to play with than just strength and AP. Need to improve the maul? Make mauls do 2d on a wound roll of 5+, or whatever. Just tweak until you have a balance between character and utility.
What is the point of list fiddling if the choices are meaningless? Part of the point of rolling swords and stuff into "power weapon" is to increase character and aesthetic choices so that players are not disadvantaged by taking the weapon they think looks cool, but sucks.
This minutiae would be great in a skirmish game, though, where you only have around 20 minis who act independently.
I find CC weapon choice to be fun, and it's not meaningless if they're different enough. All you have to do is make each choice worthwhile.
Conversely, if you find them too similar, then you should feel more free to model whatever version you want on your model. That's the catch 22 I described in my earlier posts.
I think with the limited design space you could tweak it all day and run into the same issue unless we're going to come up with something really outside of GW's established design paradigm.
But remember, not everybody has access to lightning claws,
Sure, but none of the options came anywhere near that level of performance except the Sword that was just better than everything else already anyway.
and we can restrict some units to not have all options as well.
Which would seem to restrict the choice and flavor we're generally looking to support. If bespoke rules are needed for a unit (say for power lances on a biker/cavalry unit like shining spears), they can get their unique weapon rules there, but otherwise it seems the generic option fills this role just fine.
There's plenty of room once you realize that these can be universal weapons regardless of faction.
Sure, but so can a single weapons profile without all these other issues.
Insectum7 wrote: All of that is just details to be sorted out if we were actually responsible for implementation.
That's historically where GW has fallen down however, and where it appears we're running into issues at as well, and trying to handwave that away saying "it can just be sorted out" would seem to be avoiding the problem. We're making stats just to make stuff different for its own sake without a clear reason for each weapon to do something, resulting in a grip of options that don't appear to have a clear focus but where a clear favorite is present and minor changes radically shift relative performance because the granularity of variables to work with isn't terribly precise and we're trying to keep them all within a narrow power range where they're better than a chainsword but not as good as a lightning claw, with with less performance differentation between them than other options generally available (e.g. chainsword vs Lightning Claw vs Powerfist are all radically more different from each other than any of these power weapon options are to each other). It seems like the effort and detail going into that, and avoidance of balance issues and options paralysis, is better spent on other priorities at the scale 40k plays at.
Opening bid: Axe as is. Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
So the sword with +1 attacks makes a pair of lightning claws obsolete. and -1 to hit makes all of them obsolete. We all know how powerful penalties to hit are. The moment you buff the maul the powerfist looses any reason to exist. The design space isn't occupied by just power weapons. It's occupied by every option on the datasheet.
Wah wah. We can bicker about the details but it doesn't change the fact that fundamentally all we're looking at the difference between 3 profiles and 5, which is still fewer than the heavy weapon choices available to Tac marines. Guys, this is minor.
Opening bid:
Axe as is.
Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model
Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
So the sword with +1 attacks makes a pair of lightning claws obsolete. and -1 to hit makes all of them obsolete. We all know how powerful penalties to hit are.
The moment you buff the maul the powerfist looses any reason to exist. The design space isn't occupied by just power weapons. It's occupied by every option on the datasheet.
Seriously? Lightning Claws rerolling to wound ring any bells? Powerfist does multiple damage at a higher AP than the Maul? Just throw your hands in the air and give up immediately with "it can't be done!"s, why don't you. If you were actually commited to doing it, you can do it.
Insectum7 wrote: Wah wah. We can bicker about the details but it doesn't change the fact that fundamentally all we're looking at the difference between 3 profiles and 5, which is still fewer than the heavy weapon choices available to Tac marines. Guys, this is minor.
Opening bid: Axe as is. Sword +1 attack like chainswords OR -1 to hit for enemy models attacking owning model Maul, as is but +1 to wound.
So the sword with +1 attacks makes a pair of lightning claws obsolete. and -1 to hit makes all of them obsolete. We all know how powerful penalties to hit are. The moment you buff the maul the powerfist looses any reason to exist. The design space isn't occupied by just power weapons. It's occupied by every option on the datasheet.
Seriously? Lightning Claws rerolling to wound ring any bells? Powerfist does multiple damage at a higher AP than the Maul? Just throw your hands in the air and give up immediately with "it can't be done!"s, why don't you. If you were actually commited to doing it, you can do it.
Sorry I mixed the Maul with the Thunder Hammer.
No, you can't. The captain datasheet has 8 different melee weapons on it. There are not 8 different types of targets to optimize them for.
The chainsword/lightning claw is optimized towards weak save hoard units becuse despite doing less damage then something like the relic blade per hit it is capable of generating more hits and that is what you want versus single wound targets especially with weaker saves and a lot of bodies.
The power weapons/relic blade have AP (unless it's the maul which only has ap-1). So they are optimized as MEQ weapons. Not just because of the AP but the bonus strength gives them wounds at 3+. (The maul getting +1 to wound and ap-1 means the maul wounds everything on a really broad spectrum but it can't deal with the armor of anything on that spectrum. So what the hell is it doing versus any other option on the datasheet?) With the relic blade having 6 str and -3 AP and Dd3 making it a pretty optimal TEQ killer which ALSO makes it the best MEQ killer. It's a flat upgrade to anything the power weapons can do. The fist and thunderhammer again have the exact same targets. One will mathmatically be better at it then the other. And it is. The thunder hammer doesn't have variable damage.
In other to give the other 4 weapons on the list an actual role to fill you need 4 other kinds of targets for them to take out AND they need to be better at taking them out then the other weapons without taking away their niche. I am happy to say that no. It cannot actually be done. The design space is actually that limited. And most important to the power weapons sepcficially you got from GEQ (lighting claws) to MEQ (The trio of power weapons) to TEQ (relic blade) so in order to find something for the other 2 power weapons (+ any other variety of them you want to represent such as spear) you need to find other targets to go after without stepping on their toes within THAT range band. Otherwise those weapons need to start killing vehicles. And if they are going to start killing vehicles they need to do it better then the Str8 Thunderhammer but not as good as either when strength 8 matter.
Edited because I keep mixing up all the dumb power weapon profiles. Fixed now.
For example thunder hammers have always been better than fists but they cost much more. Having different options to fight the same targets but at different point levels isn't a bad thing. (It also allows for good point fillers when you are at 1990 etc points. Thats the reason why misericordia exist for Adeptus Custodes)
Is ok for a lighting claw to be better than a chainsword at the same task if the lighting claw costs 3 times as much.
Right now with 9th, Fists, Chainfists and Thunderhammers each have their clear use: Thunderhammer wins agaisnt 3 wound models and bigger stuff, Chainfists wins agaisnt all kind of vehicles, and Fists win again 2 wound infantry.
In the axe vs sword vs powermace debate I believe you dont need to remove all the options. Just remove one. The mace is redundant. Just make it power swords and power axes: Powersword specialized in fighting agaisnt armored opponents and the axe a more middle of the road weapon as it is now. And keep both as cheap options in comparison with the three power weapons designed to kill multiwound or big stuff.
Relic Blade is a special weapon for space marine characters that no other Codex has, but many codex have access to power weapons, so don't use the Relic Blade to claim redundancy for other options when many armies don't have it.
Galas wrote: I mean you are ignoring the price difference.
For example thunder hammers have always been better than fists but they cost much more. Having different options to fight the same targets but at different point levels isn't a bad thing.
As Type likes to bring up. PvNP. You spend a lot of time and resources trying to balance a bunch of options that essentially do the same jobs. The Thunderhammer kills those same targets just as dead and it could probably get slightly cheaper if it didn't have to be costed agaisnt these other options and instead took a generic profile of "Heavy Power Weapon" that could represent all 3.
Is ok for a lighting claw to be better than a chainsword at the same task if the lighting claw costs 3 times as much.
More importantly the chainsword is a stock weapon. It's cool to have a weaker stock weapon and then you pay for upgrades. But the upgrades shouldn't be competing with each other otherwise you end up with redundant entries.
Right now with 9th, Fists, Chainfists and Thunderhammers each have their clear use: Thunderhammer wins agaisnt 3 wound models and bigger stuff, Chainfists wins agaisnt all kind of vehicles, and Fists win again 2 wound infantry.
In the axe vs sword vs powermace debate I believe you dont need to remove all the options. Just remove one. The mace is redundant. Just make it power swords and power axes: Powersword specialized in fighting agaisnt armored opponents and the axe a more middle of the road weapon as it is now. And keep both as cheap options in comparison with the three power weapons designed to kill multiwound or big stuff.
I disagree that the 2 fill distinct roles. -2 AP is already a great AP. SM become 5+ saves. Essentially guardsmen. And anything gaurdsmen or less have no save. At +1 strength at the critical juncture of 5 str is far more valuable. You change your wounds from a 4+ to a 3+ against MEQ. It's far more valuable to roll more wounds against a 5+ save then it is 16% less wounds against a 6+ save. Nothing with that higher Sv is going to have that Lower T to make those weapons matter as a choice.
Relic Blade is a special weapon for space marine characters that no other Codex has, but many codex have access to power weapons, so don't use the Relic Blade to claim redundancy for other options when many armies don't have it.
I am not arguing that the relic blade is redundant. I think it's redundant to give the characters who have access to the relic blade access to the power weapons but I think it's good to have the power weapon profile available to the units that do not have access to the relic blade.
I think part of the issue (possibly due to shallow rules and limited design space) is that a lot of melee weapons are just direct improvements over others.
For example, a Power Fist is basically just an outright improvement over Swords, Axes and Mauls. Yes, it has -1 to hit, but that is more than made up for by its strength, even before you get to its AP and damage.
So rather than tailoring a character towards battling vehicles/monsters, a Power Fist tailors a character towards fighting anything.
You could maybe make an argument for Power Claws or a Relic Blade as alternatives, but even then we're still ignoring all three varieties of basic Power Weapon, so what's the point?
vipoid wrote: I think part of the issue (possibly due to shallow rules and limited design space) is that a lot of melee weapons are just direct improvements over others.
For example, a Power Fist is basically just an outright improvement over Swords, Axes and Mauls. Yes, it has -1 to hit, but that is more than made up for by its strength, even before you get to its AP and damage.
So rather than tailoring a character towards battling vehicles/monsters, a Power Fist tailors a character towards fighting anything.
You could maybe make an argument for Power Claws or a Relic Blade as alternatives, but even then we're still ignoring all three varieties of basic Power Weapon, so what's the point?
Part of the equation historically was that power fists were more expensive than power weapons, so you were really investing into melee by taking a power fist, but also the Initiative system provided more of a downside. Going last meant you were at real risk of being killed before you got to swing. Bringing that back would be a much more significant balancing factor than the current -1 to hit. It's great at fighting anything... but expensive, and with no guarantee that you'll ever get to swing.
vipoid wrote: I think part of the issue (possibly due to shallow rules and limited design space) is that a lot of melee weapons are just direct improvements over others.
For example, a Power Fist is basically just an outright improvement over Swords, Axes and Mauls. Yes, it has -1 to hit, but that is more than made up for by its strength, even before you get to its AP and damage.
So rather than tailoring a character towards battling vehicles/monsters, a Power Fist tailors a character towards fighting anything.
You could maybe make an argument for Power Claws or a Relic Blade as alternatives, but even then we're still ignoring all three varieties of basic Power Weapon, so what's the point?
Part of the equation historically was that power fists were more expensive than power weapons, so you were really investing into melee by taking a power fist, but also the Initiative system provided more of a downside. Going last meant you were at real risk of being killed before you got to swing. Bringing that back would be a much more significant balancing factor than the current -1 to hit. It's great at fighting anything... but expensive, and with no guarantee that you'll ever get to swing.
Oh absolutely.
Unfortunately, one of the problems with the current system is that it doesn't allow for that sort of drawback except in the case of lone-models or entire units all with power fists (since initiative is resolved by unit, not by model).
vipoid wrote: I think part of the issue (possibly due to shallow rules and limited design space) is that a lot of melee weapons are just direct improvements over others.
For example, a Power Fist is basically just an outright improvement over Swords, Axes and Mauls. Yes, it has -1 to hit, but that is more than made up for by its strength, even before you get to its AP and damage.
So rather than tailoring a character towards battling vehicles/monsters, a Power Fist tailors a character towards fighting anything.
You could maybe make an argument for Power Claws or a Relic Blade as alternatives, but even then we're still ignoring all three varieties of basic Power Weapon, so what's the point?
Part of the equation historically was that power fists were more expensive than power weapons, so you were really investing into melee by taking a power fist, but also the Initiative system provided more of a downside. Going last meant you were at real risk of being killed before you got to swing. Bringing that back would be a much more significant balancing factor than the current -1 to hit. It's great at fighting anything... but expensive, and with no guarantee that you'll ever get to swing.
Oh absolutely.
Unfortunately, one of the problems with the current system is that it doesn't allow for that sort of drawback except in the case of lone-models or entire units all with power fists (since initiative is resolved by unit, not by model).
Honestly just having it cost more should be enough. Although personally I'd prefer the Powerfist to be stronger than it is, giving infantry a better tool against vehicles and leave more space for the power weapons.
In the case of the fist/thunder hammer its not a straight upgrade to basic power weapons. Despite the fluff and naming conventions the 2 weapons are distinctly different things that fill distinctly different roles. Its the fist/thunderhammer that are direct upgrades. The hammer is just a better fist. It doesn't fill a different niche. It doesn't go after different targets. Its JUST a better version of the other one.
TBH thunderhammers were much less common than fists in the past. For example in terminators , if you wanted to use a thunderhammer you had to pay extra points for it and the stormshield, removing all shooting capabilities. And assault terminators had two builds: Anti-elite/chaff build with dual CL or anti vehicles/basically anything barring hordes + durability with TH+SS.
Most marine sargeants had powerfist but no thunderhammer as an option. Chaos had fists but no thunder hammers, etc... comparing weapons is not as simple as comparing profiles but looking at how they are distributed.
Yeah a heavy rail rifle is just a better rail rifle but they are weapons for different units.
Thats true and fair. But the distiction between power fist and thunder hammer NOW is random damage or not. Thats it. A singular profile for Heavy Power Weapon covers both and can be distributed across all datasheets, opening up modeling options while consolidating design space.
Actually fists are damage 2 now and thunderhammer are damage 3. Chainfists are damage 1d3 but 3 vs vehicles. Fists are ap-3 , hammer -2 and chainfist -4.
So basically, as goonhammer mathammer calculations:
-Fists are better agaisnt anything with 2 wounds or 4 wounds
-Hammers are better agaisnt anything with 3 wounds, 5 or more wounds.
-Chainfists are a middle ground agaisnt both 2 wound and 3 wound models and are just better agaisnt vehicles than both weapons.
I could see that working. GW wont do it but ey. I stopped arguing with my friends about this. From a 20 player group I'm literally the only one that would accept any kind of consolidation. GW knows their public.
This entire thread strikes me as a community thought experiment before someone/s get the gumption to write a home brew rule set. I am for contributing to a community project that covers the breadth of the game, I just don't have the time/resources to crack into every codex. I do however have the time to work with people cracking into the codexes to have everyone check each others work and hold each other accountable.
Lance845 wrote: This entire thread strikes me as a community thought experiment before someone/s get the gumption to write a home brew rule set. I am for contributing to a community project that covers the breadth of the game, I just don't have the time/resources to crack into every codex. I do however have the time to work with people cracking into the codexes to have everyone check each others work and hold each other accountable.
Yeah, the various points brought up in the thread constantly made me try and see how i would write a home brew (or even just my own game).
Galas wrote: From a 20 player group I'm literally the only one that would accept any kind of consolidation. GW knows their public.
Aye, and this is a real consideration that has to be grappled with.
Imo consolidation with lots of upgrade options would get us the best of both worlds. Fewer things to remember, but greater customization and total permutations. That's also something that becomes harder to balance, and interferes with GWs unfortunate inclination towards no-model-no-rules.
Lance845 wrote: This entire thread strikes me as a community thought experiment before someone/s get the gumption to write a home brew rule set. I am for contributing to a community project that covers the breadth of the game, I just don't have the time/resources to crack into every codex. I do however have the time to work with people cracking into the codexes to have everyone check each others work and hold each other accountable.
Yeah, the various points brought up in the thread constantly made me try and see how i would write a home brew (or even just my own game).
Likewise. I've been thinking more about it too, but I'm suuuuper busy these days. :/
I could contribute in more then a "checking work" kind of way on core rules (if the project is deemed to change those), Tyranids, Tau, and MAYBE Necrons as those are the dexes I have the most familiarity with. But any kind of Eldar, Sister of Battle, Custodes etc... I would be mostly lost and need to do a lot of research time to catch myself up.
I would also recommend consolidating in any FW units into the dex for obvious reasons. Like.. why the feth have an armies units in 2-3 books?
I just love cracking into and writing rules. So you know.... I'm in.
Well then just to have your faction have it and others don't.
With most people not playing multiple editions, I sure that someone who lets say plays white scars are open to GW testing unit unification, and fixs by more faction books for other factions, preferably those that are not sharing any units or design principles with his army.
This way by the time GW gets to his army to give it the good treatment too, they could be out of the game or leaving it soon, while having enjoyed 12-18 months of good and fun gaming.
Karol wrote: Well then just to have your faction have it and others don't.
With most people not playing multiple editions, I sure that someone who lets say plays white scars are open to GW testing unit unification, and fixs by more faction books for other factions, preferably those that are not sharing any units or design principles with his army.
This way by the time GW gets to his army to give it the good treatment too, they could be out of the game or leaving it soon, while having enjoyed 12-18 months of good and fun gaming.
I don't get what you mean. White scars wouldnt dissapear in our suggestions.
I think that no one wants nerfs to start with their books. A White Scar player would be all for GW starting the unification of gear and units with, lets say eldar. One melee eldar, one fast moving eldar infantry unit, one anti tank eldar unit and we are done with all the aspects and DE units.
Then GW after the unification of rules would of course wanted people do buy more books, so they would do a CWE supplement, DE supplement, maybe even break it up in to specific aspect warrior or cabal expensions. While the WS player would enjoy his army out of one book. I am sure he would be happy about that too.
But the real bad thing about changes like that is that, in case of 8th ed, GW policy as rules goes last for maybe 4-5 codex, and sometimes less then that. So while consolidation of rules maybe the rage for few books, later on GW would decide to slap some beefy book with a ton of units and ton of options, and everyone who had been consolidated would have a really bad time playing.
Or to make it really short. Everyone is okey for GW to experiment and remove options from someone elses book.
Karol wrote: I think that no one wants nerfs to start with their books. A White Scar player would be all for GW starting the unification of gear and units with, lets say eldar. One melee eldar, one fast moving eldar infantry unit, one anti tank eldar unit and we are done with all the aspects and DE units.
Then GW after the unification of rules would of course wanted people do buy more books, so they would do a CWE supplement, DE supplement, maybe even break it up in to specific aspect warrior or cabal expensions. While the WS player would enjoy his army out of one book. I am sure he would be happy about that too.
But the real bad thing about changes like that is that, in case of 8th ed, GW policy as rules goes last for maybe 4-5 codex, and sometimes less then that. So while consolidation of rules maybe the rage for few books, later on GW would decide to slap some beefy book with a ton of units and ton of options, and everyone who had been consolidated would have a really bad time playing.
Or to make it really short. Everyone is okey for GW to experiment and remove options from someone elses book.
Ok, you completely missed the point again. We're not asking to remove options from anyone's book. And the discussion is centered on a theoretical timeline where we had the power to start 40k from scratch and use a different approach.
SecondTime wrote: Space marines, and by extension, BA need to lose many, many entries imo. This is why I can't believe they gave oldbios 2W.
GW should start with primaris.
+1
Presumably since actually dropping Primaris isn't going to happen. I'd ditch the Intercessor Datasheet and roll it into the Tactical Datasheet. Standard stuff for Tacticals. You can instead make them "Intercessors" which trades away Heavies and Specials for 1 of 3 MSU weapon upgrades to their Bolters. Something like that.
The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.
Lance845 wrote: The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.
Lance845 wrote: I could contribute in more then a "checking work" kind of way on core rules (if the project is deemed to change those), Tyranids, Tau, and MAYBE Necrons as those are the dexes I have the most familiarity with. But any kind of Eldar, Sister of Battle, Custodes etc... I would be mostly lost and need to do a lot of research time to catch myself up.
I would also recommend consolidating in any FW units into the dex for obvious reasons. Like.. why the feth have an armies units in 2-3 books?
I just love cracking into and writing rules. So you know.... I'm in.
Are you talking about the creation from scratch of an experimental "home-brewed" W40k rulebook?
I would be happy if I might contribute, because I was taking advantage of my (limited) military experience to create a more strategically consistent (but also easy) game system than the one of Warhammer 40.000, so maybe I can have some good idea; if you are interested.
The only thing i would suggest for now, is to optimize this hypothetical game system only for two armies (Imperial Guard and Space Marines), in order to speed up the test fase and start to develop the other armies only when it will be debugged.
Lance845 wrote: The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.
Redundant small arms choices, redundant units, and "open another chamber!"-level sub-factions is "focused" to you?
SecondTime wrote: Space marines, and by extension, BA need to lose many, many entries imo. This is why I can't believe they gave oldbios 2W.
GW should start with primaris.
+1
Presumably since actually dropping Primaris isn't going to happen. I'd ditch the Intercessor Datasheet and roll it into the Tactical Datasheet. Standard stuff for Tacticals. You can instead make them "Intercessors" which trades away Heavies and Specials for 1 of 3 MSU weapon upgrades to their Bolters. Something like that.
Nah. Just make the current Intercessors able to take Special and Heavy Weapons. BAM easy consolidation of the two profiles. Nobody is going to think a Plasma weapon or Multi-Melta is broken in an Intercessor Squad if it wasn't broken in a Tactical Squad. Only difference is the better Bolters and more attacks. However if people weren't upset about Helblasters having all those things they haven't a right to complain.
Lance845 wrote: The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.
Heck, trim back the bloat of the classics. Dump flyers, Centurions, Vanguard (upgrade Assault Squads), most Dreadnoughts, etc. It was a complete army in 2000ish.
That's about what I play and it's served me well for a long time. I think only major update I take is the Grav weapons (Cannon).
The only other exception might be the Storm Raven, which makes sense for Marines. Though I don't use it since the model looks like butt and I haven't made my own.
Lance845 wrote: The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.
Redundant small arms choices, redundant units, and "open another chamber!"-level sub-factions is "focused" to you?
Not so much focused in that way. Its focused in that it has a definite design direction. Units work in a cohesive way. These guys do x job and jave y equipment to do x job. They don't suffer from weird "generalist" things like the tac marines have in the past and they dont have nearly the breadth of special and heavy wargear thats stepping on each others toes in the same data sheet. Its a cleaner start. Not clean. Just cleaner. And more pointed in a cohesive direction.
Lance845 wrote: The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.
Redundant small arms choices, redundant units, and "open another chamber!"-level sub-factions is "focused" to you?
Not so much focused in that way. Its focused in that it has a definite design direction. Units work in a cohesive way. These guys do x job and jave y equipment to do x job. They don't suffer from weird "generalist" things like the tac marines have in the past and they dont have nearly the breadth of special and heavy wargear thats stepping on each others toes in the same data sheet. Its a cleaner start. Not clean. Just cleaner. And more pointed in a cohesive direction.
The new direction is basically the exact opposite of what the whole marine "generalist doctrine" is. Total junk, imo. The traditional way is for units to be self sufficient enough to split off and achieve missions on their own in an independent, non-centralized way, which makes far more sense for an elite organization. They're not robots like Necrons and they're not bound to artsy fighting styles like Eldar.
Lance845 wrote: The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.
Redundant small arms choices, redundant units, and "open another chamber!"-level sub-factions is "focused" to you?
Not so much focused in that way. Its focused in that it has a definite design direction. Units work in a cohesive way. These guys do x job and jave y equipment to do x job. They don't suffer from weird "generalist" things like the tac marines have in the past and they dont have nearly the breadth of special and heavy wargear thats stepping on each others toes in the same data sheet. Its a cleaner start. Not clean. Just cleaner. And more pointed in a cohesive direction.
The new direction is basically the exact opposite of what the whole marine "generalist doctrine" is. Total junk, imo. The traditional way is for units to be self sufficient enough to split off and achieve missions on their own in an independent, non-centralized way, which makes far more sense for an elite organization. They're not robots like Necrons and they're not bound to artsy fighting styles like Eldar.
I am not talking fluff and I don't care.
But if you want to talk fluff, Roboat is back in charge and the Primaris are structured in the way that Roboat would be organizing them. Like roman legions. It makes perfect sense that Roboat has structured the Primaris to be the way they are following more the spirit of the Codex Astartes then the written law of it (Roboat being the author of that book and all). Especially after he woke up and saw that a bunch of people had turned it into a religion for some dumb reason. The primaris make perfect sense and their structure works well for the game.
Lance845 wrote: The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.
Redundant small arms choices, redundant units, and "open another chamber!"-level sub-factions is "focused" to you?
Not so much focused in that way. Its focused in that it has a definite design direction. Units work in a cohesive way. These guys do x job and jave y equipment to do x job. They don't suffer from weird "generalist" things like the tac marines have in the past and they dont have nearly the breadth of special and heavy wargear thats stepping on each others toes in the same data sheet. Its a cleaner start. Not clean. Just cleaner. And more pointed in a cohesive direction.
The new direction is basically the exact opposite of what the whole marine "generalist doctrine" is. Total junk, imo. The traditional way is for units to be self sufficient enough to split off and achieve missions on their own in an independent, non-centralized way, which makes far more sense for an elite organization. They're not robots like Necrons and they're not bound to artsy fighting styles like Eldar.
I am not talking fluff and I don't care.
But if you want to talk fluff, Roboat is back in charge and the Primaris are structured in the way that Roboat would be organizing them. Like roman legions. It makes perfect sense that Roboat has structured the Primaris to be the way they are following more the spirit of the Codex Astartes then the written law of it (Roboat being the author of that book and all). Especially after he woke up and saw that a bunch of people had turned it into a religion for some dumb reason. The primaris make perfect sense and their structure works well for the game.
A: Primaris lore is dumb. I couldn't care less what GW writes about RG and his current nonsensical backpedaling on marine organization.
B: Gamewise it's also a bad move, since you're turning Marines into Necrons and Eldar and their limited-flexibility, specialized squads. Organize different factions differently, it provides for more texture in the gameplay.
C: It's been said that people had wanted specialized squads. The main reason for that is because in prior editions units couldn't split fire or charge a different unit than what they shot at. That's no longer a consideration.
Basically all the fluff is dumb to one extent or another. I get that you don't like the primaris fluff but it's here and it's not going away.
Gamewise I don't think it's a bad idea if they consolidate datasheets.
I get that those were concerns in the past but it doesn't change how bloated the war gear has been. There are entire types of special/heavy gear that would never see the light of day for several editions because it was just crap compared to the other options. Having less but all good options is good.
Karol wrote:I think that no one wants nerfs to start with their books. A White Scar player would be all for GW starting the unification of gear and units with, lets say eldar. One melee eldar, one fast moving eldar infantry unit, one anti tank eldar unit and we are done with all the aspects and DE units. ...
Or to make it really short. Everyone is okey for GW to experiment and remove options from someone elses book.
You really do expect the worst from people, don't you?
But just to prove you wrong: I'm an Ultramarine player mostly. And I can wholeheartedly say that Space Marines are the main faction in the game that needs consolidation. Including my own Ultramarines.
Karol wrote:I think that no one wants nerfs to start with their books. A White Scar player would be all for GW starting the unification of gear and units with, lets say eldar. One melee eldar, one fast moving eldar infantry unit, one anti tank eldar unit and we are done with all the aspects and DE units. ...
Or to make it really short. Everyone is okey for GW to experiment and remove options from someone elses book.
You really do expect the worst from people, don't you?
But just to prove you wrong: I'm an Ultramarine player mostly. And I can wholeheartedly say that Space Marines are the main faction in the game that needs consolidation. Including my own Ultramarines.
I volunteer BA and SW for squatting. It's a worthy sacrifice.
Karol wrote:I think that no one wants nerfs to start with their books. A White Scar player would be all for GW starting the unification of gear and units with, lets say eldar. One melee eldar, one fast moving eldar infantry unit, one anti tank eldar unit and we are done with all the aspects and DE units. ...
Or to make it really short. Everyone is okey for GW to experiment and remove options from someone elses book.
You really do expect the worst from people, don't you?
But just to prove you wrong: I'm an Ultramarine player mostly. And I can wholeheartedly say that Space Marines are the main faction in the game that needs consolidation. Including my own Ultramarines.
I volunteer BA and SW for squatting. It's a worthy sacrifice.
Iron Hands and Grey Knights (so when I talk about rolling Grey Knights and Deathwatch into an Inquisition codex I'm not doing it maliciously)
Ok, you completely missed the point again. We're not asking to remove options from anyone's book. And the discussion is centered on a theoretical timeline where we had the power to start 40k from scratch and use a different approach.
GW has two types of updating a codex. either they gut one all and remove a ton of stuff, and they have a bunch of new models and then the codex has a ton of new rules, although it is not always quality rules. Now I don't like what ifism, because it confuses me, but in your scenario we would have to start with GW acting not like GW, and to me seems wierd to say the least.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You really do expect the worst from people, don't you?
But just to prove you wrong: I'm an Ultramarine player mostly. And I can wholeheartedly say that Space Marines are the main faction in the game that needs consolidation. Including my own Ultramarines.
Yes, it is the only logical way expect stuff from others. Also it is easy to say for an ultramarine, because if GW would be streamlining and merging marines in to something, then it would be marines. I could also say that I am totaly for GW merging all marines and replacing them with one codex, well two one for chaos and loyalists. Because my GK don't share much with marines anyway, so GW would either have to squat my army whole or leave it unchanged. And I can put razorbacks on the altar of sacrifice, if it only means other armies get weaker and my gets more or less unchanged.
Ok, you completely missed the point again. We're not asking to remove options from anyone's book. And the discussion is centered on a theoretical timeline where we had the power to start 40k from scratch and use a different approach.
GW has two types of updating a codex. either they gut one all and remove a ton of stuff, and they have a bunch of new models and then the codex has a ton of new rules, although it is not always quality rules. Now I don't like what ifism, because it confuses me, but in your scenario we would have to start with GW acting not like GW, and to me seems wierd to say the least.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You really do expect the worst from people, don't you?
But just to prove you wrong: I'm an Ultramarine player mostly. And I can wholeheartedly say that Space Marines are the main faction in the game that needs consolidation. Including my own Ultramarines.
Yes, it is the only logical way expect stuff from others. Also it is easy to say for an ultramarine, because if GW would be streamlining and merging marines in to something, then it would be marines. I could also say that I am totaly for GW merging all marines and replacing them with one codex, well two one for chaos and loyalists. Because my GK don't share much with marines anyway, so GW would either have to squat my army whole or leave it unchanged. And I can put razorbacks on the altar of sacrifice, if it only means other armies get weaker and my gets more or less unchanged.
Ah right. You are the guy who said "Nobody in their right mind would ever accept nerfs to their army just so their opponents could have a more fun and better game experience" or something to that effect. I am extremely sad that you grew up in whatever environment you grew up in to make you the way you are. Games are about mutual fun. Everyone should be looking to make sure everyone involved has the best experience possible.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You really do expect the worst from people, don't you?
But just to prove you wrong: I'm an Ultramarine player mostly. And I can wholeheartedly say that Space Marines are the main faction in the game that needs consolidation. Including my own Ultramarines.
Yes, it is the only logical way expect stuff from others.
Only with your view of people, I'm afraid. As far as I'm concerned, it is entirely reductive, and doesn't take into account people not being selfish a-holes. You might have experience with only that, but I am fortunate enough to say I know people who transcend that.
Also it is easy to say for an ultramarine, because if GW would be streamlining and merging marines in to something, then it would be marines.
Because Marines are the most in need of streamlining?
I could also say that I am totaly for GW merging all marines and replacing them with one codex, well two one for chaos and loyalists. Because my GK don't share much with marines anyway, so GW would either have to squat my army whole or leave it unchanged. And I can put razorbacks on the altar of sacrifice, if it only means other armies get weaker and my gets more or less unchanged.
OR, and here's a novel concept, GK aren't merged with with Marines, but instead with a combined Inquisition codex. And what on earth do Razorbacks have to do with it?
Plus, that's not how "merging" works - you don't sacrifice one of your own things just to spite someone else, that implies that merging works on a "you lose something, I lose something" basis (which it doesn't), and the fact that you're so willing to use that basis to spite people other than you is just downright malicious.
I volunteer BA and SW for squatting. It's a worthy sacrifice.
Because you don't play those chapters. What about squatting all the chapters that don't have a considerable amount of dedicated kits? I mean just keep BA, SW, DA, maybe Ultramarines and squat all the other marines.
I volunteer BA and SW for squatting. It's a worthy sacrifice.
Because you don't play those chapters. What about squatting all the chapters that don't have a considerable amount of dedicated kits? I mean just keep BA, SW, DA, maybe Ultramarines and squat all the other marines.
How many of those kits cover units which couldn't be represented by a more generic set of rules?
Blood Angels have
Sanguinary Priest -> Apothecary
Chaplain -> Chaplain
Terminator Captain -> Captain (he's already been made more generic than he was at time of release)
Tactical Squad -> Tactical Squad
Terminator Squad -> Terminator Squad / Terminator Ancient
Sanguinary Guard -> either elite assault unit archetype or Command Squad/Honour Guard
Death Company -> elite assault unit archetype to also cover Wulfen, Cursed Founding Abominations etc.
Baal predator -> consolidated Predator entry. The flamer turrent is already covered by the Relic Infernus, and techpriests managed to work out how to bolt assault cannons onto Razorbacks and Land Raiders, so a Predator shouldn't be difficult to figure out...
Librarian Dreadnought -> consolidated Dreadnought entry. Why did Blood Angels get the psychic Dreadnought anyway?
Furioso Dreadnought -> consolidated Dreadnought entry. The pattern isn't unique to Blood Angels, and the Ironclad and multiple Space Wolves builds already cover melee Dreadnoughts
Death Company Dreadnought -> consolidated Dreadnought entry. See above but with black paint.
How many of those kits cover units which couldn't be represented by a more generic set of rules?
Named characters alone are like 11 different dedicated models for SW..... What do chapters like Imperial Fists, White Scars or Iron Hands really have to deserve their own book of rules? They're all SM with one named character.
It's like advocating for Ork Deathskulls or Evil Sunz supplements, when all the clans have exactly the same models and the same combination of options barring 1 or 2 named characters.
IMHO the ideal scenario for the whole SM chapters issue would have been: a generic SM book with only primaris units and standalone SW, BA, DA books without any primaris. 4 books in total for SM and 4 quite different armies to play.
Playing a generic primaris army with the SW chapter tacts and eventually Ragnar is an abomination, that's a vanilla SM army, not a SW one.
How many of those kits cover units which couldn't be represented by a more generic set of rules?
Named characters alone are like 11 different dedicated models for SW.....
Yeah. Merge away!
Canis and Harald each look a lot like a Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf...
Blackie wrote: What do chapters like Imperial Fists, White Scars or Iron Hands really have to deserve their own book of rules? They're all SM with one named character.
Yeah. Merge away!
There's no good reason for those Chapters to have additional books either.
I volunteer BA and SW for squatting. It's a worthy sacrifice.
Because you don't play those chapters. What about squatting all the chapters that don't have a considerable amount of dedicated kits? I mean just keep BA, SW, DA, maybe Ultramarines and squat all the other marines.
I have like 25K points of BA. I'm not playing them THIS edition. There's a difference. At this rate, I won't play them ever again.
If you squat marine that have dedicated kits, that's more shelf space for non-power armor units.
SecondTime wrote: If you squat marine that have dedicated kits, that's more shelf space for non-power armor units.
Consolidating rules has nothing to do with needing to get rid of kits.
If all of the various different Terminator units shared a single rules entry, GW would still be able to sell the seven Terminator kits they currently do.
SecondTime wrote: If you squat marine that have dedicated kits, that's more shelf space for non-power armor units.
Consolidating rules has nothing to do with needing to get rid of kits.
If all of the various different Terminator units shared a single rules entry, GW would still be able to sell the seven Terminator kits they currently do.
I'm all in favor of consolidating units from the same book. It doesn't make any sense to have multiple terminators or dreads. I'm not in favor of merging standalone armies into the same book instead. I'd rather allow some specific units just to some specific chapters in order to give them their own flavor: primaris only for generic SM, bikes only for DA, etc... if you consolidate all chapters into one book you'll end up with a codex with 150 datasheets, which is wrong on any possible level and even consolidating the similar units into a single datasheet doesn't help.
Having 4 standalone SM books each with 40-50 datasheets at most, including some core shared units, a few slightly different units and some signature unique units would be much more interesting.
Currently I have to buy two books to play my army at the very beginning of the edition and 90% of the those codexes doesn't interest me at all. Not to mention the bloat.
SecondTime wrote: If you squat marine that have dedicated kits, that's more shelf space for non-power armor units.
Consolidating rules has nothing to do with needing to get rid of kits.
If all of the various different Terminator units shared a single rules entry, GW would still be able to sell the seven Terminator kits they currently do.
I'm all in favor of consolidating units from the same book. It doesn't make any sense to have multiple terminators or dreads. I'm not in favor of merging standalone armies into the same book instead. I'd rather allow some specific units just to some specific chapters in order to give them their own flavor: primaris only for generic SM, bikes only for DA, etc... if you consolidate all chapters into one book you'll end up with a codex with 150 datasheets, which is wrong on any possible level and even consolidating the similar units into a single datasheet doesn't help.
Having 4 standalone SM books each with 40-50 datasheets at most, including some core shared units, a few slightly different units and some signature unique units would be much more interesting.
Currently I have to buy two books to play my army at the very beginning of the edition and 90% of the those codexes doesn't interest me at all. Not to mention the bloat.
If you squat marine that have dedicated kits, that's more shelf space for non-power armor units.
No, there'd be more shelf space for newest power armor units. That's GW's politics, settle with that.
You dare suggest that a sub faction should have unique rules for their unique kits !
They are ALL JUST MAHRINS and there is nothing special about the SWBA or DA units what so ever ! .
Don't you know if we just give vanilla marines all the options those units have or squat those units entirely it will be like the factions havn't lost any identity, units, or value at all ! you ll still have stuff ! Why do you want to think that your subfaction deserves to be unique ! don't you know that by rolling your subfactions stuff into a single vanilla marine codex there will be more room for MY faction to get stuff ? Don't you know how much easier it will be to balance marines when we have 3 page variable datasheets then it is to have 3 pages of seperate datasheets !
Vanilla MAHRINS need MORE options !!!! Locking special units and rules behind restrictions is terrible for the game ! and it only stifles variability of what we see on the table. If we make sure EVERY MARHIN PLAYER has the exact same options then we will finally start to see different things on the table !!!!!! ! If we leave it the way it is we will only ever see the same lists played every time ... subfactions with diverse units means we will only see MAHRINES... if you get rid of them and roll them together we will get to see GW focus more on ALL 3 flavours of ELVES and alllll the orks ... dont you know this !
A power armor subfaction can't be unique ! and don't you dare compare SOB or another factions right to have unique units to your silly little subfaction ... they are completely different ! because your MAHRINS are just MAHRINS and my 3 kind of elves are completely different ! I don't know why I make the distinction here at sub factions but you are making a "Bad Faith" argument if you suggest that your SWsBA or DA deserve to be unique like MY faction deserves to be !
p.s. its fine, we already established in this thread that we are not interested in 40k as it is . The rules and fluff are terrible and we think we in this forum can do a better job. In a few months we ll bang out a completely new rules set for the game that dwarfs GWs game in 10 fold... and ALLL those pesky mahrines will be rolled into one set of consolidated datasheets and they will lose nothing ... its going to be very well balanced and have a tremendous user interface.
We are here discussing options for 40k except we have established that we are going to write a new game with different rules that uses consolidated data sheets, marines will be one codex AND THATS IT. Then we will pretend we are still talking about the same game.
But in all seriousness:
Honestly, if the people in this thread hate 40k so much and just want to write a different game anyways,,, why even bother getting pissed off that some people want to keep subfactions ... you hate how GW does things, you dont like how the game works, you don't like the fluff,,, why don't you guys just play a different game ? like,,, even before you try and re-write the GW rules and what ever you guys were discussing a few pages ago,,, why not just use an existing game that can use GW models,,,, they do exist ....
Automatically Appended Next Post: p.s.@blackie , sorry for responding to your post in a sarcastic and factious way. I am just a bit fed up with the types of responses I have gotten in this thread for wanting to defend keeping the more fleshed out subfactions unique. So I thought i would sum up what the next onslaught of responses might look like.
"They are ALL JUST MAHRINS and there is nothing special about the SWBA or DA units what so ever ! ."
The chapters are just too small to believably have this kind of diversity. The IG, on the other hand...
Marines have way too many equipment options for entities that consist of so few bodies. GW did this to themselves by committing to an absurd number and neglecting other model lines in favor of MOAR power armor.
The IG, on the other hand, have less room to believably have this kind of diversity. Standard template constructs are the rule of thumb for the Guard's equipment--even if there are "localized variants" the equipment is the same thing within an acceptable margin of differences.
Where Guard regiments vary is their usage of that equipment and their employment of tactics from their homeworlds. A Cadian regiment isn't going to be stealthers or scouts, a Catachan regiment isn't going to be heavy infantry, etc.
But even with that said, the uniqueness of Guard Regiments can further be boiled down into their designated roles! Heavy infantry regiments tend to be lighter in numbers but higher in training and equipment plus armored support.
Light infantry regiments tend to be heavier in numbers and training varies wildly with equipment being man-portable with armored assets being available.
Specialist regiments are a thing too and they're difficult to digest or even quantify.
Marines having 'too many equipment options', unfortunately, is a bit more accurate than people seem to want to believe. Marines are an 'all-rounder' force, where troops are trained for multiple roles rather than permanently stuck in one. That's the whole point of the Company progression they go through.
You want to argue for some more options for Guard? Do that. I've been doing it for years. I've even outlined how to setup supplements...but literally everything involved requires tearing the current garbage book down and ceasing this nonsensical prattle that IG have so much diversity in their regimental makeups. What IG have is not unlike what the 'big four' Marine factions(DA, SW, BA, DW) have: a select number of signature units tied to specific regiments. Catachan Devils, Cadian Kasrkin, and the Death Korps of Krieg's Death Riders/Grenadiers.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: To be fair we need some more options for Guard, and the losing of Rough Riders to Legends was a catastrophe for modelers everywhere.
100% agree.
The chapters are just too small to believably have this kind of diversity.
10 000 custodes , approximately 10 000 SWs housed in the fang.... just because an organization is small doesn't mean they can't be believably diverse. Size of the organization in the fluff is no reason SWs can't be entitled to have unique units like any other army, especially considering there are other armies which fluffwise have the same amount or even less members,,,, this isn't a compelling argument,,,,,
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: To be fair we need some more options for Guard, and the losing of Rough Riders to Legends was a catastrophe for modelers everywhere.
100% agree.
The chapters are just too small to believably have this kind of diversity.
10 000 custodes , approximately 10 000 SWs housed in the fang.... just because an organization is small doesn't mean they can't be believably diverse. Size of the organization in the fluff is no reason SWs can't be entitled to have unique units like any other army, especially considering there are other armies which fluffwise have even less people,,,, this isn't a compelling argument,,,,,
Can you name a Codex that represents less bodies than Space Marines?
I can think of Custodes, maybe CSM, and that's about it.
SW are not their own army though. They are a SM subfaction. And subfactions can have their own unique units yes. But that doesn't make them their own army. And sometimes a "unique" unit for a subfaction is as simple as a reskin of a unit that already exists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is a DAtac squard. Otherwise known as a Tac Squad.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: To be fair we need some more options for Guard, and the losing of Rough Riders to Legends was a catastrophe for modelers everywhere.
100% agree.
The chapters are just too small to believably have this kind of diversity.
10 000 custodes , approximately 10 000 SWs housed in the fang.... just because an organization is small doesn't mean they can't be believably diverse. Size of the organization in the fluff is no reason SWs can't be entitled to have unique units like any other army, especially considering there are other armies which fluffwise have even less people,,,, this isn't a compelling argument,,,,,
Can you name a Codex that represents less bodies than Space Marines?
I can think of Custodes, maybe CSM, and that's about it.
Again,,,, what the hell does this mater XD lol ?
and even if it does
Assassins,
CWE (fluff unclear)
DE (fluff unclear)
Necrons (currently, maybe more maybe less, who knows. For sure there will be more in the future as they wake up)
Harlequins
Ynari
Knights (both)
custodes
CSM
but again, number of members of an organization doesn't dictate capacity for diversity XD
Like,,, we do all understand this right?
Type40 wrote:You dare suggest that a sub faction should have unique rules for their unique kits !
Do Imperial Fist Intercessors need unique rules because they have the unique Primaris upgrade sprue? After all, that is a unique kit.
They are ALL JUST MAHRINS and there is nothing special about the SWBA or DA units what so ever ! .
SW, DA, and BA are special. So are UM, IF, RG, WS, and all the others Chapters. EVERY Chapter is special.
You don't need Codexes to reflect it. Look at what 30k does. One book covers ALL the core units, and a second book covers ALL unique additions, for practically every Legion.
Don't you know how much easier it will be to balance marines when we have 3 page variable datasheets then it is to have 3 pages of seperate datasheets !
Unironically, yes - and you're being exaggerative over how big datasheets would need to be. A single page would be more than enough.
But I know you'll keep crying about this, so I'm wasting my time.
Precicely what I pointed out... you don't think the big fleshed out subfactions are there own army.
You don't understand the difference between sub factions with a few extra characters and sub factions that have been given extensive expansion.
And that's ok I was just warning @blackie that this would be exactly what you guys argue and I was warning them that you guys are unable to explain why these armies don't deserve to be treated uniquely and other armies in the game do deserve to be. Well outside of the following arguments:
"because Mahrines"
"because Subfaction"
"because they don't deserve it"
unfortunately for you guys, both GW and many players do think they deserve to stay unique and keep their army specific rules/units... now I know you can't grasp why or even fathom why anyone would allow armies who wear power armor could possibly be represented differently then a generic codex with datasheets that represent general concepts rather then specific units. they do wear the same hats after all, and anyone who wears the same hat is obviously exactly like anyone else wearing that hat.. and that's ok... you just need to understand that there are people do think that way, people who do view them as separate army factions, who do view them as unique, whether you like it or not.
Then explain why Ulthwe 'deserve' to be their own army while Dark Angels don't or why Raven Guard 'deserve' to only have the one character while Ultramarines have a veritable book full?
Why should Renegades & Heretics have this huuuuuuuuuuge reason to be their own army while Cadians don't?
The long and short of it is that anyone can make an argument for or against something...but very rarely are they actually giving compelling reasons.
Precicely what I pointed out... you don't think the big fleshed out subfactions are there own army.
You don't understand the difference between sub factions with a few extra characters and sub factions that have been given extensive expansion.
And that's ok I was just warning @blackie that this would be exactly what you guys argue and I was warning them that you guys are unable to explain why these armies don't deserve to be treated uniquely and other armies in the game do deserve to be. Well outside of the following arguments:
"because Mahrines"
"because Subfaction"
"because they don't deserve it"
Lets not begin mischaracterizing other peoples arguments again. We all know how that turned out last time. A subfaction is not an army. It doesn't get treated uniquely because it is not unique. Having some unique units is not the same as being a whole new army. Thats simple logic. It has nothing to do with marines and never has. It DOES have to do with subfactions, but only in that they are a part of their core army. It has nothing to do with deserve, it has everything to do with both justifying why it needs to be it's own datasheet and asking why it can't be consolidated.
unfortunately for you guys, both GW and many players do think they deserve to stay unique and keep their army specific rules/units... now I know you can't grasp why or even fathom why anyone would allow armies who wear power armor could possibly be represented differently then a generic codex with datasheets that represent general concepts rather then specific units. they do wear the same hats after all, and anyone who wears the same hat is obviously exactly like anyone else wearing that hat.. and that's ok... you just need to understand that there are people do think that way, people who do view them as separate army factions, who do view them as unique, whether you like it or not.
Again, lets back off those personal attacks where "we cannot fathom or understand" while misscharacterizing us again. I GET why you want to have unique sheets. It's because you like them. However, GW has deemed that these subfactions are not in fact armies so it would be good if you didn't refer to them as such. I DO understand that you view them that way. As I said before I GET your position. I just don't place any value on it. You wanting things to be unique does not in fact make them unique.
Kanluwen wrote: Then explain why Ulthwe 'deserve' to be their own army while Dark Angels don't or why Raven Guard 'deserve' to only have the one character while Ultramarines have a veritable book full?
Why should Renegades & Heretics have this huuuuuuuuuuge reason to be their own army while Cadians don't?
The long and short of it is that anyone can make an argument for or against something...but very rarely are they actually giving compelling reasons.
Precisely.
So my question is why everyone thinks they should just rob existing factions from having unique identity without giving compelling reasons XD ... like I am all for giving other armies subfactions more unique units... why are people helbent on removing some .
I really don't think there is a reason why Ulthwe doesn't deserve to be their own army.... I honestly think the bigger concern here is that other people don't think existing armies 'deserve' to exist and can't really explain why in much detail other then that they can't/refuse to understand the differences... its so weird because the circular justification is
"THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME SO WE SHOULD GET RID OF OR MERGE EVERYTYHING THAT MAKES THEM DIFFERENT"
are they the same,,, or are they different ?
I am not trying to say Ulthwe doesn't deserve to exist as an army.
But thats not the same as saying an existing unique army DOESN'T deserve to exist.
If i showed up at your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream. If you to throw out the strawberry ice cream or mix it together with chocolate because "its all ice cream" or because "chocolate icecream and vanilla icecream are just subcatagories of icecream", I am going to call you a dick and be really upset. but if you start telling me how much you wished I brought vanilla cake because I always bring ice cream and you are tired of having it... sure i could have, nothing says i have anything against vanilla cake. but thats clearly not the same as if you are ruining the the ice cream we have, its not going to magically make vanilla cake appear.
A subfaction is not an army. It doesn't get treated uniquely because it is not unique. Having some unique units is not the same as being a whole new army. Thats simple logic.
Except space wolves have more unique units then some armies have units in existence ... Are you saying lesser deamons should be folded into together... do you not realize the fact that you don't think it is unique 'enough' is entirely your opinion and isn't actually based in anything... you don't get get to pick what is unique enough, sorry. You think that because SWs have been a subfaction for 1.5 months (and lost none of their unique rules or units) they are somehow different then a full faction which they were 2 months ago ...
Anyways, lets not keep this up... we know you don't think they deserve to be treated that way ,,, and we know you claim it is because "subfaction."
Fine man... but you can keep repeating "subfactions arnt unique armies" all you want... but it doesn't change that what yo are saying a completely subjective opinion which both GW and many players disagree with ... and its fine that you think that way, its all good,,, its just not going to change anything.
ya know maybe people should justr stop calling for peoples armies to be squatted. seriously guys it's childish. could some dataslates be consoliudated? sure there's no reason for the two seperate gravis captain entries. (the best I can figure for why they did that BTW is if they're not planning on making the DI gravis captain avaliable down the road it'll be easier to quietly squat in 10th or 11th edition if it has it's own dataslate) but calling for some entire subfactions to be eliminated because you don't see a differance between sanguiary guard and victrix guard is just silly.
Type40 wrote:Precicely what I pointed out... you don't think the big fleshed out subfactions are there own army.
That's because they're not their own army. YOU even recognise that they're not "true" armies, as you've just defined them as SUBfactions.
And that's ok I was just warning @blackie that this would be exactly what you guys argue and I was warning them that you guys are unable to explain why these armies don't deserve to be treated uniquely and other armies in the game do deserve to be.
Actually, I think we've given more than enough reasons why. Just because you're incapable of letting go of SW privilege doesn't mean we're wrong.
"because Mahrines"
Specifically because Marines are oversaturated.
"because Subfaction"
Because subfactions don't need Codexes.
"because they don't deserve it"
Because nothing "deserves" anything without justifying it. And most of your arguments "justifying" SW getting their own Codex are "WELL IT'S BEEN LIKE THAT FOR YEARS!!!" which isn't justification, it's an argument to inertia.
unfortunately for you guys, both GW and many players do think they deserve to stay unique and keep their army specific rules/units...
Really? Is that why GW are moving SW into supplements, like every other Space Marine Chapter? Sooooo unique.
BrianDavion wrote:ya know maybe people should justr stop calling for peoples armies to be squatted.
Did you see someone calling for someone's army to be squatted? I didn't.
I saw plenty of arguments for consolidation, but consolidation isn't the same as squatting, and you know that. Where are the squatting arguments?
but calling for some entire subfactions to be eliminated because you don't see a differance between sanguiary guard and victrix guard is just silly.
Oh, I can tell the difference between a Sanguinary Guard and a Victrix Guard. What I'm asking is why those units aren't generic?
Why do the Ultramarines have a monopoly on 2 man elite swordsmen with shields? Why aren't Victrix Guard just Bladeguard Vets?
Why do the Blood Angels have a monopoly on elite jump pack swordsmen honour guards? Why aren't they just "Honour Guard" with a Jump Pack option - and speaking of Honour Guard, why are only the Ultramarines allowed them? I seem to remember the Red Scorpions having them, what happened there?
And this is what I mean - are you really saying that the Blood Angels are only as unique as their Sanguinary Guard, a unit that realistically should be open to everyone? Is their entire identity centred on a few additional units that don't even make sense being faction specific? If BA stopped having Sanguinary Guard all to themselves, are they still unique?
Lol. @smudge. Reiterating that you don't think subfactions can be considered armies and that you don't think they are unique enough isn't going to change that all you keep saying is "subfaction"is not a real army... Repeating it over and over again won't make it true.
Also, the units exist already, you say they don't deserve to, I say they do. But can you tell me why IG deserves to exist XD. Like, your kind of reaching here. I am not the one proposing a change here so I am not going to try to defend the existence of an army to you, some guy on the internet, because you hate that they exist... You don't like that they exist, that's your problem, unfortunately for you, they do exist XD.
GW did what you wanted and made the army a subfaction in order to consolidate datasheets. And now your like *it's not good enough, make everything vanilla*
Relax. There is no reason for you to try and eradicate/vanilify someone else's army...i sti can not understand why you are so adamantly against them but arnt against anything else... Does the word "subfaction" really bring you so much anxiety that you believe that can only be implemented in ine homogenous way and... You know... Not how it is actually being implemented XD
Automatically Appended Next Post: The worst part is when we bring up the same type of logic you use for other armies. .. All of sudden it's "bad faith" or "not the same thing" or "they are different" lol.
Rangers = scouts, merge them? Lol... But noooooo CWE are a different army and elves arnt the same as marines.... But wolves arnt bikes and warewolves arnt veteran soldiers etc etc etc...."ooohhhh I didn't say wolves are bikes I said generic cavalry datasheet", and I didn't say elves are marines I siad generic sniper unit.... We can totally have this conversation again and again... But it still doesn't change the fact that all this is, is some people not being able to grasp that some subfactions are considered to be fleshed out armies by other people and it is your subjective opinion that they are not.
Making BA and SW into red and grey marines would be both fine and essentially squatting them as we know them.
There's just way too much effort on GW's part that goes into a statistically insignificant faction or set of factions. Power armor vs power armor matches aren't even fun to play imo, but I guess they made a whole game about it.
SecondTime wrote: Making BA and SW into red and grey marines would be both fine and essentially squatting them as we know them.
There's just way too much effort on GW's part that goes into a statistically insignificant faction or set of factions. Power armor vs power armor matches aren't even fun to play imo, but I guess they made a whole game about it.
Who said anything about colour or even "play as."
I am talking about unit rules, gear, stats and abilities.
But again, just because you don't have fun playing these armies against each other doesn't mean no one does it also doesn't mean we ONLY like playing these ones.
Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.
Again, its ok that you don't like them, and its ok that you don't want to paly them... but why advocate to squat or merge other peoples armies ? no one wants to do that to yours in fact most of the power armor players WANT the other factions to get way way more attention... why spend time removing one factions stuff when you can spend that same time adding to other armies?
"why spend time removing one factions stuff when you can spend that same time adding to other armies?"
I get the distinct impression from GW that these events are tied to each other. They are so busy patting themselves on the back about the latest primaris lieutenant that there's not much time for other factions.
Marines have just taken over the game in a way never seen before and I think everyone suffers one way or another.
The only person interested in "like" is you right now. Nobodies argument is centered around personal feelings about a given subfaction.
The arguments being made at not emotional and have no basis in how anyone "feels" about the subfaction. Its basically just math. Are these 2 units pretty much the same unit doing the same job? Is there a reason they cant share wargear? No. Then why is it another datasheet reserved for this subfaction?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also type pvnp. Is it good for development time to make another 11 datasheets for every subfaction in the game?
SecondTime wrote: "why spend time removing one factions stuff when you can spend that same time adding to other armies?"
I get the distinct impression from GW that these events are tied to each. They are so busy patting themselves on the back about the latest primaris lieutenant that there's not much time for other factions.
Marines have just taken over the game in a way never seen before and I think everyone suffers one way or another.
I 100% agree.
Again, end it with this vanilla marine bloat bull gak.
Removing the SW unique units from the rule set doesn't stop GW from releasing Primaris Lt. # 15 ...
I would love it if GW would start ignoring power armor for a while and focusing on other factions. 100% on board.
Removing or merging SW/BA/DA unique units from the game isn't going to do that. Especially if it is the FB marines your doing that to.
"Removing or merging SW/BA/DA unique units from the game isn't going to do that. Especially if it is the FB marines your doing that"
I'm willing to try it, if nothing else maybe some people quit playing those factions if we take away their snowflakier units. Marines are already Mary Sue snowflakes, why do we need EVEN MOAR ELITER MAHREENS. There were too many marine players before they gave them god-tier rules.
Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.
By this logic, every non-Marine faction in the game has been squatted already.
I honestly don't follow your logic...
What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?
completely differant. they've not had stand alone codices for the majority of the games lifespan. that's the thing, you're acting like these armies aren't distinct things but well.. they are.
SecondTime wrote: "Removing or merging SW/BA/DA unique units from the game isn't going to do that. Especially if it is the FB marines your doing that"
I'm willing to try it, if nothing else maybe some people quit playing those factions if we take away their snowflakier units. Marines are already Mary Sue snowflakes, why do we need EVEN MOAR ELITER MAHREENS. There were too many marine players before they gave them god-tier rules.
Cool.
So this is like saying
"I am willing to try removing daemons and orks from the game. maybe some people quit playing those factions if we take away their unique units. Xenos are already mary sue snowlfakes. why do we need EVEN MOAR DIVERSE XENOS. There were too many xenos players before they gave marines god-tier rules. "
You are honestly proposing a solution to lack of diversity by saying you should remove diversity.... right,,,, its because subjectively you don't view the faction as diverse and can't comprehend that some people do... so this is back to "because subfaction, because mahrines, because they dont deserve it,,,, so lets squat other peoples armies." If you dont want to play against marine players,,, then don't play against marine players. If you don't want to play agains SW players don't play against SW players. If you don't want to play against orks, then don't play against orks... removing or merging someones army isn't going to magically make things more diverse for you,,, if anything you are going be playing against even less diversity with way more "counts as" models because people arn't just going to toss their armies out.
SecondTime wrote: "Removing or merging SW/BA/DA unique units from the game isn't going to do that. Especially if it is the FB marines your doing that"
I'm willing to try it, if nothing else maybe some people quit playing those factions if we take away their snowflakier units. Marines are already Mary Sue snowflakes, why do we need EVEN MOAR ELITER MAHREENS. There were too many marine players before they gave them god-tier rules.
Cool.
So this is like saying
"I am willing to try removing daemons and orks from the game. maybe some people quit playing those factions if we take away their unique units. Xenos are already mary sue snowlfakes. why do we need EVEN MOAR DIVERSE XENOS. There were too many xenos players before they gave marines god-tier rules. "
You are honestly proposing a solution to lack of diversity by saying you should remove diversity.... right,,,, its because subjectively you don't view the faction as diverse and can't comprehend that some people do... so this is back to "because subfaction, because mahrines, because they dont deserve it,,,, so lets squat other peoples armies." If you dont want to play against marine players,,, then don't play against marine players. If you don't want to play agains SW players don't play against SW players. If you don't want to play against orks, then don't play against orks... removing or merging someones army isn't going to magically make things more diverse for you,,, if anything you are going be playing against even less diversity with way more "counts as" models because people arn't just going to toss their armies out.
this BTW is why most SM players tend to get defensive pretty quick in these threads. the bulk of those arguing for "consolidation" reveal themselves as just anti-marine
Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.
By this logic, every non-Marine faction in the game has been squatted already.
I honestly don't follow your logic...
What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?
completely differant. they've not had stand alone codices for the majority of the games lifespan. that's the thing, you're acting like these armies aren't distinct things but well.. they are.
So, do you think that Black Heart should have their own Dex, or at least a supplement?
Same for Poison Rose, and all the other subfactions mentioned?
What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?
not 20+ unique datasheets, several pages of unique stratagems, relics, psychic powers, warlord traits 20+ years of existing as their own codex, being separate codex since 2nd edition and unique model kits... i am missing some things... but that's the start ya XD.
Not saying they shouldn't have all those things... I am just saying they don't have those things.
What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?
not 20+ unique datasheets, several pages of unique stratagems, relics, psychic powers, warlord traits 20+ years of existing as their own codex, being separate codex since 2nd edition and unique model kits... i am missing some things... but that's the start ya XD.
Not saying they shouldn't have all those things... I am just saying they don't have those things.
You made the argument EARLIER that they shouldn't have those things. You made the argument for several pages that the increase in development time would also increase difficulty in balancing the game which cannot be spared. Why the change in tune?
Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.
By this logic, every non-Marine faction in the game has been squatted already.
I honestly don't follow your logic...
What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?
completely differant. they've not had stand alone codices for the majority of the games lifespan. that's the thing, you're acting like these armies aren't distinct things but well.. they are.
So, do you think that Black Heart should have their own Dex, or at least a supplement?
Same for Poison Rose, and all the other subfactions mentioned?
Ok if the chocie where mine, THEY'D ABSOLUTELY HAVE THEIR OWN SUPPLEMENTS. but we're enghaged in reality here the fact is space wolves, dark angels and blood angels have all been their own distinct factions since 2nd edition. oddly in that time people have grown attached to them.
Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.
By this logic, every non-Marine faction in the game has been squatted already.
I honestly don't follow your logic...
What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?
completely differant. they've not had stand alone codices for the majority of the games lifespan. that's the thing, you're acting like these armies aren't distinct things but well.. they are.
So, do you think that Black Heart should have their own Dex, or at least a supplement?
Same for Poison Rose, and all the other subfactions mentioned?
Again,
this insane notion that just because we don't want to have our army, which ALREADY exists, removed or merged doesn't have anything to do with whether or not other armies, factions, or sub factions should be more fleshed out. (remember when harlequins were just a unit that Eldar/DE could take, i love that they became their own army)
I don't care whether or not they get a dex or supplement... if they do , then that is GREAT ,,, its coool ! if those sub factions get to be as fleshed out as SWs are now !! that is awesome !!!!!! .... if they don't,,, nothing lost.
If i come to your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream and you bring nothing,,, fine we have what i got . If I come to your house with my flavours and you bring a third flavor AWESOME... If i come to your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream and you throw out the strawberry or mix the strawberry in with the chocolate I will be upset at you for removing my icecream,, especially if your justification is that I didn't bring the third flavour so you dont think we should have the ones i brought in the first place.
The army already exists, i am sure other subfactions / gak from 40k will become armies in the future as well ! but right now... these are the factions that exist,,, why do you think us wanting to keep our army means we don't want others to have armies too ?
Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.
By this logic, every non-Marine faction in the game has been squatted already.
I honestly don't follow your logic...
What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?
completely differant. they've not had stand alone codices for the majority of the games lifespan. that's the thing, you're acting like these armies aren't distinct things but well.. they are.
So, do you think that Black Heart should have their own Dex, or at least a supplement?
Same for Poison Rose, and all the other subfactions mentioned?
Ok if the chocie where mine, THEY'D ABSOLUTELY HAVE THEIR OWN SUPPLEMENTS. but we're enghaged in reality here the fact is space wolves, dark angels and blood angels have all been their own distinct factions since 2nd edition. oddly in that time people have grown attached to them.
Attachment isn't the question and nobody is suggesting that they go away. They are suggesting that many of their "unique" units are not in fact unique and could use a shared datasheet with other units that do the same thing. Nobody is saying "and then nobody ever heard of the BA again".
BrianDavion wrote:Ok if the chocie where mine, THEY'D ABSOLUTELY HAVE THEIR OWN SUPPLEMENTS. but we're enghaged in reality here the fact is space wolves, dark angels and blood angels have all been their own distinct factions since 2nd edition. oddly in that time people have grown attached to them.
Thank you. That's appreciated-fairness is a good quality to have.
One GW's not very good at, but at least you have got your mind in the right place.
Type40 wrote:Again,
this insane notion that just because we don't want to have our army, which ALREADY exists, removed or merged doesn't have anything to do with whether or not other armies, factions, or sub factions should be more fleshed out. (remember when harlequins were just a unit that Eldar/DE could take, i love that they became their own army)
I don't care whether or not they get a dex or supplement... if they do , then that is GREAT ,,, its coool ! if those sub factions get to be as fleshed out as SWs are now !! that is awesome !!!!!! .... if they don't,,, nothing lost.
If i come to your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream and you bring nothing,,, fine we have what i got . If I come to your house with my flavours and you bring a third flavor AWESOME... If i come to your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream and you throw out the strawberry or mix the strawberry in with the chocolate I will be upset at you for removing my icecream,, especially if your justification is that I didn't bring the third flavour so you dont think we should have the ones i brought in the first place.
The army already exists, i am sure other subfactions / gak from 40k will become armies in the future as well ! but right now... these are the factions that exist,,, why do you think us wanting to keep our army means we don't want others to have armies too ?
Whereas this is a lot more callous towards others.
Type40, this comes off (to me, at least) as "I got mine, who cares if you get yours?"
If that's not what you intended, you might want to change your choice of words.
What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?
not 20+ unique datasheets, several pages of unique stratagems, relics, psychic powers, warlord traits 20+ years of existing as their own codex, being separate codex since 2nd edition and unique model kits... i am missing some things... but that's the start ya XD.
Not saying they shouldn't have all those things... I am just saying they don't have those things.
You made the argument EARLIER that they shouldn't have those things. You made the argument for several pages that the increase in development time would also increase difficulty in balancing the game which cannot be spared. Why the change in tune?
You really don't read my entire posts do you ?
By being limited to SWs the faction has increased restrictions and therefor less variability... I explained this in detail before... so no I did not make an argument EARLIER that they shouldn't have those things . Increase in variability increases development time... here I am pointing out restricted variables which ALREADY EXIST. not a proposal to increase variability...
I am answering what SWs/BA/DA have that those other subfactions don't XD... this isn't a proposal for what they should have or what new ways we should move forward.. this is what DOES exist...
Do you actually read what people write or do you just respond as though you are responding to the argument you want to be responding to ?
BrianDavion wrote:Ok if the chocie where mine, THEY'D ABSOLUTELY HAVE THEIR OWN SUPPLEMENTS. but we're enghaged in reality here the fact is space wolves, dark angels and blood angels have all been their own distinct factions since 2nd edition. oddly in that time people have grown attached to them.
Thank you. That's appreciated-fairness is a good quality to have.
One GW's not very good at, but at least you have got your mind in the right place.
Type40 wrote:Again,
this insane notion that just because we don't want to have our army, which ALREADY exists, removed or merged doesn't have anything to do with whether or not other armies, factions, or sub factions should be more fleshed out. (remember when harlequins were just a unit that Eldar/DE could take, i love that they became their own army)
I don't care whether or not they get a dex or supplement... if they do , then that is GREAT ,,, its coool ! if those sub factions get to be as fleshed out as SWs are now !! that is awesome !!!!!! .... if they don't,,, nothing lost.
If i come to your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream and you bring nothing,,, fine we have what i got . If I come to your house with my flavours and you bring a third flavor AWESOME... If i come to your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream and you throw out the strawberry or mix the strawberry in with the chocolate I will be upset at you for removing my icecream,, especially if your justification is that I didn't bring the third flavour so you dont think we should have the ones i brought in the first place.
The army already exists, i am sure other subfactions / gak from 40k will become armies in the future as well ! but right now... these are the factions that exist,,, why do you think us wanting to keep our army means we don't want others to have armies too ?
Whereas this is a lot more callous towards others.
Type40, this comes off (to me, at least) as "I got mine, who cares if you get yours?"
If that's not what you intended, you might want to change your choice of words.
Are you reading what I am writing ?
more subfactions being fleshed out = GOOD
When they exist GREAT !!!
do other factions need more attention . YES .
DO I THINK IT IS OK THAT YOU WANT TO REMOVE MY ARMY BECAUSE YOURS HASN'T BEEN FLESHED OUT ? NO YOU CAN GO feth YOURSELF IF YOU THINK THAT.
I want my diversity and fleshed out sub factions in the game. and yes, I got mine !!!!! I am happy i got mine !!!! and you got yours !!!! GREAT , you have what you have and it does EXIST .... if you get more !!!! GREAT !!! PLEASE HAVE MORE !!!!! but why the hell do you want to take mine away ? the game has all these armies to choose from. They play in different ways ! GREAT ... are you so jellous about the way that my army works that you can't handle the fact that your army doesn't work in the exact same way ? ... do you really want your faction to have access to primaris so bad ! fething take em. I don't need them.
How many times do I have to repeat that I DONT WANT MORE ATTENTION GIVEN TO PWOER ARMOR FACTIONS FOR NOW !!! do you really not get that... You are the one trying to advocate my army gets fething squated or merged and you have the nerve to tell me that I am wrong for saying "dont take my gak from me."
for feth sake man. do you really not understand that what you are saying is the equivalent of
"why do you think daemons deserve to be their own faction and not rolled into CSM ?" then when I say "because they have unique units and rules that are different from CSM despite the overlap, the overlap really isnt what i am interested in"
Then you say
"well, do you think this other obscure thing should be its own codex or suplement"
"Sure, but honestly, I just don't want you to take mine away, and I don't see what this other obscure thing becoming a faction has to do with mine existing"
"oh, so your selfish"
For feth sake.
If there are 5 housing plots on a street. 3 of plots have houses built on them. You don't tell the guy in house number 1 that his house needs to be torn down because house number 5 hasn't been built yet. Then when the guy in house number 1 says "i don't care what you do with that plot, please put attention on that plot if youd like, my house is done, just don't tear mine down because your upset that house doesnt exist yet" you don't go "WELL THATS UNFAIR WE ARE TEARING YOUR HOUSE DOWN BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE A HOUSE HERE "
Please !!! build your house. I want to see that happen, GREAT ! , but its not my fault my army has existed and been fleshed out since 2nd edition and the fething Poisoned Rose hasn't. stop trying to imply I am selfish because I don't like the idea of squating or merging my army... its not going to magically making Poisoned Rose a faction... or magically make anything for you better. I love playing against more varieties of games ! ... thousand sons and deathgaurd were not their own codex when i frist started playing. I LOVE that they are now. I would love to see more fleshed out sub factions... restrictions over variables is good ! ... but what does other subfactions becoming fleshed out have to do with squating mine !
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: By suggesting that every subfaction in the game should be given there own list of unique units you are arguing for that.
LOL you still don't get it then XD.
Non-variable datasheets ,,, i.e. restrictions means NP is complete... because there is no variables...
but lets not get into this,,, seriously... you really don't grasp anything I have been talking about this entire time...
in short
Static datasheets = good
variable datasheets = bad
more unique units is not the same thing as advocating for giant variable consolidated datasheets.
So again... no I am not arguing for that. Re-read my old posts.
You may want to calm down. I literally said "If that's not what you intended, you might want to change your choice of words," because I got the feeling it came off as harsher than you meant it to.
But when your response to that is a massive ball of "Feth off!" it really ruins that impression.
Is your argument for SWs/BA/DA not existing in a unique way seriously
"Its not FAIR that these armies/subfactions/factions have been fleshed out for 20+ years and these other ones have not"
?
Because, ya, the more that get fleshed out, the better for the game,,, but ,,, advocating that others have stuff removed because your jealous or you feel like its unfair that certain armies simply exist is a bit of a bad argument.
again, removing my army isn't going to bring back the 20+ years of design time used to flesh the SWs out ...
Is your argument for SWs/BA/DA not existing in a unique way seriously
"Its not FAIR that these armies/subfactions/factions have been fleshed out for 20+ years and these other ones have not"
?
Because, ya, the more that get fleshed out, the better for the game,,, but ,,, advocating that others have stuff removed because your jealous or you feel like its unfair that certain armies simply exist is a bit of a bad argument.
again, removing my army isn't going to bring back the 20+ years of design time used to flesh the SWs out ...
My argument is that Marines take up far too much design space, and the resources that are currently being used on them should be used to help flesh out other factions that need it a lot more.
I also think that it's perfectly reasonable to hold the position of "EVERYBODY deserves supplements," or "Supplements should be done away with entirely," but not the position of "Space Marines and Space Marines alone deserve supplements."
Brian Davion has made clear that they hold the first position.
I'm ambivalent as to which is the better course of action for 40k, though leaning on the second argument for the moment, since there are entire Codecs that need reworking before Supplements should be considered.
Your posts give off the impression of the third argument-except I've not even seen you defend Ultramarines or White Scars having their own Supplements, just Space Wolves.
Again-if you don't want to come off that way, you should consider phrasing what you say in a different way.
JNAProductions wrote: You may want to calm down. I literally said "If that's not what you intended, you might want to change your choice of words," because I got the feeling it came off as harsher than you meant it to.
But when your response to that is a massive ball of "Feth off!" it really ruins that impression.
Sorry.
I am just getting frustrated because this attitude that seems to suggest that I somehow think that everyone else doesn't deserve things because I don't want my army to be squated or merged.
Its a bit infuriating that me saying "Hey, what does making a new dex or suplement out of that subfaction have to do with squating my army" gets a response suggesting I am in someway coming off selfish... like ya,,, it would be cool if some of thos sub faction got more fleshed out... but again,,, when it comes to whether or not my faction gets squated I don't care whether or not your subfaction gets anything, it has nothing to do with the continued existence of mine.
I don't mean to come off so aggressively with you. I am just frustrated at the lack of understanding. Especially because I keep repeating how I completey agree that other factions need attention, other factions deserve just as much. and etc etc.
Is your argument for SWs/BA/DA not existing in a unique way seriously
"Its not FAIR that these armies/subfactions/factions have been fleshed out for 20+ years and these other ones have not"
?
Because, ya, the more that get fleshed out, the better for the game,,, but ,,, advocating that others have stuff removed because your jealous or you feel like its unfair that certain armies simply exist is a bit of a bad argument.
again, removing my army isn't going to bring back the 20+ years of design time used to flesh the SWs out ...
My argument is that Marines take up far too much design space, and the resources that are currently being used on them should be used to help flesh out other factions that need it a lot more.
100 % agree with you on this. I have said this before, repeatedly
I also think that it's perfectly reasonable to hold the position of "EVERYBODY deserves supplements," or "Supplements should be done away with entirely," but not the position of "Space Marines and Space Marines alone deserve supplements."
my argument is not that EVERYONE deserves supplements... my argument is more like "the more the merrier." it 100% is not "Space Marines and Space Marines alone deserve supplements." I have never said that, and I would never say that because I completely disagree with this. I want to see more supplements. if it ends up being EVERYONE ,,, great,,, but my attitude is more = better, regardless of faction.
Brian Davion has made clear that they hold the first position.
I'm ambivalent as to which is the better course of action for 40k, though leaning on the second argument for the moment, since there are entire Codecs that need reworking before Supplements should be considered.
Your posts give off the impression of the third argument-except I've not even seen you defend Ultramarines or White Scars having their own Supplements, just Space Wolves.
Again-if you don't want to come off that way, you should consider phrasing what you say in a different way.
My arguments are mainly for BA/SW/DA due to how much they have been fleshed out already... As for the other marines... i think more work needs to be done but now isn't the time.
As for xenos, IG, and etc ... I would love to see more... I have never once even tried to suggest ONLY SPACE MARINES... I am constantly doing nothing but simply defending them... I don't understand how you can interprete "don't squat my army" as "only my army deserves this."
I havn't said this or even suggested this once.... you can go back through all my posts and I guarantee you wont find a single quote that suggests this. This is precisely what is frustrated me in this conversation. You keep accusing me of this and other selfish attitudes when I havn't once suggested that I think only one faction, or only one army deserves anything. I have done nothing for days but deffend why my army shouldn't be squated or merged.... Stop accusing me of saying no one else deserves anything... just because I say "my stuff is unique and should stay that way" doesn't translate to "my stuff is special and i don't think you should have special things like me" .... these arn't the same statements so please stop saying that it is what i am saying.
And our argument is that you are wrong. bloating every other army in the game by adding more units that are redundant isn't going to make the game any better. The thread is more or less about how the game would benefit by a reduction in the things you are now asking for more of. I have no interest in seeing the tyranids gain an additional 60 datasheets by giving 6 different sub factions new datasheets that are keyword locked. I would rather be able to make my own hive fleet my own. And SM make their own chapter their own. This isn't about representing GWs 6 different subfaction dudes. This is about players being able to represent THEIR dudes.
But my attitude of wanting my faction to continue to exist in a unique way is not the same as GWs attitude either.
Maybe this is the issue... lets try and separate my opinion from GWs. I too disagree with GWs attitude that Marines get all the toys and no one else does.
I too agree that when SWs/SMs get stuff these days, it feels gakky to everyone else (remember my wolves are my second faction).
But I am saying "I want my army to stay unique, I want to continue to have the things I have gotten during more reasonable times in the game, I think all this new primaris gak is a load of crap just like everyone else"
I am not asking for future resources to go to SWs. I am trying to remind people that removing all the stuff that has been fleshed out for them in 20+ years (not including the past 3 primaris bs years) would feel gakky for the people who play those factions and removing all that stuff wont magically make new space for other people. Its not even the unique units that are taking up the current design space,,, its all this primaris gak.
So yes, I want other factions to get attention... no SWsBA and DA don't need a lot of attention these days... I disagree with all this vannilla gak that GW is trying to force down the SWsBA and DA palyers throats. So can we just focus on other factions and leave these unique fleshed out armies alone... what's the point in removing them ? their 20 + years of design time isn't coming back if you do ? your just ruining some peoples enjoyment of the game and nothing else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: And our argument is that you are wrong. bloating every other army in the game by adding more units that are redundant isn't going to make the game any better. The thread is more or less about how the game would benefit by a reduction in the things you are now asking for more of. I have no interest in seeing the tyranids gain an additional 60 datasheets by giving 6 different sub factions new datasheets that are keyword locked. I would rather be able to make my own hive fleet my own. And SM make their own chapter their own. This isn't about representing GWs 6 different subfaction dudes. This is about players being able to represent THEIR dudes.
The redundancy of TWC, wulfen, and other unique SW units is again,,, just your opinion man...
Again,,, you don't want people to represent their dudes because you don't think their dudes are unique enough to be represented XD lol ... you think they are "all just the same." you have yet to explain to me what makes merging these unique units together any different from just merging the entire game into a single set of datasheets other then "MAHRINES" and "SUBFACTION." If as few, incredibly customizable datasheets are what's best for the game... then roll in every faction ? or are you going to admit that you have made a subjective opinion on when an army is allowed have its own unique set of datasheets? XD ... You should just make your hive fleet your own with all the customization in the world... you should do that... there are alternative rule sets and games that use 40k mini's that do just that. They are different games and they are not 40k ... its ok if you'd prefer to play those games... they just aren't this game. Sorry.
JNAProductions wrote: You may want to calm down. I literally said "If that's not what you intended, you might want to change your choice of words," because I got the feeling it came off as harsher than you meant it to.
But when your response to that is a massive ball of "Feth off!" it really ruins that impression.
I honestly don't blame him the reaction. I mean... look not everyone is saying this but when someone says "SW/DA/BA have been around for a long time as their own codices, have their own identity and units etc as a concequence" and people say "WELL WHAT ABOUT CRAFTWORLD UTHWE IT DOESN'T HAVE UNIQUE STUFF!" (just for example here) what it comes off sounding like is "well if CWE don't have this, no one can, and it should be removed no matter how much it screws over with what people already have" (yet again just using CWE as an example here)
I'd absolutely love to see more supplements for every faction. hell I'd rather they do supplements to apd out an edition to make it last longer then it takes GW to pump out codices.
I can think of some armies that would absolutely benifit from having supplements.
The redundancy of TWC, wulfen, and other unique SW units is again,,, just your opinion man...
Again,,, you don't want people to represent their dudes because you don't think their dudes are unique enough to be represented XD lol ... you think they are "all just the same" XD ... You should just make your hive fleet your own with all the customization in the world... you should do that... there are alternative rule sets and games that use 40k mini's that do just that. They are different games and they are not 40k ... its ok if you'd prefer to play those games... they just aren't this game. Sorry.
The thing is, I can't see how your argument isn't "just an opinion" either. And I certainly don't see any evidence that you have the knowledge of what is and isn't "this game".
The consolidate side has more or less put forward their a priori assumptions on what makes a good game and argued how consolidation moves the game towards that direction.
May I suggest that you do something similar in return?
As 40k is a game, any view on what makes it good is ultimately an opinion, but if the criteria for "goodness" is agreed upon, it will be possible to make (contextually)non-subjective arguments about how to improve the game.
The redundancy of TWC, wulfen, and other unique SW units is again,,, just your opinion man...
Again,,, you don't want people to represent their dudes because you don't think their dudes are unique enough to be represented XD lol ... you think they are "all just the same" XD ... You should just make your hive fleet your own with all the customization in the world... you should do that... there are alternative rule sets and games that use 40k mini's that do just that. They are different games and they are not 40k ... its ok if you'd prefer to play those games... they just aren't this game. Sorry.
The thing is, I can't see how your argument isn't "just an opinion" either. And I certainly don't see any evidence that you have the knowledge of what is and isn't "this game".
The consolidate side has more or less put forward their a priori assumptions on what makes a good game and argued how consolidation moves the game towards that direction.
May I suggest that you do something similar in return?
As 40k is a game, any view on what makes it good is ultimately an opinion, but if the criteria for "goodness" is agreed upon, it will be possible to make (contextually)non-subjective arguments about how to improve the game.
If you go through the entirety of this thread, you will see lots of arguments presented by me.
Now, this a pretty simple point... if you are removing an armies unique identity, unique access to a unit, unit itself then there will be players who will be upset that you are removing their army from the game or are merging them completely into another army...
If UM can ride cavalry all of a sudden, that means your army has lost a part of its unique identity in terms of table play.
sure. this is my opinion. It is shrouded in the fact that people invest time and energy into their armies and would like to play them.
I know what i am saying is an opinion.. I am not saying it isn't ... what Lance doesn't seem to grasp is how subjective it is for him to decide when an army is unique enough to get its own set of datasheets and when they arn't... i am trying to point out to him that where he draws that line is, in fact, an opinion which has not justified in any way other then repeatedly saying "subfactions are not armies" or "they are all marines" ... which is really just him repeating his opinion.
And a game with completely customizable datasheets using 40k models does in fact exist, it is in fact a different game,,, so ,,, ya,, i know there is 40k,, and there are other games that work differently... you don't have to think i know the game or not to make that any less true. or even whether not either of these games are good or bad... they are just, in fact, different games.
if you want to see all of my justifications and defences, please go through the posts and check them. Lance and I have had a long set of arguments and disagreements where i have brought up many reasons for not wanting BA/SW/DA/DW to be squated or have their identities removed by merger. not to mention points about increasing variables in generic marines by removing the subfaction restrictions and thus creating more work for designers... but that is a long explanation and can be found explained earlier.
The point is,,, yes,,, these are all opinions,,, I would like Lance to acknowledge that and especially acknowledge that his opinion of what does and doesnt get to be a unique army is subjective...
No. It is not my opinion that subfactions are not armies. That is a fact.
Tyranids is a army. Adeptus Astartes is an army.
Ultramarines is not an army. And regardless of what SW were, they are currently not an army.
Again, nobody is suggesting that TWC go away. They are suggesting that creating bespoke datasheets for things like that when other units fulfill the same role and a consolidation of the 2 would open access to more players being able to represent their dudes is not in any capacity a bad thing. The only people who would be upset by this are the people who feel protective of it, like you are.
It's not a matter of you loosing anything. It's a matter of everything gaining things within the singular entity that is the army Adeptus Astartes while reducing bloat and streamlining .
And again, I know you FEEL like you are loosing something. You are SOOO protective of it. You call it unique flavor but it's not. No more so then Jormungandr versus Hydra. And you want the other subfactions to gain all these extra datasheets, but thats a problem. The game would suffer for it. The players would become MORE restricted for it. We all loose. I don't want to loose. I want us all, even you, to gain.
The redundancy of TWC, wulfen, and other unique SW units is again,,, just your opinion man...
Again,,, you don't want people to represent their dudes because you don't think their dudes are unique enough to be represented XD lol ... you think they are "all just the same" XD ... You should just make your hive fleet your own with all the customization in the world... you should do that... there are alternative rule sets and games that use 40k mini's that do just that. They are different games and they are not 40k ... its ok if you'd prefer to play those games... they just aren't this game. Sorry.
The thing is, I can't see how your argument isn't "just an opinion" either. And I certainly don't see any evidence that you have the knowledge of what is and isn't "this game".
The consolidate side has more or less put forward their a priori assumptions on what makes a good game and argued how consolidation moves the game towards that direction.
May I suggest that you do something similar in return?
As 40k is a game, any view on what makes it good is ultimately an opinion, but if the criteria for "goodness" is agreed upon, it will be possible to make (contextually)non-subjective arguments about how to improve the game.
If you go through the entirety of this thread, you will see lots of arguments presented by me.
Now, this a pretty simple point... if you are removing an armies unique identity, unique access to a unit, unit itself then there will be players who will be upset that you are removing their army from the game or are merging them completely into another army...
If UM can ride cavalry all of a sudden, that means your army has lost a part of its unique identity in terms of table play.
sure. this is my opinion. It is shrouded in the fact that people invest time and energy into their armies and would like to play them.
I know what i am saying is an opinion.. I am not saying it isn't ... what Lance doesn't seem to grasp is how subjective it is for him to decide when an army is unique enough to get its own set of datasheets and when they arn't... i am trying to point out to him that where he draws that line is, in fact, an opinion which has not justified in any way other then repeatedly saying "subfactions are not armies" or "they are all marines" ... which is really just him repeating his opinion.
And a game with completely customizable datasheets using 40k models does in fact exist, it is in fact a different game,,, so ,,, ya,, i know there is 40k,, and there are other games that work differently... you don't have to think i know the game or not to make that any less true. or even whether not either of these games are good or bad... they are just, in fact, different games.
if you want to see all of my justifications and defences, please go through the posts and check them. Lance and I have had a long set of arguments and disagreements where i have brought up many reasons for not wanting BA/SW/DA/DW to be squated or have their identities removed by merger. not to mention points about increasing variables in generic marines by removing the subfaction restrictions and thus creating more work for designers... but that is a long explanation and can be found explained earlier.
The point is,,, yes,,, these are all opinions,,, I would like Lance to acknowledge that and especially acknowledge that his opinion of what does and doesnt get to be a unique army is subjective...
I have read through the entire thread, including your arguments. Or rather, you've mostly made counterarguments against consolidation. What I was asking for would be closer to a set of criteria that measure the quality of the game which could be affected by consolidation, so that both sides can find some sort of common ground to derive arguments from. For example, you have expressed support for some degree of consolidation, specifically regarding the various primaris captains, so you presumably dislike datasheet bloat.
On the topic of different games, sure those games you mentioned exist and are distinct from current 40k, but I don't see how that shows that the concept of consolidated datasheets is somehow antithetical to 40k as a whole. Because if they aren't, why shouldn't Lance and others advocate for an improved game, from their point of view?
And about opinions, I certainly don't see Lance or anyone else claiming their definition of subfaction vs army is absolute fact. They have set their boundaries (SW are subfactions of SM, but SM and IG are distinct, etc) and have provided a degree of support (differences in wargear, different base statlines, etc).
Sure, everything can be dumbed-down to the point the game is played by each player using the exact same single mini. No-one has suggested that. What is being discussed is consolidating redundant unit entries and weapons. What you don't understand is that making 
Because they couldn't mount guns to the harness, if they wanted to.... 
This is a 