First of all before there is any accusation that I am somehow anti marines I will point out that I been collecting them from the days of Rogue Trader and have substantial Space Wolves, Dark Angels and Ultramarines armies as well as bits and pieces of other Chapters.
My view is that GWs resources are massively focussed on Marines (Imperium and Chaos) and this is further compounded by the obsessive focus on several Chapters to the exclusion and determent of all others.
IMO It also ill-serves those few “Chosen” Chapters who have to suffer more and more outlandish models to try and sell something new for them – so for the wolves we have moved from a normal Chapter (in fact the basic chapter in RT) to one with a Viking culture to one which rides wolves, has wolves pulling grav sleighs and equipment has painful naming conventions. Similar things are happening for the Blood Angels and Dark Angels.
Many of the units that are flagged as somehow unique to the various Chapters are simply not. Wolfen- mutated Marines are found in others like the Black Dragons. Terminators are found in a variety of storied forms – notably the Salamanders and Iron Hands, however only the Wolves and Angels are allowed to have special rules for them.
Consolidating most of the codex’s with the few minor differences being incorporated in data slates or expanded Chapter tactics would allow many of these neglected Chapters to field units that are in keeping with the actual stories whilst loosing none of the actual fluff about the Wolves or Angels.
I can;t see any issue with this, what eactly would be lost with the consoldation described above.
From the other Thread
You clearly havent spoken to many Canadians than if you find it strange to be called mate
You keep making this grocery analogy, but it just doesnt work here. GW produces models. The models they produce are those that sell well. New models are developed based on where the greatest potential returns are. Models that dont sell well, never get touched. The reason the Dark Eldar models suck so much, isnt cause GW hates Dark Eldar players, but because there is insufficent demand to warrant them spending money modernizing the line. If there are no returns, you dont invest in that avenue. BA/SW/DA/GK/DW, all came into existence and continue to exist and be supported due to GW seeing the demand, and continuing to gain high sales from the customers who made these demands.
For Dark Angels alone, I can count , 17 different enteries in my codex off the top of my head that all have a unique dark angels model. I couldnt give a damn, if scout bikes performed the same as ravenwing bikes, i would still continue to buy and want new ravenwing bikes, because those are the models I like and want. Scout bikes look stupid in my opinion compared to ravenwing bikes. You are arguing for the exact same thing to happen to space marines as a whole that DID happen to IG, and than saying people are being hyperbolic for not wanting their model lines to be discontinued just like what happened with the old IG regiments. Tell me how easy it is to field a Death Krieg army of IG as a new player, given you cant buy any of their models anymore from GW. Surely its the exact same to just buy Cadian models and use Death Krieg rules eh? You forget that half the reason anyone plays the army they do is because they like the look of that army, and want it to continue to being a thing. How does Dark Angels being a thing hurt anyone else? By that argument Tau hurt Ork players cause its another Xenos army taking away from potential investments into Orks!
PS. I am not angry, I am simply in disbelief that you find it so crazy that people care about their unique models remaining cool and unique in appearance, instead of having to use the models for an army they didnt like, and actively chose to not play in the first place.
You are kind of making my argument - the reason we lost all those differnt non marine variants is I would contend because myopically, GW focussed on Marines, and then doubled down to focuss even further on just a few selected Chapters, again destroying any chance that any of 990+ other Chapters would ever get anything. Rather than grocery perhaps a more wargamming annology - its like just making Imperial Roman Legionaries but then only focussing on the 10th, 12 anf 16th Legions, but then becuase you have made the models of all the vaious legionary types for those Legions, making up flying chariots for them. Dont bother with the auxliaries or the various enemies of Rome, just the couple of Legions that fought the civil wars between wannabe Emperors.
I don't understand the Dark Eldar annology - they had a massive remake - they did loose unique characters but had vast numbers of new models - and apparently that was not only worth the investment but continues to do so.
My main focuss would be to reduce units and codexes - the models are already done - what models are missing for the so called big four chapters?
I think the only thing one could find issue with is a question of "pitch vs reality".
"All your options will still be there - it'll just be consolidated so everyone gets access to the cool stuff" is a pitch that's been heard, implemented, and disappointed people since the earliest days of 40k.
Any black templars players feeling like their current ruleset is as unique and interesting as their 3rd ed codex?
no?
how about Catachan players - since your 3rd edition codex, each edition has maintained all the unique stuff you had since you had your own book, right?
Harlequin players? Definitely way more convenient before we had to deal with our own book, I'll bet everyone is wishing we were still back in the Eldar/Dark Eldar codex, right?
So in the theoretical world where the sales pitch is exactly the reality of what you describe - great, all for it, bundle 'em up and lets have a Harry Potter book sized space marine codex with infinite customization!
the_scotsman wrote: I think the only thing one could find issue with is a question of "pitch vs reality".
"All your options will still be there - it'll just be consolidated so everyone gets access to the cool stuff" is a pitch that's been heard, implemented, and disappointed people since the earliest days of 40k.
Any black templars players feeling like their current ruleset is as unique and interesting as their 3rd ed codex?
no?
how about Catachan players - since your 3rd edition codex, each edition has maintained all the unique stuff you had since you had your own book, right?
Harlequin players? Definitely way more convenient before we had to deal with our own book, I'll bet everyone is wishing we were still back in the Eldar/Dark Eldar codex, right?
So in the theoretical world where the sales pitch is exactly the reality of what you describe - great, all for it, bundle 'em up and lets have a Harry Potter book sized space marine codex with infinite customization!
I can sort of see that - but when you actually look at the special units - they really are not particuarly special - they have a rule or two, or just slighty different weapons loadout.
I would prefer the unit entries in a Marine dex to be more like the Death Watch entries - loads of options and possible special rules.
Then you could do the same with the neglected Guard codex and all the others.
Why is there no carapce armour option, why no close combat weapon equiped squads etc etc etc - these take up very little space and do enhance the fluff.
I’d be for consolidating the marine chapters into one book, and do some culling of superfluous units to include more detail unique to the various chapters.
I really wonder about some of the units - do we really need to have a separate entry for Thunderwolves instead of using bike stats with alternate models? And do centurions need to exist at all instead of just fixing Terminators?
Stormonu wrote: I’d be for consolidating the marine chapters into one book, and do some culling of superfluous units to include more detail unique to the various chapters.
I really wonder about some of the units - do we really need to have a separate entry for Thunderwolves instead of using bike stats with alternate models? And do centurions need to exist at all instead of just fixing Terminators?
I hate Centurions models - so cool. I don't like Thunderwovles but a "Marine Cavalry unit" is fine if its needed.
It depends on the implementation. The problem is that when GW does something like this they do it by cutting off options.
What you want for Marines/CSM is a rulebook that works like the 30k Legion list or the 3e CSM Codex/4e SM Codex where you have one core army list, and then nine or ten appendixes at the end that give you a page describing what's different if you play this specific Legion. Or even something like the 7e "supplements" where you have your Codex and then you get a pamphlet that describes what's different about your specific Chapter/Legion/etc.
The problem with giving everyone their own Codex is that GW has chosen to cut options off of one Codex to make another feel more unique. Space Marines used to be able to field melee Tactical squads and squads with two special weapons instead of special/heavy, but those got cut off to make Grey Hunters feel more unique.
The problem with GW actually doing this is that for it to work you need to a) cut down on the number of different profiles, which they don't like to do, and b) break kit-datasheet equivalence, which runs counter to their 8e design philosophy where the name of the kit must be the name of the datasheet and the only options available to the datasheet must be options you can build in the kit.
You are kind of making my argument - the reason we lost all those differnt non marine variants is I would contend because myopically, GW focussed on Marines, and then doubled down to focuss even further on just a few selected Chapters, again destroying any chance that any of 990+ other Chapters would ever get anything. Rather than grocery perhaps a more wargamming annology - its like just making Imperial Roman Legionaries but then only focussing on the 10th, 12 anf 16th Legions, but then becuase you have made the models of all the vaious legionary types for those Legions, making up flying chariots for them. Dont bother with the auxliaries or the various enemies of Rome, just the couple of Legions that fought the civil wars between wannabe Emperors.
I don't understand the Dark Eldar annology - they had a massive remake - they did loose unique characters but had vast numbers of new models - and apparently that was not only worth the investment but continues to do so.
My main focuss would be to reduce units and codexes - the models are already done - what models are missing for the so called big four chapters?
No, im not really. GW focuses on what sells well. If Xenos sales pick up and marine sales stay constant, they are not going to start cutting down on marines to make xenos, they will simply invest in xenos more. You act like its a zero sum game, when it isnt. If sales and demand are equal, investment would be equal accross the board. When they are not, investment becomes proportional to potential returns. Marines doing well doesnt mean Xenos does bad. Besides when it comes to the other chapters of space marines, I'd argue we should want them to get the same treatment that DA/BA/SW/GK/DW get. The more the merrier.
And frankly you are making my argument for me. You want to reduce the units. If you reduce the units, why keep making distinct models, for units that no longer exist? I sure can buy so many Valhallan IG after all. GW has already shown clearly that they will stop producing distinct versions of models, when you can just have one style that is used by all.
the_scotsman wrote: I think the only thing one could find issue with is a question of "pitch vs reality".
"All your options will still be there - it'll just be consolidated so everyone gets access to the cool stuff" is a pitch that's been heard, implemented, and disappointed people since the earliest days of 40k.
Any black templars players feeling like their current ruleset is as unique and interesting as their 3rd ed codex?
no?
how about Catachan players - since your 3rd edition codex, each edition has maintained all the unique stuff you had since you had your own book, right?
Harlequin players? Definitely way more convenient before we had to deal with our own book, I'll bet everyone is wishing we were still back in the Eldar/Dark Eldar codex, right?
So in the theoretical world where the sales pitch is exactly the reality of what you describe - great, all for it, bundle 'em up and lets have a Harry Potter book sized space marine codex with infinite customization!
Agreed on this entirely. "Just fold them into one book, it's easy!" has invariably been followed by "feth your army" in practice.
By all means, make more Codices for the Adeptus Administratum, or Khornate Orks or whatever, but stop messing with people's armies to make it happen.
I agree really. Most of the snowflake chapter stuff can be done with a few extra lines on datasheets and some keywords to enable snowflake loadouts or abilities. For the REALLY unique units just put them in the codex as is but make them chapter exclusive.
The positive side of this of that you enable some of the more traditional codex compliant chapters (salamanders, iron hands, white scars, etc) to easily have some special flavor added without having a whole extra codex added.
The only downside is less of the snowflake specific codex fluff and add course the space marine codex would be bigger.
A lot of the chapter unique stuff shouldn't be. Why are the BA the only ones who give their tacticals heavy flamers, their honour guard jump packs or put their librarians in dreadnoughts? I want the marine codex to be a toolbox with a lot of options and everyone can freely pick and choose what they think suits their chapter.
They're already quasi doing this with primaris marines.
This is gentrification of marines. We haven't seen faction specific Primaris and i doubt we will.
When primaris rules are actually good (some day) and core SM armies old-marine rules are complete and utter trash, this will be the scenario you're talking about.
We're already half-way there. Unless you're Deathwatch everything sucks. So when primaris gets good, we'll be exactly where i said we'll be.
You are kind of making my argument - the reason we lost all those differnt non marine variants is I would contend because myopically, GW focussed on Marines, and then doubled down to focuss even further on just a few selected Chapters, again destroying any chance that any of 990+ other Chapters would ever get anything. Rather than grocery perhaps a more wargamming annology - its like just making Imperial Roman Legionaries but then only focussing on the 10th, 12 anf 16th Legions, but then becuase you have made the models of all the vaious legionary types for those Legions, making up flying chariots for them. Dont bother with the auxliaries or the various enemies of Rome, just the couple of Legions that fought the civil wars between wannabe Emperors.
I don't understand the Dark Eldar annology - they had a massive remake - they did loose unique characters but had vast numbers of new models - and apparently that was not only worth the investment but continues to do so.
My main focuss would be to reduce units and codexes - the models are already done - what models are missing for the so called big four chapters?
No, im not really. GW focuses on what sells well. If Xenos sales pick up and marine sales stay constant, they are not going to start cutting down on marines to make xenos, they will simply invest in xenos more. You act like its a zero sum game, when it isnt. If sales and demand are equal, investment would be equal accross the board. When they are not, investment becomes proportional to potential returns. Marines doing well doesnt mean Xenos does bad. Besides when it comes to the other chapters of space marines, I'd argue we should want them to get the same treatment that DA/BA/SW/GK/DW get. The more the merrier.
And frankly you are making my argument for me. You want to reduce the units. If you reduce the units, why keep making distinct models, for units that no longer exist? I sure can buy so many Valhallan IG after all. GW has already shown clearly that they will stop producing distinct versions of models, when you can just have one style that is used by all.
Not really -we still had to have special Primaris models for only a few Chapters - again neglecting all others. There is not an infinite amount of time and resources to split up - if you choose to focuss on marines (as they did in the past) then you won't be doing something else. The other problem your not considering is that because they had such a limited amount of units to make - they had to keep inventing more and more outlandish one for just those chapters - the moment they did something for someone else there is a clamour from the fans of that chapter - where is out version - not even just can we use - where is our special unique version of the same unit.
In addiiton the Marine range - as described in the codex was finished - what has not been made in plastic?
- they could have looked at things like Thralls, stealth Snipers (liek the cool new Primaris ones) etc but they were stuck with having to make stuff for those Chapters. and still are. We are now seeing a more varied range - Genestealer Cults and Ad Mech are shining examples of this but they do have to squeeze between marine dexes and releases.
Marmatag wrote: They're already quasi doing this with primaris marines.
This is gentrification of marines.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I have a mental image of a bunch of primaris hipsters opening up a bunch of breweries and coffee shops and pricing out all the regular marines with the rising rent in all the fortress monasteries.
the_scotsman wrote: I think the only thing one could find issue with is a question of "pitch vs reality".
"All your options will still be there - it'll just be consolidated so everyone gets access to the cool stuff" is a pitch that's been heard, implemented, and disappointed people since the earliest days of 40k.
Any black templars players feeling like their current ruleset is as unique and interesting as their 3rd ed codex?
no?
how about Catachan players - since your 3rd edition codex, each edition has maintained all the unique stuff you had since you had your own book, right?
Harlequin players? Definitely way more convenient before we had to deal with our own book, I'll bet everyone is wishing we were still back in the Eldar/Dark Eldar codex, right?
So in the theoretical world where the sales pitch is exactly the reality of what you describe - great, all for it, bundle 'em up and lets have a Harry Potter book sized space marine codex with infinite customization!
Agreed on this entirely. "Just fold them into one book, it's easy!" has invariably been followed by "feth your army" in practice.
By all means, make more Codices for the Adeptus Administratum, or Khornate Orks or whatever, but stop messing with people's armies to make it happen.
It sounds like I'm going to have to actually write a consolidated book to get my point across. Can't do so right now because I'm not at my desk, will start a Proposed Rules thread later.
The truly unique stuff wouldn't add much to the basic SM codex to fold most of the variant loyalists in, maybe a couple dozen pages to an already expensive hardback triple digit page count book. It could be done without sacrificing much meaningful in terms of flavor (at least not anymoreso than already happens with editions changes and codex updates and the like).
From a game/player perspective, consolidation could be done relatively easily if desired.
The bigger issue is that GW appears to use these variant SM books to keep interest in their primary product line up with some level of consistency, and I suspect is a key part of their business model and forecasting.
the_scotsman wrote: I think the only thing one could find issue with is a question of "pitch vs reality".
"All your options will still be there - it'll just be consolidated so everyone gets access to the cool stuff" is a pitch that's been heard, implemented, and disappointed people since the earliest days of 40k.
Any black templars players feeling like their current ruleset is as unique and interesting as their 3rd ed codex?
no?
how about Catachan players - since your 3rd edition codex, each edition has maintained all the unique stuff you had since you had your own book, right?
Harlequin players? Definitely way more convenient before we had to deal with our own book, I'll bet everyone is wishing we were still back in the Eldar/Dark Eldar codex, right?
So in the theoretical world where the sales pitch is exactly the reality of what you describe - great, all for it, bundle 'em up and lets have a Harry Potter book sized space marine codex with infinite customization!
Agreed on this entirely. "Just fold them into one book, it's easy!" has invariably been followed by "feth your army" in practice.
By all means, make more Codices for the Adeptus Administratum, or Khornate Orks or whatever, but stop messing with people's armies to make it happen.
it does not have to be and it should not be.
As others are saying almost every different "unique" unit can be represented by a few more lines on a dataslate or Chapter tactics. A tiny few unique units could remain Chapter specific.
Lets look at tac Marines - what the total rules and options that the equivalents in the SW, DA and BA Codexs - how much space would it take up?
the_scotsman wrote: I think the only thing one could find issue with is a question of "pitch vs reality".
"All your options will still be there - it'll just be consolidated so everyone gets access to the cool stuff" is a pitch that's been heard, implemented, and disappointed people since the earliest days of 40k.
Any black templars players feeling like their current ruleset is as unique and interesting as their 3rd ed codex?
no?
how about Catachan players - since your 3rd edition codex, each edition has maintained all the unique stuff you had since you had your own book, right?
Harlequin players? Definitely way more convenient before we had to deal with our own book, I'll bet everyone is wishing we were still back in the Eldar/Dark Eldar codex, right?
So in the theoretical world where the sales pitch is exactly the reality of what you describe - great, all for it, bundle 'em up and lets have a Harry Potter book sized space marine codex with infinite customization!
Agreed on this entirely. "Just fold them into one book, it's easy!" has invariably been followed by "feth your army" in practice.
By all means, make more Codices for the Adeptus Administratum, or Khornate Orks or whatever, but stop messing with people's armies to make it happen.
It isn't feth your army at all. What it does is make it easier to balance Marines.
Think about all these "unique entries" that don't have any equivalents for the Vanilla Codex, Blood Angels, and Dark Angel. Then think about those entries and why no other Chapter, even a successor, has access to them. Hell, did Dark Angels honestly need "different" fliers that nobody uses anyway? Does it not seen odd that Blood Angels do not have TFC whatsoever, and not even ONE successor managed to snag a partnership with a Forge World that makes them? Or how about those Ultramarines successors that use Jump focused units (like the Doom Eagles and Fire Hawks) that don't have at least Jump Command Squads? There's also an inconsistency with Strategems, like the Angels not having access to the Chapter Master stratagem despite these codices having to represent successors.
What needs to happen is consolidation of units and upgrades everyone should have access to (Centurions, Stormtalons, TFC, Plasma Cannons on Terminators, etc), and make sure everything generic is somewhat internally balanced. Then we can add 3-4 unique unit entries, and THEN we can price Special Characters as necessary. Bam, done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: A lot of the chapter unique stuff shouldn't be. Why are the BA the only ones who give their tacticals heavy flamers, their honour guard jump packs or put their librarians in dreadnoughts? I want the marine codex to be a toolbox with a lot of options and everyone can freely pick and choose what they think suits their chapter.
Not even GKs get an HQ Librarian on that level.
I'm all for a big Inquisition codex with the militant arms for each -hunter. It isn't like either the Deathwatch or Grey Knights codices are particularly large, so it wouldn't be particularly hard to get them and Sisters into the same codex with Inquisition.
Not really -we still had to have special Primaris models for only a few Chapters - again neglecting all others. There is not an infinite amount of time and resources to split up - if you choose to focuss on marines (as they did in the past) then you won't be doing something else. The other problem your not considering is that because they had such a limited amount of units to make - they had to keep inventing more and more outlandish one for just those chapters - the moment they did something for someone else there is a clamour from the fans of that chapter - where is out version - not even just can we use - where is our special unique version of the same unit.
In addiiton the Marine range - as described in the codex was finished - what has not been made in plastic?
- they could have looked at things like Thralls, stealth Snipers (liek the cool new Primaris ones) etc but they were stuck with having to make stuff for those Chapters. and still are. We are now seeing a more varied range - Genestealer Cults and Ad Mech are shining examples of this but they do have to squeeze between marine dexes and releases.
Honest question friend, what special Primaris models are you referring to? As far as Ive heard, everyone can currently take all the primaris models. The only exception being GK, who have been pretty much getting the shaft all of 8th ed. As far as I've seen, no chapter unique primaris models exist or have even been hinted at.
Maybe I am too new of a player though because I have not seen what you are claiming that everyone is demanding a unique model that only they can use. Every Primaris release I've seen has had people asking, can I use this in my army, not where are my DA specific primaris units. Using the new shadowspear box as an example, every week on their FB page ive seen fans asking GW if you they can use the models, not can we get chapter specific models only.
Resources are allocated based on potential ROI. As I said, equal demand and sales, will result in equal investment. Disproportional demand will result in disproportional investment rates. Its why some armies dont see anything new every edition, while some will continue to get new things all the time. Its not a feth you to the players of the less popular armies, its simply cold economics.
Ya GSC and Ad Mech have got a lot of shiny new toys. Has that hurt marine players at all in any way? No. So why argue for axing marine players unique models. How does that help Nids get new stuff? It doesnt. Nids get new stuff while nids remain popular and high selling. You want a xenos race expanded? Buy it and make your voice heard. The amount GW can invest or will be willing to invest in an army is directly tied to how well that army sells. They are a business and want to make money.
Not really -we still had to have special Primaris models for only a few Chapters - again neglecting all others. There is not an infinite amount of time and resources to split up - if you choose to focuss on marines (as they did in the past) then you won't be doing something else. The other problem your not considering is that because they had such a limited amount of units to make - they had to keep inventing more and more outlandish one for just those chapters - the moment they did something for someone else there is a clamour from the fans of that chapter - where is out version - not even just can we use - where is our special unique version of the same unit.
In addiiton the Marine range - as described in the codex was finished - what has not been made in plastic?
- they could have looked at things like Thralls, stealth Snipers (liek the cool new Primaris ones) etc but they were stuck with having to make stuff for those Chapters. and still are. We are now seeing a more varied range - Genestealer Cults and Ad Mech are shining examples of this but they do have to squeeze between marine dexes and releases.
Honest question friend, what special Primaris models are you referring to? As far as Ive heard, everyone can currently take all the primaris models. The only exception being GK, who have been pretty much getting the shaft all of 8th ed. As far as I've seen, no chapter unique primaris models exist or have even been hinted at.
Maybe I am too new of a player though because I have not seen what you are claiming that everyone is demanding a unique model that only they can use. Every Primaris release I've seen has had people asking, can I use this in my army, not where are my DA specific primaris units. Using the new shadowspear box as an example, every week on their FB page ive seen fans asking GW if you they can use the models, not can we get chapter specific models only.
Resources are allocated based on potential ROI. As I said, equal demand and sales, will result in equal investment. Disproportional demand will result in disproportional investment rates. Its why some armies dont see anything new every edition, while some will continue to get new things all the time. Its not a feth you to the players of the less popular armies, its simply cold economics.
Ya GSC and Ad Mech have got a lot of shiny new toys. Has that hurt marine players at all in any way? No. So why argue for axing marine players unique models. How does that help Nids get new stuff? It doesnt. Nids get new stuff while nids remain popular and high selling. You want a xenos race expanded? Buy it and make your voice heard. The amount GW can invest or will be willing to invest in an army is directly tied to how well that army sells. They are a business and want to make money.
Plenty of Marine players complaing every time a non marine model comes out - or one thats not from their sub faction.
I meant the special boxed sets that came out and took up the shelf space with the same Primaris but branded for the few select Marine Chapters?
I do buy the other armies, I also buy the odd Marine if I like them but I am runing out of space - what happens when you get old. You cant sell stuff if you are making other stuff instead. Its that simple.
So the big question - if the "unique" unit entries were folded into a Marine codex but retained all elments - that would not be good enough?
Simple answer. More books = more sales. There's a reason small tiny sub-factions suddenly became "armies" (Grey Knights, Harlequins, etc.). Codices, cards, dice, etc. That's more or less free money for GW.
Elbows wrote: Simple answer. More books = more sales. There's a reason small tiny sub-factions suddenly became "armies" (Grey Knights, Harlequins, etc.). Codices, cards, dice, etc. That's more or less free money for GW.
Fair point but what is you opinion on the general concept and suggested details.
Plenty of Marine players complaing every time a non marine model comes out - or one thats not from their sub faction.
I meant the special boxed sets that came out and took up the shelf space with the same Primaris but branded for the few select Marine Chapters?
I do buy the other armies, I also buy the odd Marine if I like them but I am runing out of space - what happens when you get old. You cant sell stuff if you are making other stuff instead. Its that simple.
So the big question - if the "unique" unit entries were folded into a Marine codex but retained all elments - that would not be good enough?
Thats not an issue unique to marine players though. Thats no different than a Tau player complaining when an Ork model gets released.
Are you referring to Tooth and Claw that came out for GSC and SW at the end of 2018? If I recall, all the SW models were just normal primaris, with a SW upgrade frame included. My BA friend had no problem integrating them into his army after he bought it. (He also play GSC hence the appeal).
Ya that argument works, but only if you are unwilling to expand. GW is a business, they arent going to artifically limit themselves by only producing x amount of kits/models a year because they dont want to expand their production lines. If there is a ROI available, they will happily continue to expand, because doing so will continue to grow the game, the player base, and thus their revenues. If demand is insufficient to warrant expansion though, its not GW ignoring those players, its GW waiting until its actually profitable to address.
The answer to the big question is, those unique MODELS would disappear. As has happened in the past with other factions. Most players couldnt give a damn about sharing the weapon loadouts/rules etc. They just want the cool and fun army they were marketed to remain the cool and fun army they were buying into. If scout bikes got plasma talons and corvus hammers, I still wouldnt buy them, as thats not why I and many others buy things like the ravenwing black knights. In a perfect world what you are saying would be great, but the reality is we have seen GW consolidate rules etc, and than just stop making the unique models. once the models are gone, your army has been all but in name squatted. Just ask non cadian IG players.
Elbows wrote: Simple answer. More books = more sales. There's a reason small tiny sub-factions suddenly became "armies" (Grey Knights, Harlequins, etc.). Codices, cards, dice, etc. That's more or less free money for GW.
Yes, like CSM today. Thousand Sons and Death Guard have now own codexes.
GW puts out codices because the support is there and thus the profits are there. they aren't shoveling marines at us for no reason. they're doing it because marines SELL. chaos is a good example as well, the 1k sons where always one of the more popular traitor legions. and well I don'thave exact figures the number of nurgle stuff I've seen over the years leads me to conclude death guard is right up there too.
as someone said, GW likes their money, and marine codices sell. if GW folded in all the marine factions into one "super codex" it'd not magicly give more attention to Xenos it would just see more spece marine releases over all.
Because that's like consolidating the AdMech and Astra Copywritum into one book because they are both Human. Different Armies, Different Codexes. Simple really.
Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves all deviate from the Codex Astartes in some form or another, which is what Codex: Space Marines is meant to represent. If anything, Salamanders and Iron Hands should get their own books too but GW seem to hate those chapters (especially Iron Hands) with a passion usually reserved for Hanzo mains.
By your logic we should just lump all the Eldar into one codex along with Orks because they are all Xenos created by the Old Ones.
BaconCatBug wrote: Because that's like consolidating the AdMech and Astra Copywritum into one book because they are both Human. Different Armies, Different Codexes. Simple really.
Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves all deviate from the Codex Astartes in some form or another, which is what Codex: Space Marines is meant to represent. If anything, Salamanders and Iron Hands should get their own books too but GW seem to hate those chapters (especially Iron Hands) with a passion usually reserved for Overwatch players.
By your logic we should just lump all the Eldar into one codex along with Orks because they are all Xenos created by the Old Ones.
Not really. Marines play a lot more similarly to each other than Nids and Eldar, or Guard and Ad Mech.
JNAProductions wrote: Not really. Marines play a lot more similarly to each other than Nids and Eldar, or Guard and Ad Mech.
So lets consolidate Tau and Astra Copywritum then, they are both shooty armies with weak melee.
Let's consolidate genestealer cults into Tyranids, surely all GSC need is a single unit to repsetent the presence of cultists right? I mean CSMs manage that way just fine!
It is really the way it should be and it wouldn't even have to cost GW money...it could in fact make them more money.
Imagine. Instead of a new codex with a few unique models to the specific chapter - you release a new unit that all space marine players can use. 4-5 times more people are interested in buying the model now. If you want to release the units in a book of some kind...go ahead....I'll freaking buy it.Plus - with the entire range be accessible by all chapters - it would be a lot more fun to play. Guess what I am never doing - buying into another space marine chapter...You'd think this would be pretty easy to understand.
Marmatag wrote: They're already quasi doing this with primaris marines.
This is gentrification of marines.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I have a mental image of a bunch of primaris hipsters opening up a bunch of breweries and coffee shops and pricing out all the regular marines with the rising rent in all the fortress monasteries.
Well, it was, of course, satirical. Primaris marines aren't a house in an urban area.
Create a digital subscription based app with the entire ruleset for all codexes, suppliments, etc and ditch print books all together. Leave 1992 and join 2019.
Togusa wrote: Create a digital subscription based app with the entire ruleset for all codexes, suppliments, etc and ditch print books all together. Leave 1992 and join 2019.
NO
some of us actually like to own physical product thanks
If it's so easy to just fold all the variant Codices into the vanilla Codex, how can the variant Codices be draining everyone else's design time? You're assuming that the time GW spends on a variant Codex is enough that you could get something you'd rather have than Marines in that release slot if GW dropped that Marine book. If there's so much overlap, surely then it's just a case of copy-pasting a bunch of units, which means that a variant Marine Codex takes up nowhere near the same amount of development time as a non-Marine Codex?
The thing that's annoying Marine players is that it's essentially telling people who play one of these variant armies that you're fine with taking the risk that their army would get shafted because it'd mean there'd be a higher possibility of something you like filling that slot. Yes, we get it, in a perfect world it'd be possible to have a fantastic Marine Codex where everyone's playstyle is available and viable, and a bunch of Chapters that ought to have similar special units could all have them, but back in the real world what you get from doing stuff like this is Black Templars. We've already tried this. It's awful. Please stop.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If it's so easy to just fold all the variant Codices into the vanilla Codex, how can the variant Codices be draining everyone else's design time? You're assuming that the time GW spends on a variant Codex is enough that you could get something you'd rather have than Marines in that release slot if GW dropped that Marine book. If there's so much overlap, surely then it's just a case of copy-pasting a bunch of units, which means that a variant Marine Codex takes up nowhere near the same amount of development time as a non-Marine Codex?
The thing that's annoying Marine players is that it's essentially telling people who play one of these variant armies that you're fine with taking the risk that their army would get shafted because it'd mean there'd be a higher possibility of something you like filling that slot. Yes, we get it, in a perfect world it'd be possible to have a fantastic Marine Codex where everyone's playstyle is available and viable, and a bunch of Chapters that ought to have similar special units could all have them, but back in the real world what you get from doing stuff like this is Black Templars. We've already tried this. It's awful. Please stop.
It drains enough time from proper design theory. That's why we have basically three of the same codex and they're all terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If it's so easy to just fold all the variant Codices into the vanilla Codex, how can the variant Codices be draining everyone else's design time? You're assuming that the time GW spends on a variant Codex is enough that you could get something you'd rather have than Marines in that release slot if GW dropped that Marine book. If there's so much overlap, surely then it's just a case of copy-pasting a bunch of units, which means that a variant Marine Codex takes up nowhere near the same amount of development time as a non-Marine Codex?
The thing that's annoying Marine players is that it's essentially telling people who play one of these variant armies that you're fine with taking the risk that their army would get shafted because it'd mean there'd be a higher possibility of something you like filling that slot. Yes, we get it, in a perfect world it'd be possible to have a fantastic Marine Codex where everyone's playstyle is available and viable, and a bunch of Chapters that ought to have similar special units could all have them, but back in the real world what you get from doing stuff like this is Black Templars. We've already tried this. It's awful. Please stop.
It drains enough time from proper design theory. That's why we have basically three of the same codex and they're all terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
are you really claiming the existance of space wolves is why we have such a poor set of rules?!
Togusa wrote: Create a digital subscription based app with the entire ruleset for all codexes, suppliments, etc and ditch print books all together. Leave 1992 and join 2019.
NO
some of us actually like to own physical product thanks
I mean, there's nothing stopping them from printing the books too.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If it's so easy to just fold all the variant Codices into the vanilla Codex, how can the variant Codices be draining everyone else's design time? You're assuming that the time GW spends on a variant Codex is enough that you could get something you'd rather have than Marines in that release slot if GW dropped that Marine book. If there's so much overlap, surely then it's just a case of copy-pasting a bunch of units, which means that a variant Marine Codex takes up nowhere near the same amount of development time as a non-Marine Codex?
The thing that's annoying Marine players is that it's essentially telling people who play one of these variant armies that you're fine with taking the risk that their army would get shafted because it'd mean there'd be a higher possibility of something you like filling that slot. Yes, we get it, in a perfect world it'd be possible to have a fantastic Marine Codex where everyone's playstyle is available and viable, and a bunch of Chapters that ought to have similar special units could all have them, but back in the real world what you get from doing stuff like this is Black Templars. We've already tried this. It's awful. Please stop.
It drains enough time from proper design theory. That's why we have basically three of the same codex and they're all terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
are you really claiming the existance of space wolves is why we have such a poor set of rules?!
Actually, that's partly a reason. Mostly the reason for the Angels and the Vanillas being so terrible is because they're the same codex.
Space Wolves are at least designed differently enough that they feel like unique Marines, as much as I hate them. We really can't argue the same for Dark Angels and Blood Angels.
Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
^^^^^^This
Same thing with Catachans & Scions too, they never lost anything anyone care about when they get refolded into the main IG codex after their own respective codex books got replaced.
We've had consolidation of codex books and factions more than once before, with no greater losses or changes than one would expect of any codex or editon change.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If it's so easy to just fold all the variant Codices into the vanilla Codex, how can the variant Codices be draining everyone else's design time? You're assuming that the time GW spends on a variant Codex is enough that you could get something you'd rather have than Marines in that release slot if GW dropped that Marine book. If there's so much overlap, surely then it's just a case of copy-pasting a bunch of units, which means that a variant Marine Codex takes up nowhere near the same amount of development time as a non-Marine Codex?
The thing that's annoying Marine players is that it's essentially telling people who play one of these variant armies that you're fine with taking the risk that their army would get shafted because it'd mean there'd be a higher possibility of something you like filling that slot. Yes, we get it, in a perfect world it'd be possible to have a fantastic Marine Codex where everyone's playstyle is available and viable, and a bunch of Chapters that ought to have similar special units could all have them, but back in the real world what you get from doing stuff like this is Black Templars. We've already tried this. It's awful. Please stop.
It drains enough time from proper design theory. That's why we have basically three of the same codex and they're all terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
Sophistry. Sure, there's nothing that inherently means you have to lose things from being consolidated, but in the real world that's what happens every damn time.
If there was nothing lost, how can it have taken up any additional design time? I'd argue that what was lost was design space. Black Templars as an army has suffered for 3 editions for being a melee faction shoehorned into a shooting Codex.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If it's so easy to just fold all the variant Codices into the vanilla Codex, how can the variant Codices be draining everyone else's design time? You're assuming that the time GW spends on a variant Codex is enough that you could get something you'd rather have than Marines in that release slot if GW dropped that Marine book. If there's so much overlap, surely then it's just a case of copy-pasting a bunch of units, which means that a variant Marine Codex takes up nowhere near the same amount of development time as a non-Marine Codex?
The thing that's annoying Marine players is that it's essentially telling people who play one of these variant armies that you're fine with taking the risk that their army would get shafted because it'd mean there'd be a higher possibility of something you like filling that slot. Yes, we get it, in a perfect world it'd be possible to have a fantastic Marine Codex where everyone's playstyle is available and viable, and a bunch of Chapters that ought to have similar special units could all have them, but back in the real world what you get from doing stuff like this is Black Templars. We've already tried this. It's awful. Please stop.
It drains enough time from proper design theory. That's why we have basically three of the same codex and they're all terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
Sophistry. Sure, there's nothing that inherently means you have to lose things from being consolidated, but in the real world that's what happens every damn time.
If there was nothing lost, how can it have taken up any additional design time? I'd argue that what was lost was design space. Black Templars as an army has suffered for 3 editions for being a melee faction shoehorned into a shooting Codex.
Black Templars weren't a good melee army to begin with for their own codex. Everyone was doing what they're doing with Crusader squads now, and doing the multiple bought weapons in a squad.
Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
^^^^^^This
Same thing with Catachans & Scions too, they never lost anything anyone care about when they get refolded into the main IG codex after their own respective codex books got replaced.
We've had consolidation of codex books and factions more than once before, with no greater losses or changes than one would expect of any codex or editon change.
Scions only really suffer from Rule of Three and kinda losing Commissars (in a pure list, anyway). That's somewhat a core rules issue for the former though. Latter is fixed with a quick errata.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If it's so easy to just fold all the variant Codices into the vanilla Codex, how can the variant Codices be draining everyone else's design time? You're assuming that the time GW spends on a variant Codex is enough that you could get something you'd rather have than Marines in that release slot if GW dropped that Marine book. If there's so much overlap, surely then it's just a case of copy-pasting a bunch of units, which means that a variant Marine Codex takes up nowhere near the same amount of development time as a non-Marine Codex?
The thing that's annoying Marine players is that it's essentially telling people who play one of these variant armies that you're fine with taking the risk that their army would get shafted because it'd mean there'd be a higher possibility of something you like filling that slot. Yes, we get it, in a perfect world it'd be possible to have a fantastic Marine Codex where everyone's playstyle is available and viable, and a bunch of Chapters that ought to have similar special units could all have them, but back in the real world what you get from doing stuff like this is Black Templars. We've already tried this. It's awful. Please stop.
It drains enough time from proper design theory. That's why we have basically three of the same codex and they're all terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
Sophistry. Sure, there's nothing that inherently means you have to lose things from being consolidated, but in the real world that's what happens every damn time.
If there was nothing lost, how can it have taken up any additional design time? I'd argue that what was lost was design space. Black Templars as an army has suffered for 3 editions for being a melee faction shoehorned into a shooting Codex.
Black Templars weren't a good melee army to begin with for their own codex. Everyone was doing what they're doing with Crusader squads now, and doing the multiple bought weapons in a squad.
But the playstyle was majorly different from other Marine books. And sure, that was possible to replicate when GW folded BT into the Vanilla book but surprise, they didn't.
The sad thing is that this is exactly the same arguments I made before GW folded BT into the Vanilla book: "It's theoretically possible, but GW is going to feth it up". Lo and behold, they did. How has anything changed today?
Folding it into 1 book would result in killing off most chapters.
Saying that it can go in one book with all the options just won't happen.
It would be a £150 book with 500+ pages of just units and gear, let alone fluff ontop of that.
We all know then when GW forms multiple armies/chapters/groups together, it gets compressed and a lot of things just vanish completely.
This would damage profits as they would cut certain kits.
It would also piss off alot of players as they just got the squat treatment on a chunk of their army (for most, this wouldn't be the first time)
Its simply too much to fit into a single book, both in terms of rules and the actual model range.
Even if they did, this super book would be bloody huge and the cost would be insane, forcing players to pay a tax on a book they will only use a small part of.
Jackal90 wrote: Folding it into 1 book would result in killing off most chapters.
Saying that it can go in one book with all the options just won't happen.
It would be a £150 book with 500+ pages of just units and gear, let alone fluff ontop of that.
We all know then when GW forms multiple armies/chapters/groups together, it gets compressed and a lot of things just vanish completely.
This would damage profits as they would cut certain kits.
It would also piss off alot of players as they just got the squat treatment on a chunk of their army (for most, this wouldn't be the first time)
Its simply too much to fit into a single book, both in terms of rules and the actual model range.
Even if they did, this super book would be bloody huge and the cost would be insane, forcing players to pay a tax on a book they will only use a small part of.
Are DA, SW, BA, and the main Marine dex even at 500 pages total right now?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If it's so easy to just fold all the variant Codices into the vanilla Codex, how can the variant Codices be draining everyone else's design time? You're assuming that the time GW spends on a variant Codex is enough that you could get something you'd rather have than Marines in that release slot if GW dropped that Marine book. If there's so much overlap, surely then it's just a case of copy-pasting a bunch of units, which means that a variant Marine Codex takes up nowhere near the same amount of development time as a non-Marine Codex?
The thing that's annoying Marine players is that it's essentially telling people who play one of these variant armies that you're fine with taking the risk that their army would get shafted because it'd mean there'd be a higher possibility of something you like filling that slot. Yes, we get it, in a perfect world it'd be possible to have a fantastic Marine Codex where everyone's playstyle is available and viable, and a bunch of Chapters that ought to have similar special units could all have them, but back in the real world what you get from doing stuff like this is Black Templars. We've already tried this. It's awful. Please stop.
It drains enough time from proper design theory. That's why we have basically three of the same codex and they're all terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
Sophistry. Sure, there's nothing that inherently means you have to lose things from being consolidated, but in the real world that's what happens every damn time.
If there was nothing lost, how can it have taken up any additional design time? I'd argue that what was lost was design space. Black Templars as an army has suffered for 3 editions for being a melee faction shoehorned into a shooting Codex.
Black Templars weren't a good melee army to begin with for their own codex. Everyone was doing what they're doing with Crusader squads now, and doing the multiple bought weapons in a squad.
But the playstyle was majorly different from other Marine books. And sure, that was possible to replicate when GW folded BT into the Vanilla book but surprise, they didn't.
The sad thing is that this is exactly the same arguments I made before GW folded BT into the Vanilla book: "It's theoretically possible, but GW is going to feth it up". Lo and behold, they did. How has anything changed today?
Okay, so what went missing with it being consolidated?
Jackal90 wrote: Folding it into 1 book would result in killing off most chapters.
Saying that it can go in one book with all the options just won't happen.
It would be a £150 book with 500+ pages of just units and gear, let alone fluff ontop of that.
We all know then when GW forms multiple armies/chapters/groups together, it gets compressed and a lot of things just vanish completely.
This would damage profits as they would cut certain kits.
It would also piss off alot of players as they just got the squat treatment on a chunk of their army (for most, this wouldn't be the first time)
Its simply too much to fit into a single book, both in terms of rules and the actual model range.
Even if they did, this super book would be bloody huge and the cost would be insane, forcing players to pay a tax on a book they will only use a small part of.
Are DA, SW, BA, and the main Marine dex even at 500 pages total right now?
no but codex space marines is at just over 200 pages, assuming that only the unique HQs made the change over and that each HQ gets a data sheet and a page of fluff, and that each chapter gets two pages of fluff the new codex would proably add a good 50-100 pages easily. a 300 page codex? they'd proably end up charging 75$ for it.
Jackal90 wrote: Folding it into 1 book would result in killing off most chapters.
Saying that it can go in one book with all the options just won't happen.
It would be a £150 book with 500+ pages of just units and gear, let alone fluff ontop of that.
We all know then when GW forms multiple armies/chapters/groups together, it gets compressed and a lot of things just vanish completely.
This would damage profits as they would cut certain kits.
It would also piss off alot of players as they just got the squat treatment on a chunk of their army (for most, this wouldn't be the first time)
Its simply too much to fit into a single book, both in terms of rules and the actual model range.
Even if they did, this super book would be bloody huge and the cost would be insane, forcing players to pay a tax on a book they will only use a small part of.
LOL at the notion of the codex being too big. It is:
1. 2-5 pages of fluff for the Angels, maybe each
2. 1 page to make sure the Chapter Tactics aren't just squished on the same page
3. 5-10 pages for the special characters
4. Maybe 2 pages each for each of the 8 founding Chapters (and Black Templars) to have unique units
5. An additional page for Relics?
Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
Black templars currently have four kits to buy, all of which are store exclusive. Three of them are HQ and 1 troop choice. No upgrade frames available either to convert other normal SM kits into black templar. I wouldnt say theyve had it very good since being consolidated
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If it's so easy to just fold all the variant Codices into the vanilla Codex, how can the variant Codices be draining everyone else's design time? You're assuming that the time GW spends on a variant Codex is enough that you could get something you'd rather have than Marines in that release slot if GW dropped that Marine book. If there's so much overlap, surely then it's just a case of copy-pasting a bunch of units, which means that a variant Marine Codex takes up nowhere near the same amount of development time as a non-Marine Codex?
The thing that's annoying Marine players is that it's essentially telling people who play one of these variant armies that you're fine with taking the risk that their army would get shafted because it'd mean there'd be a higher possibility of something you like filling that slot. Yes, we get it, in a perfect world it'd be possible to have a fantastic Marine Codex where everyone's playstyle is available and viable, and a bunch of Chapters that ought to have similar special units could all have them, but back in the real world what you get from doing stuff like this is Black Templars. We've already tried this. It's awful. Please stop.
It drains enough time from proper design theory. That's why we have basically three of the same codex and they're all terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
Sophistry. Sure, there's nothing that inherently means you have to lose things from being consolidated, but in the real world that's what happens every damn time.
If there was nothing lost, how can it have taken up any additional design time? I'd argue that what was lost was design space. Black Templars as an army has suffered for 3 editions for being a melee faction shoehorned into a shooting Codex.
Black Templars weren't a good melee army to begin with for their own codex. Everyone was doing what they're doing with Crusader squads now, and doing the multiple bought weapons in a squad.
But the playstyle was majorly different from other Marine books. And sure, that was possible to replicate when GW folded BT into the Vanilla book but surprise, they didn't.
The sad thing is that this is exactly the same arguments I made before GW folded BT into the Vanilla book: "It's theoretically possible, but GW is going to feth it up". Lo and behold, they did. How has anything changed today?
Okay, so what went missing with it being consolidated?
The special rules that made the army play in a unique way in the first place. Mainly Righteous Zeal, but stuff like Vows as well.
And yes, I know that's because Games Workshop chose to remove those rules rather than an intrinsic effect of being folded, but what I'm arguing is that this is what happens when you consolidate armies. They're not going to make one Chapter Tactic much more complex than the others, so they took the chopping block approach instead.
EDIT: I'd also like an answer on Schrödinger's Design Process. How can the variant Codices clog up so much design time and simultaneously have very few differences? Make up your minds.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If it's so easy to just fold all the variant Codices into the vanilla Codex, how can the variant Codices be draining everyone else's design time? You're assuming that the time GW spends on a variant Codex is enough that you could get something you'd rather have than Marines in that release slot if GW dropped that Marine book. If there's so much overlap, surely then it's just a case of copy-pasting a bunch of units, which means that a variant Marine Codex takes up nowhere near the same amount of development time as a non-Marine Codex?
The thing that's annoying Marine players is that it's essentially telling people who play one of these variant armies that you're fine with taking the risk that their army would get shafted because it'd mean there'd be a higher possibility of something you like filling that slot. Yes, we get it, in a perfect world it'd be possible to have a fantastic Marine Codex where everyone's playstyle is available and viable, and a bunch of Chapters that ought to have similar special units could all have them, but back in the real world what you get from doing stuff like this is Black Templars. We've already tried this. It's awful. Please stop.
It drains enough time from proper design theory. That's why we have basically three of the same codex and they're all terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
Sophistry. Sure, there's nothing that inherently means you have to lose things from being consolidated, but in the real world that's what happens every damn time.
If there was nothing lost, how can it have taken up any additional design time? I'd argue that what was lost was design space. Black Templars as an army has suffered for 3 editions for being a melee faction shoehorned into a shooting Codex.
Black Templars weren't a good melee army to begin with for their own codex. Everyone was doing what they're doing with Crusader squads now, and doing the multiple bought weapons in a squad.
But the playstyle was majorly different from other Marine books. And sure, that was possible to replicate when GW folded BT into the Vanilla book but surprise, they didn't.
Aside from "fall forward" when failing morale tests and mixing Scouts and Tacs in one unit, there wasn't much particularly unique about them or their playstyle remembering back to 4E/5E, they were just vanilla marines with an emphasis on CC and fewer unit options. Most of their differences with the basic SM codex were design paradigm shifts between codex releases rather than intended gameplay differences.
The stuff they lost they just as likely would have been lost or seen radically changed had they gotten their own unique update codex in later editions as design paradigms changed (stuff like vows and the relic holy hand grenade), and in exchange they got access to the full panoply of vanilla stuff they didn't have access to before.
Jackal90 wrote: Folding it into 1 book would result in killing off most chapters.
Saying that it can go in one book with all the options just won't happen.
It would be a £150 book with 500+ pages of just units and gear, let alone fluff ontop of that.
Why do we assume this when it has never been the case in any other consolidation instance and completely outside the nature of GW's offerings (not even FW makes books that big and they have way more content than codex books so), particularly when 80% of the content is identical?
We all know then when GW forms multiple armies/chapters/groups together, it gets compressed and a lot of things just vanish completely.
People keep saying this, and yet it doesn't appear to have actually happened whenever factions got consolidated before...
Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
Black templars currently have four kits to buy, all of which are store exclusive. Three of them are HQ and 1 troop choice. No upgrade frames available either to convert other normal SM kits into black templar. I wouldnt say theyve had it very good since being consolidated
This is an issue how? Everything else they had is basically another unit (you can't argue Sword Brethren functioned different than Vanguard), and in fact they gained even more tools (REGULAR Scouts, TFC, Centurions even if you hate them, etc.)
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If it's so easy to just fold all the variant Codices into the vanilla Codex, how can the variant Codices be draining everyone else's design time? You're assuming that the time GW spends on a variant Codex is enough that you could get something you'd rather have than Marines in that release slot if GW dropped that Marine book. If there's so much overlap, surely then it's just a case of copy-pasting a bunch of units, which means that a variant Marine Codex takes up nowhere near the same amount of development time as a non-Marine Codex?
The thing that's annoying Marine players is that it's essentially telling people who play one of these variant armies that you're fine with taking the risk that their army would get shafted because it'd mean there'd be a higher possibility of something you like filling that slot. Yes, we get it, in a perfect world it'd be possible to have a fantastic Marine Codex where everyone's playstyle is available and viable, and a bunch of Chapters that ought to have similar special units could all have them, but back in the real world what you get from doing stuff like this is Black Templars. We've already tried this. It's awful. Please stop.
It drains enough time from proper design theory. That's why we have basically three of the same codex and they're all terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
Sophistry. Sure, there's nothing that inherently means you have to lose things from being consolidated, but in the real world that's what happens every damn time.
If there was nothing lost, how can it have taken up any additional design time? I'd argue that what was lost was design space. Black Templars as an army has suffered for 3 editions for being a melee faction shoehorned into a shooting Codex.
Black Templars weren't a good melee army to begin with for their own codex. Everyone was doing what they're doing with Crusader squads now, and doing the multiple bought weapons in a squad.
But the playstyle was majorly different from other Marine books. And sure, that was possible to replicate when GW folded BT into the Vanilla book but surprise, they didn't.
The sad thing is that this is exactly the same arguments I made before GW folded BT into the Vanilla book: "It's theoretically possible, but GW is going to feth it up". Lo and behold, they did. How has anything changed today?
Okay, so what went missing with it being consolidated?
The special rules that made the army play in a unique way in the first place. Mainly Righteous Zeal, but stuff like Vows as well.
And yes, I know that's because Games Workshop chose to remove those rules rather than an intrinsic effect of being folded, but what I'm arguing is that this is what happens when you consolidate armies. They're not going to make one Chapter Tactic much more complex than the others, so they took the chopping block approach instead.
EDIT: I'd also like an answer on Schrödinger's Design Process. How can the variant Codices clog up so much design time and simultaneously have very few differences? Make up your minds.
All the Vows were bad, and now you've had better ones always active instead. All a Vow is is a Chapter Tactic. No different than playing a different type of Marine depending what your opponent brings.
Jackal90 wrote: Folding it into 1 book would result in killing off most chapters.
Saying that it can go in one book with all the options just won't happen.
It would be a £150 book with 500+ pages of just units and gear, let alone fluff ontop of that.
We all know then when GW forms multiple armies/chapters/groups together, it gets compressed and a lot of things just vanish completely.
This would damage profits as they would cut certain kits.
It would also piss off alot of players as they just got the squat treatment on a chunk of their army (for most, this wouldn't be the first time)
Its simply too much to fit into a single book, both in terms of rules and the actual model range.
Even if they did, this super book would be bloody huge and the cost would be insane, forcing players to pay a tax on a book they will only use a small part of.
LOL at the notion of the codex being too big. It is:
1. 2-5 pages of fluff for the Angels, maybe each
2. 1 page to make sure the Chapter Tactics aren't just squished on the same page
3. 5-10 pages for the special characters
4. Maybe 2 pages each for each of the 8 founding Chapters (and Black Templars) to have unique units
5. An additional page for Relics?
Please spare us that argument.
5-10 pages for special characters is DRAMATICLY under estimating things. each special character gets a page for a dataslate and another page for some fluff.
Space Wolves have 11 special characters, Blood Angels have 8, and dark angels have 5. a combined adeptus astartes codex would, have to have 48 additional pages simply for special characters ALONE.
Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
Black templars currently have four kits to buy, all of which are store exclusive. Three of them are HQ and 1 troop choice. No upgrade frames available either to convert other normal SM kits into black templar. I wouldnt say theyve had it very good since being consolidated
This is an issue how? Everything else they had is basically another unit (you can't argue Sword Brethren functioned different than Vanguard), and in fact they gained even more tools (REGULAR Scouts, TFC, Centurions even if you hate them, etc.)
Is that a serious question? As far as GW exists they dont exist anymore. As far an new players care they have no real ground to build a black templar army that actually looks like they are black templar unless they want to kit bash things to all living hell. The problem is any BT army is essentially now just Ultramarines painted black with a squad or two of sword brethern. With no hope of that changing anywhere on the horizon.
One big books with a big army lift section that has all the basic stuff most if not all SM chapters get including datasheets. Then do a small section for each chapter including their own unique army list that says which of those previously mentioned units they can use along with any unique ones they get, their chapter tactics, and their special stratagems, and their special psychic powers if they get any.
Space wolves for example wouldn't get scouts or tac marines or a lot of other crap. But they would get their own versions of those.
It's not really any different from the FW books listing the army list for Death Korps of Krieg. Here is all the units they can use. It's mostly all the IG stuff except for where it gets swapped for kriegs unique units.
5-10 pages for special characters is DRAMATICLY under estimating things. each special character gets a page for a dataslate and another page for some fluff.
Space Wolves have 11 special characters, Blood Angels have 8, and dark angels have 5. a combined adeptus astartes codex would, have to have 48 additional pages simply for special characters ALONE.
And most of them are completely unnecessary, and we would be better served by more customisable generic characters that can then be used to represent these characters as well.
But who gives a flaming gak about gaining units that do nothing for the army's playstyle? It's like insisting that Grey Knight players should be excited for more Deathwatch releases. Scouts, Whirlwinds et. al. are great if you wnt to play a Vanilla Space Marines army, but they add little to nothing to support the playstyle people liked from the old book.
Like, imagine that GW added a "Rendtide Battlesuit" to Tau with a big honkin' chainglaive and optimised for melee combat. It'd be one more option for Tau, sure, but would it add to the traditional Tau playstyle?
Jackal90 wrote: Folding it into 1 book would result in killing off most chapters.
Saying that it can go in one book with all the options just won't happen.
It would be a £150 book with 500+ pages of just units and gear, let alone fluff ontop of that.
We all know then when GW forms multiple armies/chapters/groups together, it gets compressed and a lot of things just vanish completely.
This would damage profits as they would cut certain kits.
It would also piss off alot of players as they just got the squat treatment on a chunk of their army (for most, this wouldn't be the first time)
Its simply too much to fit into a single book, both in terms of rules and the actual model range.
Even if they did, this super book would be bloody huge and the cost would be insane, forcing players to pay a tax on a book they will only use a small part of.
LOL at the notion of the codex being too big. It is:
1. 2-5 pages of fluff for the Angels, maybe each
2. 1 page to make sure the Chapter Tactics aren't just squished on the same page
3. 5-10 pages for the special characters
4. Maybe 2 pages each for each of the 8 founding Chapters (and Black Templars) to have unique units
5. An additional page for Relics?
Please spare us that argument.
5-10 pages for special characters is DRAMATICLY under estimating things. each special character gets a page for a dataslate and another page for some fluff.
Space Wolves have 11 special characters, Blood Angels have 8, and dark angels have 5. a combined adeptus astartes codex would, have to have 48 additional pages simply for special characters ALONE.
I can't be the only who finds it more than a little annoying that Marines have more unique characters than most armies have unit entries.
Jackal90 wrote: Folding it into 1 book would result in killing off most chapters.
Saying that it can go in one book with all the options just won't happen.
It would be a £150 book with 500+ pages of just units and gear, let alone fluff ontop of that.
We all know then when GW forms multiple armies/chapters/groups together, it gets compressed and a lot of things just vanish completely.
This would damage profits as they would cut certain kits.
It would also piss off alot of players as they just got the squat treatment on a chunk of their army (for most, this wouldn't be the first time)
Its simply too much to fit into a single book, both in terms of rules and the actual model range.
Even if they did, this super book would be bloody huge and the cost would be insane, forcing players to pay a tax on a book they will only use a small part of.
LOL at the notion of the codex being too big. It is:
1. 2-5 pages of fluff for the Angels, maybe each
2. 1 page to make sure the Chapter Tactics aren't just squished on the same page
3. 5-10 pages for the special characters
4. Maybe 2 pages each for each of the 8 founding Chapters (and Black Templars) to have unique units
5. An additional page for Relics?
Please spare us that argument.
5-10 pages for special characters is DRAMATICLY under estimating things. each special character gets a page for a dataslate and another page for some fluff.
Space Wolves have 11 special characters, Blood Angels have 8, and dark angels have 5. a combined adeptus astartes codex would, have to have 48 additional pages simply for special characters ALONE.
I'm not talking about consolidating Space Wolves though.
Jackal90 wrote: Folding it into 1 book would result in killing off most chapters.
Saying that it can go in one book with all the options just won't happen.
It would be a £150 book with 500+ pages of just units and gear, let alone fluff ontop of that.
We all know then when GW forms multiple armies/chapters/groups together, it gets compressed and a lot of things just vanish completely.
This would damage profits as they would cut certain kits.
It would also piss off alot of players as they just got the squat treatment on a chunk of their army (for most, this wouldn't be the first time)
Its simply too much to fit into a single book, both in terms of rules and the actual model range.
Even if they did, this super book would be bloody huge and the cost would be insane, forcing players to pay a tax on a book they will only use a small part of.
LOL at the notion of the codex being too big. It is:
1. 2-5 pages of fluff for the Angels, maybe each
2. 1 page to make sure the Chapter Tactics aren't just squished on the same page
3. 5-10 pages for the special characters
4. Maybe 2 pages each for each of the 8 founding Chapters (and Black Templars) to have unique units
5. An additional page for Relics?
Please spare us that argument.
5-10 pages for special characters is DRAMATICLY under estimating things. each special character gets a page for a dataslate and another page for some fluff.
Space Wolves have 11 special characters, Blood Angels have 8, and dark angels have 5. a combined adeptus astartes codex would, have to have 48 additional pages simply for special characters ALONE.
To be fair, GW does have editors, and codex design changes. Cut a paragraph or two from most of the fluff sections, adjust text box areas ans sizes, reduce some of the image sizes or leave some out, and you can save a whole lot of space without sacrificing much of value unless people are just intent on getting bent out of shape because their favorite character doesn't have their own dedicated multipage spread. They didn't all used to, they needn't always in the future.
They have themselves admitted they are massively constrained
Thats very different - Orks are not subfactions of Tau. Blood Angels etc are a subfaction (whether they like it or not)
MY version would have a full dex with all the options and the current model range - however i would not be making new standard marine models - they are complete.
{ In my super ideal world I would erease stuff I don;t ike - Centurions, Dreadknights, new Wulfen, Santa Logan, Murder Dread, but apparenlty some people like them.}
New figures for the Marine faction would be mutlipurpose - so instead of a single Primaris Lt with no options - he would come with various weapon options.
In your specific - standard marine bikes would have those or similar generic options to represent them.
Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
Black templars currently have four kits to buy, all of which are store exclusive. Three of them are HQ and 1 troop choice. No upgrade frames available either to convert other normal SM kits into black templar. I wouldnt say theyve had it very good since being consolidated
This is an issue how? Everything else they had is basically another unit (you can't argue Sword Brethren functioned different than Vanguard), and in fact they gained even more tools (REGULAR Scouts, TFC, Centurions even if you hate them, etc.)
Is that a serious question? As far as GW exists they dont exist anymore. As far an new players care they have no real ground to build a black templar army that actually looks like they are black templar unless they want to kit bash things to all living hell. The problem is any BT army is essentially now just Ultramarines painted black with a squad or two of sword brethern. With no hope of that changing anywhere on the horizon.
Sword Brethren are Vanguard. You still have Crusaders and the Special Characters. You still have a Chapter Tactic.
Jackal90 wrote: Folding it into 1 book would result in killing off most chapters.
Saying that it can go in one book with all the options just won't happen.
It would be a £150 book with 500+ pages of just units and gear, let alone fluff ontop of that.
We all know then when GW forms multiple armies/chapters/groups together, it gets compressed and a lot of things just vanish completely.
This would damage profits as they would cut certain kits.
It would also piss off alot of players as they just got the squat treatment on a chunk of their army (for most, this wouldn't be the first time)
Its simply too much to fit into a single book, both in terms of rules and the actual model range.
Even if they did, this super book would be bloody huge and the cost would be insane, forcing players to pay a tax on a book they will only use a small part of.
LOL at the notion of the codex being too big. It is:
1. 2-5 pages of fluff for the Angels, maybe each
2. 1 page to make sure the Chapter Tactics aren't just squished on the same page
3. 5-10 pages for the special characters
4. Maybe 2 pages each for each of the 8 founding Chapters (and Black Templars) to have unique units
5. An additional page for Relics?
Please spare us that argument.
5-10 pages for special characters is DRAMATICLY under estimating things. each special character gets a page for a dataslate and another page for some fluff.
Space Wolves have 11 special characters, Blood Angels have 8, and dark angels have 5. a combined adeptus astartes codex would, have to have 48 additional pages simply for special characters ALONE.
I'm not talking about consolidating Space Wolves though.
I am - it would be easy. The idea that the book would be vast given we know most units are just minor variations that would be part of another dataslate is laughable.
How mnay pages is the collected army lists for the 30k Legion lists and they have loads more actual unqiue units,
AlmightyWalrus wrote: But who gives a flaming gak about gaining units that do nothing for the army's playstyle? It's like insisting that Grey Knight players should be excited for more Deathwatch releases. Scouts, Whirlwinds et. al. are great if you wnt to play a Vanilla Space Marines army, but they add little to nothing to support the playstyle people liked from the old book.
Like, imagine that GW added a "Rendtide Battlesuit" to Tau with a big honkin' chainglaive and optimised for melee combat. It'd be one more option for Tau, sure, but would it add to the traditional Tau playstyle?
1. What do Grey Knights have to do with Deathwatch, other than that we should have a consolidated Inquisition + Militants codex?
2. By that logic, Imperial Fists fans shouldn't be excited for Vanguard having been released in the first place because they're a shooty army?
Jackal90 wrote: Folding it into 1 book would result in killing off most chapters.
Saying that it can go in one book with all the options just won't happen.
It would be a £150 book with 500+ pages of just units and gear, let alone fluff ontop of that.
We all know then when GW forms multiple armies/chapters/groups together, it gets compressed and a lot of things just vanish completely.
This would damage profits as they would cut certain kits.
It would also piss off alot of players as they just got the squat treatment on a chunk of their army (for most, this wouldn't be the first time)
Its simply too much to fit into a single book, both in terms of rules and the actual model range.
Even if they did, this super book would be bloody huge and the cost would be insane, forcing players to pay a tax on a book they will only use a small part of.
LOL at the notion of the codex being too big. It is:
1. 2-5 pages of fluff for the Angels, maybe each
2. 1 page to make sure the Chapter Tactics aren't just squished on the same page
3. 5-10 pages for the special characters
4. Maybe 2 pages each for each of the 8 founding Chapters (and Black Templars) to have unique units
5. An additional page for Relics?
Please spare us that argument.
5-10 pages for special characters is DRAMATICLY under estimating things. each special character gets a page for a dataslate and another page for some fluff.
Space Wolves have 11 special characters, Blood Angels have 8, and dark angels have 5. a combined adeptus astartes codex would, have to have 48 additional pages simply for special characters ALONE.
I'm not talking about consolidating Space Wolves though.
I am - it would be easy. The idea that the book would be vest given we know most units are just minor variations that would be part of another dataslate is laughable.
Space Wolves are too out there for me, and they really don't have any successor Chapters anyway (non Primaris, unless the new codex said something I don't know).
Unique units for them to keep would be a lot harder than the Angels, which is why I'm just for them being left alone. At least the balance of Space Wolves has nothing to do with the balance of Angels and Vanilla.
Sword Brethren are Vanguard. You still have Crusaders and the Special Characters. You still have a Chapter Tactic.
You didn't lose anything.
....Except any chance of having unique models that actually look like a BT army and not just Black Ultramarines. There is more to this hobby than just rules and dataslates in a codex. People actually carry about what the models they buy look like. I play DA because trying to start a BT army and make it look like a BT army was impossible in 7th edition as a complete newb to the hobbie. DA just happened to be the closest in appearance to the fluff army I read about, that would actually be somewhat accessible and still supported by the company.
Sword Brethren are Vanguard. You still have Crusaders and the Special Characters. You still have a Chapter Tactic.
You didn't lose anything.
....Except any chance of having unique models that actually look like a BT army and not just Black Ultramarines. There is more to this hobby than just rules and dataslates in a codex. People actually carry about what the models they buy look like. I play DA because trying to start a BT army and make it look like a BT army was impossible in 7th edition as a complete newb to the hobbie. DA just happened to be the closest in appearance to the fluff army I read about, that would actually be somewhat accessible and still supported by the company.
Dark Angels are just Ultramarines with some units switched. Both a super gunline, which means your argument makes even less sense than before.
Also Black Templars had an awesome Chapter Tactic in 7th.
There literally was such a combined book, Index Imperium 1. You only need to add stratagems, traits and relics. And since in the next edition the Index will only contain non-primaris units (assuming legacy units get a printed book instead of a PDF) and the real codex needs to only contain Primaris units, there is easily room to combine all chapters in both of those publications. (Except GK and DW, they can be in the Codex: Inquisition.)
Sword Brethren are Vanguard. You still have Crusaders and the Special Characters. You still have a Chapter Tactic.
You didn't lose anything.
....Except any chance of having unique models that actually look like a BT army and not just Black Ultramarines. There is more to this hobby than just rules and dataslates in a codex. People actually carry about what the models they buy look like. I play DA because trying to start a BT army and make it look like a BT army was impossible in 7th edition as a complete newb to the hobbie. DA just happened to be the closest in appearance to the fluff army I read about, that would actually be somewhat accessible and still supported by the company.
The hobby and the game are not bound hand and foot. The rules only need to support the game and the models exist to play it. If you like modeling and painting then model and paint. What book has what rules has no bearing on your ability to do so.
....Except any chance of having unique models that actually look like a BT army and not just Black Ultramarines. There is more to this hobby than just rules and dataslates in a codex. People actually carry about what the models they buy look like.
This is called 'Black Templars Upgrade Sprue'. I hope they make one for Primaris marines as well.
Sword Brethren are Vanguard. You still have Crusaders and the Special Characters. You still have a Chapter Tactic.
You didn't lose anything.
....Except any chance of having unique models that actually look like a BT army and not just Black Ultramarines. There is more to this hobby than just rules and dataslates in a codex. People actually carry about what the models they buy look like. I play DA because trying to start a BT army and make it look like a BT army was impossible in 7th edition as a complete newb to the hobbie. DA just happened to be the closest in appearance to the fluff army I read about, that would actually be somewhat accessible and still supported by the company.
Dark Angels are just Ultramarines with some units switched. Both a super gunline, which means your argument makes even less sense than before.
Also Black Templars had an awesome Chapter Tactic in 7th.
Every single deathwing and ravenwing unit has its own unique model. Even normal tactical marines/devestator marines can be switched out by just using the company veterans box set that provides generic robed marines. But yes, my army totally looks the exact same as Ultramarines. My argument has all to do with the actual models themselves. You're the one acting like how they perform in game is the only thing that matters and the only thing that determines whether or not they deserve to exist.
Crimson wrote: There literally was such a combined book, Index Imperium 1. You only need to add stratagems, traits and relics. And since in the next edition the Index will only contain non-primaris units (assuming legacy units get a printed book instead of a PDF) and the real codex needs to only contain Primaris units, there is easily room to combine all chapters in both of those publications. (Except GK and DW, they can be in the Codex: Inquisition.)
Mostly my approach outside leaving Space Wolves out of it.
....Except any chance of having unique models that actually look like a BT army and not just Black Ultramarines. There is more to this hobby than just rules and dataslates in a codex. People actually carry about what the models they buy look like.
This is called 'Black Templars Upgrade Sprue'. I hope they make one for Primaris marines as well.
I legit didn't even know this existed, thank you very much mate. Ive never even seen it before at my GW, and the staff at the time had told me my only option was to kit bash sword brethern with other models. They def need a primaris upgrade sprue though or else it wont really matter, given we are only getting primaris releases for a long while yet. But seriously thanks mate
Edit: Yikes at $40 CDN, that essentially doubles the cost of any normal marine box. Still better than nothing though
Sword Brethren are Vanguard. You still have Crusaders and the Special Characters. You still have a Chapter Tactic.
You didn't lose anything.
....Except any chance of having unique models that actually look like a BT army and not just Black Ultramarines. There is more to this hobby than just rules and dataslates in a codex. People actually carry about what the models they buy look like. I play DA because trying to start a BT army and make it look like a BT army was impossible in 7th edition as a complete newb to the hobbie. DA just happened to be the closest in appearance to the fluff army I read about, that would actually be somewhat accessible and still supported by the company.
Dark Angels are just Ultramarines with some units switched. Both a super gunline, which means your argument makes even less sense than before.
Also Black Templars had an awesome Chapter Tactic in 7th.
Every single deathwing and ravenwing unit has its own unique model. Even normal tactical marines/devestator marines can be switched out by just using the company veterans box set that provides generic robed marines. But yes, my army totally looks the exact same as Ultramarines. My argument has all to do with the actual models themselves. You're the one acting like how they perform in game is the only thing that matters and the only thing that determines whether or not they deserve to exist.
Actually you are the one who says no we must have these small rules differences and entire codexes printed that repeat multiple dataslates taking up production resources incase a single DA model is lost even though I stated that if this happened (somehow) it would not happen. In the meantime time is lost, opportunities are lost and themarine bloat just keeps piling up at the expense of every other faction.
This is called 'Black Templars Upgrade Sprue'. I hope they make one for Primaris marines as well.
Shame GW only has the resoruces to make this type of thing for marine subfactions....
Jackal90 wrote: Folding it into 1 book would result in killing off most chapters. Saying that it can go in one book with all the options just won't happen. It would be a £150 book with 500+ pages of just units and gear, let alone fluff ontop of that.
We all know then when GW forms multiple armies/chapters/groups together, it gets compressed and a lot of things just vanish completely. This would damage profits as they would cut certain kits. It would also piss off alot of players as they just got the squat treatment on a chunk of their army (for most, this wouldn't be the first time)
Its simply too much to fit into a single book, both in terms of rules and the actual model range. Even if they did, this super book would be bloody huge and the cost would be insane, forcing players to pay a tax on a book they will only use a small part of.
Are DA, SW, BA, and the main Marine dex even at 500 pages total right now?
Going by what the last page is numbered as, 145+145+145+209=644 Pages. Let's say 144 are duplicates.
Also Black Templars really didn't lose anything from being consolidated.
Black templars currently have four kits to buy, all of which are store exclusive. Three of them are HQ and 1 troop choice. No upgrade frames available either to convert other normal SM kits into black templar. I wouldnt say theyve had it very good since being consolidated
Sword Brethren are Vanguard. You still have Crusaders and the Special Characters. You still have a Chapter Tactic.
You didn't lose anything.
....Except any chance of having unique models that actually look like a BT army and not just Black Ultramarines. There is more to this hobby than just rules and dataslates in a codex. People actually carry about what the models they buy look like. I play DA because trying to start a BT army and make it look like a BT army was impossible in 7th edition as a complete newb to the hobbie. DA just happened to be the closest in appearance to the fluff army I read about, that would actually be somewhat accessible and still supported by the company.
Dark Angels are just Ultramarines with some units switched. Both a super gunline, which means your argument makes even less sense than before.
Also Black Templars had an awesome Chapter Tactic in 7th.
Every single deathwing and ravenwing unit has its own unique model. Even normal tactical marines/devestator marines can be switched out by just using the company veterans box set that provides generic robed marines. But yes, my army totally looks the exact same as Ultramarines. My argument has all to do with the actual models themselves. You're the one acting like how they perform in game is the only thing that matters and the only thing that determines whether or not they deserve to exist.
Actually you are the one who says no we must have these small rules differences and entire codexes printed that repeat multiple dataslates taking up production resources incase a single DA model is lost even though I stated that if this happened (somehow) it would not happen. In the meantime time is lost, opportunities are lost and themarine bloat just keeps piling up at the expense of every other faction.
Ive never once claimed anything about having rule differences, unique weapon options etc. In fact ive said a few times, I couldnt care less if others had the same options. If you want scout bikes to have plasma talons, let em have it, more the merrier in my opinion.
And you can state it all you want, the reality is it HAS HAPPENED. Just look at IG on GW website. None of the old guard models exist for sale except Catachan. What you want, and what would actually happen are two different things. If GW showed they would be willing to keep making the unique sculpts I doubt anyone would care, but GW has shown they would rather have one sculpt for each unit.
Could we not just have fluff book and a rules book in like a combo set? There's no reason all the fluff and rules need to go in 1 book. The index basically proves this and shows its a relatively small book
5-10 pages for special characters is DRAMATICLY under estimating things. each special character gets a page for a dataslate and another page for some fluff.
Space Wolves have 11 special characters, Blood Angels have 8, and dark angels have 5. a combined adeptus astartes codex would, have to have 48 additional pages simply for special characters ALONE.
And most of them are completely unnecessary, and we would be better served by more customisable generic characters that can then be used to represent these characters as well.
Y'know, I wish GW would yank the unique characters out of every codex (not just marines), and put them into a separate "rules supplement". Give expanded rules for making your own unique characters, and have the heroes (and villains) of the setting in the back of the book as prebuilt "examples" and for tournaments where the fixed stats would be "balanced". Maybe also rank them from "minor hero" on up, with suggestions for what sort of size/style game they'd be suitable for.
Ive never once claimed anything about having rule differences, unique weapon options etc. In fact ive said a few times, I couldnt care less if others had the same options. If you want scout bikes to have plasma talons, let em have it, more the merrier in my opinion.
And you can state it all you want, the reality is it HAS HAPPENED. Just look at IG on GW website. None of the old guard models exist for sale except Catachan. What you want, and what would actually happen are two different things. If GW showed they would be willing to keep making the unique sculpts I doubt anyone would care, but GW has shown they would rather have one sculpt for each unit.
Those old IG models are metal and were designed a quarter century ago or more in most cases (save the Vostroyans who are about 15 years old). GW has moved away from metal. Expecting every kit and upgrade sprue to be available and supported in perpetuity in original form is a wee bit naive. These factions however have more rules support than they used to (e.g. no unique regiment rules in 5E or 6E) and still otherwise feature prominently in imagery and fluff.
Sword Brethren are Vanguard. You still have Crusaders and the Special Characters. You still have a Chapter Tactic.
You didn't lose anything.
....Except any chance of having unique models that actually look like a BT army and not just Black Ultramarines. There is more to this hobby than just rules and dataslates in a codex. People actually carry about what the models they buy look like. I play DA because trying to start a BT army and make it look like a BT army was impossible in 7th edition as a complete newb to the hobbie. DA just happened to be the closest in appearance to the fluff army I read about, that would actually be somewhat accessible and still supported by the company.
In all fairness, they're Space Marines, how many unique models do they need that they cant already repurpose? Use a bit of hobby crafting to personalize them, same way people do with other marine subfactions that dont have unique books. As is, they do have characters/kits/upgrades all their own and they arent going anywhere (at least not that the rest of the classic SM line isnt).
If my Iron Warriors can share a book with World Eaters without needing a unique book and tons of dedicated models, surely the far less deviant Black Templars can live alongside the Ultramarines and Salamanders.
fraser1191 wrote: Could we not just have fluff book and a rules book in like a combo set? There's no reason all the fluff and rules need to go in 1 book. The index basically proves this and shows its a relatively small book
^^^^
The index does a good job of proving it *can* be done.
At this point the only way to do it with out invalidating a lot of models and options would be time travel, so fire up the Tardis to travel back to 4th or 5th edition when a lot of unique space marine models got added to the game. The genie is out of the bottle and putting it back in will be rough and piss off a lot of people who invested in the deviant chapters and unique kits. Additionally the SM codex is already the biggest by a wide margin. Shoving three or four more armies is going to have it up to text book size.
HoundsofDemos wrote: At this point the only way to do it with out invalidating a lot of models and options would be time travel, so fire up the Tardis to travel back to 4th or 5th edition when a lot of unique space marine models got added to the game. The genie is out of the bottle and putting it back in will be rough and piss off a lot of people who invested in the deviant chapters and unique kits. Additionally the SM codex is already the biggest by a wide margin. Shoving three or four more armies is going to have it up to text book size.
To be fair the reason the SM codex is the biggest is because SM had a lot of useless units added. Centurions, Hunter, Stalker, Thunderfire Cannons, Stormx Flyers (Blame Dawn of War for that one), all of these I wish were never a thing.
Also with Primaris being added it basically doubles the number of Infantry Squad in role X there are.
HoundsofDemos wrote: At this point the only way to do it with out invalidating a lot of models and options would be time travel, so fire up the Tardis to travel back to 4th or 5th edition when a lot of unique space marine models got added to the game. The genie is out of the bottle and putting it back in will be rough and piss off a lot of people who invested in the deviant chapters and unique kits. Additionally the SM codex is already the biggest by a wide margin. Shoving three or four more armies is going to have it up to text book size.
You do realise that all these units are basically legacy units now? They're not gonna be in production for long in any case.
Ive never once claimed anything about having rule differences, unique weapon options etc. In fact ive said a few times, I couldnt care less if others had the same options. If you want scout bikes to have plasma talons, let em have it, more the merrier in my opinion.
And you can state it all you want, the reality is it HAS HAPPENED. Just look at IG on GW website. None of the old guard models exist for sale except Catachan. What you want, and what would actually happen are two different things. If GW showed they would be willing to keep making the unique sculpts I doubt anyone would care, but GW has shown they would rather have one sculpt for each unit.
Those old IG models are metal and were designed a quarter century ago or more in most cases (save the Vostroyans who are about 15 years old). GW has moved away from metal. Expecting every kit and upgrade sprue to be available and supported in perpetuity in original form is a wee bit naive. These factions however have more rules support than they used to (e.g. no unique regiment rules in 5E or 6E) and still otherwise feature prominently in imagery and fluff.
Sword Brethren are Vanguard. You still have Crusaders and the Special Characters. You still have a Chapter Tactic.
You didn't lose anything.
....Except any chance of having unique models that actually look like a BT army and not just Black Ultramarines. There is more to this hobby than just rules and dataslates in a codex. People actually carry about what the models they buy look like. I play DA because trying to start a BT army and make it look like a BT army was impossible in 7th edition as a complete newb to the hobbie. DA just happened to be the closest in appearance to the fluff army I read about, that would actually be somewhat accessible and still supported by the company.
In all fairness, they're Space Marines, how many unique models do they need that they cant already repurpose? Use a bit of hobby crafting to personalize them, same way people do with other marine subfactions that dont have unique books. As is, they do have characters/kits/upgrades all their own and they arent going anywhere.
If my Iron Warriors can share a book with World Eaters without needing a unique book and tons of dedicated models, surely the far less deviant Black Templars can live alongside the Ultramarines and Salamanders.
Hey if you dont care, all the power to ya. Im not trying to say you should care. I'm just pointing out why people do care, and they shouldn't be labelled as whiny or entitled for caring.
HoundsofDemos wrote: At this point the only way to do it with out invalidating a lot of models and options would be time travel, so fire up the Tardis to travel back to 4th or 5th edition when a lot of unique space marine models got added to the game. The genie is out of the bottle and putting it back in will be rough and piss off a lot of people who invested in the deviant chapters and unique kits. Additionally the SM codex is already the biggest by a wide margin. Shoving three or four more armies is going to have it up to text book size.
You do realise that all these units are basically legacy units now? They're not gonna be in production for long in any case.
So by long you mean likely at least another 5 to 10 years if not indefinitely do to box games and HH. While classic marines might not get new kits, they are likely not going any were since even with the most recent releases it's going to take a lot more kits to make primaris viable on their own. Even GW's example list of the new Shadowspear release had a ton of older units. Most of the existing marine options are going to be around for a while.
Hey if you dont care, all the power to ya. Im not trying to say you should care. I'm just pointing out why people do care, and they shouldn't be labelled as whiny or entitled for caring.
I get why people care and I'm not trying to call anyone names, but I think most of the consternation is either based on assumptions that are not backed up by GW history, or on attachments to minutae unlikely to survive edition updates intact anyway.
So by long you mean likely at least another 5 to 10 years if not indefinitely do to box games and HH. While classic marines might not get new kits, they are likely not going any were since even with the most recent releases it's going to take a lot more kits to make primaris viable on their own. Even GW's example list of the new Shadowspear release had a ton of older units. Most of the existing marine options are going to be around for a while.
We'll see. I think things will move faster than most people anticipate. I really wouldn't be surprised if most non-primaris units will basically be index stuff in the next edition. And of course at that point integrating the deviant chapters in the main marine codex would be a piece of cake.
Hey if you dont care, all the power to ya. Im not trying to say you should care. I'm just pointing out why people do care, and they shouldn't be labelled as whiny or entitled for caring.
I get why people care and I'm not trying to call anyone names, but I think most of the consternation is either based on assumptions that are not backed up by GW history, or on attachments to minutae unlikely to survive edition updates intact anyway.
You might not, but the whole reason this thread was started, involved claims of entitlement and whinyness by deviant marine players in a different thread. If a model goes out of production naturally thats one thing, as it simply isnt profitable anymore, and should be expected. No demand, means no sales, means no support. It also means next to no upset customers, because they either have fully bought everything and just need rules to keep playing and be placated, or have already abandoned the game.
Arguing to do away with them though as others have to cut down on bloat or give resources to less popular (and thus less profitable) armies will understandable annoy the active player base who is continuing to buy and support these units. Its a feth you to anyone who bought into the marketing and were already actively investing. If they stopped making DA moulds tomorrow, I'd just walk away from the game, as what has kept me an active customer is no longer there. If I walk away and than the moulds are removed, getting mad at GW would be hypocritical because my lack of support dictates that the models shouldnt be kept.
HoundsofDemos wrote: At this point the only way to do it with out invalidating a lot of models and options would be time travel, so fire up the Tardis to travel back to 4th or 5th edition when a lot of unique space marine models got added to the game. The genie is out of the bottle and putting it back in will be rough and piss off a lot of people who invested in the deviant chapters and unique kits. Additionally the SM codex is already the biggest by a wide margin. Shoving three or four more armies is going to have it up to text book size.
To be fair the reason the SM codex is the biggest is because SM had a lot of useless units added. Centurions, Hunter, Stalker, Thunderfire Cannons, Stormx Flyers (Blame Dawn of War for that one), all of these I wish were never a thing.
Also with Primaris being added it basically doubles the number of Infantry Squad in role X there are.
Or what amounts to duplicate datasheets. WTF does every pattern of landraider need a new sheet? Just put all the wargear options on one datasheet and make the rules for building different land raiders be on there.
This is called 'Black Templars Upgrade Sprue'. I hope they make one for Primaris marines as well.
Shame GW only has the resoruces to make this type of thing for marine subfactions....
dude pull your head out of your rectum, seriously,this isn't a "they only have limited resources and only direct it towards X" thing. this is a "only marine subfactions are likely to give GW eneugh return on investment" thing some armies allow faction specific upgrade sprues easier, shoulder pads on marines etc. eldar, for example, don't really have that going for em
I feel we could just keep the current Space Marine codex, and throw DA, SW, BA, and any other deviant chapters I can’t think about into Codex Adeptus Astartes: Non-Compliant.
Apple Peel wrote: I feel we could just keep the current Space Marine codex, and throw DA, SW, BA, and any other deviant chapters I can’t think about into Codex Adeptus Astartes: Non-Compliant.
Quick, somebody tell me that’s terrible!
Eh, two Dexes for Marines seems reasonable.
But Guard deserve at least that many too. As do most other factions-notably those who vastly outnumber SM in the fluff.
Apple Peel wrote: I feel we could just keep the current Space Marine codex, and throw DA, SW, BA, and any other deviant chapters I can’t think about into Codex Adeptus Astartes: Non-Compliant.
Quick, somebody tell me that’s terrible!
Eh, two Dexes for Marines seems reasonable.
But Guard deserve at least that many too. As do most other factions-notably those who vastly outnumber SM in the fluff.
Easy, IG and Militarum Tempestus!
It’s already established!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Before I get the hate, Stormtroopers armies and guard armies play so radically different. The various standard IG subfactions (Cadians, Catachans, etc.) function incredibly alike in comparison.
Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
We had a consolidated book. It was called index imperium 1. As a dark angels player, it was awful flipping back and forth trying to find unit entries I could actually take. No thanks.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
I can understand that, definitely. Though, I probably wouldn’t throw DW and GK in a noncompliant Codex. They would go into some kind of specialist book. Just three chapters in a noncompliant book, compared to how many chapters in the Vanilla codex now? Just as well like other chapters that use their rules (Emperor’s Spears, right?).
I feel as if there would be enough room for lore or whatnot the way I describe it.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
Here's the kicker though, Dark Angels don't actually have a lot that's unique, by this edition OR last edition. Consolidation and removal of unnecessary entries (nobody uses their fliers, come on) creates an better semblance of balance.
Apple Peel wrote: I feel we could just keep the current Space Marine codex, and throw DA, SW, BA, and any other deviant chapters I can’t think about into Codex Adeptus Astartes: Non-Compliant.
Quick, somebody tell me that’s terrible!
Eh, two Dexes for Marines seems reasonable.
But Guard deserve at least that many too. As do most other factions-notably those who vastly outnumber SM in the fluff.
Easy, IG and Militarum Tempestus!
It’s already established!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Before I get the hate, Stormtroopers armies and guard armies play so radically different. The various standard IG subfactions (Cadians, Catachans, etc.) function incredibly alike in comparison.
the militium temptestus started out with their own codex, people didn't like it as it was basicly "codex imperial guard with 85% of the stuff cut out"
Apple Peel wrote: I feel we could just keep the current Space Marine codex, and throw DA, SW, BA, and any other deviant chapters I can’t think about into Codex Adeptus Astartes: Non-Compliant.
Quick, somebody tell me that’s terrible!
Eh, two Dexes for Marines seems reasonable.
But Guard deserve at least that many too. As do most other factions-notably those who vastly outnumber SM in the fluff.
Easy, IG and Militarum Tempestus!
It’s already established!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Before I get the hate, Stormtroopers armies and guard armies play so radically different. The various standard IG subfactions (Cadians, Catachans, etc.) function incredibly alike in comparison.
the militium temptestus started out with their own codex, people didn't like it as it was basicly "codex imperial guard with 85% of the stuff cut out"
To be fair...it was a lacking codex. It didn't even one relic.
The MT book was one I wish was never made, despite actually playing a Stormtrooper based army for many editions.
The fluff was awful, half of it read like Harry Potter/Hostel snuff fanfic, and the army list itself was so thin that the army was unplayable, you couldn't make a viable force from Valkyries and naked Stormtrooper units, that was when they also first cut the Chimera from being a Stormtrooper available unit (though was still an option in the main IG codex for them) for some stupid reason.
Vaktathi wrote: The MT book was one I wish was never made, despite actually playing a Stormtrooper based army for many editions.
The fluff was awful, half of it read like Harry Potter/Hostel snuff fanfic, and the army list itself was so thin that the army was unplayable, you couldn't make a viable force from Valkyries and naked Stormtrooper units, that was when they also first cut the Chimera from being a Stormtrooper available unit (though was still an option in the main IG codex for them) for some stupid reason.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
But why don't Catachans and Cadians get different books? Or Tallarn, or Armageddon, or any other factions?
Vaktathi wrote: The MT book was one I wish was never made, despite actually playing a Stormtrooper based army for many editions.
The fluff was awful, half of it read like Harry Potter/Hostel snuff fanfic, and the army list itself was so thin that the army was unplayable, you couldn't make a viable force from Valkyries and naked Stormtrooper units, that was when they also first cut the Chimera from being a Stormtrooper available unit (though was still an option in the main IG codex for them) for some stupid reason.
I feel this could be rectified by giving the book the units available from the Advisors and Auxillia list.
Let them have the orders they have now, plus a few new orders. I say a few because these guys should be able to do more than seven orders, I mean come on, their brains were partially wiped for room.
Give Scions some Warlord traits and stratagems. Heck, they even talked about relics (those gauntlets, remember?). Give them some shiny things.
I feel there was a bit too much Pyrrhic victory and absolute loss in the fluff of that codex, though. Maybe a mix of stories focusing on Killteams and one or two Demi-company/Company-sized battles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I feel the new iteration of stormtroopers has a lot of potential, however, it is suffering from lazy writing. Some new short stories, (maybe based on Tempestor Primes, not just Tempestors, (I’m looking at you, Tempestus and The Trophy)) could prove interesting.
I feel a lot of people are hung up over the old days of Kasrkin and the singular 10,000 man Stormtrooper regiment. I feel Tempestus Scions are not these, and they are not quite their spiritual successors, rather something newish.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
This level of granularity could be done for every sub faction of every army. Not just the few chapters with unique books now, but EVERY chapter would love to have a whole book dedicated to their fluff alone and their army list and play style.
Tyranid hive fleet.
Gene stealer cults.
Eldar craft worlds.
Everyone would love to have their special snow flake get the special snow flake treatment.
If a SM player wants more variety in play style outside of their army they should pick a different actual army instead of just another sub faction. This excuse of "But I LIKE my special treatment" is a crap reason to keep them separate. You need something grounded in something a lot more solid then your preference for your special treatment to make any real argument for keeping them out of a single book.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
This level of granularity could be done for every sub faction of every army. Not just the few chapters with unique books now, but EVERY chapter would love to have a whole book dedicated to their fluff alone and their army list and play style.
Tyranid hive fleet.
Gene stealer cults.
Eldar craft worlds.
Everyone would love to have their special snow flake get the special snow flake treatment.
If a SM player wants more variety in play style outside of their army they should pick a different actual army instead of just another sub faction. This excuse of "But I LIKE my special treatment" is a crap reason to keep them separate. You need something grounded in something a lot more solid then your preference for your special treatment to make any real argument for keeping them out of a single book.
end of the day these snow flake chapters are popular eneugh there's money in it for GW doing it. if say.. farsight enclaves where popular eneugh to support their own codex it'd happen, just for example
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
This level of granularity could be done for every sub faction of every army. Not just the few chapters with unique books now, but EVERY chapter would love to have a whole book dedicated to their fluff alone and their army list and play style.
Tyranid hive fleet.
Gene stealer cults.
Eldar craft worlds.
Everyone would love to have their special snow flake get the special snow flake treatment.
If a SM player wants more variety in play style outside of their army they should pick a different actual army instead of just another sub faction. This excuse of "But I LIKE my special treatment" is a crap reason to keep them separate. You need something grounded in something a lot more solid then your preference for your special treatment to make any real argument for keeping them out of a single book.
end of the day these snow flake chapters are popular eneugh there's money in it for GW doing it. if say.. farsight enclaves where popular eneugh to support their own codex it'd happen, just for example
Because there's no way at all GW is just playing it safe! Yup, no chance in hell that Farsight Enclaves or specific Hive Fleets or more Guard stuff could EVER sell well-nah, there's absolutely no reason Marines are the top seller outside their sheer, raw, market appeal! /sarcasm
I do understand Marines are a good seller. But part of that is because they have so damn much. If this much effort and product had gone into, say, Eldar? Eldar would be their top seller. Same with anything else.
Checking the GW Webstore, Space Marines have 134 entries.
That's more than every single other Imperium faction except Guard put together.
That's around the same number as TOTAL Chaos entires (assuming a decent amount of overlap between CSM, DG, and TS).
That's more than all flavors of Eldar put together.
That's more than Nids and GSC put together.
That's more than DOUBLE Necrons, Orks, and Tau individually. Even if you put all three of those together, they have 3 more Webstore entries than generic Space Marines.
Really guys, that's the argument you are going to use? If we make it, people will buy it? That is putting the cart before the horse. You dont invest a crapload of money into designing new products to bring to market, unless you know for a fact there is sufficient demand for it, or else you will lose money. This is basic business practices. DA/BA/SW/GK/DW were not 1st edition armies. They came into existance in later editions because GW recognized the high demand, and decided there was a sufficient ROI there to go through with satisfying that demand. And given the only marine faction to fade away was BT, they for the most part were correct in their market analysis. I would love for GW to expand and make more sub factions (still holding out for a Tau sub faction here), but at the end of the day they are a business and like it or not, they are going to do what makes them the most profit. If we want them to change their practices, and their priorities for new investments, we have to speak with our wallets. Only by putting our money where our mouths are, will they expand in the ways that is desired by Xenos players.
At the end of the day we know this isn't gonna happens as long as Space Wolves, Dark Angel and Blood Angel keep pumping money onto GW.
GW has actually learned that making more, interesting things, gives them money, thats why we have Deathwatch, Adeptus Custodes, Genestealer Cults, Harlequins, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, and all of those games like Kill Team, Necromunda, Bloodbowl, etc... so asking nuGW to remove options is just stupid.
You'll have more luck asking them for actual codex for subfactions like Farsight Enclaves or Imperial Guard Regiments.
And, no. "Everything would be popular if they support it as much as marines" has been proved false. Space Marines weren't the centre stage of Rogue Trader. GW designed Space Marines based in Fantasy Chaos Warrior because that was the most sold kit and the most popular stereotipe in Fantasy. Giant men, clad in heavy armor.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's assuming the Angels even have that many interesting entries.
Well, at least in the mind of GW, they have those. Otherwhise they wouldn't have been that longer with their own Codex since 2nd edition. My point is that nuGW believes that "More is more". So asking for less is to put your fingers in your ears and go "nananana!"
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
Here's the kicker though, Dark Angels don't actually have a lot that's unique, by this edition OR last edition. Consolidation and removal of unnecessary entries (nobody uses their fliers, come on) creates an better semblance of balance.
Nobody uses Dark Angels' fliers? I think that the early 2018 tournament scene and resulting Spring Big FAQ disagree with you. Even with the points hike and Rule of Three Dark Talons are still very useful and popular. I am also not sure what you mean by a better semblance of balance by removing entries. The Deathwing are struggling like all Imperial Terminators this edition, we will see what comes. The Ravenwing, though, are doing just fine. Our special characters give us plenty of character. If you don't want to play Dark Angels then...don't. The Codex is not hurting you.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
This level of granularity could be done for every sub faction of every army. Not just the few chapters with unique books now, but EVERY chapter would love to have a whole book dedicated to their fluff alone and their army list and play style.
Tyranid hive fleet.
Gene stealer cults.
Eldar craft worlds.
Everyone would love to have their special snow flake get the special snow flake treatment.
If a SM player wants more variety in play style outside of their army they should pick a different actual army instead of just another sub faction. This excuse of "But I LIKE my special treatment" is a crap reason to keep them separate. You need something grounded in something a lot more solid then your preference for your special treatment to make any real argument for keeping them out of a single book.
I don't think that specific books for Hive Fleet would have enough appeal to be worth the effort. Ditto for the Craftworlds. I'm not against them having their own books - I just don't think that the juice would be worth the squeeze. For the record, though, I think it's awesome that Genestealer Cults have their own Codex.
Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves are indeed, different actual armies, even if you don't think that they are. They have their own Codexes, rules, models and are treated as such in events. Their longevity would indicate that, in their cases, the juice is worth the squeeze for GW and the community. I'm not sure why this bothers you so much? Are they hurting you somehow?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
Here's the kicker though, Dark Angels don't actually have a lot that's unique, by this edition OR last edition. Consolidation and removal of unnecessary entries (nobody uses their fliers, come on) creates an better semblance of balance.
My God, I hope you're referring to regular Space Marine fliers instead of the DA ones otherwise the comment is beyond laughable.
It doesn't hurt me. It's just a dumb argument you are making.
All those things could easily be condensed as we have seen in the indexes. There whole book of fluff is pointless argument. You could expand out the fluff of any sub faction by making up or expanding on the decades worth of stories for any of them.
Do you REALLY think there are not enough exploits of the Ultramarines to fill a fluff section on it's own?
The arguments your making for why they should stay separate amount to "Because I like the attention they get". Which is a bad argument to bring to the table.
72Canadian72 wrote: Really guys, that's the argument you are going to use? If we make it, people will buy it? That is putting the cart before the horse. You dont invest a crapload of money into designing new products to bring to market, unless you know for a fact there is sufficient demand for it, or else you will lose money. This is basic business practices. DA/BA/SW/GK/DW were not 1st edition armies. They came into existance in later editions because GW recognized the high demand, and decided there was a sufficient ROI there to go through with satisfying that demand. And given the only marine faction to fade away was BT, they for the most part were correct in their market analysis. I would love for GW to expand and make more sub factions (still holding out for a Tau sub faction here), but at the end of the day they are a business and like it or not, they are going to do what makes them the most profit. If we want them to change their practices, and their priorities for new investments, we have to speak with our wallets. Only by putting our money where our mouths are, will they expand in the ways that is desired by Xenos players.
Yes, that logic holds because everyone was screaming for Primaris before they came out.
GW makes what they like, coupled with what they think will sell. The two don't always match.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
Here's the kicker though, Dark Angels don't actually have a lot that's unique, by this edition OR last edition. Consolidation and removal of unnecessary entries (nobody uses their fliers, come on) creates an better semblance of balance.
My God, I hope you're referring to regular Space Marine fliers instead of the DA ones otherwise the comment is beyond laughable.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
Here's the kicker though, Dark Angels don't actually have a lot that's unique, by this edition OR last edition. Consolidation and removal of unnecessary entries (nobody uses their fliers, come on) creates an better semblance of balance.
Nobody uses Dark Angels' fliers? I think that the early 2018 tournament scene and resulting Spring Big FAQ disagree with you. Even with the points hike and Rule of Three Dark Talons are still very useful and popular. I am also not sure what you mean by a better semblance of balance by removing entries. The Deathwing are struggling like all Imperial Terminators this edition, we will see what comes. The Ravenwing, though, are doing just fine. Our special characters give us plenty of character. If you don't want to play Dark Angels then...don't. The Codex is not hurting you.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
This level of granularity could be done for every sub faction of every army. Not just the few chapters with unique books now, but EVERY chapter would love to have a whole book dedicated to their fluff alone and their army list and play style.
Tyranid hive fleet.
Gene stealer cults.
Eldar craft worlds.
Everyone would love to have their special snow flake get the special snow flake treatment.
If a SM player wants more variety in play style outside of their army they should pick a different actual army instead of just another sub faction. This excuse of "But I LIKE my special treatment" is a crap reason to keep them separate. You need something grounded in something a lot more solid then your preference for your special treatment to make any real argument for keeping them out of a single book.
I don't think that specific books for Hive Fleet would have enough appeal to be worth the effort. Ditto for the Craftworlds. I'm not against them having their own books - I just don't think that the juice would be worth the squeeze. For the record, though, I think it's awesome that Genestealer Cults have their own Codex.
Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves are indeed, different actual armies, even if you don't think that they are. They have their own Codexes, rules, models and are treated as such in events. Their longevity would indicate that, in their cases, the juice is worth the squeeze for GW and the community. I'm not sure why this bothers you so much? Are they hurting you somehow?
Warm regards,
T2B
Wow, one tournament! Remember people saying Vanilla Marines were fine too once a list with Roboute showed up again?
Multiple codices throws off balance, end of discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: It doesn't hurt me. It's just a dumb argument you are making.
All those things could easily be condensed as we have seen in the indexes. There whole book of fluff is pointless argument. You could expand out the fluff of any sub faction by making up or expanding on the decades worth of stories for any of them.
Do you REALLY think there are not enough exploits of the Ultramarines to fill a fluff section on it's own?
The arguments your making for why they should stay separate amount to "Because I like the attention they get". Which is a bad argument to bring to the table.
72Canadian72 wrote: Really guys, that's the argument you are going to use? If we make it, people will buy it? That is putting the cart before the horse. You dont invest a crapload of money into designing new products to bring to market, unless you know for a fact there is sufficient demand for it, or else you will lose money. This is basic business practices. DA/BA/SW/GK/DW were not 1st edition armies. They came into existance in later editions because GW recognized the high demand, and decided there was a sufficient ROI there to go through with satisfying that demand. And given the only marine faction to fade away was BT, they for the most part were correct in their market analysis. I would love for GW to expand and make more sub factions (still holding out for a Tau sub faction here), but at the end of the day they are a business and like it or not, they are going to do what makes them the most profit. If we want them to change their practices, and their priorities for new investments, we have to speak with our wallets. Only by putting our money where our mouths are, will they expand in the ways that is desired by Xenos players.
Yes, that logic holds because everyone was screaming for Primaris before they came out.
GW makes what they like, coupled with what they think will sell. The two don't always match.
....People are always screaming for more SM models. Primaris is just the newest push and a method to continue providing new models to be sold. The demand for more new SM models existed prior to 8th ed. While many reacted negatively to primaris, GW has been making bang off them because it was an investment into an area with easy sales to a large base. GW is a business, everything they do is to make money. If things make money, they get support and investment. If things dont make money, they dont. Simple as that.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
Here's the kicker though, Dark Angels don't actually have a lot that's unique, by this edition OR last edition. Consolidation and removal of unnecessary entries (nobody uses their fliers, come on) creates an better semblance of balance.
My God, I hope you're referring to regular Space Marine fliers instead of the DA ones otherwise the comment is beyond laughable.
Prove me wrong please.
Two other posters already did and your response was it wasnt in the tournie meta long enough to count. The Dark Talon was trash in 7th ed, but in 8th it got nerfed within months because it was so good, but it still remains a viable and fun choice for DA players. Anything else that anyone says is just going to be anecdotal as its not like stats exist to show what percentage of units in each codex get used frequently in gameplay.
That second point is FAR more important. Pyrovores are actually really good looking models. They only ever sell as counts as biovores since biovores look like gak and pyrovores are near useless/actually useless in 7th/6th. I have never met any player that purchased SM Centurions. I have seen some people think they looked cool. But nobody who ever shelled out the cash for a unit they would never use. 7th ed formations saw a mass purchasing of drop pods. And 8th saw them become a weak selling product.
If GW made every sub-faction it's own competitive codex and produced products to support those competitive options those books and products would sell.
That second point is FAR more important. Pyrovores are actually really good looking models. They only ever sell as counts as biovores since biovores look like gak and pyrovores are near useless/actually useless in 7th/6th. I have never met any player that purchased SM Centurions. I have seen some people think they looked cool. But nobody who ever shelled out the cash for a unit they would never use. 7th ed formations saw a mass purchasing of drop pods. And 8th saw them become a weak selling product.
If GW made every sub-faction it's own competitive codex and produced products to support those competitive options those books and products would sell.
3) Because they are fun
Being fun to play with doesnt require a model be competitive. Plenty of players buy the models they think are fun and look cool, regardless of what the tournie meta says about their competitiveness.
And no, thats not how business works at all. Anyone who makes an argument like that should never be making decisions for a business as they clearly dont understand basic business practices. You supply what is demanded by the market. You dont just hope the demand magically appears because you have a supply of something.
Every new product falls into one of three categories:
a) it fills an existing demand that is not currently satisfied by the market
b) it is an upgrade over an existing product
c) it is a product failure
Any business worth their salt would never approve any design for a product unless they had reasonable expectations of falling into category a or b.
That second point is FAR more important. Pyrovores are actually really good looking models. They only ever sell as counts as biovores since biovores look like gak and pyrovores are near useless/actually useless in 7th/6th. I have never met any player that purchased SM Centurions. I have seen some people think they looked cool. But nobody who ever shelled out the cash for a unit they would never use. 7th ed formations saw a mass purchasing of drop pods. And 8th saw them become a weak selling product.
If GW made every sub-faction it's own competitive codex and produced products to support those competitive options those books and products would sell.
3) Because they are fun
Being fun to play with doesnt require a model be competitive. Plenty of players buy the models they think are fun and look cool, regardless of what the tournie meta says about their competitiveness.
Generally people find functional rules fun. If it doesn't help you in any way it tends to be a miserable experience.
And no, thats not how business works at all. Anyone who makes an argument like that should never be making decisions for a business as they clearly dont understand basic business practices. You supply what is demanded by the market. You dont just hope the demand magically appears because you have a supply of something.
Every new product falls into one of three categories: a) it fills an existing demand that is not currently satisfied by the market b) it is an upgrade over an existing product c) it is a product failure
Any business worth their salt would never approve any design for a product unless they had reasonable expectations of falling into category a or b.
Yeah where is the new Ghaz model? Boyz? Eldar Wraiths? Sister of Battle for how many editions now? There has been a lot of demand for a lot of things for a very long time and they haven't gotten any new models. If they make a new great looking model and that model has good rules it will sell.
Answer the point I was making. You cannot possibly believe that if every subfaction had it's own codex, it's own unique kits or upgrade sprues AND had good rules that at the very least the vast majority of them would sell. And the most competitive of them would sell the best.
That second point is FAR more important. Pyrovores are actually really good looking models. They only ever sell as counts as biovores since biovores look like gak and pyrovores are near useless/actually useless in 7th/6th. I have never met any player that purchased SM Centurions. I have seen some people think they looked cool. But nobody who ever shelled out the cash for a unit they would never use. 7th ed formations saw a mass purchasing of drop pods. And 8th saw them become a weak selling product.
If GW made every sub-faction it's own competitive codex and produced products to support those competitive options those books and products would sell.
3) Because they are fun
Being fun to play with doesnt require a model be competitive. Plenty of players buy the models they think are fun and look cool, regardless of what the tournie meta says about their competitiveness.
Generally people find functional rules fun. If it doesn't help you in any way it tends to be a miserable experience.
Thats why no one ever bought the Dark Talon prior to 8th ed right? Its why no one ever buys Terminators either cause we all know how competitive they are. If being competitive means functional rules in your eyes, than obviously these models never sell cause they are absolutely miserable to play with and can never be considered fun. Get real mate.
And no, thats not how business works at all. Anyone who makes an argument like that should never be making decisions for a business as they clearly dont understand basic business practices. You supply what is demanded by the market. You dont just hope the demand magically appears because you have a supply of something.
Every new product falls into one of three categories: a) it fills an existing demand that is not currently satisfied by the market b) it is an upgrade over an existing product c) it is a product failure
Any business worth their salt would never approve any design for a product unless they had reasonable expectations of falling into category a or b.
Yeah where is the new Ghaz model? Boyz? Eldar Wraiths? There has been a lot of demand for a lot of things for a very long time and they haven't gotten any new models. If they make a new great looking model and that model has good rules it will sell.
Answer the point I was making. You cannot possibly believe that if every subfaction had it's own codex, it's own unique kits or upgrade sprues AND had good rules that at the very least the vast majority of them would sell. And the most competitive of them would sell the best.
I did, the fact that you chose to ignore my answer isnt my fault. GW is a business. To make money they do market and sales analysis to determine what sells and where to invest. If they didnt, they would have gone out of business long ago. The fact that they havent, shows they arent too shabby at figuring out what is profitable for them to do.
I believe if they did what you said, GW would suffer massive losses as large swaths would fail to generate a ROI. I wish it was otherwise, I truly do. IMO the more the merrier. But business is all about making money, so no GW focusing on highly profitable lines, while waiting for demand to build sufficiently before addressing less profitable ones, doesnt surprise me in the slightest.
That second point is FAR more important. Pyrovores are actually really good looking models. They only ever sell as counts as biovores since biovores look like gak and pyrovores are near useless/actually useless in 7th/6th. I have never met any player that purchased SM Centurions. I have seen some people think they looked cool. But nobody who ever shelled out the cash for a unit they would never use. 7th ed formations saw a mass purchasing of drop pods. And 8th saw them become a weak selling product.
If GW made every sub-faction it's own competitive codex and produced products to support those competitive options those books and products would sell.
except that this simply isn't true. Space Marines have consistantly been the top selling GW product even when Marines ahve under performed.
Thats why no one ever bought the Dark Talon prior to 8th ed right? Its why no one ever buys Terminators either cause we all know how competitive they are. If being competitive means functional rules in your eyes, than obviously these models never sell cause they are absolutely miserable to play with and can never be considered fun. Get real mate.
Well some people get cheated, or if they are new to the game they don't unders the w40k talk and what it really means when someone says that you can use them, but your going to have a hard time. People outside of w40k mean this means that they will be like 48% win ratio, or that they will have to get better at playing etc and not that taking termintors makes your army playable in the technical sense, but unplayable in the practical one. There is also the lie spined on forums or the GW community site, where your told that you should play with what you find cool. w40k talk is full of words that don't really mean what they mean eveywhere else. Playable doesn't mean the same thing as in other games, same with casual or words like we are going to fix it. A new person could end up buying 1000$ of stuff only to later find out that the stuff they have won't make an army that works. And then they better have some free cash to buy a second army to play for real.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion 772776 10379688 wrote:
If GW made every sub-faction it's own competitive codex and produced products to support those competitive options those books and products would sell.
except that this simply isn't true. Space Marines have consistantly been the top selling GW product even when Marines ahve under performed.
The line or the specific models? I mean I can imagine that through the ages with all marine armies needing 2-3 units of tacticals, those sold well, but how many vindicators or centurions could have been bought ?
Thats why no one ever bought the Dark Talon prior to 8th ed right? Its why no one ever buys Terminators either cause we all know how competitive they are. If being competitive means functional rules in your eyes, than obviously these models never sell cause they are absolutely miserable to play with and can never be considered fun. Get real mate.
Well some people get cheated, or if they are new to the game they don't unders the w40k talk and what it really means when someone says that you can use them, but your going to have a hard time. People outside of w40k mean this means that they will be like 48% win ratio, or that they will have to get better at playing etc and not that taking termintors makes your army playable in the technical sense, but unplayable in the practical one. There is also the lie spined on forums or the GW community site, where your told that you should play with what you find cool. w40k talk is full of words that don't really mean what they mean eveywhere else. Playable doesn't mean the same thing as in other games, same with casual or words like we are going to fix it. A new person could end up buying 1000$ of stuff only to later find out that the stuff they have won't make an army that works. And then they better have some free cash to buy a second army to play for real.
By that logic veteran players only ever play tournie meta lists. No one ever plays with an uncompetitive model ever. Not even in casual and friendly games. Not everyone is a try hard who wants to win 24/7. I happily bought a Dark Talon even though it was gak in 7th edition, and continue to play and use it all the time, having great fun doing so. I continue to buy and play with deathwing knights even though by competitive standards any termie choice is an auto fail. You dont get to determine what other people find fun mate. Not all of us care about having a super competitive list. I personally want to own every model in the dark angels line up, so I can play with any model I want, whenever I want, regardless of how well it actually performs.
Thats why no one ever bought the Dark Talon prior to 8th ed right? Its why no one ever buys Terminators either cause we all know how competitive they are. If being competitive means functional rules in your eyes, than obviously these models never sell cause they are absolutely miserable to play with and can never be considered fun. Get real mate.
Well some people get cheated, or if they are new to the game they don't unders the w40k talk and what it really means when someone says that you can use them, but your going to have a hard time. People outside of w40k mean this means that they will be like 48% win ratio, or that they will have to get better at playing etc and not that taking termintors makes your army playable in the technical sense, but unplayable in the practical one. There is also the lie spined on forums or the GW community site, where your told that you should play with what you find cool. w40k talk is full of words that don't really mean what they mean eveywhere else. Playable doesn't mean the same thing as in other games, same with casual or words like we are going to fix it. A new person could end up buying 1000$ of stuff only to later find out that the stuff they have won't make an army that works. And then they better have some free cash to buy a second army to play for real.
By that logic veteran players only ever play tournie meta lists. No one ever plays with an uncompetitive model ever. Not even in casual and friendly games. Not everyone is a try hard who wants to win 24/7. I happily bought a Dark Talon even though it was gak in 7th edition, and continue to play and use it all the time, having great fun doing so. I continue to buy and play with deathwing knights even though by competitive standards any termie choice is an auto fail. You dont get to determine what other people find fun mate. Not all of us care about having a super competitive list. I personally want to own every model in the dark angels line up, so I can play with any model I want, whenever I want, regardless of how well it actually performs.
the fact is that the "OMG must run a tourny list" are a vocal minority. most 40k players fall somewhere in a mushy middle ground where they take most of what they like well trying to make as effective a list as possiable
By that logic veteran players only ever play tournie meta lists. No one ever plays with an uncompetitive model ever. Not even in casual and friendly games. Not everyone is a try hard who wants to win 24/7. I happily bought a Dark Talon even though it was gak in 7th edition, and continue to play and use it all the time, having great fun doing so. I continue to buy and play with deathwing knights even though by competitive standards any termie choice is an auto fail. You dont get to determine what other people find fun mate. Not all of us care about having a super competitive list. I personally want to own every model in the dark angels line up, so I can play with any model I want, whenever I want, regardless of how well it actually performs.
What I was trying to say is that some of the sells could be coming from new people that got cheated. They go online or in to a store, ask how to start, get pointed to a start collecting set of their army, and then they buy that and two cool units. Only to find out after 3-4 games that, the SC box has maybe one unit they should be using and their cool units, look cool but suck.
As your dark talon examples goes. Did you have an army already when you were buying it? Because it is a totaly different situation, when you already have an army to play with and just buy more stuff. Then even if it does not work, your not in a situation where you just spent cash and are in for 6-12 months of pain till you can afford new units.
My argument wasn't about competitive play either. If someone new wants to start playing tournaments, they aren't going to go and invent their own army, they will check what is winning the most and start with that. It could be months, unless nerfs happen, before they start changing anything. I was talking about casual people that just started to play. It doesn't matter how much you like the looks of the model, if the games you play are consists of 2 hours getting to the store, getting tabled in 50 min without doing anything substential and then taking a trip back home.
Minor point - Karol, can you please be a little more careful with your quotes? Your post prior to this one has text attributed to the wrong person.
* * *
GW aren't going to put the genie back in the bottle, squashing DA, BA and SW back into the main SM book - or DG and TS back into the main CSM book for that matter.
What I'd prefer the do is go the opposite way, so we end up with each Legion getting its own book, plus DW and GK.
i'd remove the [CHAPTER] keyword as a variable as a general case, so all units from Codex: White Scars, for example, are [WHITE SCARS], even if you're running a Storm Lords or Destroyers force, which would mean that the descendant chapters can use the parent chapter's relics & SC without problems.
Exceptions would need to be made for Flesh Tearers, Crimson Fists and Black Templars - the latter of whom should get a proper mini-dex within Codex: Imperial Fists.
This allows each Primogenitor (and Legion, in the case of Chaos) to get some limelight & some releases for their own specialist units - even some background development, in the case of under-loved Legions.
Randomly, this would actually make Codex: Ultramarines cheaper than the current Codex: Adeptus Astartes, as we'd be removing material from it
I love how many people quoted my post without even actually reading it properly.
Seems some are so quick to jump to the "you are wrong!" That they dont read the rest of the post.
I said the book would be huge if they didn't condense it and kill off units/characters.
There are several replies saying it wouldn't be because they can remove things.
Is reading comprehension that difficult?
My exact post stated that if nothing got squatted, the actual book would be huge.
As someone pointed out, we have 48 characters alone in there.
Now add in generic units plus all chapter specific units.
Then wargear (including chapter specific)
Now all of the fluff.
This will make forgeworld books look like a bedtime story.
The only way to do it would be to condense them and chop out alot of fluff and units.
Doing so would result in a boring book and people with invalid models (which people like the idea of?)
I mean chaos did amazingly with a single book, people loved it and didn't want specific faction books atall .......... wait, yes they did.
Some armies have such a large range and variety now that different books are needed or you basically have 1 big lump of generic army.
I think at best they could roll chapters into pairs without losing anything if they wanted to cut books needed.
Either way, you'd end up paying for books that you wouldn't use alot of.
Now for me, that's not a good thing, I hate the idea of having to buy a book for a few pages of it.
Yeah, it was pretty tragic. Even Codex: Space Marines, that so many people whine about being weak these days, was flat out superior to any of the Index books, both in terms of unit strength AND in terms of customization.
In order to sell people on a consolidated codex you'd need something far superior to the Index books. "Look guys, I'm going to take away half of all of your options and make every faction play like ultramarines. What, doesn't this excite you?" would just make me go back to playing Orks and Sisters.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
Except everyone claiming that the "market" decides is being disnegesnous at best - when exactly did they test the market with Iron Hands vs Space Wolves, the Raven Guard vs Dark Angels? Show me the the range of models and the codexes that were made for them?
IF you only make specific models and don't make the others - how exactly do you choose to buy the others.......It panders to those who have and the opposite who don't.
I liked the Indexes - the rules needs lot of tweeks but I found them perfectly usable and I bought them all. IMO There is no more flicking back and forth than there is in the codexes - mainly due to the porblem that points costs are not on the fething dataslate.
Yes you don't keep reprinting the same old fluff - I have all codexes from RT to 6th Ed but gave up buying everyone in 7th and 8th when most have no new information or even images. I just buy ones that are new or in flicking through are different from the same old same old I laready have, Make glossy fluff books and rulebooks seperate.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
Here's the kicker though, Dark Angels don't actually have a lot that's unique, by this edition OR last edition. Consolidation and removal of unnecessary entries (nobody uses their fliers, come on) creates an better semblance of balance.
My God, I hope you're referring to regular Space Marine fliers instead of the DA ones otherwise the comment is beyond laughable.
Prove me wrong please.
Don't need to, go to DA tourny lists and look for Dark Talons. Go to DA tactics/FB pages and ask for list advice, guess what comes up.....
If you had said just Nephilims, then I'd agree, but many good DA lists take between 1 and 3 Dark Talons. Now, I don't seem to see the regular SM fliers in anyone's list so my point still stands. You're just not looking.
As an example, highest DA player at LVO had 3 of them
I never get how so many people like pointless restrictions. Only BA tacticals can have heavy flamers only DA terminators can have plasma cannons. What's the point? How is this fun?
Lance845 wrote: It doesn't hurt me. It's just a dumb argument you are making.
All those things could easily be condensed as we have seen in the indexes. There whole book of fluff is pointless argument. You could expand out the fluff of any sub faction by making up or expanding on the decades worth of stories for any of them.
Do you REALLY think there are not enough exploits of the Ultramarines to fill a fluff section on it's own?
The arguments your making for why they should stay separate amount to "Because I like the attention they get". Which is a bad argument to bring to the table.
They've done that in the past for other Chapters and then folded them back into the main Space Marines book, so its not like they haven't tried. There is nothing to say they won't make changes in the future. I am not sure what you are trying to say about the Ultramarines needing something?
Finally, saying that "your argument is dumb and it's a bad argument" does not help the discussion. I think that you are actually invented your own argument for me to make. I've laid out earlier in this thread and in the original thread the criteria by which I think that various Chapters should have their own Codex (distinct units/organization, background, playstyle). Its not based on whether I like them or not - that will drive whether I collect them. Whether any given Chapter (or Sept or Craftworld) fits that criteria will always be open to debate. While GW will make the decision, it is the market that will ultimately decide. The established Chapters with their own Codexes have seen their fortunes wax and wane. It looked pretty grim for some in the early days of 3rd. Nevertheless, their resilience over the decades is its own argument. Some might call that inertia, but its powerful nonetheless.
Maybe you are angry because you feel that your force has been neglected? You blame those that have the things that you want?
That second point is FAR more important. Pyrovores are actually really good looking models. They only ever sell as counts as biovores since biovores look like gak and pyrovores are near useless/actually useless in 7th/6th. I have never met any player that purchased SM Centurions. I have seen some people think they looked cool. But nobody who ever shelled out the cash for a unit they would never use. 7th ed formations saw a mass purchasing of drop pods. And 8th saw them become a weak selling product.
If GW made every sub-faction it's own competitive codex and produced products to support those competitive options those books and products would sell.
You normally make very sensible points but this is just wrong. I'm not saying that the competitive viability of a unit isn't important but you are making the common mistake of assuming that the more visible part of the player base (tournament players and people that discuss about it on facebook, reddit, or forums) are the mayority when it isn't. Theres more people that just buys Warhammer to collect and paint it than people that buys it to play it.
And thats something you see when you run a FLGS or work in a GW store.
Ok how many people bought lets say obliterators for chaos armies, comparing to those that bought possessed or those flying infantry chaos has? Obliterators seem to be in every chaos army, same as cultists. On the other hand something like csm, who oddly enough are in the armies name, are never posted in lists. And not just tournament ones, in non tournament ones too.
Same with models like chaplains. I have never seen a GK army take one, ever. On any forum, in any list tournament, not tournament, someone just starting. If people went by looks, someone should have bought a chaplain and put him in their GK list. yet no one seems to have done it.
Karol wrote: Ok how many people bought lets say obliterators for chaos armies, comparing to those that bought possessed or those flying infantry chaos has? Obliterators seem to be in every chaos army, same as cultists. On the other hand something like csm, who oddly enough are in the armies name, are never posted in lists. And not just tournament ones, in non tournament ones too.
Same with models like chaplains. I have never seen a GK army take one, ever. On any forum, in any list tournament, not tournament, someone just starting. If people went by looks, someone should have bought a chaplain and put him in their GK list. yet no one seems to have done it.
why do people make claims about what the general population does when it's impossible to determine? Tournaments are a small sample of the player profile, and dakka even less so. I play iron Warriors, and although I have cultists, guess what I also run....Chaos Space Marines. 5 man sqds with lascannons typically. Same when I play my Dark Angels. A few tac sqds with hvy weapons, dev sqds, etc.
Who gives a rat's arse about tournaments all the time? The game can accommodate many playing styles and tactical marines are just fine and dandy for narrative, fluff driven games. And don't get me wrong, I love tournaments too, but let's not think that this is the be-all-end-all of 40K play. It's just a piece of the pie.
Yeah, it was pretty tragic. Even Codex: Space Marines, that so many people whine about being weak these days, was flat out superior to any of the Index books, both in terms of unit strength AND in terms of customization.
In order to sell people on a consolidated codex you'd need something far superior to the Index books. "Look guys, I'm going to take away half of all of your options and make every faction play like ultramarines. What, doesn't this excite you?" would just make me go back to playing Orks and Sisters.
Most options are non-options because of how bad they are. Does it really matter if Tactical Marines can take a Multi-Melta? You remove the entry completely and nobody will notice.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Does it really matter if Tactical Marines can take a Multi-Melta?
Yes. It does. The illusion of choice is better than no choice at all, and certainly it's easier to turn in to actual choice.
If an option is bad, fix that option. Simply removing everything because a certain portion of the player demographics thinks it's bad is kind of lazy game design.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Does it really matter if Tactical Marines can take a Multi-Melta?
Yes. It does. The illusion of choice is better than no choice at all, and certainly it's easier to turn in to actual choice.
If an option is bad, fix that option. Simply removing everything because a certain portion of the player demographics thinks it's bad is kind of lazy game design.
People won't take a Multi-Melta because it directly clashes with either role Tactical Marines should be doing in the first place. They're either camping or going forward, and the Multi-Melta is bad for both roles. Ergo you'd have to make the Multi-Melta so absurdly cheap it becomes broken.
And why is the illusion of choice better than no choice at all? Nothing is stopping you from making the model if you want it so bad.
No. I prefer lots of mini dex's as you have specific artwork and painted models, background and hopefully a better unit mix.
I liked the Epic A approach of specific army lists for armies from certain campaigns or styles. So there was a codex planetary assault list (marines can either be fielded as normally in transports for the second stage or be equipped to enter from orbit for the first or anywhere in between), supported by lists for certain styles (e.g. heavy armour) or a chapter fighting using its own style (e.g. Dark Angels hunting fallen so no titan or navy support, etc.).
It made it easier to balance options against each other and have the flavour not only int he paint scheme but in the unit and weapon picks.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Does it really matter if Tactical Marines can take a Multi-Melta?
Yes. It does. The illusion of choice is better than no choice at all, and certainly it's easier to turn in to actual choice.
If an option is bad, fix that option. Simply removing everything because a certain portion of the player demographics thinks it's bad is kind of lazy game design.
People won't take a Multi-Melta because it directly clashes with either role Tactical Marines should be doing in the first place. They're either camping or going forward, and the Multi-Melta is bad for both roles. Ergo you'd have to make the Multi-Melta so absurdly cheap it becomes broken.
And why is the illusion of choice better than no choice at all? Nothing is stopping you from making the model if you want it so bad.
Or people really like the look of Multi-Meltas and would field them for a cohesive weapon choice throughout their forces and they shouldn't have to proxy it as something else.
Crimson wrote: I never get how so many people like pointless restrictions. Only BA tacticals can have heavy flamers only DA terminators can have plasma cannons. What's the point? How is this fun?
What's the point? The additional options add some flavour to the factions that can take them - and, to a degree, to the factions which can't take them.
Dark Angels have access to caches of ancient tech - something to do with this presumably explains how they get a plasma cannon onto a Terminator chassis without causing problems. Why don't other Chapters? As a general rule, ask the Mechanicus.
Blood Angels are an assault-y, in-your-face sort of Chapter, so they'd be carrying weapons suitable for that role. Unfortunately, some muppet forgot to make the Heavy Flamer an Assault option, rather than Heavy, but otherwise it fits as the sort of weapon you'd run up to a bunker or trench and fire into it with. Presumably other chapters don't find value in such a weapon option, so their squads don't take them.
Crimson wrote: I never get how so many people like pointless restrictions. Only BA tacticals can have heavy flamers only DA terminators can have plasma cannons. What's the point? How is this fun?
What's the point? The additional options add some flavour to the factions that can take them - and, to a degree, to the factions which can't take them.
Dark Angels have access to caches of ancient tech - something to do with this presumably explains how they get a plasma cannon onto a Terminator chassis without causing problems. Why don't other Chapters? As a general rule, ask the Mechanicus.
Blood Angels are an assault-y, in-your-face sort of Chapter, so they'd be carrying weapons suitable for that role. Unfortunately, some muppet forgot to make the Heavy Flamer an Assault option, rather than Heavy, but otherwise it fits as the sort of weapon you'd run up to a bunker or trench and fire into it with. Presumably other chapters don't find value in such a weapon option, so their squads don't take them.
The 5th edition codex literally had Heavy Flamers as an option for Tactical Marines.
What I was trying to say is that some of the sells could be coming from new people that got cheated. They go online or in to a store, ask how to start, get pointed to a start collecting set of their army, and then they buy that and two cool units. Only to find out after 3-4 games that, the SC box has maybe one unit they should be using and their cool units, look cool but suck.
As your dark talon examples goes. Did you have an army already when you were buying it? Because it is a totaly different situation, when you already have an army to play with and just buy more stuff. Then even if it does not work, your not in a situation where you just spent cash and are in for 6-12 months of pain till you can afford new units.
My argument wasn't about competitive play either. If someone new wants to start playing tournaments, they aren't going to go and invent their own army, they will check what is winning the most and start with that. It could be months, unless nerfs happen, before they start changing anything. I was talking about casual people that just started to play. It doesn't matter how much you like the looks of the model, if the games you play are consists of 2 hours getting to the store, getting tabled in 50 min without doing anything substential and then taking a trip back home.
Fair enough mate, I misunderstood you a bit. You are right that new players do get led astray at times into making bad purchasing decisions, but generally speaking I'd say cases of that happening intentionally are fairly low. With my Dark Talon for example, it was the third thing I ever bought in warhammer. The first two being Dark Vengeance and an Interrogator Chaplin.
If you are playing in a casual setting though and you are unwilling to accommodate a new player who has very limited options in what they can currently play with, and you choose to just routinely smash them into the ground, I'd say thats more a case of bad sportsmanship than a problem of players being led astray in purchases. The Dark Talon alone is proof that what is gak in one edition doesnt always remain so. I got it in 7th when it was worthless, but its been incredibly useful in 8th edition. But at the end of the day it really is on the players to make the choices for themselves. If you buy a bunch of fluffy units that arent really good in the current edition, it really is on you to figure out how to integrate them into a list, or find the more casual open and narrative games that will let you get the full fun out of your models.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
Here's the kicker though, Dark Angels don't actually have a lot that's unique, by this edition OR last edition. Consolidation and removal of unnecessary entries (nobody uses their fliers, come on) creates an better semblance of balance.
My God, I hope you're referring to regular Space Marine fliers instead of the DA ones otherwise the comment is beyond laughable.
Prove me wrong please.
Don't need to, go to DA tourny lists and look for Dark Talons. Go to DA tactics/FB pages and ask for list advice, guess what comes up.....
If you had said just Nephilims, then I'd agree, but many good DA lists take between 1 and 3 Dark Talons. Now, I don't seem to see the regular SM fliers in anyone's list so my point still stands. You're just not looking.
As an example, highest DA player at LVO had 3 of them
And look how well they're performing. Less than the Roboute lists spamming Repulsors and Stormravens.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
Here's the kicker though, Dark Angels don't actually have a lot that's unique, by this edition OR last edition. Consolidation and removal of unnecessary entries (nobody uses their fliers, come on) creates an better semblance of balance.
My God, I hope you're referring to regular Space Marine fliers instead of the DA ones otherwise the comment is beyond laughable.
Prove me wrong please.
Don't need to, go to DA tourny lists and look for Dark Talons. Go to DA tactics/FB pages and ask for list advice, guess what comes up.....
If you had said just Nephilims, then I'd agree, but many good DA lists take between 1 and 3 Dark Talons. Now, I don't seem to see the regular SM fliers in anyone's list so my point still stands. You're just not looking.
As an example, highest DA player at LVO had 3 of them
And look how well they're performing. Less than the Roboute lists spamming Repulsors and Stormravens.
Nobody is going to miss them, sorry.
So once again, not being a top tier tournie unit means no one uses or cares for them and wouldnt bat an eye if they were dropped at all? Mate every dark angel player on this thread has says they enjoy using and playing with the model. I guess we just dont count though do we?
Crimson wrote: I never get how so many people like pointless restrictions. Only BA tacticals can have heavy flamers only DA terminators can have plasma cannons. What's the point? How is this fun?
What's the point? The additional options add some flavour to the factions that can take them - and, to a degree, to the factions which can't take them.
Dark Angels have access to caches of ancient tech - something to do with this presumably explains how they get a plasma cannon onto a Terminator chassis without causing problems. Why don't other Chapters? As a general rule, ask the Mechanicus.
Blood Angels are an assault-y, in-your-face sort of Chapter, so they'd be carrying weapons suitable for that role. Unfortunately, some muppet forgot to make the Heavy Flamer an Assault option, rather than Heavy, but otherwise it fits as the sort of weapon you'd run up to a bunker or trench and fire into it with. Presumably other chapters don't find value in such a weapon option, so their squads don't take them.
Yeah my black templars not being able to use heavy flamers on tacticals (but they can on sternguard) and no melta guns, but flamers on assult marines is not flavour, it's stupid. Same could be said for any codex or other non codex chapter. Can players please be able pick their own wargear for identical units instead of having non sensical limitations? Blood angels are not the only "in your face chapter". All chapters should be able to choose "in your face"weapons.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Having separate Codexes for DA, BA, SW, DW and GK allows each to go into more depth and detail regarding the rules and background while keeping the size of the book manageable. I'm interested in Dark Angels, so I buy that Codex and use virtually all of it. We went over this in the other thread, but I believe that the chapters listed are distinct enough in terms of lore, units, rules and playstyle to warrant their own books. Could this be said of other Chapters? Sure. Some had them before and lost them. The market will decide. Space Wolves may be hated by some, but clearly enough like them to keep them as a viable distinct line. I know that Dark Angels are very popular in my area. It can be hard to tell the true Blood Angels players from the Smash Captain band-wagoneers, but there are no shortage of Blood Angels players either. Anecdotal, to be sure, but we can also see all these forces getting represented in national level play.
Having distinct Chapters provides variety for the players at fairly limited opportunity cost for GW. As players, we make choices. That is a good thing. If I want Deathwing Terminator flexibility then I have to commit to Dark Angels. These means I do not have access to Vanguard Veterans. My Hellblasters can use Weapons From the Dark Age, but not the Space Wolves' ability to ignore negative modifiers or outflank. Now, the ability to have multiple detachments mitigates these choices, but the point remains. We have choices and they have consequences.
Restricting Deathwing and Ravenwing to Dark Angels does not mean that they are only for me. Anybody can play Dark Angels - its not a private club. Anybody can make a Successor Chapter and call them Dark Angels. You just have to abide by the limitations/restrictions of the list.
I get why GW might make changes in the future due to market demands, but why we want to give things up on our own is beyond me.
Here's the kicker though, Dark Angels don't actually have a lot that's unique, by this edition OR last edition. Consolidation and removal of unnecessary entries (nobody uses their fliers, come on) creates an better semblance of balance.
My God, I hope you're referring to regular Space Marine fliers instead of the DA ones otherwise the comment is beyond laughable.
Prove me wrong please.
Don't need to, go to DA tourny lists and look for Dark Talons. Go to DA tactics/FB pages and ask for list advice, guess what comes up.....
If you had said just Nephilims, then I'd agree, but many good DA lists take between 1 and 3 Dark Talons. Now, I don't seem to see the regular SM fliers in anyone's list so my point still stands. You're just not looking.
As an example, highest DA player at LVO had 3 of them
And look how well they're performing. Less than the Roboute lists spamming Repulsors and Stormravens.
Nobody is going to miss them, sorry.
So once again, not being a top tier tournie unit means no one uses or cares for them and wouldnt bat an eye if they were dropped at all? Mate every dark angel player on this thread has says they enjoy using and playing with the model. I guess we just dont count though do we?
Oh nice, the "sheep" and "netlister" arguments have come out!
The Dark Angels fliers can easily be used as Stormtalons or Stormhawks.
Lance845 wrote: It doesn't hurt me. It's just a dumb argument you are making.
All those things could easily be condensed as we have seen in the indexes. There whole book of fluff is pointless argument. You could expand out the fluff of any sub faction by making up or expanding on the decades worth of stories for any of them.
Do you REALLY think there are not enough exploits of the Ultramarines to fill a fluff section on it's own?
The arguments your making for why they should stay separate amount to "Because I like the attention they get". Which is a bad argument to bring to the table.
They've done that in the past for other Chapters and then folded them back into the main Space Marines book, so its not like they haven't tried. There is nothing to say they won't make changes in the future. I am not sure what you are trying to say about the Ultramarines needing something?
Finally, saying that "your argument is dumb and it's a bad argument" does not help the discussion. I think that you are actually invented your own argument for me to make. I've laid out earlier in this thread and in the original thread the criteria by which I think that various Chapters should have their own Codex (distinct units/organization, background, playstyle). Its not based on whether I like them or not - that will drive whether I collect them. Whether any given Chapter (or Sept or Craftworld) fits that criteria will always be open to debate. While GW will make the decision, it is the market that will ultimately decide. The established Chapters with their own Codexes have seen their fortunes wax and wane. It looked pretty grim for some in the early days of 3rd. Nevertheless, their resilience over the decades is its own argument. Some might call that inertia, but its powerful nonetheless.
Maybe you are angry because you feel that your force has been neglected? You blame those that have the things that you want?
Please don't keep make this false "market" argument - its not relevant there is not magical market that chooses Space Wolves over Iron Hands for instance becuase there has not been this choice for the mythical market to choose from. If an Iron Hand (or other non super special sub action) player wants to support his chosen sub faction - how exactly does he or she do it?
GW have chosen three Chapters over 990+ for whatever reason but lets not pretend it was somehow made by others and they just had to go along.
If Iron Hands and Wolves or indeed non marine subfactions had had exactly the same support, publicity and drive then you could argue its "Da Market" but its not.
Oh nice, the "sheep" and "netlister" arguments have come out!
The Dark Angels fliers can easily be used as Stormtalons or Stormhawks.
You are the one making the argument that if they arent heavily used in competitive play that they might as well not exist.
If a Dark Angels player wanted to use a stormtalon or stormhawk, we already could. The fact that we choose to play Dark Talons instead should tell you something about whether or not we like playing Dark Talons.
Slayer-fan people would take you more seriously if you didn't said absurd things like that.
And as others people have said the Dark Angel flyer have been nerfed 3 times (And one of those nerfs reverted) because they where that good.
And, they are like, the best looking Imperial Flyers alongside the Valkyrie and the Corvus Blackstar so if some space marine flyers is deserve of staying are the DA ones and not the ugly vanilla marines ones.
Do you think that GW would keep putting resources into things that were not profitable? Dark Angels, Blood Angels and a space Wolves appear to have enough enduring distinctiveness and popularity to warrant their continued support as their own "factions." At the end of the day, I think what the community wants is more important than what one individual wants.
Do you think that a Codex Iron Hands would be distinct enough from the Space Marines Codex and popular enough to be successful? Go write one. Pitch it to GW. What we are seeing now is White Dwarf treatment of other Chapters - that is awesome.
The additional Marine codexes do use resources that I suppose could be devoted to make an additional Eldar or Tyranid Codex, or perhaps a whole new faction. I argue that the return on investment for the DA, BA and SW is better. It's not the same level of effort as a new force, and there is a good market for the modest investment for a DA Codex and line. The DA have a different structure that give three baseline army styles and a number of distinct units for a modest number of unique sculpts and boxes.
We have had a slew of Codexes since 8th dropped. The distinct Marine codexes do not seem to have stopped the other factions getting their due. Look at the rich GSC Codex and line. Vigilus shows that GW is spreading some love around to the various factions and indeed Chapters.
IDK why people argue about removing chapter specific vehicles that already exist. Just leave the ones in that make sense like dark talons and the space wolf flyer and make them DA or SW only. The Baal predator though IDK why you couldn't just make that variant available to everyone.
Edit: what I mean is the truly unique models should stay in as chapter specific options. The Baal pred is just a pred with different weapons. Just leave it in the game but available to all chapters.
This stuff doesn't have to be complicated or involve removing stuff. Whatever the SW equivalent tacs and havocs are for example can just be tacs and havocs with chapter keyword specific weapon options or abilities (I don't know SW differences enough so please forgive the vagueness of my suggestion).
You can even still sell the chapter specific kits with the different looking models by doing this--this just condenses things into a single book.
Do you think that GW would keep putting resources into things that were not profitable? Dark Angels, Blood Angels and a space Wolves appear to have enough enduring distinctiveness and popularity to warrant their continued support as their own "factions." At the end of the day, I think what the community wants is more important than what one individual wants.
Do you think that a Codex Iron Hands would be distinct enough from the Space Marines Codex and popular enough to be successful? Go write one. Pitch it to GW. What we are seeing now is White Dwarf treatment of other Chapters - that is awesome.
The additional Marine codexes do use resources that I suppose could be devoted to make an additional Eldar or Tyranid Codex, or perhaps a whole new faction. I argue that the return on investment for the DA, BA and SW is better. It's not the same level of effort as a new force, and there is a good market for the modest investment for a DA Codex and line. The DA have a different structure that give three baseline army styles and a number of distinct units for a modest number of unique sculpts and boxes.
We have had a slew of Codexes since 8th dropped. The distinct Marine codexes do not seem to have stopped the other factions getting their due. Look at the rich GSC Codex and line. Vigilus shows that GW is spreading some love around to the various factions and indeed Chapters.
Cheers
And we have heard nothing but constant complaints from Marine players since the start of 8th edition.
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex is not out yet,
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex is out but too weak,
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex is after another faction when the other half dozen Marine dexes are alreayd out.
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex only gets X models (when other factions get none is a particular gem)
How exactly do you argue that the investment is better if its Never been tested? what kind of logic is that?
Now we are finally getting other Main factions releases - but ony after a river of the same old Marine dexes, clogging up the schedule with a few minor rules variants.
How many new or non Marine sub faction Dexes have been given a chance - none.
You really can't tell the difference between these two?
Do... do you even play 40k?
Yes my mistake Deathwing - it happens, - moving on
So list the actual rules difference for the four units? If you made it so all Tac maines could choose between 2 special, 1 special and 1 heavy and 2 heavy whats the issue? Chainsword option added Chapter tactcis still apply
What have the Wovles lost now? And all the myriad of OTHER marine chapters that have similar units can now field them - How much room has that taken?
We should scrap Tau. They're just another shooty army anyway. Fire Warriors are Guardians, Battle Suits are Wraithguard, Stormsurges are Wraithknights and we'll get rid of Riptides because they're just silly and won't be missed. Hammerheads are Fire Prisms, Devilfishes are Wave Serpents, Broadside Battlesuits are Wraithlords. Ethereals are Farseers, Fireblades are Autarchs, and so on and so forth.
Tau are a nonentity competetively compared to Eldar anyway, so I'm sure all the Tau players would enjoy their new options.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We should scrap Tau. They're just another shooty army anyway. Fire Warriors are Guardians, Battle Suits are Wraithguard, Stormsurges are Wraithknights and we'll get rid of Riptides because they're just silly and won't be missed. Hammerheads are Fire Prisms, Devilfishes are Wave Serpents, Broadside Battlesuits are Wraithlords. Ethereals are Farseers, Fireblades are Autarchs, and so on and so forth.
Tau are a nonentity competetively compared to Eldar anyway, so I'm sure all the Tau players would enjoy their new options.
This just about sums up my opinion aswell.
The irony is, you'd think players were sick of having parts of their army squatted.
On this thread there are players asking for more squatting......... naturally for armies they do not have though lol.
As for multi meltas, I will state (and clearly state) piss off.
My salamanders are packed with them.
I'm not chopping up yet more models to swap weapons because they changed them (again)
So what's next from that? We just take them out of 40k completely?
Sorry sisters, guard, etc, but they are gone now.
In the year 40k they forgot how to make them and some sneaky git stole the remaining ones.
Mr Morden wrote: So list the actual rules difference for the four units?
Try actually reading the post above. Because I did. Grey Hunters get a reroll on charge rolls of 1, and their access to chainswords gives them an extra attack, but in exchange for these assault-oriented boosts, they don't get to use heavy weapons. With the changes you made, they would lose the charge reroll (which is not a "chapter tactic", but rather a rule specific to Grey Hunters) but gain heavy weapons. Realistically, this means most SW players will find their tacticals-equivalents will become worse at successfully making charges with the changes you want to make.
Consolidating marine codices is not a bad idea, on its face. So long as unique units remain, and non-vanilla chapters keep their own army list and/or FOC one book would be fine by me. The one issue, I think is that a single marine codex wherein Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Grey Knights and so forth exist would probably be large, heavy, and horrifically expensive. I have no desire to pay for rules I will not use, and suspect most think the same.
Do you think that GW would keep putting resources into things that were not profitable? Dark Angels, Blood Angels and a space Wolves appear to have enough enduring distinctiveness and popularity to warrant their continued support as their own "factions." At the end of the day, I think what the community wants is more important than what one individual wants.
Do you think that a Codex Iron Hands would be distinct enough from the Space Marines Codex and popular enough to be successful? Go write one. Pitch it to GW. What we are seeing now is White Dwarf treatment of other Chapters - that is awesome.
The additional Marine codexes do use resources that I suppose could be devoted to make an additional Eldar or Tyranid Codex, or perhaps a whole new faction. I argue that the return on investment for the DA, BA and SW is better. It's not the same level of effort as a new force, and there is a good market for the modest investment for a DA Codex and line. The DA have a different structure that give three baseline army styles and a number of distinct units for a modest number of unique sculpts and boxes.
We have had a slew of Codexes since 8th dropped. The distinct Marine codexes do not seem to have stopped the other factions getting their due. Look at the rich GSC Codex and line. Vigilus shows that GW is spreading some love around to the various factions and indeed Chapters.
Cheers
And we have heard nothing but constant complaints from Marine players since the start of 8th edition.
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex is not out yet,
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex is out but too weak,
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex is after another faction when the other half dozen Marine dexes are alreayd out.
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex only gets X models (when other factions get none is a particular gem)
How exactly do you argue that the investment is better if its Never been tested? what kind of logic is that?
Now we are finally getting other Main factions releases - but ony after a river of the same old Marine dexes, clogging up the schedule with a few minor rules variants.
How many new or non Marine sub faction Dexes have been given a chance - none.
dude, we've heard EVERYONE make that complaint. I can't think of a single codex that hasn't seen that complaint.
except the models complaint which I'll note generally players of all space marine armies are, largely, pretty happy with the models we've received. the whining about a lack of models mostly seems to come from players of other armies. partiucklarly I find Xenos players are bad that way. Ork players for example complained that they ONLY got what was it 3? 4? new vehicle kits.
Galas wrote: Slayer-fan people would take you more seriously if you didn't said absurd things like that.
And as others people have said the Dark Angel flyer have been nerfed 3 times (And one of those nerfs reverted) because they where that good.
And, they are like, the best looking Imperial Flyers alongside the Valkyrie and the Corvus Blackstar so if some space marine flyers is deserve of staying are the DA ones and not the ugly vanilla marines ones.
They weren't that good. They were simply worse Stormravens, and are the defunct choice in a codex with a lot of bad choices.
They're not topping for a reason, and that's because they're priced similarly to the other fliers, and those ones can be buffed by Roboute. Topping once doesn't say something is any good. Rubric Marines topped in 6th before after all, but we aren't defending them for a reason.
You really can't tell the difference between these two?
Do... do you even play 40k?
You and I both know they meant Deathwing.
And the differences are minimal. Nobody is going to take a Deathwing squad with 1 Chainfist, 1 TH/SS, 1 Twin LC, 1 Assault Cannon, and the standard Power Sword Sergeant because it's stupid. You load them up for a particular task, which is, surprisesurprise, the Tactical and Assault entries!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: I lost track of how long I've been complaining about a lack of new Sisters minis. At least a decade, to be sure.
You've got till the end of the year to keep complaining at least.
What are Sisters players gonna do after that? Who will replace them and CSM players for complaints about models?
Melissia wrote: I lost track of how long I've been complaining about a lack of new Sisters minis. At least a decade, to be sure.
The wait is nearing an end, at long damn last.
But hey, you got the saint, a witch hunter and the old codex art model.
If you include the saints 2 guards, that's a whole 5 new models in that decade!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We should scrap Tau. They're just another shooty army anyway. Fire Warriors are Guardians, Battle Suits are Wraithguard, Stormsurges are Wraithknights and we'll get rid of Riptides because they're just silly and won't be missed. Hammerheads are Fire Prisms, Devilfishes are Wave Serpents, Broadside Battlesuits are Wraithlords. Ethereals are Farseers, Fireblades are Autarchs, and so on and so forth.
Tau are a nonentity competetively compared to Eldar anyway, so I'm sure all the Tau players would enjoy their new options.
Yeah, name all the entries the Angels have outside Characters that are SOOOOO unique and you'd realize how silly this post is.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We should scrap Tau. They're just another shooty army anyway. Fire Warriors are Guardians, Battle Suits are Wraithguard, Stormsurges are Wraithknights and we'll get rid of Riptides because they're just silly and won't be missed. Hammerheads are Fire Prisms, Devilfishes are Wave Serpents, Broadside Battlesuits are Wraithlords. Ethereals are Farseers, Fireblades are Autarchs, and so on and so forth.
Tau are a nonentity competetively compared to Eldar anyway, so I'm sure all the Tau players would enjoy their new options.
This just about sums up my opinion aswell.
The irony is, you'd think players were sick of having parts of their army squatted.
On this thread there are players asking for more squatting......... naturally for armies they do not have though lol.
As for multi meltas, I will state (and clearly state) piss off.
My salamanders are packed with them.
I'm not chopping up yet more models to swap weapons because they changed them (again)
So what's next from that? We just take them out of 40k completely?
Sorry sisters, guard, etc, but they are gone now.
In the year 40k they forgot how to make them and some sneaky git stole the remaining ones.
Not my fault you make bad choices.
It's a useless weapon for basically all Infantry units, so nobody is going to cry. Pretend it's something useful instead.
You need to get over yourself mate. You dont get to decide what other people like.
You need to get over yourself mate. You dont get to decide what other people like.
the whole history of men kind is people telling others to do stuff they do not want to. Telling someone to not do it, is like asking them to stop breathing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We should scrap Tau. They're just another shooty army anyway. Fire Warriors are Guardians, Battle Suits are Wraithguard, Stormsurges are Wraithknights and we'll get rid of Riptides because they're just silly and won't be missed. Hammerheads are Fire Prisms, Devilfishes are Wave Serpents, Broadside Battlesuits are Wraithlords. Ethereals are Farseers, Fireblades are Autarchs, and so on and so forth.
Tau are a nonentity competetively compared to Eldar anyway, so I'm sure all the Tau players would enjoy their new options.
This just about sums up my opinion aswell.
The irony is, you'd think players were sick of having parts of their army squatted.
On this thread there are players asking for more squatting......... naturally for armies they do not have though lol.
As for multi meltas, I will state (and clearly state) piss off.
My salamanders are packed with them.
I'm not chopping up yet more models to swap weapons because they changed them (again)
So what's next from that? We just take them out of 40k completely?
Sorry sisters, guard, etc, but they are gone now.
In the year 40k they forgot how to make them and some sneaky git stole the remaining ones.
Not my fault you make bad choices.
It's a useless weapon for basically all Infantry units, so nobody is going to cry. Pretend it's something useful instead.
Forgive me.
I couldn't see 6 years into the future and predict how they would change it.
I'm still struggling to take you seriously though, the entire post just screams "I'm bored, someone argue with me"
Yeah, it was pretty tragic. Even Codex: Space Marines, that so many people whine about being weak these days, was flat out superior to any of the Index books, both in terms of unit strength AND in terms of customization.
In order to sell people on a consolidated codex you'd need something far superior to the Index books. "Look guys, I'm going to take away half of all of your options and make every faction play like ultramarines. What, doesn't this excite you?" would just make me go back to playing Orks and Sisters.
I still use my index. I feel that Space marines are already overflowing with options, and if the generic options can’t keep you interested, it’s likely that throwing even more isn’t going to make things any better.
Stormonu wrote: if the generic options can’t keep you interested, it’s likely that throwing even more isn’t going to make things any better.
You're vastly outnumbered in this thread by people who disagree with that view. Perhaps you don't understand the appeal, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Melissia wrote: On a 2d6 you have 11 potential end results (1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 2-1, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, 6-1) where you roll a one on one of those two dice.
You are trolling, right?
You do get that the joke is that it's impossible to roll a 1 inch charge on 2d6, right? Right?
Mr Morden wrote: So list the actual rules difference for the four units?
Try actually reading the post above. Because I did. Grey Hunters get a reroll on charge rolls of 1, and their access to chainswords gives them an extra attack, but in exchange for these assault-oriented boosts, they don't get to use heavy weapons. With the changes you made, they would lose the charge reroll (which is not a "chapter tactic", but rather a rule specific to Grey Hunters) but gain heavy weapons. Realistically, this means most SW players will find their tacticals-equivalents will become worse at successfully making charges with the changes you want to make.
Yes I read it but it was not very specific - and I gave up getting the SW codex after 6th, disliking the new models and lack of new/intersting fluff
ok so you add that as an option - whats the problem?
What are Sisters players gonna do after that? Who will replace them and CSM players for complaints about models?
Read any thread - Marine Players are the biggest complainers.
You need to get over yourself mate. You dont get to decide what other people like.
How many new or non Marine sub faction Dexes have been given a chance - none.
Codex: GSC might be considered a subfaction. Codex: Daemons split out from CSM back in 5th? Codex: Catachans back in 3rd ed. In 4th there was a trial Feral Orks list and Kroot army list.
How many new or non Marine sub faction Dexes have been given a chance - none.
Codex: GSC might be considered a subfaction. Codex: Daemons split out from CSM back in 5th? Codex: Catachans back in 3rd ed. In 4th there was a trial Feral Orks list and Kroot army list.
HOW is GSC a subfaction?? If thats the case then Marines are a Subfaction of Imperium and the indivudal Chapters a mere Sub-Sub faction - with huge bloated ranges and own Dexes.....
I have those dexes but I was really talking about this edition - replying to another.
You need to get over yourself mate. You dont get to decide what other people like.
Pot, kettle.....
I'm not the one making the argument that other people should lose their armies and units because I dont like them or think they are good/unique enough. But nice try though.
You need to get over yourself mate. You dont get to decide what other people like.
Pot, kettle.....
That argument makes no sense. Where is anyone that's not on your side of the argument telling you that you won't miss something because no one uses it anyway?
Also, for what it's worth the complaining about Marine players complaining is probably one of the oldest tropes of 40k.
They're a subfaction in that they're a spin-off of the genestealer unit from the Tyranid Codex. They're a subfaction in the same way Kroot Mercenaries are a subfaction of the Tau Empire. While Marines and Guard are a part of the same Imperium of Man overfaction, neither one is a spinoff of the other.
You need to get over yourself mate. You dont get to decide what other people like.
Pot, kettle.....
I'm not the one making the argument that other people should lose their armies and units because I dont like them or think they are good/unique enough. But nice try though.
Nor am I - but that strawman is getting awfully high - As i have said repeatedly I want to increase options for all Chapters that have previosuly been ignored in favour of 3 chapters but you seem to be so obsessed and defensive about your own super special chapter that you are incapble of reading and comprehending.
No one would loose anything - but I guess other people having nice things is less important than focussing on your army.... sad really - very sad.
Also, for what it's worth the complaining about Marine players complaining is probably one of the oldest tropes of 40k.
Marine player myself - but i recoognise that other factions deserve nice things......
They're a subfaction in that they're a spin-off of the genestealer unit from the Tyranid Codex. They're a subfaction in the same way Kroot Mercenaries are a subfaction of the Tau Empire. While Marines and Guard are a part of the same Imperium of Man overfaction, neither one is a spinoff of the other.
Either the Imperium of Man is a Faction - Marines/Gaurd/Ad Mech/Sisters are therefore "Human" subfactions and then Chapters are sub sub factions OR
The Tyranids are a Overfaction and GSC are a Faction.
False dichotomy, there are other ways to rationalize the decision, as clearly GW itself has. Nothing you said contradicted anything in my post for the reasons why GW considers them a subfaction of Tyranids.
You need to get over yourself mate. You dont get to decide what other people like.
Pot, kettle.....
I'm not the one making the argument that other people should lose their armies and units because I dont like them or think they are good/unique enough. But nice try though.
Nor am I - but that strawman is getting awfully high - As i have said repeatedly I want to increase options for all Chapters that have previosuly been ignored in favour of 3 chapters but you seem to be so obsessed and defensive about your own super special chapter that you are incapble of reading and comprehending.
No one would loose anything - but I guess other people having nice things is less important than focussing on your army.... sad really - very sad.
The person I was responding to with that statement was literally talking about removing models like the Dark Talon or multi meltas from Salamanders tac marines just because they weren't competitive enough and thus in their eyes no one would care, even after being told repeatedly that players enjoy playing with it, regardless of it not being top tier meta. But ya thanks for insulting my reading comprehension by thinking my statement was in any way directed at yourself.
Edit: Also please quote for me where I ever said I anything about wanting attention over other factions. Go ahead I can wait. I seem to recall saying multiple times I'd be perfectly happy with everyone getting access to more options, more sub factions and more codex. But I guess I was just dreaming those posts. If you are going to try and insult me, at least be accurate.
False dichotomy, there are other ways to rationalize the decision, as clearly GW itself has. Nothing you said contradicted anything in my post for the reasons why GW considers them a subfaction of Tyranids.
They are listed on the store as a seperate Xenos Faction?
If you want to break them down as per keywords - than yes They are a subfaction of Nids but it makes any indivudal Chapter a sub-subfaction?
Are they not : Keywords: Tyranid - GSC Marines are : Imperium - Astartes- Chapter
You need to get over yourself mate. You dont get to decide what other people like.
Pot, kettle.....
I'm not the one making the argument that other people should lose their armies and units because I dont like them or think they are good/unique enough. But nice try though.
Nor am I - but that strawman is getting awfully high - As i have said repeatedly I want to increase options for all Chapters that have previosuly been ignored in favour of 3 chapters but you seem to be so obsessed and defensive about your own super special chapter that you are incapble of reading and comprehending.
No one would loose anything - but I guess other people having nice things is less important than focussing on your army.... sad really - very sad.
The person I was responding to with that statement was literally talking about removing models like the Dark Talon or multi meltas from Salamanders tac marines just because they weren't competitive enough and thus in their eyes no one would care, even after being told repeatedly that players enjoy playing with it, regardless of it not being top tier meta. But ya thanks for insulting my reading comprehension by thinking my statement was in any way directed at yourself.
Edit: Also please quote for me where I ever said I anything about wanting attention over other factions. Go ahead I can wait. I seem to recall saying multiple times I'd be perfectly happy with everyone getting access to more options, more sub factions and more codex. But I guess I was just dreaming those posts. If you are going to try and insult me, at least be accurate.
Its implicit in your increasingly rabid defence of Dark Angels - You have wierdly failed to grasp that having massive focuss on your particular chosen faction means less or none on others. Odd really.
Then you pretend interst in others - oh yeah you can have something - as long as my sub faction gets everything and more whilst knowing very well that a large chunk of the avaible resoruces is reserved for you.
You need to get over yourself mate. You dont get to decide what other people like.
Pot, kettle.....
I'm not the one making the argument that other people should lose their armies and units because I dont like them or think they are good/unique enough. But nice try though.
Nor am I - but that strawman is getting awfully high - As i have said repeatedly I want to increase options for all Chapters that have previosuly been ignored in favour of 3 chapters but you seem to be so obsessed and defensive about your own super special chapter that you are incapble of reading and comprehending.
No one would loose anything - but I guess other people having nice things is less important than focussing on your army.... sad really - very sad.
The person I was responding to with that statement was literally talking about removing models like the Dark Talon or multi meltas from Salamanders tac marines just because they weren't competitive enough and thus in their eyes no one would care, even after being told repeatedly that players enjoy playing with it, regardless of it not being top tier meta. But ya thanks for insulting my reading comprehension by thinking my statement was in any way directed at yourself.
Edit: Also please quote for me where I ever said I anything about wanting attention over other factions. Go ahead I can wait. I seem to recall saying multiple times I'd be perfectly happy with everyone getting access to more options, more sub factions and more codex. But I guess I was just dreaming those posts. If you are going to try and insult me, at least be accurate.
Its implicit in your increasingly rabid defence of Dark Angels - You have wierdly failed to grasp that having massive focuss on your particular chosen faction means less or none on others. Odd really.
Then you pretend interst in others - oh yeah you can have something - as long as my sub faction gets everything and more whilst knowing very well that a large chunk of the avaible resoruces is reserved for you.
So my argument that investment isnt a zero sum game, means I am telling people what they are allowed to like and play? Thats some serious stretching mate. If the ROI is good enough GW can easily being expanding production to facilitate new expansions. They are not locked down with X amount of resources. They can get more, they just need sufficient incentives. The same way they expanded to have BT/SW/BA/DA/GK/DW in addition to normal SM in earlier editions.
All I've ever said is I dont want to lose my unique models because those are the models I am interested in collecting. I have consistently said I am looking forward to other lines expanding with new models and getting more support because, the more variety and flavour, the better in my view.
And rabid really? Im not the one laying down the insults.
But yes, I am the one being self centered and acting to the detriment of others. Please forgive me for having the gall to play Dark angels and funding GW with my purchases. I clearly do more harm than good, it would be better had I never started collecting in the first place. Yep yep.
Mr Morden wrote: They are listed on the store as a seperate Xenos Faction?
The store also lists "Space Marines" as separate from "Blood Angels". If you want to use the store's definitions, one would argue that the factions are "Imperium", "Xeno", and "Chaos", and everything else is a subfaction of those three categories. That may actually be how GW sees it, truth be told, but I doubt many others see it that way.
You're putting forth an argument that the way you define it is the only way it can be defined, but I'm under no obligation to agree with you. You're really bad at this logic thing.
Marine player myself - but i recoognise that other factions deserve nice things......
Here's a thought that might blow your mind: other factions can get nice things without your crusade against things you don't like. We're getting more subfactions than we've ever had in 8th edition and it's awesome. Note how this has been achieved without cutting back on the Marine Codices.
Marine player myself - but i recoognise that other factions deserve nice things......
Here's a thought that might blow your mind: other factions can get nice things without your crusade against things you don't like. We're getting more subfactions than we've ever had in 8th edition and it's awesome. Note how this has been achieved without cutting back on the Marine Codices.
Except those subfactions don't get random special units because of no reason and don't have things to worry about like how horribly Successor Chapters are handled, which is an issue solved via consolidation.
Sucessors chapter is a problem of GW own making. Everybody I know, when playing with a successor chapter just use the base rules of the parent chapters. Not all of this nonsense of "If you are a DA successor you can't have chapter master, any special character, and you only have 1 relic. In exchange, you win: Absolutely nothing. Next time use the official paint scheme, jackass!"
Galas wrote: Sucessors chapter is a problem of GW own making. Everybody I know, when playing with a successor chapter just use the base rules of the parent chapters. Not all of this nonsense of "If you are a DA successor you can't have chapter master, any special character, and you only have 1 relic. In exchange, you win: Absolutely nothing. Next time use the official paint scheme, jackass!"
For as badly written as 7th was, this was never an issue at least.
Galas wrote: Sucessors chapter is a problem of GW own making. Everybody I know, when playing with a successor chapter just use the base rules of the parent chapters. Not all of this nonsense of "If you are a DA successor you can't have chapter master, any special character, and you only have 1 relic. In exchange, you win: Absolutely nothing. Next time use the official paint scheme, jackass!"
We should get custom chapter building rules. Scratch, custom chapter, regiment, etc.
Marine player myself - but i recoognise that other factions deserve nice things......
Here's a thought that might blow your mind: other factions can get nice things without your crusade against things you don't like. We're getting more subfactions than we've ever had in 8th edition and it's awesome. Note how this has been achieved without cutting back on the Marine Codices.
Yeah Morden seems to keep chewing this bone that Marine stuff is taking away from other factions. but thats not the case. fact is Marine sales, IMHO likely FUND GW trying new things. GW is expected to make X amount of dollars per year. Marines are something that makes profit, GW knows this, if they release Y number of space marine releases, they can make at least X dollars and take a risk on something that may not be a garenteed hit
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At the risk of fething over everyone who plays a variant army.
What's fethed over via consolidation that I haven't already tackled? You for sure already lost the Black Templar argument.
You never adressed the loss of design space argument. Having a dedicated Codex to a specific subfaction with a specific playstyle means you can make that playstyle more coherent without having to worry about what knockoff effects it will have on other subfactions. I'm not opposed to adding a bunch of options to the Vanilla Codex (most blatantly the wargear options, but also stuff like specialist Terminators and Jump Pack Honour Guard and the like) but the advantage of having separate books is that you can make them more divergent in order to promote a different playstyle in a way that you're not going to replicate with just Chapter Tactics.
Using the Black Templars 4th edition Codex as an example, just porting over Righteous Zeal and the Vows as Chapter Tactic to a Vanilla Codex would make that Chapter Tactic massive compared to all the others, so what happens in practice is that the stuff you're porting gets cut down, because you now need to squeeze it in with a bunch of other stuff.
It is entirely possible to do what you are describing in a workable manner. I just don't trust GW to do it, and thus would rather they left people's armies alone.
Also, not agreeing with someone isn't the same as winning an argument.
EDIT: And successor Chapters is easily solvable by GW simply letting successors use the same stuff as the primogenitor Chapter, the way pretty much everyone (that I know of at least) already plays the game.
It is entirely possible to do what you are describing in a workable manner. I just don't trust GW to do it, and thus would rather they left people's armies alone.
Why not? You trust the messed up system they already have in place. They've already messed with numerous other people's armies (including two of mine in the past, Chaos Marines and Black Templars), and they will do so again. In fact, they mess with every army whenever they release a new index or codex.
Do you think that GW would keep putting resources into things that were not profitable? Dark Angels, Blood Angels and a space Wolves appear to have enough enduring distinctiveness and popularity to warrant their continued support as their own "factions." At the end of the day, I think what the community wants is more important than what one individual wants.
Do you think that a Codex Iron Hands would be distinct enough from the Space Marines Codex and popular enough to be successful? Go write one. Pitch it to GW. What we are seeing now is White Dwarf treatment of other Chapters - that is awesome.
The additional Marine codexes do use resources that I suppose could be devoted to make an additional Eldar or Tyranid Codex, or perhaps a whole new faction. I argue that the return on investment for the DA, BA and SW is better. It's not the same level of effort as a new force, and there is a good market for the modest investment for a DA Codex and line. The DA have a different structure that give three baseline army styles and a number of distinct units for a modest number of unique sculpts and boxes.
We have had a slew of Codexes since 8th dropped. The distinct Marine codexes do not seem to have stopped the other factions getting their due. Look at the rich GSC Codex and line. Vigilus shows that GW is spreading some love around to the various factions and indeed Chapters.
Cheers
And we have heard nothing but constant complaints from Marine players since the start of 8th edition.
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex is not out yet,
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex is out but too weak,
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex is after another faction when the other half dozen Marine dexes are alreayd out.
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex only gets X models (when other factions get none is a particular gem)
How exactly do you argue that the investment is better if its Never been tested? what kind of logic is that?
Now we are finally getting other Main factions releases - but ony after a river of the same old Marine dexes, clogging up the schedule with a few minor rules variants.
How many new or non Marine sub faction Dexes have been given a chance - none.
Your first five lines don't really add anything to the discussion. So what if people complained? Was I complaining? What does that have to do with my post? One of the loudest and most persistent Marine complainers is on your side of this debate for what its worth.
Regarding the return on investment, the Dark Angels Codex could take advantage of the baseline work already done on the Space Marines Codex. The Dark Angels model line already exists. It has an established player base. A new faction book would need much greater development costs across the board. The risk with a new faction would also be much greater. GW could look at sales for Dark Angels Codexes and units over the last two editions as a guide. They would not be able to do that with a new faction book.
What order should the Codexes have come out in? Arguable for sure. Some of the earlier ones might have actually wanted to be later!
Consolidate... as in sharing the same basic codex framework, plugging in DA/SW/BA rules into the Chapter Tactics system? -No. I think there are enough distinctions that you would end up with some confusion or severe watering down.
Compile all the rules into a super sized codex that simply removes the redundant unit entries... I think so. It's just very unlikely.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At the risk of fething over everyone who plays a variant army.
What's fethed over via consolidation that I haven't already tackled? You for sure already lost the Black Templar argument.
You never adressed the loss of design space argument. Having a dedicated Codex to a specific subfaction with a specific playstyle means you can make that playstyle more coherent without having to worry about what knockoff effects it will have on other subfactions. I'm not opposed to adding a bunch of options to the Vanilla Codex (most blatantly the wargear options, but also stuff like specialist Terminators and Jump Pack Honour Guard and the like) but the advantage of having separate books is that you can make them more divergent in order to promote a different playstyle in a way that you're not going to replicate with just Chapter Tactics.
Using the Black Templars 4th edition Codex as an example, just porting over Righteous Zeal and the Vows as Chapter Tactic to a Vanilla Codex would make that Chapter Tactic massive compared to all the others, so what happens in practice is that the stuff you're porting gets cut down, because you now need to squeeze it in with a bunch of other stuff.
It is entirely possible to do what you are describing in a workable manner. I just don't trust GW to do it, and thus would rather they left people's armies alone.
Also, not agreeing with someone isn't the same as winning an argument.
EDIT: And successor Chapters is easily solvable by GW simply letting successors use the same stuff as the primogenitor Chapter, the way pretty much everyone (that I know of at least) already plays the game.
Design space applies to units. That's why it's silly to have the Dark Angel's fliers when they're functionally the exact same as the Stormhawk and Stormtalon.
In terms of combat style, nobody is actually that divergent to the Codex outside Space Wolves, and honestly it's impossible to argue otherwise. That's why a simple 3-4 SUPER specialized units or models + whatever Special Characters are all that's necessary to tackle whatever divergence exists.
Also you're still wrong about the "size" of a Chapter Tactic for Black Templars being an issue. Look at ones like the Dark Angels got, or White Scars, or even look to other outside armies like the hotblooded Sisters or Deathskulls or The Hivecult or Bladed Cog.
aka_mythos wrote: Consolidate... as in sharing the same basic codex framework, plugging in DA/SW/BA rules into the Chapter Tactics system? -No. I think there are enough distinctions that you would end up with some confusion or severe watering down.
Compile all the rules into a super sized codex that simply removes the redundant unit entries... I think so. It's just very unlikely.
If GW went for a digital version of that it could work. A physical book, even cutting out duplicate units would be the size of a text book between characters, background, model and paint examples and rules. I don't know off had how many pages it would be but considering the standard marine codex is already over 200 pages, adding in the rest would probably at least double that. I don't really want to lug around a 400 to 500 page book for a bunch of units and armies I don't play.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At the risk of fething over everyone who plays a variant army.
What's fethed over via consolidation that I haven't already tackled? You for sure already lost the Black Templar argument.
You never adressed the loss of design space argument. Having a dedicated Codex to a specific subfaction with a specific playstyle means you can make that playstyle more coherent without having to worry about what knockoff effects it will have on other subfactions. I'm not opposed to adding a bunch of options to the Vanilla Codex (most blatantly the wargear options, but also stuff like specialist Terminators and Jump Pack Honour Guard and the like) but the advantage of having separate books is that you can make them more divergent in order to promote a different playstyle in a way that you're not going to replicate with just Chapter Tactics.
Using the Black Templars 4th edition Codex as an example, just porting over Righteous Zeal and the Vows as Chapter Tactic to a Vanilla Codex would make that Chapter Tactic massive compared to all the others, so what happens in practice is that the stuff you're porting gets cut down, because you now need to squeeze it in with a bunch of other stuff.
It is entirely possible to do what you are describing in a workable manner. I just don't trust GW to do it, and thus would rather they left people's armies alone.
Also, not agreeing with someone isn't the same as winning an argument.
EDIT: And successor Chapters is easily solvable by GW simply letting successors use the same stuff as the primogenitor Chapter, the way pretty much everyone (that I know of at least) already plays the game.
Design space applies to units. That's why it's silly to have the Dark Angel's fliers when they're functionally the exact same as the Stormhawk and Stormtalon.
In terms of combat style, nobody is actually that divergent to the Codex outside Space Wolves, and honestly it's impossible to argue otherwise. That's why a simple 3-4 SUPER specialized units or models + whatever Special Characters are all that's necessary to tackle whatever divergence exists.
Also you're still wrong about the "size" of a Chapter Tactic for Black Templars being an issue. Look at ones like the Dark Angels got, or White Scars, or even look to other outside armies like the hotblooded Sisters or Deathskulls or The Hivecult or Bladed Cog.
By that logic why does any Imperium faction have its own unique flyers? Everyone should only ever use Stormhawk/talons since they already fill the required role on the battle field
PS. You do realize for the Dark Angels, outside of characters, they only need five kits to field 17/19 of the unique models and accompanying datasheets in the codex. With the other two being an Interrogator chaplin and a chapter banner bearer (which are pretty much equivalent to just getting a model for a named character in terms of resources). So unless you want one kit to provide those 3 to 4 unit options, I dont see what gains you expect will happen, Or are you arguing that GW should just straight up remove portions of these five kits, so they cant make as many different options, but still invest the resources into having these four DA kits, just lite versions with less options and customization?
aka_mythos wrote: Consolidate... as in sharing the same basic codex framework, plugging in DA/SW/BA rules into the Chapter Tactics system? -No. I think there are enough distinctions that you would end up with some confusion or severe watering down.
Compile all the rules into a super sized codex that simply removes the redundant unit entries... I think so. It's just very unlikely.
If GW went for a digital version of that it could work. A physical book, even cutting out duplicate units would be the size of a text book between characters, background, model and paint examples and rules. I don't know off had how many pages it would be but considering the standard marine codex is already over 200 pages, adding in the rest would probably at least double that. I don't really want to lug around a 400 to 500 page book for a bunch of units and armies I don't play.
I imagine it'd be like having a second core rule book.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We should scrap Tau. They're just another shooty army anyway. Fire Warriors are Guardians, Battle Suits are Wraithguard, Stormsurges are Wraithknights and we'll get rid of Riptides because they're just silly and won't be missed. Hammerheads are Fire Prisms, Devilfishes are Wave Serpents, Broadside Battlesuits are Wraithlords. Ethereals are Farseers, Fireblades are Autarchs, and so on and so forth.
Tau are a nonentity competetively compared to Eldar anyway, so I'm sure all the Tau players would enjoy their new options.
This just about sums up my opinion aswell.
The irony is, you'd think players were sick of having parts of their army squatted.
On this thread there are players asking for more squatting......... naturally for armies they do not have though lol.
As for multi meltas, I will state (and clearly state) piss off.
My salamanders are packed with them.
I'm not chopping up yet more models to swap weapons because they changed them (again)
So what's next from that? We just take them out of 40k completely?
Sorry sisters, guard, etc, but they are gone now.
In the year 40k they forgot how to make them and some sneaky git stole the remaining ones.
Not my fault you make bad choices.
It's a useless weapon for basically all Infantry units, so nobody is going to cry. Pretend it's something useful instead.
Give it a rest, how many times are you going to move the goalposts?
First it's nobody uses Multi-Meltas, then when that is proven to be absolutely false, it's now "not my fault you make bad choices".
If we're going by your logic we may as well say "no one is playing Tactical Marines", or "it's not by fault you use tactical marines". If your logic with the MM is applicable to Tac Marines, we should drop them too.
Are you going to tell me that my Ravenwing Attack Bike Multi-Meltas are crap too?
72Canadian72 wrote: By that logic why does any Imperium faction have its own unique flyers? Everyone should only ever use Stormhawk/talons since they already fill the required role on the battle field
This is a good question. The original fluff was that the Imperial Navy had control of all aircraft and every Imperial faction should have the same Thunderbolt/Lightning/Marauder/etc options, the various space marine aircraft are blatantly anti-fluffy and cartoonish abominations looks-wise. There was no reason to add them, other than GW's marketing department insisting that they needed new space marine kits. I would be perfectly happy if GW removed them all and added a note in the fluff that the heretics responsible were executed and all surviving stocks of space marine aircraft were scrapped.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Using the Black Templars 4th edition Codex as an example, just porting over Righteous Zeal and the Vows as Chapter Tactic to a Vanilla Codex would make that Chapter Tactic massive compared to all the others, so what happens in practice is that the stuff you're porting gets cut down, because you now need to squeeze it in with a bunch of other stuff.
But why do you need to port over literally every single rule? This the trap that people, GW included, keep falling into: that every rule that has existed in the past needs to continue to exist. But realistically what defines Black Templars? Being Khorne berserkers in black armor. Have their chapter tactics give them +1 WS and replace all boltguns with bolt pistols and call it done. They have to get up close and start chopping to kill anything, but they're also good at it once they get there. The idea that every single minor space marine chapter with a slight variant on the stock tactical/assault/devastator trio needs a whole separate codex is utter lunacy. You can capture the essence of every space marine chapter with a chapter tactics rule and 1-2 special characters. There is no justification for having more than two space marine codices, one for normal marines and one for extra spiky marines.
72Canadian72 wrote: By that logic why does any Imperium faction have its own unique flyers? Everyone should only ever use Stormhawk/talons since they already fill the required role on the battle field
This is a good question. The original fluff was that the Imperial Navy had control of all aircraft and every Imperial faction should have the same Thunderbolt/Lightning/Marauder/etc options, the various space marine aircraft are blatantly anti-fluffy and cartoonish abominations looks-wise. There was no reason to add them, other than GW's marketing department insisting that they needed new space marine kits. I would be perfectly happy if GW removed them all and added a note in the fluff that the heretics responsible were executed and all surviving stocks of space marine aircraft were scrapped.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Using the Black Templars 4th edition Codex as an example, just porting over Righteous Zeal and the Vows as Chapter Tactic to a Vanilla Codex would make that Chapter Tactic massive compared to all the others, so what happens in practice is that the stuff you're porting gets cut down, because you now need to squeeze it in with a bunch of other stuff.
But why do you need to port over literally every single rule? This the trap that people, GW included, keep falling into: that every rule that has existed in the past needs to continue to exist. But realistically what defines Black Templars? Being Khorne berserkers in black armor. Have their chapter tactics give them +1 WS and replace all boltguns with bolt pistols and call it done. They have to get up close and start chopping to kill anything, but they're also good at it once they get there. The idea that every single minor space marine chapter with a slight variant on the stock tactical/assault/devastator trio needs a whole separate codex is utter lunacy. You can capture the essence of every space marine chapter with a chapter tactics rule and 1-2 special characters. There is no justification for having more than two space marine codices, one for normal marines and one for extra spiky marines.
Do Thunderhawks appear in the "original" fluff? The Dark Talons are in the fluff as well.
Regarding your other points, we have established distinct Chapters that are doing quite well with their distinct Codexes. There is no need to strip down the Marine line as you propose. The Marine factions do play differently.
They did, but they're primarily transport aircraft not air superiority or ground attack fighters. And it's pretty amusing, the one space marine flyer that isn't a very recent product of the GW marketing department is the only one that doesn't appear on the table.
The Dark Talons are in the fluff as well.
Only once GW invented that fluff to satisfy the marketing department's demand for a new space marine kit.
Regarding your other points, we have established distinct Chapters that are doing quite well with their distinct Codexes. There is no need to strip down the Marine line as you propose. The Marine factions do play differently.
There is plenty of need: reducing the rules bloat and trimming the game down to a point where GW can manage it and the extra attention required by all the special snowflake marine codices doesen't overwhelm all of the other factions. And sure, they play a bit differently, but more differently than different archetypes from a non-marine codex? I doubt it.
They did, but they're primarily transport aircraft not air superiority or ground attack fighters. And it's pretty amusing, the one space marine flyer that isn't a very recent product of the GW marketing department is the only one that doesn't appear on the table.
The Dark Talons are in the fluff as well.
Only once GW invented that fluff to satisfy the marketing department's demand for a new space marine kit.
Regarding your other points, we have established distinct Chapters that are doing quite well with their distinct Codexes. There is no need to strip down the Marine line as you propose. The Marine factions do play differently.
There is plenty of need: reducing the rules bloat and trimming the game down to a point where GW can manage it and the extra attention required by all the special snowflake marine codices doesen't overwhelm all of the other factions. And sure, they play a bit differently, but more differently than different archetypes from a non-marine codex? I doubt it.
so old fluff to market the game is ok but new fluff to market the game is bad? gotcha
Only once GW invented that fluff to satisfy the marketing department's demand for a new space marine kit.
.....Thats the reason the fluff exists in the first place. To help GW sell models by telling a compelling story/background with which to play with them. Its not like thats unique to Dark Talons, its true for every single model.
Regarding your other points, we have established distinct Chapters that are doing quite well with their distinct Codexes. There is no need to strip down the Marine line as you propose. The Marine factions do play differently.
There is plenty of need: reducing the rules bloat and trimming the game down to a point where GW can manage it and the extra attention required by all the special snowflake marine codices doesen't overwhelm all of the other factions. And sure, they play a bit differently, but more differently than different archetypes from a non-marine codex? I doubt it.
The special snowflake chapters pay for themselves. If they didnt they would have gone the way of the BT or the Valhallan IG long ago. A profitable army line doesnt deprive other armies of anything. Those armies success or lack there of with players determines their own profitability and thus the amount of attention and investment from GW. Dont forget GW is in the business of selling models. That is their number one goal. Throwing away profitable armies is counter productive for GW, so dont expect to see it happen any time soon.
Only once GW invented that fluff to satisfy the marketing department's demand for a new space marine kit.
.....Thats the reason the fluff exists in the first place. To help GW sell models by telling a compelling story/background with which to play with them. Its not like thats unique to Dark Talons, its true for every single model.
Regarding your other points, we have established distinct Chapters that are doing quite well with their distinct Codexes. There is no need to strip down the Marine line as you propose. The Marine factions do play differently.
There is plenty of need: reducing the rules bloat and trimming the game down to a point where GW can manage it and the extra attention required by all the special snowflake marine codices doesen't overwhelm all of the other factions. And sure, they play a bit differently, but more differently than different archetypes from a non-marine codex? I doubt it.
The special snowflake chapters pay for themselves. If they didnt they would have gone the way of the BT or the Valhallan IG long ago. A profitable army line doesnt deprive other armies of anything. Those armies success or lack there of with players determines their own profitability and thus the amount of attention and investment from GW. Dont forget GW is in the business of selling models. That is their number one goal. Throwing away profitable armies is counter productive for GW, so dont expect to see it happen any time soon.
But we are not asking to remove them... A consolidation would mean other players could buy into kits like the baal predator etc... How would this loose gw any profit?
Apart from selling book of course but I dont think that counts...
So all chapters get the same exact stuff?
They are then just red marines, blue marines, green marines etc.
The ability to make them individual chapters starts to vanish at this point.
Can't say I've seen other chapters use them in the fluff.
What's next, do we hand ultras death company to use and forge some new fluff quick?
This is also a snowball effect.
Chaos players then see this and they want it.
After all, if it's not exclusive to any chapter, they may aswell have it too.
Removing flavour from chapters just makes them boring and boring doesn't sell.
This is ironically my main draw to 30k.
Each chapter is different.
There is none of this "but my chapter wants that too!" (Alpha legion not counting here)
Jackal90 wrote: So all chapters get the same exact stuff?
They are then just red marines, blue marines, green marines etc.
The ability to make them individual chapters starts to vanish at this point.
Can't say I've seen other chapters use them in the fluff.
What's next, do we hand ultras death company to use and forge some new fluff quick?
This is also a snowball effect.
Chaos players then see this and they want it.
After all, if it's not exclusive to any chapter, they may aswell have it too.
Removing flavour from chapters just makes them boring and boring doesn't sell.
This is ironically my main draw to 30k.
Each chapter is different.
There is none of this "but my chapter wants that too!" (Alpha legion not counting here)
So you are against the same basic principle that attracts you to the 30K Legions?
There are the basic marine units that everyone can have and a few actual special units which is wierdly what we are suggesting - you use Keywords, Chapter tactics and unit options to allow people to build unique, interesting and fluffy units for any Chapter not just three.
Why is it that everything has to pander to those three Chapters? When you can have the same variety but open to all.
I have no issue with other chapters having access to generic wargear where it's appropriate. This includes Baal Predators, Plasma cannons in terminator sqds, etc. By all means consolidate those into single entries, but chapter specific units need to remain that and not get squatted. DW knights, BK knights, Dark talons, TWC, DC, etc. With those units, the consolidated book would still be too big.
As for an earlier comment comparing Deathwing to regular terminator sqds, Deathwing have the opportunity to add TH/SS to a shooty sqd to help absorb high AP weaponry. Makes them more versatile than standard marines (although I'd be in favour of combining all terminator sqds into one unit so other chapters have this option too)
Jackal90 wrote: So all chapters get the same exact stuff?
They are then just red marines, blue marines, green marines etc.
The ability to make them individual chapters starts to vanish at this point.
Can't say I've seen other chapters use them in the fluff.
What's next, do we hand ultras death company to use and forge some new fluff quick?
This is also a snowball effect.
Chaos players then see this and they want it.
After all, if it's not exclusive to any chapter, they may aswell have it too.
Removing flavour from chapters just makes them boring and boring doesn't sell.
This is ironically my main draw to 30k.
Each chapter is different.
There is none of this "but my chapter wants that too!" (Alpha legion not counting here)
So you are against the same basic principle that attracts you to the 30K Legions?
There are the basic marine units that everyone can have and a few actual special units which is wierdly what we are suggesting - you use Keywords, Chapter tactics and unit options to allow people to build unique, interesting and fluffy units for any Chapter not just three.
Why is it that everything has to pander to those three Chapters? When you can have the same variety but open to all.
It's not even remotely close to 30k.
30k keeps what's exclusive to each chapter.
This isn't just alot of specific units, it's also wargear and army structure aswell.
What's being proposed would be like saying feth it, salamanders get firedrake terminators, let's give them to everyone.
Palantine blades? Yea why not, everyone can take those.
The only similarity is that it has a core of generic marines (but not always)
bullyboy wrote: I have no issue with other chapters having access to generic wargear where it's appropriate. This includes Baal Predators, Plasma cannons in terminator sqds, etc. By all means consolidate those into single entries, but chapter specific units need to remain that and not get squatted. DW knights, BK knights, Dark talons, TWC, DC, etc. With those units, the consolidated book would still be too big.
As for an earlier comment comparing Deathwing to regular terminator sqds, Deathwing have the opportunity to add TH/SS to a shooty sqd to help absorb high AP weaponry. Makes them more versatile than standard marines (although I'd be in favour of combining all terminator sqds into one unit so other chapters have this option too)
The DW terminators with mixed assult and ranged wargear is funilly enough the same wargear setup blood angels use in the space hulk board game. Yet currently only dark angels can do it in the main 40k game. Stuff like this should defenetly be universal terminator options.
The special snowflake chapters pay for themselves. If they didnt they would have gone the way of the BT or the Valhallan IG long ago. A profitable army line doesnt deprive other armies of anything. Those armies success or lack there of with players determines their own profitability and thus the amount of attention and investment from GW. Dont forget GW is in the business of selling models. That is their number one goal. Throwing away profitable armies is counter productive for GW, so dont expect to see it happen any time soon.
\
That sounds like a claim that armies are unpopular, because of players doing GW wrong. Armies or units aren't popular because GW gives them bad rules, if GW gave good rules to at least a majority of their models the armies would be played. If someone knows an army is in a bad state, they are not going to pick it up,
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At the risk of fething over everyone who plays a variant army.
What's fethed over via consolidation that I haven't already tackled? You for sure already lost the Black Templar argument.
You never adressed the loss of design space argument. Having a dedicated Codex to a specific subfaction with a specific playstyle means you can make that playstyle more coherent without having to worry about what knockoff effects it will have on other subfactions. I'm not opposed to adding a bunch of options to the Vanilla Codex (most blatantly the wargear options, but also stuff like specialist Terminators and Jump Pack Honour Guard and the like) but the advantage of having separate books is that you can make them more divergent in order to promote a different playstyle in a way that you're not going to replicate with just Chapter Tactics.
Using the Black Templars 4th edition Codex as an example, just porting over Righteous Zeal and the Vows as Chapter Tactic to a Vanilla Codex would make that Chapter Tactic massive compared to all the others, so what happens in practice is that the stuff you're porting gets cut down, because you now need to squeeze it in with a bunch of other stuff.
It is entirely possible to do what you are describing in a workable manner. I just don't trust GW to do it, and thus would rather they left people's armies alone.
Also, not agreeing with someone isn't the same as winning an argument.
EDIT: And successor Chapters is easily solvable by GW simply letting successors use the same stuff as the primogenitor Chapter, the way pretty much everyone (that I know of at least) already plays the game.
Design space applies to units. That's why it's silly to have the Dark Angel's fliers when they're functionally the exact same as the Stormhawk and Stormtalon.
In terms of combat style, nobody is actually that divergent to the Codex outside Space Wolves, and honestly it's impossible to argue otherwise. That's why a simple 3-4 SUPER specialized units or models + whatever Special Characters are all that's necessary to tackle whatever divergence exists.
Also you're still wrong about the "size" of a Chapter Tactic for Black Templars being an issue. Look at ones like the Dark Angels got, or White Scars, or even look to other outside armies like the hotblooded Sisters or Deathskulls or The Hivecult or Bladed Cog.
By that logic why does any Imperium faction have its own unique flyers? Everyone should only ever use Stormhawk/talons since they already fill the required role on the battle field
PS. You do realize for the Dark Angels, outside of characters, they only need five kits to field 17/19 of the unique models and accompanying datasheets in the codex. With the other two being an Interrogator chaplin and a chapter banner bearer (which are pretty much equivalent to just getting a model for a named character in terms of resources). So unless you want one kit to provide those 3 to 4 unit options, I dont see what gains you expect will happen, Or are you arguing that GW should just straight up remove portions of these five kits, so they cant make as many different options, but still invest the resources into having these four DA kits, just lite versions with less options and customization?
Space Marines originally didn't have Fliers, so forcibly adding them is something people still disagree on. However, at least Imperial Guard have a few unique ones compared to the Dark Angel's ones doing the EXACT same thing as the Stormhawk/Talon. Therefore, unnecessary profile to try and balance.
Those would simply be upgrade kits and bitz. Ravenwing aren't unique, they're just Bikers. Use the Biker profile and balance from there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jackal90 wrote: So all chapters get the same exact stuff?
They are then just red marines, blue marines, green marines etc.
The ability to make them individual chapters starts to vanish at this point.
Can't say I've seen other chapters use them in the fluff.
What's next, do we hand ultras death company to use and forge some new fluff quick?
This is also a snowball effect.
Chaos players then see this and they want it.
After all, if it's not exclusive to any chapter, they may aswell have it too.
Removing flavour from chapters just makes them boring and boring doesn't sell.
This is ironically my main draw to 30k.
Each chapter is different.
There is none of this "but my chapter wants that too!" (Alpha legion not counting here)
CSM players wanting things like that is the reason Renegades should've been handled in the regular Marine codex.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We should scrap Tau. They're just another shooty army anyway. Fire Warriors are Guardians, Battle Suits are Wraithguard, Stormsurges are Wraithknights and we'll get rid of Riptides because they're just silly and won't be missed. Hammerheads are Fire Prisms, Devilfishes are Wave Serpents, Broadside Battlesuits are Wraithlords. Ethereals are Farseers, Fireblades are Autarchs, and so on and so forth.
Tau are a nonentity competetively compared to Eldar anyway, so I'm sure all the Tau players would enjoy their new options.
This just about sums up my opinion aswell.
The irony is, you'd think players were sick of having parts of their army squatted.
On this thread there are players asking for more squatting......... naturally for armies they do not have though lol.
As for multi meltas, I will state (and clearly state) piss off.
My salamanders are packed with them.
I'm not chopping up yet more models to swap weapons because they changed them (again)
So what's next from that? We just take them out of 40k completely?
Sorry sisters, guard, etc, but they are gone now.
In the year 40k they forgot how to make them and some sneaky git stole the remaining ones.
Not my fault you make bad choices.
It's a useless weapon for basically all Infantry units, so nobody is going to cry. Pretend it's something useful instead.
Give it a rest, how many times are you going to move the goalposts?
First it's nobody uses Multi-Meltas, then when that is proven to be absolutely false, it's now "not my fault you make bad choices".
If we're going by your logic we may as well say "no one is playing Tactical Marines", or "it's not by fault you use tactical marines". If your logic with the MM is applicable to Tac Marines, we should drop them too.
Are you going to tell me that my Ravenwing Attack Bike Multi-Meltas are crap too?
You purposely chose to use a weapon nobody else is using in a game because there's no design space for a short range weapon that loses accuracy on the move that has a single shot that relies on outside models or abilities to be mediocre. Hell, not even Assault Marine + Devastator Marine formation last edition made them a good choice, and they were only 10 points!
It's a false choice, all in all. You have the right to enjoy the look of the weapon, but its profile is hot garbage and always has been for any infantry units carrying them. Proxy them as something far better like a Lascannon or Grav Cannon, or even a fancy Heavy Flamer since you're so concerned about keeping the Salamanders theme.
Yeah actually, Attack Bikes with Multi-Meltas are garbage now. At least they were Relentless last edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Moving the goalposts is all Slayer-Fan's argument has left, though.
I didn't move the goalposts. The model isn't used because it's bad. People still buy Terminators after all. Hell I even own a couple of Grey Knights kits. That doesn't prove anything though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You also have yet to explain why illusion of choice is better than not having the option.
Terminators aren't used?
Maybe not in every tournament army but they are indeed used and they are a pretty popular model as a whole.
Again, you are trying to speak for every player, which is just a complete joke of an argument.
First it was that people don't use multimeltas atall.
Then it changed because people posted that they did.
Which is it?
Seems like grasping at straws now.
Edit: As a side note, you don't seem to grasp the concept of time either.
You assume people have recently got these models and assembled them.
You don't stop to think that maybe they have had them for some time now.
Rules change alot over time, people don't want to hack apart models constantly to change weapons.
bullyboy wrote: I have no issue with other chapters having access to generic wargear where it's appropriate. This includes Baal Predators, Plasma cannons in terminator sqds, etc. By all means consolidate those into single entries, but chapter specific units need to remain that and not get squatted. DW knights, BK knights, Dark talons, TWC, DC, etc. With those units, the consolidated book would still be too big.
I don't think so. It might need some extra pages but not much. You can also save space by combining unnecessarily separate options under one datasheet via wargear options. Like all Land Raiders can be just one datasheet with an option to pick gear, Baal Predator is just a new weapon option for Predator, etc. We can also get rid of some special characters by giving the generic characters gear options to represent them.
As for an earlier comment comparing Deathwing to regular terminator sqds, Deathwing have the opportunity to add TH/SS to a shooty sqd to help absorb high AP weaponry. Makes them more versatile than standard marines (although I'd be in favour of combining all terminator sqds into one unit so other chapters have this option too)
That is one of those things everybody should be able to do. Also combines two unnecessarily different datasheet under one Terminator entry.
Jackal90 wrote: Terminators aren't used?
Maybe not in every tournament army but they are indeed used and they are a pretty popular model as a whole.
Again, you are trying to speak for every player, which is just a complete joke of an argument.
First it was that people don't use multimeltas atall.
Then it changed because people posted that they did.
Which is it?
Seems like grasping at straws now.
Edit: As a side note, you don't seem to grasp the concept of time either.
You assume people have recently got these models and assembled them.
You don't stop to think that maybe they have had them for some time now.
Rules change alot over time, people don't want to hack apart models constantly to change weapons.
His whole argument has become a joke now. Keeps making false claims with zero evidence to back them up.
Jackal90 wrote: Terminators aren't used?
Maybe not in every tournament army but they are indeed used and they are a pretty popular model as a whole.
Again, you are trying to speak for every player, which is just a complete joke of an argument.
First it was that people don't use multimeltas atall.
Then it changed because people posted that they did.
Which is it?
Seems like grasping at straws now.
Edit: As a side note, you don't seem to grasp the concept of time either.
You assume people have recently got these models and assembled them.
You don't stop to think that maybe they have had them for some time now.
Rules change alot over time, people don't want to hack apart models constantly to change weapons.
His whole argument has become a joke now. Keeps making false claims with zero evidence to back them up.
The problem is that it isn't just false claims, they are just outright laughable as anyone that's been playing for more than 5 mins can see straight past the BS.
The special snowflake chapters pay for themselves. If they didnt they would have gone the way of the BT or the Valhallan IG long ago. A profitable army line doesnt deprive other armies of anything. Those armies success or lack there of with players determines their own profitability and thus the amount of attention and investment from GW. Dont forget GW is in the business of selling models. That is their number one goal. Throwing away profitable armies is counter productive for GW, so dont expect to see it happen any time soon.
\
That sounds like a claim that armies are unpopular, because of players doing GW wrong. Armies or units aren't popular because GW gives them bad rules, if GW gave good rules to at least a majority of their models the armies would be played. If someone knows an army is in a bad state, they are not going to pick it up,
except Space Marines are the top selling army in 40k, and are not the most powerful army.
I repeat the best selling army is not the most powerful army
which entirely proves your claim that sales are driven purely by how awesome their rules are, to be demonstratively FALSE
Whilst I think that combining would be a good idea, I strongly disagree with Slayer that it should entail removing some gear options. I want existing options to be shared across the chapters in greater degree, I don't want them to be removed.
Crimson wrote: Whilst I think that combining would be a good idea, I strongly disagree with Slayer that it should entail removing some gear options. I want existing options to be shared across the chapters in greater degree, I don't want them to be removed.
They could simply bring back the Wargear Pages of old, have the Generic Everyone has access pages and then the Chapter Specific Pages.
Or, they could copy what GW did with their SM. Y'know - have multiple armies in the same book, as they shared most of the rules. While specifying the rules that varied between them. And having entries that are restricted to certain factions where appropriate.
Jackal90 wrote: Terminators aren't used?
Maybe not in every tournament army but they are indeed used and they are a pretty popular model as a whole.
Again, you are trying to speak for every player, which is just a complete joke of an argument.
First it was that people don't use multimeltas atall.
Then it changed because people posted that they did.
Which is it?
Seems like grasping at straws now.
Edit: As a side note, you don't seem to grasp the concept of time either.
You assume people have recently got these models and assembled them.
You don't stop to think that maybe they have had them for some time now.
Rules change alot over time, people don't want to hack apart models constantly to change weapons.
His whole argument has become a joke now. Keeps making false claims with zero evidence to back them up.
The problem is that it isn't just false claims, they are just outright laughable as anyone that's been playing for more than 5 mins can see straight past the BS.
Please by all means show me ALL these lists making use of Multi-Meltas on their Marines that show up anywhere. I can't wait to see your findings.
"Eldar were mediocre at their worst. Spare us your tears."
The difference between "Mediocre" and "Bad":
When Marines aren't in the top 5 books, they're "Bad".
When Eldar are in the bottom 5 books, they're "Mediocre".
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Please by all means show me ALL these lists making use of Multi-Meltas on their Marines that show up anywhere. I can't wait to see your findings."
Here's a thread where there's some people who use Melta. Perhaps you've seen it before?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772776.page
Yeah I really appreciated it when my Black Templars lost all the things I liked about them. Vow's? Gone. Charging foward under fire? Gone. Extra Access to LRCs? Nope. Unique wargear like the Holy Orb of Antioc? Gone. Non Orthodox haters of Guillimans precious codex? Nope we love it now.
And then when I switched to Iron Hands I got the same treatment. Bonus feel no pain for my leaders? Nope. Cool Wargear? Disappeared. Multiple special warlord traits? Just one now. And a whole new "exciting" fluff to boot.
These calls for consolidation always sound like this to me: "In the hopes that I get a personal benefit out of it, through increased attention to the models and rules I like, I want GW to take a crap on the models and rules you like."
I HAVE AN IDEA, HOW ABOUT YOU ADVOCATE FOR EXPANDED AND
UNIQUE RULES FOR EVERYONE INSTEAD OF ADVOCATING FOR TAKING THEM AWAY FROM THOSE WHO HAVE THEM.
On an unrelated note, now that I play deathwatch, I had this great idea to integrate them into the space marine codex by getting rid of mixed units and special ammo and mission tactics and all their crazy unmanageable and complicated Wargear options. Instead we can just make them an entry in the codex with like a single special rule or something... I think it would be pretty popular and really help the game out...
These calls for consolidation always sound like this to me: "In the hopes that I get a personal benefit out of it, through increased attention to the models and rules I like, I want GW to take a crap on the models and rules you like."
These calls for consolidation always sound like this to me: "In the hopes that I get a personal benefit out of it, through increased attention to the models and rules I like, I want GW to take a crap on the models and rules you like."
thats cause thats EXACTLY what it is.
No it isn't. There are many vocal Marine variety players that are for consolidation.
You purposely chose to use a weapon nobody else is using in a game because there's no design space for a short range weapon that loses accuracy on the move that has a single shot that relies on outside models or abilities to be mediocre. Hell, not even Assault Marine + Devastator Marine formation last edition made them a good choice, and they were only 10 points!
It's a false choice, all in all. You have the right to enjoy the look of the weapon, but its profile is hot garbage and always has been for any infantry units carrying them. Proxy them as something far better like a Lascannon or Grav Cannon, or even a fancy Heavy Flamer since you're so concerned about keeping the Salamanders theme.
Always? Even in 2nd ed? You absolutely sure the time when they were blast weapons(one of their prime bonuses when shooting at vehicles. Rather than hitting one location you hit several. d6+2d12+8 vs 3d6+9 on lascannon also didn't hurt Average 24.5 vs 19.5. When leman russ hull had armour 22 and turret 25 ability to hut both and average success on both was rather valuable.
Just because it's bad now doesn't mean it has to be bad always.
Cryogenicman wrote: Yeah I really appreciated it when my Black Templars lost all the things I liked about them. Vow's? Gone. Charging foward under fire? Gone. Extra Access to LRCs? Nope. Unique wargear like the Holy Orb of Antioc? Gone. Non Orthodox haters of Guillimans precious codex? Nope we love it now.
And then when I switched to Iron Hands I got the same treatment. Bonus feel no pain for my leaders? Nope. Cool Wargear? Disappeared. Multiple special warlord traits? Just one now. And a whole new "exciting" fluff to boot.
These calls for consolidation always sound like this to me: "In the hopes that I get a personal benefit out of it, through increased attention to the models and rules I like, I want GW to take a crap on the models and rules you like."
I HAVE AN IDEA, HOW ABOUT YOU ADVOCATE FOR EXPANDED AND
UNIQUE RULES FOR EVERYONE INSTEAD OF ADVOCATING FOR TAKING THEM AWAY FROM THOSE WHO HAVE THEM.
On an unrelated note, now that I play deathwatch, I had this great idea to integrate them into the space marine codex by getting rid of mixed units and special ammo and mission tactics and all their crazy unmanageable and complicated Wargear options. Instead we can just make them an entry in the codex with like a single special rule or something... I think it would be pretty popular and really help the game out...
I'm for consolidating Deathwatch, Grey Knights, and Sisters into an Inquisition codex actually. Wouldn't be too hard as neither army has that many unit entries, so it wouldn't be a terribly large codex, and gives focus to those mixed armies we like.
Cryogenicman wrote: Yeah I really appreciated it when my Black Templars lost all the things I liked about them. Vow's? Gone. Charging foward under fire? Gone. Extra Access to LRCs? Nope. Unique wargear like the Holy Orb of Antioc? Gone. Non Orthodox haters of Guillimans precious codex? Nope we love it now.
And then when I switched to Iron Hands I got the same treatment. Bonus feel no pain for my leaders? Nope. Cool Wargear? Disappeared. Multiple special warlord traits? Just one now. And a whole new "exciting" fluff to boot.
These calls for consolidation always sound like this to me: "In the hopes that I get a personal benefit out of it, through increased attention to the models and rules I like, I want GW to take a crap on the models and rules you like."
I HAVE AN IDEA, HOW ABOUT YOU ADVOCATE FOR EXPANDED AND
UNIQUE RULES FOR EVERYONE INSTEAD OF ADVOCATING FOR TAKING THEM AWAY FROM THOSE WHO HAVE THEM.
You know, I think the BT would welcome the heavy and hand flamers and jump honour guard that currently only BA can have. One problem with BT is that SM are not a melee army; they won't get any good melee stuff, as BA and SW are the melee chapters, and the melee stuff is in their books*.
(* granted those armies or not great at melee either, because the designers kinda failed.)
I would want the marine codex to be a toolbox with a lot of stuff, so regardless of what the focus of your chapter its, whether is an illustrious first founding chapter, a barely remembered footnote or a your own creation, you can pick and choose the stuff that suits your style.
You purposely chose to use a weapon nobody else is using in a game because there's no design space for a short range weapon that loses accuracy on the move that has a single shot that relies on outside models or abilities to be mediocre. Hell, not even Assault Marine + Devastator Marine formation last edition made them a good choice, and they were only 10 points!
It's a false choice, all in all. You have the right to enjoy the look of the weapon, but its profile is hot garbage and always has been for any infantry units carrying them. Proxy them as something far better like a Lascannon or Grav Cannon, or even a fancy Heavy Flamer since you're so concerned about keeping the Salamanders theme.
Always? Even in 2nd ed? You absolutely sure the time when they were blast weapons(one of their prime bonuses when shooting at vehicles. Rather than hitting one location you hit several. d6+2d12+8 vs 3d6+9 on lascannon also didn't hurt Average 24.5 vs 19.5. When leman russ hull had armour 22 and turret 25 ability to hut both and average success on both was rather valuable.
Just because it's bad now doesn't mean it has to be bad always.
You purposely chose to use a weapon nobody else is using in a game because there's no design space for a short range weapon that loses accuracy on the move that has a single shot that relies on outside models or abilities to be mediocre. Hell, not even Assault Marine + Devastator Marine formation last edition made them a good choice, and they were only 10 points!
It's a false choice, all in all. You have the right to enjoy the look of the weapon, but its profile is hot garbage and always has been for any infantry units carrying them. Proxy them as something far better like a Lascannon or Grav Cannon, or even a fancy Heavy Flamer since you're so concerned about keeping the Salamanders theme.
Always? Even in 2nd ed? You absolutely sure the time when they were blast weapons(one of their prime bonuses when shooting at vehicles. Rather than hitting one location you hit several. d6+2d12+8 vs 3d6+9 on lascannon also didn't hurt Average 24.5 vs 19.5. When leman russ hull had armour 22 and turret 25 ability to hut both and average success on both was rather valuable.
Just because it's bad now doesn't mean it has to be bad always.
Small blast or large blast? Small blasts are bad.
Small blasts still easily covered both turret+body of a vehicle. That's 2 locations to try to penetrate armour with your d6+2d12+8 with dead vehicle if you succeed almost quaranteed. Maybe even get 3rd location like tracks to at least immobilize. Sure vs infantry small blast is less usefull but guess what? Multi melta wasn't super anti infantry weapon even then. But very good vehicle killer and not just because of superior penetrationv values. Though obviously averaging enough to penetrate even hull of leman russ helps!
Jackal90 wrote: Terminators aren't used?
Maybe not in every tournament army but they are indeed used and they are a pretty popular model as a whole.
Again, you are trying to speak for every player, which is just a complete joke of an argument.
First it was that people don't use multimeltas atall.
Then it changed because people posted that they did.
Which is it?
Seems like grasping at straws now.
Edit: As a side note, you don't seem to grasp the concept of time either.
You assume people have recently got these models and assembled them.
You don't stop to think that maybe they have had them for some time now.
Rules change alot over time, people don't want to hack apart models constantly to change weapons.
His whole argument has become a joke now. Keeps making false claims with zero evidence to back them up.
The problem is that it isn't just false claims, they are just outright laughable as anyone that's been playing for more than 5 mins can see straight past the BS.
Please by all means show me ALL these lists making use of Multi-Meltas on their Marines that show up anywhere. I can't wait to see your findings.
How can I show you anything if you decide to keep your eyes firmly shut and ignore posts that directly destroy any claims you make?
People here alone have said they use them, someone even dropped a link here to show it.
That alone means your post stating that no one uses them is complete BS and you know it.
You are just trying to hang on for dear life to this laughable claim that you made.
Cryogenicman wrote: Yeah I really appreciated it when my Black Templars lost all the things I liked about them. Vow's? Gone. Charging foward under fire? Gone. Extra Access to LRCs? Nope. Unique wargear like the Holy Orb of Antioc? Gone. Non Orthodox haters of Guillimans precious codex? Nope we love it now.
And then when I switched to Iron Hands I got the same treatment. Bonus feel no pain for my leaders? Nope. Cool Wargear? Disappeared. Multiple special warlord traits? Just one now. And a whole new "exciting" fluff to boot.
These calls for consolidation always sound like this to me: "In the hopes that I get a personal benefit out of it, through increased attention to the models and rules I like, I want GW to take a crap on the models and rules you like."
I HAVE AN IDEA, HOW ABOUT YOU ADVOCATE FOR EXPANDED AND
UNIQUE RULES FOR EVERYONE INSTEAD OF ADVOCATING FOR TAKING THEM AWAY FROM THOSE WHO HAVE THEM.
On an unrelated note, now that I play deathwatch, I had this great idea to integrate them into the space marine codex by getting rid of mixed units and special ammo and mission tactics and all their crazy unmanageable and complicated Wargear options. Instead we can just make them an entry in the codex with like a single special rule or something... I think it would be pretty popular and really help the game out...
I'm for consolidating Deathwatch, Grey Knights, and Sisters into an Inquisition codex actually. Wouldn't be too hard as neither army has that many unit entries, so it wouldn't be a terribly large codex, and gives focus to those mixed armies we like.
Thanks but no. Sisters of Battle DESERVE their own Codex.
Deathwatch and Grey Knights I can see because they are much limited in scope, but Sisters of Battle are their own chamber militant with as much variety as Imperial Guard or Space Marine Chapters. The only reason they aren't represented as varied in the fluff is because they have basically no fluff.
You purposely chose to use a weapon nobody else is using in a game because there's no design space for a short range weapon that loses accuracy on the move that has a single shot that relies on outside models or abilities to be mediocre. Hell, not even Assault Marine + Devastator Marine formation last edition made them a good choice, and they were only 10 points!
It's a false choice, all in all. You have the right to enjoy the look of the weapon, but its profile is hot garbage and always has been for any infantry units carrying them. Proxy them as something far better like a Lascannon or Grav Cannon, or even a fancy Heavy Flamer since you're so concerned about keeping the Salamanders theme.
Always? Even in 2nd ed? You absolutely sure the time when they were blast weapons(one of their prime bonuses when shooting at vehicles. Rather than hitting one location you hit several. d6+2d12+8 vs 3d6+9 on lascannon also didn't hurt Average 24.5 vs 19.5. When leman russ hull had armour 22 and turret 25 ability to hut both and average success on both was rather valuable.
Just because it's bad now doesn't mean it has to be bad always.
Small blast or large blast? Small blasts are bad.
4" Diameter Blast for a Multimelta in 2nd Edition. AP -4 and 2D12 damage. Great weapon.
Now that their price has dropped in 8th, and with the instances of increased cover saves, they're getting more value again.
Cryogenicman wrote: These calls for consolidation always sound like this to me: "In the hopes that I get a personal benefit out of it, through increased attention to the models and rules I like, I want GW to take a crap on the models and rules you like."
Jackal90 wrote: Terminators aren't used?
Maybe not in every tournament army but they are indeed used and they are a pretty popular model as a whole.
Again, you are trying to speak for every player, which is just a complete joke of an argument.
First it was that people don't use multimeltas atall.
Then it changed because people posted that they did.
Which is it?
Seems like grasping at straws now.
Edit: As a side note, you don't seem to grasp the concept of time either.
You assume people have recently got these models and assembled them.
You don't stop to think that maybe they have had them for some time now.
Rules change alot over time, people don't want to hack apart models constantly to change weapons.
His whole argument has become a joke now. Keeps making false claims with zero evidence to back them up.
The problem is that it isn't just false claims, they are just outright laughable as anyone that's been playing for more than 5 mins can see straight past the BS.
Please by all means show me ALL these lists making use of Multi-Meltas on their Marines that show up anywhere. I can't wait to see your findings.
How can I show you anything if you decide to keep your eyes firmly shut and ignore posts that directly destroy any claims you make?
People here alone have said they use them, someone even dropped a link here to show it.
That alone means your post stating that no one uses them is complete BS and you know it.
You are just trying to hang on for dear life to this laughable claim that you made.
Well there are several databases for lists that show up in tournaments. The burden of this proof is on you to prove people have been using them. I'll be waiting to see how far back you go and see what limited times they popped up.
You purposely chose to use a weapon nobody else is using in a game because there's no design space for a short range weapon that loses accuracy on the move that has a single shot that relies on outside models or abilities to be mediocre. Hell, not even Assault Marine + Devastator Marine formation last edition made them a good choice, and they were only 10 points!
It's a false choice, all in all. You have the right to enjoy the look of the weapon, but its profile is hot garbage and always has been for any infantry units carrying them. Proxy them as something far better like a Lascannon or Grav Cannon, or even a fancy Heavy Flamer since you're so concerned about keeping the Salamanders theme.
Always? Even in 2nd ed? You absolutely sure the time when they were blast weapons(one of their prime bonuses when shooting at vehicles. Rather than hitting one location you hit several. d6+2d12+8 vs 3d6+9 on lascannon also didn't hurt Average 24.5 vs 19.5. When leman russ hull had armour 22 and turret 25 ability to hut both and average success on both was rather valuable.
Just because it's bad now doesn't mean it has to be bad always.
Small blast or large blast? Small blasts are bad.
Small blasts still easily covered both turret+body of a vehicle. That's 2 locations to try to penetrate armour with your d6+2d12+8 with dead vehicle if you succeed almost quaranteed. Maybe even get 3rd location like tracks to at least immobilize. Sure vs infantry small blast is less usefull but guess what? Multi melta wasn't super anti infantry weapon even then. But very good vehicle killer and not just because of superior penetrationv values. Though obviously averaging enough to penetrate even hull of leman russ helps!
Having to roll to hit with a small blast is alone enough to make them bad. Hell, a small blast can hit up to nine models or so! It doesn't happen though does it?
You purposely chose to use a weapon nobody else is using in a game because there's no design space for a short range weapon that loses accuracy on the move that has a single shot that relies on outside models or abilities to be mediocre. Hell, not even Assault Marine + Devastator Marine formation last edition made them a good choice, and they were only 10 points!
It's a false choice, all in all. You have the right to enjoy the look of the weapon, but its profile is hot garbage and always has been for any infantry units carrying them. Proxy them as something far better like a Lascannon or Grav Cannon, or even a fancy Heavy Flamer since you're so concerned about keeping the Salamanders theme.
Always? Even in 2nd ed? You absolutely sure the time when they were blast weapons(one of their prime bonuses when shooting at vehicles. Rather than hitting one location you hit several. d6+2d12+8 vs 3d6+9 on lascannon also didn't hurt Average 24.5 vs 19.5. When leman russ hull had armour 22 and turret 25 ability to hut both and average success on both was rather valuable.
Just because it's bad now doesn't mean it has to be bad always.
Small blast or large blast? Small blasts are bad.
4" Diameter Blast for a Multimelta in 2nd Edition. AP -4 and 2D12 damage. Great weapon.
Now that their price has dropped in 8th, and with the instances of increased cover saves, they're getting more value again.
What's getting a cover save so bad that you can't point a Lascannon at it and get the same result from a safer weapon? Hell, people are starting to drop that because of GW handing out Invul saves like candy.
Cryogenicman wrote: Yeah I really appreciated it when my Black Templars lost all the things I liked about them. Vow's? Gone. Charging foward under fire? Gone. Extra Access to LRCs? Nope. Unique wargear like the Holy Orb of Antioc? Gone. Non Orthodox haters of Guillimans precious codex? Nope we love it now.
And then when I switched to Iron Hands I got the same treatment. Bonus feel no pain for my leaders? Nope. Cool Wargear? Disappeared. Multiple special warlord traits? Just one now. And a whole new "exciting" fluff to boot.
These calls for consolidation always sound like this to me: "In the hopes that I get a personal benefit out of it, through increased attention to the models and rules I like, I want GW to take a crap on the models and rules you like."
I HAVE AN IDEA, HOW ABOUT YOU ADVOCATE FOR EXPANDED AND
UNIQUE RULES FOR EVERYONE INSTEAD OF ADVOCATING FOR TAKING THEM AWAY FROM THOSE WHO HAVE THEM.
On an unrelated note, now that I play deathwatch, I had this great idea to integrate them into the space marine codex by getting rid of mixed units and special ammo and mission tactics and all their crazy unmanageable and complicated Wargear options. Instead we can just make them an entry in the codex with like a single special rule or something... I think it would be pretty popular and really help the game out...
I'm for consolidating Deathwatch, Grey Knights, and Sisters into an Inquisition codex actually. Wouldn't be too hard as neither army has that many unit entries, so it wouldn't be a terribly large codex, and gives focus to those mixed armies we like.
Thanks but no. Sisters of Battle DESERVE their own Codex.
Deathwatch and Grey Knights I can see because they are much limited in scope, but Sisters of Battle are their own chamber militant with as much variety as Imperial Guard or Space Marine Chapters. The only reason they aren't represented as varied in the fluff is because they have basically no fluff.
The last Witchhunters codex worked just fine. Sister traits are a page at most.
The Eldar-discussion seems kinda OT; but for what it's worth: I've played Eldar on and off since third edition, and they've never been "bad".
At times "Mediocre" or "middle of the pack" or "average", sure, but never "bad" as, in dakka-terms, "absolute horsegak".
Their 4th Ed. codex during mid/late 5th Ed. was in a pretty sorry state, but it was by no means close to being as useless as some other codeci has been at times (looking at you third Ed. Necron/Dark Eldar codeci during 5th Ed.)
Since their 6th Ed. codex dropped, they've never been below "average". (Not counting hyper-shifting metas that get nerfed in less than a month.)
Well there are several databases for lists that show up in tournaments.
You do realise that the overwhelming majority of 40K games are played outside tournaments?
Also, whilst I agree that multimelta is a bad weapon, the solution still isn't to remove it but to improve it.
You can't improve a weapon that doesn't work and has no use. It would have to be so absurdly cheap that it outranks the Melta Gun.
Even ignoring infantry models being useless with it, single shot weapons with that little reliability aren't good for a reason, moreso if you have to risk that distance to actually make use of the rule it has.
You can't improve a weapon that doesn't work and has no use. It would have to be so absurdly cheap that it outranks the Melta Gun.
Even ignoring infantry models being useless with it, single shot weapons with that little reliability aren't good for a reason, moreso if you have to risk that distance to actually make use of the rule it has.
It used to have a blast. Make it a D3 shot weapon.
You purposely chose to use a weapon nobody else is using in a game because there's no design space for a short range weapon that loses accuracy on the move that has a single shot that relies on outside models or abilities to be mediocre. Hell, not even Assault Marine + Devastator Marine formation last edition made them a good choice, and they were only 10 points!
It's a false choice, all in all. You have the right to enjoy the look of the weapon, but its profile is hot garbage and always has been for any infantry units carrying them. Proxy them as something far better like a Lascannon or Grav Cannon, or even a fancy Heavy Flamer since you're so concerned about keeping the Salamanders theme.
Always? Even in 2nd ed? You absolutely sure the time when they were blast weapons(one of their prime bonuses when shooting at vehicles. Rather than hitting one location you hit several. d6+2d12+8 vs 3d6+9 on lascannon also didn't hurt Average 24.5 vs 19.5. When leman russ hull had armour 22 and turret 25 ability to hut both and average success on both was rather valuable.
Just because it's bad now doesn't mean it has to be bad always.
Small blast or large blast? Small blasts are bad.
4" Diameter Blast for a Multimelta in 2nd Edition. AP -4 and 2D12 damage. Great weapon.
Now that their price has dropped in 8th, and with the instances of increased cover saves, they're getting more value again.
What's getting a cover save so bad that you can't point a Lascannon at it and get the same result from a safer weapon? Hell, people are starting to drop that because of GW handing out Invul saves like candy.
A Custodes in heavy cover requires a -4 AP to get to their 4++ invuln. Plus heavier terrain coverage reduces the usefulness of Lascannon ranges. As more cityfight is played locally, the Multimelta is looking better.
Slayer, you're just getting more and more ridiculous. Now it's only tournament lists that doesn't use them. The goal posts have now been moved off the field.
Just stop while you're so far behind.
Here is another BR with my Ravenwing....including Meltaguns and Multi-meltas
Stop thinking you know how everyone plays, you have no clue, period. The MM has a place in my list when I field pure Ravenwing. I like the Attack Bike and will continue to use it. Would I take it to a tournament? No, but that makes up a very small percentage of my games.
You can't improve a weapon that doesn't work and has no use. It would have to be so absurdly cheap that it outranks the Melta Gun.
Even ignoring infantry models being useless with it, single shot weapons with that little reliability aren't good for a reason, moreso if you have to risk that distance to actually make use of the rule it has.
It used to have a blast. Make it a D3 shot weapon.
Great, now you've made plasma cannons obsolete because a multimelta is better 95% of the time. And that's the problem. Any weapon can be made overpowered by buffing it enough, the hard part is making it viable without wrecking anything else in the process. Consolidating the various heavy weapons into 2-3 allows everything to be viable, and you can just use your multimeltas and plasma cannons and lascannons as alternative models for the same "anti-tank" stat line.
And TBH, if you have to fall back on 2nd edition examples where it was the same weapon in name only to prove that it wasn't "always" that bad I think it's a pretty clear concession of defeat.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At the risk of fething over everyone who plays a variant army.
What's fethed over via consolidation that I haven't already tackled? You for sure already lost the Black Templar argument.
You never adressed the loss of design space argument. Having a dedicated Codex to a specific subfaction with a specific playstyle means you can make that playstyle more coherent without having to worry about what knockoff effects it will have on other subfactions. I'm not opposed to adding a bunch of options to the Vanilla Codex (most blatantly the wargear options, but also stuff like specialist Terminators and Jump Pack Honour Guard and the like) but the advantage of having separate books is that you can make them more divergent in order to promote a different playstyle in a way that you're not going to replicate with just Chapter Tactics.
Using the Black Templars 4th edition Codex as an example, just porting over Righteous Zeal and the Vows as Chapter Tactic to a Vanilla Codex would make that Chapter Tactic massive compared to all the others, so what happens in practice is that the stuff you're porting gets cut down, because you now need to squeeze it in with a bunch of other stuff.
It is entirely possible to do what you are describing in a workable manner. I just don't trust GW to do it, and thus would rather they left people's armies alone.
Also, not agreeing with someone isn't the same as winning an argument.
EDIT: And successor Chapters is easily solvable by GW simply letting successors use the same stuff as the primogenitor Chapter, the way pretty much everyone (that I know of at least) already plays the game.
Design space applies to units. That's why it's silly to have the Dark Angel's fliers when they're functionally the exact same as the Stormhawk and Stormtalon.
In terms of combat style, nobody is actually that divergent to the Codex outside Space Wolves, and honestly it's impossible to argue otherwise. That's why a simple 3-4 SUPER specialized units or models + whatever Special Characters are all that's necessary to tackle whatever divergence exists.
Also you're still wrong about the "size" of a Chapter Tactic for Black Templars being an issue. Look at ones like the Dark Angels got, or White Scars, or even look to other outside armies like the hotblooded Sisters or Deathskulls or The Hivecult or Bladed Cog.
By that logic why does any Imperium faction have its own unique flyers? Everyone should only ever use Stormhawk/talons since they already fill the required role on the battle field
PS. You do realize for the Dark Angels, outside of characters, they only need five kits to field 17/19 of the unique models and accompanying datasheets in the codex. With the other two being an Interrogator chaplin and a chapter banner bearer (which are pretty much equivalent to just getting a model for a named character in terms of resources). So unless you want one kit to provide those 3 to 4 unit options, I dont see what gains you expect will happen, Or are you arguing that GW should just straight up remove portions of these five kits, so they cant make as many different options, but still invest the resources into having these four DA kits, just lite versions with less options and customization?
Space Marines originally didn't have Fliers, so forcibly adding them is something people still disagree on. However, at least Imperial Guard have a few unique ones compared to the Dark Angel's ones doing the EXACT same thing as the Stormhawk/Talon. Therefore, unnecessary profile to try and balance.
Those would simply be upgrade kits and bitz. Ravenwing aren't unique, they're just Bikers. Use the Biker profile and balance from there.
If anyone is upset that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously lacked one they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.
Different models, different stat lines and different weapon loadouts, but yest Ravenwing are the same as scout bikers, the only other biker option available for DA players.
And please tell me more about how the Dark Talon and Nep. Jetfighter serving the same battlefield role as other fliers means they should be removed, given they are the only fliers for those roles available in 8th ed DA. Again by that logic, why does any Imperium factions use anything but the same Flier across all the different armies if they serve the same battlefield role as eachother and just make "balance and bloat issues"?
72Canadian72 wrote: If anyone is upset that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously lacked one they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.
If anyone is happy that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously had explicit fluff that they are not, under penalty of death for heresy, permitted to have them they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.
And please tell me more about how the Dark Talon and Nep. Jetfighter serving the same battlefield role as other fliers means they should be removed, given they are the only fliers for those roles available in 8th ed DA.
Give DA the same Thunderbolt/Lightning/Avenger/etc as every other Imperial faction. Or at least give them the heretical space marine abominations that are almost identical kits, just with different chapter-specific bits glued on.
72Canadian72 wrote: If anyone is upset that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously lacked one they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.
If anyone is happy that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously had explicit fluff that they are not, under penalty of death for heresy, permitted to have them they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.
Fluff changes all the time. If you legit think an entire faction deserves to be barred from having an entire category of units commonly use in the game just because of some old lore books, you are the embodiment of self centered and are the perfect example of a player trying to prevent others from having fun.
And please tell me more about how the Dark Talon and Nep. Jetfighter serving the same battlefield role as other fliers means they should be removed, given they are the only fliers for those roles available in 8th ed DA.
Give DA the same Thunderbolt/Lightning/Avenger/etc as every other Imperial faction. Or at least give them the heretical space marine abominations that are almost identical kits, just with different chapter-specific bits glued on.
You missed my follow up line where I said, using his logic all Imperium factions should be just locked to the same flier for each of three battlefield roles fliers are used for.
72Canadian72 wrote: Fluff changes all the time. If you legit think an entire faction deserves to be barred from having an entire category of units commonly use in the game just because of some old lore books, you are the embodiment of self centered and are the perfect example of a player trying to prevent others from having fun.
But you aren't barred from it, you get to use the standard Imperial Navy aircraft that are perfectly adequate for the job. You just don't get special snowflake units that exist because the marketing department doesn't give a about the fluff. And I'll note that my Tau don't get any melee death star units, but you don't see me whining and begging GW to change the fluff so the Tau can have an assault terminator equivalent.
PS: the lore is why we play this game, so don't be too eager to ignore it in search of 1% more profits this quarter.
You missed my follow up line where I said, using his logic all Imperium factions should be just locked to the same flier for each of three battlefield roles fliers are used for.
And that logic is correct: all Imperial factions get the same Imperial Navy aircraft because that's what the fluff says.
You purposely chose to use a weapon nobody else is using in a game because there's no design space for a short range weapon that loses accuracy on the move that has a single shot that relies on outside models or abilities to be mediocre. Hell, not even Assault Marine + Devastator Marine formation last edition made them a good choice, and they were only 10 points!
It's a false choice, all in all. You have the right to enjoy the look of the weapon, but its profile is hot garbage and always has been for any infantry units carrying them. Proxy them as something far better like a Lascannon or Grav Cannon, or even a fancy Heavy Flamer since you're so concerned about keeping the Salamanders theme.
Always? Even in 2nd ed? You absolutely sure the time when they were blast weapons(one of their prime bonuses when shooting at vehicles. Rather than hitting one location you hit several. d6+2d12+8 vs 3d6+9 on lascannon also didn't hurt Average 24.5 vs 19.5. When leman russ hull had armour 22 and turret 25 ability to hut both and average success on both was rather valuable.
Just because it's bad now doesn't mean it has to be bad always.
Small blast or large blast? Small blasts are bad.
4" Diameter Blast for a Multimelta in 2nd Edition. AP -4 and 2D12 damage. Great weapon.
Now that their price has dropped in 8th, and with the instances of increased cover saves, they're getting more value again.
What's getting a cover save so bad that you can't point a Lascannon at it and get the same result from a safer weapon? Hell, people are starting to drop that because of GW handing out Invul saves like candy.
A Custodes in heavy cover requires a -4 AP to get to their 4++ invuln. Plus heavier terrain coverage reduces the usefulness of Lascannon ranges. As more cityfight is played locally, the Multimelta is looking better.
Amazing that it isn't even a wound caused outside the Melta range! Or that you get almost TWO wounds in Melta range! Chapter Masters and Lieutenants don't help much either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: Slayer, you're just getting more and more ridiculous. Now it's only tournament lists that doesn't use them. The goal posts have now been moved off the field.
Just stop while you're so far behind.
Here is another BR with my Ravenwing....including Meltaguns and Multi-meltas
Stop thinking you know how everyone plays, you have no clue, period. The MM has a place in my list when I field pure Ravenwing. I like the Attack Bike and will continue to use it. Would I take it to a tournament? No, but that makes up a very small percentage of my games.
I don't care about some amateur battle report. I gave you a task and that was to prove the actual worth with numbers rather than silly anecdotal evidence.
72Canadian72 wrote: If anyone is upset that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously lacked one they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.
If anyone is happy that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously had explicit fluff that they are not, under penalty of death for heresy, permitted to have them they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.
And please tell me more about how the Dark Talon and Nep. Jetfighter serving the same battlefield role as other fliers means they should be removed, given they are the only fliers for those roles available in 8th ed DA.
Give DA the same Thunderbolt/Lightning/Avenger/etc as every other Imperial faction. Or at least give them the heretical space marine abominations that are almost identical kits, just with different chapter-specific bits glued on.
Bingo. The Dark Angel fliers are not functionally different that they require a whole separate datasheet.
You can't improve a weapon that doesn't work and has no use. It would have to be so absurdly cheap that it outranks the Melta Gun.
Even ignoring infantry models being useless with it, single shot weapons with that little reliability aren't good for a reason, moreso if you have to risk that distance to actually make use of the rule it has.
It used to have a blast. Make it a D3 shot weapon.
Great, now you've made plasma cannons obsolete because a multimelta is better 95% of the time. And that's the problem. Any weapon can be made overpowered by buffing it enough, the hard part is making it viable without wrecking anything else in the process. Consolidating the various heavy weapons into 2-3 allows everything to be viable, and you can just use your multimeltas and plasma cannons and lascannons as alternative models for the same "anti-tank" stat line.
And TBH, if you have to fall back on 2nd edition examples where it was the same weapon in name only to prove that it wasn't "always" that bad I think it's a pretty clear concession of defeat.
Exactly. There's just no design space for a Multi-Melta, especially on an infantry unit platform.
72Canadian72 wrote: Fluff changes all the time. If you legit think an entire faction deserves to be barred from having an entire category of units commonly use in the game just because of some old lore books, you are the embodiment of self centered and are the perfect example of a player trying to prevent others from having fun.
But you aren't barred from it, you get to use the standard Imperial Navy aircraft that are perfectly adequate for the job. You just don't get special snowflake units that exist because the marketing department doesn't give a about the fluff. And I'll note that my Tau don't get any melee death star units, but you don't see me whining and begging GW to change the fluff so the Tau can have an assault terminator equivalent.
PS: the lore is why we play this game, so don't be too eager to ignore it in search of 1% more profits this quarter.
The person I was talking to was literally saying people are STILL pissed about SM getting fliers. My response was that if you are upset that another faction got something it lacked, you are self centered and the embodiment of a bad player as you quite literally want others to not be able to have fun. You responded that the fluff says it shouldnt have happened and if you go against the fluff you are a bad player. That is a BS argument and you know it. If Tau were given a quality melee unit to play with, there is no reason why I as a non Tau player should be mad and yelling about how Tau players dont deserve that unit. Such vitriol and anger is non nonsensical and makes a person look like an ass.
PS. the fluff exists to support the marketing department in selling you models. Why act surprised when the fluff is used to build up hype or acceptance of new models. Getting mad over that is fairly pointless.
You missed my follow up line where I said, using his logic all Imperium factions should be just locked to the same flier for each of three battlefield roles fliers are used for.
And that logic is correct: all Imperial factions get the same Imperial Navy aircraft because that's what the fluff says.
Except game play wise all imperial factions have a multitude of different fliers, and are restricted to only certain fliers depending on which faction you look at. His argument regarding battlefield roles implies there should only be three fliers, one for each role available to all imperial factions, and all other fliers should be scrapped for being unnecessary which is frankly just silly.
72Canadian72 wrote: The person I was talking to was literally saying people are STILL pissed about SM getting fliers. My response was that if you are upset that another faction got something it lacked, you are self centered and the embodiment of a bad player as you quite literally want others to not be able to have fun. You responded that the fluff says it shouldnt have happened and if you go against the fluff you are a bad player.
Space marines had flyers. Want an air superiority fighter? Take a Thunderbolt like the fluff states. There was no need to give them special snowflake flyers that only exist because some marketing person said " the fluff, I bet we can sell X copies of this kit" and released some hideously ugly flyers for space marines only. If anything it's you who is the "embodiment of a bad player" by your standards since you're the one arguing that space marines should have their special snowflake toy that nobody else gets to use and sharing the Thunderbolt with everyone else isn't good enough.
That is a BS argument and you know it. If Tau were given a quality melee unit to play with, there is no reason why I as a non Tau player should be mad and yelling about how Tau players dont deserve that unit. Such vitriol and anger is non nonsensical and makes a person look like an ass.
Of course there's a reason: because it devalues the fluff aspect of the game. It's like the My Little Pony troll armies and such, it doesn't belong in normal games. If you don't care about the fluff then why play 40k at all?
Except game play wise all imperial factions have a multitude of different fliers, and are restricted to only certain fliers depending on which faction you look at. His argument regarding battlefield roles implies there should only be three fliers, one for each role available to all imperial factions, and all other fliers should be scrapped for being unnecessary which is frankly just silly.
Gameplay-wise they aren't different enough to matter. If your goal is to kill enemy flyers do you play a Storm-whatever differently from how you play a Thunderbolt? No. Which air superiority flyer you have is irrelevant, outside of GW making balance mistakes and one of them being more overpowered than the other.
bullyboy wrote: Slayer, you're just getting more and more ridiculous. Now it's only tournament lists that doesn't use them. The goal posts have now been moved off the field.
Just stop while you're so far behind.
Here is another BR with my Ravenwing....including Meltaguns and Multi-meltas
Stop thinking you know how everyone plays, you have no clue, period. The MM has a place in my list when I field pure Ravenwing. I like the Attack Bike and will continue to use it. Would I take it to a tournament? No, but that makes up a very small percentage of my games.
I don't care about some amateur battle report. I gave you a task and that was to prove the actual worth with numbers rather than silly anecdotal evidence.
What a sad little man you are, but at least your true colours come through. Hope you're getting a great salary as an elite, professional 40k player. lol
72Canadian72 wrote: The person I was talking to was literally saying people are STILL pissed about SM getting fliers. My response was that if you are upset that another faction got something it lacked, you are self centered and the embodiment of a bad player as you quite literally want others to not be able to have fun. You responded that the fluff says it shouldnt have happened and if you go against the fluff you are a bad player.
Space marines had flyers. Want an air superiority fighter? Take a Thunderbolt like the fluff states. There was no need to give them special snowflake flyers that only exist because some marketing person said " the fluff, I bet we can sell X copies of this kit" and released some hideously ugly flyers for space marines only. If anything it's you who is the "embodiment of a bad player" by your standards since you're the one arguing that space marines should have their special snowflake toy that nobody else gets to use and sharing the Thunderbolt with everyone else isn't good enough.
Yes because being happy that other armies get models unique to their army for their players to play with makes me the bad sportsman Notice how you don't see me complaining that DA cant use storm talons/hawks, and how they should be removed from the game because they are too similar to my own armies fliers, and everyone should just use my models and rules instead.
That is a BS argument and you know it. If Tau were given a quality melee unit to play with, there is no reason why I as a non Tau player should be mad and yelling about how Tau players dont deserve that unit. Such vitriol and anger is non nonsensical and makes a person look like an ass.
Of course there's a reason: because it devalues the fluff aspect of the game. It's like the My Little Pony troll armies and such, it doesn't belong in normal games. If you don't care about the fluff then why play 40k at all?
Ya because getting angry that the lore of an army you dont play has changed or developed to allow new models or battlefield roles, sure deprives your ability to enjoy the game. Get real, that argument essentially boils down to "you cant use that model or unit, because I dont think you should, and if you do use it, you are ruining my game".
Except game play wise all imperial factions have a multitude of different fliers, and are restricted to only certain fliers depending on which faction you look at. His argument regarding battlefield roles implies there should only be three fliers, one for each role available to all imperial factions, and all other fliers should be scrapped for being unnecessary which is frankly just silly.
Gameplay-wise they aren't different enough to matter. If your goal is to kill enemy flyers do you play a Storm-whatever differently from how you play a Thunderbolt? No. Which air superiority flyer you have is irrelevant, outside of GW making balance mistakes and one of them being more overpowered than the other.
Which is why its funny that the poster I was engaging with was complaining about Dark Talons being useless cause storm whatevers existed, when they themselves are similar to other existing fliers in the Imperium arsenal, yet they werent saying the 'stormwhatevers' should be removed, only the DA fliers. Do as I say, not as I do eh?
72Canadian72 wrote: Yes because being happy that other armies get models unique to their army for their players to play with makes me the bad sportsman
You're being happy that someone isn't allowed to play with the space marine toys, exactly the sort of thing you complained about when I said it. You aren't satisfied with all Imperial players having aircraft available, the space marines need their special snowflake and it's very important that Imperial Guard players don't get to use it.
Ya because getting angry that the lore of an army you dont play has changed or developed to allow new models or battlefield roles, sure deprives your ability to enjoy the game. Get real, that argument essentially boils down to "you cant use that model or unit, because I dont think you should, and if you do use it, you are ruining my game".
Of course I care about the fluff for armies I don't play, because all fluff is part of the same story. If GW destroys the fluff for one faction that damages my enjoyment of the game because I'm going to play against that army, read fluff involving it, etc. And, again, the battlefield roles were already covered. There was no reason to change that fluff, other than GW's marketing department sacrificing fluff integrity for sales.
Which is why its funny that the poster I was engaging with was complaining about Dark Talons being useless cause storm whatevers existed, when they themselves are similar to other existing fliers in the Imperium arsenal, yet they werent saying the 'stormwhatevers' should be removed, only the DA fliers. Do as I say, not as I do eh?
I am not responsible for the posts of other people. The DA flyers should be removed, and so should all of the other space marine flyers. But if we absolutely can't remove all space marine flyers then the DA ones at least should be removed since they're just the same storm-whatever hull with some chapter-specific bits glued on.
72Canadian72 wrote: Yes because being happy that other armies get models unique to their army for their players to play with makes me the bad sportsman
You're being happy that someone isn't allowed to play with the space marine toys, exactly the sort of thing you complained about when I said it. You aren't satisfied with all Imperial players having aircraft available, the space marines need their special snowflake and it's very important that Imperial Guard players don't get to use it.
Yes because me being happy that someone else gets something fun to enjoy, providing more variety and flavour to the game, really means Im deriving enjoyment at the thought that others are being denied this cool model. By that logic me enjoying the new Chaos model releases, really means I'm just getting off to the fact that Xenos and Imperial players can't use those models. You have a very pessimistic outlook mate, if you think that being happy others get cool, fun things to play with even if I dont get to use it, is somehow a bad thing.
Ya because getting angry that the lore of an army you dont play has changed or developed to allow new models or battlefield roles, sure deprives your ability to enjoy the game. Get real, that argument essentially boils down to "you cant use that model or unit, because I dont think you should, and if you do use it, you are ruining my game".
Of course I care about the fluff for armies I don't play, because all fluff is part of the same story. If GW destroys the fluff for one faction that damages my enjoyment of the game because I'm going to play against that army, read fluff involving it, etc. And, again, the battlefield roles were already covered. There was no reason to change that fluff, other than GW's marketing department sacrificing fluff integrity for sales.
Again fluff exists, to drive sales. Being mad over that is pointless.
Again your argument derives down to, "you cant play that way / or use that thing, because I say so, and doing otherwise hurts me!". That is prime poor sportsmanship right there.
Which is why its funny that the poster I was engaging with was complaining about Dark Talons being useless cause storm whatevers existed, when they themselves are similar to other existing fliers in the Imperium arsenal, yet they werent saying the 'stormwhatevers' should be removed, only the DA fliers. Do as I say, not as I do eh?
I am not responsible for the posts of other people. The DA flyers should be removed, and so should all of the other space marine flyers. But if we absolutely can't remove all space marine flyers then the DA ones at least should be removed since they're just the same storm-whatever hull with some chapter-specific bits glued on.
I never said you were? I was just elaborating on why I said the other guys argument was silly, in my previous message that you quote replied to.
If you agree with the logic that you only need as many fliers as there are battlefield roles, than you agree with my point that only three fliers are needed for all imperial factions. If you squat DA fliers, why cant you squat, the excess IG/DW/BA/SW/SM fliers to get down to the three fliers, one to fill air superiority, one for ground support and one for transport. Its no more difficult to toss away the Dark Talon as it is the Stormtalon. Why have Stormeagles, Valkyries and Corvus Blackstars? After all they all fill the carrier role. Its just as easy to squat any of them as any other imperial factions fliers. After all you just dont print a dataslate, and shut off the production lines.
You can't improve a weapon that doesn't work and has no use. It would have to be so absurdly cheap that it outranks the Melta Gun. Even ignoring infantry models being useless with it, single shot weapons with that little reliability aren't good for a reason, moreso if you have to risk that distance to actually make use of the rule it has.
It used to have a blast. Make it a D3 shot weapon.
Great, now you've made plasma cannons obsolete because a multimelta is better 95% of the time. And that's the problem. Any weapon can be made overpowered by buffing it enough, the hard part is making it viable without wrecking anything else in the process. Consolidating the various heavy weapons into 2-3 allows everything to be viable, and you can just use your multimeltas and plasma cannons and lascannons as alternative models for the same "anti-tank" stat line.
And TBH, if you have to fall back on 2nd edition examples where it was the same weapon in name only to prove that it wasn't "always" that bad I think it's a pretty clear concession of defeat.
Extend Plasma Cannon Range to 48" and you're doing fine. There's plenty of possible adjustments to be made if you want it.
A MultiMelta wasn't the same "in name only" during 2nd, it was a short-ranged, high damage energy weapon, which is what it is now. It happened to also be good against infantry, although Grav takes that role now.
TBH, stating things in absolutes like "always" is more likely the losing proposition. It was a fine option during other editions anyways, being cheap with good anti-tank hitting power. The bonus on the damage chart was excellent, and the range wasn't an issue if you're expecting to be closer to the enemy. I outfitted my Tacs with Multimeltas for much of 6th edition, because I was often podding them or expecting them to be in the middle of things.
A Custodes in heavy cover requires a -4 AP to get to their 4++ invuln. Plus heavier terrain coverage reduces the usefulness of Lascannon ranges. As more cityfight is played locally, the Multimelta is looking better.
Amazing that it isn't even a wound caused outside the Melta range! Or that you get almost TWO wounds in Melta range! Chapter Masters and Lieutenants don't help much either.
You mean more effective than a Lascannon, and cheaper.
Insectum7 wrote: Extend Plasma Cannon Range to 48" and you're doing fine. There's plenty of possible adjustments to be made if you want it.
Indeed. Or alternatively make the D3 shot multimelta range 18". The point of melta weapons is that they're difficult to manoeuvre into optimal firing position, but is you do, they hit like a truck.
We're arguing about weapons in a fantasy game. Some users need to take a breath and a break from the keyboard. If rudeness continues after this warning it will be dealt with
72Canadian72 wrote: Yes because being happy that other armies get models unique to their army for their players to play with makes me the bad sportsman
You're being happy that someone isn't allowed to play with the space marine toys, exactly the sort of thing you complained about when I said it. You aren't satisfied with all Imperial players having aircraft available, the space marines need their special snowflake and it's very important that Imperial Guard players don't get to use it.
Yes because me being happy that someone else gets something fun to enjoy, providing more variety and flavour to the game, really means Im deriving enjoyment at the thought that others are being denied this cool model. By that logic me enjoying the new Chaos model releases, really means I'm just getting off to the fact that Xenos and Imperial players can't use those models. You have a very pessimistic outlook mate, if you think that being happy others get cool, fun things to play with even if I dont get to use it, is somehow a bad thing.
Ya because getting angry that the lore of an army you dont play has changed or developed to allow new models or battlefield roles, sure deprives your ability to enjoy the game. Get real, that argument essentially boils down to "you cant use that model or unit, because I dont think you should, and if you do use it, you are ruining my game".
Of course I care about the fluff for armies I don't play, because all fluff is part of the same story. If GW destroys the fluff for one faction that damages my enjoyment of the game because I'm going to play against that army, read fluff involving it, etc. And, again, the battlefield roles were already covered. There was no reason to change that fluff, other than GW's marketing department sacrificing fluff integrity for sales.
Again fluff exists, to drive sales. Being mad over that is pointless.
Again your argument derives down to, "you cant play that way / or use that thing, because I say so, and doing otherwise hurts me!". That is prime poor sportsmanship right there.
Which is why its funny that the poster I was engaging with was complaining about Dark Talons being useless cause storm whatevers existed, when they themselves are similar to other existing fliers in the Imperium arsenal, yet they werent saying the 'stormwhatevers' should be removed, only the DA fliers. Do as I say, not as I do eh?
I am not responsible for the posts of other people. The DA flyers should be removed, and so should all of the other space marine flyers. But if we absolutely can't remove all space marine flyers then the DA ones at least should be removed since they're just the same storm-whatever hull with some chapter-specific bits glued on.
I never said you were? I was just elaborating on why I said the other guys argument was silly, in my previous message that you quote replied to.
If you agree with the logic that you only need as many fliers as there are battlefield roles, than you agree with my point that only three fliers are needed for all imperial factions. If you squat DA fliers, why cant you squat, the excess IG/DW/BA/SW/SM fliers to get down to the three fliers, one to fill air superiority, one for ground support and one for transport. Its no more difficult to toss away the Dark Talon as it is the Stormtalon. Why have Stormeagles, Valkyries and Corvus Blackstars? After all they all fill the carrier role. Its just as easy to squat any of them as any other imperial factions fliers. After all you just dont print a dataslate, and shut off the production lines.
They could replace the Corvus with the Stormraven datasheet for all I care. Lovely model, but the rules are more important and for it to be functional it should be a Stormraven. So we're actually well on track!
bullyboy wrote: Slayer, you're just getting more and more ridiculous. Now it's only tournament lists that doesn't use them. The goal posts have now been moved off the field.
Just stop while you're so far behind.
Here is another BR with my Ravenwing....including Meltaguns and Multi-meltas
Stop thinking you know how everyone plays, you have no clue, period. The MM has a place in my list when I field pure Ravenwing. I like the Attack Bike and will continue to use it. Would I take it to a tournament? No, but that makes up a very small percentage of my games.
I don't care about some amateur battle report. I gave you a task and that was to prove the actual worth with numbers rather than silly anecdotal evidence.
What a sad little man you are, but at least your true colours come through. Hope you're getting a great salary as an elite, professional 40k player. lol
You didn't accomplish the task so you kinda forfeit your point. Most other weapons can at least find a role, yet Multi-Meltas don't. There's quite a simple reason behind it and you simply ignore it for whatever reason.
Start pretending they're Grav Cannons or Heavy Flamers and you'll gain better results. For the Attack Bikes, they're just nice display pieces not fit for any game.
If you agree with the logic that you only need as many fliers as there are battlefield roles, than you agree with my point that only three fliers are needed for all imperial factions. If you squat DA fliers, why cant you squat, the excess IG/DW/BA/SW/SM fliers to get down to the three fliers, one to fill air superiority, one for ground support and one for transport. Its no more difficult to toss away the Dark Talon as it is the Stormtalon. Why have Stormeagles, Valkyries and Corvus Blackstars? After all they all fill the carrier role. Its just as easy to squat any of them as any other imperial factions fliers. After all you just dont print a dataslate, and shut off the production lines.
Wow you just never stop with the extreme panic strawman do you.
I would prefer that the Marine flyers don;t exisit - mainly for reasons that Peregrine stated BUT if they have to stay - then they CAN be represented by a single or maybe two dateslates and likely a single kit with add ons
But some people just need to have all the focuss and resoruces on their sub-sub faction.....
72Canadian72 wrote: If anyone is upset that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously lacked one they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.
If anyone is happy that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously had explicit fluff that they are not, under penalty of death for heresy, permitted to have them they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.
And please tell me more about how the Dark Talon and Nep. Jetfighter serving the same battlefield role as other fliers means they should be removed, given they are the only fliers for those roles available in 8th ed DA.
Give DA the same Thunderbolt/Lightning/Avenger/etc as every other Imperial faction. Or at least give them the heretical space marine abominations that are almost identical kits, just with different chapter-specific bits glued on.
As I said earlier, Space Marines have always had Thunderhawks in the fluff. It's a Flyer. You deflected by saying that they were more like transports - doesn't matter. This is not the US Army and USAF arguing over who can operate a given platform under US law.
What is fluff to you? Is the fluff locked into the form it was when you started? To me, its what is in the Codexes and books. Dark Talons and Nephilim are in both (the 6th Ed Codex and Gav Thorpe's Unforgiven). I think I will go with the Codex writer and Gav Thorpe when it comes to what is fluff/cannon.
The DA flyers are different than the other Space Marine flyers, both in fluff and rules. If you don't like the Dark Talon then don't buy it. You couldn't get them for a while last year because they sold out. Even with the two nerfs aimed at them they are still quite good. They are also very fluffy, transporting captured Fallen etc.
72Canadian72 wrote: Yes because being happy that other armies get models unique to their army for their players to play with makes me the bad sportsman
Of course, don't you know good sportsmanship is defined by wanting to take every everything their opponent likes about their army away and turn it in to forgettable genericness?
Melissia wrote: Of course, don't you know good sportsmanship is defined by wanting to take every everything their opponent likes about their army away and turn it in to forgettable genericness?
This thread's really gone downhill.
If everything is "forgettable" because you don't have endless pages of special snowflake rules like "this unit re-rolls 1s just like every other unit, except the rule has a special name" then the fault is with your lack of imagination.
Peregrine wrote: If everything is "forgettable" because you don't have endless pages of special snowflake rules
Translation: "Peregrine wish all armies were the exact same."
You say "endless pages of special snowflake rules", I say "unique armies which have unique playstyles and unit choices". All army codices are "endles pages of special snowflake rules".
I don't play checkers, Peregrine. It's boring to me.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: As I said earlier, Space Marines have always had Thunderhawks in the fluff. It's a Flyer. You deflected by saying that they were more like transports - doesn't matter. This is not the US Army and USAF arguing over who can operate a given platform under US law.
Actually it's very much like that argument between branches of the military. The whole point is that as an anti-heresy measure the various Imperial factions are deliberately limited in what they can do so that no single regiment/chapter/etc turning traitor can have everything it needs to win a war. Want tanks to support your IG infantry regiment? Better stay loyal so that you can fight alongside a tank regiment. Want an air superiority fighter squadron to get your space marines through the enemy interceptors without getting shot down? Better make sure the Imperial Navy thinks you're loyal enough to deserve that Thunderbolt squadron.
The Thunderhawk is the rare exception to the policy, likely because it's a transport with guns bolted on and very limited in what it can do besides deliver space marines to a ground battle. Thunderhawks flying without conventional Imperial Navy support would be free kills for enemy air superiority fighters. But when you give space marines the full range of aircraft you break that dependence.
What is fluff to you? Is the fluff locked into the form it was when you started? To me, its what is in the Codexes and books. Dark Talons and Nephilim are in both (the 6th Ed Codex and Gav Thorpe's Unforgiven). I think I will go with the Codex writer and Gav Thorpe when it comes to what is fluff/cannon.
Of course fluff isn't static. But there had better be a good reason for changing that fluff, and "we can sell this horrifically ugly flyer kit" is not a good reason. Obviously they're canon now, but they never should have been added and the best thing GW could do would be to discontinue those kits and remove them from the fluff.
The DA flyers are different than the other Space Marine flyers, both in fluff and rules. If you don't like the Dark Talon then don't buy it. You couldn't get them for a while last year because they sold out. Even with the two nerfs aimed at them they are still quite good. They are also very fluffy, transporting captured Fallen etc.
Different? Lol. It's literally a storm talon kit with some wings bolted on, wings that most people think the original kit should have had.
If you agree with the logic that you only need as many fliers as there are battlefield roles, than you agree with my point that only three fliers are needed for all imperial factions. If you squat DA fliers, why cant you squat, the excess IG/DW/BA/SW/SM fliers to get down to the three fliers, one to fill air superiority, one for ground support and one for transport. Its no more difficult to toss away the Dark Talon as it is the Stormtalon. Why have Stormeagles, Valkyries and Corvus Blackstars? After all they all fill the carrier role. Its just as easy to squat any of them as any other imperial factions fliers. After all you just dont print a dataslate, and shut off the production lines.
Wow you just never stop with the extreme panic strawman do you.
I would prefer that the Marine flyers don;t exisit - mainly for reasons that Peregrine stated BUT if they have to stay - then they CAN be represented by a single or maybe two dateslates and likely a single kit with add ons
But some people just need to have all the focuss and resoruces on their sub-sub faction.....
you keep thinking that if only space marines had less sub factions more resources would be spent on other factions Morden. you're wrong. yet again GW is a corperation and is expected to make so much money a year, Space Marines is a proven way to make money. Space Marine sales subsidize the development of other less popular factions. they don't take it away.
Melissia wrote: Translation: "Peregrine wish all armies were the exact same."
You say "endless pages of special snowflake rules", I say "unique armies which have unique playstyles and unit choices". All army codices are "endles pages of special snowflake rules".
I don't play checkers, Peregrine. It's boring to me.
It's almost like there's a difference between giving armies legitimately different roles and rules to support those rules vs. a million different ways of saying "re-roll 1s" and options that are so similar you have to do a bunch of probability math to justify taking one over the other. Have you actually played any games other than 40k? If you had you'd see how you can have different units/armies with different play styles without having 40k's absurd word count.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: you keep thinking that if only space marines had less sub factions more resources would be spent on other factions Morden. you're wrong. yet again GW is a corperation and is expected to make so much money a year, Space Marines is a proven way to make money. Space Marine sales subsidize the development of other less popular factions. they don't take it away.
You have cause and effect backwards IMO. Are space marines somehow unique in their fluff, to the point that people want to buy vast numbers of them and would ignore anything else? Not really. Much more likely is that space marines sell the most because GW puts them at the front of all of their marketing, players know that they will always have priority in rules support, every starter set comes with marine armies to get people committed to the faction, etc. Balance out the support instead of treating 40k as "space marines plus supporting characters" and sales would probably balance out to match.
Peregrine wrote: It's almost like there's a difference between giving armies legitimately different roles
There isn't.
Why should Tyranids have Synapse? Make them use standard leadership rules, the frakkin' snowflakes don't need a special rule. Why should Orks have WAAAGH! and crap? It's just a special snowflake rule to make Ork players less whiney, completely unnecessary. Why give Sisters Acts of Faith? Ain't nobody else have it, the snowflakes should have to do without it! And They Shall Know No Fear? Toss it out, nobody got time for them snowflakey marines. Death to the False Emperor? Who do they think they are, special? Screw 'em.
Your "Special snowflake rules" whine is complete and utter tripe, a pathetic non-argument not really even worth considering any more.
Peregrine wrote: It's almost like there's a difference between giving armies legitimately different roles
There isn't.
Why should Tyranids have Synapse? Make them use standard leadership rules, the frakkin' snowflakes don't need a special rule. Why should Orks have WAAAGH! and crap? It's just a special snowflake rule to make Ork players less whiney, completely unnecessary. Why give Sisters Acts of Faith? Ain't nobody else have it, the snowflakes should have to do without it! And They Shall Know No Fear? Toss it out, nobody got time for them snowflakey marines. Death to the False Emperor? Who do they think they are, special? Screw 'em.
Your "Special snowflake rules" whine is complete and utter tripe, a pathetic non-argument not really even worth considering any more.
It must be so much easier to win arguments when you can just build your straw Peregrine and make it say whatever you want my position to be instead of having any constructive discussion of the subject.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: As I said earlier, Space Marines have always had Thunderhawks in the fluff. It's a Flyer. You deflected by saying that they were more like transports - doesn't matter. This is not the US Army and USAF arguing over who can operate a given platform under US law.
Actually it's very much like that argument between branches of the military. The whole point is that as an anti-heresy measure the various Imperial factions are deliberately limited in what they can do so that no single regiment/chapter/etc turning traitor can have everything it needs to win a war. Want tanks to support your IG infantry regiment? Better stay loyal so that you can fight alongside a tank regiment. Want an air superiority fighter squadron to get your space marines through the enemy interceptors without getting shot down? Better make sure the Imperial Navy thinks you're loyal enough to deserve that Thunderbolt squadron.
The Thunderhawk is the rare exception to the policy, likely because it's a transport with guns bolted on and very limited in what it can do besides deliver space marines to a ground battle. Thunderhawks flying without conventional Imperial Navy support would be free kills for enemy air superiority fighters. But when you give space marines the full range of aircraft you break that dependence.
What is fluff to you? Is the fluff locked into the form it was when you started? To me, its what is in the Codexes and books. Dark Talons and Nephilim are in both (the 6th Ed Codex and Gav Thorpe's Unforgiven). I think I will go with the Codex writer and Gav Thorpe when it comes to what is fluff/cannon.
Of course fluff isn't static. But there had better be a good reason for changing that fluff, and "we can sell this horrifically ugly flyer kit" is not a good reason. Obviously they're canon now, but they never should have been added and the best thing GW could do would be to discontinue those kits and remove them from the fluff.
The DA flyers are different than the other Space Marine flyers, both in fluff and rules. If you don't like the Dark Talon then don't buy it. You couldn't get them for a while last year because they sold out. Even with the two nerfs aimed at them they are still quite good. They are also very fluffy, transporting captured Fallen etc.
Different? Lol. It's literally a storm talon kit with some wings bolted on, wings that most people think the original kit should have had.
Except you did not mention the Thunderhawk when you first went on about the DA flyers being anti-fluff/against the policy. That tells me that you hadn't thought about it. The Thunderhawk is a pretty big long-standing exception to your policy then. GW sets the "Imperial policy" - not you or I.
You complain that folks are making a strawman Peregrine. You should look at your own argument. If you were saying: "I find the DA, and all Marine flyers except the Thunderhawk, ugly and against my head cannon and therefore I will not buy them" I wouldn't really care. What you do not like is totally up to you. What you are arguing in the this thread, though, is that "I find the DA flyers ugly, redundant and against my fluff head-cannon - therefore they should be removed from the game." If this is not what you are arguing please correct me.
Once again, if DA and Space Marine flyers are part of the official GW fluff you might just want to get over it and not try to impose your own vision on everybody else. Go ahead and share your vision, but you are advocating to get ride of things because you don't like them. You don't have to buy the models. Enough other people do to make them a viable product line, and the Dark Talons are indeed competitive models for what that is worth.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Except you did not mention the Thunderhawk when you first went on about the DA flyers being anti-fluff/against the policy. That tells me that you hadn't thought about it. The Thunderhawk is a pretty big long-standing exception to your policy then. GW sets the "Imperial policy" - not you or I.
I am well aware that the Thunderhawk exists. I didn't mention it because it effectively isn't a 40k model, so there's no point in talking about removing it from 40k rules. Its obscenely high point cost, poor rules, and extreme difficulty of use on a normal table already remove it and make it nothing more than a display piece.
And yes, GW writes the fluff. I'm pointing out that GW's marketing department went directly against their own fluff in a way that damaged the quality of the game and its background fiction. Consistency matters, and disregarding that consistency for the sake of short term sales is a great way to ruin the game.
You complain that folks are making a strawman Peregrine. You should look at your own argument. If you were saying: "I find the DA, and all Marine flyers except the Thunderhawk, ugly and against my head cannon and therefore I will not buy them" I wouldn't really care. What you do not like is totally up to you. What you are arguing in the this thread, though, is that "I find the DA flyers ugly, redundant and against my fluff head-cannon - therefore they should be removed from the game." If this is not what you are arguing please correct me.
"I find them against the previously established fluff, and a textbook example of GW's rules bloat that should be removed to improve the game".
The DA flyers are different than the other Space Marine flyers, both in fluff and rules. If you don't like the Dark Talon then don't buy it. You couldn't get them for a while last year because they sold out. Even with the two nerfs aimed at them they are still quite good. They are also very fluffy, transporting captured Fallen etc.
Different? Lol. It's literally a storm talon kit with some wings bolted on, wings that most people think the original kit should have had.
If you agree with the logic that you only need as many fliers as there are battlefield roles, than you agree with my point that only three fliers are needed for all imperial factions. If you squat DA fliers, why cant you squat, the excess IG/DW/BA/SW/SM fliers to get down to the three fliers, one to fill air superiority, one for ground support and one for transport. Its no more difficult to toss away the Dark Talon as it is the Stormtalon. Why have Stormeagles, Valkyries and Corvus Blackstars? After all they all fill the carrier role. Its just as easy to squat any of them as any other imperial factions fliers. After all you just dont print a dataslate, and shut off the production lines.
Wow you just never stop with the extreme panic strawman do you.
I would prefer that the Marine flyers don;t exisit - mainly for reasons that Peregrine stated BUT if they have to stay - then they CAN be represented by a single or maybe two dateslates and likely a single kit with add ons
But some people just need to have all the focuss and resoruces on their sub-sub faction.....
Please explain how Ive made an 'extreme panic strawman', for simply pointing out that Slayers original argument applies to almost every Imperial flier, not just the DA ones, and that its just as easy to remove all the other fliers as it is the DA ones. Arguing only one faction should have squatted fliers when the process is the exact same to remove and model from the game is a bs argument as the process to squat a unit from the game is the exact same for every unit in the game, just turn off the production line and stop printing data sheets. Bam model is now unavailable and unplayable. Its no more difficult to do this to a DA flier than it is to do it to the SM stormtalon/hawk. At least as far as GW is concerned.
Pretty simple, you wanna combine all marines to one book? Fine, as long as a DA and DW player I lose absolutely ZERO options I have now, sure thing. It'll just be some extra weight training to lug that codex around with me.
Otherwise, nope. Deal with separate codexes and find another cause to cry over.
It's not fluffy for a secretive chapter who has a secret hunting mission to have attack planes specifically designed to work as part of their hunting group?
And it's not fluffy for a ground attack organization to have close support gunships?
It's not like these things are used as bombers against another battlefleet or anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: Pretty simple, you wanna combine all marines to one book? Fine, as long as a DA and DW player I lose absolutely ZERO options I have now, sure thing. It'll just be some extra weight training to lug that codex around with me.
Otherwise, nope. Deal with separate codexes and find another cause to cry over.
Just like the Black Templar lost none of their options?
bullyboy wrote: Pretty simple, you wanna combine all marines to one book? Fine, as long as a DA and DW player I lose absolutely ZERO options I have now, sure thing. It'll just be some extra weight training to lug that codex around with me.
Otherwise, nope. Deal with separate codexes and find another cause to cry over.
Deathwatch need to go into an Inquisition codex, so...
I think that the early 2018 tournament scene and resulting Spring Big 
Average 24.5 vs 19.5. When leman russ hull had armour 22 and turret 25 ability to hut both and average success on both was rather valuable.
