I think the reason is part "historically grown" and part "because money".
Dark Angels and Blood Angels had a shared army book in 2nd edition called "Angels of Death" and never since have been part of the vanilla Space Marine Codex. I haven't played 2nd edition, but I can't remember that there were any special units (not characters) available at that time that werent simply a different paint job to existing Space Marine units.
So since then you had Codexes that would stand on their own and of course you would continue that trend. From a business perspective Marine players had to buy two or three army books, if they wanted to play with different rules. Over time these stand alone books were filled with more unique looking models like Sanguinary Guard or Wulfen.
I don't know what would be a good thing to do by now. Consolidate all Space Marine books? That would mean with the current unit range the book will be bloated as frack and you would pay for pages that you don't want to or can't use in the end.
Maybe if unique units would go back to being a specific chapter's paint job would help with the bloat. Vanguard Veterans are the generic ones while Sanguinary Guard is the term for Blood Angels, but they would function the same rules wise and so on.
Is there any actual practical reason why GW would not make these "special" chapters a supplement?
It would tide up the marine faction very nicely and points would be armonized among them.
Thoughts?
Legacy. Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels have had their own codecies for a long time. I wouldn't be enraged if we became a supplement [hell, I'd be getting a piece of the broken-as-**** free goodies pie that is the supplements], there's just a lot of momentum behind them being separate books from before there were marine supplements planned.
As for GK, GK isn't really a marine army, we don't play like marines and don't really share the range in common. A GK supplement would just be a codex in it's own right. Being made with the same genetically engineered super soldier technology doesn't really have a bearing.
If you'd asked this question back in 3rd Edition,I expect you'd get a different answer. Back in the days of Index Astartes and (old) Chapter Approved, there were alternate rulesets floating around for every little derivative and homebrew.
Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves had pamphlet-books that added a small slice of flavour and a couple of new units to the core Codex. Salamanders and Black Templars had new lists printed up for Armageddon that were also pretty deviant at the time.
However in 5th Edition, the decision was taken to *make* them different lists with lots of new units created to justify the separate book. They were no longer supplements, they were fully distinct armies.
These three Chapters from a fluff point of view and rules in some cases are VERY none codex compliant.
All the space marine supplements and such are still codex compliant for the most part.
However Space wolves and Blood Angels have genuine mutations and flaws with their gene seeds and have unique none codex compliant units and battle formations and in some cases entire companies. (Death Company)
The Dark Angels too, their first and second companies being none codex compliant.
This is also down to the fact lore wise again the Dark Angels are still kinda sorta a legion. When Azrael became Chapter Master, the first thing he did was call all the Chapter Masters from all the DA sub factions. Then in front of all of them basically said "I am the captain now, I am the Supreme Grand Master". So all the Dark Angels successor still answer to Azrael.
From a hobby perspective, flavour they have unique units, wolfen, death company, sanguin guard, libarian dreadnoughts, deathwing, ravenwing, darkshroud, nephilm the list goes on.
Is there any actual practical reason why GW would not make these "special" chapters a supplement?
It would tide up the marine faction very nicely and points would be armonized among them.
Thoughts?
First of all from what I know GW is ultra secretive about stuff they do, for all we know next year there maybe supplements for some of those armies coming out. And second thing is, from what I understand, lack of staff to write and test the books. This why we sometimes get a book writen by someone who made a codex with good mechanics, which ends up with a top tier armies being picked out of it. While others get something like imperial fist, not bad per se, but very situational, just because someone at the studio decided that being a valid army is less important then lore. Which in itself is funny, because GW keeps changing the lore all the time, so only GW know why they aren't changing the lore to make better books to play with.
Well originally they were more distinct. Especially in 8th they've been blandified to the point where they really should be supplements and GW have worsened the vanilla end of the issue by spamming supplements.
Frankly as long as my wolves get no fluff attention and stop getting trashy rules I'm happy. Sadly these are lofty goals indeed.
Voss wrote: Because they haven't gotten around to re-re-doing those special snowflakes yet.
they didn't even make a real codex for GK, the books is a copy of a index, which is a copy of a codex, which is a copy of another book that had most of it stuff removed. Kind of a hard to re do something like that. It is like trying to remodel a house that was burned to its foundation.
These three Chapters from a fluff point of view and rules in some cases are VERY none codex compliant.
All the space marine supplements and such are still codex compliant for the most part.
However Space wolves and Blood Angels have genuine mutations and flaws with their gene seeds and have unique none codex compliant units and battle formations and in some cases entire companies. (Death Company)
The Dark Angels too, their first and second companies being none codex compliant.
This is also down to the fact lore wise again the Dark Angels are still kinda sorta a legion. When Azrael became Chapter Master, the first thing he did was call all the Chapter Masters from all the DA sub factions. Then in front of all of them basically said "I am the captain now, I am the Supreme Grand Master". So all the Dark Angels successor still answer to Azrael.
From a hobby perspective, flavour they have unique units, wolfen, death company, sanguin guard, libarian dreadnoughts, deathwing, ravenwing, darkshroud, nephilm the list goes on.
Nonsense.
The Wolves are the most divergent but both the Angels are specifically noted as being manily codex compliant - esp the Blood Angels
There are plenty of equally non compliant chapters and most if not all "Unique" units would also be present in one or more Chapters.
But people like to pretend that these Chapters are very different and have unique units - whereas its mostly cultural.
Well originally they were more distinct. Especially in 8th they've been blandified to the point where they really should be supplements and GW have worsened the vanilla end of the issue by spamming supplements.
Frankly as long as my wolves get no fluff attention and stop getting trashy rules I'm happy. Sadly these are lofty goals indeed.
Hilarious as all have been hugely flandersised by having Wolf, Blood or Dark rammed in front of everything and the fluff for them in the last few editions for all of them has, IMO been shoickgly awful.
TBH I was agaisnt putting them inside the vanilla Codex but with the new supplements, BA and DA at least could be a supplement without a problem. Just with more rules pages instead of the other supplements that are basically 85% superfluous fluff and 15% rules, so the supplements for BA and DA could be 60% of actual interesting fluff and not just telling me the composition of each of the 10 companies and 40% rules.
They probably should be pulled in. It would overall help them keep things in sync overall. If I was to redo "soup" under more strict lines, I'd probably do something like:
Space Marines - Astartes + Wolves/BA/DA Inquisition - DW/Sisters/GK/Inquisitors/Agents
Imperium - Guard/Mechanicus/Custodes/Knights
Honestly, I think they should have done a base Space Marine codex and each individual chapter as supplements, including BA, SW and DA (and maybe Crimson Fists and Black Templar’s). Use the supplements for a deep dive into the Chapters lore, and any special units or loadouts. They managed to put all the marine entries in one index, so obviously there’s a lot of overlap between the chapters regardless how “non-compliant” they supposedly are.
I think they left out Wolfe’s and the Angels because they just got Codexes fairly recently, and they didn’t want to upset those customers - who are now upset they didn’t get the marine buffs.
Space Wolves came later as a Codex Supplement in 3rd.
Just so you know, the Space Wolves are the 1st chapter to ever receive a Codex. back in 2nd edition, 1994.
Ultramarines followed, and the combo Angels book followed that.
As much as it bugs me to wait for a BA Codex when other Marines get theirs... I am hoping that the BA codex is just one book, and not BA plus supplements for Flesh Tearers or other Chapters.
Really believe that all of the BA and their Successor Chapters can honestly be in a single book, and it would he nice to only need a single book instead of two like the "Codex Compliant" Chapters now need.
a_typical_hero wrote: Dark Angels and Blood Angels had a shared army book in 2nd edition called "Angels of Death" and never since have been part of the vanilla Space Marine Codex. I haven't played 2nd edition, but I can't remember that there were any special units (not characters) available at that time that werent simply a different paint job to existing Space Marine units.
Blood Angels - 2nd edition had death company and their veterans could take jump packs.
A little variation through editions with the supercharged engine for rhinos, the alternate armament of the baal predator, and the furioso twin-cc weapon dreadnought by 4th. 5th edition saw all of their newer units added like the sanguinary guard and priest.
Dark Angels - 2nd edition had fearless terminators and skilled bikers. Beyond this and their characters they were extremely mundane until 6th edition, as demonstrated by most of their 3e book reading "See Codex: Space Marines"
Space Wolves - Were actually somewhat different in 2nd edition, including non-standard statlines and unit structures.
Space Wolves came later as a Codex Supplement in 3rd.
Just so you know, the Space Wolves are the 1st chapter to ever receive a Codex. back in 2nd edition, 1994.
Ultramarines followed, and the combo Angels book followed that.
I missed that one completely and did not know about it. but I also did not cared a lot about 40k during 2nd and start of 3rd
thx for the info
weight of tradtion as well as more varied rules.
Grey Knights deserve to have their own codex seperate from Marines, they have as much in common with Marines as sisters of battle from a rules POV (a few shared transports and thats it) but these chapters have a lot of differances, let's look at space wolves for a moment and go over it shall we. There are some space wolf units which could be simply "ok you modify your tac squads like so..." and some new stuff, let's go over how signfcigent it'd be?
Units that need modification:
Tac Marines/Grey Hunters - you'd need to change this so that grey hunters could take a second special weapon and not a heavy, you'd also need to give them chainswords.
Devestator/Longfangs: some definate differances here, longfang pack leaders can take a plasma gun and the squad gets a free re-roll of 1s.
Scouts - moved to the elite slot.
Dreadnought - fair number of changes and some options made unavaliable, such as no ironclad dreads.
Terminators - no assault squads, the termy squad having more weapon options.
Bikes - you'd need to adjust the BS assault marines - likewise need to adjust the BS chaplains would needed to be tweeked to wolf preists
New units added:
Wulfen Dread
Wulfen
Stormwolf
Stormfang
thunderwolf Cavalry
Fenrensian wolves
cyber wolves
Blood Claws
11 characters
assuming they can fit the changes to the unit entry sheets in one page, and manage to squeeze 2 datasheets on a page you're looking at about that's about a dozen pages at least of data sheets. then you assame each unit and character gets a page describing it. thats 19 pages or so.. asuming GW'd want to describe grey hunters, long fangs wolf preists, and bikes (which have a new name) a bit to explain how they differ from a codex compliant chapter and you've proably got ~23 pages.
then you've got the useal lore pages, which would be 2 of intro history a 2 page spread for Fenris, 14 pages describing the chapter's companies and command structure (if the space wolves got a supplement it should follow the outline of a supplement) and some in depth history etc. we'll assume space wolves get shift thrift like Imp Fists did and just get a short timeline, thats's another 2 pages.
You then get 1 page of warlord traits, 2 pages of relics 1 page of psyker spells, 1 page detailing the chapter rules and doctrines, 2 pages of stratigiums, 1 page of tactical objectives, 12 pages of an army showcase.
throw in a page with points values for the special units and another with the Space Wolf Specific war gear and 1 page of space wolf names, then some pages for introduction, and some art spreads
All told you're looking at proably a little over 85 pages. now the ultramarines supplement is 80 pages so it's not like this is grossly too big, and it could be done, but I think the benifits would be too small to be worth while. there'd be a lot of weird exceptions etc for various marine units that it'd be easier just to add another 30 pages or so and make it stand alone.
Now that said IMHOGW should take an approuch of "these are stand alone space marines supplements" and try and release them in a timely fashion after marines designed around marines etc. no waiting a year only to get a codex that is barely differant
Instead of codex plus supplement... just make a Codex for each subfaction of Marine. Most if not all units are identical, but then you can have your CT built into the units. If a given tactic is obviously more powerful... add a point per model for infantry. Or 10 points to a vehicle.
Just sayin’. If you’re buying two books, why not just make each chapter / legion it’s own thing?
I'd not be too suprised if we heard that these supplements where GW testing the waters to see if there'd be sufficant demand for them to consider giving some of these chapters a codex. if supplement white scars, for example sells really really well GW could then consider putting out a codex for them in 9th
I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
My point was more along the lines of, “I you release sub-faction supplements, and still need to buy a core codex, why not just make codeci with the core + supplement in one?”
Aside from squeezing every last dime.
For example, BA, DA, DW, GK, SW all get core + supplement in one book, if you catch my drift.
I think all sub faction rules should go away. You can build a fluffy army through unit choice and play style. Grinds my gears it does.
I agree. It ain't like Tyranids are releasing a Codex then passing out Supplements for Hydra or Jorg. I'd much rather a "one stop shop" deal, where I can buy a Codex and it will have everything I need for the Faction, including options for the sub-Factions underneath it. You know, like how 90% of the Xenos Codexes work.
It's really just too much bloat. GW could easily have done a consolidation (the separation of several units and upgrades is ridiculous and makes super little sense). Then you get for each Chapter:
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
because rules bloat is more the "cause celebre" of a handfull of very vocal posters most people seem pretty cool with the idea of getting new rules etc for their faction. case in point the only complaint we heard about PA1 was that eldar coulda used MORE.
Though in this case, it's less rules bloat and more just separating army specific rules and units to their own book. The number of rules really wouldn't change.
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
Despite the fact that, not including special characters, the three solo marine dexes have 12ish units, not four. That's not counting the units that have different options/equipment.
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
because rules bloat is more the "cause celebre" of a handfull of very vocal posters most people seem pretty cool with the idea of getting new rules etc for their faction. case in point the only complaint we heard about PA1 was that eldar coulda used MORE.
It isn't that they could've used more, but they absolutely needed the redone Craftworld Traits and it was mostly a lazy release.
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
because rules bloat is more the "cause celebre" of a handfull of very vocal posters most people seem pretty cool with the idea of getting new rules etc for their faction. case in point the only complaint we heard about PA1 was that eldar coulda used MORE.
It isn't that they could've used more, but they absolutely needed the redone Craftworld Traits and it was mostly a lazy release.
It was obviously both.
most players though are happy to have more in-depth rules for their armies.
Though in this case, it's less rules bloat and more just separating army specific rules and units to their own book. The number of rules really wouldn't change.
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
Despite the fact that, not including special characters, the three solo marine dexes have 12ish units, not four. That's not counting the units that have different options/equipment.
We've discussed this.
Yes because Blood Angels are the only Chapter that ever did Librarian Dreads...because.
Also those "unique" options are slowly going down. The main codex got the Terminator Ancient for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mostly everything can be represented by other means. Sanguine Priests are really just glorified Apothecaries and will never be known for anything else outside fluffbunnies like you.
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
because rules bloat is more the "cause celebre" of a handfull of very vocal posters most people seem pretty cool with the idea of getting new rules etc for their faction. case in point the only complaint we heard about PA1 was that eldar coulda used MORE.
It isn't that they could've used more, but they absolutely needed the redone Craftworld Traits and it was mostly a lazy release.
It was obviously both.
most players though are happy to have more in-depth rules for their armies.
You didn't bother to counter my TFC point so I'm going to assume that put you at a pause!
Though in this case, it's less rules bloat and more just separating army specific rules and units to their own book. The number of rules really wouldn't change.
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
Despite the fact that, not including special characters, the three solo marine dexes have 12ish units, not four. That's not counting the units that have different options/equipment.
We've discussed this.
Yes because Blood Angels are the only Chapter that ever did Librarian Dreads...because.
Also those "unique" options are slowly going down. The main codex got the Terminator Ancient for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mostly everything can be represented by other means. Sanguine Priests are really just glorified Apothecaries and will never be known for anything else outside fluffbunnies like you.
Just because some of them are being added to the general list doesn't mean all of them are. It also doesn't mean they won't get new unique units either.
And the same can be said for basilisks. It's a great artillery piece. Why don't the marines use it. Oh right, reasons.
Though in this case, it's less rules bloat and more just separating army specific rules and units to their own book. The number of rules really wouldn't change.
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
Despite the fact that, not including special characters, the three solo marine dexes have 12ish units, not four. That's not counting the units that have different options/equipment.
We've discussed this.
Yes because Blood Angels are the only Chapter that ever did Librarian Dreads...because.
Also those "unique" options are slowly going down. The main codex got the Terminator Ancient for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mostly everything can be represented by other means. Sanguine Priests are really just glorified Apothecaries and will never be known for anything else outside fluffbunnies like you.
Just because some of them are being added to the general list doesn't mean all of them are. It also doesn't mean they won't get new unique units either.
And the same can be said for basilisks. It's a great artillery piece. Why don't the marines use it. Oh right, reasons.
Because Imperial Guard aren't Space Marines but Dark and Blood Angels are.
My main issue with rules bloat is that the more rules (and the more complex they are), the less balanced the game is gonna be. As evidenced by every FAQ that has had to fix unintended rule interactions. Or the CA point fixes which have hurt Mono lists badly to fix some OP soup build (though, to be fair, my main gripe with that is allowing multi-Codex soup in the first place, but that's neither here nor there).
As an Ork player, I would absolutely love more rules and options for my Boyz. A Goff Dex would be dope. Deathskullz supplement? Yes please! More unit choices? Bring back my Looted Rhinos!
But I can also step back from my bias and realise that we don't really NEED more rules. What we need are competent and balanced rules, and if a simplified ruleset helps make that a reality, then I can swallow my pride and accept that.
Though in this case, it's less rules bloat and more just separating army specific rules and units to their own book. The number of rules really wouldn't change.
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
Despite the fact that, not including special characters, the three solo marine dexes have 12ish units, not four. That's not counting the units that have different options/equipment.
We've discussed this.
Yes because Blood Angels are the only Chapter that ever did Librarian Dreads...because.
Also those "unique" options are slowly going down. The main codex got the Terminator Ancient for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mostly everything can be represented by other means. Sanguine Priests are really just glorified Apothecaries and will never be known for anything else outside fluffbunnies like you.
Just because some of them are being added to the general list doesn't mean all of them are. It also doesn't mean they won't get new unique units either.
And the same can be said for basilisks. It's a great artillery piece. Why don't the marines use it. Oh right, reasons.
Because Imperial Guard aren't Space Marines but Dark and Blood Angels are.
GW has made it clear that they don't see Blood Angel Space Marines as the same thing as Space Marines, so my argument is still relevant to the conversation.
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
because rules bloat is more the "cause celebre" of a handfull of very vocal posters most people seem pretty cool with the idea of getting new rules etc for their faction. case in point the only complaint we heard about PA1 was that eldar coulda used MORE.
It isn't that they could've used more, but they absolutely needed the redone Craftworld Traits and it was mostly a lazy release.
irrelevant, my point stands, you might complain about Bloat but you are in the minority.
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
because rules bloat is more the "cause celebre" of a handfull of very vocal posters most people seem pretty cool with the idea of getting new rules etc for their faction. case in point the only complaint we heard about PA1 was that eldar coulda used MORE.
It isn't that they could've used more, but they absolutely needed the redone Craftworld Traits and it was mostly a lazy release.
irrelevant, my point stands, you might complain about Bloat but you are in the minority.
Though in this case, it's less rules bloat and more just separating army specific rules and units to their own book. The number of rules really wouldn't change.
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
Despite the fact that, not including special characters, the three solo marine dexes have 12ish units, not four. That's not counting the units that have different options/equipment.
We've discussed this.
Yes because Blood Angels are the only Chapter that ever did Librarian Dreads...because.
Also those "unique" options are slowly going down. The main codex got the Terminator Ancient for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mostly everything can be represented by other means. Sanguine Priests are really just glorified Apothecaries and will never be known for anything else outside fluffbunnies like you.
Just because some of them are being added to the general list doesn't mean all of them are. It also doesn't mean they won't get new unique units either.
And the same can be said for basilisks. It's a great artillery piece. Why don't the marines use it. Oh right, reasons.
Because Imperial Guard aren't Space Marines but Dark and Blood Angels are.
GW has made it clear that they don't see Blood Angel Space Marines as the same thing as Space Marines, so my argument is still relevant to the conversation.
Except they ARE Space Marines. So you're literally wrong.
AnomanderRake wrote: Because GW released some unique models for them. A "supplement" is a Codex that has only unique character models, a "Codex" has unique units as well.
My theory is that there won't be a ninth edition at all, and all factions will eventually get the dex + supplements treatment.
What some people call bloat, I call GW's persistent edition strategy. And you know what? I'd rather hope that a real alien auxilia for Tau; that Dark Eldar will get their characters back; that ALL aspects will plastic models, Phoenix Lords- all of that, rather than a reset button that pushes back the clock on development by years, while they rerelease everything we've already seen.
I rant about this often [sorry], and someone in another thread gracious pointed out that there is precedent for the soft reboot, where rules changes didn't invalidate dexes in order to allow a soft reboot. Maybe that wouldn't interfere quite as much with the actual development cycle, but it still interferes more than say, giving it 5-10 years worth of annual campaign content, cross-platform integration between BSF/ Kill Team/ Apocalypse and 40k under the current edition (though a decade of CA could transform the game radically, doing it so gradually that we hardly notice).
I don't play marines at all, but if I did, someone suggesting that I need to lose unique units to make the game smoother for everyone else, I'd be a bit offended. Of course, if I were a tournament player, I would be encouraged to only value the best four strategems, or the best unit of every type and automatically regard all the others as trash, so I wouldn't even miss the content. But I am super story based guy, so I LOVE many of the units that Dakka hates. I've never met another person who actually LIKES Drukari Beast masters and their packs and wants to see them redone and improved. As a story based guy, I can allow my beast master to control an Ambull, and I really don't care whether it's a "good" unit, though of course I would prefer that. Ditto for the court of the archon.
And I think that is the potential that dex + supplement brings. I WANT the hive fleets to be developed enough that they get enough variety to justify a dex + supplement, and I'll actually start playing Tau if the do Alien Auxiliary right, or even just give the Kroot Capacity to stand alone.
So I don't want BA, DA, and SW to be made into supplements, because I think that it would inevitably result in a loss of options for those players. It certainly COULD be done, but something would be lost.
Except they ARE Space Marines. So you're literally wrong.
They are Blood Angel Space Marines (ect), so I'm literally right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: My theory is that there won't be a ninth edition at all, and all factions will eventually get the dex + supplements treatment.
What some people call bloat, I call GW's persistent edition strategy. And you know what? I'd rather hope that a real alien auxilia for Tau; that Dark Eldar will get their characters back; that ALL aspects will plastic models, Phoenix Lords- all of that, rather than a reset button that pushes back the clock on development by years, while they rerelease everything we've already seen.
I rant about this often [sorry], and someone in another thread gracious pointed out that there is precedent for the soft reboot, where rules changes didn't invalidate dexes in order to allow a soft reboot. Maybe that wouldn't interfere quite as much with the actual development cycle, but it still interferes more than say, giving it 5-10 years worth of annual campaign content, cross-platform integration between BSF/ Kill Team/ Apocalypse and 40k under the current edition (though a decade of CA could transform the game radically, doing it so gradually that we hardly notice).
I don't play marines at all, but if I did, someone suggesting that I need to lose unique units to make the game smoother for everyone else, I'd be a bit offended. Of course, if I were a tournament player, I would be encouraged to only value the best four strategems, or the best unit of every type and automatically regard all the others as trash, so I wouldn't even miss the content. But I am super story based guy, so I LOVE many of the units that Dakka hates. I've never met another person who actually LIKES Drukari Beast masters and their packs and wants to see them redone and improved. As a story based guy, I can allow my beast master to control an Ambull, and I really don't care whether it's a "good" unit, though of course I would prefer that. Ditto for the court of the archon.
And I think that is the potential that dex + supplement brings. I WANT the hive fleets to be developed enough that they get enough variety to justify a dex + supplement, and I'll actually start playing Tau if the do Alien Auxiliary right, or even just give the Kroot Capacity to stand alone.
So I don't want BA, DA, and SW to be made into supplements, because I think that it would inevitably result in a loss of options for those players. It certainly COULD be done, but something would be lost.
This is the crux of the argument. So many of them insist that it has to be their way, that no one wants what you just described, when in general, supplements, expanded armies, and stand alone codexes are popular.
I apologize if you feel like I'm trying to make you conform to my opinion. I just wanted to state what mine was, and you're absolute free to have your own on the matter. Mine is, and will likely remain, that I would rather have fewer options and a balanced, well-written and tested, and fun ruleset versus having a ton of options that are nigh-impossible to balance and rules which require frequent FAQs and Errata.
Obviously, like most people, I'd rather have my cake and eat it too. Ideally, every sub-Faction could have it's own unique rules, units, and gimmicks, and there would even be rules for building "custom" Factions/sub-Factions. And we could have this in a world where you could build a list to your liking, with whatever options your heart desired, and it would be equally viable to any other list. Where skill and strategy would be the determination of the victor, and you wouldn't need constant FAQs, Erratas, point-adjustments, or social contracts to have a fun game.
But I don't think this is realistic. Complication and bloat breed imbalance and mistakes. You may feel like options are better than a solid rules foundation, and I can't say I don't relate with that. For myself, I lean in the opposite direction. To each their own, I suppose.
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
I don't mind separate rules for UM, WS, RG, IH, IF, Salamanders, specific CSM legions, any of the IG regiments, various craftworlds etc. Bring it on, make each group different.
What I DO mind is the overpriced format of these SM supplements.
For Ex: the IH supplement is $30. It's 64 pages long. ($2.133/page*) So: It has 9 pages of rules,, 20! pages of nothing but full color art/pics, & 35 pages of lore (most having 1/4 - 1/2 of the page taken up by more art/pics). Oh, and the inside front/back cover & cover pages? Are completely wasted on identical 2 page B&W spreads - looks nice, but they could've just as easily used 4 of those 20 pages of art/pics there instead of eating up page count.
That's A LOT of essentially dead space we just bought in order to get those 9 pages of rules - wich were then promptly erratted.
(If you're only really interested in the rules? That works out to $3.333/page)
flandarz wrote: I apologize if you feel like I'm trying to make you conform to my opinion. I just wanted to state what mine was, and you're absolute free to have your own on the matter. Mine is, and will likely remain, that I would rather have fewer options and a balanced, well-written and tested, and fun ruleset versus having a ton of options that are nigh-impossible to balance and rules which require frequent FAQs and Errata.
Obviously, like most people, I'd rather have my cake and eat it too. Ideally, every sub-Faction could have it's own unique rules, units, and gimmicks, and there would even be rules for building "custom" Factions/sub-Factions. And we could have this in a world where you could build a list to your liking, with whatever options your heart desired, and it would be equally viable to any other list. Where skill and strategy would be the determination of the victor, and you wouldn't need constant FAQs, Erratas, point-adjustments, or social contracts to have a fun game.
But I don't think this is realistic. Complication and bloat breed imbalance and mistakes. You may feel like options are better than a solid rules foundation, and I can't say I don't relate with that. For myself, I lean in the opposite direction. To each their own, I suppose.
Most of us are in the same Cake camp that you are. But you're not one of the people trying to push opinion as fact, or make unfounded claims about popularity (in either direction). No need to apologize.
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
I don't mind separate rules for UM, WS, RG, IH, IF, Salamanders, specific CSM legions, any of the IG regiments, various craftworlds etc. Bring it on, make each group different.
What I DO mind is the overpriced format of these SM supplements.
For Ex: the IH supplement is $30. It's 64 pages long. ($2.133/page*) So: It has 9 pages of rules,, 20! pages of nothing but full color art/pics, & 35 pages of lore (most having 1/4 - 1/2 of the page taken up by more art/pics). Oh, and the inside front/back cover & cover pages? Are completely wasted on identical 2 page B&W spreads - looks nice, but they could've just as easily used 4 of those 20 pages of art/pics there instead of eating up page count.
That's A LOT of essentially dead space we just bought in order to get those 9 pages of rules - wich were then promptly erratted.
(If you're only really interested in the rules? That works out to $3.333/page)
Sounds like it could be covered by a thematic WD, which I'd like.
I'd appreciate Supplement rules for everything, the problem I see though is abilities still costing nothing. I'm not saying GW is incompetent for not creating all of them with equal worth, I'm saying that's not possible as long as they cost you no points. Be it Warlord traits, psychic powers, faction tactics - pay for them. You could even make it an additional Pool to choose from. Say you have 50 "ability points" you can use for these, but the... Suppurating plate and miasma of pestilence will each cost 25 already, while the pandemic staff only costs 10 and blades of putrefaction costs 20, so you can "buy" your subfaction ability as well. If you literally had 100 supplements with abilities that cost nothing, you'll need something to balance these.
Except they ARE Space Marines. So you're literally wrong.
They are Blood Angel Space Marines (ect), so I'm literally right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: My theory is that there won't be a ninth edition at all, and all factions will eventually get the dex + supplements treatment.
What some people call bloat, I call GW's persistent edition strategy. And you know what? I'd rather hope that a real alien auxilia for Tau; that Dark Eldar will get their characters back; that ALL aspects will plastic models, Phoenix Lords- all of that, rather than a reset button that pushes back the clock on development by years, while they rerelease everything we've already seen.
I rant about this often [sorry], and someone in another thread gracious pointed out that there is precedent for the soft reboot, where rules changes didn't invalidate dexes in order to allow a soft reboot. Maybe that wouldn't interfere quite as much with the actual development cycle, but it still interferes more than say, giving it 5-10 years worth of annual campaign content, cross-platform integration between BSF/ Kill Team/ Apocalypse and 40k under the current edition (though a decade of CA could transform the game radically, doing it so gradually that we hardly notice).
I don't play marines at all, but if I did, someone suggesting that I need to lose unique units to make the game smoother for everyone else, I'd be a bit offended. Of course, if I were a tournament player, I would be encouraged to only value the best four strategems, or the best unit of every type and automatically regard all the others as trash, so I wouldn't even miss the content. But I am super story based guy, so I LOVE many of the units that Dakka hates. I've never met another person who actually LIKES Drukari Beast masters and their packs and wants to see them redone and improved. As a story based guy, I can allow my beast master to control an Ambull, and I really don't care whether it's a "good" unit, though of course I would prefer that. Ditto for the court of the archon.
And I think that is the potential that dex + supplement brings. I WANT the hive fleets to be developed enough that they get enough variety to justify a dex + supplement, and I'll actually start playing Tau if the do Alien Auxiliary right, or even just give the Kroot Capacity to stand alone.
So I don't want BA, DA, and SW to be made into supplements, because I think that it would inevitably result in a loss of options for those players. It certainly COULD be done, but something would be lost.
This is the crux of the argument. So many of them insist that it has to be their way, that no one wants what you just described, when in general, supplements, expanded armies, and stand alone codexes are popular.
Except they ARE Space Marines. So you're literally wrong.
They are Blood Angel Space Marines (ect), so I'm literally right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: My theory is that there won't be a ninth edition at all, and all factions will eventually get the dex + supplements treatment.
What some people call bloat, I call GW's persistent edition strategy. And you know what? I'd rather hope that a real alien auxilia for Tau; that Dark Eldar will get their characters back; that ALL aspects will plastic models, Phoenix Lords- all of that, rather than a reset button that pushes back the clock on development by years, while they rerelease everything we've already seen.
I rant about this often [sorry], and someone in another thread gracious pointed out that there is precedent for the soft reboot, where rules changes didn't invalidate dexes in order to allow a soft reboot. Maybe that wouldn't interfere quite as much with the actual development cycle, but it still interferes more than say, giving it 5-10 years worth of annual campaign content, cross-platform integration between BSF/ Kill Team/ Apocalypse and 40k under the current edition (though a decade of CA could transform the game radically, doing it so gradually that we hardly notice).
I don't play marines at all, but if I did, someone suggesting that I need to lose unique units to make the game smoother for everyone else, I'd be a bit offended. Of course, if I were a tournament player, I would be encouraged to only value the best four strategems, or the best unit of every type and automatically regard all the others as trash, so I wouldn't even miss the content. But I am super story based guy, so I LOVE many of the units that Dakka hates. I've never met another person who actually LIKES Drukari Beast masters and their packs and wants to see them redone and improved. As a story based guy, I can allow my beast master to control an Ambull, and I really don't care whether it's a "good" unit, though of course I would prefer that. Ditto for the court of the archon.
And I think that is the potential that dex + supplement brings. I WANT the hive fleets to be developed enough that they get enough variety to justify a dex + supplement, and I'll actually start playing Tau if the do Alien Auxiliary right, or even just give the Kroot Capacity to stand alone.
So I don't want BA, DA, and SW to be made into supplements, because I think that it would inevitably result in a loss of options for those players. It certainly COULD be done, but something would be lost.
This is the crux of the argument. So many of them insist that it has to be their way, that no one wants what you just described, when in general, supplements, expanded armies, and stand alone codexes are popular.
LOL no they're just red Space Marines..
GW disagrees with you. and guess who writes the rules.
If you don't care for fluff, why do you even pay for that most expensive wargame and not choose a different one? Yes, supplements, just like campaign books, are for fluff fans, but I assume that's the majority of players and therefore they will sell. Everyone who has invested in a certain subfaction will get the respective supplement, and the fotm / waac tournament people will get it, too.
Its a bit weird that BA have more flamer and melta options than the salamanders. Thats just a very weird and artifical way of making BA more unique for no good reason. I see nothing wrong with allowing everyone have meltaguns on their assault marines or having access to the Baal predator. Same with the dreadnoughts. I use an ironclad instead of a furioso already anyway since that box came out before the new Ba plastic dreads. Could just let stratagem and psychic powers be what differentiate BA dreads from the rest. Like let the "Death Vision Of Sanguinius" strat be used on a dread and you have a DC dread.
Could treat Sanguinary guard just as an honor guard and let every chapter have access to a honorguard with jump pack but BA have unique models for it. Their special rules and weapons suck anyway and best way to play them is just as pf terminators with JP. The sanguinary guard honor guard would still be the best JP honor guard due to chapter tactic and stratagems, might even have a strat called "Sanguinary Guard xxx" that does something unique.
Let DC and the characters be the only unique units and then its ready for a supplement.
The issue as I see it is not that these factions have unique units (this is handled just fine by the supplements) but that in cases like the Space Wolves, they have units that replace standard Marine units and have significantly different rules or structure. Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, Wolf Scouts, Long Fangs and Wolf Guard are all replacements for their corresponding Codex units, and are significantly different enough that they require separate rules. As a supplement, Wolves would then have access to both their own and the standard versions of these units, which would not only make no sense (are their new recruits scouts or Blood Claws?), but would give a strange advantage where they then have access to a much wider variety of units than the other flavours of marines.
But isn't the end goal to replace all the old marines with primaris? A codex that just turns grey hunters in to primaris intercessors, bloodclaws in to reavers would help to enhance that. Only different stuff could be SW specific weapon options, like all the axs they have. And the SW specific units other marines do not have so wolf raiders, the dog flyer, storm shield dreads etc.
Looking at Wolves - the most "unique" (or flanderised)
so those Units that need modification:
Tac Marines/Grey Hunters - you'd need to change this so that grey hunters could take a second special weapon and not a heavy, you'd also need to give them chainswords.
So a couple of options in the unit - what difference would it make if all Marines had this? Devestator/Longfangs: some definate differances here, longfang pack leaders can take a plasma gun and the squad gets a free re-roll of 1s.
So a couple of options in the unit - what difference would it make if all Marines had this? Scouts - moved to the elite slot. Lone hunter type unit - what difference would it make if all Marines had this? Dreadnought - fair number of changes and some options made unavaliable, such as no ironclad dreads.
The few actual options - what difference would it make if all Marines had this? Terminators - no assault squads, the termy squad having more weapon options.
what difference would it make ifWolves had this option and all Marines had this? Bikes - you'd need to adjust the BS or just a option assault marines - likewise need to adjust the BS or just an option chaplains would needed to be tweeked to wolf preists
or just a name option - maybe a coupel of unti options
So no need for anything more than a few minor options included?
Its insulting and stupid that somehow 999 chpaters don't use chainswords, etc....
Oh and Briandavion - before you start - remember I collect Wolves as well.
Mr Morden wrote: So no need for anything more than a few minor options included?
If GW decided they really did want to merge them there is always the black templar option - aka throw out all of the unique variations in the unit structure and call it a job well done.
Ultimately it's not going to be the unique rules staying GWs hand.
Mr Morden wrote: So no need for anything more than a few minor options included?
If GW decided they really did want to merge them there is always the black templar option - aka throw out all of the unique variations in the unit structure and call it a job well done.
Ultimately it's not going to be the unique rules staying GWs hand.
That was not the OP question.
Also Black Templars still have more options, units and characters than most supplements Yes?
The train left the station long ago, despite what some overly vocal minority might want, they are separate factions.
I could hear the outrage now, you release Supplement Dark Angels to be used in conjunction with Codex Space Marines (even though they are not listed in there whatsoever). It has a new super doctrine, warlord traits, relics, strategems, characters.....oh, and then it also has options for Black Knights, a Darkshroud, a Land speeder vengeance, a nephilim, a dark talon, a Talonmaster, an Interrogator Chaplain, an Apothecary in Terminator armour, a champion in terminator armour, an apothecary on bike, a champion on bike, an ancient on bike, a mixed terminator squad, and Deathwing Knights. Yet they still get access to everything else that other marines get (even though in the lore they don't use them, but hey let's just ignore that convenient fact). As long as there is a plastic kit for a unit entry, it will get a unit entry and Dark Angels have all of the above.
GW has made these factions a splinter of the original space marines and they have diverged to the point of no return because of access to plastic kits. I prefer this approach, and always have. Let the certain people posting on this thread eat cake.
Except they ARE Space Marines. So you're literally wrong.
They are Blood Angel Space Marines (ect), so I'm literally right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: My theory is that there won't be a ninth edition at all, and all factions will eventually get the dex + supplements treatment.
What some people call bloat, I call GW's persistent edition strategy. And you know what? I'd rather hope that a real alien auxilia for Tau; that Dark Eldar will get their characters back; that ALL aspects will plastic models, Phoenix Lords- all of that, rather than a reset button that pushes back the clock on development by years, while they rerelease everything we've already seen.
I rant about this often [sorry], and someone in another thread gracious pointed out that there is precedent for the soft reboot, where rules changes didn't invalidate dexes in order to allow a soft reboot. Maybe that wouldn't interfere quite as much with the actual development cycle, but it still interferes more than say, giving it 5-10 years worth of annual campaign content, cross-platform integration between BSF/ Kill Team/ Apocalypse and 40k under the current edition (though a decade of CA could transform the game radically, doing it so gradually that we hardly notice).
I don't play marines at all, but if I did, someone suggesting that I need to lose unique units to make the game smoother for everyone else, I'd be a bit offended. Of course, if I were a tournament player, I would be encouraged to only value the best four strategems, or the best unit of every type and automatically regard all the others as trash, so I wouldn't even miss the content. But I am super story based guy, so I LOVE many of the units that Dakka hates. I've never met another person who actually LIKES Drukari Beast masters and their packs and wants to see them redone and improved. As a story based guy, I can allow my beast master to control an Ambull, and I really don't care whether it's a "good" unit, though of course I would prefer that. Ditto for the court of the archon.
And I think that is the potential that dex + supplement brings. I WANT the hive fleets to be developed enough that they get enough variety to justify a dex + supplement, and I'll actually start playing Tau if the do Alien Auxiliary right, or even just give the Kroot Capacity to stand alone.
So I don't want BA, DA, and SW to be made into supplements, because I think that it would inevitably result in a loss of options for those players. It certainly COULD be done, but something would be lost.
This is the crux of the argument. So many of them insist that it has to be their way, that no one wants what you just described, when in general, supplements, expanded armies, and stand alone codexes are popular.
LOL no they're just red Space Marines. .
You have a really funny way of spelling GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That doesn't make GW correct. GW, in fact, says many things that end up being incorrect.
What's your point at that point? Just listen and be a good customer?
They write the rules and the fluff. They literally can't be incorrect on what counts as what.
And yes, if you disagree you can either just go with it anyway, house rule everything, or play a different game.
bullyboy wrote: The train left the station long ago, despite what some overly vocal minority might want, they are separate factions.
I could hear the outrage now, you release Supplement Dark Angels to be used in conjunction with Codex Space Marines (even though they are not listed in there whatsoever). It has a new super doctrine, warlord traits, relics, strategems, characters.....oh, and then it also has options for Black Knights, a Darkshroud, a Land speeder vengeance, a nephilim, a dark talon, a Talonmaster, an Interrogator Chaplain, an Apothecary in Terminator armour, a champion in terminator armour, an apothecary on bike, a champion on bike, an ancient on bike, a mixed terminator squad, and Deathwing Knights. Yet they still get access to everything else that other marines get (even though in the lore they don't use them, but hey let's just ignore that convenient fact). As long as there is a plastic kit for a unit entry, it will get a unit entry and Dark Angels have all of the above.
GW has made these factions a splinter of the original space marines and they have diverged to the point of no return because of access to plastic kits. I prefer this approach, and always have. Let the certain people posting on this thread eat cake.
sigh and thats why non marine players don;t get nice things.....(speaking as non exclusive Marine player)
Especially since many of those units only pretend to be unique
bullyboy wrote: The train left the station long ago, despite what some overly vocal minority might want, they are separate factions.
I could hear the outrage now, you release Supplement Dark Angels to be used in conjunction with Codex Space Marines (even though they are not listed in there whatsoever). It has a new super doctrine, warlord traits, relics, strategems, characters.....oh, and then it also has options for Black Knights, a Darkshroud, a Land speeder vengeance, a nephilim, a dark talon, a Talonmaster, an Interrogator Chaplain, an Apothecary in Terminator armour, a champion in terminator armour, an apothecary on bike, a champion on bike, an ancient on bike, a mixed terminator squad, and Deathwing Knights. Yet they still get access to everything else that other marines get (even though in the lore they don't use them, but hey let's just ignore that convenient fact). As long as there is a plastic kit for a unit entry, it will get a unit entry and Dark Angels have all of the above.
GW has made these factions a splinter of the original space marines and they have diverged to the point of no return because of access to plastic kits. I prefer this approach, and always have. Let the certain people posting on this thread eat cake.
sigh and thats why non marine players don;t get nice things.....(speaking as non exclusive Marine player)
Especially since many of those units only pretend to be unique
Hey, I didn't make the rules or the plastic kits. I just buy what I like.
Except they ARE Space Marines. So you're literally wrong.
They are Blood Angel Space Marines (ect), so I'm literally right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: My theory is that there won't be a ninth edition at all, and all factions will eventually get the dex + supplements treatment.
What some people call bloat, I call GW's persistent edition strategy. And you know what? I'd rather hope that a real alien auxilia for Tau; that Dark Eldar will get their characters back; that ALL aspects will plastic models, Phoenix Lords- all of that, rather than a reset button that pushes back the clock on development by years, while they rerelease everything we've already seen.
I rant about this often [sorry], and someone in another thread gracious pointed out that there is precedent for the soft reboot, where rules changes didn't invalidate dexes in order to allow a soft reboot. Maybe that wouldn't interfere quite as much with the actual development cycle, but it still interferes more than say, giving it 5-10 years worth of annual campaign content, cross-platform integration between BSF/ Kill Team/ Apocalypse and 40k under the current edition (though a decade of CA could transform the game radically, doing it so gradually that we hardly notice).
I don't play marines at all, but if I did, someone suggesting that I need to lose unique units to make the game smoother for everyone else, I'd be a bit offended. Of course, if I were a tournament player, I would be encouraged to only value the best four strategems, or the best unit of every type and automatically regard all the others as trash, so I wouldn't even miss the content. But I am super story based guy, so I LOVE many of the units that Dakka hates. I've never met another person who actually LIKES Drukari Beast masters and their packs and wants to see them redone and improved. As a story based guy, I can allow my beast master to control an Ambull, and I really don't care whether it's a "good" unit, though of course I would prefer that. Ditto for the court of the archon.
And I think that is the potential that dex + supplement brings. I WANT the hive fleets to be developed enough that they get enough variety to justify a dex + supplement, and I'll actually start playing Tau if the do Alien Auxiliary right, or even just give the Kroot Capacity to stand alone.
So I don't want BA, DA, and SW to be made into supplements, because I think that it would inevitably result in a loss of options for those players. It certainly COULD be done, but something would be lost.
This is the crux of the argument. So many of them insist that it has to be their way, that no one wants what you just described, when in general, supplements, expanded armies, and stand alone codexes are popular.
LOL no they're just red Space Marines. .
You have a really funny way of spelling GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That doesn't make GW correct. GW, in fact, says many things that end up being incorrect.
What's your point at that point? Just listen and be a good customer?
They write the rules and the fluff. They literally can't be incorrect on what counts as what. And yes, if you disagree you can either just go with it anyway, house rule everything, or play a different game.
Well they can. Remember how Cultists used to get Legion rules even though they weren't really Chaos Marines and then benefitted from VotLW?
They can get stuff wrong in their own game too! Look at that!
about the same isn't the same though. A DW veteran with a stormbolters is almost the same as a GK strike with a stormbolter. But they are both very different from each other, based on unit and gear options alone. And neither of the two look like anything in the space marine codex.
Mr Morden wrote: That was not the OP question.
Also Black Templars still have more options, units and characters than most supplements Yes?
Also collect Templars.
The question was why doesn't GW roll up the BA/DA/etc into add-ons to the marine book, which is exactly what they did with the templars back in 6th - albeit in-book rather than as a supplement.
Their options and units amount solely to their unique kits, and beyond that they are ultramarines. After the releases in 5th and 6th for the other factions their larger range made a similar merger less practical.
Karol wrote: about the same isn't the same though. A DW veteran with a stormbolters is almost the same as a GK strike with a stormbolter. But they are both very different from each other, based on unit and gear options alone. And neither of the two look like anything in the space marine codex.
Deathwatch are the sternguard unit spun off into a codex.
Karol wrote: about the same isn't the same though. A DW veteran with a stormbolters is almost the same as a GK strike with a stormbolter. But they are both very different from each other, based on unit and gear options alone. And neither of the two look like anything in the space marine codex.
That's comparing a troop choice to an elite choice, for one.
Two, they CLEARLY have different functions for being in different armies. You can't say the same for most of the "unqiue" stuff the Angels have.
Not really into the other armies so I'm not sure how well DA/SW/DW/GK could be integrated with the big marine book as supplements. BA can and propably should so everyone has access to the same flamer and melta options and librarian dreads and baal predators(might need a name change to something more Flamy and generic).
The mixed DA terminators should just be how standard terminators are. Having so many datasheets for terminators is just weird. All marines having the same and then just give DA a special Stratagem or psychic power/trait/relic that makes their terminators better and "Deathwing". Dont really know much about their other stuff but propably not much extra work to make them fit in with the rest.
Deathwatch should work easily to make to a supplement I guess. They dont really have much special other than in how you put them together. Just have a small supplement that describes how you combine their squads. Their only unique options are like a melee weapon, a dreadnought weapon and the blackshield right? That isnt much at all.
SW can propably stay in their own codex or at least make the streamlining in 2 steps and not all at once. They are very much the same but still not. Like they have the same units but with slightly different look, name and stats and taking up a different slot. Not a SW expert so dont listen to me too much but I feel that its more the fluff and their unique models that make them really unique and not their actual stats. Could just make an entry somewhere and say that their Assault Marines are just Blood Claws with JP etc. And no real reason for their frost weapons to have another profile than the normal weapons, They could easily be made into a supplement if you really wanted but I feel they would lose much more than BA, DA and DW in doing so.
GK shouldnt be made into a supplement. On the other hand there could propably be more effort in to putting Custodes, Grey Knights, different Sisters and Inquisition more closely together. Like making 2 books of them all together. So armies are more updated and balanced together so we dont have it like now where red, bluegray and green space marines are much worse than the other just because they are in a different book for "reasons".
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Because fluffbunnies will hiss at the very thought of consolidation and GW knows it can milk them for money.
Slayer-Fan123, whilst I would actually also like to see BA/DA/SW given supplement treatment, you also know that I'm probably the fluffiest bunny here.
It's not a "fluffbunny" thing, and relying on that as some kind of crutch weakens the argument (which I, a fluffbunny, agree with).
They're the ones buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice though, and end up justifying it through bizarre mental gymnastics. It's also why I refuse to ever buy a CSM codex ever again now until they're made to represent Legions proper instead of those garbage we have now, and why I've been encouraging everyone I know to refuse to give money for the garbage Chaos Knights release.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Because fluffbunnies will hiss at the very thought of consolidation and GW knows it can milk them for money.
Slayer-Fan123, whilst I would actually also like to see BA/DA/SW given supplement treatment, you also know that I'm probably the fluffiest bunny here.
It's not a "fluffbunny" thing, and relying on that as some kind of crutch weakens the argument (which I, a fluffbunny, agree with).
They're the ones buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice though, and end up justifying it through bizarre mental gymnastics. It's also why I refuse to ever buy a CSM codex ever again now until they're made to represent Legions proper instead of those garbage we have now, and why I've been encouraging everyone I know to refuse to give money for the garbage Chaos Knights release.
It's not always the narrative players (less pejorative term for "fluffbunny"). A narrative player can play UltraMarines reasonably without picking up the supplement. A competitive player cannot. Add to it that competitive players are more fixated on knowing everyone else's rules, and "buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice" is certainly not just a "narrative player" problem.
I think that fluff is quite important to a lot of 40K players. The level of that importance might vary, but I doubt that many are exclusively fluff-driven or game/power-driven. I find the fluff very important, but I also go to a tournament every quarter or so. I try to win my games, but I also build a list that speaks to me. The thought of abandoning the Chapter that I have played since 1996 to try to win more games is quite foreign to me. As a Dark Angel its been tough sledding as of late, but the wheel goes round. The worm will turn.
The distinct Chapters are clearly important to enough gamers to warrant them continued existence. Ultimately, the market will decide (well - GW makes the call but the market's invisible hand is the driving force). I am not sure why some folks are upset about this. You don't have to buy the Dark Angels or Blood Angels book if you don't want to. Their rules, stratagems and unique datasheets do not clutter up the Codex for your force/chapter. Similarly, I just have to buy the Dark Angels Codex. I'm happy about that! While I suppose that there is design/sales space opportunity cost, it doesn't take many SKUs to have the kits to make the Dark Angels unique units and look. Similarly the fluff/background for the Dark Angels and other unique chapters is well-established over the previous decades so its not like its a massive undertaking preventing some new Xenos race being created (at tremendous risk) to the company.
Some have argued previously that the distinct Chapters are somehow making the Space Marines weaker. The new Iron Hands supplement seems to argue against that. For Space Marine players who care primarily about tabletop victory at competitions and have no "fluff/Chapter loyalty" then I suggest that the Iron Hands are their choice right now. So it would seem that there is room in the Space Marines' tent for power-gamers, fluff-bunnies and all those in between.
Beyond that, if a player buys a GK codex, and loves the GK codex, and loves it seperate from their SM codex, is that "bizarre mental gymnastics"?
Now, a seperate UM book for my Marines (Not sure if I'll pick it up. Doubt I'd pick up an Uthwe book even) is more stratiation than I'm up for. But that's me.
Everyone has different levels of ideal stratiation. Quality and relevance aren't intrinsic levels of "good" or "bad". Everyone has different preferences, so will prefer different situations. I'm sure we can all agree that books for each generation of each Company of each Chapter would be too far. And a single, short book that encompases every army in the game is not far enough. But, between that, it's rational to disagree.
Ultimately, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc.. having their own Codex are partially a historic thing from GW spinning those books off to their own releases in previous (very long ago) editions. It was, at the end of the day, the same basic business idea as today's supplements. Just the late 80s / early 90s, 2nd Ed. version of it.
Similarly, Death Guard and Thousand Sons got their own Codex more recently, though before the current supplement variant. Could they have been CSM supplement if their release had come 2-3 years earlier or later? Probably.
Also, things like Black Templar or Khorne Daemonkin had their own books but were (temporarily?) folded back into a larger book, presumably due to lack of sales/unique miniatures. Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus used to be their own thing but were merged. Etc..
In the end, whether GW will spin out a popular sub-faction as it's own Codex or Mini-Codex as they did with Death Guard or Harlequins, or whether they make it a just a "supplement" is mostly a fashion thing that will come and go with the years.
Not to mention sub-faction army rules (or things like formations) being spun off into campaign books, White Dwarf (initial format for Crimson Fists, for example), etc.. any and all of which could become en vogue again in a year or three.
The one thing you probably shouldn't hold your breath for is GW doing this a) on the basis of some background justification/logic or b) being consistent with it over a multi-year period.
A not insignificant motivation for the current Marine supplements is likely also the buckets of Marine miniatures GW is releasing with them. They had releases in all those Impulsors and Invictors and Infiltrators, etc.. to cover several weeks of releases, thus they could bundle a bunch of supplement books with them. If there isn't such a wealth of Marine miniatures (unlikely, I know, lol), in 9th Ed. there probably won't be supplements, because there aren't enough miniatures to go with it.
Likewise, if GW were to, say, do a huge quantity of Tau miniatures, you might see a couple of Tau supplements (or campaign books or fully fledged spin-off-codexes or whatever) on Farsight or whatever to go with them, padding the release window. If there isn't miniatures to fill release slots of several weeks as there was with for faction X, they also wont get supplements (or supplement-equivalents).
GW is too big compared to its competitors while also bad at balancing the game so I wouldnt say the invisible hand of the market can do much here. What if GW releases a new BA book with new unique units that are more powerful than what IH have. We will se lots of people who would like the marines consolidated buy the book and units for its sheer powerlevel. GW controls the market and not the consumers. That is the problem. If the only difference were fluff then it could perhaps show up.
If everything were balanced then people would only go after what they liked. I think there are quite a lot of people who would want to play certain weak armies that are really bad in the rules and thus just continue with their main faction because they dont want to waste money and time on Grey knights as they are now.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Because fluffbunnies will hiss at the very thought of consolidation and GW knows it can milk them for money.
Slayer-Fan123, whilst I would actually also like to see BA/DA/SW given supplement treatment, you also know that I'm probably the fluffiest bunny here.
It's not a "fluffbunny" thing, and relying on that as some kind of crutch weakens the argument (which I, a fluffbunny, agree with).
They're the ones buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice though, and end up justifying it through bizarre mental gymnastics. It's also why I refuse to ever buy a CSM codex ever again now until they're made to represent Legions proper instead of those garbage we have now, and why I've been encouraging everyone I know to refuse to give money for the garbage Chaos Knights release.
It's not always the narrative players (less pejorative term for "fluffbunny"). A narrative player can play UltraMarines reasonably without picking up the supplement. A competitive player cannot. Add to it that competitive players are more fixated on knowing everyone else's rules, and "buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice" is certainly not just a "narrative player" problem.
No, because the fluffbunny wants the Characters and everything too. I refuse to buy the Supplements too if you catch my drift.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Beyond that, if a player buys a GK codex, and loves the GK codex, and loves it seperate from their SM codex, is that "bizarre mental gymnastics"?
Yeah it is. Did you read that pile of garabge, like, at all?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Because fluffbunnies will hiss at the very thought of consolidation and GW knows it can milk them for money.
Slayer-Fan123, whilst I would actually also like to see BA/DA/SW given supplement treatment, you also know that I'm probably the fluffiest bunny here.
It's not a "fluffbunny" thing, and relying on that as some kind of crutch weakens the argument (which I, a fluffbunny, agree with).
They're the ones buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice though, and end up justifying it through bizarre mental gymnastics. It's also why I refuse to ever buy a CSM codex ever again now until they're made to represent Legions proper instead of those garbage we have now, and why I've been encouraging everyone I know to refuse to give money for the garbage Chaos Knights release.
No, the people who want those codexes are the ones buying them. Not some sort of bizarre "you like the lore of the game, hah!" argument that you seem to be pedalling.
In case you conveniently forgot, you know I'm what you'd call a "fluffbunny" - power level and all. I think that DA/BA/SW should be folded in. Therefore, something about your usage of "fluffbunny" is very much misguided, and not appropriate for this discussion.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote: It's not always the narrative players (less pejorative term for "fluffbunny"). A narrative player can play UltraMarines reasonably without picking up the supplement. A competitive player cannot. Add to it that competitive players are more fixated on knowing everyone else's rules, and "buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice" is certainly not just a "narrative player" problem.
No, because the fluffbunny wants the Characters and everything too. I refuse to buy the Supplements too if you catch my drift.
That sounds like a lot of strawmanning. If you can't make your argument without relying on this mythical "fluffbunny" (of which I am one, and do not fit your extremely narrow viewpoint), it's not exactly a solid one.
Again, I support the idea of consolidating books. But your argument for it is doing no favours.
At this point, I think that GW'd best move would be to strip down every Faction to just a double handful or so of units, a few Stratagems, and maybe 1 or 2 Wargear choices, and focus on making THOSE balanced and fun, with well-written rules to back up their wargame. Then they could release more units, Stratagems, and Wargear at a slow trickle, after making sure they aren't gonna break the game or invalidate other choices in the Faction.
Now this is what I think they SHOULD do. Bring the game back to its roots as a wargame, and make it fun to play again. But, as mentioned pretty much everywhere, GW isn't in the wargame business. It's in the "sell you expensive models and rules" business. So, rather than risk their revenue by stripping things down and slowly building back up, they're just gonna keep trying to fix things and inevitably breaking others.
It's basically like buying a boat without checking it's condition, going out for a ride, and plugging the leaks with your fingers.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Because fluffbunnies will hiss at the very thought of consolidation and GW knows it can milk them for money.
Slayer-Fan123, whilst I would actually also like to see BA/DA/SW given supplement treatment, you also know that I'm probably the fluffiest bunny here.
It's not a "fluffbunny" thing, and relying on that as some kind of crutch weakens the argument (which I, a fluffbunny, agree with).
They're the ones buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice though, and end up justifying it through bizarre mental gymnastics. It's also why I refuse to ever buy a CSM codex ever again now until they're made to represent Legions proper instead of those garbage we have now, and why I've been encouraging everyone I know to refuse to give money for the garbage Chaos Knights release.
It's not always the narrative players (less pejorative term for "fluffbunny"). A narrative player can play UltraMarines reasonably without picking up the supplement. A competitive player cannot. Add to it that competitive players are more fixated on knowing everyone else's rules, and "buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice" is certainly not just a "narrative player" problem.
No, because the fluffbunny wants the Characters and everything too. I refuse to buy the Supplements too if you catch my drift.
What about fluffbunnies possibly wanting "Characters and everything too" somehow means there are no non-fluffbunnies that would ever buy the books?
At least a nonsequitor isn't a strawman, for once.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Beyond that, if a player buys a GK codex, and loves the GK codex, and loves it seperate from their SM codex, is that "bizarre mental gymnastics"?
Yeah it is. Did you read that pile of garabge, like, at all?
If "Person does $thing and makes person happy" is "bizarre mental gymnastics", just wait until you start grade school.
Slayer-Fan123 781960 10616247 wrote:
That's comparing a troop choice to an elite choice, for one.
Two, they CLEARLY have different functions for being in different armies. You can't say the same for most of the "unqiue" stuff the Angels have.
I am almost 100% certain that dudes with stormbolters and mixed squads can be taken as troops by DW, and GK strikes and GK termintors are both troop options.
Well I'm certainly all for folding Deathwatch, Grey Knights, and Sisters into the same Inquisition book as none of those armies are exactly swimming in LOTS OF OPTIONS THEY NEED A CODEX!!!!1!
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Well I'm certainly all for folding Deathwatch, Grey Knights, and Sisters into the same Inquisition book as none of those armies are exactly swimming in LOTS OF OPTIONS THEY NEED A CODEX!!!!1!
They are entirely mismatched as factions however, with nothing in common save for a connection to the inquisition.
The more logical consolidation would be -
Deathwatch into marines - because they share just about everything already
Sisters and Inquisition - because the sisters already have several of the remnant inquisition units and the best thematic link
Grey Knights into Talons of the Emperor - because it gives them a chance to stand out as shadowy psykers, rather than silver ultramarines
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Well I'm certainly all for folding Deathwatch, Grey Knights, and Sisters into the same Inquisition book as none of those armies are exactly swimming in LOTS OF OPTIONS THEY NEED A CODEX!!!!1!
then why can't those options be developed. All GW has to do is write the rules down. If they wanted to they could make 4-5 unit types out of a single box, and that is not counting possible characters. The GK termintor box already builds termintors, paladins, any of the termintor armoured GK characters, the terminator ancient , the apothecary and the champion. the problem is not the fact that the options aren't there or that the models don't exist. It is jus that GW wrote them bad. When the only difference between a purgation squad and a strike squad, is the fact one can take more hvy weapons, which are so bad you don't want to take them anyway, then there is a problem. But it ain't a problem of lack of varity.
DW toolbox squads are also very intersting, a termintor and an aggressor along side 5 veterans and sniper intercessor will work different then 8 dudes with stormbolters and stormshields.
Grey Knights into Talons of the Emperor - because it gives them a chance to stand out as shadowy psykers, rather than silver ultramarines
but they are not silver ultramarines. ultramarines are cheap and have efficient rules and gear. But lets say they are in a codex with SoS and custodes. Why would anyone ever take a unit of GK termintors, when the same codex has dawnjetbike captins and custodes? Why take a GK banner guy, when the custodes guy gives +4inv to everyone around.? GK cost so much that they out price custodes for less efficiency, and lower stats. They may as well be phased out then, because playing an army of them would be just as bad as it is now. Assuming of course they would keep the options they have right now.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Because fluffbunnies will hiss at the very thought of consolidation and GW knows it can milk them for money.
Slayer-Fan123, whilst I would actually also like to see BA/DA/SW given supplement treatment, you also know that I'm probably the fluffiest bunny here.
It's not a "fluffbunny" thing, and relying on that as some kind of crutch weakens the argument (which I, a fluffbunny, agree with).
They're the ones buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice though, and end up justifying it through bizarre mental gymnastics. It's also why I refuse to ever buy a CSM codex ever again now until they're made to represent Legions proper instead of those garbage we have now, and why I've been encouraging everyone I know to refuse to give money for the garbage Chaos Knights release.
No, the people who want those codexes are the ones buying them. Not some sort of bizarre "you like the lore of the game, hah!" argument that you seem to be pedalling.
In case you conveniently forgot, you know I'm what you'd call a "fluffbunny" - power level and all. I think that DA/BA/SW should be folded in. Therefore, something about your usage of "fluffbunny" is very much misguided, and not appropriate for this discussion.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote: It's not always the narrative players (less pejorative term for "fluffbunny"). A narrative player can play UltraMarines reasonably without picking up the supplement. A competitive player cannot. Add to it that competitive players are more fixated on knowing everyone else's rules, and "buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice" is certainly not just a "narrative player" problem.
No, because the fluffbunny wants the Characters and everything too. I refuse to buy the Supplements too if you catch my drift.
That sounds like a lot of strawmanning. If you can't make your argument without relying on this mythical "fluffbunny" (of which I am one, and do not fit your extremely narrow viewpoint), it's not exactly a solid one.
Again, I support the idea of consolidating books. But your argument for it is doing no favours.
That's because it is strawmanning.
He also either doesn't play chaos, or is advocating piracy of GW books.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Well I'm certainly all for folding Deathwatch, Grey Knights, and Sisters into the same Inquisition book as none of those armies are exactly swimming in LOTS OF OPTIONS THEY NEED A CODEX!!!!1!
Nevermind the fact that none of the four share any units in common?
Lets face it, you don't want consolidation of your army, you just want forced consolidation.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Because fluffbunnies will hiss at the very thought of consolidation and GW knows it can milk them for money.
Slayer-Fan123, whilst I would actually also like to see BA/DA/SW given supplement treatment, you also know that I'm probably the fluffiest bunny here.
It's not a "fluffbunny" thing, and relying on that as some kind of crutch weakens the argument (which I, a fluffbunny, agree with).
They're the ones buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice though, and end up justifying it through bizarre mental gymnastics. It's also why I refuse to ever buy a CSM codex ever again now until they're made to represent Legions proper instead of those garbage we have now, and why I've been encouraging everyone I know to refuse to give money for the garbage Chaos Knights release.
No, the people who want those codexes are the ones buying them. Not some sort of bizarre "you like the lore of the game, hah!" argument that you seem to be pedalling.
In case you conveniently forgot, you know I'm what you'd call a "fluffbunny" - power level and all. I think that DA/BA/SW should be folded in. Therefore, something about your usage of "fluffbunny" is very much misguided, and not appropriate for this discussion.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote: It's not always the narrative players (less pejorative term for "fluffbunny"). A narrative player can play UltraMarines reasonably without picking up the supplement. A competitive player cannot. Add to it that competitive players are more fixated on knowing everyone else's rules, and "buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice" is certainly not just a "narrative player" problem.
No, because the fluffbunny wants the Characters and everything too. I refuse to buy the Supplements too if you catch my drift.
That sounds like a lot of strawmanning. If you can't make your argument without relying on this mythical "fluffbunny" (of which I am one, and do not fit your extremely narrow viewpoint), it's not exactly a solid one.
Again, I support the idea of consolidating books. But your argument for it is doing no favours.
That's because it is strawmanning.
He also either doesn't play chaos, or is advocating piracy of GW books.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Well I'm certainly all for folding Deathwatch, Grey Knights, and Sisters into the same Inquisition book as none of those armies are exactly swimming in LOTS OF OPTIONS THEY NEED A CODEX!!!!1!
Nevermind the fact that none of the four share any units in common?
Lets face it, you don't want consolidation of your army, you just want forced consolidation.
I've played Deathwatch and Death Guard. Wanna try that again?
Karol wrote: Why would anyone ever take a unit of GK termintors, when the same codex has dawnjetbike captins and custodes?
This is already the way things are with allies.
Sharing a codex means that two factions that can't really afford to pad out detachments inefficiently can more easily work together. The custodes lack a psychic presence, tactical teleportation, shooting through walls, etc - they want to be in close while GK can be a little more stand-off, particularly if GW backs off the ten marines in a rhino theme they got in 5th and moves back towards the shrouded psykers of 3rd.
And the talons are a small codex with plenty of room for expansion and lots of missing pieces. By the OP as an SM supplement the GK would just be further watered down to fit.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Well I'm certainly all for folding Deathwatch, Grey Knights, and Sisters into the same Inquisition book as none of those armies are exactly swimming in LOTS OF OPTIONS THEY NEED A CODEX!!!!1!
then why can't those options be developed. All GW has to do is write the rules down. If they wanted to they could make 4-5 unit types out of a single box, and that is not counting possible characters. The GK termintor box already builds termintors, paladins, any of the termintor armoured GK characters, the terminator ancient , the apothecary and the champion. the problem is not the fact that the options aren't there or that the models don't exist. It is jus that GW wrote them bad. When the only difference between a purgation squad and a strike squad, is the fact one can take more hvy weapons, which are so bad you don't want to take them anyway, then there is a problem. But it ain't a problem of lack of varity.
DW toolbox squads are also very intersting, a termintor and an aggressor along side 5 veterans and sniper intercessor will work different then 8 dudes with stormbolters and stormshields.
Grey Knights into Talons of the Emperor - because it gives them a chance to stand out as shadowy psykers, rather than silver ultramarines
but they are not silver ultramarines. ultramarines are cheap and have efficient rules and gear. But lets say they are in a codex with SoS and custodes. Why would anyone ever take a unit of GK termintors, when the same codex has dawnjetbike captins and custodes? Why take a GK banner guy, when the custodes guy gives +4inv to everyone around.? GK cost so much that they out price custodes for less efficiency, and lower stats. They may as well be phased out then, because playing an army of them would be just as bad as it is now. Assuming of course they would keep the options they have right now.
Inquistion rules drop in November WD; I suspect they will be more like the WD Ynnari Dex than the October SoS dex, meaning they will actually get relics, strats, a psychic discipline, wl traits. They'll be able to join any Imperial detachment without breaking it, but they will also have the capacity to take command of detachments that include only their respective chambers militant, thereby granting access to a Inquisition traits and auras. There's also an Inquisition model release in November, though I suspect it's just a repackage of the old metal hereticus crew.
The Inquisition rule set will be the last of the Imperial Agents with current, printed rules 40k. This leads me to believe that by next summer, we'll see all of these Indexes collected and perhaps somewhat tweaked and re-released as Codex: Imperial Agents. For any of you who haven't seen the Imperial Agents data sheets, the Imperial Agents dex should bring together Assassins, Sisters of Silence, the Inquisition and the warbands of the three Rogue Traders [Nyem Shai Murad, Janus Drake and Elucia Vhane's Euclidean Starstriders- the only group to have been given a name].
The Inquisitors will be designed to synergize with their chambers militant, and I think this might give GK one source for a boost, and new content via Pychic Awakening will give them another perk. I don't know if what they get can or will adress any of their issues, but it will be something. I'm not sure that the November PA is going to be the one where they get their content. We suspect, however, that there will be sisters content, which will be in addition to the sisters dex. It drops on the 23rd, but if's looking like you have to buy the box to get it.
All things considered, it's not exactly a good time to be commenting about how limited those ranges are. Even die hard sisters players who have been following the bulletins for MONTHS still don't know what they'll do with acts of faith and order traits. One thing that we saw in the beta dex was that many of the order traits, wl traits, relics and strats augmented the way AoF worked; most people liked or at least didn't mind that part- the problem was that AoF were weak and that many required a roll, despite requiring the expenditure of a finite resource This makes them unsuitable to share a dex with anyone- except the Ecclesiarchy and the Hereticus, with whom they share a long and well established history.
Karol wrote:Why would anyone ever take a unit of GK termintors, when the same codex has dawnjetbike captins and custodes? Why take a GK banner guy, when the custodes guy gives +4inv to everyone around.? GK cost so much that they out price custodes for less efficiency, and lower stats. They may as well be phased out then, because playing an army of them would be just as bad as it is now. Assuming of course they would keep the options they have right now.
Because Grey Knight Terminators look different to Custodes, have psychic powers, and because someone might simply prefer GK for some flavour or aesthetic reason. Because as I hate to belabour the point, but there's more to 40k than winning and playing to win. If you can find a way to have fun with whatever units you like, then go ahead and have fun with them.
I don't have any Custodes, but I do have a small Grey Knights force. Why? Because I think they're cool, and I don't need them to win games to validate that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Because fluffbunnies will hiss at the very thought of consolidation and GW knows it can milk them for money.
Slayer-Fan123, whilst I would actually also like to see BA/DA/SW given supplement treatment, you also know that I'm probably the fluffiest bunny here.
It's not a "fluffbunny" thing, and relying on that as some kind of crutch weakens the argument (which I, a fluffbunny, agree with).
They're the ones buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice though, and end up justifying it through bizarre mental gymnastics. It's also why I refuse to ever buy a CSM codex ever again now until they're made to represent Legions proper instead of those garbage we have now, and why I've been encouraging everyone I know to refuse to give money for the garbage Chaos Knights release.
No, the people who want those codexes are the ones buying them. Not some sort of bizarre "you like the lore of the game, hah!" argument that you seem to be pedalling.
In case you conveniently forgot, you know I'm what you'd call a "fluffbunny" - power level and all. I think that DA/BA/SW should be folded in. Therefore, something about your usage of "fluffbunny" is very much misguided, and not appropriate for this discussion.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote: It's not always the narrative players (less pejorative term for "fluffbunny"). A narrative player can play UltraMarines reasonably without picking up the supplement. A competitive player cannot. Add to it that competitive players are more fixated on knowing everyone else's rules, and "buying those codices instead of saying "no" go GW's crummy practice" is certainly not just a "narrative player" problem.
No, because the fluffbunny wants the Characters and everything too. I refuse to buy the Supplements too if you catch my drift.
That sounds like a lot of strawmanning. If you can't make your argument without relying on this mythical "fluffbunny" (of which I am one, and do not fit your extremely narrow viewpoint), it's not exactly a solid one.
Again, I support the idea of consolidating books. But your argument for it is doing no favours.
That's because it is strawmanning.
He also either doesn't play chaos, or is advocating piracy of GW books.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Well I'm certainly all for folding Deathwatch, Grey Knights, and Sisters into the same Inquisition book as none of those armies are exactly swimming in LOTS OF OPTIONS THEY NEED A CODEX!!!!1!
Nevermind the fact that none of the four share any units in common?
Lets face it, you don't want consolidation of your army, you just want forced consolidation.
I've played Deathwatch and Death Guard. Wanna try that again?
DA, BA and SW can stand alone as factions with their own Codexes (Codices?) as they have enough differentiation in models/aesthetic, lore, units and playstyle without consuming too much in the way of GW resources. Their lore is long-established with enough folks that care about it to sustain sales. At the end of the day factions that give a good return on their investment to GW will survive/grow and those that don't will decline/vanish. I am sure that the suits at GW look at sales figures for Dark Angels books and models over the last two decades when they are making decisions. New factions represent risk in terms of resources. DA, BA, SW are much less of a risk.
Now, could the Dark Angels receive a Supplement instead of a Codex? Well, I suppose, but it would be a rather huge supplement unless we are cutting something. There are units from the main SM Codex that the DA do not have access to. This is part of what makes them different - see my first line. Dark Angels players get their own unique units in exchange. Whether its worth it is an individual player's choice and nobody else's. They have plenty of unique units and stratagems. They have lots of distinct, established lore. Then I have to buy two books. With the current construct I only have to buy my one DA Codex. I'm good with that.
I get that some here do not like those factions. You don't have to buy them. That's what I don't understand about some of the rather vehement emotion here. Don't like Space Wolves? Don't buy them. I don't see how they are hurting you or the hobby.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: DA, BA and SW can stand alone as factions with their own Codexes (Codices?) as they have enough differentiation in models/aesthetic, lore, units and playstyle without consuming too much in the way of GW resources. Their lore is long-established with enough folks that care about it to sustain sales. At the end of the day factions that give a good return on their investment to GW will survive/grow and those that don't will decline/vanish. I am sure that the suits at GW look at sales figures for Dark Angels books and models over the last two decades when they are making decisions. New factions represent risk in terms of resources. DA, BA, SW are much less of a risk.
Now, could the Dark Angels receive a Supplement instead of a Codex? Well, I suppose, but it would be a rather huge supplement unless we are cutting something. There are units from the main SM Codex that the DA do not have access to. This is part of what makes them different - see my first line. Dark Angels players get their own unique units in exchange. Whether its worth it is an individual player's choice and nobody else's. They have plenty of unique units and stratagems. They have lots of distinct, established lore. Then I have to buy two books. With the current construct I only have to buy my one DA Codex. I'm good with that.
I get that some here do not like those factions. You don't have to buy them. That's what I don't understand about some of the rather vehement emotion here. Don't like Space Wolves? Don't buy them. I don't see how they are hurting you or the hobby.
Because the narrow focuss on the Marine subfaction and then even narrower focus on a few Marine sub-sub factions removes huge amounts of focus, effort and resources from....anything else - thats why. Why am I restricted in just adding to my Wolves or Angels armies and not other factions
Also because of the pretend unqiue units - yeah we have a different gun, or we can have chainswords - the vanilla unit has to be worse and the hundreds of other Chapters that would use these options can't.
As always if you push one product ALL the time, give it new rules, own codexes, slightly different rules to pretend the units are actually different then shock horrror they might just maybe sell.....
Lastly the sheet awfulness of the last decades lore and models for the Angels and Wolves is sad.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Well you said I don't play an army that needs consolidation and I told you otherwise. So what's the argument you're making?
Funny, none of those armies are BA/DA/or SW.
Also, my 2nd guess about you being a chaos player was also right. You're advocating piracy.
I had Space Wolves last edition.
Also it doesn't matter if I don't play those particular two armies, because I'm still advocating consolidation for armies I play too, so there isn't some hypocrisy like you're trying to find for a "gotcha" moment, which you haven't had any luck with.
Also what's your point? I'm saying don't give GW money for products they don't deserve money for. That includes the CSM codex and the Legions, the Angels, Grey Knights + Deathwatch, and the ongoing Supplements. However you want to acquire the rules is none of my business. Perhaps borrow a friend's copy...
" I had Space Wolves last edition. "
Do you want a cookie?
" Also it doesn't matter if I don't play those particular two armies, because I'm still advocating consolidation for armies I play too, so there isn't some hypocrisy like you're trying to find for a "gotcha" moment, which you haven't had any luck with. "
The bigger issue is that everything you're trying to pass of as fact is completely subjective.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: DA, BA and SW can stand alone as factions with their own Codexes (Codices?) as they have enough differentiation in models/aesthetic, lore, units and playstyle without consuming too much in the way of GW resources. Their lore is long-established with enough folks that care about it to sustain sales. At the end of the day factions that give a good return on their investment to GW will survive/grow and those that don't will decline/vanish. I am sure that the suits at GW look at sales figures for Dark Angels books and models over the last two decades when they are making decisions. New factions represent risk in terms of resources. DA, BA, SW are much less of a risk.
Now, could the Dark Angels receive a Supplement instead of a Codex? Well, I suppose, but it would be a rather huge supplement unless we are cutting something. There are units from the main SM Codex that the DA do not have access to. This is part of what makes them different - see my first line. Dark Angels players get their own unique units in exchange. Whether its worth it is an individual player's choice and nobody else's. They have plenty of unique units and stratagems. They have lots of distinct, established lore. Then I have to buy two books. With the current construct I only have to buy my one DA Codex. I'm good with that.
I get that some here do not like those factions. You don't have to buy them. That's what I don't understand about some of the rather vehement emotion here. Don't like Space Wolves? Don't buy them. I don't see how they are hurting you or the hobby.
Because the narrow focuss on the Marine subfaction and then even narrower focus on a few Marine sub-sub factions removes huge amounts of focus, effort and resources from....anything else - thats why. Why am I restricted in just adding to my Wolves or Angels armies and not other factions
Also because of the pretend unqiue units - yeah we have a different gun, or we can have chainswords - the vanilla unit has to be worse and the hundreds of other Chapters that would use these options can't.
As always if you push one product ALL the time, give it new rules, own codexes, slightly different rules to pretend the units are actually different then shock horrror they might just maybe sell.....
Lastly the sheet awfulness of the last decades lore and models for the Angels and Wolves is sad.
Saying that the unique units aren't unique enough is like saying eldar guardians are IG with a different gun.
I think the "we got unique units so we need a separate Codex" argument is a bit faulty. Just looking at my own Ork Codex, I found 6 units that are "Kultur locked", meaning they can only be used with a single sub-Faction. Two of these can technically be used in other Kulturs, mind you, but they have a special rule for that and don't benefit from the sub-Faction bonuses when added to them.
Anyway, point is: plenty of Codexes have options that can only be used with certain sub-Factions. Units, Stratagems, and Relics. And they work just fine like this. It's just not a good argument to use "unique units" as a reason for a separate Codex.
Mmmpi wrote: " I had Space Wolves last edition. "
Do you want a cookie?
" Also it doesn't matter if I don't play those particular two armies, because I'm still advocating consolidation for armies I play too, so there isn't some hypocrisy like you're trying to find for a "gotcha" moment, which you haven't had any luck with. "
The bigger issue is that everything you're trying to pass of as fact is completely subjective.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: DA, BA and SW can stand alone as factions with their own Codexes (Codices?) as they have enough differentiation in models/aesthetic, lore, units and playstyle without consuming too much in the way of GW resources. Their lore is long-established with enough folks that care about it to sustain sales. At the end of the day factions that give a good return on their investment to GW will survive/grow and those that don't will decline/vanish. I am sure that the suits at GW look at sales figures for Dark Angels books and models over the last two decades when they are making decisions. New factions represent risk in terms of resources. DA, BA, SW are much less of a risk.
Now, could the Dark Angels receive a Supplement instead of a Codex? Well, I suppose, but it would be a rather huge supplement unless we are cutting something. There are units from the main SM Codex that the DA do not have access to. This is part of what makes them different - see my first line. Dark Angels players get their own unique units in exchange. Whether its worth it is an individual player's choice and nobody else's. They have plenty of unique units and stratagems. They have lots of distinct, established lore. Then I have to buy two books. With the current construct I only have to buy my one DA Codex. I'm good with that.
I get that some here do not like those factions. You don't have to buy them. That's what I don't understand about some of the rather vehement emotion here. Don't like Space Wolves? Don't buy them. I don't see how they are hurting you or the hobby.
Because the narrow focuss on the Marine subfaction and then even narrower focus on a few Marine sub-sub factions removes huge amounts of focus, effort and resources from....anything else - thats why. Why am I restricted in just adding to my Wolves or Angels armies and not other factions
Also because of the pretend unqiue units - yeah we have a different gun, or we can have chainswords - the vanilla unit has to be worse and the hundreds of other Chapters that would use these options can't.
As always if you push one product ALL the time, give it new rules, own codexes, slightly different rules to pretend the units are actually different then shock horrror they might just maybe sell.....
Lastly the sheet awfulness of the last decades lore and models for the Angels and Wolves is sad.
Saying that the unique units aren't unique enough is like saying eldar guardians are IG with a different gun.
HAHAHAHHAHAHHAA - OH I am sorry where you actaully serious in comparing
Marine unit A with chainsword and Marine Unit B without them to
Human with lasgun to ELDAR with Shuriken catapult
Nah Mate just no. Thats not a strawman thats a STRAWGIANT - on fire - with fireworks
I donlt think we should get something when others don't - maybe thats not you view.
flandarz wrote: I think the "we got unique units so we need a separate Codex" argument is a bit faulty. Just looking at my own Ork Codex, I found 6 units that are "Kultur locked", meaning they can only be used with a single sub-Faction. Two of these can technically be used in other Kulturs, mind you, but they have a special rule for that and don't benefit from the sub-Faction bonuses when added to them.
Anyway, point is: plenty of Codexes have options that can only be used with certain sub-Factions. Units, Stratagems, and Relics. And they work just fine like this. It's just not a good argument to use "unique units" as a reason for a separate Codex.
Freebootaz Codex 2020
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mmmpi wrote: " I had Space Wolves last edition. "
Do you want a cookie?
" Also it doesn't matter if I don't play those particular two armies, because I'm still advocating consolidation for armies I play too, so there isn't some hypocrisy like you're trying to find for a "gotcha" moment, which you haven't had any luck with. "
The bigger issue is that everything you're trying to pass of as fact is completely subjective.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: DA, BA and SW can stand alone as factions with their own Codexes (Codices?) as they have enough differentiation in models/aesthetic, lore, units and playstyle without consuming too much in the way of GW resources. Their lore is long-established with enough folks that care about it to sustain sales. At the end of the day factions that give a good return on their investment to GW will survive/grow and those that don't will decline/vanish. I am sure that the suits at GW look at sales figures for Dark Angels books and models over the last two decades when they are making decisions. New factions represent risk in terms of resources. DA, BA, SW are much less of a risk.
Now, could the Dark Angels receive a Supplement instead of a Codex? Well, I suppose, but it would be a rather huge supplement unless we are cutting something. There are units from the main SM Codex that the DA do not have access to. This is part of what makes them different - see my first line. Dark Angels players get their own unique units in exchange. Whether its worth it is an individual player's choice and nobody else's. They have plenty of unique units and stratagems. They have lots of distinct, established lore. Then I have to buy two books. With the current construct I only have to buy my one DA Codex. I'm good with that.
I get that some here do not like those factions. You don't have to buy them. That's what I don't understand about some of the rather vehement emotion here. Don't like Space Wolves? Don't buy them. I don't see how they are hurting you or the hobby.
Because the narrow focuss on the Marine subfaction and then even narrower focus on a few Marine sub-sub factions removes huge amounts of focus, effort and resources from....anything else - thats why. Why am I restricted in just adding to my Wolves or Angels armies and not other factions
Also because of the pretend unqiue units - yeah we have a different gun, or we can have chainswords - the vanilla unit has to be worse and the hundreds of other Chapters that would use these options can't.
As always if you push one product ALL the time, give it new rules, own codexes, slightly different rules to pretend the units are actually different then shock horrror they might just maybe sell.....
Lastly the sheet awfulness of the last decades lore and models for the Angels and Wolves is sad.
Saying that the unique units aren't unique enough is like saying eldar guardians are IG with a different gun.
It is fact their unique points are hardly that unique. Sanguine Priests hardly get use just like Apothecaries and get the same exact role: heal and bring back dead models once in a blue moon. Nobody uses their S+1 bonus.
So what's the real difference? A different slot (Elite vs HQ). That's really it. You need a whole separate codex you poor thing!
Do you think we wouldn't have variety without specific Codexes for certain things? Even if everything got consolidated to the most basic level, you'd still be looking at Imperium, Orkz, Aeldari, Drukhari, Tau, Necrons, Tyranids, and Chaos. That's eight possible Factions, before you even get into sub-Factions and individual unit choices. And, honestly, that's probably too much consolidation, considering the wide range that Imperium and Chaos can field. Better would be: Imperium, Marines, Orkz, Aeldari, Drukhari, Tau, Necrons, Tyranids, Chaos Marines, Daemons, for 10 possible Faction choices before getting to sub-Factions and the like. That might be too much there too, but, in my opinion, it'd be substantially simpler to balance and manage the number of Codexes we got now. I don't have a hard number off the top of my head, but it HAS to be close to 20 or more, right?
I agree that options are good. I mentioned earlier that, ideally, the game would have tons of options AND well-written and balanced rules. But I'd rather have good rules than options, if I had to choose one or the other.
For me, I'd rather not have the Stompa and Mek Workshop as options than to have them with the rules they have now. The Workshop is particular is so bad that even if it were free, no one would field it. And the Stompa is so poorly priced that it isn't even viable in a casual match-up vs an "anti-infantry" list. Rather than tease me with these models that I can't use in the game, I'd have preferred not to have them at all. But that might just be me.
Sentineil wrote: It probably is more than 20 codexes alright, which isn't a bad thing. 40k is a hobby first and foremost, and giving hobbyists options is good.
Most people that play Imperial Fists, Salamanders, Iron Hands, Ultramarines, Whitescars or Raven Guard are happy to have supplements.
We already see threads wishlisting the same for other factions.
Options come from the models themselves not the rules.
Sentineil wrote: It probably is more than 20 codexes alright, which isn't a bad thing. 40k is a hobby first and foremost, and giving hobbyists options is good.
Most people that play Imperial Fists, Salamanders, Iron Hands, Ultramarines, Whitescars or Raven Guard are happy to have supplements.
We already see threads wishlisting the same for other factions.
Options come from the models themselves not the rules.
So Armory was models not rules?
Arbitrator wrote:Black Templar players had a standalone codex for one edition and haven't shut up about being hard-done-to since.
I don't know if the forums could take it from another three Marine playerbases.
No reason for Black Templars to shut up... and they are an example why some ideas are bad ideas...
TangoTwoBravo wrote: DA, BA and SW can stand alone as factions with their own Codexes (Codices?) as they have enough differentiation in models/aesthetic, lore, units and playstyle without consuming too much in the way of GW resources. Their lore is long-established with enough folks that care about it to sustain sales. At the end of the day factions that give a good return on their investment to GW will survive/grow and those that don't will decline/vanish. I am sure that the suits at GW look at sales figures for Dark Angels books and models over the last two decades when they are making decisions. New factions represent risk in terms of resources. DA, BA, SW are much less of a risk.
Now, could the Dark Angels receive a Supplement instead of a Codex? Well, I suppose, but it would be a rather huge supplement unless we are cutting something. There are units from the main SM Codex that the DA do not have access to. This is part of what makes them different - see my first line. Dark Angels players get their own unique units in exchange. Whether its worth it is an individual player's choice and nobody else's. They have plenty of unique units and stratagems. They have lots of distinct, established lore. Then I have to buy two books. With the current construct I only have to buy my one DA Codex. I'm good with that.
I get that some here do not like those factions. You don't have to buy them. That's what I don't understand about some of the rather vehement emotion here. Don't like Space Wolves? Don't buy them. I don't see how they are hurting you or the hobby.
Because the narrow focuss on the Marine subfaction and then even narrower focus on a few Marine sub-sub factions removes huge amounts of focus, effort and resources from....anything else - thats why. Why am I restricted in just adding to my Wolves or Angels armies and not other factions
Also because of the pretend unqiue units - yeah we have a different gun, or we can have chainswords - the vanilla unit has to be worse and the hundreds of other Chapters that would use these options can't.
As always if you push one product ALL the time, give it new rules, own codexes, slightly different rules to pretend the units are actually different then shock horrror they might just maybe sell.....
Lastly the sheet awfulness of the last decades lore and models for the Angels and Wolves is sad.
Mr Morden,
My counter is that the distinct Space Marine factions are in a sweet spot that a new faction would not be. The resources required for a new Dark Angels Codex pale in comparison to a new faction. There is little risk to GW: there is an established player base that like the established lore, models, unique units and playstyle. Focusing again just on Dark Angels, they have unique Land Speeders, flyers and Black Knights without talking about variations with the Deathwing and Named Characters. You don't agree. That's fine - you don't have to, just like you don't have to buy them. It appears that enough people do like and buy them to keep the faction going.
Your last line regarding the "sheer awfulness of the last decade's lore and models for Angels and Wolves is sad" is your opinion. You are entitled to that opinion, but it's hardly a reason to roll those factions into the main Space Marine faction. Your tastes should guide your own choices and not those of others. You seem to want to impose your tastes on others. Your real input is through your wallet, just like mine and everybody else.
People do use the sanguinary priest for that +str. Its really strong with +1 to wound. Makes chainswords wound t8 on 4+ and t4 on 2+. He also have ws2+ and 6 attacks that wound t4 on 2s. Giving a unit of DC +1 str is incredible against t4, t5 and t8. DCTH wounds t8 on 2s then.
I wouldnt use a Sanguinary priest now that the invictors are out since I dont have the points for 3 battalions anymore but it is a good HQ that is more used for its str bonus than its heal I would say. I could still see him go or get made in to a strat or something in order to get a supplement. Would rather always be on the same playing field as the other marines no matter if it would make BA slightly weaker in some editions. Being too different in powerlevel between marines bother me more than how it stacks against the rest of the armies. We marines should stick together
Are you trying to argue that a Faction with only one Codex has enough variety while simultaneously arguing that putting all Space Marines into one Codex wouldn't be enough variety?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: DA, BA and SW can stand alone as factions with their own Codexes (Codices?) as they have enough differentiation in models/aesthetic, lore, units and playstyle without consuming too much in the way of GW resources. Their lore is long-established with enough folks that care about it to sustain sales. At the end of the day factions that give a good return on their investment to GW will survive/grow and those that don't will decline/vanish. I am sure that the suits at GW look at sales figures for Dark Angels books and models over the last two decades when they are making decisions. New factions represent risk in terms of resources. DA, BA, SW are much less of a risk.
Now, could the Dark Angels receive a Supplement instead of a Codex? Well, I suppose, but it would be a rather huge supplement unless we are cutting something. There are units from the main SM Codex that the DA do not have access to. This is part of what makes them different - see my first line. Dark Angels players get their own unique units in exchange. Whether its worth it is an individual player's choice and nobody else's. They have plenty of unique units and stratagems. They have lots of distinct, established lore. Then I have to buy two books. With the current construct I only have to buy my one DA Codex. I'm good with that.
I get that some here do not like those factions. You don't have to buy them. That's what I don't understand about some of the rather vehement emotion here. Don't like Space Wolves? Don't buy them. I don't see how they are hurting you or the hobby.
Because the narrow focuss on the Marine subfaction and then even narrower focus on a few Marine sub-sub factions removes huge amounts of focus, effort and resources from....anything else - thats why. Why am I restricted in just adding to my Wolves or Angels armies and not other factions
Also because of the pretend unqiue units - yeah we have a different gun, or we can have chainswords - the vanilla unit has to be worse and the hundreds of other Chapters that would use these options can't.
As always if you push one product ALL the time, give it new rules, own codexes, slightly different rules to pretend the units are actually different then shock horrror they might just maybe sell.....
Lastly the sheet awfulness of the last decades lore and models for the Angels and Wolves is sad.
Mr Morden,
My counter is that the distinct Space Marine factions are in a sweet spot that a new faction would not be. The resources required for a new Dark Angels Codex pale in comparison to a new faction. There is little risk to GW: there is an established player base that like the established lore, models, unique units and playstyle. Focusing again just on Dark Angels, they have unique Land Speeders, flyers and Black Knights without talking about variations with the Deathwing and Named Characters. You don't agree. That's fine - you don't have to, just like you don't have to buy them. It appears that enough people do like and buy them to keep the faction going.
Your last line regarding the "sheer awfulness of the last decade's lore and models for Angels and Wolves is sad" is your opinion. You are entitled to that opinion, but it's hardly a reason to roll those factions into the main Space Marine faction. Your tastes should guide your own choices and not those of others. You seem to want to impose your tastes on others. Your real input is through your wallet, just like mine and everybody else.
Cheers,
T2B
As I clearly stated my non Marine collecting is already imposed on by the constant and unrelenting Marine releases - which will now only get worse. Lets not keep prenteding that gettign stuff for our Marines does not mean other factions get little or no releases.
But hey I am sure eventually you will get your pure Marines vs Marines game.
Look at the Latest news release for Psychic Awakening 2 - whats the headline:
New Stuff for Chaos Space Marines and Space Marines
flandarz wrote: Are you trying to argue that a Faction with only one Codex has enough variety while simultaneously arguing that putting all Space Marines into one Codex wouldn't be enough variety?
Technically it would be right due to there sales carrying most of the xenos races that are not Tau it’s true marines have kind of sprawled out. However while most xenos races are 1 codex they have never had anything taken away from the to achieve that, if you combined marines back at this stage you are effectively taking things away from players for no reason other than envy a kind of “well if I cannot have anything then marine players should lose there stuff” this is bad and would be futile anyway as the chances this would achieve anything would be zero. Marines would still get more model releases and would still get more rules due to the number of models in the line than xenos because GW will always prioritise what sells.
Besides be careful what you wish for or you could be paying for a codex and then a “supplement” with a dozen pages of rules to run your army and remember GW how can I say this lack consistency when writing rules so even if you get a supplement it could be gak.
Saying that I don’t disagree that marines should not have got to this stage rather than multiple books many years ago they should have released 2 books the 1st for codex compliant chapters including the blood and dark angels and the 2nd for non codex compliant chapters including the Black Templar’s and space wolves. The few actual special units that blood angels and dark angels used would have fit easily and would have required non of the gak filler like the flying pulpit etc. The 2nd book would have allowed them to have more design room for using existing models and units in new ways like crusader squads and wolf guard being able to be attached to other units etc and for new units to be made that could stand out without terrible gimmicks I mean space wolves would probably have benefited most from not having being given a codex no flying brick, no wolves riding wolves and no fething Santa’s sled there basically a parody army now thanks to needing to fill a codex and be different.
Besides there have been supplements for xenos before and they will be again, will they be as extensive as the marines probably not but they will happen I can see Tau getting enclaves back, you know actually now I think about it I might be wrong I could see the Tau easily because of there extensive range and that the factions still use the same miniatures.
However Dark Elder for example have a codex that is split in 3 effectively and my understanding is this is quite a handicap so would making it 3 stand alone supplements with at best 1 character miniature each like the marines be an improvement?
Elder could work given there CW differences tend to be in troop ratios used rather than exclusive units and the supplements could reflect this pretty much like the marines have. Orks could be the same as again the clan differences are much more in line with marines and elder rather than DE.
Hmm I don’t know maybe we will see more stand alone armies supplanting and supporting existing armies like GSC to nids rather than supplements for some. While not xenos I just don’t see guard getting supplements for regiments they no longer make, I could see the imperial army or solar auxiliary being reformed as a new range to support the guard.
I don’t know even after all these years trying to figure out what GW will do comes down to throwing darts at post it notes which is pretty much what they do I think.
I do keep 2 things in mind though 1. Marines sell 2. Anything not in power army sells better when launched than when updated.
flandarz wrote: Are you trying to argue that a Faction with only one Codex has enough variety while simultaneously arguing that putting all Space Marines into one Codex wouldn't be enough variety?
Technically it would be right due to there sales carrying most of the xenos races that are not Tau it’s true marines have kind of sprawled out. However while most xenos races are 1 codex they have never had anything taken away from the to achieve that, if you combined marines back at this stage you are effectively taking things away from players for no reason other than envy a kind of “well if I cannot have anything then marine players should lose there stuff” this is bad and would be futile anyway as the chances this would achieve anything would be zero. Marines would still get more model releases and would still get more rules due to the number of models in the line than xenos because GW will always prioritise what sells.
Besides be careful what you wish for or you could be paying for a codex and then a “supplement” with a dozen pages of rules to run your army and remember GW how can I say this lack consistency when writing rules so even if you get a supplement it could be gak.
Saying that I don’t disagree that marines should not have got to this stage rather than multiple books many years ago they should have released 2 books the 1st for codex compliant chapters including the blood and dark angels and the 2nd for non codex compliant chapters including the Black Templar’s and space wolves. The few actual special units that blood angels and dark angels used would have fit easily and would have required non of the gak filler like the flying pulpit etc. The 2nd book would have allowed them to have more design room for using existing models and units in new ways like crusader squads and wolf guard being able to be attached to other units etc and for new units to be made that could stand out without terrible gimmicks I mean space wolves would probably have benefited most from not having being given a codex no flying brick, no wolves riding wolves and no fething Santa’s sled there basically a parody army now thanks to needing to fill a codex and be different.
I agree consolidating codices wou;d achomplish NOTHING. Primaris Marines largely HAS been consolidated, since 8th edition launched, blood angels, dark angels have space wolves have gotten, a grand total of 1 new distinct unit each. (by distinct I mean something eaither unique to them and them alone, or at least has their iconography) and those distinct things where just Leuitenants, (and in the case of blood angels didn't even have any weaponry to make them distinct) they have however gotten a large number of new units shared with every marine faction. this hasn't reduced the number of marine releases though.
I agree that consolidating now would mean a lot of beloved units would likely have to go. But I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. A smaller pool of Codexes, units, Stratagems, etc. would mean less that requires balancing, errata, and FAQs.
I think I mentioned earlier that what GW should have done, if they wanted a good wargame, would have been to release 40k with the 10 Factions I mentioned earlier (including sub-Factions), a double handful of units each, and like 5 Stratagems and Wargear options. Then, over time, they could release more stuff in smaller batches. Stuff they could properly write up and playtest. That's IF GW's goal was to create a good wargame.
But, as you said (and I mentioned before) GW isn't a wargame company. They're a model company that uses a wargame to sell models. So, they don't want to do what would be good for the game and bad for their bottom line, even if it would only be bad for a short time. And people hanging onto their "variety" regardless of the state of the game don't help matters.
Again: I'd rather have a solid game without many options than to have a thousand options attached to a bad game. And I don't even think 40k is all that bad. But I DO think it can be better.
flandarz wrote: I agree that consolidating now would mean a lot of beloved units would likely have to go. But I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. A smaller pool of Codexes, units, Stratagems, etc. would mean less that requires balancing, errata, and FAQs.
I think I mentioned earlier that what GW should have done, if they wanted a good wargame, would have been to release 40k with the 10 Factions I mentioned earlier (including sub-Factions), a double handful of units each, and like 5 Stratagems and Wargear options. Then, over time, they could release more stuff in smaller batches. Stuff they could properly write up and playtest. That's IF GW's goal was to create a good wargame.
But, as you said (and I mentioned before) GW isn't a wargame company. They're a model company that uses a wargame to sell models. So, they don't want to do what would be good for the game and bad for their bottom line, even if it would only be bad for a short time. And people hanging onto their "variety" regardless of the state of the game don't help matters.
Again: I'd rather have a solid game without many options than to have a thousand options attached to a bad game. And I don't even think 40k is all that bad. But I DO think it can be better.
As most so called unique units are little more than weapons options or a rule or two - they can easily be taken as options in the vanilla units.
flandarz wrote: I agree that consolidating now would mean a lot of beloved units would likely have to go. But I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. A smaller pool of Codexes, units, Stratagems, etc. would mean less that requires balancing, errata, and FAQs.
I think I mentioned earlier that what GW should have done, if they wanted a good wargame, would have been to release 40k with the 10 Factions I mentioned earlier (including sub-Factions), a double handful of units each, and like 5 Stratagems and Wargear options. Then, over time, they could release more stuff in smaller batches. Stuff they could properly write up and playtest. That's IF GW's goal was to create a good wargame.
But, as you said (and I mentioned before) GW isn't a wargame company. They're a model company that uses a wargame to sell models. So, they don't want to do what would be good for the game and bad for their bottom line, even if it would only be bad for a short time. And people hanging onto their "variety" regardless of the state of the game don't help matters.
Again: I'd rather have a solid game without many options than to have a thousand options attached to a bad game. And I don't even think 40k is all that bad. But I DO think it can be better.
As most so called unique units are little more than weapons options or a rule or two - they can easily be taken as options in the vanilla units.
You just described pretty much every xenos unit as well from aspect warriors to gaunts, but ok say you got your way and all the marines get squatted down too one codex what do you expect to happen then what do you think it will achieve?
A golden age where every xenos race is showered with plastic units? Xenos Codexes to get supplements to replace what you just complained about with the marines?
I have a feeling the reality would disappoint you whatever you are expecting chances are if less marines were made then either less 40k stuff would be produced over all or new armies are produced wholesale like AoS with the odd bone thrown to the existing xenos.
Because if GW were given the choice of updating Orks and making £x or releasing a board game in the same production slot and making £y then as long y is greater than x we get a board game.
flandarz wrote: I agree that consolidating now would mean a lot of beloved units would likely have to go. But I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. A smaller pool of Codexes, units, Stratagems, etc. would mean less that requires balancing, errata, and FAQs.
I think I mentioned earlier that what GW should have done, if they wanted a good wargame, would have been to release 40k with the 10 Factions I mentioned earlier (including sub-Factions), a double handful of units each, and like 5 Stratagems and Wargear options. Then, over time, they could release more stuff in smaller batches. Stuff they could properly write up and playtest. That's IF GW's goal was to create a good wargame.
But, as you said (and I mentioned before) GW isn't a wargame company. They're a model company that uses a wargame to sell models. So, they don't want to do what would be good for the game and bad for their bottom line, even if it would only be bad for a short time. And people hanging onto their "variety" regardless of the state of the game don't help matters.
Again: I'd rather have a solid game without many options than to have a thousand options attached to a bad game. And I don't even think 40k is all that bad. But I DO think it can be better.
As most so called unique units are little more than weapons options or a rule or two - they can easily be taken as options in the vanilla units.
You just described pretty much every xenos unit as well from aspect warriors to gaunts, but ok say you got your way and all the marines get squatted down too one codex what do you expect to happen then what do you think it will achieve?
A golden age where every xenos race is showered with plastic units? Xenos Codexes to get supplements to replace what you just complained about with the marines?
I have a feeling the reality would disappoint you whatever you are expecting chances are if less marines were made then either less 40k stuff would be produced over all or new armies are produced wholesale like AoS with the odd bone thrown to the existing xenos.
Because if GW were given the choice of updating Orks and making £x or releasing a board game in the same production slot and making £y then as long y is greater than x we get a board game.
I see that Strawgiant is up and burning well again........
Cos marines "Only" have a huge dex representing the current vast;y bloated range (how many Primaris Lts again? is "Squating" them - yeah ok.....
Every non marine faction getting a couple of units per year would be an improvement over what we have at the moment - but no I guess its much better to just keep makig new Marines but only for a very few super special Chapters....
My personal opinion is that every Faction should get reduced to a size that allows GW to create good, balanced, and unique rules for every unit, Stratagem, Wargear option, etc. If that's "squatting" them, then yes. I think they should be "squatted". Instead, GW insists on releasing a whole slew of new rules, units, etc. all at once and just "fixing" them later. Which, obviously, hasn't been working very well as every "fix" just reveals more issues that need "fixing". I'd rather have a moderate release at the beginning with smaller releases afterwards, all of which were well-written and throughly playtested, than to have all my variety and a sub-par ruleset to field all those nice units with.
except you're assuming consolidation would fix this.
it wouldn't How many fething releases, and I mean independant seperate from the priamris stuff they share with the other marine dexes, have dark angels gotten this edition? they got a single fething character, that's no more then necrons have gotten this edition. Blood Angels are getting Primaris Mephestion, but even if we include that it's a character release and a HQ release. Blood Angels, Dark Angels etc are not sucking up releases for others, they've gotten their codices and... thats about it. even their codices have been pretty minimal, a few new strats etc. nothing partiuclarly exciting. let's use space wolves as an example they have 16 or so unique strats. by comparison, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists etc.. have 16 strats. 6 warlord traits.. same as the supplements etc. So no consolidation wouldn't do anything, and it seems GW is doubling down on making each 1st founding chapter distinct and differant
Klickor wrote: People do use the sanguinary priest for that +str. Its really strong with +1 to wound. Makes chainswords wound t8 on 4+ and t4 on 2+. He also have ws2+ and 6 attacks that wound t4 on 2s. Giving a unit of DC +1 str is incredible against t4, t5 and t8. DCTH wounds t8 on 2s then.
I wouldnt use a Sanguinary priest now that the invictors are out since I dont have the points for 3 battalions anymore but it is a good HQ that is more used for its str bonus than its heal I would say. I could still see him go or get made in to a strat or something in order to get a supplement. Would rather always be on the same playing field as the other marines no matter if it would make BA slightly weaker in some editions. Being too different in powerlevel between marines bother me more than how it stacks against the rest of the armies. We marines should stick together
flandarz wrote: I think the "we got unique units so we need a separate Codex" argument is a bit faulty. Just looking at my own Ork Codex, I found 6 units that are "Kultur locked", meaning they can only be used with a single sub-Faction. Two of these can technically be used in other Kulturs, mind you, but they have a special rule for that and don't benefit from the sub-Faction bonuses when added to them.
Anyway, point is: plenty of Codexes have options that can only be used with certain sub-Factions. Units, Stratagems, and Relics. And they work just fine like this. It's just not a good argument to use "unique units" as a reason for a separate Codex.
There's a difference between one sub locked unit and a character, and 20 pages of unique units and special characters though. 25-30% of the DA/BA/SW units are unique, and that's not including the units that are in the general space marine codex, and not the separate marine ones.
Mmmpi wrote: " I had Space Wolves last edition. "
Do you want a cookie?
" Also it doesn't matter if I don't play those particular two armies, because I'm still advocating consolidation for armies I play too, so there isn't some hypocrisy like you're trying to find for a "gotcha" moment, which you haven't had any luck with. "
The bigger issue is that everything you're trying to pass of as fact is completely subjective.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: DA, BA and SW can stand alone as factions with their own Codexes (Codices?) as they have enough differentiation in models/aesthetic, lore, units and playstyle without consuming too much in the way of GW resources. Their lore is long-established with enough folks that care about it to sustain sales. At the end of the day factions that give a good return on their investment to GW will survive/grow and those that don't will decline/vanish. I am sure that the suits at GW look at sales figures for Dark Angels books and models over the last two decades when they are making decisions. New factions represent risk in terms of resources. DA, BA, SW are much less of a risk.
Now, could the Dark Angels receive a Supplement instead of a Codex? Well, I suppose, but it would be a rather huge supplement unless we are cutting something. There are units from the main SM Codex that the DA do not have access to. This is part of what makes them different - see my first line. Dark Angels players get their own unique units in exchange. Whether its worth it is an individual player's choice and nobody else's. They have plenty of unique units and stratagems. They have lots of distinct, established lore. Then I have to buy two books. With the current construct I only have to buy my one DA Codex. I'm good with that.
I get that some here do not like those factions. You don't have to buy them. That's what I don't understand about some of the rather vehement emotion here. Don't like Space Wolves? Don't buy them. I don't see how they are hurting you or the hobby.
Because the narrow focuss on the Marine subfaction and then even narrower focus on a few Marine sub-sub factions removes huge amounts of focus, effort and resources from....anything else - thats why. Why am I restricted in just adding to my Wolves or Angels armies and not other factions
Also because of the pretend unqiue units - yeah we have a different gun, or we can have chainswords - the vanilla unit has to be worse and the hundreds of other Chapters that would use these options can't.
As always if you push one product ALL the time, give it new rules, own codexes, slightly different rules to pretend the units are actually different then shock horrror they might just maybe sell.....
Lastly the sheet awfulness of the last decades lore and models for the Angels and Wolves is sad.
Saying that the unique units aren't unique enough is like saying eldar guardians are IG with a different gun.
HAHAHAHHAHAHHAA - OH I am sorry where you actaully serious in comparing
Marine unit A with chainsword and Marine Unit B without them to
Human with lasgun to ELDAR with Shuriken catapult
Nah Mate just no. Thats not a strawman thats a STRAWGIANT - on fire - with fireworks
I donlt think we should get something when others don't - maybe thats not you view.
Yes, mostly because there's more of a difference than just a chainsword. You know it too, which is the sad part.
"Nah Mate just no. Thats not a strawman thats a STRAWGIANT - on fire - with fireworks" is very much descriptive of your argument.
flandarz wrote: I think the "we got unique units so we need a separate Codex" argument is a bit faulty. Just looking at my own Ork Codex, I found 6 units that are "Kultur locked", meaning they can only be used with a single sub-Faction. Two of these can technically be used in other Kulturs, mind you, but they have a special rule for that and don't benefit from the sub-Faction bonuses when added to them.
Anyway, point is: plenty of Codexes have options that can only be used with certain sub-Factions. Units, Stratagems, and Relics. And they work just fine like this. It's just not a good argument to use "unique units" as a reason for a separate Codex.
Freebootaz Codex 2020
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mmmpi wrote: " I had Space Wolves last edition. "
Do you want a cookie?
" Also it doesn't matter if I don't play those particular two armies, because I'm still advocating consolidation for armies I play too, so there isn't some hypocrisy like you're trying to find for a "gotcha" moment, which you haven't had any luck with. "
The bigger issue is that everything you're trying to pass of as fact is completely subjective.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: DA, BA and SW can stand alone as factions with their own Codexes (Codices?) as they have enough differentiation in models/aesthetic, lore, units and playstyle without consuming too much in the way of GW resources. Their lore is long-established with enough folks that care about it to sustain sales. At the end of the day factions that give a good return on their investment to GW will survive/grow and those that don't will decline/vanish. I am sure that the suits at GW look at sales figures for Dark Angels books and models over the last two decades when they are making decisions. New factions represent risk in terms of resources. DA, BA, SW are much less of a risk.
Now, could the Dark Angels receive a Supplement instead of a Codex? Well, I suppose, but it would be a rather huge supplement unless we are cutting something. There are units from the main SM Codex that the DA do not have access to. This is part of what makes them different - see my first line. Dark Angels players get their own unique units in exchange. Whether its worth it is an individual player's choice and nobody else's. They have plenty of unique units and stratagems. They have lots of distinct, established lore. Then I have to buy two books. With the current construct I only have to buy my one DA Codex. I'm good with that.
I get that some here do not like those factions. You don't have to buy them. That's what I don't understand about some of the rather vehement emotion here. Don't like Space Wolves? Don't buy them. I don't see how they are hurting you or the hobby.
Because the narrow focuss on the Marine subfaction and then even narrower focus on a few Marine sub-sub factions removes huge amounts of focus, effort and resources from....anything else - thats why. Why am I restricted in just adding to my Wolves or Angels armies and not other factions
Also because of the pretend unqiue units - yeah we have a different gun, or we can have chainswords - the vanilla unit has to be worse and the hundreds of other Chapters that would use these options can't.
As always if you push one product ALL the time, give it new rules, own codexes, slightly different rules to pretend the units are actually different then shock horrror they might just maybe sell.....
Lastly the sheet awfulness of the last decades lore and models for the Angels and Wolves is sad.
Saying that the unique units aren't unique enough is like saying eldar guardians are IG with a different gun.
It is fact their unique points are hardly that unique. Sanguine Priests hardly get use just like Apothecaries and get the same exact role: heal and bring back dead models once in a blue moon. Nobody uses their S+1 bonus.
So what's the real difference? A different slot (Elite vs HQ). That's really it. You need a whole separate codex you poor thing!
I use them for their Strength buff. Most of the other blood angels players I know use them for that as well.
Congratulations though, you managed to find one unit out of 20 that is different, in one of the side marine armies.
flandarz wrote: I agree that consolidating now would mean a lot of beloved units would likely have to go. But I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. A smaller pool of Codexes, units, Stratagems, etc. would mean less that requires balancing, errata, and FAQs.
I think I mentioned earlier that what GW should have done, if they wanted a good wargame, would have been to release 40k with the 10 Factions I mentioned earlier (including sub-Factions), a double handful of units each, and like 5 Stratagems and Wargear options. Then, over time, they could release more stuff in smaller batches. Stuff they could properly write up and playtest. That's IF GW's goal was to create a good wargame.
But, as you said (and I mentioned before) GW isn't a wargame company. They're a model company that uses a wargame to sell models. So, they don't want to do what would be good for the game and bad for their bottom line, even if it would only be bad for a short time. And people hanging onto their "variety" regardless of the state of the game don't help matters.
Again: I'd rather have a solid game without many options than to have a thousand options attached to a bad game. And I don't even think 40k is all that bad. But I DO think it can be better.
As most so called unique units are little more than weapons options or a rule or two - they can easily be taken as options in the vanilla units.
You just described pretty much every xenos unit as well from aspect warriors to gaunts, but ok say you got your way and all the marines get squatted down too one codex what do you expect to happen then what do you think it will achieve?
A golden age where every xenos race is showered with plastic units? Xenos Codexes to get supplements to replace what you just complained about with the marines?
I have a feeling the reality would disappoint you whatever you are expecting chances are if less marines were made then either less 40k stuff would be produced over all or new armies are produced wholesale like AoS with the odd bone thrown to the existing xenos.
Because if GW were given the choice of updating Orks and making £x or releasing a board game in the same production slot and making £y then as long y is greater than x we get a board game.
He also just described most of the difference between eldar and IG as well. A stat or two and equipment. If he was really interested in consolidation, why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.
flandarz wrote: I agree that consolidating now would mean a lot of beloved units would likely have to go. But I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. A smaller pool of Codexes, units, Stratagems, etc. would mean less that requires balancing, errata, and FAQs.
I think I mentioned earlier that what GW should have done, if they wanted a good wargame, would have been to release 40k with the 10 Factions I mentioned earlier (including sub-Factions), a double handful of units each, and like 5 Stratagems and Wargear options. Then, over time, they could release more stuff in smaller batches. Stuff they could properly write up and playtest. That's IF GW's goal was to create a good wargame.
But, as you said (and I mentioned before) GW isn't a wargame company. They're a model company that uses a wargame to sell models. So, they don't want to do what would be good for the game and bad for their bottom line, even if it would only be bad for a short time. And people hanging onto their "variety" regardless of the state of the game don't help matters.
Again: I'd rather have a solid game without many options than to have a thousand options attached to a bad game. And I don't even think 40k is all that bad. But I DO think it can be better.
As most so called unique units are little more than weapons options or a rule or two - they can easily be taken as options in the vanilla units.
You just described pretty much every xenos unit as well from aspect warriors to gaunts, but ok say you got your way and all the marines get squatted down too one codex what do you expect to happen then what do you think it will achieve?
A golden age where every xenos race is showered with plastic units? Xenos Codexes to get supplements to replace what you just complained about with the marines?
I have a feeling the reality would disappoint you whatever you are expecting chances are if less marines were made then either less 40k stuff would be produced over all or new armies are produced wholesale like AoS with the odd bone thrown to the existing xenos.
Because if GW were given the choice of updating Orks and making £x or releasing a board game in the same production slot and making £y then as long y is greater than x we get a board game.
I see that Strawgiant is up and burning well again........
Cos marines "Only" have a huge dex representing the current vast;y bloated range (how many Primaris Lts again? is "Squating" them - yeah ok.....
Every non marine faction getting a couple of units per year would be an improvement over what we have at the moment - but no I guess its much better to just keep makig new Marines but only for a very few super special Chapters....
Well stop building your strawmen that big then, and we won't have to burn them on you.
Klickor wrote: People do use the sanguinary priest for that +str. Its really strong with +1 to wound. Makes chainswords wound t8 on 4+ and t4 on 2+. He also have ws2+ and 6 attacks that wound t4 on 2s. Giving a unit of DC +1 str is incredible against t4, t5 and t8. DCTH wounds t8 on 2s then.
I wouldnt use a Sanguinary priest now that the invictors are out since I dont have the points for 3 battalions anymore but it is a good HQ that is more used for its str bonus than its heal I would say. I could still see him go or get made in to a strat or something in order to get a supplement. Would rather always be on the same playing field as the other marines no matter if it would make BA slightly weaker in some editions. Being too different in powerlevel between marines bother me more than how it stacks against the rest of the armies. We marines should stick together
LOL no people don't use them, sorry.
YOU and people you know and read about don't use them. My FLGS sold out on them twice.
BA have about 25% unique units in the HQ and Elite slot if not including fw relic units. And the baal predator. If the baal predator and the dread variants were to be consolidated it would be even less.
I dont really see why BA should be the only ones with a flamer predator when Salamanderw get their own book and those poor bastards cant have as many meltas or flamers as BA for some weird reason despite being the "fire" chapter.
Everyone could have Librarian dreads and BA would still be the only one with fly due to uniqur psychic power. DC, Furioso and Ironclad should be one melee dread datasheet with DC just being that dread with "death vision of sanguinius" or a chapter tactic that makes ba dreads better.
Now BA have 2 unique Jump Units + HQs, and tycho and corbulo on foot should probably be squatted as well anyway, and perfect size for a supplement. Having the supplement treatment would be so nice right now instead of having to play "Blood Guard" (Bloodangels with RG rules)
The lack of flamer weapons for salamanders is odd. The BA got them because they're thematic for an assault oriented army.
Why should those characters be squatted?
Furthermore, it's only a 'perfect fit' if everyone agrees that the dreadnoughts, and baal preds should be combined/shared.
Having a codex supplement wouldn't change your ravensguard issue.
Mmmpi wrote: The lack of flamer weapons for salamanders is odd. The BA got them because they're thematic for an assault oriented army.
Why should those characters be squatted?
Furthermore, it's only a 'perfect fit' if everyone agrees that the dreadnoughts, and baal preds should be combined/shared.
Having a codex supplement wouldn't change your ravensguard issue.
Very old models with very little use. Mostly takes up space and wouldnt be surprised if moved to legends soon. I wouldnt be against new sculpts and new rules for them though.
If I had combat doctrines, new point costs and the new base stratagems + BAs own updated to become a bit cheaper/better and have a chapter tactic useful on vehicles I would be content. Right now my red marines are worse than any othet color of marines other than dark green and bluegray for being red. And red isnt faster for being red anymore either.
Who knows when BA will be fixed now but if we were a supplement it would already have been done and fixed salamanders as well.
For Mono BA to be as powerful as codex marines we would need some serious page count and good rules in a stand alone book. The customisation marines have and the number of traits stacking on traits make so many builds good. Building on that I think would be better for BA/DA to keep up than a new book. A new book has high chances of being both stronger or weaker than the normal marines when most want them on the same level. Will they make the fewer extra rules stronger to compensate for the low number or will they make each as strong as the marine ones but only half of them.
BrianDavion wrote: except you're assuming consolidation would fix this.
it wouldn't How many fething releases, and I mean independant seperate from the priamris stuff they share with the other marine dexes, have dark angels gotten this edition? they got a single fething character, that's no more then necrons have gotten this edition. Blood Angels are getting Primaris Mephestion, but even if we include that it's a character release and a HQ release. Blood Angels, Dark Angels etc are not sucking up releases for others, they've gotten their codices and... thats about it. even their codices have been pretty minimal, a few new strats etc. nothing partiuclarly exciting. let's use space wolves as an example they have 16 or so unique strats. by comparison, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists etc.. have 16 strats. 6 warlord traits.. same as the supplements etc. So no consolidation wouldn't do anything, and it seems GW is doubling down on making each 1st founding chapter distinct and differant
Really lets just ignore all the stuff that they get thats shared? Feth no - its stuff they get which non Marine armies don;t get same as all those lovely new FW models that have 40k stats.
BrianDavion wrote: except you're assuming consolidation would fix this.
it wouldn't How many fething releases, and I mean independant seperate from the priamris stuff they share with the other marine dexes, have dark angels gotten this edition? they got a single fething character, that's no more then necrons have gotten this edition. Blood Angels are getting Primaris Mephestion, but even if we include that it's a character release and a HQ release. Blood Angels, Dark Angels etc are not sucking up releases for others, they've gotten their codices and... thats about it. even their codices have been pretty minimal, a few new strats etc. nothing partiuclarly exciting. let's use space wolves as an example they have 16 or so unique strats. by comparison, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists etc.. have 16 strats. 6 warlord traits.. same as the supplements etc. So no consolidation wouldn't do anything, and it seems GW is doubling down on making each 1st founding chapter distinct and differant
Really lets just ignore all the stuff that they get thats shared? Feth no - its stuff they get which non Marine armies don;t get same as all those lovely new FW models that have 40k stats.
Exactly this. I can't believe someone has tried to claim that Dark Angels have had the same number of releases as Necrons this edition. This must be some meta joke right? Marines have had 30+ releases, 8 or so of them are unique, chapter specific characters.
The 'but muh unique snowflake units bru' argument is ridiculous too. Longfangs are literally devastator squads with beards. Death company were initially just assault marines with a different paint job. Scouts as elites? Wow. Super specific dread? Make it a weapon option tied to specific sub factions.
The marine bloat is starting to (yet again) kill the game.
BrianDavion wrote: except you're assuming consolidation would fix this.
it wouldn't How many fething releases, and I mean independant seperate from the priamris stuff they share with the other marine dexes, have dark angels gotten this edition? they got a single fething character, that's no more then necrons have gotten this edition. Blood Angels are getting Primaris Mephestion, but even if we include that it's a character release and a HQ release. Blood Angels, Dark Angels etc are not sucking up releases for others, they've gotten their codices and... thats about it. even their codices have been pretty minimal, a few new strats etc. nothing partiuclarly exciting. let's use space wolves as an example they have 16 or so unique strats. by comparison, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists etc.. have 16 strats. 6 warlord traits.. same as the supplements etc. So no consolidation wouldn't do anything, and it seems GW is doubling down on making each 1st founding chapter distinct and differant
Really lets just ignore all the stuff that they get thats shared? Feth no - its stuff they get which non Marine armies don;t get same as all those lovely new FW models that have 40k stats.
Exactly this. I can't believe someone has tried to claim that Dark Angels have had the same number of releases as Necrons this edition. This must be some meta joke right? Marines have had 30+ releases, 8 or so of them are unique, chapter specific characters.
The 'but muh unique snowflake units bru' argument is ridiculous too. Longfangs are literally devastator squads with beards. Death company were initially just assault marines with a different paint job. Scouts as elites? Wow. Super specific dread? Make it a weapon option tied to specific sub factions.
The marine bloat is starting to (yet again) kill the game.
what I am saying is that the vast majority of marine releases are shared
between that and chapter supplements, they're not getting much new. Ergo, consolidation wouldn't make a fething differance. they're already halfway there, and lo and behold, it hasn't suddenly changed the release schedule, it hasn't magicly allowed GW to release more Orks etc. I repeat consolidation would not make a single fething differance THAT is my point. not that DAs, BAs etc haven't gotten releases, but that they're not exactly taking up substantially more production resources then they would if you folded them into codex space marines and released a supplement.
the problem is that when a chapter has so many modifications to core units, and so many of their own units, they might as well just got a stand alone codex. space wolves for example would be CONSTANTLY flipping between two books for every one of their units. If the market'll support a stand alone space wolves codex, they might as well get a stand alone codex.
@BrianDavion So you honestly think that if GW didn't spend all their time writing and releasing a literal books' worth of content for each snowflake marine chapter there wouldn't be more time for them to spend writing books other factions? Rubbish.
You reckon that they wouldn't have any more time to release characters for other factions if they didn't spend 90% of their time working on 'Blue Psyker Bro' for UM, 'Hawks McGee' for WS, 'Definitely not futuristic Solid Snake' for RG, 'ExTerminate' for IH, 'Jawwy McChinnerson' of the Imperial Fists or 'Burny Hammerhead' of Salamanders and now 'Futuristic Vampire Lestat' for BA? That's 7 new character models right there that other factions could have used. But no. Other factions can't have nice things.
My suggestion would be to have, oh I don't know, all factions on an even footing with the same amount of books for all of them, aka no supplements and a consolidated codex for Marines.
An Actual Englishman wrote: @BrianDavion So you honestly think that if GW didn't spend all their time writing and releasing a literal books' worth of content for each snowflake marine chapter there wouldn't be more time for them to spend writing books other factions? Rubbish.
You reckon that they wouldn't have any more time to release characters for other factions if they didn't spend 90% of their time working on 'Blue Psyker Bro' for UM, 'Hawks McGee' for WS, 'Definitely not futuristic Solid Snake' for RG, 'ExTerminate' for IH, 'Jawwy McChinnerson' of the Imperial Fists or 'Burny Hammerhead' of Salamanders and now 'Futuristic Vampire Lestat' for BA? That's 7 new character models right there that other factions could have used. But no. Other factions can't have nice things.
My suggestion would be to have, oh I don't know, all factions on an even footing with the same amount of books for all of them, aka no supplements and a consolidated codex for Marines.
Removed - BrookM
I repeat, "if they made space wolves, dark angels and blood angels supplements it would not make a fething differance" Because you're right, GW did put a lot of work into those minis, it's about on par with what they've put into BA, DA etc. so the "make them supplements and GW'll use less resources on them!" arguement falls flat, because, as you yourself noted, the supplements get the same amount of resources as BADA etc.
yet again, Imperial Fists (just to use an example) has 16 unique stratigiums, received a new HQ character, new warlord traits yadda yadda ya, this is the same level of support that the DARK ANGELS have gotten this edition so far.
Whatever your views on it IMHO this isn't going to change (no matter how much people whine on dakkadakka). clearly marine subfactions are popular money makers, we can proably credit the Horus Heresy's sucess for this as it's helped flesh out each of the legions as unique entities with their own culture.
Which is why, for me, they *should* get rolled into the same Codex.
As Brian has pointed out, Imperial Fists got just as much as the Dark Angels through their supplement, and also claimed (accurately) that the vast majority of Marine releases are shared, So why not fold them all in together?
I'm not advocating removing of flavour or units, but simply making the core Space Marine book just that - the core of all Space Marines*. Want to have some more flavour? That's great, the supplement will provide that for you, just like it does for all the other supplement Chapters. I mean, how many special units does the Ultramarines supplement have? 10, 11? Compare that to DA/BA/SW, and they're not too far apart. Open up stratagems and Chapter Tactics to "upgrade" standard units to their flavourful counterparts, and for some of the more superficial differences (Long Fangs really aren't too different from a Devastator Squad, aside from their background fluff, Grey Hunters aren't so different from Tactical Marines, and regular Deathwing Terminators aren't really filling roles that normal Terminators weren't) just rename them in their supplements with some blurb about how in XYZ Chapter, they're actually called ABC and how they're special because *insert fluff here*.
It's not about getting rid of stuff, it's just making it open to everyone, and ensuring all SM are working from the same baseline. It worked well enough for 30k, and the Legion differences are all the more stark than they are from 40k Chapters.
As Brian has pointed out, Imperial Fists got just as much as the Dark Angels through their supplement, and also claimed (accurately) that the vast majority of Marine releases are shared, So why not fold them all in together?
Imperial Fists got as much as the DA ? You talking about the 3rd ed. DA supplement ? Because even then the DA had way more diversity than the IF does in 8th ed.
This topic has been dug out how many time now ? The only explanation I see for this is that some people have some frustration in regards to the fact that some SM chapter got more love than others.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Compare that to DA/BA/SW, and they're not too far apart. Open up stratagems and Chapter Tactics to "upgrade" standard units to their flavourful counterparts, and for some of the more superficial differences (Long Fangs really aren't too different from a Devastator Squad, aside from their background fluff, Grey Hunters aren't so different from Tactical Marines, and regular Deathwing Terminators aren't really filling roles that normal Terminators weren't) just rename them in their supplements with some blurb about how in XYZ Chapter, they're actually called ABC and how they're special because *insert fluff here*.
Well it would force people to buy one extra book, that is one reason enough for people not to want it. Also if we go by the logic of GH being similar to tacticals, then all aspect warriors, all orcs should be a single unit option too.
Part of the problem here is that anyone dares suggest that (as is the case) most "unique" units in the bloated Marine dexes are (In game) are basically slight variations on existing units - weapon option/a minor rule etc you get this complete BS strawgiant. In the lore - yes they are different culturally but so are the other 996 Marine Chapters that are out there.
why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.
Somehow that allowing (for example) other Marine tac squads to take chainswords or allowing the mixing of weapons in Terminator Squads is tableflipping the entire game, destroying the lore ( whats not been gak upon by recent dexes) and might as well have a single unit with options in the game.
As Brian has pointed out, Imperial Fists got just as much as the Dark Angels through their supplement, and also claimed (accurately) that the vast majority of Marine releases are shared, So why not fold them all in together?
Imperial Fists got as much as the DA ? You talking about the 3rd ed. DA supplement ? Because even then the DA had way more diversity than the IF does in 8th ed.
This topic has been dug out how many time now ? The only explanation I see for this is that some people have some frustration in regards to the fact that some SM chapter got more love than others.
I meant in terms of stratagems, warlord traits, psychic powers, etc etc.
It's not about "wah, they got more than me!", it's "is there really that much mechanical difference, and surely other first founding Chapters have just as much 'diversity' as the others?" Compare the Legions - they all use the same core book, the same core units. Are you telling me that the Iron Hands are just like the Raven Guard though? No, because their flavour and unique features, despite being in the same book, are actually distinct from eachother. The Dark Angels Legion don't even have a dedicated Deathwing unit, but that doesn't mean you can't have your Terminators called Deathwing Terminators and your Chapter Tactics gives <Terminator> units certain rules. That could easily just be covered in their Chapter Tactics which could just be in the main book, like everyone else.
With how much stuff could be put in these supplements, and how many units are shared, why not fold them together?
Karol wrote:Well it would force people to buy one extra book, that is one reason enough for people not to want it.
It wouldn't *force* anyone at all. You don't need the Ultramarines supplement to play Ultramarines, you can just use the Chapter Tactics printed in the regular Codex. Now, if you want special characters, and extra rules, and extra flavour? Yes, but that's hardly a DA/BA/SW problem, that's an "I want to play a first founder with unique extra rules" problem.
I'm sure you don't mean it to sound like this, so I'm not going to assume you meant it, but it wouldn't exactly be hard to extrapolate that to read: "DA/BA/SW get their core units AND flavour in one book, but UM/IH/IF/RG/S/WS all have to pay even more for their unique flavour, how dare you expect DA/BA/SW to do the same!"
Also if we go by the logic of GH being similar to tacticals, then all aspect warriors, all orcs should be a single unit option too.
There's a MASSIVE difference between a literal change of Chapter Tactic and the entire Ork race. Please, name for me the mechanical differences between Grey Hunters and Tactical Marines - not including their Chapter Tactic. All I can see is: - Access to chainswords, which I think plenty of Chapters should have access to, Black Templars and suchlike. Either tie it to the Chapter Tactic, or just make it universal. - Wolf Standard, again, why is this not a thing in other Chapters, again, like Black Templars. Same as above, either tie it to the Chapter Tactic, or universal. - Potential for 2 special weapons, no option for heavy, but again, *why is this a SW specific thing*. - Access to a Terminator armoured Sergeant, like the Iron Hands have in lore? Not unique then, really.
None of that really tells me that they have a functionally major difference to Tactical Marines that other Chapters don't/shouldn't also possess.
The kicker for me is that, in Kill Team, there is no mechanical difference between a Grey Hunter and a Tactical Marine aside from their Chapter Tactic, because it is essentially the same unit, with the same battlefield role. Which, imo, is how it should be handled - nothing's stopping anyone from calling their Space Wolf Tactical Squads "Grey Hunters", much like how no-one is demanding a whole separate unit for Raven Guard Captains (who function just like anyone else's Captains) just because they're called Shadow-Captains instead.
It's not like I'm comparing Terminators to Assault Marines, because they clearly have different roles on the battlefield, but Blood Claws and Assault Marines? Wolf Guard and Terminators? It's just a new name and a reskin. That's not to say get rid of the background, I wouldn't ever advocate for that, but on the battlefield, they operate in exactly the same spheres to the point where they are functionally the same.
All I can see is:
- Access to chainswords, which I think plenty of Chapters should have access to, Black Templars and suchlike. Either tie it to the Chapter Tactic, or just make it universal.
- Wolf Standard, again, why is this not a thing in other Chapters, again, like Black Templars. Same as above, either tie it to the Chapter Tactic, or universal.
- Potential for 2 special weapons, no option for heavy, but again, *why is this a SW specific thing*.
- Access to a Terminator armoured Sergeant, like the Iron Hands have in lore? Not unique then, really.
Funny fact: all those things were already available to Codex Marines Tactical Squads in the past (and the difference to Grey Hunters were Space Wolves Special Rules that were removed as it was too complicated to have specific rules for different kind of Space Marines)
The main reason why they cannot have this now is a simple one, no model no rules.
So the things that made Grey Hunters really unique were removed long ago and therefore they need to keep the special options to be different
I don't really care what will happen, as long as GW finally decide what it will be and stick to it.
First 8th was the Edition about Mini-Codex, everything will get its own Book, no matter if it makes sense or not.
But now we are back at Codex+Supplement, so the next releases should follow that scheme all Marines, as all Chaos Forces should be a Supplement
As Brian has pointed out, Imperial Fists got just as much as the Dark Angels through their supplement, and also claimed (accurately) that the vast majority of Marine releases are shared, So why not fold them all in together?
Imperial Fists got as much as the DA ? You talking about the 3rd ed. DA supplement ? Because even then the DA had way more diversity than the IF does in 8th ed.
This topic has been dug out how many time now ? The only explanation I see for this is that some people have some frustration in regards to the fact that some SM chapter got more love than others.
I meant in terms of stratagems, warlord traits, psychic powers, etc etc.
Like all factions in the game they have a specific discipline with 6 spells, 6 warlords traits and something like two to four pages of stratagem. Let's make a unique book for every faction and supplements for everybody then ...
As Brian has pointed out, Imperial Fists got just as much as the Dark Angels through their supplement, and also claimed (accurately) that the vast majority of Marine releases are shared, So why not fold them all in together?
Imperial Fists got as much as the DA ? You talking about the 3rd ed. DA supplement ? Because even then the DA had way more diversity than the IF does in 8th ed.
This topic has been dug out how many time now ? The only explanation I see for this is that some people have some frustration in regards to the fact that some SM chapter got more love than others.
I meant in terms of stratagems, warlord traits, psychic powers, etc etc.
Like all factions in the game they have a specific discipline with 6 spells, 6 warlords traits and something like two to four pages of stratagem. Let's make a unique book for every faction and supplements for everybody then ...
I mean, I wouldn't mind every subfaction getting a supplements with those. Let's give Dal'yth and the Evil Sunz supplements, let's see what Metalica and Mordian do that's unique
But, that aside, I feel you're missing my distinction. Yes, I know that "everyone" gets a variety of warlord traits, stratagems, etc etc, but the Space Marine *supplements* give just as much as a full Codex does! Therefore, if supplements are essentially giving about as much as Codexes in terms of flavour and variety, why do the DA/BA/SW need full codexes when supplements would suffice? Imperial Fists, a subfaction of the larger Space Marine core, getting as many stratagems, relics, and suchlike as some full Codexes (like what you describe) is functionally identical to Dark Angels, a subfaction of the larger Space Marine core (because they do all share the same core units) getting the same amount of stratagems, relics, and suchlike.
Basically, what's the difference between DA getting their personal relics, stratagems, warlord traits, and unique units in a supplement, and DA getting their personal relics, stratagems, warlord traits and unique units in a codex?
Eh, not all the time. A Raven Guard Tactical Marine has a different flavour than a White Scars Tactical Marine, even though they're only painted differently. On rules alone, we can see the Raven Guard are stealthy, and are fond of keeping a distance between their opponents and themselves, whereas White Scars like to get into close combat quickly, and are well trained with Bikes.
You should tell those the Chaos players, they don't need dedicated rules als long as they can buy the old Legion models.....
and this also means that we would not even need supplements, just a generic Marine Codex would be enough
This is true. Essentially, I want all the First Founding Chapters to be on the same playing field. As 30k shows us, the Chapters/Legions are far more distinct than "Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and everyone else". Either they all get supplements, or they all don't. I'd personally prefer supplements, but I wouldn't want a situation where one faction gets a full Codex when it could have just been a supplement like everyone else.
No, flavor comes from background. Neither rules nor lumps of plastic have any relevance.
This is more accurate, but I still feel that there is a place in models and rules to represent this background flavour.
Am I saying there should be a whole seperate Codex to showcase it? Not personally, because I don't see what a Codex would add that a supplement wouldn't.
You should tell those the Chaos players, they don't need dedicated rules als long as they can buy the old Legion models.....
and this also means that we would not even need supplements, just a generic Marine Codex would be enough
We actually only need two:
1. Loyalist Scum + a couple of pages to handle Renegades
2. Legions proper
I've already shown how to do the former many times.
To what end? Why are we talking about removing content? You can show how to do it all you want, but until there's an actual valid reason to do it other than "I don't collect those armies so I don't want them to have things", there's no gain to be had by doing it.
You should tell those the Chaos players, they don't need dedicated rules als long as they can buy the old Legion models.....
and this also means that we would not even need supplements, just a generic Marine Codex would be enough
We actually only need two:
1. Loyalist Scum + a couple of pages to handle Renegades
2. Legions proper
I've already shown how to do the former many times.
To what end? Why are we talking about removing content? You can show how to do it all you want, but until there's an actual valid reason to do it other than "I don't collect those armies so I don't want them to have things", there's no gain to be had by doing it.
I'm talking about removing filler, not content. Remember, people here can pretend they were using the S+1 bonus for the Sanguine Priest, but the truth of the matter is that they weren't. You keep actual unique stuff and share units/upgrades that should've been shared from the get-go (because two Chapters and ALL their successors don't have and never had Thunderfire Cannons? LOL that's stupid sorry) and we would be good.
You should tell those the Chaos players, they don't need dedicated rules als long as they can buy the old Legion models.....
and this also means that we would not even need supplements, just a generic Marine Codex would be enough
We actually only need two:
1. Loyalist Scum + a couple of pages to handle Renegades
2. Legions proper
I've already shown how to do the former many times.
To what end? Why are we talking about removing content? You can show how to do it all you want, but until there's an actual valid reason to do it other than "I don't collect those armies so I don't want them to have things", there's no gain to be had by doing it.
I'm talking about removing filler, not content. Remember, people here can pretend they were using the S+1 bonus for the Sanguine Priest, but the truth of the matter is that they weren't. You keep actual unique stuff and share units/upgrades that should've been shared from the get-go (because two Chapters and ALL their successors don't have and never had Thunderfire Cannons? LOL that's stupid sorry) and we would be good.
People use the sanguinary priest for its +str ability if not we could just take a LT or something cheaper or at least skip the JP. We have no good targets for the heal so why else would we take the damn model? You are wrong on this! But that doesnt mean we couldnt make changes to it if its for the sake of consolidating the marine chapters and make a supplement. 2 different things.
Last 5 2000pts games I played I used the Sanguinary Priest to buff my DC, or well in 4 games since in one the DC got killed before I had the chance to buff them.
Furioso dreads,(its just a tiny variation of the Iron Clad) baal predator and larger access to flamers and melta though are something there would be no drawback in making available to everyone.
Eh, not all the time. A Raven Guard Tactical Marine has a different flavour than a White Scars Tactical Marine, even though they're only painted differently. On rules alone, we can see the Raven Guard are stealthy, and are fond of keeping a distance between their opponents and themselves, whereas White Scars like to get into close combat quickly, and are well trained with Bikes.
To my mind, this is the sort of thing that really should come more from the owning player's tactics or maybe a couple of stratagems, rather than expressed as permanent army-wide bonuses or entire faction sub-books, particularly when both are ostensibly codex adherent chapters.
A Tac Marine is a Tac Marine (and is by definition the iconic generalist unit), be it from the Raven Guard, White Scars, Ultramarines, Blood Angels, Iron Hands, Dark Angels, Imperial Fists, etc. They have some different preferences in tactics, but fundamentally have identical equipment, 95% similar training, are drawing from the same broad set of tatics/strategies/operational procedures, and have the same general role in the lore and game, and will both operate the way the others do when the situation calls for it (White Scars aren't going to be riding around on bikes when clearing Orks from a mountain stronghold or dense forest, and Raven Guard aren't going to be playing stealthy ninjas in a running desert tank battle or a high tech urban assault against the Tau Empire for example).
As Brian has pointed out, Imperial Fists got just as much as the Dark Angels through their supplement, and also claimed (accurately) that the vast majority of Marine releases are shared, So why not fold them all in together?
Imperial Fists got as much as the DA ? You talking about the 3rd ed. DA supplement ? Because even then the DA had way more diversity than the IF does in 8th ed.
This topic has been dug out how many time now ? The only explanation I see for this is that some people have some frustration in regards to the fact that some SM chapter got more love than others.
I meant in terms of stratagems, warlord traits, psychic powers, etc etc.
Like all factions in the game they have a specific discipline with 6 spells, 6 warlords traits and something like two to four pages of stratagem. Let's make a unique book for every faction and supplements for everybody then ...
I mean, I wouldn't mind every subfaction getting a supplements with those. Let's give Dal'yth and the Evil Sunz supplements, let's see what Metalica and Mordian do that's unique
But, that aside, I feel you're missing my distinction. Yes, I know that "everyone" gets a variety of warlord traits, stratagems, etc etc, but the Space Marine *supplements* give just as much as a full Codex does! Therefore, if supplements are essentially giving about as much as Codexes in terms of flavour and variety, why do the DA/BA/SW need full codexes when supplements would suffice? Imperial Fists, a subfaction of the larger Space Marine core, getting as many stratagems, relics, and suchlike as some full Codexes (like what you describe) is functionally identical to Dark Angels, a subfaction of the larger Space Marine core (because they do all share the same core units) getting the same amount of stratagems, relics, and suchlike.
Basically, what's the difference between DA getting their personal relics, stratagems, warlord traits, and unique units in a supplement, and DA getting their personal relics, stratagems, warlord traits and unique units in a codex?
As Karol noted, by being stand alone it means they only need 1 book. I have no problem with DAs BAs etc getting a stand alone codex as the more popular specialist marine armies. it saves them money. Also it ensures their unique and differant equipment etc remains unique and differant. For blood angels, dark angels etc players there is, simply put, not many likely upsides to being given supplements instead of their own codex. for non-marine players there's no upside as it's not going to magicly preserve resources, in fact there are likely downsides, if they where supplements ala Imperial Fists, GW woulkd feel obliged to produce BA, SW etc supplements now, as opposed to giving it a bit. inevitably it would have lead to an even longer marine release schedule.
I'd like a supplement with appropriate changes. DA has quite a few units others do not. So adding deathwing entries and removing standard Terminator entries etc. What I really want is a unique formation so I can field my fluffy Dreadwing (Angels Of Vengeance Deathwing) and not be at a substantial disadvantage. Same for ravenwing. Add in some useful starts and I am good to go.
Eh, not all the time. A Raven Guard Tactical Marine has a different flavour than a White Scars Tactical Marine, even though they're only painted differently. On rules alone, we can see the Raven Guard are stealthy, and are fond of keeping a distance between their opponents and themselves, whereas White Scars like to get into close combat quickly, and are well trained with Bikes.
To my mind, this is the sort of thing that really should come more from the owning player's tactics or maybe a couple of stratagems, rather than expressed as permanent army-wide bonuses or entire faction sub-books, particularly when both are ostensibly codex adherent chapters.
A Tac Marine is a Tac Marine (and is by definition the iconic generalist unit), be it from the Raven Guard, White Scars, Ultramarines, Blood Angels, Iron Hands, Dark Angels, Imperial Fists, etc. They have some different preferences in tactics, but fundamentally have identical equipment, 95% similar training, are drawing from the same broad set of tatics/strategies/operational procedures, and have the same general role in the lore and game, and will both operate the way the others do when the situation calls for it (White Scars aren't going to be riding around on bikes when clearing Orks from a mountain stronghold or dense forest, and Raven Guard aren't going to be playing stealthy ninjas in a running desert tank battle or a high tech urban assault against the Tau Empire for example).
Nah, that's a fair point. It's good to remember that, as much as the Raven Guard and White Scars *are* different, they are both Codex Chapters, and both are still sensible - as you say, you still have Raven Guard Terminators and White Scars Assault Marines and so on, so forth. In this regard, it's actually pretty strange for Iron Hands/Black Templars and Blood Angels/Dark Angels respectively, because the former are non-Codex adherent (or deviate significantly from it), and the latter are actually pretty Codex adherent (Blood Angels especially, and Dark Angels just move what would normally be 6th/7th company Fast Attack assets to their 2nd Company, and assign their first two companies a special significance - even though all Chapters tend to do such a thing, albeit not with a Super Important Secret).
Even the Space Wolves, aside from their naming structure and progression differences, generally still fit the same sort of troop dispositions that Codex adherent Chapters do, with their exception being embedded Terminators in certain squads, which Iron Hands and *maybe* Black Templars also do in lore.
Essentially, in terms of typical fighting style, there's as much difference between Blood Angels and Raven Guard as there is between Raven Guard and Iron Hands, if not less.
BrianDavion wrote:As Karol noted, by being stand alone it means they only need 1 book. I have no problem with DAs BAs etc getting a stand alone codex as the more popular specialist marine armies. it saves them money. Also it ensures their unique and differant equipment etc remains unique and differant. For blood angels, dark angels etc players there is, simply put, not many likely upsides to being given supplements instead of their own codex. for non-marine players there's no upside as it's not going to magicly preserve resources, in fact there are likely downsides, if they where supplements ala Imperial Fists, GW woulkd feel obliged to produce BA, SW etc supplements now, as opposed to giving it a bit. inevitably it would have lead to an even longer marine release schedule.
That kind of sucks for all the other Space Marine players who need to fork out extra money if they want to have their unique and different equipment (which, in all fairness, should be just as unique and distinct from eachothers as the DA/BA/SW are).
Why do those Chapters get special significance, when all of their unique and special stuff could, as you put it, also be added to a supplement? It won't change resource management (well, I suppose it would be easier on paper and suchlike, because you wouldn't need to reprint all the same entries into the DA/BA/SW books that are in the base Codex), because it's still prioritising Space Marines compared to everything else (which is another matter entirely). I just don't personally see why BA/DA/SW should be held to a different standard to similarly weighty and unique Chapters - sure, you might need to pay a little extra for your flavourful units, but what about all the other Chapters who already have to do that? Why should an Ultramarines player who wants to use all the cool Ultramarines specific units have to suck it up and get a supplement, but a Dark Angels player shouldn't? (I wish to stress, I also very much advocate that you don't need fancy rules and specific units to have a fluffy list for a flavourful Chapter, and if you want to play Ultramarines, you don't *need* to have the supplement).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
captain collius wrote: I'd like a supplement with appropriate changes. DA has quite a few units others do not. So adding deathwing entries and removing standard Terminator entries etc. What I really want is a unique formation so I can field my fluffy Dreadwing (Angels Of Vengeance Deathwing) and not be at a substantial disadvantage. Same for ravenwing. Add in some useful starts and I am good to go.
You mention adding Deathwing, but removing standard Termies, but realistically, what is the difference, besides the name change? Specifically for just regular Deathwing Terminators, not the Knights.
In all fairness, you *can* field a fluffy Dreadwing, you just miss out on some command points. Although I wouldn't be adverse to some kind of "if a Vanguard Detachment contains only units with the Deathwing keyword, they instead generate 5 CP" or something like that.
That kind of sucks for all the other Space Marine players who need to fork out extra money if they want to have their unique and different equipment (which, in all fairness, should be just as unique and distinct from eachothers as the DA/BA/SW are).
Why do those Chapters get special significance, when all of their unique and special stuff could, as you put it, also be added to a supplement? It won't change resource management (well, I suppose it would be easier on paper and suchlike, because you wouldn't need to reprint all the same entries into the DA/BA/SW books that are in the base Codex), because it's still prioritising Space Marines compared to everything else (which is another matter entirely). I just don't personally see why BA/DA/SW should be held to a different standard to similarly weighty and unique Chapters - sure, you might need to pay a little extra for your flavourful units, but what about all the other Chapters who already have to do that? Why should an Ultramarines player who wants to use all the cool Ultramarines specific units have to suck it up and get a supplement, but a Dark Angels player shouldn't? (I wish to stress, I also very much advocate that you don't need fancy rules and specific units to have a fluffy list for a flavourful Chapter, and if you want to play Ultramarines, you don't *need* to have the supplement).
First up I wanna note that my army is vanilla space Marines. I own codex space marines, all supplements (I run the Ultramarines sucessors rules and bought the other ones as much for the lore as anything else) and own codex space wolves. I always belive it's best to identify your biases coming in. those chapters get special signfcigance because they've always had a codex, I'm fine with Space Wolves not having to buy two books for their full rules load. GW could certainly fold these books in but, why bother? it'd not benifit anyone.
(I wish to stress, I also very much advocate that you don't need fancy rules and specific units to have a fluffy list for a flavourful Chapter, and if you want to play Ultramarines, you don't *need* to have the supplement).
that is because ultramarines are as basic space marine as it gets. It would be kind of a hard to build and play a Raven Wing army, with their special units and rules removed.
captain collius wrote: I'd like a supplement with appropriate changes. DA has quite a few units others do not. So adding deathwing entries and removing standard Terminator entries etc. What I really want is a unique formation so I can field my fluffy Dreadwing (Angels Of Vengeance Deathwing) and not be at a substantial disadvantage. Same for ravenwing. Add in some useful starts and I am good to go.
You mention adding Deathwing, but removing standard Termies, but realistically, what is the difference, besides the name change? Specifically for just regular Deathwing Terminators, not the Knights.
In all fairness, you *can* field a fluffy Dreadwing, you just miss out on some command points. Although I wouldn't be adverse to some kind of "if a Vanguard Detachment contains only units with the Deathwing keyword, they instead generate 5 CP" or something like that.
Agreed on the general point the army is fieldable as of now but it is a very poor choice due to lack of command points and few strats that really work with them. So yeah and I use it that way I'm just like most players I'd like them to be better
As for Deathwing being the same I disagree they are separate units in the base codex and our are not a simple entry is a minor thing Especially when there are several unique DA units that have models and Need support from a financial point of view. Personally in 6th when they introduced the Deathwing Box I would have intentionally increased their divergence in tech.
BrianDavion wrote:First up I wanna note that my army is vanilla space Marines. I own codex space marines, all supplements (I run the Ultramarines sucessors rules and bought the other ones as much for the lore as anything else) and own codex space wolves. I always belive it's best to identify your biases coming in. those chapters get special signfcigance because they've always had a codex, I'm fine with Space Wolves not having to buy two books for their full rules load. GW could certainly fold these books in but, why bother? it'd not benifit anyone.
Apologies if it sounded like I was accusing you of bias, but I appreciate the note. For me, I've always been standard Codex Space Marines, Ultramarines and a custom homebrew, and I've only used the supplement to get the rules for unique Ultramarine units that I already had (plus the lore and company breakdowns, really liked that part of the supplement!)
As far as special significance, I think that's what I have an issue with, because realistically, shouldn't all the first founders be significant? One only needs to look at the Legion lists for 30k, and each Legion feels special, feels significant, because they all come from the same base, but all built off of it together. I absolutely think that first founders (and their notable successors) should be special to a degree, but they're *all* special, not just three of them.
For me, I would quite like all Space Marine factions (not Deathwatch or Grey Knights) to be folded into the general "Codex Space Marines", since it unifies their core pool of units, and benefits people who wish to collect more than one "special" Chapter. Say if you had someone who wanted to play Ultramarines and Space Wolves: under the current system, they would need to buy the Dark Angels *Codex*, even if they didn't want to use any fancy stuff, core Marine Codex, and the Ultramarines supplement (if they specifically wanted the fancy Ultramarine stuff). Under mine, they'd need the core Marine Codex, and the Ultramarines and Dark Angel supplements (which are completely optional on if they want the fancy flavourful stuff). The monetary cost is lower, the stats more unified, less need for specific FAQs, and feels like each of the big famous first founders are actually all important. The only situation where mine sucks is for for the people who only want BA/DA/SW, who now need to buy a second (less expensive) book - but is that any different to those who want to play the First Founder they've always played?
Karol wrote:
(I wish to stress, I also very much advocate that you don't need fancy rules and specific units to have a fluffy list for a flavourful Chapter, and if you want to play Ultramarines, you don't *need* to have the supplement).
that is because ultramarines are as basic space marine as it gets. It would be kind of a hard to build and play a Raven Wing army, with their special units and rules removed.
Firstly, I wish to refute the claim that Ultramarines are just basic. Their culture as a Legion and Chapter is fleshed out far better in 30k, but it's still there for 40k fans too.
Secondly, I never claimed to want to remove special units that had no direct analogue. For example, Ravenwing Bikers could easily be filled in as Company Veterans on Bikes or even standard Bikers, but things like the Land Speeder Vengeance would have a unique datasheet for the Dark Angels. Any special Ravenwing rules could be covered by something in the supplement stating "XYZ units gain the <Ravenwing> keyword in a <Dark Angels> detachment", and assign rules to that keyword, or even "an Outrider Detachment comprised only of <Ravenwing> units gains an extra 5 Command Points" to encourage taking full Wings.
Basically, I'm not getting rid of things. I'm taking existing units, modifying them into the "special" versions where necessary, and saving truly unique things (like Death Company, Thunderwolf Cavalry, and Deathwing Knights) to be in the supplement.
captain collius wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
captain collius wrote: I'd like a supplement with appropriate changes. DA has quite a few units others do not. So adding deathwing entries and removing standard Terminator entries etc. What I really want is a unique formation so I can field my fluffy Dreadwing (Angels Of Vengeance Deathwing) and not be at a substantial disadvantage. Same for ravenwing. Add in some useful starts and I am good to go.
You mention adding Deathwing, but removing standard Termies, but realistically, what is the difference, besides the name change? Specifically for just regular Deathwing Terminators, not the Knights.
In all fairness, you *can* field a fluffy Dreadwing, you just miss out on some command points. Although I wouldn't be adverse to some kind of "if a Vanguard Detachment contains only units with the Deathwing keyword, they instead generate 5 CP" or something like that.
Agreed on the general point the army is fieldable as of now but it is a very poor choice due to lack of command points and few strats that really work with them. So yeah and I use it that way I'm just like most players I'd like them to be better
Agreed, it kills me inside that while we've probably got the most freedom on paper to do whatever we like with our armies (I mean, I can make a full Devastator Company now without pesky Tacticals and Scouts!), people still feel restricted by the lack of Command Points. There should be more things for all factions that reward specific styles of build.
Took only Raptors and Warp Talons in your Outrider detachment? Great, extra CP!
All Devastator 9th Company Spearhead detachment? You got it!
Took a bunch of Knights in one detachment! That's- already a thing...
As for Deathwing being the same I disagree they are separate units in the base codex and our are not a simple entry is a minor thing Especially when there are several unique DA units that have models and Need support from a financial point of view. Personally in 6th when they introduced the Deathwing Box I would have intentionally increased their divergence in tech.
Perhaps, but if I were in charge of doing the Deathwing, I wouldn't have expanded their tech use, but would instead have done more with formations and stacking buffs rewarding players for playing in a certain way with the Deathwing - ie, keeping them away from standard Greenwing and buffs to fighting Fallen units.
For me, all the First Founders should have one or two unique units (that their successors can use too!): Firedrakes or suchlike for Salamanders, Dark Furies or Mor Deythan for Raven Guard, Phalanx Warders for Imperial Fists, Tyrannic War Vets or Invictarii for Ultramarines, Medusan Immortals or Gorgons for Iron Hands, Golden Keshig for White Scars, or along those lines. Then, the flavour around how they're fielded and how the Chapter fights is expanded by use of stratagems and passive buffs, rather than through forcibly creating new units to justify there being so much of a gap.
captain collius wrote: I'd like a supplement with appropriate changes. DA has quite a few units others do not. So adding deathwing entries and removing standard Terminator entries etc. What I really want is a unique formation so I can field my fluffy Dreadwing (Angels Of Vengeance Deathwing) and not be at a substantial disadvantage. Same for ravenwing. Add in some useful starts and I am good to go.
You mention adding Deathwing, but removing standard Termies, but realistically, what is the difference, besides the name change? Specifically for just regular Deathwing Terminators, not the Knights.
In all fairness, you *can* field a fluffy Dreadwing, you just miss out on some command points. Although I wouldn't be adverse to some kind of "if a Vanguard Detachment contains only units with the Deathwing keyword, they instead generate 5 CP" or something like that.
Agreed on the general point the army is fieldable as of now but it is a very poor choice due to lack of command points and few strats that really work with them. So yeah and I use it that way I'm just like most players I'd like them to be better
Agreed, it kills me inside that while we've probably got the most freedom on paper to do whatever we like with our armies (I mean, I can make a full Devastator Company now without pesky Tacticals and Scouts!), people still feel restricted by the lack of Command Points. There should be more things for all factions that reward specific styles of build.
Took only Raptors and Warp Talons in your Outrider detachment? Great, extra CP!
All Devastator 9th Company Spearhead detachment? You got it!
Took a bunch of Knights in one detachment! That's- already a thing...
As for Deathwing being the same I disagree they are separate units in the base codex and our are not a simple entry is a minor thing Especially when there are several unique DA units that have models and Need support from a financial point of view. Personally in 6th when they introduced the Deathwing Box I would have intentionally increased their divergence in tech.
Perhaps, but if I were in charge of doing the Deathwing, I wouldn't have expanded their tech use, but would instead have done more with formations and stacking buffs rewarding players for playing in a certain way with the Deathwing - ie, keeping them away from standard Greenwing and buffs to fighting Fallen units.
For me, all the First Founders should have one or two unique units (that their successors can use too!): Firedrakes or suchlike for Salamanders, Dark Furies or Mor Deythan for Raven Guard, Phalanx Warders for Imperial Fists, Tyrannic War Vets or Invictarii for Ultramarines, Medusan Immortals or Gorgons for Iron Hands, Golden Keshig for White Scars, or along those lines. Then, the flavour around how they're fielded and how the Chapter fights is expanded by use of stratagems and passive buffs, rather than through forcibly creating new units to justify there being so much of a gap.
One love the idea of unique units for all legions and successors.
Two when I refered to tech I always felt more along the lines of power axes sword and similar things not new entries. However I cannot dispute your view lpont as quite intriguing.
You should tell those the Chaos players, they don't need dedicated rules als long as they can buy the old Legion models.....
and this also means that we would not even need supplements, just a generic Marine Codex would be enough
We actually only need two:
1. Loyalist Scum + a couple of pages to handle Renegades
2. Legions proper
I've already shown how to do the former many times.
To what end? Why are we talking about removing content? You can show how to do it all you want, but until there's an actual valid reason to do it other than "I don't collect those armies so I don't want them to have things", there's no gain to be had by doing it.
I'm talking about removing filler, not content. Remember, people here can pretend they were using the S+1 bonus for the Sanguine Priest, but the truth of the matter is that they weren't. You keep actual unique stuff and share units/upgrades that should've been shared from the get-go (because two Chapters and ALL their successors don't have and never had Thunderfire Cannons? LOL that's stupid sorry) and we would be good.
Or people actually are using them, and you just can't wrap your head around that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Part of the problem here is that anyone dares suggest that (as is the case) most "unique" units in the bloated Marine dexes are (In game) are basically slight variations on existing units - weapon option/a minor rule etc you get this complete BS strawgiant. In the lore - yes they are different culturally but so are the other 996 Marine Chapters that are out there.
why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.
Somehow that allowing (for example) other Marine tac squads to take chainswords or allowing the mixing of weapons in Terminator Squads is tableflipping the entire game, destroying the lore ( whats not been gak upon by recent dexes) and might as well have a single unit with options in the game.
You keep using the word 'strawgiant'. You seem to forget that it has absolutely no meaning. The same with every argument you post where you use that term.
Firstly, I wish to refute the claim that Ultramarines are just basic. Their culture as a Legion and Chapter is fleshed out far better in 30k, but it's still there for 40k fans too.
Secondly, I never claimed to want to remove special units that had no direct analogue. For example, Ravenwing Bikers could easily be filled in as Company Veterans on Bikes or even standard Bikers, but things like the Land Speeder Vengeance would have a unique datasheet for the Dark Angels. Any special Ravenwing rules could be covered by something in the supplement stating "XYZ units gain the <Ravenwing> keyword in a <Dark Angels> detachment", and assign rules to that keyword, or even "an Outrider Detachment comprised only of <Ravenwing> units gains an extra 5 Command Points" to encourage taking full Wings.
Basically, I'm not getting rid of things. I'm taking existing units, modifying them into the "special" versions where necessary, and saving truly unique things (like Death Company, Thunderwolf Cavalry, and Deathwing Knights) to be in the supplement.
okey, but if your removing other armies rules, but keeping ultramarines specific ones, they your just forcing people to play ultramarines for their extra rules, because they would be getting all the normal stuff, all the DA stuff ported from the DA codex and their supplement, extra characters, traits etc. And GW doesn't have to make a specific outrider detachment for marines. If GW cancled DAs, they would just leave them without any such rules. And even if they did make a supplement for DA, then it could be focused around something else, maybe DW or normal marines, or primaris, and the list with bikes out of it would just be weaker then the exact same list made with ultramarines codex.
Karol wrote: okey, but if your removing other armies rules, but keeping ultramarines specific ones, they your just forcing people to play ultramarines for their extra rules, because they would be getting all the normal stuff, all the DA stuff ported from the DA codex and their supplement, extra characters, traits etc.
And GW doesn't have to make a specific outrider detachment for marines. If GW cancled DAs, they would just leave them without any such rules. And even if they did make a supplement for DA, then it could be focused around something else, maybe DW or normal marines, or primaris, and the list with bikes out of it would just be weaker then the exact same list made with ultramarines codex.
With all due respect, I honestly have no idea what your point is here, or even if you read my post.
I'm not talking about getting rid of anything that doesn't already have a direct analogue, and the truly unique stuff would just get unique datasheets as part of the supplement. The "Ultramarines Codex" does not exist, it's just as "Ultramarine" as it is "Imperial Fist" or "Raven Guard" or "Iron Hand", and those Chapters, especially the latter two, are no closer related to eachother than any of the "special" Chapters.
I'm not "getting rid of rules", I'm just applying them in different ways - aka, instead of being tied to the datasheet, it's tied to a keyword that can be applied to the datasheet. This isn't about "cancelling" anyone - everything still there, but in a smaller package, because most of the generic stuff that pads out the Codex is already in the regular Codex.
Basically, the only thing about the Dark Angels that is unique are their Wings - there is no need to have to repeat the same generic units that are already in Codex: Space Marines, so why not tie the two together, and put the unique things in the supplement, like everyone else does?
Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA. Who says GW doesn't decide that because wings armies aren't primaris, they are just going to remove them totaly in the books that comes after the supplement book? If DA don't have their own book, and have terminators, bikes etc changed by supplement rules, then the removal of the units from the core marine book, would just mean DA players are left with dead rules or rules that work only on legacy units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: You mean like it was during 5th Edition?
I don't know what happened in 5th ed, so I can't say if it was or was not like that.
What rules do DA have that couldn't be represented through sub-Faction traits, unique wargear options, and Stratagems? Honestly curious. Cuz that's how most sub-Factions are handled, even ones that play very differently from each other. Badmoonz and Goff are incredibly different from one another in how they play, but they're in the same book because those differences can be represented without the need for a whole new Codex or a Supplement.
No idea, but from what I know the last time GW tried that thing with my army they removed half the codex from what people told me. Trusting GW to make good by sliming down stuff, is like trusting an alcoholic to keep watch over potato mash for vodka.
You should tell those the Chaos players, they don't need dedicated rules als long as they can buy the old Legion models.....
and this also means that we would not even need supplements, just a generic Marine Codex would be enough
We actually only need two:
1. Loyalist Scum + a couple of pages to handle Renegades
2. Legions proper
I've already shown how to do the former many times.
To what end? Why are we talking about removing content? You can show how to do it all you want, but until there's an actual valid reason to do it other than "I don't collect those armies so I don't want them to have things", there's no gain to be had by doing it.
I'm talking about removing filler, not content. Remember, people here can pretend they were using the S+1 bonus for the Sanguine Priest, but the truth of the matter is that they weren't. You keep actual unique stuff and share units/upgrades that should've been shared from the get-go (because two Chapters and ALL their successors don't have and never had Thunderfire Cannons? LOL that's stupid sorry) and we would be good.
Or people actually are using them, and you just can't wrap your head around that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Part of the problem here is that anyone dares suggest that (as is the case) most "unique" units in the bloated Marine dexes are (In game) are basically slight variations on existing units - weapon option/a minor rule etc you get this complete BS strawgiant. In the lore - yes they are different culturally but so are the other 996 Marine Chapters that are out there.
why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.
Somehow that allowing (for example) other Marine tac squads to take chainswords or allowing the mixing of weapons in Terminator Squads is tableflipping the entire game, destroying the lore ( whats not been gak upon by recent dexes) and might as well have a single unit with options in the game.
You keep using the word 'strawgiant'. You seem to forget that it has absolutely no meaning. The same with every argument you post where you use that term.
1. Not really. They're mostly all the same options, or are you seriously going to argue Ravenwing are functionally different to Bikers? Spoiler Alert: they aren't.
2. Did you bother to see what my fixes were? Of course not, as you're too obsessed with this viewpoint that they need to be separate codices when almost all the entries are shared or just need to be shared for the sake of balance.
3. It's not removing ACTUAL content, it is about removing the filler nobody uses, like Sanguine Priests or Deathwing as if they were something special when they, in fact, aren't.
4. Look, you guys can pretend you're using this S+1 bonus for your Blood Angels, but there's a reason why he ain't tagging with Slamguinus: the aura is useless!
5. We already kinda got Devs with Jump Packs in the form of Suppressors. Also it is a strawman because you seem to forget there's literally no shared entries between Guard and Marines. Can you say the same for even CSM vs Loyalists? Nope.
Karol wrote: Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.
Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.
So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 3. It's not removing ACTUAL content, it is about removing the filler nobody uses, like Sanguine Priests or Deathwing as if they were something special when they, in fact, aren't.
4. Look, you guys can pretend you're using this S+1 bonus for your Blood Angels, but there's a reason why he ain't tagging with Slamguinus: the aura is useless!
It's amazing how you've managed to check every single list for every single player of two of the most popular chapters in the game and confirm none of them use these units! I mean, I don't even remember the interview, and I certainly don't remember saying I don't use my Angelwing (dual ravenwing/deathwing) force...
Or, in case you're blind to sarcasm, just because you haven't seen things be used, doesn't mean no-one uses them.
Until you can understand that your opinion on what is and is not a relevant unit is just that - an opinion - why do you think anyone would or should listen to you when you say GW should get rid of them?
Basically, the only thing about the Dark Angels that is unique are their Wings - there is no need to have to repeat the same generic units that are already in Codex: Space Marines, so why not tie the two together, and put the unique things in the supplement, like everyone else does?
I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.
kodos wrote: You mean like it was during 5th Edition?
I don't know what happened in 5th ed, so I can't say if it was or was not like that.
Codex SM made the better Ravenwing and Space Wolves the better Deathwing (specially for tournaments as the necessary DA BCM were banned) and Codex Marines could do anything the others could do as well but better
Except for Wolves as Grey Hunters were also good in melee and their "core tax" was none as everyone was taking more units freely
Vaktathi wrote: I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.
Sanguinari priests are an essential part of Blood Angels' fluff ... you know like the fact that they have a thirst for blood and that they have been searching a cure for this for thousand years ... Why would you want to just drop that kind of things is beyond me : what does it change ? Why are you so mad that they somehow doesn't have the same unit as all other chapters ?
It's the same for DA - and no it's not only the ravenwing and the deathwing that sets them appart. For exemple they have very little trust in techmarines because they are affiliated to mars and thus it is not techmarines that pilot their flyer - which is the reason why they have specific flyers (one of which is basically a portative prison) and why their fleet is bigger than most chapters (they don't need help from mars to build out their flyers and train pilots).
Basically, the only thing about the Dark Angels that is unique are their Wings - there is no need to have to repeat the same generic units that are already in Codex: Space Marines, so why not tie the two together, and put the unique things in the supplement, like everyone else does?
Do you even know anything about the DA tho ?
Okay, let's assume I don't.
Please, fill me in on what is unique about the Dark Angels' organisation and units that cannot be easily reflected by generic units gaining certain keywords and rewarding certain builds?
Vaktathi wrote: I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.
Sanguinari priests are an essential part of Blood Angels' fluff ... you know like the fact that they have a thirst for blood and that they have been searching a cure for this for thousand years ... Why would you want to just drop that kind of things is beyond me : what does it change ? Why are you so mad that they somehow doesn't have the same unit as all other chapters ?
They're a medic equivalent on the table, they can be represented by an Apothecary in terms of rules just fine. Blood Angels can still have that fluff, but there's no reason it needs to be treated as a distinct separate unit with its own unique abilities other than to be different for its own sake, same way my Iron Warriors Chaos Lord would technically be a Warsmith but doesn't need a separate special unit entry. Same way I don't need a distinct unit entry for Armageddon Ork Hunters or Tanith First and Only survivors, I can just use the IG Veterans unit to portray either.
It's the same for DA - and no it's not only the ravenwing and the deathwing that sets them appart.
Except every chapter has a veteran company and a mobile company and bike suport, they just don't usually deploy them en masse as the DA do routinely, however sometimes will (just as when the Ultramarines first company did so against the Tyranids and were wiped out). Deathwing Terminators are just that, Terminators, not a unique unit. The White Scars are also all about bikes and use them extensively, yet they dont need a unique bike unit.
For exemple they have very little trust in techmarines because they are affiliated to mars and thus it is not techmarines that pilot their flyer - which is the reason why they have specific flyers (one of which is basically a portative prison) and why their fleet is bigger than most chapters (they don't need help from mars to build out their flyers and train pilots).
Which is really going out of one's way to justify a reason for a need for a distinct flyer. This is one of those things that was invented relatively recently post facto after many editions and codex books to justify their existence as a separate faction after many editions of DA basically just being an FoC swap for terminators and bikes.
That sort of fluff is also the kind of thing that gets changed or dropped from edition to edition, it wasn't too long ago that Dreadnoughts among the Iron Hands were extremely rare and valuable, then GW flipped that and now they spam dreads like crazy. Black Templars once had no access to Psykers and could not include them as allies, that too has now changed. Storm Ravens used to be unique to Blood Angels, now everyone has them.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.
Sanguinari priests are an essential part of Blood Angels' fluff ... you know like the fact that they have a thirst for blood and that they have been searching a cure for this for thousand years ... Why would you want to just drop that kind of things is beyond me : what does it change ?
What does using the datasheet of an Apothecary change from the Sanguinary Priest?
Sure, it's all well and good in the fluff that the Sanguinary Priests are vitally important to the Blood Angels, and I would never advocate for getting rid of that. But why can't they just use the Apothecary datasheet, and add in some fluff in the supplement "Blood Angel Apothecaries are known as Sanguinary Priests, and fulfil a certain role in their rites and ceremonies". If you really want some gameplay, add some kind of rule like "<Blood Angels> Apothecaries gain XYZ ability".
Why are you so mad that they somehow doesn't have the same unit as all other chapters ?
Because aside from it's basic lore, there is very little in the way of gameplay mechanic for it. By all means, all the Chapters should have their special idiosyncracies and organisations and unique naming conventions, but it doesn't mean they need a whole new datasheet for it. In my opinion, we should stick to the core datasheets where possible, and attach specific abilities to those generic units via the keyword system.
It's the same for DA - and no it's not only the ravenwing and the deathwing that sets them appart. For exemple they have very little trust in techmarines because they are affiliated to mars and thus it is not techmarines that pilot their flyer - which is the reason why they have specific flyers (one of which is basically a portative prison) and why their fleet is bigger than most chapters (they don't need help from mars to build out their flyers and train pilots).
Okay, but you don't need to have "Dark Angels Stormraven" and "Dark Angels Stormtalon" - you just tell the player that in the fluff, and then they can paint and model their flyer with a non-Techmarine! It's not difficult.
Not all fluff and flavour of a Chapter *needs* gameplay representation. If the fluff for your Chapter is that Librarians fill the role of Company leaders, and Captains are actually treated as auxiliary tacticians and battlefield advisors, you don't need separate datasheets to reflect that, just make your Librarian your Warlord! If your Terminators have a dark super secret purpose, and paint their armour white because XYZ reasons, that doesn't really make them any different to the Terminators of other Chapters, they just look cool and have some nice fluff.
The idea that you need a full Codex for your fluff to be legitimate spits on the unique and interesting lore of Chapters that don't have a Codex (Iron Hands specifically), and implies that they are less unique (which is far from the truth).
Vaktathi wrote: I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.
Sanguinari priests are an essential part of Blood Angels' fluff ... you know like the fact that they have a thirst for blood and that they have been searching a cure for this for thousand years ... Why would you want to just drop that kind of things is beyond me : what does it change ? Why are you so mad that they somehow doesn't have the same unit as all other chapters ?
They're a medic equivalent on the table, they can be represented by an Apothecary in terms of rules just fine. Blood Angels can still have that fluff, but there's no reason it needs to be treated as a distinct separate unit with its own unique abilities other than to be different for its own sake, same way my Iron Warriors Chaos Lord would technically be a Warsmith but doesn't need a separate special unit entry. Same way I don't need a distinct unit entry for Armageddon Ork Hunters or Tanith First and Only survivors, I can just use the IG Veterans unit to portray either.
Exactly. No-one's advocating that "Blood Angels now just have Apothecaries like everyone else, and Deathwing don't hunt the Fallen and have their inner circle shenanigans", but just that "you could use existing generic units to represent these culturally significant assets!" Yeah, the Raven Guard have "Shadow Captains", but we don't need a special entry just because their name changed.
It's the same for DA - and no it's not only the ravenwing and the deathwing that sets them appart.
Except every chapter has a veteran company and a mobile company and bike suport, they just don't usually deploy them en masse as the DA do routinely, however sometimes will (just as when the Ultramarines first company did so against the Tyranids and were wiped out). Deathwing Terminators are just that, Terminators, not a unique unit. The White Scars are also all about bikes and use them extensively, yet they dont need a unique bike unit.
Yup. If the Deathwing fluff is about them mass deploying, just take an army of lots of Terminators! As I've said, I would want to reward a DA player for doing this by giving them CP, but the Terminators themselves aren't exactly any more special than just a reskin and name change. That's not to say they have no cultural significance to their Chapter, but that's the point -it's *cultural*.
For exemple they have very little trust in techmarines because they are affiliated to mars and thus it is not techmarines that pilot their flyer - which is the reason why they have specific flyers (one of which is basically a portative prison) and why their fleet is bigger than most chapters (they don't need help from mars to build out their flyers and train pilots).
Which is really going out of one's way to justify a reason for a need for a distinct flyer. This is one of those things that was invented relatively recently post facto after many editions and codex books to justify their existence as a separate faction after many editions of DA basically just being an FoC swap for terminators and bikes.
Not only that, but there's nothing to stop that particular idiosyncrasy of the Chapter being portrayed by simply painting your pilots green/black/white.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.
Sanguinari priests are an essential part of Blood Angels' fluff ... you know like the fact that they have a thirst for blood and that they have been searching a cure for this for thousand years ... Why would you want to just drop that kind of things is beyond me : what does it change ? Why are you so mad that they somehow doesn't have the same unit as all other chapters ?
They're a medic equivalent on the table, they can be represented by an Apothecary in terms of rules just fine. Blood Angels can still have that fluff, but there's no reason it needs to be treated as a distinct separate unit with its own unique abilities other than to be different for its own sake, same way my Iron Warriors Chaos Lord would technically be a Warsmith but doesn't need a separate special unit entry. Same way I don't need a distinct unit entry for Armageddon Ork Hunters or Tanith First and Only survivors, I can just use the IG Veterans unit to portray either.
It's the other way around : BA have a specific miniature to represent the fact that they have a specific disease and thus they have specific rules. It's known that GW write their rules after the arrival of new miniatures.
It's the same for DA - and no it's not only the ravenwing and the deathwing that sets them appart.
Except every chapter has a veteran company and a mobile company and bike suport, they just don't usually deploy them en masse as the DA do routinely, however sometimes will (just as when the Ultramarines first company did so against the Tyranids and were wiped out). Deathwing Terminators are just that, Terminators, not a unique unit. The White Scars are also all about bikes and use them extensively, yet they dont need a unique bike unit.
No it's not like all other chapters : DA have terminators armors in huge quantity because they are the first, better equip than most, and still have most of their pre heresy armory within the rock. I don't know if you've read about SM fluff but terminator armors are very rare. And the fact that the DA have access to specific gear is almost as old as 2nd ed. By the way DA also have relic anti grav bikes (used by the master of the 2nd compagny) : will you also argue that all chapter have antigrav bike somewhere but somehow don't use them ?
For exemple they have very little trust in techmarines because they are affiliated to mars and thus it is not techmarines that pilot their flyer - which is the reason why they have specific flyers (one of which is basically a portative prison) and why their fleet is bigger than most chapters (they don't need help from mars to build out their flyers and train pilots).
Which is really going out of one's way to justify a reason for a need for a distinct flyer. This is one of those things that was invented relatively recently post facto after many editions and codex books to justify their existence as a separate faction after many editions of DA basically just being an FoC swap for terminators and bikes.
That sort of fluff is also the kind of thing that gets changed or dropped from edition to edition, it wasn't too long ago that Dreadnoughts among the Iron Hands were extremely rare and valuable, then GW flipped that and now they spam dreads like crazy. Black Templars once had no access to Psykers and could not include them as allies, that too has now changed. Storm Ravens used to be unique to Blood Angels, now everyone has them.
This can be said about any fluff at all in the game. Now those flyers are in the game since what 3 editions now ? And the idea that the DA are secretive and don't trust techmarine is as old as the 3rd ed. at least. Your arguments doesn't have any weight, because you don't know much about the faction you criticize.
The idea that you need a full Codex for your fluff to be legitimate spits on the unique and interesting lore of Chapters that don't have a Codex (Iron Hands specifically), and implies that they are less unique (which is far from the truth).
Again it's not an argument. Nobody is saying that Iron Hands or any other legion are less unique than DA/BA/SW. It's just that GW didn't produce any miniatures to enlight those specificities. The answer to that should be to ask GW to create new miniatures / content to translate the specificity of the IH and other legions in the game, not to cut down what BA/DA/SW have just because you are somehow jealous.
Please, fill me in on what is unique about the Dark Angels' organisation and units that cannot be easily reflected by generic units gaining certain keywords and rewarding certain builds?
Flyers, the specific type of heavy land speeder that they have, and specifically the land speeder Darkshroud which is mounted with a relic statue tainted by the warp ... You just want to cut those units.
WhiteDog wrote:It's the other way around : BA have a specific miniature to represent the fact that they have a specific disease and thus they have specific rules. It's known that GW write their rules after the arrival of new miniatures.
Lovely, but what does having the disease change about the fact they just renamed their Apothecaries and gave them off-battlefield roles and duties? Again, as per my suggestions, why not just have a rule in the Blood Angels supplement saying "<Blood Angels> Apothecaries grant XYZ in addition to their Narthecium ability".
No it's not like all other chapters : DA have terminators armors in huge quantity because they are the first, better equip than most, and still have most of their pre heresy armory within the rock.
Which can be represented by, you guessed it, simply taking lots of Terminators in your army. White Scars are renowned for often taking to the field with bikes. Do they get special bikers? No.
I don't know if you've read about SM fluff but terminator armors are very rare. And the fact that the DA have access to specific gear is almost as old as 2nd ed. By the way DA also have relic anti grav bikes (used by the master of the 2nd compagny) : will you also argue that all chapter have antigrav bike somewhere but somehow don't use them ?
No, which is why you just make Sammael (or just Master of the Ravenwing) a unique unit. Again, no-one's saying that "every unique unit and character must be stripped out!", but only the ones with an immediate analogue.
This can be said about any fluff at all in the game. Now those flyers are in the game since what 3 ed. now ? And the idea that the DA are secretive and don't trust techmarine is as old as the 3rd ed. at least. Your arguments doesn't have any weight, because you don't know much about the faction you criticize.
I still don't see why you can't just paint your pilots as non-Techmarines to represent this part of their culture.
In my homebrew Chapter's culture, women can be inducted provided they undergo gender reassignment surgery. That doesn't need any kind of gameplay representation, that's just my Chapter's culture and background - just like how the Dark Angels don't trust Mars and happen to have a vendetta against the Fallen.
4. Look, you guys can pretend you're using this S+1 bonus for your Blood Angels, but there's a reason why he ain't tagging with Slamguinus: the aura is useless!
Can you just stop using this strawman please?. Why else are we using the sanguinary priest if not? And 0 characters are tagging along with Slamguinus because the only character in the game that could on the loyalist side is a Raven Guard slam captain. That is why he is so good. Should we also remove Lemartes, Dante, Sanguinor, Tycho, Corbulo, Astorath and the Sanguinary Ancient because they cant keep up and buff the slam captain?
The aura is really good if you have death company, vanguard veterans with chain swords or sanguinary guard with swords (to be fair this is a unit that shouldnt be used with swords until GW halfs the price). It even makes other support characers and troops quite deadly in CC. Suddenly your librarian, your intercessors and your scouts wound t4 on 2+.
You are only undermining your other argument by insisting with this one. If this one is so bad do we even need to read the others are what other people might ask.
I'm still ok with just using a apotechary datasheet for the model if they would remove it but in that case I think the special characters without JP should be removed first if any trimming were to be done. Sanguinary Priest could just become a stratagem even if I think it isnt that neccessary to trim BA down more than the predator, weapon options and the dreads.
Problem is, all of your arguments are based in fluff. If every fluff excerpt were represented by its own unique rules, every sub-Faction would have a Codex with 100+ entries.
They aren't arguing that DA fluff isn't unique. They're arguing whether or not that uniqueness requires representation with units and rules that are only slight variations of what other Chapters get.
For example: Goffz are bigger, stronger, and fightier than other Orkz. It's what makes them Goffz. But do I need an entire Codex with slight variations of the normal Ork stuff to represent this? Or is it sufficient that Goffz get exploding 6s in CC, a WL Trait that increases Attack and Strength, and a Stratagem that gives my Boyz +1 S? Then I can build an army that feels "Goffy" using the units that every Ork can take. This seems just fine to me.
So, I guess what I'm asking is: do you NEED it, or do you just WANT it?
The idea that you need a full Codex for your fluff to be legitimate spits on the unique and interesting lore of Chapters that don't have a Codex (Iron Hands specifically), and implies that they are less unique (which is far from the truth).
Again it's not an argument. Nobody is saying that Iron Hands or any other legion are less unique than DA/BA/SW. It's just that GW didn't produce any miniatures to enlight those specificities. The answer to that should be to ask GW to create new miniatures / content to translate the specificity of the IH and other legions in the game, not to cut down what BA/DA/SW have just because you are somehow jealous.
Just because there are unique sculpts, it doesn't mean they need to have unique rules, and just because there are no unique sculpts, that doesn't mean they don't have those specificities.
I know just as well as you that Iron Hands and other Chapters have vast amounts of flavour, but you don't need super fancy rules and unique units just because your guys have a colour swap, and new name, and happen to be numerous. Flavour does not have to be reflected in bespoke units and rules, because simply in *background*. Again, back to Shadow Captains - should they have unique rules?
But, seeing as you seem to think that, just for the record, do you think all of the first founding Chapters should have gotten full Codexes instead of supplements?
Please, fill me in on what is unique about the Dark Angels' organisation and units that cannot be easily reflected by generic units gaining certain keywords and rewarding certain builds?
Flyers, the specific type of heavy land speeder that they have, and specifically the land speeder Darkshroud which is mounted with a relic statue tainted by the warp ... You just want to cut those units.
I never said I wanted to cut the Darkshroud. Why? It has no acceptable equivalent. This is exactly what my point was about - singling out the units that are actually genuinely unique and not just reskins of generic ones. Darkshroud, Nephilim, Sammael on jetbike, Deathwing Knights, etc.
Now, the Deathwing Terminators, who are literally just Terminators with some cool fluff and a colour scheme swap? What's unique about them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: Problem is, all of your arguments are based in fluff. If every fluff excerpt were represented by its own unique rules, every sub-Faction would have a Codex with 100+ entries.
They aren't arguing that DA fluff isn't unique. They're arguing whether or not that uniqueness requires representation with units and rules that are only slight variations of what other Chapters get.
Nailed it.
No-one wants to make Dark Angels just generic flavourless Marines. It's just that you don't always need a unique datasheet because your Centurions wear pink on Wednesdays, and your Librarians are called "Soothsayers".
Vaktathi wrote: I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.
Sanguinari priests are an essential part of Blood Angels' fluff ... you know like the fact that they have a thirst for blood and that they have been searching a cure for this for thousand years ... Why would you want to just drop that kind of things is beyond me : what does it change ? Why are you so mad that they somehow doesn't have the same unit as all other chapters ?
They're a medic equivalent on the table, they can be represented by an Apothecary in terms of rules just fine. Blood Angels can still have that fluff, but there's no reason it needs to be treated as a distinct separate unit with its own unique abilities other than to be different for its own sake, same way my Iron Warriors Chaos Lord would technically be a Warsmith but doesn't need a separate special unit entry. Same way I don't need a distinct unit entry for Armageddon Ork Hunters or Tanith First and Only survivors, I can just use the IG Veterans unit to portray either.
It's the other way around : BA have a specific miniature to represent the fact that they have a specific disease and thus they have specific rules. It's known that GW write their rules after the arrival of new miniatures.
And there are specific distinct models for Warsmiths, First and Only, etc too, they just don't have unique rules. Lots of stuff has multiple models to represent the same unit, GW doesnt do unqiue rules for each model, they just dont make rules for units without models, these are not the same thing however.
No it's not like all other chapters : DA have terminators armors in huge quantity because they are the first, better equip than most, and still have most of their pre heresy armory within the rock. I don't know if you've read about SM fluff but terminator armors are very rare
Rare is not the same as different. How is a Dark Angel space marine Terminator different from an Ultramarine in Terminator armor? In terms of deploying on the table, what needs different rules, especially at the unit level? They can take a plasma cannon...that needs a whole new unit entry?
And the fact that the DA have access to specific gear is almost as old as 2nd ed.
For Terminators? Not really, about all that came up there is the plasma cannon access added in 6E. Just about every subfaction can point to something unique they've had at some point. Whether it really needs distinct unit rules and whatnot or requires a distinct book is another question, and that sort of thing changes from edition to edition often anyway.
By the way DA also have relic anti grav bikes (used by the master of the 2nd compagny) will you also argue that all chapter have antigrav bike somewhere but somehow don't use them
That fluff is mutable, GW used to make Imperial Guard models on jetbikes and all SM's had access to them as well. That sort of thing can and does change.
However, what a unqiue SC has isn't at issue here, we're talking about generally shared common units.
This can be said about any fluff at all in the game. Now those flyers are in the game since what 3 ed. now ? And the idea that the DA are secretive and don't trust techmarine is as old as the 3rd ed. at least.
They don't trust anyone, thats been part of their schtick forever. Needing a unique flyer to express that however is relatively new.
Your arguments doesn't have any weight, because you don't know much about the faction you criticize.
I own every DA book printed, going back to the 2E Angels of Death book. If you're going to resort to these sort of ad hominem arguments, you probably need to shift tactics.
Karol wrote: Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.
Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.
So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).
it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.
Karol wrote: Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.
Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.
So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).
it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.
They lost nothing besides the vows, and only ever one of them was taken.
Karol wrote: Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.
Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.
So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).
it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.
They gained access to a gargantuan number of new units and abilities in exchange for losing Vows (the kind of thing that might not have survived a new codex iteration anyway) and some artefacts of 4E codex design?
Not trying to be snide there, I just honestly don't see what BT lost in terms of fielding fluffy and capable tabletop armies when they were reconsolidated.
Karol wrote: Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.
Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.
So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).
it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.
They gained access to a gargantuan number of new units and abilities in exchange for losing Vows (the kind of thing that might not have survived a new codex iteration anyway) and some artefacts of 4E codex design?
Not trying to be snide there, I just honestly don't see what BT lost in terms of fielding fluffy and capable tabletop armies when they were reconsolidated.
a lotta em felt that they basicly lost their unqiueness.
So Grey Knights are too similar to warrant being in a seperate book than UltraMarines, but Traitor Marines and Legion reinforcements vary too much from Legion VOTLWs, so the CSM book should be split?
If they felt/feel like they lost their uniqueness just because they don't have their own Codex, then like 80% of 40k players should also be feeling pretty generic and cookie cutter.
Bharring wrote: So Grey Knights are too similar to warrant being in a seperate book than UltraMarines, but Traitor Marines and Legion reinforcements vary too much from Legion VOTLWs, so the CSM book should be split?
thats about the size of what slayer fan is saying yes
You should tell those the Chaos players, they don't need dedicated rules als long as they can buy the old Legion models.....
and this also means that we would not even need supplements, just a generic Marine Codex would be enough
We actually only need two:
1. Loyalist Scum + a couple of pages to handle Renegades
2. Legions proper
I've already shown how to do the former many times.
To what end? Why are we talking about removing content? You can show how to do it all you want, but until there's an actual valid reason to do it other than "I don't collect those armies so I don't want them to have things", there's no gain to be had by doing it.
I'm talking about removing filler, not content. Remember, people here can pretend they were using the S+1 bonus for the Sanguine Priest, but the truth of the matter is that they weren't. You keep actual unique stuff and share units/upgrades that should've been shared from the get-go (because two Chapters and ALL their successors don't have and never had Thunderfire Cannons? LOL that's stupid sorry) and we would be good.
Or people actually are using them, and you just can't wrap your head around that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Part of the problem here is that anyone dares suggest that (as is the case) most "unique" units in the bloated Marine dexes are (In game) are basically slight variations on existing units - weapon option/a minor rule etc you get this complete BS strawgiant. In the lore - yes they are different culturally but so are the other 996 Marine Chapters that are out there.
why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.
Somehow that allowing (for example) other Marine tac squads to take chainswords or allowing the mixing of weapons in Terminator Squads is tableflipping the entire game, destroying the lore ( whats not been gak upon by recent dexes) and might as well have a single unit with options in the game.
You keep using the word 'strawgiant'. You seem to forget that it has absolutely no meaning. The same with every argument you post where you use that term.
1. Not really. They're mostly all the same options, or are you seriously going to argue Ravenwing are functionally different to Bikers? Spoiler Alert: they aren't.
2. Did you bother to see what my fixes were? Of course not, as you're too obsessed with this viewpoint that they need to be separate codices when almost all the entries are shared or just need to be shared for the sake of balance.
3. It's not removing ACTUAL content, it is about removing the filler nobody uses, like Sanguine Priests or Deathwing as if they were something special when they, in fact, aren't.
4. Look, you guys can pretend you're using this S+1 bonus for your Blood Angels, but there's a reason why he ain't tagging with Slamguinus: the aura is useless!
5. We already kinda got Devs with Jump Packs in the form of Suppressors. Also it is a strawman because you seem to forget there's literally no shared entries between Guard and Marines. Can you say the same for even CSM vs Loyalists? Nope.
1. Besides the extra rules and equipment you mean? Yeah totally identical.
2.Yes. They were mostly bull droppings.
3. People use those. Maybe not in tournaments, but definitely in casual play. You've had people besides me say they use those. You're just being willfully ignorant now.
4. Can't say it's pretending if people (myself included) are actually using it. You do realize there's more to those factions than a jump captain with a thunderhammer right? It's important you realize that.
5. Strawman means a false argument. Nothing I said is a false argument. It's just one you don't like and don't have a good answer for. Which is why you constantly post bull droppings in these threads.
Until you can understand that your opinion on what is and is not a relevant unit is just that - an opinion - why do you think anyone would or should listen to you when you say GW should get rid of them?
This is my entire point against him. He's just going to call you a 'strawman', never mind the word doesn't work that way, and bury his head in a sand bucket.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.
Sanguinary priests: Better equipment, extra special rules, and different fluff. Some people actually use the buff from them.
Deathwing: They haven't been assault or tactical terminators for five editions now. They have different equipment and extra rules. Keep in mind, DA don't get regular terminators.
For the same reason that sub-chapters in the marine codex get different rules for their chapter trait.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: They're a medic equivalent on the table, they can be represented by an Apothecary in terms of rules just fine. Blood Angels can still have that fluff, but there's no reason it needs to be treated as a distinct separate unit with its own unique abilities other than to be different for its own sake, same way my Iron Warriors Chaos Lord would technically be a Warsmith but doesn't need a separate special unit entry. Same way I don't need a distinct unit entry for Armageddon Ork Hunters or Tanith First and Only survivors, I can just use the IG Veterans unit to portray either.
Regular apothicaries don't get the aura ability the SP do.
Except every chapter has a veteran company and a mobile company and bike suport, they just don't usually deploy them en masse as the DA do routinely, however sometimes will (just as when the Ultramarines first company did so against the Tyranids and were wiped out). Deathwing Terminators are just that, Terminators, not a unique unit. The White Scars are also all about bikes and use them extensively, yet they dont need a unique bike unit.
They also don't give them the same style of training the DA do either.
Which is really going out of one's way to justify a reason for a need for a distinct flyer. This is one of those things that was invented relatively recently post facto after many editions and codex books to justify their existence as a separate faction after many editions of DA basically just being an FoC swap for terminators and bikes.
That sort of fluff is also the kind of thing that gets changed or dropped from edition to edition, it wasn't too long ago that Dreadnoughts among the Iron Hands were extremely rare and valuable, then GW flipped that and now they spam dreads like crazy. Black Templars once had no access to Psykers and could not include them as allies, that too has now changed. Storm Ravens used to be unique to Blood Angels, now everyone has them.
DA terminators and bikes have long had different equipment and/or rules, not just a ForceOrg change.
" What does using the datasheet of an Apothecary change from the Sanguinary Priest? "
You mean besides the lose of an aura ability?
"Because aside from it's basic lore, there is very little in the way of gameplay mechanic for it. By all means, all the Chapters should have their special idiosyncracies and organisations and unique naming conventions, but it doesn't mean they need a whole new datasheet for it. In my opinion, we should stick to the core datasheets where possible, and attach specific abilities to those generic units via the keyword system. "
Or realize that because we're dealing with separate books, there's no need to stick to specific data sheets.
"No-one's advocating that "Blood Angels now just have Apothecaries like everyone else"
Some people actually are.
" If the Deathwing fluff is about them mass deploying, just take an army of lots of Terminators!"
Yup, let's just ignore the differences between the DA terminators and other terminators.
" Not only that, but there's nothing to stop that particular idiosyncrasy of the Chapter being portrayed by simply painting your pilots green/black/white. "
Karol wrote: Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.
Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.
So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).
it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.
They gained access to a gargantuan number of new units and abilities in exchange for losing Vows (the kind of thing that might not have survived a new codex iteration anyway) and some artefacts of 4E codex design?
Not trying to be snide there, I just honestly don't see what BT lost in terms of fielding fluffy and capable tabletop armies when they were reconsolidated.
a lotta em felt that they basicly lost their unqiueness.
I would struggle to see how. Again, not trying to be snarky about that, but the rules stuff that was lost was largely 4E era codex paradigm stuff that probably wasn't going to stick around anyway, no models were invalidated or lost, they still have unique CC oriented army wide rules and they were able to dramatically increase the number of units and options they had access to over what they did previously. They just don't have a separate book is all, they certainly lost a lot less than many armies do between simple edition changes.
Karol wrote: Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.
Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.
So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).
it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.
They gained access to a gargantuan number of new units and abilities in exchange for losing Vows (the kind of thing that might not have survived a new codex iteration anyway) and some artefacts of 4E codex design?
Not trying to be snide there, I just honestly don't see what BT lost in terms of fielding fluffy and capable tabletop armies when they were reconsolidated.
a lotta em felt that they basicly lost their unqiueness.
Well those people would be completely incorrect. Too bad.
Karol wrote: Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.
Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.
So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).
it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.
They gained access to a gargantuan number of new units and abilities in exchange for losing Vows (the kind of thing that might not have survived a new codex iteration anyway) and some artefacts of 4E codex design?
Not trying to be snide there, I just honestly don't see what BT lost in terms of fielding fluffy and capable tabletop armies when they were reconsolidated.
a lotta em felt that they basicly lost their unqiueness.
Well those people would be completely incorrect. Too bad.
Other way around there buddy. You should be pointing that finger at yourself.
Sanguinary priests: Better equipment, extra special rules, and different fluff. Some people actually use the buff from them.
I get that they have different rules now, but perhaps they and the Apothecary really should be the same thing. Maybe that involves enhancing the Apothecary to match (because they're not particularly great now), but aside ultimately they're supposed both be medic units and serve the same role on the table (one is just worse) and there's really no reason why the same unit entry can't portray both things. Again, having them use the same unit profile doesn't mean the fluff needs to change (just as my Iron Warriors Warsmith model doesn't need its own unit entry and serves just fine as a Chaos Lord).
Deathwing: They haven't been assault or tactical terminators for five editions now. They have different equipment and extra rules. Keep in mind, DA don't get regular terminators.
I.E. they slapped the equipment options for Terminators and Assault Terminators into one unit instead of two. That's not really a unique unit. The extra rules have always been in the realm of something like a Chapter Tactic anyway, and changed with basically every codex release (from Stubborn in 3E to Fearless in 4E to shooting rerolls when deep striking in 6E and now to the Watcher psychic defense in 8E) and hanging onto anything related to that particularly tightly is bound to be disappointed in whatever next edition is released anyway.
They also don't give them the same style of training the DA do either.
This can go for anything. Ultimately, it's a Space Marine biker unit from an ostensibly self-described codex adherent chapter with a practically identical unit entry with no real visual differences aside from some extra iconography that has most typically been defined by an FoC swap more than anything else throughout its history and the addition of a teleport homer in recent years.
DA terminators and bikes have long had different equipment and/or rules, not just a ForceOrg change.
These weren't never really more different in practice than a chapter tactic would make them.
Are we really going to argue that Jink and a Teleport Homer require a unique unit profile entry, but Bikes that charge after advancing or falling back and not suffering penalties for firing heavy/assault weapons don't need a unique unit entry?
Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters. No Victrix Guard, no Iron Hands, no Guilliman. Like if you want to remove or condense options and rules so theres only 1 generic list that everyone uses with nothing unique for anyone, why not push it that way?
Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. End of the day if it makes money for GW and is seen to be worth the investment it's not changing anytime soon.
It's because they don't deserve to be "separate" armies when that many datasheets are shared. can be shared, or consolidated as they don't fulfill an actual purpose. Ergo that leads to better balance and therefore a better game.
BroodSpawn wrote: Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters. No Victrix Guard, no Iron Hands, no Guilliman. Like if you want to remove or condense options and rules so theres only 1 generic list that everyone uses with nothing unique for anyone, why not push it that way?
Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. End of the day if it makes money for GW and is seen to be worth the investment it's not changing anytime soon.
course while we're at it woul;dn't it be simpler just to have no differing stats for units? it'd make it much easier to balance around and we could force it to be more dependant on tactics!
BroodSpawn wrote: Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters. No Victrix Guard, no Iron Hands, no Guilliman. Like if you want to remove or condense options and rules so theres only 1 generic list that everyone uses with nothing unique for anyone, why not push it that way?
Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. End of the day if it makes money for GW and is seen to be worth the investment it's not changing anytime soon.
The strawman is strong in this one.
I think the complaints stem from the fact that Marines are treated differently from every other faction in the game with regards to their layered rules and sub faction codexes/supplements. Not that it's an issue in and of itself, but where are my Ork sub faction supplements? Eldar craftworld supplements etc etc etc?
BroodSpawn wrote: Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters. No Victrix Guard, no Iron Hands, no Guilliman. Like if you want to remove or condense options and rules so theres only 1 generic list that everyone uses with nothing unique for anyone, why not push it that way?
Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. End of the day if it makes money for GW and is seen to be worth the investment it's not changing anytime soon.
The strawman is strong in this one.
I think the complaints stem from the fact that Marines are treated differently from every other faction in the game with regards to their layered rules and sub faction codexes/supplements. Not that it's an issue in and of itself, but where are my Ork sub faction supplements? Eldar craftworld supplements etc etc etc?
It's also hillarious considering these are STILL way more homogenous and interchangable factions comparatively to their Chaos counterparts.
" I get that they have different rules now, but perhaps they and the Apothecary really should be the same thing. Maybe that involves enhancing the Apothecary to match (because they're not particularly great now), but aside ultimately they're supposed both be medic units and serve the same role on the table (one is just worse) and there's really no reason why the same unit entry can't portray both things. Again, having them use the same unit profile doesn't mean the fluff needs to change (just as my Iron Warriors Warsmith model doesn't need its own unit entry and serves just fine as a Chaos Lord). "
They used to not have similar rules. A SP used to be a slightly weaker captain who could also act as an apothecary. The changes to 8th brought them closer together as now you can run an apoticary as a WL if you really wanted to, with relics. Don't forget too, that BA also get apothecaries. The part you're forgetting though, is that SP never were apothecaries, they were always a character. Until 8th, an apothecary was a squad upgrade. Even now they still don't fill the same role. A SP can do an apothecary's job, but it's also a leader model with a command aura, just like chaplains, captains, ect get. It has always been a leader model, and always will be. The warsmith on the other hand was always a chaoslord. It was never a unique unit.
" I.E. they slapped the equipment options for Terminators and Assault Terminators into one unit instead of two. That's not really a unique unit. The extra rules have always been in the realm of something like a Chapter Tactic anyway, and changed with basically every codex release (from Stubborn in 3E to Fearless in 4E to shooting rerolls when deep striking in 6E and now to the Watcher psychic defense in 8E) and hanging onto anything related to that particularly tightly is bound to be disappointed in whatever next edition is released anyway. "
Along with a bunch of special rules. That does make a unique unit. The special rules for those units (DW or RW) have never been anything like a chapter trait. Stubborn was the CT equivalent.
" This can go for anything. Ultimately, it's a Space Marine biker unit from an ostensibly self-described codex adherent chapter with a practically identical unit entry with no real visual differences aside from some extra iconography that has most typically been defined by an FoC swap more than anything else throughout its history and the addition of a teleport homer in recent years. "
It can, but GW hasn't. Virtually identical aside from several decades of special rules unique to it, and more lately different equipment? You keep forgetting about those special rules.
"These weren't never really more different in practice than a chapter tactic would make them.
Are we really going to argue that Jink and a Teleport Homer require a unique unit profile entry, but Bikes that charge after advancing or falling back and not suffering penalties for firing heavy/assault weapons don't need a unique unit entry? "
Yes, We are going to argue about it, because there's enough of both equipment and rules changes to matter. If you brought this up in 3rd ed you'd have had a point. That was almost two decades ago.
@BroodSpawn
"Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters."
Let's just get rid of everything in the game that isn't a tactical marine with a bolter. /s
"Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. "
This is pretty much the gist of it. For some it's because other armies have 'stuff' and they want it for their own armies, for others it's because 'they know better than anyone else' about what is best for other players. Case in point the arguments that 'no one uses the Sanguinary Priest'.
@Slayer-Fan123
No, it's that you don't THINK they deserve to be separate armies. Stop conflating your opinion with fact. You're still doing that.
Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters."
Let's just get rid of everything in the game that isn't a tactical marine with a bolter. /s
"Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. "
This is pretty much the gist of it. For some it's because other armies have 'stuff' and they want it for their own armies, for others it's because 'they know better than anyone else' about what is best for other players. Case in point the arguments that 'no one uses the Sanguinary Priest'.
I guess this person never played the twin lash chaos meta after 3.5.
Else you wouldn't state something like that.
Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters."
Let's just get rid of everything in the game that isn't a tactical marine with a bolter. /s
"Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW. "
This is pretty much the gist of it. For some it's because other armies have 'stuff' and they want it for their own armies, for others it's because 'they know better than anyone else' about what is best for other players. Case in point the arguments that 'no one uses the Sanguinary Priest'.
I guess this person never played the twin lash chaos meta after 3.5.
Else you wouldn't state something like that.
I did. Sorry that a list that's been out of date for 20 years is still causing you traumatic nightmares.
Huh traumatic, not, annoying indeed, epsecially considering the ammount of lost customizability.
Also boring. But that isn't new insofar that most GW armies have a very specific effective build based on actually effective unit combinations whilest the rest of the books is just subpar.
My reason for wanting consolidation isn't some Marine envy or wanting homogeneous lists. I'm just curious as to why the separation is necessary. What do these sub-Factions gain from having their own book? What would they lose if they were part of the same book? It'd be the same questions I'd ask of my own Faction was split into separate books.
I don't own a Space Marine army at the moment, but did so in the past and like them in general.
I would appreciate a consolidation, if it would mean that other armies get more attention in rules and models. Basically what we have at the moment with C:SM and their supplements.
I really do like chapter unique models, as they add a lot of flavour to the faction for me, while at the same time I think that a Sanguinary Priest and an Apothecary (as examples) should be one and the same base unit, with base equipment and abilities. A Blood Angel supplement or rules section in the same base book would then add new wargear like a chalice for a +1S aura.
As to the "why do we need books for 8 different kinds of imperial Space Marines". Honestly, there is no need. Having a bigger book with all the rules or several books with their respective stuff does not make a big difference for anybody. We have it because there are enough fans of each Chapter.
I'm pretty sure GW would be more than happy to release a... let's say Ogdobekh dynasty supplement for Necrons if the demand is high enough.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What does using the datasheet of an Apothecary change from the Sanguinary Priest
You mean besides the lose of an aura ability?
And why can't that aura ability be attached to Blood Angels keyword modification? Something like "<Blood Angels> <Apothecaries> grant XYZ to friendly <Blood Angel> units" as part of their Chapter Tactic/supplement rules. Why not tie it to a stratagem, and make it super powerful? Something like a "Sanguinary Priest: 1CP - One <Blood Angels> Apothecary may become a <Sanguinary Priest>, and gain XYZ rule", or even "Sanguinary Priest: 1CP - a <Blood Angels> Apothecary may cause XYZ effect on friendly Blood Angels units until the next battle round".
There you go, still got your flavour, and it didn't require a whole new datasheet.
Because aside from it's basic lore, there is very little in the way of gameplay mechanic for it. By all means, all the Chapters should have their special idiosyncracies and organisations and unique naming conventions, but it doesn't mean they need a whole new datasheet for it. In my opinion, we should stick to the core datasheets where possible, and attach specific abilities to those generic units via the keyword system.
Or realize that because we're dealing with separate books, there's no need to stick to specific data sheets.
But why are we dealing with separate books? That's the point I'm trying to make: why is having a whole separate book just for a handful of unique units needed, when you could just reflect all of that in a supplement (which is still separate book!)
Your argument here is "we should make it a Codex, because it's a Codex!" That makes no sense, it's circular logic. I'm questioning *why* it needs to be a separate Codex, and all you're saying is "it is, because it is".
No-one's advocating that "Blood Angels now just have Apothecaries like everyone else
Some people actually are.
What, that they should no extra flavour in the background? I'm not sure, but sure, perhaps they are. *I'm* not. What about my argument?
If the Deathwing fluff is about them mass deploying, just take an army of lots of Terminators!
Yup, let's just ignore the differences between the DA terminators and other terminators.
What differences are those? Assume I'm ignorant, and educate me, what is unique mechanically about the Deathwing? Don't mistake that as me saying that in lore and fluff they're just "normal Terminators", because they absolutely have rich culture and different lore to Firedrakes or Gorgons, but what I am getting at is "what about that needs to ensure they need a full new datasheet" and not just "<Dark Angels> Terminators gain the 'Deathwing' rule and XYZ special rule".
Not only that, but there's nothing to stop that particular idiosyncrasy of the Chapter being portrayed by simply painting your pilots green/black/white.
That hasn't been true since 4th edition.
Why? What *mechanically* about Ravenwing Land Speeders (because don't forget, Nephilim and Land Speeder Vengeances/Darkshrouds weren't in the game in 4th edition!) means that they can't be represented by painting your pilot a different colour?
Speaking of which, you do know that Land Speeders in Codex Chapters aren't piloted by Techmarines either? The only units that would be are the Nephilim, Stormraven/Stormtalon, and the Forge World flyers - which, barring the FW flyers (because they never existed in the Codexes!) all didn't exist in game prior to 5th edition.
Basically, I'm asking you to justify the mechanical differences of generic units that require them to need a seperate datasheet, that cannot just be covered by stratagems, Vigilus-style Formations, or bespoke Chapter Tactics, beyond "they've always had separate entries!", because that wasn't true prior to "Angels of Death".
BroodSpawn wrote:Why not just go one step further and have no rules for any of the chapters. No Victrix Guard, no Iron Hands, no Guilliman. Like if you want to remove or condense options and rules so theres only 1 generic list that everyone uses with nothing unique for anyone, why not push it that way?
So, basically just like 5th edition? Which I personally quite liked?
Basically, it was a case of "there are special named characters, but anyone can use them, and you can just fluff that character as being part of your Chapter!". For example, you could have Calgar as Chapter Master, Lysander as 1st Captain, Sicarius as 2nd Captain, Shrike as 3rd Captain, Vulkan He'stan as 4th Company Captain, etc etc. As a result, things like Honour Guard (which are now Ultramarine exclusive) were made open to everyone.
Fully enough, there was just as much list variety then as there was now.
Or is this just another thread of people whining because for longer than they've been in the hobby the Ba, Da and Sw have been treated as separate armies that share models by GW.
What about the people that have been in the hobby longer than DA/BA/SW were made separate?
flandarz wrote:My reason for wanting consolidation isn't some Marine envy or wanting homogeneous lists. I'm just curious as to why the separation is necessary. What do these sub-Factions gain from having their own book? What would they lose if they were part of the same book? It'd be the same questions I'd ask of my own Faction was split into separate books.
Very much this. It's not to say that DA/BA/SW shouldn't get anything at all, but that everything they could have could just be put in a supplement, and all the generic units could just be shared instead of wasting paper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: I don't own a Space Marine army at the moment, but did so in the past and like them in general.
I would appreciate a consolidation, if it would mean that other armies get more attention in rules and models. Basically what we have at the moment with C:SM and their supplements.
I really do like chapter unique models, as they add a lot of flavour to the faction for me, while at the same time I think that a Sanguinary Priest and an Apothecary (as examples) should be one and the same base unit, with base equipment and abilities. A Blood Angel supplement or rules section in the same base book would then add new wargear like a chalice for a +1S aura.
As to the "why do we need books for 8 different kinds of imperial Space Marines". Honestly, there is no need. Having a bigger book with all the rules or several books with their respective stuff does not make a big difference for anybody. We have it because there are enough fans of each Chapter.
I'm pretty sure GW would be more than happy to release a... let's say Ogdobekh dynasty supplement for Necrons if the demand is high enough.
Agreed. It's not about getting rid of flavour and background lore, or even some minor effects in game - it's about reducing the amount of datasheets that could easily sub in as one another.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What does using the datasheet of an Apothecary change from the Sanguinary Priest
You mean besides the lose of an aura ability?
And why can't that aura ability be attached to Blood Angels keyword modification? Something like "<Blood Angels> <Apothecaries> grant XYZ to friendly <Blood Angel> units" as part of their Chapter Tactic/supplement rules. Why not tie it to a stratagem, and make it super powerful? Something like a "Sanguinary Priest: 1CP - One <Blood Angels> Apothecary may become a <Sanguinary Priest>, and gain XYZ rule", or even "Sanguinary Priest: 1CP - a <Blood Angels> Apothecary may cause XYZ effect on friendly Blood Angels units until the next battle round".
There you go, still got your flavour, and it didn't require a whole new datasheet.
No, it just requires the use of CP, and a stratagem, which potentially takes up the same amount of room.
Because aside from it's basic lore, there is very little in the way of gameplay mechanic for it. By all means, all the Chapters should have their special idiosyncracies and organisations and unique naming conventions, but it doesn't mean they need a whole new datasheet for it. In my opinion, we should stick to the core datasheets where possible, and attach specific abilities to those generic units via the keyword system.
Or realize that because we're dealing with separate books, there's no need to stick to specific data sheets.
But why are we dealing with separate books? That's the point I'm trying to make: why is having a whole separate book just for a handful of unique units needed, when you could just reflect all of that in a supplement (which is still separate book!)
Your argument here is "we should make it a Codex, because it's a Codex!" That makes no sense, it's circular logic. I'm questioning *why* it needs to be a separate Codex, and all you're saying is "it is, because it is".
My argument isn't make it a codex because it's a codex. My argument has been from the beginning that there are enough differences to keep them a codex. That's not circular logic, despite you trying to frame it that way.
No-one's advocating that "Blood Angels now just have Apothecaries like everyone else
Some people actually are.
What, that they should no extra flavour in the background? I'm not sure, but sure, perhaps they are. *I'm* not. What about my argument?
Not everything I post has to do with your argument. Some people have advocated the full on removal of units, on the grounds thatthey thought they were too weak.
If the Deathwing fluff is about them mass deploying, just take an army of lots of Terminators!
Yup, let's just ignore the differences between the DA terminators and other terminators.
What differences are those? Assume I'm ignorant, and educate me, what is unique mechanically about the Deathwing? Don't mistake that as me saying that in lore and fluff they're just "normal Terminators", because they absolutely have rich culture and different lore to Firedrakes or Gorgons, but what I am getting at is "what about that needs to ensure they need a full new datasheet" and not just "<Dark Angels> Terminators gain the 'Deathwing' rule and XYZ special rule".
Different rules, different equipment choices. I've been saying that for what? A day now? They have options regular terminators don't, and rules they don't have.
Not only that, but there's nothing to stop that particular idiosyncrasy of the Chapter being portrayed by simply painting your pilots green/black/white.
That hasn't been true since 4th edition.
Why? What *mechanically* about Ravenwing Land Speeders (because don't forget, Nephilim and Land Speeder Vengeances/Darkshrouds weren't in the game in 4th edition!) means that they can't be represented by painting your pilot a different colour?
Speaking of which, you do know that Land Speeders in Codex Chapters aren't piloted by Techmarines either? The only units that would be are the Nephilim, Stormraven/Stormtalon, and the Forge World flyers - which, barring the FW flyers (because they never existed in the Codexes!) all didn't exist in game prior to 5th edition.
Basically, I'm asking you to justify the mechanical differences of generic units that require them to need a seperate datasheet, that cannot just be covered by stratagems, Vigilus-style Formations, or bespoke Chapter Tactics, beyond "they've always had separate entries!", because that wasn't true prior to "Angels of Death".
You mean besides different squad sizes, special rules, and at the time equipment options? Sure the current specialty speeders weren't around. But for a time, RW got unique speeders, and even after they became shared out, they still had rules that regular marines didn't get.
Justification done. Remember, stratagems cost CP, still take up room in the book, and can be countered by other stratagems. Formations require more space in books, you're really not saving space.
The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.
Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.
a_typical_hero wrote: I don't own a Space Marine army at the moment, but did so in the past and like them in general.
I would appreciate a consolidation, if it would mean that other armies get more attention in rules and models. Basically what we have at the moment with C:SM and their supplements.
I really do like chapter unique models, as they add a lot of flavour to the faction for me, while at the same time I think that a Sanguinary Priest and an Apothecary (as examples) should be one and the same base unit, with base equipment and abilities. A Blood Angel supplement or rules section in the same base book would then add new wargear like a chalice for a +1S aura.
As to the "why do we need books for 8 different kinds of imperial Space Marines". Honestly, there is no need. Having a bigger book with all the rules or several books with their respective stuff does not make a big difference for anybody. We have it because there are enough fans of each Chapter.
I'm pretty sure GW would be more than happy to release a... let's say Ogdobekh dynasty supplement for Necrons if the demand is high enough.
first off as I've noted consolidating into supplements wouldn't make much of a change, blood angels dark angels and space wolves have gotten a single character, upgrade kit and codex this edition, which is about the same amount that white scars got. (ignoring the primaris release in this case because they all got it) so right now the level of support they're getting is on par with supplements anyway. consolidation would thus potentially remove options for these factions, and little more.
secondly the demand bit is absolutely right, there is demand for expanded info on marine chapters. the reason for this is simple eneugh, thanks to the Horus Heresy and other books (primarily the horus heresy) there is intreast and specific knowledge about the various first founding chapters, their culture their practices etc.
Look at it this way, most subfactions what's known about them is maybe a page of text in a codex,
meanwhile, white scars have (BTW I'm using white scars because these guys are one of the lesser known first founders) about a dozen books about them some horus heresy, some modern 4k. and some of those books are REALLY good. Scars was a great read.
Novel wise outside Marines (loyalist and traitor) you rarly get that strong sense of identity. You sometimes see it in the guard (Cadia Stands and Cadian Honour are doing excellent in telling a story about CADIAN regiments but a lot of the time the regiments orgins are ireelevant to a story) etc.
So it makes sense there is more demand for expansion of marine subfactions. That said I'd really like to see them potentially do this with other subfactions too because it'd allow them to flesh them out. A Ulthwe Supplement would allow them to flesh out craftworld Ulthwe far more then they've been able to in the past, just for example.
A modest proposal:
If you're so worried about how many books are in the game, we could just drop all the Loyalist books. Since so many of their datasheets are functionally the same as their Traitor kin, they can just use that book. I mean, why have Tacs and Chaos Marines when you can have just one entry? Why have ASM and Raptors when you can have just one entry? Why split Libbies and Sorcs? Just merge the books!
Nobody uses any of the stuff not in the Chaos book anyways. And, if they do, they're bad. And should feel bad. So they shouldn't be allowed to play those models.
I've shown, right here, that anybody who thinks we shouldn't do this is wrong and dumb.
(inb4 - if you don't realize the sarcasm, google "A Modest Proposal".)
BrianDavion wrote: first off as I've noted consolidating into supplements wouldn't make much of a change, blood angels dark angels and space wolves have gotten a single character, upgrade kit and codex this edition, which is about the same amount that white scars got. (ignoring the primaris release in this case because they all got it) so right now the level of support they're getting is on par with supplements anyway. consolidation would thus potentially remove options for these factions, and little more.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to take options away from any army or want to imply that non C:SM Marines get too much spotlight.
Arising balance issues aside, having all the available Marine rules from all the armies in one Codex and making them freely mix and matchable would open up an enormous playing field for abuse and - more importantly for me - customisation. Then you could truly make your own chapter with all kinds of interesting little bits.
Coming from Pen&Paper, I see every Codex (Marine or not) more like a framework to work with. Let's just assume you want to make a pure Kroot army but think that Tyranid rules fit better, then more power for you. I'm happily playing against you and your custom models with borrowed rules
Having played most of my time with earlier editions, I have to say I even would like consolidation of entries in the same base book. Codex Space Marine got 7 different datasheets for a "Captain" alone. I'm more used to having one Captain and list stuff like TDA, Gravis armour and a bike as wargear options. I understand why it is done, but it does feel bloated to me.
It is truly some kind of vicious circle, isn't it? Marine sub-factions are popular because they get support because they sell well because they are popular
BrianDavion wrote: first off as I've noted consolidating into supplements wouldn't make much of a change, blood angels dark angels and space wolves have gotten a single character, upgrade kit and codex this edition, which is about the same amount that white scars got. (ignoring the primaris release in this case because they all got it) so right now the level of support they're getting is on par with supplements anyway. consolidation would thus potentially remove options for these factions, and little more.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to take options away from any army or want to imply that non C:SM Marines get too much spotlight.
Arising balance issues aside, having all the available Marine rules from all the armies in one Codex and making them freely mix and matchable would open up an enormous playing field for abuse and - more importantly for me - customisation. Then you could truly make your own chapter with all kinds of interesting little bits.
Coming from Pen&Paper, I see every Codex (Marine or not) more like a framework to work with. Let's just assume you want to make a pure Kroot army but think that Tyranid rules fit better, then more power for you. I'm happily playing against you and your custom models with borrowed rules
Having played most of my time with earlier editions, I have to say I even would like consolidation of entries in the same base book. Codex Space Marine got 7 different datasheets for a "Captain" alone. I'm more used to having one Captain and list stuff like TDA, Gravis armour and a bike as wargear options. I understand why it is done, but it does feel bloated to me.
It is truly some kind of vicious circle, isn't it? Marine sub-factions are popular because they get support because they sell well because they are popular
well as I said, I suspect it's due to the popularity of the horus heresy that it's impacting things. between the return of primarchs, MK3 and MK4 armor, the focus on the first founding chapters, it's pretty clear that the populairty of the HH books has really embedded itself into 40k
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And why can't that aura ability be attached to Blood Angels keyword modification? Something like "<Blood Angels> <Apothecaries> grant XYZ to friendly <Blood Angel> units" as part of their Chapter Tactic/supplement rules. Why not tie it to a stratagem, and make it super powerful? Something like a "Sanguinary Priest: 1CP - One <Blood Angels> Apothecary may become a <Sanguinary Priest>, and gain XYZ rule", or even "Sanguinary Priest: 1CP - a <Blood Angels> Apothecary may cause XYZ effect on friendly Blood Angels units until the next battle round".
There you go, still got your flavour, and it didn't require a whole new datasheet.
No, it just requires the use of CP, and a stratagem, which potentially takes up the same amount of room.
But you've still got it. You have the option to take a more flavourful version of what you want, but if you can be bothered to spend a command point on it, that's not on me. Do you want flavour, or some command points?
And no, it absolutely wouldn't take up as much room, because the amount of space a stratagem takes up is far less than a whole new datasheet and containing every single other Space Marine unit. Even *if* we were to remove nothing and keep all the same datasheets (that can be replicated with stratagems or faction special rules that would take up all of one page), you'd still need to print out every other generic unit for the full Codex!
It would save VAST amounts of space to only have generic units in the main Codex, and only include unique ones (and rules to create permutations of existing generic units) in a supplement.
But why are we dealing with separate books? That's the point I'm trying to make: why is having a whole separate book just for a handful of unique units needed, when you could just reflect all of that in a supplement (which is still separate book!)
Your argument here is "we should make it a Codex, because it's a Codex!" That makes no sense, it's circular logic. I'm questioning *why* it needs to be a separate Codex, and all you're saying is "it is, because it is".
My argument isn't make it a codex because it's a codex. My argument has been from the beginning that there are enough differences to keep them a codex. That's not circular logic, despite you trying to frame it that way.
And I'm asking you what those differences actually *are*, and you're just saying (like you literally do in the below paragraph about Deathwing) "they're different because they're different".
Why. Be comprehensive with me. What are these differences, why can't they be filled by stratagems, Vigilus-style formations, and the occasional unique unit?
Don't just say "because they're different", tell me why, and maybe we'll get somewhere.
[quoteWhat, that they should no extra flavour in the background? I'm not sure, but sure, perhaps they are. *I'm* not. What about my argument?
Not everything I post has to do with your argument. Some people have advocated the full on removal of units, on the grounds that they thought they were too weak.
No, but you're not answering my questions. And as I said, I don't care what anyone else's argument is, I'm asking you to judge the ones that I've put forward, and why you deem them unsatisfactory.
What differences are those? Assume I'm ignorant, and educate me, what is unique mechanically about the Deathwing? Don't mistake that as me saying that in lore and fluff they're just "normal Terminators", because they absolutely have rich culture and different lore to Firedrakes or Gorgons, but what I am getting at is "what about that needs to ensure they need a full new datasheet" and not just "<Dark Angels> Terminators gain the 'Deathwing' rule and XYZ special rule".
Different rules, different equipment choices. I've been saying that for what? A day now? They have options regular terminators don't, and rules they don't have.
And what are these different rules and equipment choices? You're still not answering my questions.
I asked you to educate me on what I'm missing, assume I'm ignorant, and give me straight answers.
However, in response to "why are they different", you've just answered "because they're different". That's not an answer. That's telling me what I already know, and not what I what I want to dispute. What are these unique things that differentiate regular Deathwing from regular Terminators, and why can't I apply them via keywords, stratagems, or Chapter Tactics?
What *mechanically* about Ravenwing Land Speeders (because don't forget, Nephilim and Land Speeder Vengeances/Darkshrouds weren't in the game in 4th edition!) means that they can't be represented by painting your pilot a different colour?
Speaking of which, you do know that Land Speeders in Codex Chapters aren't piloted by Techmarines either? The only units that would be are the Nephilim, Stormraven/Stormtalon, and the Forge World flyers - which, barring the FW flyers (because they never existed in the Codexes!) all didn't exist in game prior to 5th edition.
Basically, I'm asking you to justify the mechanical differences of generic units that require them to need a seperate datasheet, that cannot just be covered by stratagems, Vigilus-style Formations, or bespoke Chapter Tactics, beyond "they've always had separate entries!", because that wasn't true prior to "Angels of Death".
You mean besides different squad sizes, special rules, and at the time equipment options? Sure the current specialty speeders weren't around. But for a time, RW got unique speeders, and even after they became shared out, they still had rules that regular marines didn't get.
What different squad sizes? What equipment options? As far as I was aware, Dark Angels Land Speeders had all the same equipment loadouts and numbers as regular Marines. But, in case I'm wrong, please, tell me exactly what was different.
Yes, you got new speeders in time, but that's not "always been around" like you've been claiming. They're a recent development, and don't forget, the Stormraven was once only for Blood Angels and Grey Knights. Now regular Marines have them. What's the say the same can't happen for Nephilim Jetfighters, eh? Also, what were these "unique speeders" that you claim the DA had prior to the new ones? I've never heard of these.
Justification done. Remember, stratagems cost CP, still take up room in the book, and can be countered by other stratagems. Formations require more space in books, you're really not saving space.
Not true. Remember, if you wanted a full Codex, you'd need to reprint every single generic datasheet for Tactical Squads, Scouts, Intercessors, Infiltrators and Incursors, their points costs, their wargear options - and that's just the Troops choices. That's, what, four pages? Three? Just for your Troops. Face it, the supplement would take up magnitudes less space, all at the cost of *gasp* SHOCK HORROR! sharing the same base units and Codex as everyone else! Hell, I wouldn't even mind if your supplement got to be a little bit bigger than the others to ensure that you have enough stratagems and rules to make a flavourful army, but it certainly wouldn't be near Codex size, because it simply doesn't need to be!
Also, regarding flavourful things costing CP and can still be negated:
One, that's already a thing with things like Chapter Master, hellfire rounds, hunter killer missiles, and Chief Librarians.
Two, I oppose the idea of certain pre-game stratagems being able to be countered by other ones (ie, if I want to use the Chapter Master stratagem pre-game, nothing can stop me), and I've houseruled that out, because it's a stupid rule.
Bharring wrote: A modest proposal:
If you're so worried about how many books are in the game, we could just drop all the Loyalist books. Since so many of their datasheets are functionally the same as their Traitor kin, they can just use that book. I mean, why have Tacs and Chaos Marines when you can have just one entry? Why have ASM and Raptors when you can have just one entry? Why split Libbies and Sorcs? Just merge the books!
Nobody uses any of the stuff not in the Chaos book anyways. And, if they do, they're bad. And should feel bad. So they shouldn't be allowed to play those models.
I've shown, right here, that anybody who thinks we shouldn't do this is wrong and dumb.
(inb4 - if you don't realize the sarcasm, google "A Modest Proposal".)
I'm actually all for eliminating the Death Guard and Thousand Sons codices to be consolidated, so it isn't far from what needs to happen. There should only be two in reality:
1. Loyalists + rules to use Renegades
2. Chaos Legions
That's all that's needed. None of this nonsense that everyone needs a supplement or a separate codex.
Except we could argue, in that model, that Renegades is adding unneeded bloat for snowflake rules that shouldn't exist as no one has given a good enough reason for them to exist.
And Chaos Legions are just Spiky Space Marines anyway, so they dont need a book either because, you guessed it, they dont have anything unique to them and any lore shouldn't matter on what people have for rules.
So a 1 book for Power Armour is the way to go, everything can just be a paint job. No rules for chapters or legions mind, again that's all covered in a paint job too.
By the way, this is how I see your argument that you've been pushing in one form or another for months even after answers for why certain models and codices exist now have been given over multiple threads.
BroodSpawn wrote: Except we could argue, in that model, that Renegades is adding unneeded bloat for snowflake rules that shouldn't exist as no one has given a good enough reason for them to exist.
And Chaos Legions are just Spiky Space Marines anyway, so they dont need a book either because, you guessed it, they dont have anything unique to them and any lore shouldn't matter on what people have for rules.
So a 1 book for Power Armour is the way to go, everything can just be a paint job. No rules for chapters or legions mind, again that's all covered in a paint job too.
By the way, this is how I see your argument that you've been pushing in one form or another for months even after answers for why certain models and codices exist now have been given over multiple threads.
Renegades are super easy to handle.
1. One page to going over how to switch keywords, one page for strats + Relics (I'm for limited numbers so this would be easily done), 2 pages for the 3-4 units gained after losing the Chapters' regular stuff like Khan on Bike, Death Company, etc.
2. 4 or so pages for fluff
3. Example of extra rules is with Huron + Red Corsairs which are a counts-as White Scars Chapter Tactics
It wouldn't be hard and would consolidate Renegades onto what they should've been in the first place.
But you've still got it. You have the option to take a more flavourful version of what you want, but if you can be bothered to spend a command point on it, that's not on me. Do you want flavour, or some command points?
And no, it absolutely wouldn't take up as much room, because the amount of space a stratagem takes up is far less than a whole new datasheet and containing every single other Space Marine unit. Even *if* we were to remove nothing and keep all the same datasheets (that can be replicated with stratagems or faction special rules that would take up all of one page), you'd still need to print out every other generic unit for the full Codex!
It would save VAST amounts of space to only have generic units in the main Codex, and only include unique ones (and rules to create permutations of existing generic units) in a supplement.
Nothing about spending both points and CP makes things 'more flavorful', and your accusation is just more proof that you have no ground to stand on. Right now I don't have to pay CP to gain 'flavor'. It would take up the same amount of room, because you would have to include a larger than normal Stratagem text box to accurately describe the change. You might as well just include the datasheet. You describe printing generic sheets in multiple codexes as if it were a problem, when it actually means people don't have to buy six books to play their army.
And I'm asking you what those differences actually *are*, and you're just saying (like you literally do in the below paragraph about Deathwing) "they're different because they're different".
Why. Be comprehensive with me. What are these differences, why can't they be filled by stratagems, Vigilus-style formations, and the occasional unique unit?
Don't just say "because they're different", tell me why, and maybe we'll get somewhere.
No reason to be comprehensive. I have no interest in typing out every unit's change to equipment and rules. I've already said why they would make poor formations and stratagems. I suggest you read that answer from earlier.
No, but you're not answering my questions. And as I said, I don't care what anyone else's argument is, I'm asking you to judge the ones that I've put forward, and why you deem them unsatisfactory.
I am answering them, you just don't like the answers because they don't agree with the perspective you're trying to force on the community.
What different squad sizes? What equipment options? As far as I was aware, Dark Angels Land Speeders had all the same equipment loadouts and numbers as regular Marines. But, in case I'm wrong, please, tell me exactly what was different.
Yes, you got new speeders in time, but that's not "always been around" like you've been claiming. They're a recent development, and don't forget, the Stormraven was once only for Blood Angels and Grey Knights. Now regular Marines have them. What's the say the same can't happen for Nephilim Jetfighters, eh? Also, what were these "unique speeders" that you claim the DA had prior to the new ones? I've never heard of these.
For a very long time, DA could take land speeders in squads of five and six. They had unique load outs (not talking about the current specialty speeders). At no point except for a brief spot at the end of 3rd beginning of 4th did the DA not have special speeders/load outs. Those options are different now than before, but their options have always been different.
Nothing says it can't happen. But there's also nothing that says it will happen either.
Not true. Remember, if you wanted a full Codex, you'd need to reprint every single generic datasheet for Tactical Squads, Scouts, Intercessors, Infiltrators and Incursors, their points costs, their wargear options - and that's just the Troops choices. That's, what, four pages? Three? Just for your Troops. Face it, the supplement would take up magnitudes less space, all at the cost of *gasp* SHOCK HORROR! sharing the same base units and Codex as everyone else! Hell, I wouldn't even mind if your supplement got to be a little bit bigger than the others to ensure that you have enough stratagems and rules to make a flavourful army, but it certainly wouldn't be near Codex size, because it simply doesn't need to be!
I don't actually consider this to be a problem. It also give GW room to make changes specific to one army without having to print conflicting "Check this book on pg. 98x paragraph six" when building an army. Not sure why you think information appearing in more than one place is so horrible. It also means fewer purchases for someone who wants to play DA (ect).
Also, regarding flavourful things costing CP and can still be negated:
One, that's already a thing with things like Chapter Master, hellfire rounds, hunter killer missiles, and Chief Librarians.
Two, I oppose the idea of certain pre-game stratagems being able to be countered by other ones (ie, if I want to use the Chapter Master stratagem pre-game, nothing can stop me), and I've houseruled that out, because it's a stupid rule.
It doesn't matter what you agree with concerning stratagems. The ability to do it exists, and it's something that players have to account for. Furthermore, just because it is a thing, doesn't mean it should be. I feel there should be a separate sheet for Chapter Masters and Chief Librarians, rather than it being a Stratagem. That's not the case, and I'll have to live with it until GW changes it's mind.
I find it amusing that the same people who complain about rules bloat are saying we should change something from a single codex into a bloated 3 book mess
BrianDavion wrote: I find it amusing that the same people who complain about rules bloat are saying we should change something from a single codex into a bloated 3 book mess
We are probably not going to get away from book bloat sadly but at least if all marines used the same base rule they would all be updated at the same time and work more similar so still easier for everyone when it comes to the rules. Sounds like a fair compromise and then when GW start losing book sales due to everyone using ebooks/pdf/battlescribe enough in the future they might just make 2 marine books of good quality worth paying for. 1 with all the core rules and 1 for the different chapters instead of multiple supplements.
Right now a tactical marine costs more for BA and DA than UM while chapter tactics works for WS vehicles but not SW. Some chapters have doctrines and some dont. Some Chaplains have litanies and some get rerolls. The marines all have some stratagems with the same name and also chapter masters but the exact rules for both work different for different marine chapters. Just consolidating the chapters in to the same base book would make it all more equal on the table to the benefit for the players. Some things from the new book got uppdated in faqs but some didnt so you might have to do some extra double checking to add to the current confusion.
And with all marines being more equal and a bit simpler to balance, lets pretend they didnt give OPCT and doctrines, due to sharing more stuff. More effort could be put in other factions or in rebalancing the core of marines. You could fix terminators by updating the single marine datasheet instead of having to faq/errata all marine books or more likely only fix them for 1 chapter but not the rest.
OfcGW could still feth it up because its GW but this would make it even harder for them to feth things up. I play BA and I dont want a snowflake codex I just want slightly different marine rules, that most importantly are on the same level as lther marines, since we are still marines after all. Much more codex compliant than not as well.
Can you consolidate DA,SW and BA back into the main SM codex? Yes you can, in the sense that you can make them in one of the codex supplements like the other chapters.
That said though, get ready for quite a big book, since it would literally be the existing DA, SW and BA codici copy pasted with a bit less datasheets (the ones already existing in the main book).
The idea running around that you can consolidate snowflake datasheets like ravenwing bike squads in vanilla marine datasheets, is unfeasible, so you would have to keep all the snowflake datasheets, and there are a quite a lot of those. A difference in rule/equipment/squad size, coupled with an existing different model is reason enough to warrant a different datasheet, or you would have to consolidate tactical marines, devastators, sternguards veterans, vanguard veterans, assault marines and pretty much all 1W PA models. Also, there would be no reason to have intercessors, infiltrators and incursors as a separate datasheet.
Sure, you could just manage it with "If this model is from DA chapter then XyZ" type of rules, but that can be said for 90% of models in the game. I could technically compile a book long datasheet which encompassess all models in the game. Now we have a perfect consolidation of all models, but i guess that it would hardly pass for an improvement over the present condition.
You would also incur in some really weird rules like "If this model is from the BA chapter, you need to represent this model with the bloodybloodsanguisblooddoctor model, else you need to represent it with an apothecary".
So, forget about consolidating datasheet, it simply isn't going to happen and/or work.
Now, with that said, I can imagine that the snowflake chapters would be utterly delighted if they were to become a supplement to the basic marine codex, as it means that they just get to keep everything they have while also having access to a new psy table, new relics, WT and stratagems. Also, they would have Angels of Death. A little notice at the start of the supplement would read "If you play this chapter, you cannot use this list of models". I would be really in favor of this, since right now it is counter intuitive for new players that depending on the color of your marine, you either take the marine book or something different. One would imagine that if i play marine, then i should buy the marine book. For the same reason, GK should also become a supplement, but i can see that being quite hard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I really liked this last GW move to promote vanilla marine chapters to snowflake chapters.
Each of those chapters should be a different faction. At least this way you don't fight "Marines" 50% of the time, but 6 or more different factions, with different playstyles and lists. It makes it more refreshing.
Other factions do not require this to happen, since there isn't enough of a playerbase of each different craftworld/hyve fleet/Sept/whatever to warrant this to happen.
Playing against tyranids isn't something that happens so often, that you need to make more variations of it.
It's all a playerbase issue. Making more marine factions was a justified effort because it improved sensibly the gaming experience. Playing against Salamanders or White Scars feels as different as playing guard instead of Adeptus.
Doing the same for T'au wouldn't have the same effects. It would be mostly bloat.
Note: I'm talking about everyday games, not top tournament games (which hold no weight in the design of the game, except as balance indicators). In top tournament games the actual population of factions is skewed by what is meta and what is not. The real faction numbers are the ones known best by GW, based on the sales of the kits.
The only other faction in the game with enough playerbase to warrant some spicying were CWE, but that's what Ynnari were for.
I can't believe this talk has gone on this long. We must be looking deep for some reasons to argue at the moment.
Let me say, while I can see reasoning for both sides, hell I have Wolves and DA.
I think we're over looking the fact GW has chosen this path for a reason. It isn't so we can feel like special snow flakes or even for the sanctity of our special marines. They really seem to want to sell us on making vastly different forces painted in different schemes to , their hope of course, buy repeat kits to represent different forces.
They want to sell us many different books, as well a Salamanders Terminator won't look like a Wolf one, or a DA one, or BA one, etc, etc.
It makes much more sense for them to make as many varied marines by look and modeling as possible so we want to make repeat forces but still stay in the marine family. Sells more books, sells more models, hell depending on how you set up your armies, sells more dice, data cards and so on.
This isn't a wild theory, this is what they've been doing for awhile now. Make the forces different enough to make it seem odd to codex flop around as modelers and people in general are very prone to OCD when it comes to look of our units.
I come to this conclusion based on the fact that aside from BT a long while back being taken back into the SM codex, the others have only grown in different units some going real far to find difference.
More recent, they've made even more supplement codex drops. But Angry, you may tell me, these aren't new codex drops, they are supplements. True, and if the other marine codex drops did get taken into the core codex, do you really think now they wouldn't just end up as supplements which is just about a codex in itself ?
We'd end up with just as many books and releases windows for marines as GW want marines to take up all this oxygen and draw all this attention.
If anything I'd see GW doing this, to bring the marines all into the core book, just to sell those factions two books as opposed to one.
To think bringing the marines together will get rid of the bloat is absolute madness at this point. Maybe like 10 years back I woulda said if they pulled them in it would lead to a one codex to rule them all. Now it'd just lead to a One codex to rule them all, with supplements that fall like rain making the core marine release take up a good half a year just on marine kits featured.
One thing about new marine armies I think you also missed is, from GW's POV they're easy. the core stats are done up, the lore is already eistablished, and a proven fan base is ther. codex: Death Guard (I used that as they're proably the most radically differant marine subfaction) was proably a LOT easier to do then say.. codex AdMech. let alone say a entirely brand new xenos race
But you've still got it. You have the option to take a more flavourful version of what you want, but if you can be bothered to spend a command point on it, that's not on me. Do you want flavour, or some command points?
And no, it absolutely wouldn't take up as much room, because the amount of space a stratagem takes up is far less than a whole new datasheet and containing every single other Space Marine unit. Even *if* we were to remove nothing and keep all the same datasheets (that can be replicated with stratagems or faction special rules that would take up all of one page), you'd still need to print out every other generic unit for the full Codex!
It would save VAST amounts of space to only have generic units in the main Codex, and only include unique ones (and rules to create permutations of existing generic units) in a supplement.
Nothing about spending both points and CP makes things 'more flavorful',
WHY. Again, you're not answering my question beyond "no". Tell me why it would be less flavourful. As far as I'm concerned, having a name change and an easily applied special rule isn't enough to justify a whole new datasheet, but I want to hear you reason why this isn't the case beyond a simple "nuh uh!". Detail, depth, and actual reasoning, beyond just saying what amounts to a glorified "no u".
But, just to see what kind of page you're on: should we have a Chapter Master datasheet? A Chief Librarian datasheet? Of course, one of these for all of the various Captain entries and Librarian entries, because we should be able to have power armoured Chapter Masters, Terminator armoured Chapter Masters (in Indomitus and Cataphractii!), Gravis Chapter Masters, Primaris Chapter Masters, Phobos Chapter Masters, Bike Chapter Masters...
Gee, that's a lot of bloat right there. It's almost like having a stratagem that modifies keywords to allow for extra special rules is a functional and effecitive way of adding flavour to otherwise generic units. How about that.
Right now I don't have to pay CP to gain 'flavor'.
Again, what about Chapter Masters and Chief Librarians? Hellfire shells and hunter killer missiles? What should they be? How about the "flavour" of my Ultramarines to be able to have overlapping Overwatch? Should that be automatic too?
It would take up the same amount of room, because you would have to include a larger than normal Stratagem text box to accurately describe the change. You might as well just include the datasheet.
More room than every single generic datasheet? Ridiculous.
Let's make a compromise, shall we? Let's say you get all your unique datasheets, and we include a single page (because that's all it would take) saying what units you can't take in a DA army (so anything with the <Terminator> keyword, etc etc). You still think that would be longer than a whole Codex filled with the same generic stratagems and units that make up the main Codex? Absolutely not. You'd have a slightly larger supplement, that's for sure, but it wouldn't even come close to the size of the generic Codex, not even by a long shot. And, because I'm so generous, I wouldn't charge you any more for it than any other supplement.
So, answer me - what's wrong with that?
You describe printing generic sheets in multiple codexes as if it were a problem, when it actually means people don't have to buy six books to play their army.
Ah, I see what it is. You haven't got a problem with everyone else having to pay for their extra flavour and special characters ("yeah, I mean, screw the Iron Hands, if they want to take a single unique character, I guess they need to by a supplement!"), but if that were asked of you, that's completely out of line! /s
Should we release an Iron Hands Codex too? All the generic units, plus their Iron Hands flavour aspects? Ultramarines too? Every Chapter with any kind of unique rules? Or are they not "special" enough?
And I'm asking you what those differences actually *are*, and you're just saying (like you literally do in the below paragraph about Deathwing) "they're different because they're different".
Why. Be comprehensive with me. What are these differences, why can't they be filled by stratagems, Vigilus-style formations, and the occasional unique unit?
Don't just say "because they're different", tell me why, and maybe we'll get somewhere.
No reason to be comprehensive. I have no interest in typing out every unit's change to equipment and rules. I've already said why they would make poor formations and stratagems. I suggest you read that answer from earlier.
You clearly have enough interest to keep discussing this. I'm not asking you to keep typing out "each unit's change to equipment and rules" - I'm asking you to do it to the Deathwing alone, beyond just saying "they're different!!!1!". So you say, but you're not saying why.
You haven't said why they would make poor formations and stratagems, you've just said that they would, and not elaborated on why. If you can't tell, you're missing the critical part of your argument, actually explaining your point beyond "no u".
By all means, continue just saying "they'd be different because they'd be different", but I'm sure it's pretty clear to anyone reading that it's a facade of an argument.
No, but you're not answering my questions. And as I said, I don't care what anyone else's argument is, I'm asking you to judge the ones that I've put forward, and why you deem them unsatisfactory.
I am answering them, you just don't like the answers because they don't agree with the perspective you're trying to force on the community.
No, you're not answering them at all.
Let me pose to you a maths question: 2+2=5. Now, let me ask you another: "why is this sum wrong". At the moment, your answer is "it's wrong because it's not correct". That's not an answer, that's telling me absolutely nothing new or what I want to know.
I'm asking you to clearly point out to me *exactly* why the Deathwing Terminators datasheet is different to normal Codex Terminators, beyond "they're different". Why are they different, in what way are they different? At the moment, you're getting no marks - no passing the exam: because you're not answering the question.
What different squad sizes? What equipment options? As far as I was aware, Dark Angels Land Speeders had all the same equipment loadouts and numbers as regular Marines. But, in case I'm wrong, please, tell me exactly what was different.
Yes, you got new speeders in time, but that's not "always been around" like you've been claiming. They're a recent development, and don't forget, the Stormraven was once only for Blood Angels and Grey Knights. Now regular Marines have them. What's the say the same can't happen for Nephilim Jetfighters, eh? Also, what were these "unique speeders" that you claim the DA had prior to the new ones? I've never heard of these.
For a very long time, DA could take land speeders in squads of five and six. They had unique load outs (not talking about the current specialty speeders). At no point except for a brief spot at the end of 3rd beginning of 4th did the DA not have special speeders/load outs. Those options are different now than before, but their options have always been different.
Nothing says it can't happen. But there's also nothing that says it will happen either.
Okay, so I'll go through these, as you've had the courtesy to post them:
Squad size increase: could be fixed by a unique rule saying "<Ravenwing> Land Speeder squadrons may instead take up to X Land Speeders in the unit". However, alternatively, with more freedom in the force organisation chart, there is no need to increase how many Land Speeders you could take per unit, because we can now just spam Outrider detachments - and, as I've said with previous posts, I would want to reward <Ravenwing> Outrider detachments with a CP bonus to encourage their use as standard mainstays of the army.
Unique loadouts: What loadouts were these? I don't recall any of these in 5th. And, more pressingly, why should these unique weapon loadouts not be present for other Chapters? It's a similar situation with only Blood Angels having Librarian Dreadnoughts - why? Why are they the only Chapter to have XYZ. Similarly with Ultramarines Honour Guard, I feel they should be made generic. I full get why Sammael should be unique, because he is a unique character with a unique one-of-a-kind relic, but what about the Land Speeders with these unique loadouts I'm not aware of?
Not true. Remember, if you wanted a full Codex, you'd need to reprint every single generic datasheet for Tactical Squads, Scouts, Intercessors, Infiltrators and Incursors, their points costs, their wargear options - and that's just the Troops choices. That's, what, four pages? Three? Just for your Troops. Face it, the supplement would take up magnitudes less space, all at the cost of *gasp* SHOCK HORROR! sharing the same base units and Codex as everyone else! Hell, I wouldn't even mind if your supplement got to be a little bit bigger than the others to ensure that you have enough stratagems and rules to make a flavourful army, but it certainly wouldn't be near Codex size, because it simply doesn't need to be!
I don't actually consider this to be a problem. It also give GW room to make changes specific to one army without having to print conflicting "Check this book on pg. 98x paragraph six" when building an army. Not sure why you think information appearing in more than one place is so horrible. It also means fewer purchases for someone who wants to play DA (ect).
But when would they need to make changes to generic Tactical Marines, but not to Dark Angels ones? Again, we're not talking two completely separate factions here, we're talking armies that share the majority of the same units! When on earth would one need changing for one faction, and not the other, and if so, why? If any unique units needed to be changed, they could be changed in an FAQ for their own supplement.
And again, we then come to what feels like the real issue at hand - "fewer purchases for someone who wants to play DA". I get that. I really do. But don't you consider that just a little bit selfish to the people who want to play Ultramarines? Or Imperial Fists? Or Salamanders? Or White Scars? Or Iron Hands? Or Raven Guard? Why do they need to pay more, but those three don't? It's not like they're not also made up of the majority of the same units, using the same stratagems. Or do you support the idea of introducing Ultramarines/Imperial Fist/Salamanders/White Scars/Iron Hands/Raven Guard Codexes as well?
Not only that, but let's ignore the double standard for a second: the argument of "it's cheaper for people who want to play DA" only makes sense if they also don't want to collect another Space Marine faction. And I'm not going to pretend I know any statistics on that, but I'm inclined to believe that there is a not-insignificant proportion of DA/BA/SW players who have also owned a Space Marine Chapter that wasn't one of the "special" ones. In which case, what about those players, the ones needing to purchase a full price Codex just to ignore all the generic units that have just been reprinted in the same book?
Let's break it down to see who *really* has it unfairly.
Regular Space Marine Chapter, no explicit unique units or flavour - £25 of books
"Special" Space Marine Chapter, unique units and flavour - £25 of books
Named Space Marine Chapter, also with unique units and flavour - £42.50 of books
Regular Space Marine Chapter and a "Special" Chapter - £50 of books (which contains duplicate material)
Two Named Chapters - £60 of books (no duplicate material)
Named Chapter and "Special" Chapter - £67.50 of books (which contains duplicate material)
Sounds to me like the only time the Dark Angels player benefits from having a Codex is when they're only buying Dark Angels. But if anyone else wanted to play a Chapter with unique flavour, or heaven forfend!, play multiple unique Chapters? Well, sucks to be you.
Also, regarding flavourful things costing CP and can still be negated:
One, that's already a thing with things like Chapter Master, hellfire rounds, hunter killer missiles, and Chief Librarians.
Two, I oppose the idea of certain pre-game stratagems being able to be countered by other ones (ie, if I want to use the Chapter Master stratagem pre-game, nothing can stop me), and I've houseruled that out, because it's a stupid rule.
It doesn't matter what you agree with concerning stratagems. The ability to do it exists, and it's something that players have to account for. Furthermore, just because it is a thing, doesn't mean it should be. I feel there should be a separate sheet for Chapter Masters and Chief Librarians, rather than it being a Stratagem. That's not the case, and I'll have to live with it until GW changes it's mind.
Doesn't mean it's right, and seeing as we're already in "hypothetical changes" territory, why shouldn't we assume we could change these rules?
Or are you telling me that if GW turned around and actually did make DA into a supplement, you'd just say "oh well, guess I have to live with it then"? You're telling me you wouldn't kick up any fuss and question why they did that and just accept it?
Again, it doesn't matter what GW would do, have done, or rules that already exist. We're talking about breaking those, and why that should or shouldn't be done. Just saying "well, that's what GW have done" is a cop out answer in a hypothetical discussion about if that's right or not. As you say yourself "just because it is a thing doesn't mean it should be" - so why "should" DA/BA/SW be codexes, and not supplements?*
*and don't just say, "because they're different!" - I'm asking you to tell me why that is the case.
BrianDavion wrote:I find it amusing that the same people who complain about rules bloat are saying we should change something from a single codex into a bloated 3 book mess
I'm not complaining about rules bloat, I'm complaining about reprinting the same units which really ought to be put in a shared book. 30k does this well enough, we don't need a book for every Legion, because everyone draws from the same core units.
Is there bloat? Yes, absolutely, but there's less of it, because we're not just reprinting the same datasheets in another book. I don't understand why "supplement" means you're actually losing anything unique. Sure, I've got my own preferences on what could/should be removed, but let's ignore that for a moment - what would be inherently lost by simply transferring all the unique units, stratagems, psychic power, etc etc into a supplement, and all the generic units, psychic powers, and stratagems being left in the core Codex?
Spoletta wrote:Now, with that said, I can imagine that the snowflake chapters would be utterly delighted if they were to become a supplement to the basic marine codex, as it means that they just get to keep everything they have while also having access to a new psy table, new relics, WT and stratagems. Also, they would have Angels of Death. A little notice at the start of the supplement would read "If you play this chapter, you cannot use this list of models".
I would be really in favor of this, since right now it is counter intuitive for new players that depending on the color of your marine, you either take the marine book or something different. One would imagine that if i play marine, then i should buy the marine book.
This is really the crux of it for me. I'm not advocating getting rid of anything without some form of replacement, be that either bespoke unique datasheets, stratagems/Chapter Tactics, psychic tables, relics, and so on, but simply just ensuring that everyone's generic units are actually the same.
That way, should things need changing, all non-Ordo Space Marines get updated at once, any FAQs only need to be done once (instead of doing it for each sub-faction), and so on, so forth.
BrianDavion wrote: I find it amusing that the same people who complain about rules bloat are saying we should change something from a single codex into a bloated 3 book mess
It only needs to be two codices, actually. Supplements are a stupid idea and separate codices for Blood and Dark Angels are the same exact stupid idea.
BrianDavion wrote: I find it amusing that the same people who complain about rules bloat are saying we should change something from a single codex into a bloated 3 book mess
It only needs to be two codices, actually. Supplements are a stupid idea and separate codices for Blood and Dark Angels are the same exact stupid idea.
Out of curiosity, what are your positions on Deathwatch and Grey Knights?
Also, what is your opinion on the flavour / lore benefits of supplements / separate codices?
BrianDavion wrote: I find it amusing that the same people who complain about rules bloat are saying we should change something from a single codex into a bloated 3 book mess
It only needs to be two codices, actually. Supplements are a stupid idea and separate codices for Blood and Dark Angels are the same exact stupid idea.
Out of curiosity, what are your positions on Deathwatch and Grey Knights?
Also, what is your opinion on the flavour / lore benefits of supplements / separate codices?
Deathwatch and Grey Knights (the latter moreso) need total overhauls. I'm for an Inquisition codex covering Inquisitors + Henchmen, and then the army lists for Grey Knights (there's like nothing there so it wouldn't be hard to think of the old school Daemonhunters format with just a few extra options, really), Deathwatch (once again the same thing until everyone and their mother asked for Primaris "because", ), and lastly Sisters. It would be smaller than the current Marine codex obviously, so there's no issues with price (not that codices should be as expensive as is to begin with), and because of that it's a better buy-in for your Imperium forces. Basically I'm looking at improving Imperial Agents which had the right idea but the single worst execution in 7th, which says a lot.
I'm kinda thinking that most of the options in these stand-alone Codexes were originally added to just fill up a Codex. Like, GW could probably make a stand-alone Codex for any sub-Faction and fill it up with units that have slight differences from the other sub-Factions. And, if it went on as long as these ones did, of course people would claim that to re-consolidate would force them to lose "vital" units.
But, if we look at it objectively, are all these differences in rules really necessary to create a fluffy, unique, and flavorful army? For example, before the Ork Codex dropped, people were still running their armies as certain sub-Factions. They didn't need special rules to do so, they just themed their army in a way that made it seem "Goffy" or "Deathskully" or what have you.
That's why I asked earlier if these special units are something that you NEED or something that you WANT. Cuz I think there's a lot of people arguing their wants as something that is necessary to properly build their army.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.
Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.
Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.
Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.
Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.
Additionally, I also think that the Rule of 3 is bad. So that would be something I'd want removing.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.
Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.
Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.
Additionally, I also think that the Rule of 3 is bad. So that would be something I'd want removing.
Rule of 3 is a lazy bandaid fix for GW when they can't figure out why certain units are broken even though we have told them before.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.
Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.
Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.
Riiiiiiiight. Lemme know when that works out for you that you absolutely need all 4 different kinds of Terminator entries LOL
BrianDavion wrote: I find it amusing that the same people who complain about rules bloat are saying we should change something from a single codex into a bloated 3 book mess
It only needs to be two codices, actually. Supplements are a stupid idea and separate codices for Blood and Dark Angels are the same exact stupid idea.
You have stated your opinion with no back up ad nauseum forever all because GW doesn't support evil as much as "good" now we know that in universe good vs evil is far more nuanced and no faction is truly good and most are varying degrees of evil.
Orks are evil to a human mindset but that's personal. Tyranids are a force of nature sort of.
The reality of all that waffle is. There are separate books because sales justify their existence. Chaos doesn't because they have given out two books of legions and I would expect a system where DA/SW/BA are brought into the supplement substrate of Codex Space Marines. Later if Chaos was given the same it could give some notable flavor to Word Bearers Night Lords, and some other chaos.
But with the exception of Aeldari and Orks I don't think there is that much variance for other factions. Druhkari are mixed smaller warbands generally. Not large civilization edifices. Tau are psycho conditioned to sameness minus the farsight enclaves. And so on.
So yeah there probably should be more books.
Also personally why is deathwatch an army? It makes no sense. Grey knights are only separate cause of Ward. But they work as an Inquisitor dexes heavy hitters
There will not be a new Codex for GW, calling it. There are 3 models in the whole GK line, not counting characters, FW, or models that double in other factions (Landraider). They sell Strikes, Paladins, and GMDKs. That is it. Unless there is a all new set of prints and models coming out, GW is not spending a DIME re-designing GK. Hell, most of their crap is Online only now.
That is the figurative kiss of death for model lines. The only hope is making them a weird Vanguardable faction like Sisters of Silence or Assassins. Pay 2 CP to give yourself 0-3 severely gimped and over-costed psychic terminators.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.
Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.
Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.
Additionally, I also think that the Rule of 3 is bad. So that would be something I'd want removing.
Rule of 3 is a lazy bandaid fix for GW when they can't figure out why certain units are broken even though we have told them before.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.
Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.
Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.
Riiiiiiiight. Lemme know when that works out for you that you absolutely need all 4 different kinds of Terminator entries LOL
It works for me I love have multiple easy to access apothecaries that fit the fluff.
The champion is great.
The ancient is useful.
Knights smash face.
Does it win tournaments ....No.
That's because Terminators need a reworked statline. That's in all books
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.
Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.
Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.
Additionally, I also think that the Rule of 3 is bad. So that would be something I'd want removing.
Rule of 3 is a lazy bandaid fix for GW when they can't figure out why certain units are broken even though we have told them before.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.
Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.
Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.
Riiiiiiiight. Lemme know when that works out for you that you absolutely need all 4 different kinds of Terminator entries LOL
It works for me I love have multiple easy to access apothecaries that fit the fluff.
The champion is great.
The ancient is useful.
Knights smash face.
Does it win tournaments ....No.
That's because Terminators need a reworked statline. That's in all books
All you're doing is describing Characters. Did you even read my initial post about Terminators?
Your post was a opinion that you claim is a fact. Terminators are underpowered but I don't want command squads back they were inefficient and less fun IMHO. I love Deathwing knights I have 30 shooting Terminators and 50 assault Terminators ... Only 5 cataphractii.
I will give you tartaros are not very different but they do have different loadouts.
Cataphractii are separate.
Then characters. Also I have a wishlisty dream wherein fluff has verteran DW Primaris Aggressors are added in or we get Primaris Terminator armor.
At this point having separate codices for BA, DA and SW is just silly. It causes all sorts of weird issues when things that are supposed to be similar really aren't because the books are written at different times.
These chapters would need a few datasheets more than other supplements have, but nothing massive.
captain collius wrote: Your post was a opinion that you claim is a fact. Terminators are underpowered but I don't want command squads back they were inefficient and less fun IMHO. I love Deathwing knights I have 30 shooting Terminators and 50 assault Terminators ... Only 5 cataphractii.
I will give you tartaros are not very different but they do have different loadouts.
Cataphractii are separate.
Then characters. Also I have a wishlisty dream wherein fluff has verteran DW Primaris Aggressors are added in or we get Primaris Terminator armor.
I hate the way command squads were split between so many units. It's so clunky and annoying.
captain collius wrote: Your post was a opinion that you claim is a fact. Terminators are underpowered but I don't want command squads back they were inefficient and less fun IMHO. I love Deathwing knights I have 30 shooting Terminators and 50 assault Terminators ... Only 5 cataphractii.
I will give you tartaros are not very different but they do have different loadouts.
Cataphractii are separate.
Then characters. Also I have a wishlisty dream wherein fluff has verteran DW Primaris Aggressors are added in or we get Primaris Terminator armor.
I hate the way command squads were split between so many units. It's so clunky and annoying.
Fair.i hated how i needed the banner in one side and the apothecary on another but I think it's more of a personal preference and tactical choice.
captain collius wrote: Your post was a opinion that you claim is a fact. Terminators are underpowered but I don't want command squads back they were inefficient and less fun IMHO. I love Deathwing knights I have 30 shooting Terminators and 50 assault Terminators ... Only 5 cataphractii.
I will give you tartaros are not very different but they do have different loadouts.
Cataphractii are separate.
Then characters. Also I have a wishlisty dream wherein fluff has verteran DW Primaris Aggressors are added in or we get Primaris Terminator armor.
"Different loadouts"
They all carry Storm Bolters (and if you're really gonna say Combi-Bolters are somehow distinct you're delusional) and Power Fists. They can all switch for Lightning Claws.
What's the difference? Oh yeah, one can only take a Heavy Flamer...which both other variants get. Oh and one switch the Assault Cannon for an Autocannon. Oh and one of the Sergeants takes range weapons nobody would take anyway.
Based on the argument I already made (no mix and matching because 4 standard Terminators and an Autocannon Terminator is SCARY), does there really need any distinction for rules? The truth is that, no, there doesn't need to be. The base is all the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Unless you wanna argue that the different Mks of Power Armor all need different rules because they have different kits, then go ahead.
Slayer, you've made your point. You've also ignored or dismissed every valid reason given for why these armies are and have been treat as separate armies for the last 25yrs (maybe longer). You don't like that there's Deathwing Terminators, whatever the SW version is called, 'codex' terminators. You don't like that units like the Baal predator or Sanuguinary Priests exist as a a different version of codex units.
You complaint seems to boil down to 'but but Space Marines got models and kits and we need to condense the rules'. And if it's not that then I honestly don;t know what your point is anymore because it's the same circular logic every time. 'X unit is the same as Y unit, so let's remove all the bits that makes X different so it can be Y'. And, as valid an opinion as that is, it's not how the company (y'know with the designers, and developers, and manufacturing materials that make this stuff) wants to do it. They have a pretty clear design paradigm for why these armies are separate and, frankly, it's a decision taken 30+ years ago that they've stuck with.
Considering the backlash they still get over the Squats, Black Templars, removal of rules options for Eldar and Dark Eldar, the idea that they should just consolidate everything into 1 datasheet for terminators, or 1 data sheet for dreadnoughts, or 1 datasheet for 'veterans' eventually leads to the removal of those options from players and then the removal of models from the range. Why sell a Deathwin box when it's not going to have any content in it that the standard terminator box doesn't already have. And yes I can see that being precisely they way that they could go about doing that, because you wont get things like Plasma Cannons on 'all' Terminators you'll just remove Plasma Cannons from the 1 unit of that kind, in the 1 faction that can take them.
And before you go with the 'but you could just play a stratagem to do the same stuff', come on. We all know that the internet (and this forum especially) takes a 'tournament list only' approach, so just like how you never see anyone play a Sanguinary Priest (and anyone that does is 'lying') you'd also be telling people that they don't play the Deathwing strat and are 'lying' about playing what would be a sub-optimal option. Oh and it would be adding rules bloat, that thing you're arguing as the reason to condense into 1 datasheet anyway.
In fairness I think they should condense the Terminator rules so we don't have all the different marks having different rules. I don't mind things like Deathwing Terminators having different rules but it's just unnecessary to have three kinds of Deathwing Terminator.
That's a result of Heresy being popular enough to justofy plastic kits, and the (then) 40k-only players demanding 40k rules for them.
In Heresy/30k different versions of terminator armour doing different things makes for a tactical choice on what you play. In 8th it doesn't really, even though they've kept the features of the pre-8th variant rules. So yeah, 1 datasheet that covers 'Terminators' and allows you to use different models is fine. But condensing say Deathwing and the SW one's into the same sheet, removing rules (and options) for the sake of 'well we must have 1 sheet' just seems like going that bit too far, and too close to removing models from the range because someone doesn't like them existing
I take you never read a single word of fluff about them?
Yeah, why would an army of tens of thousands of astartes who work alone and are divergent almost to GK level have a standalone book? FYI, that's more than Ynnari, Custodes, BA, DA, SW, BT, Inquisition, Knights of both flavors, and a lot others have combined. And frankly, if there is army that makes no sense and should be squatted, DA open the list. They are just whiny Codex compliant chapter, roll them into SM, give them one page of rules like HH books do, done. If it works there, there is no reason why it won't work in 40K.
captain collius wrote: Grey knights are only separate cause of Ward. But they work as an Inquisitor dexes heavy hitters
Ah, so also hilariously wrong about rules, too. You're aware that Ward GK dex was just Daemonhunter book, except done properly (aka you could mix both parts, but GK and Inquisition could also stand on their own, incidentally the only book in history of either that managed to make it work), right? Codex: "GK only" was the work of inept idiot who came after Ward and frakked up viability of GK by pointlessly gutting the faction, alongside with total deletion of Inquisition from 40K for three editions now, what a stellar job
I'd personally rather "THey're Terminators" rules. You should see what passes for a Wraithlord or WarTrukk or Shining Spear or StormBoy in the more creative Exodite or Ork lists. Variants of "Ancient super-durable armor used by the most elite Marines" could easily have multiple models for the same rules.
Seeing as the most elite (non-command) Battle Brother decorated marksman with centuries of combat experiences has the same on-field shooting stats as Bob who just hit the field as a Battle Brother for the first time two minutes ago, there can be differences between models/units that aren't necessarily different rules.
I think I'd like to see Termies consolidated to one or two entries (depending on if you want to keep the CC/ranged loadouts seperate). I also wouldn't mind seeing DA/BA and/or SW become supplements (provided all their actually-unique units - of which there are many - are retained). Consolidating GK and DW seems like a couple bridges too far, though.
And ripping Chaos Marines out of Codex:Chaos Marines seems really pants-on-head. All the downsides of codex splitting with none of the upsides.
I take you never read a single word of fluff about them?
Yeah, why would an army of tens of thousands of astartes who work alone and are divergent almost to GK level have a standalone book? FYI, that's more than Ynnari, Custodes, BA, DA, SW, BT, Inquisition, Knights of both flavors, and a lot others have combined. And frankly, if there is army that makes no sense and should be squatted, DA open the list. They are just whiny Codex compliant chapter, roll them into SM, give them one page of rules like HH books do, done. If it works there, there is no reason why it won't work in 40K.
An army that is made up of units from multiple chapters and fluff wise has never made any sense as taking out threats to humanity. Their so called fluff is nonsense they work as a kill team not as a full on army.
Two if you think DA should be treated as a supplement congratulations I agree the fluff is fun but only needed for those like me who care and then any units that diverge from Codex Space Marines should be listed. Of which we have a few. And an added formation or two for running all Deathwing or Ravenwing without the loss of CP would be nice.
Maybe have an interrogator chaplain in Terminator armor grant 2 CP if all units in the army are all key word Deathwing?
captain collius wrote: An army that is made up of units from multiple chapters and fluff wise has never made any sense as taking out threats to humanity. Their so called fluff is nonsense they work as a kill team not as a full on army.
You know, I actually think I agree on this. There's a few factions in game that don't really make sense as full armies (and by that, I mean above 1000 points), such as Inquisition (yeah, they'll have retainers and specialists, but if they want a large force, they'll just requisition -read, ally- with other organisations, including xenos if needed) and Deathwatch. Yes, they have a very very large organisation (and for what it's worth, I do think that them being made up of different Chapters makes sense and is cool), but that organisation is spread across the Imperium, and the vast majority of their operations are those small Kill Team sized missions. It's not even like Grey Knights and Custodes who are so expensive and pricey that their full sized armies are actually pretty small. The Deathwatch just aren't valuable enough to make up a full sized army of few models.
The problem is that they do have non-Kill Team equipment such as vehicles and gunships, but the Deathwatch just don't really deploy en masse.
Two if you think DA should be treated as a supplement congratulations I agree the fluff is fun but only needed for those like me who care and then any units that diverge from Codex Space Marines should be listed. Of which we have a few. And an added formation or two for running all Deathwing or Ravenwing without the loss of CP would be nice.
Maybe have an interrogator chaplain in Terminator armor grant 2 CP if all units in the army are all key word Deathwing?
That's pretty much what I advocate. Certainly feature the genuinely unique units (all special characters, Deathwing Knights, their various Land Speeders/Jetfighters, and Black Knights), find a way to make certain generic units (Terminators, Bikes, Land Speeders) have the <Deathwing> and <Ravenwing> keywords respectively and tie abilities to those keywords, and then create some kind of formations (not just for DA, but for all factions!) to encourage taking certain armies.
Examples of these would be:
"A Battleforged Dark Angels Vanguard Detachment only made up of units with the <Deathwing> keyword rewards 5 Command Points, instead of the standard amount."
"A Battleforged Dark Angels Outrider Detachment only made up of units with the <Ravenwing> keyword rewards 5 Command Points, instead of the standard amount."
"A Battleforged Blood Angels Outrider Detachment only made up of units with the <Jump Pack> keyword rewards 5 Command Points, instead of the standard amount."
"A Battleforged Iron Hands Vanguard Detachment only made up of units with the <Techmarine> or <Dreadnought> keywords rewards 5 Command Points, instead of the standard amount."
"A Battleforged Grey Knights Vanguard Detachment only made up of units with the <Grey Knight> keyword rewards -1 Command Point, instead of the standard amount."
Wouldn't the rule consolidation coming from 1 codex for marines be very short lived? GW loves to sell DLC style books. If they put marines in one book, a month or two later, we would start getting supplements for specific marines. And the bloat would return, only now people would have to buy 2 books instead of one, to get their core army rules. I get that this is good for GW sales, but I doubt players would like that.
Karol wrote: Wouldn't the rule consolidation coming from 1 codex for marines be very short lived? GW loves to sell DLC style books. If they put marines in one book, a month or two later, we would start getting supplements for specific marines. And the bloat would return, only now people would have to buy 2 books instead of one, to get their core army rules. I get that this is good for GW sales, but I doubt players would like that.
That's exactly what's happening now? Only some people feel that their named chapter shouldn't be like other named chapters, and should get a whole book of their own, despite sharing most of the same units.
Hey, I'd be all for Codex: Imperial Fists, Codex: Salamanders, and so on, but given how many units are shared over, I think that either supplements or putting *everything* (unique special characters, stratagems, warlord traits, psychic powers, etc etc) in one book are the best way to do this.
Well I would rather get new codex. Then let say GW in X time deciding to make a GK supplement, working on the base of space marines chapter, that has zero GK models I own, being worth taken, but be loaded with strange new lore, how they are GK primaris etc.
I don't think many DA/SW/BA players would be happy to give up most of their chapter character, in hope that maybe GW is going to bring some of it back in a supplement. Because you can get a supplement like marines, or you can get a book like chaos or eldar. And worse thing is that people with good books are going to tell you that you should be happy, you just got a new book.
@Sgt. smudge yeah you and I are pretty much in lockstep here.
@Karol that just the point we aren't giving anything up. The GK are different it's a wildly divergent base soldier to the standard Marines. The challenge with Grey knights is they only have 3 unique model kits. Throw in a few from SM. They need another couple units that are unique to GK
I'm kinda curious as to whether the negative responses to consolidation would be reversed if the choice was to either become a supplement and benefit from all the new Marine rules and units (and really not lose anything anyway) or to stay as a stand-alone Codex and not get those updates all the other Marines got.
flandarz wrote: I'm kinda curious as to whether the negative responses to consolidation would be reversed if the choice was to either become a supplement and benefit from all the new Marine rules and units (and really not lose anything anyway) or to stay as a stand-alone Codex and not get those updates all the other Marines got.
This is an amusingly telling false choice you're putting forth here.
flandarz wrote: I'm kinda curious as to whether the negative responses to consolidation would be reversed if the choice was to either become a supplement and benefit from all the new Marine rules and units (and really not lose anything anyway) or to stay as a stand-alone Codex and not get those updates all the other Marines got.
shouldn't it be get a new updated codex with new rules vs get a supplement, and have to buy the marine codex to run your army?
flandarz wrote: I'm kinda curious as to whether the negative responses to consolidation would be reversed if the choice was to either become a supplement and benefit from all the new Marine rules and units (and really not lose anything anyway) or to stay as a stand-alone Codex and not get those updates all the other Marines got.
shouldn't it be get a new updated codex with new rules vs get a supplement, and have to buy the marine codex to run your army?
Which is why most DA/BA/SW players really don't want it because it would require additional outlay. To be honest I don't want to pay for it either but it seems to be where we are going
@Karol that just the point we aren't giving anything up. The GK are different it's a wildly divergent base soldier to the standard Marines. The challenge with Grey knights is they only have 3 unique model kits. Throw in a few from SM. They need another couple units that are unique to GK
Ok, but GW already said the cawl didn't have the GK geneseed and can't create primaris out of them, for what ever reason. And I doubt there are going to be scouts or tacticals added to GK. As it would go against all the lore in the codex, how GK never get to be scouts.
Plus it is not like marines use that many units either. they spam eliminators, intercessors, repulsors, the flyers and the heroes. Only special stuff is the heroes. I never understood why GK have so high price techmarines, but no options for a servo harnass or a bike , or a thunder cannon. It is not like there is a GK techmarine model without those things. I dislike how the power armour GK look like, but why can't there be a chapter master or a brother captin with an interceptor backpack, there is no GK master or captin model either. Paladins and termintors are one box, the power armoured models make 4 different units. How is it a problem if they made one or two more unit types. the problem is not the models, it is the rules they gave them. If purgators weapons were worth taking people would take them, and not just accept a naked unit of 5 as a tax they have to take to get a proper detachment.
But all of that would require someone actually writing and testing the GK book, and not just doing a copy paste of the Index, which also looked strangly like the codex from prior editions.
flandarz wrote: I'm kinda curious as to whether the negative responses to consolidation would be reversed if the choice was to either become a supplement and benefit from all the new Marine rules and units (and really not lose anything anyway) or to stay as a stand-alone Codex and not get those updates all the other Marines got.
This has, historically, been basically what happened. Stuff like SW's going almost a decade without a new codex from early 3rd through mid 5th, Black Templars strolling through 5th and early 6th with a 4E era codex and required extensive FAQ'ing to function, etc. It's only been the last couple years that GW's kept their codex & FAQ/Errata release schedule up to make such gaps less of an issue.
Karol wrote:Well I would rather get new codex. Then let say GW in X time deciding to make a GK supplement, working on the base of space marines chapter, that has zero GK models I own, being worth taken, but be loaded with strange new lore, how they are GK primaris etc.
But Grey Knights are far more divergent than DA/BA/SW - don't know about anyone else, but Grey Knights shouldn't be a supplement because, as you say, they are too different.
DA/BA/SW, which have a small handful of unique units, and a lot of shared ones? I don't see why they shouldn't be part of the main Space Marine Codex, and the flavour you want can be supplied in supplements, like every other named Chapter.
I don't think many DA/SW/BA players would be happy to give up most of their chapter character, in hope that maybe GW is going to bring some of it back in a supplement.
My proposal doesn't get rid of any of that character. You don't "need" a Codex to have character, so long as what was in the Codex is kept. By getting rid of all the generic units, and putting all the rest in a supplement, you still have all that character.
I'm not advocating for DA/BA/SW to get absolutely nothing and get reduced to having less unique stuff and flavour than the existing supplements. That would be unfair. What would be fair is each of those first founding Chapters getting a supplement off of the core Space Marine book.
Grey Knights and Deathwatch and CSM are not built off of the same core units (okay, maybe Chaos, but I'm okay with them having a self-contained book from which Chaos Legion supplements can split from), so wouldn't need to have supplements, and could have their own Codexes.
Mmmpi wrote: He also just described most of the difference between eldar and IG as well. A stat or two and equipment. If he was really interested in consolidation, why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.
The disingenuity here is magical!
WhiteDog wrote: it is not techmarines that pilot their flyer - which is the reason why they have specific flyers (one of which is basically a portative prison)
I really don't see any kind of logical link between the first part of the quote and the second part of the quote.
WhiteDog wrote: and why their fleet is bigger than most chapters (they don't need help from mars to build out their flyers and train pilots).
I don't get it. If they don't get help from the gigantic world-sized factory that constantly make new ships, they should have less ship than those who do get this help, not more. And less special variant, not more.
Mary Snowflake syndrome, where even the pretend flaws end up actually being advantages?
Sanguinary priests should be Apothecary with access to specific stratagems. Prove me otherwise!
(Same with almost every chapter-specific unit with an obvious generic equivalent)
flandarz wrote: I'm kinda curious as to whether the negative responses to consolidation would be reversed if the choice was to either become a supplement and benefit from all the new Marine rules and units (and really not lose anything anyway) or to stay as a stand-alone Codex and not get those updates all the other Marines got.
This is an amusingly telling false choice you're putting forth here.
Wasn't trying to do that, but I understand. I was honestly just curious because, as far as I'm aware, GW hasn't stated any plans to release any other "Codex 2.0" books. So, you also have to consider this when you argue whether or not you want to stay as a Codex or become a supplement.
Spoletta wrote: Intercessors, Incursors and infiltrators should be a single datasheet, prove me otherwise!
Incursors and Infiltrators, I can see that. Have two optional equipment "packages", one with marksman bolt carbines and omni-scramblers, and the other with occulus bolt carbines, multi-spectrum arrays and paired combat knives.
Intercessors should be separate, as they lack the shared Phobos keyword, smoke grenades, concealed positions rule, and have no squad support option like the haywire mines, comms array, or Helix Adept, and instead only have an aux grenade launcher option.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: And reavers? they are just incursors without the cool guns and mines.
Reivers have heavy bolt pistols as an option, as well as their terror troops rule, grav chutes and grapnels. However, I'm also in favour of giving Reivers more beefy melee weaponry to make that their speciality. I'm not really sure if Incursors should be a standalone option, or just folded into the Infiltrators.
Ishagu wrote: It would actually be better if they were supplements, as it means all Astartes are updated as one.
Also the new supplements have plenty of lore and fluff so no one is ignored.
Imo Grey Knights and Death Watch should be in one codex called "Forces of the Inquisition"
Yeah and the Astartes update cycle would take even longer without breaks.
No thank you. It's allready excessive now thanks to GW's imcompetence.
You think it would take less time than if they got a whole new codex each rather than a supplement? A new codex would probably get more marketing than 2 or 3 supplements just for being a "Codex"
Sure each cycle would last a bit longer but overall the time spent on marines would likely drop a bit.
Ishagu wrote: It would actually be better if they were supplements, as it means all Astartes are updated as one.
Also the new supplements have plenty of lore and fluff so no one is ignored.
Imo Grey Knights and Death Watch should be in one codex called "Forces of the Inquisition"
Yeah and the Astartes update cycle would take even longer without breaks.
No thank you. It's allready excessive now thanks to GW's imcompetence.
You think it would take less time than if they got a whole new codex each rather than a supplement? A new codex would probably get more marketing than 2 or 3 supplements just for being a "Codex"
Sure each cycle would last a bit longer but overall the time spent on marines would likely drop a bit.
No i think if they solve them Via Supplement and then just release them after C:SM drops like now, then yes it get's excessive without a break.
Infact i am of the opinion they should've done Less supplements and thrown them out in one Go.
SO that we could see sisters, or the ongoing campaign (ok who am i kidding considering the first PA book i doubt anything decent will come out)
It would be a lot less time on Marines if they were one codex with lots of supplements. It means you'll get a big Astartes release every two years, as opposed to every 6 months.
And what GW be selling in the mean time, when their main sellers is marine stuff? It would just soon end up with marine player needing a codex, a supplement for specific type of game play and one or two campaign books, or something like that. And suddenly instead of one book, you would need 2-3 just to get the army rules.
And absolutly nothing can asure that there is a higher chance of having 3 good books to get a good rule set, then having one book for your army rules.
I understand that cost of books isn't a concern for a lot of people, but being made to buy maybe 2-3 bad books to play a bad army, on top of CA and edition rule book, does not sound good to me. Although I do think it sounds awesome for a GW sales depertment guy. I can imagine those people being happy to split a codex in to 32 options, you have to buy separate.
Ishagu wrote: It would be a lot less time on Marines if they were one codex with lots of supplements. It means you'll get a big Astartes release every two years, as opposed to every 6 months.
Ishagu wrote: It would be a lot less time on Marines if they were one codex with lots of supplements. It means you'll get a big Astartes release every two years, as opposed to every 6 months.
no it wouldn't. it would mean every marine release would be stretched out as long as the last one was.
Karol wrote: And reavers? they are just incursors without the cool guns and mines.
Honestly if Reivers were eliminated nobody would care. The only thing they got going on is cool skull hemlets. Otherwise being used as ABR Intercessors is something I've seen commonly to be honest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BroodSpawn wrote: Slayer, you've made your point. You've also ignored or dismissed every valid reason given for why these armies are and have been treat as separate armies for the last 25yrs (maybe longer). You don't like that there's Deathwing Terminators, whatever the SW version is called, 'codex' terminators. You don't like that units like the Baal predator or Sanuguinary Priests exist as a a different version of codex units.
You complaint seems to boil down to 'but but Space Marines got models and kits and we need to condense the rules'. And if it's not that then I honestly don;t know what your point is anymore because it's the same circular logic every time. 'X unit is the same as Y unit, so let's remove all the bits that makes X different so it can be Y'. And, as valid an opinion as that is, it's not how the company (y'know with the designers, and developers, and manufacturing materials that make this stuff) wants to do it. They have a pretty clear design paradigm for why these armies are separate and, frankly, it's a decision taken 30+ years ago that they've stuck with.
Considering the backlash they still get over the Squats, Black Templars, removal of rules options for Eldar and Dark Eldar, the idea that they should just consolidate everything into 1 datasheet for terminators, or 1 data sheet for dreadnoughts, or 1 datasheet for 'veterans' eventually leads to the removal of those options from players and then the removal of models from the range. Why sell a Deathwin box when it's not going to have any content in it that the standard terminator box doesn't already have. And yes I can see that being precisely they way that they could go about doing that, because you wont get things like Plasma Cannons on 'all' Terminators you'll just remove Plasma Cannons from the 1 unit of that kind, in the 1 faction that can take them.
And before you go with the 'but you could just play a stratagem to do the same stuff', come on. We all know that the internet (and this forum especially) takes a 'tournament list only' approach, so just like how you never see anyone play a Sanguinary Priest (and anyone that does is 'lying') you'd also be telling people that they don't play the Deathwing strat and are 'lying' about playing what would be a sub-optimal option. Oh and it would be adding rules bloat, that thing you're arguing as the reason to condense into 1 datasheet anyway.
Saying they've been "standalone armies for 25 years" is a bit generous, as they still haven't added a lot of units to make them their own armies. They're really just Marines, pure and simple.
Also the backlash for Templars is because of how melee works in the last few editions. Black Templars getting consolidated was one of the best things that could've happened to them as they lost literally nothing but Vows (everyone only took one anyway so who cares?) and Terminator Command Squads (which everyone lost but Dark Angels because reasons). Regarding Eldar armies, you're referring to lost equipment, which is more akin to losing Power Spears for example, not that anybody used them anyway, and the lost option for Librarians and Chaps to get on bikes. That's a whole separate issue, and is not the same as Deathwing not being special snowflakes anymore.
I've already explained it. Again, just because you don't like that explanation doesn't mean it's not there.
Detail, depth, and actual reasoning, beyond just saying what amounts to a glorified "no u".
Then I suggest you actually read my posts.
Again, what about Chapter Masters and Chief Librarians? Hellfire shells and hunter killer missiles? What should they be? How about the "flavour" of my Ultramarines to be able to have overlapping Overwatch? Should that be automatic too?
I already flat out said both CM and CL should be their own data sheets. See above about you reading my posts.
More room than every single generic datasheet? Ridiculous.
I've already gone over this in length about how adding them to Codex:Space Marines takes up tons of space.
Let's make a compromise, shall we?
No. Not anymore.
Let's make a compromise, shall we? Let's say you get all your unique datasheets, and we include a single page (because that's all it would take) saying what units you can't take in a DA army (so anything with the <Terminator> keyword, etc etc). You still think that would be longer than a whole Codex filled with the same generic stratagems and units that make up the main Codex? Absolutely not. You'd have a slightly larger supplement, that's for sure, but it wouldn't even come close to the size of the generic Codex, not even by a long shot. And, because I'm so generous, I wouldn't charge you any more for it than any other supplement.
So, answer me - what's wrong with that?
Nope. The current system is better. Yes that's opinion.
Besides that, you're already forcing people to buy another book. Just because you wouldn't, doesn't mean GW wouldn't charge more.
Ah, I see what it is. You haven't got a problem with everyone else having to pay for their extra flavour and special characters ("yeah, I mean, screw the Iron Hands, if they want to take a single unique character, I guess they need to by a supplement!"), but if that were asked of you, that's completely out of line! /s
You need to work on your sarcasm.
Should we release an Iron Hands Codex too? All the generic units, plus their Iron Hands flavour aspects? Ultramarines too? Every Chapter with any kind of unique rules? Or are they not "special" enough?
Yes. Any chapter with enough unique rules and units stretching back for over two decades should have it's own codex.
Sorry, did you think I was going to be taken aback and declare you a genius for posting this?
You clearly have enough interest to keep discussing this. I'm not asking you to keep typing out "each unit's change to equipment and rules" - I'm asking you to do it to the Deathwing alone, beyond just saying "they're different!!!1!". So you say, but you're not saying why.
I have said why. Read my posts. And no, I'm not going to do it for deathwing now either.
I suggest you start doing your reading.
By all means, continue just saying "they'd be different because they'd be different", but I'm sure it's pretty clear to anyone reading that it's a facade of an argument.
Sure it's a facade of an argument when you ignore 90% of the words I used.
Stop doing that.
Let me pose to you a maths question: 2+2=5. Now, let me ask you another: "why is this sum wrong". At the moment, your answer is "it's wrong because it's not correct". That's not an answer, that's telling me absolutely nothing new or what I want to know.
I hate to break it to you, but "It's not correct" actually is an answer, and one that accurately describes the issue. But as to my posts, read them. I gave you actual answers. Again, you just don't like them. You can stop begging the question.
I'm asking you to clearly point out to me *exactly* why the Deathwing Terminators datasheet is different to normal Codex Terminators, beyond "they're different". Why are they different, in what way are they different? At the moment, you're getting no marks - no passing the exam: because you're not answering the question.
I suggest reading my answers then. Because I did say why. I didn't type out every single difference, but I have no incentive to do that. I just said what differences there are. Again, I'm fairly sure you don't know how to constructively read.
BrianDavion wrote: I find it amusing that the same people who complain about rules bloat are saying we should change something from a single codex into a bloated 3 book mess
It only needs to be two codices, actually. Supplements are a stupid idea and separate codices for Blood and Dark Angels are the same exact stupid idea.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.
Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.
Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.
Additionally, I also think that the Rule of 3 is bad. So that would be something I'd want removing.
I agree with you long term, that units shouldn't need the rule of three to be balanced.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.
Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.
Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.
Additionally, I also think that the Rule of 3 is bad. So that would be something I'd want removing.
Rule of 3 is a lazy bandaid fix for GW when they can't figure out why certain units are broken even though we have told them before.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.
If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?
Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.
Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.
Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.
Riiiiiiiight. Lemme know when that works out for you that you absolutely need all 4 different kinds of Terminator entries LOL
It works for me I love have multiple easy to access apothecaries that fit the fluff.
The champion is great.
The ancient is useful.
Knights smash face.
Does it win tournaments ....No.
That's because Terminators need a reworked statline. That's in all books
All you're doing is describing Characters. Did you even read my initial post about Terminators?
Yes. It was that no one uses them, and now you have someone saying they use them, so now you're moving the goalposts...again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: At this point having separate codices for BA, DA and SW is just silly. It causes all sorts of weird issues when things that are supposed to be similar really aren't because the books are written at different times.
These chapters would need a few datasheets more than other supplements have, but nothing massive.
You do realize that in just data sheets, we're talking almost 30 pages each right?
With fluff, stratagems, CT (+rules), WL traits, Psychic disciplines, ect, you're adding close to 30 more. Then there's the models showcase...
Mmmpi wrote: He also just described most of the difference between eldar and IG as well. A stat or two and equipment. If he was really interested in consolidation, why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.
The disingenuity here is magical!
Not really. It's just the same argument taken a level higher.
Mmmpi wrote: He also just described most of the difference between eldar and IG as well. A stat or two and equipment. If he was really interested in consolidation, why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.
The disingenuity here is magical!
Not really. It's just the same argument taken a level higher.
If you speed by 1 MPH, you're unlikely to even get pulled over.
If you speed by 20 MPH, you'll get a ticket if you get caught.
If you speed by 100 MPH, that's a gorram felony.
Degree matters-taking something to its extreme is not accurately representing it.
Honestly if Reivers were eliminated nobody would care. The only thing they got going on is cool skull hemlets. Otherwise being used as ABR Intercessors is something I've seen commonly to be honest.
People here would be sad, mif reavers were gone. there are 3ed party model companies and private producers making sniper rifles that when fitted to easy to build reavers give cheaper eliminators.
If you speed by 100 MPH, that's a gorram felony.
and if you have a car doing that, the police will fear that you are either mob, politicians, both or you have a stickers that allows you to ignore transport rules&laws, and nothing will happen. GW does something like that a lot, that nerf and tweek orc, necron or even GK rules, but it takes them 6-12 months to "fix" the big problem stuff.
Honestly if Reivers were eliminated nobody would care. The only thing they got going on is cool skull hemlets. Otherwise being used as ABR Intercessors is something I've seen commonly to be honest.
People here would be sad, mif reavers were gone. there are 3ed party model companies and private producers making sniper rifles that when fitted to easy to build reavers give cheaper eliminators.
If you speed by 100 MPH, that's a gorram felony.
and if you have a car doing that, the police will fear that you are either mob, politicians, both or you have a stickers that allows you to ignore transport rules&laws, and nothing will happen. GW does something like that a lot, that nerf and tweek orc, necron or even GK rules, but it takes them 6-12 months to "fix" the big problem stuff.
The point I was making is that taking an argument to an extreme is not a fair representation of it.
Well the thing is. GW are gung ho when they decide that GK brother captin or brother hood champion requires a nerf ASAP, you know on basis of GK being so dominant in w40k, but a castellan can run havock on the meta for months. Inari too. Broken flyer lists from eldar are broken since 8th start?
But that is not what GW goes after like a hawk, they rather blow up some orc or necron rule. they don't fix extrem bad, nor deal with the extrem good.
