So i've been lurking in the various Houds of morkai threads and it made me think about what does having specific datasheet for so many models actually do for the game.
an example that was brought was the Thunderwolf cavalry vs Outrider and how they both could be on the same "Space marine cavalry" datasheet instead.
Theyre both fast units, that get extra attacks because of their mounts, why couldnt they be the same datasheet?
Let's assume that we had the power to redo all of the kits to include the bonus options (storm shield + thunderhammer as a valid option for all Space marine cavalry).
Would the flavor really be lost? You could still have the information that White scars use bike as cavalry and SW use McWolfes as cavalry.
The only value is emotional for the people who really like to have their own unique datasheet. Mechanically and practically there is none.
Further this can get applied to war gear as well. It has been argued that having power axe, power sword, power spear, etc etc... is a waste. Just have a singular stat line for power weapon and then the player is free to model whatever weapon they want onto the model to flavor it however they see fit.
The extra granularity isn't actually helping anything and doesn't actually make that big of a difference while the modeling options would become vastly better.
Honestly, from a game design perspective. It is far easier and less time consuming to just keep datasheets separate instead of trying synergize all kinds of exceptions in a concise way on a single datasheet. Not to mention from a User Interface perspective it is easier for a reader to consume data on separate static sheets then trying to decipher variable datasheets with particular exceptions spread out across separate books and sections of those books.
Now, saying all of that, this is only relevant if GW chooses to keep as many unique exceptions for the different types of units. If both the TWC and the Outriders literally just use the exact same stats and abilities then of course the best solution is to consolidate the datasheets... but I personally disagree with this approach because I feel like vanilifying the flavours would detract from the game (at least for me) .
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because people like their minis to mean something. They want there to be differences with the things they choose.
I can't wait for the Craftworld Altansar supplement, and the Kroot Warpath supplement, and each of the Hive Fleet's supplements, each one with 30 datasheets and a whole hos-
oh wait, CWE, Tau, and Tyranid minis don't get to mean something, or be different based on what they choose? Oh, okay.
From a business standpoint (the only thing that matters) making the game as granular and specific as possible cuts down on the opportunity for people to create copies in the 6-month time window when GW makes 90-95% of the profit they generate from a new sculpt.
Lance845 wrote: The only value is emotional for the people who really like to have their own unique datasheet. Mechanically and practically there is none.
Further this can get applied to war gear as well. It has been argued that having power axe, power sword, power spear, etc etc... is a waste. Just have a singular stat line for power weapon and then the player is free to model whatever weapon they want onto the model to flavor it however they see fit.
The extra granularity isn't actually helping anything and doesn't actually make that big of a difference while the modeling options would become vastly better.
Kinda what I like about AoS. I have more freedom to make my models look like something without worrying about how it affects stats. I would say that the granularity of 40k is a curse for those who want to kitbash and use unique models.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because people like their minis to mean something. They want there to be differences with the things they choose.
I can't wait for the Craftworld Altansar supplement, and the Kroot Warpath supplement, and each of the Hive Fleet's supplements, each one with 30 datasheets and a whole hos-
oh wait, CWE, Tau, and Tyranid minis don't get to mean something, or be different based on what they choose? Oh, okay.
I dont want this thread to become a "Muh xenos" thread, please stay on topic.
Type40 wrote: Honestly, from a game design perspective. It is far easier and less time consuming to just keep datasheets separate instead of trying synergize all kinds of exceptions in a concise way on a single datasheet. Not to mention from a User Interface perspective it is easier for a reader to consume data on separate static sheets then trying to decipher variable datasheets with particular exceptions spread out across separate books and sections of those books.
Now, saying all of that, this is only relevant if GW chooses to keep as many unique exceptions for the different types of units. If both the TWC and the Outriders literally just use the exact same stats and abilities then of course the best solution is to consolidate the datasheets... but I personally disagree with this approach because I feel like vanilifying the flavours would detract from the game (at least for me) .
As for the readability of the datasheets, i imagined them being redone so that there would not be any difference between factions except the model itself.
Outriders and TWC could very well both be :
10" movement
auto advance 6"
3 extra attacks at strength user
then all the weapons they are eligible for.
None of that "If they have the Space wolf keyword they gain blablabla,, if they have the white scars keyword they gain blablabla", just basic datasheets.
Honestly, TWC as they stand dont have anything that makes them feel like space wolves except their name.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because people like their minis to mean something. They want there to be differences with the things they choose.
I can't wait for the Craftworld Altansar supplement, and the Kroot Warpath supplement, and each of the Hive Fleet's supplements, each one with 30 datasheets and a whole hos-
oh wait, CWE, Tau, and Tyranid minis don't get to mean something, or be different based on what they choose? Oh, okay.
I dont want this thread to become a "Muh xenos" thread, please stay on topic.
Type40 wrote: Honestly, from a game design perspective. It is far easier and less time consuming to just keep datasheets separate instead of trying synergize all kinds of exceptions in a concise way on a single datasheet. Not to mention from a User Interface perspective it is easier for a reader to consume data on separate static sheets then trying to decipher variable datasheets with particular exceptions spread out across separate books and sections of those books.
Now, saying all of that, this is only relevant if GW chooses to keep as many unique exceptions for the different types of units. If both the TWC and the Outriders literally just use the exact same stats and abilities then of course the best solution is to consolidate the datasheets... but I personally disagree with this approach because I feel like vanilifying the flavours would detract from the game (at least for me) .
As for the readability of the datasheets, i imagined them being redone so that there would not be any difference between factions except the model itself.
Outriders and TWC could very well both be :
10" movement
auto advance 6"
3 extra attacks at strength user
then all the weapons they are eligible for.
None of that "If they have the Space wolf keyword they gain blablabla,, if they have the white scars keyword they gain blablabla", just basic datasheets.
Honestly, TWC as they stand dont have anything that makes them feel like space wolves except their name.
Sure, implemented like this, the right call would be to totally consolidate the sheets.
I just prefer unique rules for different models... it feels fluffier to me and I like my models having different abilities when they are different... but I guess that is my taste on how fluff is represented via mechanics and its ok for us to disagree on this.
If it is choosing between special keyword exceptions, rule exceptions, unit size exceptions and wargear exceptions, the obvious choice is to keep them seperate. If GW decides "guy rides a thing is one data sheet, guys with gun is another datasheet so they use the exact same rules, stats, and keywords" 100% lets consolidate them... but the inbetween point we are at now,,, that, IMO, is the worst choice. Also from a general game design and User Interface standpoint it is the worst choice XD.
I'm sure it's nowhere close to the reason why it happens, but there is one in-game benefit to having a greater number of datasheets. You can take more of those units without breaking the rule of 3 under Matched Play.
Granted, if you're doing it with things like Thunderwolves and Bikes together then chances are you're actually gimping your list from not having enough variety. But as an example, I've got 20 Intercessors already - I quite like to put down as 2x5 and 1x10, in order to fill out the Battalion detachment slots. But it wouldn't be a crazy notion for me to add some Heavy Intercessors in there - were I to do so, I could run a 3x5 split of both types.
Super Ready wrote: I'm sure it's nowhere close to the reason why it happens, but there is one in-game benefit to having a greater number of datasheets. You can take more of those units without breaking the rule of 3 under Matched Play.
Granted, if you're doing it with things like Thunderwolves and Bikes together then chances are you're actually gimping your list from not having enough variety. But as an example, I've got 20 Intercessors already - I quite like to put down as 2x5 and 1x10, in order to fill out the Battalion detachment slots. But it wouldn't be a crazy notion for me to add some Heavy Intercessors in there - were I to do so, I could run a 3x5 split of both types.
Those are troops, which ignore the rule of 3, but your point is correct nonetheless.
Sales ? It's easier to sell models if they have their own datasheet. If you maxed out on bikers you can still get wolves riding wolves.
It's like why making thunder wolves in the first place ? Because people already own bikes but not wolveswolves.
"Ok so now we have to flesh out the wolves fast attack, any idea ?"
"Well, there is no SW themed bikes or conversion packs for them, so maybe we could fill that space"
"Our players have already bought, build and painted their bikes, we need something a bit different"
"Ah sure, why not replace the bikes with huge wolves then ?"
And it happens a lot with the SM line (or at least, it did before they rebooted the range with primaris) with which they try to sell models you already bought every year by tweaking a thing here and there.
dhallnet wrote: Sales ? It's easier to sell models if they have their own datasheet. If you maxed out on bikers you can still get wolves riding wolves.
It's like why making thunder wolves in the first place ? Because people already own bikes but not wolveswolves.
"Ok so now we have to flesh out the wolves fast attack, any idea ?"
"Well, there is no SW themed bikes or conversion packs for them, so maybe we could fill that space"
"Our players have already bought, build and painted their bikes, we need something a bit different"
"Ah sure, why not replace the bikes with huge wolves then ?"
VladimirHerzog wrote: So i've been lurking in the various Houds of morkai threads and it made me think about what does having specific datasheet for so many models actually do for the game.
an example that was brought was the Thunderwolf cavalry vs Outrider and how they both could be on the same "Space marine cavalry" datasheet instead.
Theyre both fast units, that get extra attacks because of their mounts, why couldnt they be the same datasheet?
Let's assume that we had the power to redo all of the kits to include the bonus options (storm shield + thunderhammer as a valid option for all Space marine cavalry).
Would the flavor really be lost? You could still have the information that White scars use bike as cavalry and SW use McWolfes as cavalry.
No model no rules. TWC come with TH and SS, outriders do not. GW even thinks they need two separate choices for a gravis captin to protect their IP, and the only difference between them is a gun they carry.
It also makes stuff safer. TWC are not bikers, so if an edition comes where bikers are bad, but cavalery is good, someone who has cavalery is safe and can still play and use their models, while if both had the same set of traits and rules and ended up bad, there would have to replace them with something else or play a bad army.
VladimirHerzog wrote: So i've been lurking in the various Houds of morkai threads and it made me think about what does having specific datasheet for so many models actually do for the game.
an example that was brought was the Thunderwolf cavalry vs Outrider and how they both could be on the same "Space marine cavalry" datasheet instead. Theyre both fast units, that get extra attacks because of their mounts, why couldnt they be the same datasheet?
Let's assume that we had the power to redo all of the kits to include the bonus options (storm shield + thunderhammer as a valid option for all Space marine cavalry). Would the flavor really be lost? You could still have the information that White scars use bike as cavalry and SW use McWolfes as cavalry.
No model no rules. TWC come with TH and SS, outriders do not. GW even thinks they need two separate choices for a gravis captin to protect their IP, and the only difference between them is a gun they carry.
It also makes stuff safer. TWC are not bikers, so if an edition comes where bikers are bad, but cavalery is good, someone who has cavalery is safe and can still play and use their models, while if both had the same set of traits and rules and ended up bad, there would have to replace them with something else or play a bad army.
While mostly true it's not always true. Every army has instances of no model having rules starting with relics. Hive Tyrants have monstrous rending claws despite no bit for it ever existing. So on and so forth.
Arguing that future proofing the unit against a nerf because it's technically a different thing is silly. Every unit is going to get better and worse as changes happen and lumping those 2 together won't change that.When the unit eventually gets worse it can still be played.
No not every unit is going to be getting better or worse. some units or even armies can just get squated. And it doesn't even matter if it is a hard or soft one, as playing a really bad army isn't much fun, I can tell you that.
So yeah if I were a SW player and had access to ouriders , BC bikers and TWC, I would rather have all 3, then one "mounted" marine option shared with other books. Because not only would it bring the problem of possible nerfs to my army, and I can tell you a lot about nerfs to your army because of other armies do based on 8th ed, but would also limit the number of faction interactions.
Maybe my army has some relic, special rule, aura etc that works on TWC but doesn't work on bikers. Maybe there are core rules that say bikers can't go up stairs, or that cavalery can't enter buildings. It is always better to have more unit options for your faction, then having fewer. What would the homoganisation achive anyway. One faction would do the mounted marines the best, the cost would be the same for everyone, so want it or not, if you want to play mounted marines you have to play the best faction for it, or else you are playing a sub par army, which may even not work at all.
Karol, why is it bad for one faction to be better at something than another faction?
Most games that aren't perfect symmetry typically have different playstyles represented in their different factions, and in every game besides Warhammer 40k this is fine.
No one complains that tanks in an MMO can't out-DPS the DPS...
Karol wrote: No not every unit is going to be getting better or worse. some units or even armies can just get squated. And it doesn't even matter if it is a hard or soft one, as playing a really bad army isn't much fun, I can tell you that.
So yeah if I were a SW player and had access to ouriders , BC bikers and TWC, I would rather have all 3, then one "mounted" marine option shared with other books. Because not only would it bring the problem of possible nerfs to my army, and I can tell you a lot about nerfs to your army because of other armies do based on 8th ed, but would also limit the number of faction interactions.
Boo Hoo. Any argument that starts and ends with "but I want" or "but in the past I have been nerfed because" is meaningless.
Maybe my army has some relic, special rule, aura etc that works on TWC but doesn't work on bikers.
Then I am sure that aura can change.
Maybe there are core rules that say bikers can't go up stairs, or that cavalery can't enter buildings.
Yup. Good.
It is always better to have more unit options for your faction, then having fewer.
COMPLETELY disagree. The sheer bloat of the SM dex is proof of it. Not only are multiple subfactions cannibalizing each others special tricks but the sheer volume of different wargear is insanity. SM need a big purge. Do you not remember how certain marine weapons have been useless in past editions because other options did it better? Cut one of those options.
What would the homoganisation achive anyway. One faction would do the mounted marines the best, the cost would be the same for everyone, so want it or not, if you want to play mounted marines you have to play the best faction for it, or else you are playing a sub par army, which may even not work at all.
Hey look. All the more reason to homogenize, yeah? This is the situation NOW. Ravenwing, space wolves, or white scars? Who does bikes best? Why play sub optimal?
VladimirHerzog wrote: So i've been lurking in the various Houds of morkai threads and it made me think about what does having specific datasheet for so many models actually do for the game.
an example that was brought was the Thunderwolf cavalry vs Outrider and how they both could be on the same "Space marine cavalry" datasheet instead.
Theyre both fast units, that get extra attacks because of their mounts, why couldnt they be the same datasheet?
Let's assume that we had the power to redo all of the kits to include the bonus options (storm shield + thunderhammer as a valid option for all Space marine cavalry).
Would the flavor really be lost? You could still have the information that White scars use bike as cavalry and SW use McWolfes as cavalry.
No model no rules. TWC come with TH and SS, outriders do not. GW even thinks they need two separate choices for a gravis captin to protect their IP, and the only difference between them is a gun they carry.
It also makes stuff safer. TWC are not bikers, so if an edition comes where bikers are bad, but cavalery is good, someone who has cavalery is safe and can still play and use their models, while if both had the same set of traits and rules and ended up bad, there would have to replace them with something else or play a bad army.
I specifically mentionned that my argument had a big "what if" attached to it, i specifically said that they could add storm shields and hammers to outriders, which by the way still don't have a full kit out.
The only difference between the two is what theyre riding on, theyre both, fast melee units.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because people like their minis to mean something. They want there to be differences with the things they choose.
I can't wait for the Craftworld Altansar supplement, and the Kroot Warpath supplement, and each of the Hive Fleet's supplements, each one with 30 datasheets and a whole hos-
oh wait, CWE, Tau, and Tyranid minis don't get to mean something, or be different based on what they choose? Oh, okay.
I dont want this thread to become a "Muh xenos" thread, please stay on topic.
to be blunt that IS on topic, because that reveals the core of this sentiment. the core of the sentiment is "IF I CAN'T HAVE A NEW UNIT! THEY CAN'T HAVE A NEW UNIT!" it's envy pure and simple
Lance845 wrote: The only value is emotional for the people who really like to have their own unique datasheet. Mechanically and practically there is none.
Further this can get applied to war gear as well. It has been argued that having power axe, power sword, power spear, etc etc... is a waste. Just have a singular stat line for power weapon and then the player is free to model whatever weapon they want onto the model to flavor it however they see fit.
The extra granularity isn't actually helping anything and doesn't actually make that big of a difference while the modeling options would become vastly better.
Honestly with the Strength bonus on power weapons coming up, you really don't need anything besides the Power Sword and Power Axe in terms of profiles. Nobody is going to take a S+3 Power Maul when the Power Fist exists.
The truth is , if GW is selling two extremely different kits like are space marines in giant wolfs and space marines in bikes, people expect for those two things to not be the same thing.
They unified power weapons in 3rd and most people hated it. I'm all for removing redundancy like half the new primaris bolters variants but theres a point were one has to accept that one of the reasons people play warhammer games and not kings of wars is for that minutiae that they like to represent both in model and in rules.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because people like their minis to mean something. They want there to be differences with the things they choose.
I can't wait for the Craftworld Altansar supplement, and the Kroot Warpath supplement, and each of the Hive Fleet's supplements, each one with 30 datasheets and a whole hos-
oh wait, CWE, Tau, and Tyranid minis don't get to mean something, or be different based on what they choose? Oh, okay.
I dont want this thread to become a "Muh xenos" thread, please stay on topic.
to be blunt that IS on topic, because that reveals the core of this sentiment. the core of the sentiment is "IF I CAN'T HAVE A NEW UNIT! THEY CAN'T HAVE A NEW UNIT!" it's envy pure and simple
It isnt on topic, just because i used an example that came from one of these "marines are too strong" posts doesn't mean the question is directly tied to it.
I couldve used any other unit in the game that is the similar yet still gets multiple datasheet but it just happens that Marines are the ones with the most "duplicate" units.
The core of the sentiment isnt what you're saying. I'm approaching the idea with a pure "I dislike the bloat" mentality. Also, using "simplified" datasheets would allow for MORE units to be released for everyone since you could go and give special Lizard riding cavalry for salamanders or demonic bike riding CSM , while keeping the same datasheet.
Options are what makes this game what it is. I love to be able to make a choice even if that choice has only a small effect on the table. If it was purely arbitrary aesthetic choices it would make those choices redundant and therefore ultimately pointless.
Synergies, special rules, stats need to feel like they're having an impact on the game, even if it's a tiny tipping of the odds of the dice throw, otherwise the game would make you feel like a spectator.
It feels good to feel vindicated by choosing that +1s power axe instead of sword as if that was a tactical masterstroke. Isn't the whole thing about building your army in your vision?
Is fun because this past days I have been arguing the same thing with my group. And I always defend a middle ground. But for them literally every variant of bolter should have special rules because of course in the real world all rifles are different!
And here you have people asking for a motorbike and a wolf to have the same rules used as a mount. The two extremes, they are both just as wrong, and they are both just as convinced of how right they are.
Abaddon303 wrote: Options are what makes this game what it is. I love to be able to make a choice even if that choice has only a small effect on the table. If it was purely arbitrary aesthetic choices it would make those choices redundant and therefore ultimately pointless.
Synergies, special rules, stats need to feel like they're having an impact on the game, even if it's a tiny tipping of the odds of the dice throw, otherwise the game would make you feel like a spectator.
It feels good to feel vindicated by choosing that +1s power axe instead of sword as if that was a tactical masterstroke. Isn't the whole thing about building your army in your vision?
I completely agree with this sentiment.
And 100% we arn't the only gamers out their who would feel pretty upset and disillusioned by the game if unique rules were removed from our unique models.
As for those who seem to think they arn't unique... you don't have to think they arn't, the fact is we do, GW knows we do, and they deliberately release the alternative kits because of us.
This why its frustrating that people don't seem to understand when we argue "well why don't we just roll all the factions into one set of datasheets" argument. We have been sold a unique thing. This is what they sold us, this is what we bought, this is what we honestly believe and feel. Just like your Xenos armies are different from vanilla marines, so are my SWs... so I want my rules to be flavored to reflect that in at least some small way.
Abaddon303 wrote: Options are what makes this game what it is. I love to be able to make a choice even if that choice has only a small effect on the table. If it was purely arbitrary aesthetic choices it would make those choices redundant and therefore ultimately pointless.
Synergies, special rules, stats need to feel like they're having an impact on the game, even if it's a tiny tipping of the odds of the dice throw, otherwise the game would make you feel like a spectator.
It feels good to feel vindicated by choosing that +1s power axe instead of sword as if that was a tactical masterstroke. Isn't the whole thing about building your army in your vision?
I completely agree with this sentiment.
And 100% we arn't the only gamers out their who would feel pretty upset and disillusioned by the game if unique rules were removed from out unique models.
As for those who seem to think they arn't unique... you don't have to think they arn't, the fact is we do, GW knows we do, and they deliberately release the alternative kits because of us.
This why its frustrating that people don't seem to understand when we argue "well why don't we just roll all the factions into one set of datasheets" argument. We have been sold a unique thing. This is what they sold us, this is what we bought, this is what we honestly believe and feel. Just like your Xenos armies are different from vanilla marines, so are my SWs... so I want my rules to be flavored to reflect that in at least some small way.
I agree with you guys on the "choices are important" aspect, but honestly, what is the big difference between an Outrider and TWC? Do TWC get a special rule that makes them extra SW-y ?
You keep putting the emphasis on your TWC feeling special with special rules, they dont get any
Abaddon303 wrote: Options are what makes this game what it is. I love to be able to make a choice even if that choice has only a small effect on the table. If it was purely arbitrary aesthetic choices it would make those choices redundant and therefore ultimately pointless.
Synergies, special rules, stats need to feel like they're having an impact on the game, even if it's a tiny tipping of the odds of the dice throw, otherwise the game would make you feel like a spectator.
It feels good to feel vindicated by choosing that +1s power axe instead of sword as if that was a tactical masterstroke. Isn't the whole thing about building your army in your vision?
I completely agree with this sentiment.
And 100% we arn't the only gamers out their who would feel pretty upset and disillusioned by the game if unique rules were removed from out unique models.
As for those who seem to think they arn't unique... you don't have to think they arn't, the fact is we do, GW knows we do, and they deliberately release the alternative kits because of us.
This why its frustrating that people don't seem to understand when we argue "well why don't we just roll all the factions into one set of datasheets" argument. We have been sold a unique thing. This is what they sold us, this is what we bought, this is what we honestly believe and feel. Just like your Xenos armies are different from vanilla marines, so are my SWs... so I want my rules to be flavored to reflect that in at least some small way.
I agree with you guys on the "choices are important" aspect, but honestly, what is the big difference between an Outrider and TWC? Do TWC get a special rule that makes them extra SW-y ?
different statline (specifically different movement), different special rules (i.e. Swift Hunters) different wargear options, extra attacks from the wolf, access to wolfy specific strats specificaly for TWC.
Abaddon303 wrote: Options are what makes this game what it is. I love to be able to make a choice even if that choice has only a small effect on the table. If it was purely arbitrary aesthetic choices it would make those choices redundant and therefore ultimately pointless.
Synergies, special rules, stats need to feel like they're having an impact on the game, even if it's a tiny tipping of the odds of the dice throw, otherwise the game would make you feel like a spectator.
It feels good to feel vindicated by choosing that +1s power axe instead of sword as if that was a tactical masterstroke. Isn't the whole thing about building your army in your vision?
I completely agree with this sentiment.
And 100% we arn't the only gamers out their who would feel pretty upset and disillusioned by the game if unique rules were removed from out unique models.
As for those who seem to think they arn't unique... you don't have to think they arn't, the fact is we do, GW knows we do, and they deliberately release the alternative kits because of us.
This why its frustrating that people don't seem to understand when we argue "well why don't we just roll all the factions into one set of datasheets" argument. We have been sold a unique thing. This is what they sold us, this is what we bought, this is what we honestly believe and feel. Just like your Xenos armies are different from vanilla marines, so are my SWs... so I want my rules to be flavored to reflect that in at least some small way.
I agree with you guys on the "choices are important" aspect, but honestly, what is the big difference between an Outrider and TWC? Do TWC get a special rule that makes them extra SW-y ?
different statline (specifically different movement), different special rules (i.e. Swift Hunters) different wargear options, extra attacks from the wolf, access to wolfy specific strats specificaly for TWC.
Movement i agree its different, What is this "Swift hunters" rule? i can't see it on the datasheet. Wargear option could be given to outriders too in their full kit, SW stratagems could be reworded to apply to "space wolf cavalry"
Different statline, wargear options and special rules are enough to make eldar bikers flavourfully different from a SM one and it is enough to give me a different feeling of flavour when I play TWC from a bike on my own table.
Abaddon303 wrote: Options are what makes this game what it is. I love to be able to make a choice even if that choice has only a small effect on the table. If it was purely arbitrary aesthetic choices it would make those choices redundant and therefore ultimately pointless.
Synergies, special rules, stats need to feel like they're having an impact on the game, even if it's a tiny tipping of the odds of the dice throw, otherwise the game would make you feel like a spectator.
It feels good to feel vindicated by choosing that +1s power axe instead of sword as if that was a tactical masterstroke. Isn't the whole thing about building your army in your vision?
I completely agree with this sentiment.
And 100% we arn't the only gamers out their who would feel pretty upset and disillusioned by the game if unique rules were removed from out unique models.
As for those who seem to think they arn't unique... you don't have to think they arn't, the fact is we do, GW knows we do, and they deliberately release the alternative kits because of us.
This why its frustrating that people don't seem to understand when we argue "well why don't we just roll all the factions into one set of datasheets" argument. We have been sold a unique thing. This is what they sold us, this is what we bought, this is what we honestly believe and feel. Just like your Xenos armies are different from vanilla marines, so are my SWs... so I want my rules to be flavored to reflect that in at least some small way.
I agree with you guys on the "choices are important" aspect, but honestly, what is the big difference between an Outrider and TWC? Do TWC get a special rule that makes them extra SW-y ?
different statline (specifically different movement), different special rules (i.e. Swift Hunters) different wargear options, extra attacks from the wolf, access to wolfy specific strats specificaly for TWC.
Movement i agree its different, What is this "Swift hunters" rule? i can't see it on the datasheet. Wargear option could be given to outriders too in their full kit, SW stratagems could be reworded to apply to "space wolf cavalry"
"Whats the difference betwen this two things? They have none!"
"Actually, this is a list of the differences"
"Yeah but if you give both the same options, removing the differences, then they wont be different anymore!"
Different statlines, weapon options and special rules is literally the three things that make ALL units different in the game.
Whats the difference between a grot and a Warlord Titan? Statline, weapons and special rules.
Abaddon303 wrote: Options are what makes this game what it is. I love to be able to make a choice even if that choice has only a small effect on the table. If it was purely arbitrary aesthetic choices it would make those choices redundant and therefore ultimately pointless.
Synergies, special rules, stats need to feel like they're having an impact on the game, even if it's a tiny tipping of the odds of the dice throw, otherwise the game would make you feel like a spectator.
It feels good to feel vindicated by choosing that +1s power axe instead of sword as if that was a tactical masterstroke. Isn't the whole thing about building your army in your vision?
I completely agree with this sentiment.
And 100% we arn't the only gamers out their who would feel pretty upset and disillusioned by the game if unique rules were removed from out unique models.
As for those who seem to think they arn't unique... you don't have to think they arn't, the fact is we do, GW knows we do, and they deliberately release the alternative kits because of us.
This why its frustrating that people don't seem to understand when we argue "well why don't we just roll all the factions into one set of datasheets" argument. We have been sold a unique thing. This is what they sold us, this is what we bought, this is what we honestly believe and feel. Just like your Xenos armies are different from vanilla marines, so are my SWs... so I want my rules to be flavored to reflect that in at least some small way.
I agree with you guys on the "choices are important" aspect, but honestly, what is the big difference between an Outrider and TWC? Do TWC get a special rule that makes them extra SW-y ?
different statline (specifically different movement), different special rules (i.e. Swift Hunters) different wargear options, extra attacks from the wolf, access to wolfy specific strats specificaly for TWC.
Movement i agree its different, What is this "Swift hunters" rule? i can't see it on the datasheet. Wargear option could be given to outriders too in their full kit, SW stratagems could be reworded to apply to "space wolf cavalry"
"Whats the difference betwen this two things? They have none!"
"Actually, this is a list of the differences"
"Yeah but if you give both the same options, removing the differences, then they wont be different anymore!"
Right ^ this ....
Swift hunters = advance and charge... and ya giving the bikers access to the strats , the different wargear and I guess "wolf attacks" would make them the exact same ... just like if we changed all the rules for an eldar biker, gave them marine wargear options , the same rules, access to the same strats and same statline they would be exactly the same too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Different statlines, weapon options and special rules is literally the three things that make ALL units different in the game.
Also, unit composition and unit size can be added to this list.
TWC is different from bikes on those two fronts as well.
You misunderstand.
We don't currently know what will be in the full outrider kit, Storm shield + TH could be a possibility.
Outriders get extra attacks on the charge too.
And is swift hunter a stratagem or an "always on" rule? I've never seen it before.
And i'm not advocating to get rid of TWC and make them become Outriders, i'm trying to understand what exactly would be lost.
I'm personally of the opinion that the less datasheet, the better it is for the game's balance since you get less variables. Which means easier balancing.
The biggest problem with GW games balancing is GW themselves, not the numbers of options or datasheets. Look at AoS, a much simpler game with extremely simplified weapon and units profiles and nothing was "won" on that transition.
VladimirHerzog wrote: You misunderstand.
We don't currently know what will be in the full outrider kit, Storm shield + TH could be a possibility.
yes we do. We have codex space marines. we have the rules for every marine release this release cycle. Outriders have ZERO options.
furthermore, the thunder hammer +stormshield isn;t a option for the sergant, it's an option the ENTIRE squad can take, because they are a mounted "veteran" unit.
seriously dude claiming "ohh they could just be the same thing" amounts to grasping at straws. as others have said, the differances are about as major as that between a SM bike and a fething ELDAR Bike.
oddly I don't hear anyone suggesting that "in the name of simplicity we should squat codex eldar"
VladimirHerzog wrote: You misunderstand.
We don't currently know what will be in the full outrider kit, Storm shield + TH could be a possibility.
Outriders get extra attacks on the charge too.
And is swift hunter a stratagem or an "always on" rule? I've never seen it before.
And i'm not advocating to get rid of TWC and make them become Outriders, i'm trying to understand what exactly would be lost.
I'm personally of the opinion that the less datasheet, the better it is for the game's balance since you get less variables. Which means easier balancing.
There are more unique wargear on a TWC then just SS + TH (thats just the min - max build) .
TWC do not get "extra attacks" on the charge.
TWC get to attack with 3 X +1 -2 1 dmg weapons ALL the time (cuz wolves be bitey and savage)
Swift Hunters is an always rule. Right on their datasheet.
The strats TWC have access to are 1: for wolfgaurd (outriders are not WG they arn't vets) as the TWC are SW vets 2: for TWC specifically (one strat which augments the wolf attacks dmg and the other that represents trampling the opponent with the wolf). Sure the trampling strat could carry over to the outriders but increasing the dmg for the wolf attacks isn't appropriate for outriders.
You should check out the SW datasheets they are free in the FAQ index right now, Swift hunters is on there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As mentioned above , lightning claws, SS + TH . SS + power axe, power axe + boltgun and etc etc etc are all options for ALL TWC not just the sgt, they are wolfgaurd (aka specalized SW vets).
VladimirHerzog wrote: You misunderstand.
We don't currently know what will be in the full outrider kit, Storm shield + TH could be a possibility.
yes we do. We have codex space marines. we have the rules for every marine release this release cycle. Outriders have ZERO options.
furthermore, the thunder hammer +stormshield isn;t a option for the sergant, it's an option the ENTIRE squad can take, because they are a mounted "veteran" unit.
seriously dude claiming "ohh they could just be the same thing" amounts to grasping at straws. as others have said, the differances are about as major as that between a SM bike and a fething ELDAR Bike.
oddly I don't hear anyone suggesting that "in the name of simplicity we should squat codex eldar"
again, i havnt said we should squat codex SW, i even said i dont wish for TWC to be gone either. Youre being overly hostile for no reason.
And i think if eldar bikers were the exact same as mariens ones, with only fly being the difference, the difference would still be bigger than between outrider (with alt wargear options) and twc
VladimirHerzog wrote: You misunderstand.
We don't currently know what will be in the full outrider kit, Storm shield + TH could be a possibility.
Outriders get extra attacks on the charge too.
And is swift hunter a stratagem or an "always on" rule? I've never seen it before.
And i'm not advocating to get rid of TWC and make them become Outriders, i'm trying to understand what exactly would be lost.
I'm personally of the opinion that the less datasheet, the better it is for the game's balance since you get less variables. Which means easier balancing.
There are more unique wargear on a TWC then just SS + TH (thats just the min - max build) .
TWC do not get "extra attacks" on the charge.
TWC get to attack with 3 X +1 -2 1 dmg weapons ALL the time (cuz wolves be bitey and savage)
Swift Hunters is an always rule. Right on their datasheet.
The strats TWC have access to are 1: for wolfgaurd (outriders are not WG they arn't vets) as the TWC are SW vets 2: for TWC specifically (one strat which augments the wolf attacks dmg and the other that represents trampling the opponent with the wolf). Sure the trampling strat could carry over to the outriders but increasing the dmg for the wolf attacks isn't appropriate for outriders.
You should check out the SW datasheets they are free in the FAQ index right now, Swift hunters is on there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As mentioned above , lightning claws, SS + TH . SS + power axe, power axe + boltgun and etc etc etc are all options for ALL TWC not just the sgt, they are wolfgaurd (aka specalized SW vets).
oh, swift hunters is a 9th edition thing, which explains why i never saw it before.
And fine, i guess there are too many differences between the two to merge them together, even if they are small differences (except for wargear)
So how do you see TWC making the transition to Primaris?
Just curious. Are they going to find even BIGGER wolves to ride? Is the wargear going to transition?
Be serious. The future of Space Wolf "cavalry" is outriders. Maybe they will come with a bonus sprue to add some wolves as bonus dudes in the unit. But they are going to be on bikes eventually.
VladimirHerzog wrote: You misunderstand.
We don't currently know what will be in the full outrider kit, Storm shield + TH could be a possibility.
yes we do. We have codex space marines. we have the rules for every marine release this release cycle. Outriders have ZERO options.
furthermore, the thunder hammer +stormshield isn;t a option for the sergant, it's an option the ENTIRE squad can take, because they are a mounted "veteran" unit.
seriously dude claiming "ohh they could just be the same thing" amounts to grasping at straws. as others have said, the differances are about as major as that between a SM bike and a fething ELDAR Bike.
oddly I don't hear anyone suggesting that "in the name of simplicity we should squat codex eldar"
again, i havnt said we should squat codex SW, i even said i dont wish for TWC to be gone either. Youre being overly hostile for no reason.
Lets not degrade into argument on this one again XD... lol, some of us are just sensitive because the idea of this faction full of unique twists and flavour that we are heavily invested in has a large group of people who have not bothered to look at how different our unique units and claim they should be squated. You might not have said it, but many people have indeed suggested it.
It is ture, SW players who Min/Max the primaris horde don't look, feel or mechanically play so so different from any other marine subfaction.
But the guys who are hear defending their uniqueness are not talking about the vanilla that floods the tournaments these days.
SWs have 30+ unique datasheets and another 10 -20 exceptions to the regular units. Sure they have access to the vanilla. But a lot of us play the faction so we can see our alternative units and different mechanics play out on the table. I know if primaris never existed, it would really really obvious how different the wolf units are, but alas that isn't the case.
We were sold on an alternative power armor faction, we don't want to feel like we are playing a marine faction with a different paint job, that isn't what we were sold and that is also not what we currently have. We are deffinitly going to fight against people sugesting that should be taken away from us. Just like any reasonable person would feel if people started sugesting their Xenos or w/e faction should just be a clone of the most vanilla faction in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: So how do you see TWC making the transition to Primaris?
Just curious. Are they going to find even BIGGER wolves to ride? Is the wargear going to transition?
Be serious. The future of Space Wolf "cavalry" is outriders. Maybe they will come with a bonus sprue to add some wolves as bonus dudes in the unit. But they are going to be on bikes eventually.
No offence.
But your 100% the other type of power armor player... and that is ok, we just enjoy the faction for different reasons.
You seem to be super happy with the min/max best unit for the role, vanilla rules or not , its all about tactics and game decisions. I get the impression the feeling of unique or fluffy rules (regardless of power level) mean little to you. and ya, that is totally cool, that's how you want to play.
That however, is not how a lot of people want to play SWs.
They arn't looking for "how they are going to transition the TWC to primaris."
We just want our fluffy unit and would honestly prefer they didn't transition them to vanilla primaris... it my be futile but at least for now GW is appeasing us asking to keep our unique stuff unique.
The alternative rules on the table is exactly what appeals to us. And again, I understand that's not your Jam, and it is totally ok for us to enjoy the game differently. Remember GW know players like myself and others in this thread exist and they also know players like you exist. There is enough room for both of us to exist in the same space, we just can't forget the other guy does, in fact, exist.
Lance845 wrote: So how do you see TWC making the transition to Primaris?
Just curious. Are they going to find even BIGGER wolves to ride? Is the wargear going to transition?
Be serious. The future of Space Wolf "cavalry" is outriders. Maybe they will come with a bonus sprue to add some wolves as bonus dudes in the unit. But they are going to be on bikes eventually.
No offence. But your 100% the other type of power armor player... and that is ok, we just enjoy the faction for different reasons. You seem to be super happy with the min/max best unit for the role, vanilla rules or not , its all about tactics and game decisions. I get the impression the feeling of unique or fluffy rules (regardless of power level) mean little to you. and ya, that is totally cool, that's how you want to play. That however, is not how a lot of people want to play SWs. They arn't looking for "how they are going to transition the TWC to primaris." We just want our fluffy unit and would honestly prefer they didn't transition them to vanilla primaris... it my be futile but at least for now GW is appeasing us asking to keep our unique stuff unique. The alternative rules on the table is exactly what appeals to us. And again, I understand that's not your Jam, and it is totally ok for us to enjoy the game differently. Remember GW know players like myself and others in this thread exist and they also know players like you exist. There is enough room for both of us to exist in the same space, we just can't forget the other guy does, in fact, exist.
Incorrect. I am not a power armor player. One of your characters has already made the primaris conversion. By the lore no regular space marines are being made. It's all primaris all the time from here on out. By simple attrition + marines making the upgrade it's just going to be all primaris by the lore. On top of that GW is going to keep churning out the new primaris models. You have almost nothing left that needs replacement.
I am very happy to squat all old marines so the SM army can start looking like anything even remotely called reasonable. Your want of fluff is irrelevant. The future of the SM line is primaris. How do you see them making the transition mechanically?
Lance845 wrote: So how do you see TWC making the transition to Primaris?
Just curious. Are they going to find even BIGGER wolves to ride? Is the wargear going to transition?
Be serious. The future of Space Wolf "cavalry" is outriders. Maybe they will come with a bonus sprue to add some wolves as bonus dudes in the unit. But they are going to be on bikes eventually.
No offence.
But your 100% the other type of power armor player... and that is ok, we just enjoy the faction for different reasons.
You seem to be super happy with the min/max best unit for the role, vanilla rules or not , its all about tactics and game decisions. I get the impression the feeling of unique or fluffy rules (regardless of power level) mean little to you. and ya, that is totally cool, that's how you want to play.
That however, is not how a lot of people want to play SWs.
They arn't looking for "how they are going to transition the TWC to primaris."
We just want our fluffy unit and would honestly prefer they didn't transition them to vanilla primaris... it my be futile but at least for now GW is appeasing us asking to keep our unique stuff unique.
The alternative rules on the table is exactly what appeals to us. And again, I understand that's not your Jam, and it is totally ok for us to enjoy the game differently. Remember GW know players like myself and others in this thread exist and they also know players like you exist. There is enough room for both of us to exist in the same space, we just can't forget the other guy does, in fact, exist.
Incorrect. I am not a power armor player. One of your characters has already made the primaris conversion. By the lore no regular space marines are being made. It's all primaris all the time from here on out. By simple attrition + marines making the upgrade it's just going to be all primaris by the lore. On top of that GW is going to keep churning out the new primaris models. You have almost nothing left that needs replacement.
I am very happy to squat all old marines so the SM army can start looking like anything even remotely called reasonable. Your want of fluff is irrelevant. The future of the SM line is primaris. How do you see them making the transition mechanically?
It's fine if you think. By sheer existence of the current inclusion of the FB stuff with its unique abilities in the new supplement (or likely in the new supplement as seen from the format of the marine dex). It is clear that GW, at least for now, still feels what we want is relevant. Again, its ok if you don't think it is, there is room in the space for both of our ways of approaching the game. I don't really care about FB transitioning mechanically. GW is clearly still supporting our FB unique stuff.
Again, when we are talking about fluff, we are talking about the unique rules we see on the table, we are talking about being rewarded ruleswise for making alternative choices, we are talking about even the minor differences that represent our choices. GW is still actively produice TWC kits, FBSW kits, and all sorts of other SW unique kits.
We are allowed to enjoy different aspects of the game. You really can't tell me I am not allowed to enjoy the unique flavour on the unique units that GW 100% is supporting this edition.. that's up to me and the other players who feel like me on this. And I don't have the right for you to prefer seeing the vanilla primaris armies accross the table from you, thats what you enjoy, so enjoy it . But as long as GW supports what brings me enjoyment in the game AND what brings you enjoyment in the game then we should try and exist in the same space.
One day when/if (most likely when) every power armor faction is only the vanilla line, then sure, there will be no reason for us to talk about unique supplements, unique units, or unique model ranges. But that time isn't now, it isn't this edition and your going to have to accept that players who enjoy their factions unique units, models and faction gets to keep their unique rules. And we get to accept that some people who play this faction just want to play min/max vanilla units with nothing that makes them unique and special to the SW faction itself. There is space for us both and there is nothing wrong with that.
Lets enjoy the game in the way we enjoy the game shall we. Just don't forget that by squating the unique parts of the SWs there will be a lot of players, who enjoy the game for unique rules and fluffy rules(this includes our brain fluff, not w/e fluff you decide to quote to 'prove' we arn't allowed to feel this way), who will feel exactly the way an eldar player would feel if their faction just became an exact clone of SMs... You don't get to dictate our feeling on this, we were sold a unique faction when we bought into the game and that's what we have been playing and collecting for years.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again, its ok for us to enjoy the game differently. More power to us . Just stop pretending like your way of enjoying the game is the ONLY way of enjoying it. Not all of us care only about that Min/Max best unit for the role vanilla style of collecting and playing the game.
This is not a question about us enjoying the game. This discussion is not about your enjoyment about fluff or whatever. This is about the consolidation of datasheets and asking if there is any benefit to keeping them seperate.
You like having unique data sheets. Great. Gratz. When the time comes that all old marines are moved to legends you will have legends and old editions to play with them with. I am happy that you will be happy that you have that.
That is not my question. Answer the question. Do you honestly think TWC are going to stick around?
Lance845 wrote: By the lore no regular space marines are being made[/b]. It's all primaris all the time from here on out.
According to GW's 500 facts for 500 Stores, Firstborn Marines are still being made, with many chapters finding a use for first born due to more readily avaliabl equipment etc.
Lance845 wrote: This is not a question about us enjoying the game. This discussion is not about your enjoyment about fluff or whatever. This is about the consolidation of datasheets and asking if there is any benefit to keeping them seperate.
You like having unique data sheets. Great. Gratz. When the time comes that all old marines are moved to legends you will have legends and old editions to play with them with. I am happy that you will be happy that you have that.
That is not my question. Answer the question. Do you honestly think TWC are going to stick around?
For at least the time of this codex/supplement release we know 100% TWC will stick around. We know 100% GW is aware of players like me, and others on this thread, by the very virtue the TWC sheet not being consolidated into the outriders as some kind of SM cavalary.
I am not going to speculate on what happens next edition. My wants and what I enjoy out of the game has been addressed by GW this release. They know they have gamers like me and they have done what they can to make sure we are happy by providing us with unique units, models, and units with alternative builds to the regular vanilla. So at least for this release yes 100% I believe the TWC and other unique units will continue to exist.
So again, myself, and players like me who love the faction for its unique differences will continue to share the gaming space with you at least until the next marine codex comes out... Whether or not GW will continue to value us as customers in the future is up to them. But considering what this edition looks like, it seems like they will. But who knows, maybe not. And if they don't then sure, its time to proxy my TWC as bikes or stick only to playing casual games with legends. But that time isn't now and it doesnt seem like it will be this edition.
So again, stop trying to chase away players like me and others in this thread and instead enjoy the game with us, until, what you think is the inevitable finally happens. GW certainly isn't trying to chase us away, they keep giving us what we want. (though by presenting the data for what we want in the supplement AND main codex way, I think they have chosen bad design and user interfacing,,, but alas, we still have what we wanted, just presented in a silly and confusing way,,, and GW gets more money from us because we have to buy two books XD)
BTW A recent issue of white dwarf had a picture of someone's converted primaris battle leader on a Thunder Wolf. it didn't look all that over sized. so primaris TWC'd be quite doable.
besides, bigger thunder wolves suddenly popping up down the road make sense.... we all know why
You and I are having different conversations. I am not discussing your enjoyment of fluffy units and I don't care if you stay or go. I am not chasing anyone anywhere.
Let me know when they release a new box with old marines in it. ::thumbs up::
Lance845 wrote: You and I are having different conversations. I am not discussing your enjoyment of fluffy units and I don't care if you stay or go. I am not chasing anyone anywhere.
Let me know when they release a new box with old marines in it. ::thumbs up::
We are having the same conversation, you just arn't getting it.
Again, it's all good, you are totally entitled to your FB are doomed train of thought,,, in fact I agree with you... but the FB apocalypse isn't now and it doesn't look like it is this edition... and I assume the OP is about the current state of the game not some future FB apocalypses version of it.
When the FB apocalypse happens, my thoughts on folding the marine factions in, having supplements or whether or not some power armor should be their own codex will 100% change... but again, that time isn't now, so stop being hostile to the players who like their unique units doing unique and fluffy things on the table. They are going to be here for a while longer and GW is continuing to support what brings us joy from this game and GW wants to support the people who find joy from the vanilla, min/max best unit for the role , primaris apraoch to power armor as well. And all this is ok.
We can, and infact must, currently occupy the same gaming space. So stop trying to suggest we are wrong for enjoying the game the way we do, GW supports and it we are here to stay for a while longer.
That is not my question. Answer the question. Do you honestly think TWC are going to stick around?
Yes. More important. When the time comes to make more money do you think GW will hesitate for a second to make unique units for its primary sellers? Do you think there won't be Primaris Sanguinery Guard? Primaris Dark Knights? Primaris Thunderwolves? Because eventually it will make enough financial sense to make all of those units. Then they will get made. Currently they are pushing out Marine Kits as fast as possible. They are making money hand over fist. Do the math. Follow the money.
And i'm not advocating to get rid of TWC and make them become Outriders, i'm trying to understand what exactly would be lost.
I'm personally of the opinion that the less datasheet, the better it is for the game's balance since you get less variables. Which means easier balancing.
Do you also advocate 1 sheet for Eldar Bikers (all varieties: Dark, Craftworld, Harlie, Exodite, etc), two sheets for Eldar specialists melee orientated and shooty orientated, etc etc? 1 sheets for Eldar troops, again fighty, and shooty? If you advocate for that as much as you advocate for Thunderwolves are the same as Outriders, I might actually believe you are not just posting another I HATES SPEES MAREENZ.
Oh no. I ABSOLUTELY think they will release a set of outriders that are covered in wolfy incons and a bunch of furs. 100% they will sell you a new kit by a new name.
And as per the subject of the thread they should be consolidating that into a single datasheet but they won't.
I'm personally of the opinion that the less datasheet, the better it is for the game's balance since you get less variables. Which means easier balancing.
I know people get mad when I suggest this, because it is ridiculous. But if this is honestly the sentiment, the entire game can be boiled down to 5-7 datasheets... it would fix balancing problems and ect... its just feels like it would be a pretty boring game... I wouldnt play it.
I know people keeping going "you can't make an absurd claim like that, SW stuff is all the same as SM stuff anyways."
But we keeping pointing out time and time again, outside of the primaris line this is just objectively not true XD.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: Oh no. I ABSOLUTELY think they will release a set of outriders that are covered in wolfy incons and a bunch of furs. 100% they will sell you a new kit by a new name.
And as per the subject of the thread they should be consolidating that into a single datasheet but they won't.
Depends on whether or not they want the SW version to be a different unique unit or if they want them to be vanilla primaris.
The new hounds feel fluffy and unque in terms of rules and gameplay to me, However, it was also 100% a lazy kit, 100% not needed for SWs and 100% the design space should have been given to another faction. Doesn't stop me from thinking that they would be neat to play because they are unique from the vanilla.
Also, there is also big difference between a wolfy upgrade kit for outriders and TWC vs outriders ...
Do you honestly think TWC are going to stick around?
Yes (albeit possibly Primaris'd) and I think you're delusional if you believe that they're going to alienate the majority of the Space Wolf playerbase by squatting their iconic fluffy units.
Oh no. I ABSOLUTELY think they will release a set of outriders that are covered in wolfy incons and a bunch of furs. 100% they will sell you a new kit by a new name.
And as per the subject of the thread they should be consolidating that into a single datasheet but they won't.
Let me be clearer. In case you were trolling by mistake and not by design. I believe they will release unique units for all of the big Chapters. Not reskinned outriders or reivers as the case may be. If however you continue with the not very subtle insinuations I'll just put you on ignore as the troll you are.
It's not a troll. 100% I think GW will do just as I said. How many different kits are there that are just some kind of primaris with a different weapon sprue already?
H.B.M.C. wrote:Because people like their minis to mean something. They want there to be differences with the things they choose.
Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?
There's a limit to what something must mean.
BrianDavion wrote: Outriders have ZERO options.
Give Outriders more options then?
furthermore, the thunder hammer +stormshield isn;t a option for the sergant, it's an option the ENTIRE squad can take, because they are a mounted "veteran" unit.
Then have TWC use the "Veterans on Bikes" datasheet. Or a "Veteran Outriders" unit.
the differances are about as major as that between a SM bike and a fething ELDAR Bike.
Eldar aren't a subfaction of Space Marines which share the majority of the Codex in common.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Because people like their minis to mean something. They want there to be differences with the things they choose.
Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?
There's a limit to what something must mean.
BrianDavion wrote: Outriders have ZERO options.
Give Outriders more options then?
like in second edition.
But in all seriousness, they sold these models to us because they meant something, that's why we bought it, so we advocate that GW leaves it meaning something... GWs current approach is to do just that.
furthermore, the thunder hammer +stormshield isn;t a option for the sergant, it's an option the ENTIRE squad can take, because they are a mounted "veteran" unit.
Then have TWC use the "Veterans on Bikes" datasheet. Or a "Veteran Outriders" unit.
So generic SMs should get more options ? Why not just leave the SW datasheet TWC instead of making a new one for SMs that doesn't even represent the kit you are trying to represent with that datasheet ?
It seems like a lot of extra work for the designers and extra stuff to give the generic SMs (general marine bloat is the problem right ?) just to squat rules from an existing sub faction ?
the differances are about as major as that between a SM bike and a fething ELDAR Bike.
Eldar aren't a subfaction of Space Marines which share the majority of the Codex in common.
Eldar CAN be a subfaction of Space Marines in terms of rules ? What's stopping us from using marine rules ? the argument people have told me in terms of my SWs is that the fluff and representation is about how I paint, imagine and play them, not about what they can actually do ? if not these few kits, units and models, why not more, honestly ?
You are sugesting we represent a WOLF as a BIKE so why not an ELF as a MARINE. They can totally share the majority of the codex in common. Right after you change all there unique datasheets into clones of the marine codex datasheets. Just like you are proposing to do to the unique datasheets from the SWs ...
If what the actual model kit represents isn't the problem, the fact that the army already has unique rules, units, and models insnt the problem, then why not just take the next step and make eldar a clone of vanilla marines too. I know you think I am being absurd in saying this but you are asking me to represent WOLVES as BIKES and Warewolves as Sword Knights.
Lance845 wrote: It's not a troll. 100% I think GW will do just as I said. How many different kits are there that are just some kind of primaris with a different weapon sprue already?
proportionaly FAR less then the number of first born kits that are just space Marines with a differant weapons option.
Unit1126PLL wrote: oh wait, CWE, Tau, and Tyranid minis don't get to mean something, or be different based on what they choose? Oh, okay.
Paint scheme.
Duh.
Is this just another weak attempt to whine about Marines?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?
Unit1126PLL wrote: oh wait, CWE, Tau, and Tyranid minis don't get to mean something, or be different based on what they choose? Oh, okay.
Paint scheme.
Duh.
Is this just another weak attempt to whine about Marines?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?
There's a limit to what something must mean.
Can I have a limit to your exhausting hyperbole?
BTW don;t craftworld Ulthwe have their own special varients of some aspects, Black Guardians and the like? they breifly got rules again in 7th, perhaps they'll reapper in 9th?
Lance845 wrote: The only value is emotional for the people who really like to have their own unique datasheet. Mechanically and practically there is none.
Further this can get applied to war gear as well. It has been argued that having power axe, power sword, power spear, etc etc... is a waste. Just have a singular stat line for power weapon and then the player is free to model whatever weapon they want onto the model to flavor it however they see fit.
The extra granularity isn't actually helping anything and doesn't actually make that big of a difference while the modeling options would become vastly better.
Honestly with the Strength bonus on power weapons coming up, you really don't need anything besides the Power Sword and Power Axe in terms of profiles. Nobody is going to take a S+3 Power Maul when the Power Fist exists.
Not sure rhis has been said, but you might take a +3 maul when powerfists aren't an option.
Lance845 wrote: The only value is emotional for the people who really like to have their own unique datasheet. Mechanically and practically there is none.
Further this can get applied to war gear as well. It has been argued that having power axe, power sword, power spear, etc etc... is a waste. Just have a singular stat line for power weapon and then the player is free to model whatever weapon they want onto the model to flavor it however they see fit.
The extra granularity isn't actually helping anything and doesn't actually make that big of a difference while the modeling options would become vastly better.
Honestly with the Strength bonus on power weapons coming up, you really don't need anything besides the Power Sword and Power Axe in terms of profiles. Nobody is going to take a S+3 Power Maul when the Power Fist exists.
Not sure rhis has been said, but you might take a +3 maul when powerfists aren't an option.
Yeah except most models that are given an option to take a Power Weapon are also offered the Fist. Plus the extreme few times a Power Maul might even come close to ahead are soooooo niche they might as well not exist. At all.
Quit playing war machine because I hated the lack of ability to customize, it was boring,
I like modeling things and kiting them out however I like and being able to play that on the table.
I like the split of power weapons and how they have different uses for different factions based on their base stat lines.
I think some data sheets could easily be consolidated in the marine book without much of a loss, but a majority would just be super confusing if you did that and having a few extra pages in the book for ease of use is fine by me. I get why they have spread out certain things, it makes the legalese easier for weapon options as well as allow people to take more copies Of a unit if they want to.
I hope xenos get more options and things recategorized but I don’t think most options should be scrubbed just because they are similar.
I think what the OP describing is something I'd rather like to see in Apokalypse, where you don't need all the nitty gritty Details of a unit but want to put loads of minis on the table.
Unit1126PLL wrote: oh wait, CWE, Tau, and Tyranid minis don't get to mean something, or be different based on what they choose? Oh, okay.
Paint scheme.
Duh.
Is this just another weak attempt to whine about Marines?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?
There's a limit to what something must mean.
Can I have a limit to your exhausting hyperbole?
BTW don;t craftworld Ulthwe have their own special varients of some aspects, Black Guardians and the like? they breifly got rules again in 7th, perhaps they'll reapper in 9th?
Ah, Codex: Craftworlds from... late 3rd or early 4th edition.
Lammia 793401 10969726 wrote:
Not sure rhis has been said, but you might take a +3 maul when powerfists aren't an option.
Or GW decides that powerfists should be -1 to hit, and you are playing a melee heavy army or an army where melee is a crucial part to counter specific units, and the maul ain't a fist or a thunder hammer and doesn't get a -1 to hit. Or your army has +1 to wound buffs meaning a str less then 8-9 weapon can still wound as hard as a thunder hammer or fist, but for fewer points.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Because people like their minis to mean something. They want there to be differences with the things they choose.
Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?
Yes we can and do; it's called Crusade, and some of us love it. Between Crusade Relics, making upgrade strats permanent with RP, and the various types of Battle Honours, you could field a Brigade where none of the six troop units (all made from the same kit) play the same way.
Some people wouldn't like that, because they'd say it's too confusing. But that's fine, because those people can choose to play matched.
I'll take as many options and as much customization as I can get thanks.
And to the TWC/ Bikes debate: if you were playing against me, and you wanted to use your TWC as Counts as Bikes because of a principle about game design and simplicity, or because you couldn't handle two data sheets instead of one, or whatever excuse you want to come up with, I'd be fine with that. Because I'm a peacemaker and I like it when everyone at the table has fun, even if they choose not to play "My Way"
As for a new box with Old Marines in it, do you mean the new DW Combat Patrol Box? Or do you require that it be a new sculpt/ unit that is an old marine? If it's the latter, you may be right, but not because they're squatting Old Marines, but just because they can't really improve on what already exists.
Galas wrote: The truth is , if GW is selling two extremely different kits like are space marines in giant wolfs and space marines in bikes, people expect for those two things to not be the same thing.
They unified power weapons in 3rd and most people hated it. I'm all for removing redundancy like half the new primaris bolters variants but theres a point were one has to accept that one of the reasons people play warhammer games and not kings of wars is for that minutiae that they like to represent both in model and in rules.
So, 3 kinds of bolters that open 3 very different playstyles are rEdUnDaNcY but 3 different power weapons that are essentially identical, do the same thing, and only differ in point of S or AP here or there are justified, perfectly fine addition to the game. Bravo *slow clap*
I love how when I think GW is doing terrible job with rules, Dakka is always there to remind me it's just mediocre, really, and things could have been so much worse
Lance845 wrote: Let me know when they release a new box with old marines in it. ::thumbs up::
They literally released one THIS MONTH. I like how this inane goalpost shifting and ignoring only what, 7 or 8 releases of squatmarines since the start of 8th still continues, at this point no amount of facts or releases is going to budge the position of squatted crowd, eh?
Lance845 wrote: It's not a troll. 100% I think GW will do just as I said. How many different kits are there that are just some kind of primaris with a different weapon sprue already?
Big fat ZERO unless you can point at any. Being ignorant about primaris to a degree to not know not only these "weapon sprues" are fictional, but inept GW writers refuse to give them options to take any melee weapons at all?
Lance845 wrote: Oh no. I ABSOLUTELY think they will release a set of outriders that are covered in wolfy incons and a bunch of furs. 100% they will sell you a new kit by a new name.
And as per the subject of the thread they should be consolidating that into a single datasheet but they won't.
Depends on whether or not they want the SW version to be a different unique unit or if they want them to be vanilla primaris.
I might be wrong but I don't think they ever did a "chapterised" version of a standard SM unit that didn't get its own stat line. That's why conversion kits exists.
They have no interest in making a new unit the same as the old one but looking different as it's a bigger risk than the "brand new unit that you absolutely must have since you must have everything for your faction !".
The new Reivers being the last example of this.
Lance845 wrote: Oh no. I ABSOLUTELY think they will release a set of outriders that are covered in wolfy incons and a bunch of furs. 100% they will sell you a new kit by a new name.
And as per the subject of the thread they should be consolidating that into a single datasheet but they won't.
Depends on whether or not they want the SW version to be a different unique unit or if they want them to be vanilla primaris.
I might be wrong but I don't think they ever did a "chapterised" version of a standard SM unit that didn't get its own stat line. That's why conversion kits exists.
They have no interest in making a new unit the same as the old one but looking different as it's a bigger risk than the "brand new unit that you absolutely must have since you must have everything for your faction !".
The new Reivers being the last example of this.
There are several examples, Blood Angels chaplain, Blood Angels Tactical marines, Dark Angels tactical squad and simply any of the normal upgrade sprues...
Sure, sometimes they can be made into a unique unit AND a not so unique one, but there are definitely examples of "chapterised" versions that are nothing but aesthetic differences...
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Then have TWC use the "Veterans on Bikes" datasheet. Or a "Veteran Outriders" unit.
So generic SMs should get more options ?
Yes. Or rather, "generic Space Marines" shouldn't exist. Any Astartes with a predominant power armoured base (so, not Grey Knights) should be rolled into one book - "Space Marines".
Don't worry, you'd still have TWC - or, a rules approximation, that would have the same mechanical effect. After all, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
At the end of the day, does it matter if the "Mounted Space Marines" entry specifically called out for being Thunderwolf Cav or not? Give EVERYONE access to it, and let the players decide how they want to fluff it. Jetbikes? Awesome. Bikes? Awesome. Raptors? Awesome. Wolves? Awesome.
There's flavour for you.
Why not just leave the SW datasheet TWC instead of making a new one for SMs that doesn't even represent the kit you are trying to represent with that datasheet ? It seems like a lot of extra work for the designers
Instead of a single catch all datasheet? No way.
and extra stuff to give the generic SMs (general marine bloat is the problem right ?) just to squat rules from an existing sub faction ?
Marine bloat is a problem when there's all these little subtypes, yes. And I'm also in favour of reducing Marine bloat. Roll Infiltrators and Incursors together, fold all Terminators into one entry, Ironclads, Venerables, and Contemptors could all be "Dreadnought" with wargear upgrades to reflect differences. Land Raider variants can be merged, with different wargear options and transport rules accordingly. Fold all power weapons into the same profile.
Tyrannic War Vets for my own Ultramarines? Make them just Sternguard. Have the Terminus Ultra available to everyone. Honour Guard, make them a subtype of Command Squad available to everyone. Victrix Guard, just play them as Bladeguard Vets.
the differances are about as major as that between a SM bike and a fething ELDAR Bike.
Eldar aren't a subfaction of Space Marines which share the majority of the Codex in common.
Eldar CAN be a subfaction of Space Marines in terms of rules ?
Look at an Eldar datasheet. What do you see? I don't see many keywords in common, or broad regions of the statblocks being the same. Now look at a Space Wolf. Oh, there's a lot of keywords in common there - Adeptus Astartes, most notably. And the aesthetics? Well, beneath the furs, it's the same core template. And the weapons? Largely the same.
There's a world of difference between Eldar and Space Marine, but not so much between Wolves and other Astartes.
What's stopping us from using marine rules ? the argument people have told me in terms of my SWs is that the fluff and representation is about how I paint, imagine and play them, not about what they can actually do ?
Yes.
if not these few kits, units and models, why not more, honestly ?
What?
You are sugesting we represent a WOLF as a BIKE so why not an ELF as a MARINE.
I am suggesting the former, yes. Mechanically, what is the difference?
They can totally share the majority of the codex in common. Right after you change all there unique datasheets into clones of the marine codex datasheets. Just like you are proposing to do to the unique datasheets from the SWs ...
You need big quotes around """unique""". Most of these "unique" things are a keyword away from being like everything else. Wolf Guard? Veterans or Terminators. Wolf Priests? A stratagem away from being Chaplains. Wolf Lords? Is there even a difference between them and a Captain?
And before you start thinking this is just an SW thing, it's not. I've said above how I'd do exactly the same to my own Ultramarines, because there's no reason Honour Guard should be Ultramarine exclusive.
I know you think I am being absurd in saying this but you are asking me to represent WOLVES as BIKES and Warewolves as Sword Knights.
I don't see for a second what's absurd about that. I'm asking you to represent a furry mount as a mechanical one. And I never argued on Wulfen, they're actually one of the few things that don't need to be folded. Instead, I'd have Wulfen name changed into "Astartes Monstrosities", and made generic. Then, they can be opened up to other Chapters who also have similar kinds of units - Raven Guard, Blood Angels, Black Dragons, etc etc. Mechanically, they'd be identical, but you can throw on the trappings of whatever Chapter you feel fits.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?
There's a limit to what something must mean.
Can I have a limit to your exhausting hyperbole?
Don't make sweeping statements, and I won't have to.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Because people like their minis to mean something. They want there to be differences with the things they choose.
Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?
Yes we can and do; it's called Crusade, and some of us love it.
As do I. Funnily enough, I think Crusade does it BEST, because you don't need myriads of unique datasheets, you MODIFY existing ones. Which is exactly what I'm calling for.
I'm all for options and customization from a generic baseline. The way Crusade does it, the way 30k does it - not the way 40k Astartes do.
Want to represent Deathwing? Add a single rule to the GENERIC Terminators. Want to define TWC from other cavalry. A single rule. Want to show how your Captain is different? You don't need a new datasheet for that.
As I said - I'm on board for customisation: I'm NOT in favour of segmenting that from different datasheets.
Galas wrote: The truth is , if GW is selling two extremely different kits like are space marines in giant wolfs and space marines in bikes, people expect for those two things to not be the same thing.
They unified power weapons in 3rd and most people hated it. I'm all for removing redundancy like half the new primaris bolters variants but theres a point were one has to accept that one of the reasons people play warhammer games and not kings of wars is for that minutiae that they like to represent both in model and in rules.
So, 3 kinds of bolters that open 3 very different playstyles are rEdUnDaNcY but 3 different power weapons that are essentially identical, do the same thing, and only differ in point of S or AP here or there are justified, perfectly fine addition to the game. Bravo *slow clap*
I love how when I think GW is doing terrible job with rules, Dakka is always there to remind me it's just mediocre, really, and things could have been so much worse
Actually after codex 2.0 changes I believe the three variant of bolter Intercessors have are actual options, each one better for different ways of playing them and the chapters that are using them. So I like those (Before codex 2.0 the assault and heavy options were just useless). I was thinking more in the Reivers bolter carbine (thats literally a normal bolter by another name), the Incursor bolter and the Infiltrator Bolter. Those three should just be unified and probably allow the three of them to just ignore bonus saves for cover.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yes. Or rather, "generic Space Marines" shouldn't exist. Any Astartes with a predominant power armoured base (so, not Grey Knights) should be rolled into one book - "Space Marines".
Thats pretty much how i see it, the TWC flavor doesnt come from the wolf getting extra attacks since the outrider basically does the exact same thing already (just with a different profile). If someone feels that the fluffy part of their wolf is that he has 5 -2 1 instead of 4 0 0 then i feel like theyre really missing the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: What "old marine" box was released this month?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yes. Or rather, "generic Space Marines" shouldn't exist. Any Astartes with a predominant power armoured base (so, not Grey Knights) should be rolled into one book - "Space Marines".
Why?
To cut down on probably a hundred unnecessary datasheets? And so that other armies don't feel so left behind in term of fluff.
Wait so now you also don't want any difference between jetbikes and bikes?
Man. I don't know how can you guys enjoy playing warhammer? Probably the most bloated system, where the array of options has always been part of their identity, game I have ever played?
Just look at how the web burns whenever GW takes aways options. You are in the very tiny, tiny minority asking for those levels of consolidation, I'm sorry to say.
Galas wrote: Wait so now you also don't want any difference between jetbikes and bikes?
Man. I don't know how can you guys enjoy playing warhammer? Probably the most bloated system, where the array of options has always been part of their identity, game I have ever played?
Just look at how the web burns whenever GW takes aways options. You are in the very tiny, tiny minority asking for those levels of consolidation, I'm sorry to say.
I mean, jetbikes can just be bikes that get the fly keyword, no?
Pay x points to upgrade a basic cavalry squad to be jetbikes instead
Leth wrote: Quit playing war machine because I hated the lack of ability to customize, it was boring,
I like modeling things and kiting them out however I like and being able to play that on the table.
I like the split of power weapons and how they have different uses for different factions based on their base stat lines.
I think some data sheets could easily be consolidated in the marine book without much of a loss, but a majority would just be super confusing if you did that and having a few extra pages in the book for ease of use is fine by me. I get why they have spread out certain things, it makes the legalese easier for weapon options as well as allow people to take more copies Of a unit if they want to.
I hope xenos get more options and things recategorized but I don’t think most options should be scrubbed just because they are similar.
Literally nothing is stopping you from customizing anything outside the unnecessary need for every single weapon to act different, or do you model all your Relic Blades as Relic Blades and nothing else?
Lol go back to previous parts of this thread. I don't want to participate in circular arguments. Every single one of your points has been disputed previously.
TWC currently have a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules, and unit size option then outriders. Just like an eldar bike unit has a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules and unit zie option then outriders. In fact the TWC is even more different by being "CAVALRY" and not a "BIKER." From a datasheet perspective there is more in common between an eldar bike unit and an outrider unit then there is between a TWC and an outrider unit.
So again, if your proposing that what the kit represents has no bearing on whether or not we should roll the datasheet together why not just have one generic datasheet for all mounts in the game ?
If a big furry wolf can use the datasheet of a bike, why can't an elf use the datasheet of a marine ? What is the difference between doing this and doing what you are proposing other then "POWER ARMOR AND MAHRINES." Your power armor vendetta isn't a good enough reason to justify "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" applying to TWC because "its just a guy mounted on something" and not to an eldar biker who is also "just a guy mounted on something"
Different stats, different wargear, different unit composition, different unit size, different special rules, different stratagems and different model representation equal a different unit and a need for a different datasheet .Unless you come up with some easy to read datasheet rife with variable statline options, wargear options, unit size options, special rule options, stratagem accesess, and keyword access , with exceptions, affordances and bans on different customizations based on what model this vague datasheet is supposed to repesent and if that's the case go ahead and roll in aldari and ork mounted units to it as well. Hell, why not roll in walker vehicles to that. Why not dilute all unique models into a single datasheet while we are at it ?
If the unit is different enough that you need to remove unique functions, options or rules in order to consolidate it to a single datasheet, then the unit is different enough that it belongs on its own datasheet. Otherwise you are squating unique rules flavour arbitrarily. If consolidating it without losing unique function, flavour or options means the datasheet is near unreadable, confusing or convoluted, then you are just making poor User Interfacing decisions whilst spending extra time in the design phase just to 'save space.' Finally if you are consolidating datasheets in a way that creates total customizability of statline/wargear/rules, what you are doing is creating min/max potential for units that had previously been restricted from those options without needing to give some rule, to pick a specific chapter, to pick a specific faction or choose a specific set of stats to gain access to that level of customizability.
For anything else you brought up in your ponit that these exact points do not address, points have been made previously in this thread that adequately dispute your exact arguments.
I suggest comparing the current TWC datasheet with the Outriders datasheet directly. If you think they have "the exact same mechanical effect" then I can not believe you have actually compared the two datasheets.
EDIT: The problem was with Sgt,Smudges use of quotes. he missed closing his quotes in several positions. So I am just removing his post, please refer back to his previous post to get the context my post.
Thats pretty much how i see it, the TWC flavor doesnt come from the wolf getting extra attacks since the outrider basically does the exact same thing already (just with a different profile). If someone feels that the fluffy part of their wolf is that he has 5 -2 1 instead of 4 0 0 then i feel like theyre really missing the point.
If people can't see how getting extra regular attacks on the charge isn't the same as getting an entirely different set of attacks with a different statline all the time then they really do not understand how this game works.
"This rule that makes attacks is exactly the same as this entirely different rule that makes attacks."
This is like saying
"Bolter shots are exactly the same as lasgun shots because they just different ways of making attacks"
or
"movement 16 with fly on a biker unit is the same thing as movement 14 on a biker unit without because they are just different rules for guys riding a bike"
or
"this unit with access to SS and a power axe is the same as this unit without access to that wargear because they are both space marines"
or
"this unit with access to a bolt gun and this unit with access to a shurriken rifle are pretty much the same thing because they both have a strength 4 weapon"
Your comparisons are arbitrary.
You can't just decide everything is "exactly the same" because you feel like it should be. The game represents different flavour, weapons, abilties and models using different stats, rules, wargear , unit size and unit composition.
Saying that a unit would be exactly the same if it "only had the same stats, rules, wargear, unit size and unit composition" is arbitrary and makes no sense. Ya of course they would be the same, the point is, they arn't and the constant obsession with arbitrarily vanillafying and rolling things into together is just not going to happen by GW. They arn't going to be like "hey, those guys on the internet think that we should represnt wolves exactly the same way we repesent bikes, we should do this arbitrary thing because they don't like that these two units BOTH have power armor"
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yes. Or rather, "generic Space Marines" shouldn't exist. Any Astartes with a predominant power armoured base (so, not Grey Knights) should be rolled into one book - "Space Marines".
Why?
Because they're nearly all working from the same core units. The only near exception is Deathwatch. Deathwatch, I could see an argument for making unique, but my opinion on that flipflops.
Galas wrote:Wait so now you also don't want any difference between jetbikes and bikes?
When the only difference is one has Fly and one doesn't, yes. I'd be on board for a "for 1PL, you may count your Mount as having the <Fly> keyword" ability - that would also allow for things like Astartes riding small dragons, eagles, and other flying animals, if you fancied a more organic approach.
Man. I don't know how can you guys enjoy playing warhammer?
Because I play it how I like it - without all the bloat. I don't play points, I play PL. I don't use doctrines or really care about subfaction traits. I usually ignore or forget about warlord traits. I play with what's on the datasheet, and that's about it. If I want my Bladeguard for my homebrew to have this super special backstory and lore around their role within the chapter... then I write that in the background. But functionally on the table - they're like every other Bladeguard.
Probably the most bloated system, where the array of options has always been part of their identity, game I have ever played?
There's a difference between option of UNITS and options AVAILABLE to those units. 30k gets this right, IMO. Nearly all the units available to everyone are generic, with a scant few unique ones. But do the Legions play the same way? No, because of more meaningful options than "you can take the unit with this kind of pew pew, or that kind of pew pew".
Just look at how the web burns whenever GW takes aways options. You are in the very tiny, tiny minority asking for those levels of consolidation, I'm sorry to say.
Maybe. Since when has being in the minority changed my opinion?
Type40 wrote:Every single one of your points has been disputed previously.
As have yours.
TWC currently have a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules, and unit size option then outriders.
Yes. Sorry, did that burst your bubble?
When I call for TWC to be folded in to a generic Veteran Cavalry datasheet (so, not Outriders), I'm asking to replicate EVERY mechanical asset that TWC have that's meaningful. So, representing their melee focus, the availability of unit composition, their wargear, their core rules, so on.
I'm not asking "LET'S STRIP OUT TWC!!!", I'm saying "let's make this generic unit capable of reflecting what TWC are, and make it available to everyone".
Just like an eldar bike unit has a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules and unit zie option then outriders.
As I just said, I'm not advocating moving them into Outriders.
I AM in favour of combining them into a generic Veteran Cavalry unit.
The reason why Eldar aren't is because Eldar are not a subtype of Space Marine.
In fact the TWC is even more different by being "CAVALRY" and not a "BIKER."
What's the difference?
From a datasheet perspective there is more in common between an eldar bike unit and an outrider unit then there is between a TWC and an outrider unit.
But I'm not advocating TWC become Outriders.
So again, if your proposing that what the kit represents has no bearing on whether or not we should roll the datasheet together why not just have one generic datasheet for all mounts in the game ?
Because that's not what I'm proposing.
If a big furry wolf can use the datasheet of a bike, why can't an elf use the datasheet of a marine ?
What's the mechanical difference between a wolf and a bike? Simple question, I've asked it many times.
What is the difference between doing this and doing what you are proposing other then "POWER ARMOR AND MAHRINES."
Because I'm not the one moving the goalposts.
Your power armor vendetta isn't a good enough reason to justify "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" applying to TWC because "its just a guy mounted on something" and not to an eldar biker who is also "just a guy mounted on something"
But that's not what I said.
I'm talking about a SPACE MARINE VETERAN mounted on something. Address my argument, without applying lube on it to make your slippery slope.
Different stats, different wargear, different unit composition, different unit size, different special rules, different stratagems and different model representation equal a different unit and a need for a different datasheet .
Not exactly. This is why I'm advocating for a NEW GENERIC datasheet that would encompass ALL Veteran Cavalry. Veteran Bikers, TWC, Ravenwing Vets, Space Marines riding on Raptors, whatever else.
Yes, TWC don't fit with Outriders. But they WOULD with what I'm proposing.
What's wrong with my propsal?
Let's say my datasheet allows for: A Move 10" standard Veteran Marine statline, with T5, W3, in a unit of 3, with access to the melee, pistol, and special weapons charts and storm shields. I call it Veteran Cavalry, and make it generic. It now covers all mounts. Want your Mount to attack? Pay X points/PL, and every model gets extra attacks. Want your Mount to fly? Pay X points/PL, and you get the <Fly> keyword. Does your subfaction have some kind of sweeping universal rule that might affect this unit, like White Scars, Ravenwing, or Space Wolves? Throw on a little blurb saying "If this is taken in a XYZ faction, you have ABC rule" - like what's been done with Deathwing and Wolf Guard units in the new Codex.
What's wrong with that?
Unless you come up with some easy to read datasheet rife with variable statline options, wargear options, unit size options, special rule options, stratagem accesess, and keyword access , with exceptions, affordances and bans on different customizations based on what model this vague datasheet is supposed to repesent
Just did.
and if that's the case go ahead and roll in aldari and ork mounted units to it as well. Hell, why not roll in walker vehicles to that. Why not dilute all unique models into a single datasheet while we are at it ?
Put away the lube, you're just making a mess of yourself.
If the unit is different enough that you need to remove unique functions, options or rules in order to consolidate it to a single datasheet,
Again, """unique"""" really needs to be put in quotation marks.
Finally if you are consolidating datasheets in a way that creates total customizability of statline/wargear/rules, what you are doing is creating min/max potential for units that had previously been restricted from those options without needing to give some rule, to pick a specific chapter, to pick a specific faction or choose a specific set of stats to gain access to that level of customizability.
If people want to powergame, people will powergame. Points exist to try and curtail that (unsuccessfully, in many cases), but if you only care about getting that Sweet Sweet Flavour, you shouldn't care about that.
I suggest comparing the current TWC datasheet with the Outriders datasheet directly. If you think they have "the exact same mechanical effect" then I can not believe you have actually compared the two datasheets.
I haven't called for TWC to be mixed with Outriders though. I've called for TWC to be mixed with a GENERIC NEW UNIT, like my Veteran Cavalry suggestion.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yes. Or rather, "generic Space Marines" shouldn't exist. Any Astartes with a predominant power armoured base (so, not Grey Knights) should be rolled into one book - "Space Marines".
Why?
Because they're nearly all working from the same core units. The only near exception is Deathwatch. Deathwatch, I could see an argument for making unique, but my opinion on that flipflops.
Galas wrote:Wait so now you also don't want any difference between jetbikes and bikes?
When the only difference is one has Fly and one doesn't, yes. I'd be on board for a "for 1PL, you may count your Mount as having the <Fly> keyword" ability - that would also allow for things like Astartes riding small dragons, eagles, and other flying animals, if you fancied a more organic approach.
Man. I don't know how can you guys enjoy playing warhammer?
Because I play it how I like it - without all the bloat. I don't play points, I play PL. I don't use doctrines or really care about subfaction traits. I usually ignore or forget about warlord traits. I play with what's on the datasheet, and that's about it. If I want my Bladeguard for my homebrew to have this super special backstory and lore around their role within the chapter... then I write that in the background. But functionally on the table - they're like every other Bladeguard.
Probably the most bloated system, where the array of options has always been part of their identity, game I have ever played?
There's a difference between option of UNITS and options AVAILABLE to those units.
30k gets this right, IMO. Nearly all the units available to everyone are generic, with a scant few unique ones. But do the Legions play the same way? No, because of more meaningful options than "you can take the unit with this kind of pew pew, or that kind of pew pew".
Just look at how the web burns whenever GW takes aways options. You are in the very tiny, tiny minority asking for those levels of consolidation, I'm sorry to say.
Maybe. Since when has being in the minority changed my opinion?
Type40 wrote:Every single one of your points has been disputed previously.
As have yours.
TWC currently have a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules, and unit size option then outriders.
Yes. Sorry, did that burst your bubble?
When I call for TWC to be folded in to a generic Veteran Cavalry datasheet (so, not Outriders), I'm asking to replicate EVERY mechanical asset that TWC have that's meaningful. So, representing their melee focus, the availability of unit composition, their wargear, their core rules, so on.
I'm not asking "LET'S STRIP OUT TWC!!!", I'm saying "let's make this generic unit capable of reflecting what TWC are, and make it available to everyone".
Just like an eldar bike unit has a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules and unit zie option then outriders.
As I just said, I'm not advocating moving them into Outriders.
I AM in favour of combining them into a generic Veteran Cavalry unit.
The reason why Eldar aren't is because Eldar are not a subtype of Space Marine.
In fact the TWC is even more different by being "CAVALRY" and not a "BIKER."
What's the difference?
From a datasheet perspective there is more in common between an eldar bike unit and an outrider unit then there is between a TWC and an outrider unit.
But I'm not advocating TWC become Outriders.
So again, if your proposing that what the kit represents has no bearing on whether or not we should roll the datasheet together why not just have one generic datasheet for all mounts in the game ?
Because that's not what I'm proposing.
If a big furry wolf can use the datasheet of a bike, why can't an elf use the datasheet of a marine ?
What's the mechanical difference between a wolf and a bike? Simple question, I've asked it many times.
What is the difference between doing this and doing what you are proposing other then "POWER ARMOR AND MAHRINES."
Because I'm not the one moving the goalposts.
Your power armor vendetta isn't a good enough reason to justify "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" applying to TWC because "its just a guy mounted on something" and not to an eldar biker who is also "just a guy mounted on something"
But that's not what I said.
I'm talking about a SPACE MARINE VETERAN mounted on something. Address my argument, without applying lube on it to make your slippery slope.
Different stats, different wargear, different unit composition, different unit size, different special rules, different stratagems and different model representation equal a different unit and a need for a different datasheet .
Not exactly. This is why I'm advocating for a NEW GENERIC datasheet that would encompass ALL Veteran Cavalry. Veteran Bikers, TWC, Ravenwing Vets, Space Marines riding on Raptors, whatever else.
Yes, TWC don't fit with Outriders. But they WOULD with what I'm proposing.
What's wrong with my propsal?
Let's say my datasheet allows for:
A Move 10" standard Veteran Marine statline, with T5, W3, in a unit of 3, with access to the melee, pistol, and special weapons charts and storm shields. I call it Veteran Cavalry, and make it generic. It now covers all mounts. Want your Mount to attack? Pay X points/PL, and every model gets extra attacks. Want your Mount to fly? Pay X points/PL, and you get the <Fly> keyword. Does your subfaction have some kind of sweeping universal rule that might affect this unit, like White Scars, Ravenwing, or Space Wolves? Throw on a little blurb saying "If this is taken in a XYZ faction, you have ABC rule" - like what's been done with Deathwing and Wolf Guard units in the new Codex.
What's wrong with that?
Unless you come up with some easy to read datasheet rife with variable statline options, wargear options, unit size options, special rule options, stratagem accesess, and keyword access , with exceptions, affordances and bans on different customizations based on what model this vague datasheet is supposed to repesent
Just did.
and if that's the case go ahead and roll in aldari and ork mounted units to it as well. Hell, why not roll in walker vehicles to that. Why not dilute all unique models into a single datasheet while we are at it ?
Put away the lube, you're just making a mess of yourself.
If the unit is different enough that you need to remove unique functions, options or rules in order to consolidate it to a single datasheet,
Again, """unique"""" really needs to be put in quotation marks.
Finally if you are consolidating datasheets in a way that creates total customizability of statline/wargear/rules, what you are doing is creating min/max potential for units that had previously been restricted from those options without needing to give some rule, to pick a specific chapter, to pick a specific faction or choose a specific set of stats to gain access to that level of customizability.
If people want to powergame, people will powergame. Points exist to try and curtail that (unsuccessfully, in many cases), but if you only care about getting that Sweet Sweet Flavour, you shouldn't care about that.
I suggest comparing the current TWC datasheet with the Outriders datasheet directly. If you think they have "the exact same mechanical effect" then I can not believe you have actually compared the two datasheets.
I haven't called for TWC to be mixed with Outriders though. I've called for TWC to be mixed with a GENERIC NEW UNIT, like my Veteran Cavalry suggestion.
Sounds like someone is envious of SW and their calvary...
Type40 wrote:Every single one of your points has been disputed previously.
As have yours.
No they havn't, people keep bringing up circular arguments, and ignoring the disputes by saying the same thing over and over.
TWC currently have a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules, and unit size option then outriders.
Yes. Sorry, did that burst your bubble?
When I call for TWC to be folded in to a generic Veteran Cavalry datasheet (so, not Outriders), I'm asking to replicate EVERY mechanical asset that TWC have that's meaningful. So, representing their melee focus, the availability of unit composition, their wargear, their core rules, so on.
and how do you propose to do that ? have you read my points on how that brings up a slew of problems ?
I'm not asking "LET'S STRIP OUT TWC!!!", I'm saying "let's make this generic unit capable of reflecting what TWC are, and make it available to everyone".
Just like an eldar bike unit has a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules and unit zie option then outriders.
As I just said, I'm not advocating moving them into Outriders.
I AM in favour of combining them into a generic Veteran Cavalry unit.
again, I know that is what you are proposing, hence me calling out the circular argumentation, you keep saying the same thing over and over like its some "trump card" of a point. have you read the points I make about how why that doesnt work ?
The reason why Eldar aren't is because Eldar are not a subtype of Space Marine.
In fact the TWC is even more different by being "CAVALRY" and not a "BIKER."
What's the difference?
they interact with terrain differently and have the potential for different synergies (for example with existing stratagems)
From a datasheet perspective there is more in common between an eldar bike unit and an outrider unit then there is between a TWC and an outrider unit.
But I'm not advocating TWC become Outriders.
sure, so why don't we roll in the eldar bike unit to this generic "cavalry" unit either ? you arn't actually addressing the crux of my point here.
So again, if your proposing that what the kit represents has no bearing on whether or not we should roll the datasheet together why not just have one generic datasheet for all mounts in the game ?
Because that's not what I'm proposing.
then what are you proposing ? are you saying that what the units kit represents should be represented in a unique and significant way? or are you saying that a vague general datasheet should represent multiple kits ?
If a big furry wolf can use the datasheet of a bike, why can't an elf use the datasheet of a marine ?
What's the mechanical difference between a wolf and a bike? Simple question, I've asked it many times.
speed 10, the swift hunters rule, the weapon profile 'Crushing teeth and claws', access to several different stratagems specifically related to the being on a thunderwolf. carries a wolfgaurd (aka Vet) which a bike does not and thus allows for a set of wargear not accessible by normal bike squads
What is the difference between doing this and doing what you are proposing other then "POWER ARMOR AND MAHRINES."
Because I'm not the one moving the goalposts.
no your just repeating the same arguments over and over whilst ignoring any disputes. No one has moved any goal posts, you havn't actually tried to dispute the arguments against your proposal, you have just repeated your proposal like it somehow 'makes all the sense in the world'
Your power armor vendetta isn't a good enough reason to justify "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" applying to TWC because "its just a guy mounted on something" and not to an eldar biker who is also "just a guy mounted on something"
But that's not what I said.
I'm talking about a SPACE MARINE VETERAN mounted on something. Address my argument, without applying lube on it to make your slippery slope.
Ok, so this was addressed several times, your ignoring the disputes provided to that were related to the problems with implementing a single datasheet model for representing so many customizations. Just address the disputes lol XD
Different stats, different wargear, different unit composition, different unit size, different special rules, different stratagems and different model representation equal a different unit and a need for a different datasheet .
Not exactly. This is why I'm advocating for a NEW GENERIC datasheet that would encompass ALL Veteran Cavalry. Veteran Bikers, TWC, Ravenwing Vets, Space Marines riding on Raptors, whatever else.
Yes, TWC don't fit with Outriders. But they WOULD with what I'm proposing.
What's wrong with my propsal?
Let's say my datasheet allows for:
A Move 10" standard Veteran Marine statline, with T5, W3, in a unit of 3, with access to the melee, pistol, and special weapons charts and storm shields. I call it Veteran Cavalry, and make it generic. It now covers all mounts. Want your Mount to attack? Pay X points/PL, and every model gets extra attacks. Want your Mount to fly? Pay X points/PL, and you get the <Fly> keyword. Does your subfaction have some kind of sweeping universal rule that might affect this unit, like White Scars, Ravenwing, or Space Wolves? Throw on a little blurb saying "If this is taken in a XYZ faction, you have ABC rule" - like what's been done with Deathwing and Wolf Guard units in the new Codex.
so you want regular marines to gain even more options and access to even more things ? on a confusing datasheet ?
What's wrong with that?
Unless you come up with some easy to read datasheet rife with variable statline options, wargear options, unit size options, special rule options, stratagem accesess, and keyword access , with exceptions, affordances and bans on different customizations based on what model this vague datasheet is supposed to repesent
Just did.
um,,, no you really didn't, you just pointed out a list of just SOME of the variables you'd have to address in order to some how represent multiple 'similar' units in a coinvent way on a single datasheet... I never said you COULDN'T represent all the customization options with restriction, affordances and exceptions on a single datasheet, I am saying that you can't do it in a good way. Basic User Interfacing logic dictates that a static representation of data is preferable to complex variable representation unless their is heavy automation or an extreme need for space (neither are true). On top of that the ammount of effort needed to synergize and consolidate these datasheets arbitrarily will take MORE effort then just keeping these datasheets separate. Again, these disputes have already been brought up but you havn't addressed it. Instead you keep bringing up the same argumentation whilst ignoring the disputes.
and if that's the case go ahead and roll in aldari and ork mounted units to it as well. Hell, why not roll in walker vehicles to that. Why not dilute all unique models into a single datasheet while we are at it ?
Put away the lube, you're just making a mess of yourself.
Why are you resorting to bullying and attempted humiliations. You are proposing something ridiculous, so why not entertain an equally ridiculous proposal using the exact same logic you are proposing. No reason to try to bully someone or humiliate someone when you'd rather not actually address the dispute XD.
If the unit is different enough that you need to remove unique functions, options or rules in order to consolidate it to a single datasheet,
Again, """unique"""" really needs to be put in quotation marks.
Finally if you are consolidating datasheets in a way that creates total customizability of statline/wargear/rules, what you are doing is creating min/max potential for units that had previously been restricted from those options without needing to give some rule, to pick a specific chapter, to pick a specific faction or choose a specific set of stats to gain access to that level of customizability.
If people want to powergame, people will powergame. Points exist to try and curtail that (unsuccessfully, in many cases), but if you only care about getting that Sweet Sweet Flavour, you shouldn't care about that.
lol , so your argument against giving people new ways to min/max is, that's not your problem and if we care about fluff then we shouldnt care about people abusing the game XD ?
But seriously, how do you address this clear and obvious design problem you'd be introducing to the game with this solution ? especially considering this is your proposal to 'balance' and 'fix' the current problems in the game design ?
There is a clear problem with how much better marines are because of having more access to customization, abilities, and loadout options which result in greater tactical affordances. and the way you counter that argument is "don't look behind the curtain, this isn't your problem" lol ... do you really not care that your 'solution' would create more problems lol XD
I suggest comparing the current TWC datasheet with the Outriders datasheet directly. If you think they have "the exact same mechanical effect" then I can not believe you have actually compared the two datasheets.
I haven't called for TWC to be mixed with Outriders though. I've called for TWC to be mixed with a GENERIC NEW UNIT, like my Veteran Cavalry suggestion.
Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions they have. Why is your response to the introduction of such an absurd amount of min/max potential that "its none of my concern if their are power gamers."
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. You are allowing access and affordances to something without forcing them to take the restrictions that come along with making that choice. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Disagree greatly. In 30k there is a single datasheet for the Preator. The preator then has numerous upgrade "packages" on his datasheet that turns him into a chaplain equivalent, or a librarian, or a apothocary equivalent etc etc...
You don't introduce unbalance to the game because you made a singular generic HQ that you can specialize. And you wouldn't be doing that to the outrider by just giving the outrider options.
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. You are allowing access and affordances to something without forcing them to take the restrictions that come along with making that choice. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Minmax is already in the game, i don't see how this would change anything. Theres a reason TWC were mostly seen with TH+SS in 8th, the other options were bad. Every unit is always going to have a "minmaxed" option, unless its an optionless unit.
And exactly what " restriction and limitations that SMs have" am i removing? We already have precedent with 30k and all the upgrade options it has for basic units that are shared between all marines.
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Disagree greatly. In 30k there is a single datasheet for the Preator. The preator then has numerous upgrade "packages" on his datasheet that turns him into a chaplain equivalent, or a librarian, or a apothocary equivalent etc etc...
You don't introduce unbalance to the game because you made a singular generic HQ that you can specialize. And you wouldn't be doing that to the outrider by just giving the outrider options.
Ok so what does this have to do with giving regular marines access to an entirely new cavalry unit without forcing them to be restricted to using SWs ?
What does a 30k predator "package" have to do with a proposal for complete and unlimited customization ?
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. You are allowing access and affordances to something without forcing them to take the restrictions that come along with making that choice. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Minmax is already in the game, i don't see how this would change anything. Theres a reason TWC were mostly seen with TH+SS in 8th, the other options were bad. Every unit is always going to have a "minmaxed" option, unless its an optionless unit.
And exactly what " restriction and limitations that SMs have" am i removing? We already have precedent with 30k and all the upgrade options it has for basic units that are shared between all marines.
The fact that currently general SMs have a restriction from just being able to take this SW specific unit and the customized wargear that comes with it? You are literally proposing all SMs should have unlimited access to what may objectively be one the best units currently in the game with 0 restrictions. For the sake of 'balance' XD. ?
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Disagree greatly. In 30k there is a single datasheet for the Preator. The preator then has numerous upgrade "packages" on his datasheet that turns him into a chaplain equivalent, or a librarian, or a apothocary equivalent etc etc...
You don't introduce unbalance to the game because you made a singular generic HQ that you can specialize. And you wouldn't be doing that to the outrider by just giving the outrider options.
Ok so what does this have to do with giving regular marines access to an entirely new cavalry unit without forcing them to be restricted to using SWs ?
What does a 30k predator "package" have to do with a proposal for complete and unlimited customization ?
Your argument that it would become unbalanced to give the options to the outrider datasheet and then scrap the TWC datasheet would unbalance the game are wrong because we have examples of singular datasheets with tons of options that are not unbalanced now. I can point at examples of how it can be done well. So you should see that it is possible to do. There fore your argument is bad. Complete and unlimited customization can come with exclusion causes. Do I want them in gravis armor? Yes? then here are your weapon choices. Do you want them to be have a storm shield? Yes? Then here are the options for the other hand. Pay the price for the wargear. Move on.
The fact that currently general SMs have a restriction from just being able to take this SW specific unit and the customized wargear that comes with it? You are literally proposing all SMs should have unlimited access to what may objectively be one the best units currently in the game with 0 restrictions. For the sake of 'balance' XD. ?
wait , TWC are "objectively one of the best units in the game"?
The proposal would obviously require balancing and wouldnt be applied mid-edition. We're talking about an alternate reality where GW proceeded differently.
I think arguing with you won't achieve anything, you keep shifting the goalposts.
First you were saying that "the fluff would be lost", we showed you how to keep the fluff.
Then you're saying the balance would be lost, we showed you evidence that such types of datasheet do not equate to bad balance by using 30k as an example.
Jimbobbyish wrote: Sounds like someone is envious of SW and their calvary...
Sounds like someone wasn't interested in contributing and instead just wants to be mean for no reason with an ad-hominem!
you just did the same so it's a moot point lol. To be fair he went from combine with Outriders, to make a new generic unit so that everyone can have thunderwolf Cavalry. Might as well let everyone have baal predator give everyone have librarian Dreadnought give everyone a generic primarch, give everyone black knights, give everyone kill teams!
The fact that currently general SMs have a restriction from just being able to take this SW specific unit and the customized wargear that comes with it? You are literally proposing all SMs should have unlimited access to what may objectively be one the best units currently in the game with 0 restrictions. For the sake of 'balance' XD. ?
wait , TWC are "objectively one of the best units in the game"?
The proposal would obviously require balancing and wouldnt be applied mid-edition. We're talking about an alternate reality where GW proceeded differently.
I think arguing with you won't achieve anything, you keep shifting the goalposts.
First you were saying that "the fluff would be lost", we showed you how to keep the fluff.
Then you're saying the balance would be lost, we showed you evidence that such types of datasheet do not equate to bad balance by using 30k as an example.
I am learning that this is what Type40 does. He is not having the conversation you are having. He is having the conversation HE is having. And no amount of examples, logic, or argument will persuade him that what you are saying is pertinent to his arguments.
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Disagree greatly. In 30k there is a single datasheet for the Preator. The preator then has numerous upgrade "packages" on his datasheet that turns him into a chaplain equivalent, or a librarian, or a apothocary equivalent etc etc...
You don't introduce unbalance to the game because you made a singular generic HQ that you can specialize. And you wouldn't be doing that to the outrider by just giving the outrider options.
Ok so what does this have to do with giving regular marines access to an entirely new cavalry unit without forcing them to be restricted to using SWs ?
What does a 30k predator "package" have to do with a proposal for complete and unlimited customization ?
Your argument that it would become unbalanced to give the options to the outrider datasheet and then scrap the TWC datasheet would unbalance the game are wrong because we have examples of singular datasheets with tons of options that are not unbalanced now. I can point at examples of how it can be done well. So you should see that it is possible to do. There fore your argument is bad. Complete and unlimited customization can come with exclusion causes. Do I want them in gravis armor? Yes? then here are your weapon choices. Do you want them to be have a storm shield? Yes? Then here are the options for the other hand. Pay the price for the wargear. Move on.
A: Sgt.Smudge has repeated over and over that his proposal is NOT for the outrider datasheet... so lets start there.
B: Yes, some datasheets have customization (this is a design and balance choice) some datasheets do not (this is also a design and balance choice) . Again, see my points about user interfacing and why having a single datasheet with affordances, exceptions, restrictions, variable wargear, variable rule sets, variable statlines variable unit compositions, and variable unit sizes , takes longer to design then static separate sheets and is not a good User Interface for displaying data.
C: Are you seriously going to keep thinking that TWC are the same as Outriders ? please go check the datasheet for TWC on the FAQ index... they are simply different units with different statline,wargear options,rules, keywords, unit composition, and unit size. So if you are actually proposing we have some general datasheet where every little stat, rule, and piece of text is variable and can be swaped out at will ... then this is a really bad example... like, if your just flipping from page to page to figure out what stats you qualify for or choose XD what makes you think that takes less design effort and provides better readability XD ?
A) I am saying that MY argument is for most datasheets and wargear. All power weapon varieties should just be power weapon. TWC SHOULD just be outriders. Unless there is a meaningful mechanical difference so that it fills a specific role it shouldn't exist. Go look over the apocalypse datasheets.
No devourers/deathspitters/spikers/boneswords/bonesword+whip/scytal.
It's not a bunch of gak nobody is ever going to use. It's just a singular good profile so the unit can do it's job.
Just melee bioweapon and ranged bioweapon. I can model them however I want and the unit functions great.
B) Disagree. You keep saying it's bad for user interface but whats ACTUALLY bad for user interface is everything GW has ever done with 40k. Know whats good for user interface? Battlescribe. It gives me exactly what I need when I need it. And it doesn't matter how many options the unit has, I have only the data I need when I am playing.
C) Guess what, units change edition to edition. The consolidation of TWC into Outriders in terms of stat line, number of attacks, so on and so forth wouldn't even be the most crazy thing that has ever happened to a unit.
The fact that currently general SMs have a restriction from just being able to take this SW specific unit and the customized wargear that comes with it? You are literally proposing all SMs should have unlimited access to what may objectively be one the best units currently in the game with 0 restrictions. For the sake of 'balance' XD. ?
wait , TWC are "objectively one of the best units in the game"?
The proposal would obviously require balancing and wouldnt be applied mid-edition. We're talking about an alternate reality where GW proceeded differently.
I think arguing with you won't achieve anything, you keep shifting the goalposts.
First you were saying that "the fluff would be lost", we showed you how to keep the fluff.
Then you're saying the balance would be lost, we showed you evidence that such types of datasheet do not equate to bad balance by using 30k as an example.
I havn't shifted anything.
I have repeatedly stated the exact same points, over and over and over.
There are 3 options for consolidating datasheets.
1. removing any sembelance of unique rules, abilities or flavour from units so that they have an easy static datasheet. This is where I disagree based on losing the fluffy feel of units.
2. create a datasheet where there is total customization with no restrictions, thus allowing full access to flavour but also allowing for insane amounts of min/max potential.
3. create single datasheets that harbour restrictions, exceptions, affordance for wargear, rules, keywords, statlines, unit sizes and unit compositions. This 'solution' would result in longer design time (in order to achieve proper synergy and compatibility) and detract from User Interfacing. Having static seperate datasheets would allow for less time dedicated to design and easier to read and less complex datasheets.
I havn't shifted the goal posts once. I have done nothing but repeat these same arguments over and over and over. You can go back through this thread and see I have argued these things consistently. No lack of logic here XD.
What everyone else needs to do is first a: understand that you guys are actually arguing for different versions of single datasheet solutions, so that's actually something you guys seem to disagree on.
My disputes are different depending on which approach to consolidating the datasheets you are going by.
Again, I have outlined this several times in the thread, havn't 'shifted the goal post' once. but rather outlined each one of these and disputed each for different reasons.
Eitheway, the fact that their are clear falacies with any kind of mass consolidation of datasheets whether that is because of the removal of fluff or the introductions of clear imbalances to the game, is a problem with the proposal and not a problem with me not grasping 'logic.'
circular argumentation is not me not grasping 'logic' lol.
1. removing any sembelance of unique rules, abilities or flavour from units so that they have an easy static datasheet. This is where I disagree based on losing the fluffy feel of units.
2. create a datasheet where there is total customization with no restrictions, thus allowing full access to flavour but also allowing for insane amounts of min/max potential.
3. create single datasheets that harbour restrictions, exceptions, affordance for wargear, rules, keywords, statlines, unit sizes and unit compositions. This 'solution' would result in longer design time (in order to achieve proper synergy and compatibility) and detract from User Interfacing. Having static seperate datasheets would allow for less time dedicated to design and easier to read and less complex datasheets.
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.
(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options.
(Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit.
(Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability.
(Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1
(Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.
so you get a basic datasheet that you can upgrade to fit whatever you want to play.
Want space marines riding on dragons all equipped with storm shield and thunder hammers ? You get a Veteran Airborn Ferocious cavalry.
Want TWC equivalents ? Veteranns ferocious space marine cavalry
What is lost here? you keep your fluffy options to run your TWC and you even open up more areas for future models.
Before you say that balance would be lost, notice how i have you pay pts for every upgrade? thats how you balance the unit.
Lance845 wrote: A) I am saying that MY argument is for most datasheets and wargear. All power weapon varieties should just be power weapon. TWC SHOULD just be outriders. Unless there is a meaningful mechanical difference so that it fills a specific role it shouldn't exist. Go look over the apocalypse datasheets.
why SHOULD they ? because you said so ? better go tell GW that some guy on the internet thinks they should remove the flavour rules of the TWC because he doesn't think they SHOULD be different. The fact that the unit has a different statline, different wargear, different special rules, different keywords, different access to stratagems, different unit composition and different unit size options IS meaningful mechanic differences. You can't just pretend its not ? if its not for statlines, wargear, special rules, keywords, access to stratagems, unit composition and unit size , what else makes a unit a different unit ?
Again, sure, the unit will be exactly the same if you erase everything that makes them different ... but why do you think you get to be the guy who arbitrarily makes the decision to do that and remove peoples options for having a unique and flavorfully different feeling unit ? Should GW just listen to you ? just because ?
No devourers/deathspitters/spikers/boneswords/bonesword+whip/scytal.
Just melee bioweapon and ranged bioweapon. I can model them however I want and the unit functions great.
Ya, a game with significantly less nuance like apocalypse is not the same thing as 40k.
I guess they could redsign and streamline the game to work like apocalypse,,, but then we are playing a different game... I thought we wanted to find solutions for 40k,,, not some new Apocalypse Lite.
B) Disagree. You keep saying it's bad for user interface but whats ACTUALLY bad for user interface is everything GW has ever done with 40k. Know whats good for user interface? Battlescribe. It gives me exactly what I need when I need it. And it doesn't matter how many options the unit has, I have only the data I need when I am playing.
Just because you CAN read it and interpret in this format doesn't make it the BEST format. but I am glad you are confident in your own abilities. I am sure I would figure it out too
C) Guess what, units change edition to edition. The consolidation of TWC into Outriders in terms of stat line, number of attacks, so on and so forth wouldn't even be the most crazy thing that has ever happened to a unit.
sure it wouldn't be the craziest thing to happen... but why would it happen ? because you , some guy on the internet, thinks it should ? because you, some guy on the internet, believe there is no need for a flavourful rules difference between TWC and vanilla outrides... Hate to break it to you, at least for now, GW seems to disagree with your view on this ... and that's because many people, like my self, would feel pretty robbed if our unique choices of taking a wolf rider had no significant meaning compared to taking a primaris bike dude and GW knows this.
It's a bad argument.
What is a bad argument lol ? that is a very vague statement, I have a whole slew of disputes.
If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
There have been lots of generic rules sets over the years like this and they never catch on because people (including me) like their special little dudes to have special rules.
40k is a game built more on the fluff and models to be sure, but to sell those models they need rules to differentiate them.
Jimbobbyish wrote: Sounds like someone is envious of SW and their calvary...
Sounds like someone wasn't interested in contributing and instead just wants to be mean for no reason with an ad-hominem!
except these threads are always driven by 99% jelousy. we've now gone from "they should be treated as just cosmetic bikers" to "FOLD THEM INTO CODEX SPACE MARINES AS A NEW GENERIC UNIT"
at about this point it seems to me that the goal isn't simplification, the goal is to deny someone a toy..
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
1. removing any sembelance of unique rules, abilities or flavour from units so that they have an easy static datasheet. This is where I disagree based on losing the fluffy feel of units.
2. create a datasheet where there is total customization with no restrictions, thus allowing full access to flavour but also allowing for insane amounts of min/max potential.
3. create single datasheets that harbour restrictions, exceptions, affordance for wargear, rules, keywords, statlines, unit sizes and unit compositions. This 'solution' would result in longer design time (in order to achieve proper synergy and compatibility) and detract from User Interfacing. Having static seperate datasheets would allow for less time dedicated to design and easier to read and less complex datasheets.
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.
(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options.
(Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit.
(Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability.
(Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1
(Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.
so you get a basic datasheet that you can upgrade to fit whatever you want to play.
Want space marines riding on dragons all equipped with storm shield and thunder hammers ? You get a Veteran Airborn Ferocious cavalry.
Want TWC equivalents ? Veteranns ferocious space marine cavalry
What is lost here? you keep your fluffy options to run your TWC and you even open up more areas for future models.
Before you say that balance would be lost, notice how i have you pay pts for every upgrade? thats how you balance the unit.
yes, this is one of the possible single datasheet proposals.
Well you just invented a new unit for generic marines to get access to ?
nothing is lost here, you just gave everything to everyone else in the process.
points arn't the only thing that balances a game... imagine if SMs were allowed to take harlequin jetbikes with haywire cannons,,, even if they had to pay the same amount of points for it ?
Should we just let anyone take anything as long as they pay the right amount of points for it ? is that the argument now ?
So ya, I will continue to say "balance will be lost" even though you need to pay pts for every upgrade.
If you do this, every tournament ever will just be what ever the best combination of things possible is and thus removing even more variance on the table due to having 0 restrictions between the subfactions. you are introducing incredible new min/max potential and removing even more variance in anything but totally casual games.
In terms of fluff... yes, this solution does 100% preserve rules fluff. no argument there.
In terms of the user interface... sure, its understandable... but what's the real difference between this set up and seperate datasheets... you are still going to have to tweak the point costs seperately for each different upgrade, you are still going to have to have to balance things with at least the same amount of minutia if not more. As now you have to make sure every combination is compatible.
So now as a player I have to decipher what part of this datasheet is relevant for me to use... sure I CAN do that... and then do it again for every different unit, and again, and again, and again. until i am done my list.... OR i could go "right here is the datasheet for my unit,, ah yes, here is what it can do, here are its specific options.
I'm going to be real honest, Bikes in 40k, for the most part, are Cavalry. Everything about them functions as Cavalry. Back before AoS became a thing, 40k bike rules were generally closer to Fantasy cavalry rules than the 40k rules for Beasts were and reflected similar bonuses.
Bikes honestly are absolutely garbage fighting platforms in real life, when militaries have used them, it's been as transport for what effectively were motorcycle dragoons who fought dismounted or scout units with a single sidecar mounted MG that turned and ran at the first sign of return fire, nobody is fighting from the seat of a motorcycle because it's stupid to do so. 40k basically abstracts bikes acting as the role of Cavalry because actual Cavalry doesn't thematically really work for most 40k factions, particularly Space Marines, but GW wanted to fit something in that vein.
Consolidating many bike and cavalry units can make absolutely perfect sense in that regard, and a lot of the stuff people are arguing about is the kind of stuff that changes from codex to codex or edition to edition anyway.
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Your statement is subjective.
You can not be correct objectively by virtue of me not buying different models for that reason... I know many people who buy different models because of the flavour and fluffy ruleset the bring with them,,,, including me... but if that's how you enjoy the game, that is fine, but you don't get to have the right to say I am not allowed to enjoy the game in the way I do.
Of course it's subjective, but so is the number of fiddly rules a unit can have before it "deserves its own model."
I once had a guy who played Exodite Eldar using the CWE codex back in 7th. His "jetbikes" were guys on dinosaurs (based on Cold Ones from fantasy at the time). And you know what? I thought it was a bit wonkey, because they could fly over units and stuff that the jetbikes could do that the dinosaurs really shouldn't do. But I would rather let him do it than not because it's awesome. Should we have made him take the ability to fly away from his bikes just because the model looked different? Should we have given him another special rule, such as more attacks from the mount?
It's inherently subjective where a unit is sufficiently "different" to warrant different rules. That's obvious. But recognize that that subjective judgement has wider objective impacts (e.g. design space for, say, an Eldar Exodites supplement instead of Space Wolves). So it's not an unworthy objection for people who think those units are "too samey" to be like "hang on, why are those different?"
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
perhaps if you want to keep making this comparison you can show us the "Space marine with purity seals" kit?
if not then maybe just maybe it's a gakky intellectually dishonest comparison?
1. removing any sembelance of unique rules, abilities or flavour from units so that they have an easy static datasheet. This is where I disagree based on losing the fluffy feel of units.
2. create a datasheet where there is total customization with no restrictions, thus allowing full access to flavour but also allowing for insane amounts of min/max potential.
3. create single datasheets that harbour restrictions, exceptions, affordance for wargear, rules, keywords, statlines, unit sizes and unit compositions. This 'solution' would result in longer design time (in order to achieve proper synergy and compatibility) and detract from User Interfacing. Having static seperate datasheets would allow for less time dedicated to design and easier to read and less complex datasheets.
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.
(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options.
(Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit.
(Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability.
(Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1
(Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.
so you get a basic datasheet that you can upgrade to fit whatever you want to play.
Want space marines riding on dragons all equipped with storm shield and thunder hammers ? You get a Veteran Airborn Ferocious cavalry.
Want TWC equivalents ? Veteranns ferocious space marine cavalry
What is lost here? you keep your fluffy options to run your TWC and you even open up more areas for future models.
Before you say that balance would be lost, notice how i have you pay pts for every upgrade? thats how you balance the unit.
yes, this is one of the possible single datasheet proposals.
Well you just invented a new unit for generic marines to get access to ?
nothing is lost here, you just gave everything to everyone else in the process.
points arn't the only thing that balances a game... imagine if SMs were allowed to take harlequin jetbikes with haywire cannons,,, even if they had to pay the same amount of points for it ?
Should we just let anyone take anything as long as they pay the right amount of points for it ? is that the argument now ?
So ya, I will continue to say "balance will be lost" even though you need to pay pts for every upgrade.
If you do this, every tournament ever will just be what ever the best combination of things possible is and thus removing even more variance on the table due to having 0 restrictions between the subfactions. you are introducing incredible new min/max potential and removing even more variance in anything but totally casual games.
In terms of fluff... yes, this solution does 100% preserve rules fluff. no argument there.
In terms of the user interface... sure, its understandable... but what's the real difference between this set up and seperate datasheets... you are still going to have to tweak the point costs seperately for each different upgrade, you are still going to have to have to balance things with at least the same amount of minutia if not more. As now you have to make sure every combination is compatible.
So now as a player I have to decipher what part of this datasheet is relevant for me to use... sure I CAN do that... and then do it again for every different unit, and again, and again, and again. until i am done my list.... OR i could go "right here is the datasheet for my unit,, ah yes, here is what it can do, here are its specific options.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a bit of effort when designing a list.
And honestly? Those options are dead easy to parse. Obviously, without points, I can't speak to the balance, but nothing on that list is inherently unbalanced-there's no mechanic there that would be horrendous to face if pointed appropriately.
In terms of the user interface... sure, its understandable... but what's the real difference between this set up and seperate datasheets... you are still going to have to tweak the point costs seperately for each different upgrade, you are still going to have to have to balance things with at least the same amount of minutia if not more. As now you have to make sure every combination is compatible.
So now as a player I have to decipher what part of this datasheet is relevant for me to use... sure I CAN do that... and then do it again for every different unit, and again, and again, and again. until i am done my list.... OR i could go "right here is the datasheet for my unit,, ah yes, here is what it can do, here are its specific options.
Fair enough, but i'd argue that parsing through the mess that some datasheets are with weapons options is already a chore. this wouldnt be that much more difficult.
Especially not if youre playing with models that represent your choices , like TWC.
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Your statement is subjective.
You can not be correct objectively by virtue of me not buying different models for that reason... I know many people who buy different models because of the flavour and fluffy ruleset the bring with them,,,, including me... but if that's how you enjoy the game, that is fine, but you don't get to have the right to say I am not allowed to enjoy the game in the way I do.
I like you completely ignored the point about purity seals. It doesn't even stop there though. Why don't we have different rules for Mk2-8 of Power Armor since three of the Terminators all have different rules?
Im sorry. Apocs actual game play has far more depth and nuance then standard 40k. Regular 40k has all the tactical depth of tic tac toe. First turn advantage and all.
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
perhaps if you want to keep making this comparison you can show us the "Space marine with purity seals" kit?
if not then maybe just maybe it's a gakky intellectually dishonest comparison?
We have separate kits for Mk3 and Mk4 Power Armor. Why don't they have different rules just like with the Terminator armors all being different?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Of course it's subjective, but so is the number of fiddly rules a unit can have before it "deserves its own model."
I once had a guy who played Exodite Eldar using the CWE codex back in 7th. His "jetbikes" were guys on dinosaurs (based on Cold Ones from fantasy at the time). And you know what? I thought it was a bit wonkey, because they could fly over units and stuff that the jetbikes could do that the dinosaurs really shouldn't do. But I would rather let him do it than not because it's awesome. Should we have made him take the ability to fly away from his bikes just because the model looked different? Should we have given him another special rule, such as more attacks from the mount?
It's inherently subjective where a unit is sufficiently "different" to warrant different rules. That's obvious. But recognize that that subjective judgement has wider objective impacts (e.g. design space for, say, an Eldar Exodites supplement instead of Space Wolves). So it's not an unworthy objection for people who think those units are "too samey" to be like "hang on, why are those different?"
I do agree that he could totally proxy those dino's to work how ever he wants. I am even totally all for I am "playing this as" style armies.
But again, if our goal is to just dilute the game down into base datasheets... why not roll all the factions together and play the game with 5-20 datasheets all together ?
What is the real difference in playing different factions at that point... also,,, we are kind of now talking about a completely different game.
My arguments from earlier are still sound
the proposal that @VladimirHerzog has admiralty maintains my fluff concerns.
I have responded to this approach earlier though, this is the
2. create a datasheet where there is total customization with no restrictions,
solution.
However, with it brings tons of other game design and rules issues whilst solving very few problems.
This doesn't reduce design time, this introduces more min/maxing potential, more problems with figuring minutia in terms of point balancing. Whilst simultaneously reducing the archetype that non-spacemarine factions have more access to customization (which has admiralty been reduced over the years) . It also arbitrarily creates a debatably worse user interface... with the problems this solution brings... what's the point ? Its not like this stops GW from putting all there attention into the marine faction... or even making SW specific units or DA/DW/BA specific units... It just means when those new units come out, they'll be tacing on even more options to the "general datasheet' giving general SMs even MORE as a whole.
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Your statement is subjective.
You can not be correct objectively by virtue of me not buying different models for that reason... I know many people who buy different models because of the flavour and fluffy ruleset the bring with them,,,, including me... but if that's how you enjoy the game, that is fine, but you don't get to have the right to say I am not allowed to enjoy the game in the way I do.
I like you completely ignored the point about purity seals. It doesn't even stop there though. Why don't we have different rules for Mk2-8 of Power Armor since three of the Terminators all have different rules?
im pretty sure terminators were all clumped in a single datasheet with the new codex, or am i mistaken?
This actually supports my proposal of consolidating datasheets. GW still sells tartaros/Cataphractii/indomitus terminator kits yet there is only one datasheet.
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Your statement is subjective.
You can not be correct objectively by virtue of me not buying different models for that reason... I know many people who buy different models because of the flavour and fluffy ruleset the bring with them,,,, including me... but if that's how you enjoy the game, that is fine, but you don't get to have the right to say I am not allowed to enjoy the game in the way I do.
I like you completely ignored the point about purity seals. It doesn't even stop there though. Why don't we have different rules for Mk2-8 of Power Armor since three of the Terminators all have different rules?
because this is hyperbole.
Overexaggerating the point to a degree of ridiculousness is not worth answering.
Which can be solved by giving similar attention to other factions too.
I would LOVE for Daemons to have a generic unit in every Force Org Slot, with tons of customization to represent my Daemonic forces how I please.
Type40 wrote: because this is hyperbole.
Overexaggerating the point to a degree of ridiculousness is not worth answering.
Type40 wrote: But again, if our goal is to just dilute the game down into base datasheets... why not roll all the factions together and play the game with 5-20 datasheets all together ?
What is the real difference in playing different factions at that point... also,,, we are kind of now talking about a completely different game.
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Your statement is subjective.
You can not be correct objectively by virtue of me not buying different models for that reason... I know many people who buy different models because of the flavour and fluffy ruleset the bring with them,,,, including me... but if that's how you enjoy the game, that is fine, but you don't get to have the right to say I am not allowed to enjoy the game in the way I do.
I like you completely ignored the point about purity seals. It doesn't even stop there though. Why don't we have different rules for Mk2-8 of Power Armor since three of the Terminators all have different rules?
im pretty sure terminators were all clumped in a single datasheet with the new codex, or am i mistaken?
This actually supports my proposal of consolidating datasheets. GW still sells tartaros/Cataphractii/indomitus terminator kits yet there is only one datasheet.
They were, I am not saying it is never possible. But there is also a reason why Assault terminators, terminators and wolfgaurd termniators were not consolidated into those sheets as well.
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Your statement is subjective.
You can not be correct objectively by virtue of me not buying different models for that reason... I know many people who buy different models because of the flavour and fluffy ruleset the bring with them,,,, including me... but if that's how you enjoy the game, that is fine, but you don't get to have the right to say I am not allowed to enjoy the game in the way I do.
I like you completely ignored the point about purity seals. It doesn't even stop there though. Why don't we have different rules for Mk2-8 of Power Armor since three of the Terminators all have different rules?
im pretty sure terminators were all clumped in a single datasheet with the new codex, or am i mistaken?
This actually supports my proposal of consolidating datasheets. GW still sells tartaros/Cataphractii/indomitus terminator kits yet there is only one datasheet.
"We can safely ignore hyperbole"
"[some hyperbole about how folding TWC in with another unit suddenly means the entire game has to be 5-20 datasheets]"
JNAProductions wrote: Which can be solved by giving similar attention to other factions too.
I would LOVE for Daemons to have a generic unit in every Force Org Slot, with tons of customization to represent my Daemonic forces how I please.
100% completely agree.
Which would mean that Marines would need less attention lavished on them.
GW is not infinite. They can only put so many manhours into designing new rules and models. And what seems like 60% or more of it is taken up entirely by Marines.
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
perhaps if you want to keep making this comparison you can show us the "Space marine with purity seals" kit?
if not then maybe just maybe it's a gakky intellectually dishonest comparison?
We have separate kits for Mk3 and Mk4 Power Armor. Why don't they have different rules just like with the Terminator armors all being different?
The same reason some bolters look different yet have the same rules while others have different rules. It's an arbitrary line. I would argue that dudes riding wolves meets an arbitrary level of difference to justify bespoke rules.
Please understand that I'm also one of those that thinks some consolidation of units/rules regarding space marines would be nice (e.g. grey hunters and devastators, etc etc).
"We can safely ignore hyperbole"
"[some hyperbole about how folding TWC in with another unit suddenly means the entire game has to be 5-20 datasheets]"
Because it follows the same amount of logic...
You want me to justify why we don't have the designers spend TIME AND RESOUCES to work on MORE rules in order represent every little detail.
v.s. me saying the designers do not spend TIME AND RESOURCES taking existing unique options away...
Either way I am advocating for not spending more time and resources.
JNAProductions wrote: Which can be solved by giving similar attention to other factions too.
I would LOVE for Daemons to have a generic unit in every Force Org Slot, with tons of customization to represent my Daemonic forces how I please.
100% completely agree.
Which would mean that Marines would need less attention lavished on them.
GW is not infinite. They can only put so many manhours into designing new rules and models. And what seems like 60% or more of it is taken up entirely by Marines.
Again I 100 % agree ...
I don't want them to put any more manhours into designing new rules,,, that's my point.
People are advocating for doing a complete rules overhaul on power armor factions, that would take out unique options from particular factions and give more customization min/max potential to the faction they have grievances, not addressing that the same amount of time, if not more, must be put into balancing 'upgrade' possibilities instead of static datasheets, with whilst simultaneously claiming they want more attention given to their own factions.
Removing what exists isn't going to free up time for any other faction, it will take more effort and result in a less variable game.
"We can safely ignore hyperbole"
"[some hyperbole about how folding TWC in with another unit suddenly means the entire game has to be 5-20 datasheets]"
Because it follows the same amount of logic...
You want me to justify why we don't have the designers spend TIME AND RESOUCES to work on MORE rules in order represent every little detail.
v.s. me saying the designers do not spend TIME AND RESOURCES taking existing unique options away...
Either way I am advocating for not spending more time and resources.
JNAProductions wrote: Which can be solved by giving similar attention to other factions too.
I would LOVE for Daemons to have a generic unit in every Force Org Slot, with tons of customization to represent my Daemonic forces how I please.
100% completely agree.
Which would mean that Marines would need less attention lavished on them.
GW is not infinite. They can only put so many manhours into designing new rules and models. And what seems like 60% or more of it is taken up entirely by Marines.
Again I 100 % agree ...
I don't want them to put any more manhours into designing new rules,,, that's my point.
If you believe hyperbole is not helpful, you'd be best to not use it yourself. An eye for an eye and all that.
And you've been fighting pretty ardently for GW to keep pouring resources into Marines.
Man. I don't know how can you guys enjoy playing warhammer?
Because I play it how I like it - without all the bloat. I don't play points, I play PL. I don't use doctrines or really care about subfaction traits. I usually ignore or forget about warlord traits. I play with what's on the datasheet, and that's about it. If I want my Bladeguard for my homebrew to have this super special backstory and lore around their role within the chapter... then I write that in the background. But functionally on the table - they're like every other Bladeguard.
I think this is the crux of every discussion of this type. Since all of us are free to do this, why change the rules at all. You're happy, AND the people who like the proliferation of many data sheets can be happy too. If we change the sheets, maybe you'll be slightly happier because you'll feel like you were right, or because it will be slightly easier to play the game the way you already play it, but the people who like the many datasheet approach will be unhappy.
I get the point though about "Load out difference only" units not needing a separate sheet, and part of me does agree. But has anyone considered yet that for some units, that creates a multi-page data sheet? And would a single data sheet 5 pages long be any better than 5 one page data sheets?
(Note- I'm aware that there's a bit of hyperbole here, because the statline wouldn't have to be repeated- I did it to use fewer words and simplify the point- that being that combining datasheets will not make anyone happy- it'll just make them complain about how complicated each of the remaining datasheets are rather than complaining about how many simple sheets there are.).
Also, the number of data sheets does make it easier to write about/ talk about than the few sheet approach. Imagine trying to write up a battle report for an army where you could only differentiate units from one another by listing the equipment they carry, instead of using the Unit name shorthand that bespoke datasheets gives you.
"We can safely ignore hyperbole"
"[some hyperbole about how folding TWC in with another unit suddenly means the entire game has to be 5-20 datasheets]"
Because it follows the same amount of logic...
You want me to justify why we don't have the designers spend TIME AND RESOUCES to work on MORE rules in order represent every little detail.
v.s. me saying the designers do not spend TIME AND RESOURCES taking existing unique options away...
Either way I am advocating for not spending more time and resources.
JNAProductions wrote: Which can be solved by giving similar attention to other factions too.
I would LOVE for Daemons to have a generic unit in every Force Org Slot, with tons of customization to represent my Daemonic forces how I please.
100% completely agree.
Which would mean that Marines would need less attention lavished on them.
GW is not infinite. They can only put so many manhours into designing new rules and models. And what seems like 60% or more of it is taken up entirely by Marines.
Again I 100 % agree ...
I don't want them to put any more manhours into designing new rules,,, that's my point.
If you believe hyperbole is not helpful, you'd be best to not use it yourself. An eye for an eye and all that.
And you've been fighting pretty ardently for GW to keep pouring resources into Marines.
no, not at all... what part of don't spend time overhalling the marine rules = spend more resources on marines ?
especially when that wont change the fact the minutia and upgrades will still have to be focused on instead of separate datasheets... it makes no difference except for losing unique identities.
Man. I don't know how can you guys enjoy playing warhammer?
Because I play it how I like it - without all the bloat. I don't play points, I play PL. I don't use doctrines or really care about subfaction traits. I usually ignore or forget about warlord traits. I play with what's on the datasheet, and that's about it. If I want my Bladeguard for my homebrew to have this super special backstory and lore around their role within the chapter... then I write that in the background. But functionally on the table - they're like every other Bladeguard.
I think this is the crux of every discussion of this type. Since all of us are free to do this, why change the rules at all. You're happy, AND the people who like the proliferation of many data sheets can be happy too.
I get the point though about "Load out difference only" units not needing a separate sheet. But has anyone considered yet that for some units, that creates a multi-page data sheet? And would a single data sheet 5 pages long be any better than 5 one page data sheets?
(Note- I'm aware that there's a bit of hyperbole here- I did it to use fewer words and simplify the point- that being that combining datasheets will not make anyone happy- it'll just make them complain about how complicated each of the remaining datasheets are rather than complaining about how many simple sheets there are.)
JNAProductions wrote: The fact that you fought tooth and nail to justify Hounds of Morkai, an entirely new unit.
And if you really didn't want more time spent on Marines, units outside the main Dex would go to Legends. Done and done-no more updating needed.
If you could go back to that thread, which we know you can't.
I only fought for two things... people actively ignored my arguments constantly and claimed I was arguing something else. (you being one of those people)
1. I argued against people suggesting to squat SW unique rules.
2. I liked that the unit felt like it had unique and flavorful abilities.
I fought for nothing more and nothing less.
People kept accusing me of fighting for other other things and I saying no, I wasn't fighting for that, over and over and over again.
Which was just ridiculous... You can't keep telling me what my opinion is. I'll say it again.
I am allowed to think that the new units rules are fluffy and flavorful whislt simultaneously thinking that , space marines take up to much of the current design focus, the SWs didnt need a new unit, the fact that they have all of the SOS abilties is too much and that other factions should have got something similar first.
Again, stop telling me what I am arguing for and read what I am actually arguing for.
I'm not the only one who noticed, Type40. Though I am the only one who apologized.
Communication is a two-way street. If your words are consistently not getting the point you're trying to get across actually across, you can't (or at least shouldn't) just blame the reader.
JNAProductions wrote: I'm not the only one who noticed, Type40. Though I am the only one who apologized.
Communication is a two-way street. If your words are consistently not getting the point you're trying to get across actually across, you can't (or at least shouldn't) just blame the reader.
I really tried to communicate what I was saying.
You even interrogated me and I responded with "no that's not what I am saying, I am saying this"
to like 3 of your questions in 3 differnt posts... but it was totally ignored.
I did get very frustrated in that thread because I didn't know how to be anymore clear with what I was saying. Other then repeating myself over and over again...
I do thank you for apologizing though. I do really appreciate that. I will keep my own frustration in check in the future.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But to be clear, here and now and on the record.
My thoughts on the hounds is that the design time should have been given to other factions. Yet I do appreciate an attempt to make flavorful and fluffy rules (even though those same rules feel excessive).
Jimbobbyish wrote:Sounds like someone is envious of SW and their calvary...
Not really? There's nothing stopping me playing Space Wolves if I was feeling jealous. I don't even want cavalry in my army - I don't take Bikes, won't be taking Outriders outside of adding to my 6th Company if I work on them, and which TWC are cool, I'm not starting Space Wolves just to play them.
But sure - attribute every issue people have to jealousy. I'm sure that doesn't reflect on your own priorities in the slightest.
Type40 wrote:Every single one of your points has been disputed previously.
As have yours.
No they havn't, people keep bringing up circular arguments, and ignoring the disputes by saying the same thing over and over.
And you haven't been doing that?
When I call for TWC to be folded in to a generic Veteran Cavalry datasheet (so, not Outriders), I'm asking to replicate EVERY mechanical asset that TWC have that's meaningful. So, representing their melee focus, the availability of unit composition, their wargear, their core rules, so on.
and how do you propose to do that ? have you read my points on how that brings up a slew of problems ?
I literally just demonstrated how. And your points don't illustrate any problems that didn't already exist.
Your biggest one is "BUT MINMAXERS", to which I say - and? Is this a new thing? Did minmaxers just sit back and rest until this happened? No - minmaxers will always try to abuse the system. But this is why points exist, isn't it? To provide a "balanced" pricing for upgrades and abilities.
Besides, I thought you just wanted some customisation and unique abilities that are flavourful? Why do you care about minmaxers?
I'm not asking "LET'S STRIP OUT TWC!!!", I'm saying "let's make this generic unit capable of reflecting what TWC are, and make it available to everyone".
Just like an eldar bike unit has a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules and unit zie option then outriders.
As I just said, I'm not advocating moving them into Outriders.
I AM in favour of combining them into a generic Veteran Cavalry unit.
again, I know that is what you are proposing
So why were you claiming that I wanted to make TWC into Outriders? You clearly weren't reading my comments.
hence me calling out the circular argumentation, you keep saying the same thing over and over like its some "trump card" of a point. have you read the points I make about how why that doesnt work ?
Again, considering your screeching about "BUT OUTRIDERS AREN'T THE SAME" tells me that you hadn't read my argument, and whatever you were telling me was based on your faulting understanding of my position.
In fact the TWC is even more different by being "CAVALRY" and not a "BIKER."
What's the difference?
they interact with terrain differently and have the potential for different synergies (for example with existing stratagems)
In what way? And, more importantly, WHY can't those rules be changed so that they interact in the same way? What stratagems are these that affect one and would be improper affecting the other?
Give me examples.
But I'm not advocating TWC become Outriders.
sure, so why don't we roll in the eldar bike unit to this generic "cavalry" unit either ?
Because Eldar aren't Space Marines. Space Wolves are. If you want proof of that, tell me what's on their datasheet.
you arn't actually addressing the crux of my point here.
No, it's you who isn't on mine. You can bring Eldar as much as you like into this, but you know that's a dishonest argument - as dishonest as you framing that I wanted TWC Outriders.
then what are you proposing ?
So, you haven't been reading my arguments.
I am proposing a generic datasheet that has multiple options within it to represent a variety of flavours and themes. It's as simple as that. The only "unique" datasheets that should exist are things like characters (and even then, many characters could/should be made generic - specifically Ultramarines, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Blood Angels ones - characters like Telion, Chronus, Asmodai, Lemartes, Arjac - provide wargear options to represent them, or generic unit profiles in the cases of characters like Telion and Chronus (Scout Lieutenant/Gunnery Sergeant respectively)) - but units should, by and large, be generic.
Tyrannic War Vets? Subsection of Sternguard.
Sanguinary Guard and Honour Guard - variants of the Command Squad.
Deathwing Terminators? Regular Terminators with Chapter specific rule.
TWC? Veteran Cavalry.
And so on, so forth.
or are you saying that a vague general datasheet should represent multiple kits?
Yes, in that the "vague general datasheet" would have some minor options for further customisation built in.
What's the mechanical difference between a wolf and a bike? Simple question, I've asked it many times.
speed 10
Okay, give TWC speed 12. 2 inches doesn't matter.
, the swift hunters rule
That's a blanket rule applied to several SW units - in much the same way White Scars get a buff to all their Bikes. Simply add this as part of the SW Chapter Tactic to all <Cavalry> SW models. Done.
, the weapon profile 'Crushing teeth and claws',
Give the combined "Cavalry" entry a "Mount Attack" profile. Simple.
access to several different stratagems specifically related to the being on a thunderwolf.
Like? Do they only affect TWC because of a mechanical difference, or an arbitrary one? Why can't the stratagem also affect Bikes?
Again, if you don't notice, I'm asking why things are why they are - something you're not doing.
carries a wolfgaurd (aka Vet) which a bike does not and thus allows for a set of wargear not accessible by normal bike squads
Heard of Veterans on Bikes? Presumably not, but it might shock you to know they exist. There's generic entries for Veteran Bikers already - there wouldn't be much of a shift.
So, with them out of the way... yeah nah. I could easily fold the two together, and keep the core mechanical features of both.
No one has moved any goal posts
Sorry? Just a moment ago, you were claiming I wanted TWC Outriders. I don't. You shifted my argument.
you havn't actually tried to dispute the arguments against your proposal
Because your arguments against it were based in a false premise.
you have just repeated your proposal like it somehow 'makes all the sense in the world'
Until you show me how it doesn't, I will continue to do so.
Ok, so this was addressed several times
No, it wasn't. You were claiming just now that I was arguing for Outrider TWC. I was not.
Own up to your error.
This is why I'm advocating for a NEW GENERIC datasheet that would encompass ALL Veteran Cavalry. Veteran Bikers, TWC, Ravenwing Vets, Space Marines riding on Raptors, whatever else.
Yes, TWC don't fit with Outriders. But they WOULD with what I'm proposing.
What's wrong with my propsal?
Let's say my datasheet allows for:
A Move 10" standard Veteran Marine statline, with T5, W3, in a unit of 3, with access to the melee, pistol, and special weapons charts and storm shields. I call it Veteran Cavalry, and make it generic. It now covers all mounts. Want your Mount to attack? Pay X points/PL, and every model gets extra attacks. Want your Mount to fly? Pay X points/PL, and you get the <Fly> keyword. Does your subfaction have some kind of sweeping universal rule that might affect this unit, like White Scars, Ravenwing, or Space Wolves? Throw on a little blurb saying "If this is taken in a XYZ faction, you have ABC rule" - like what's been done with Deathwing and Wolf Guard units in the new Codex.
so you want regular marines to gain even more options and access to even more things ? on a confusing datasheet ?
Regular Marines? This is ALL Marines. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, everyone. And what's confusing? It's identical to the TWC datasheet, except for the option to make your mounts attack, fly, and two more weapon charts.
you just pointed out a list of just SOME of the variables you'd have to address in order to some how represent multiple 'similar' units in a coinvent way on a single datasheet
So what did I miss? Swift Hunters would be added like I described, as a subfaction blanket ability, stratagems would be rewritten to affect ALL Cavalry, etc etc.
... I never said you COULDN'T represent all the customization options with restriction, affordances and exceptions on a single datasheet, I am saying that you can't do it in a good way.
And my proposal refutes that.
On top of that the ammount of effort needed to synergize and consolidate these datasheets arbitrarily will take MORE effort then just keeping these datasheets separate.
Arguments to inertia are weak without support. There is no great effort to consolidate, as I did it in a few minutes. Give me a few more, and I'd have every stratagem and aura matching.
Again, these disputes have already been brought up but you havn't addressed it.
No, they haven't - may I remind you that, until my previous comment, you thought I was arguing in favour of Outrider TWC?
Instead you keep bringing up the same argumentation whilst ignoring the disputes.
Because your disputes were against comments I never made.
Put away the lube, you're just making a mess of yourself.
Why are you resorting to bullying and attempted humiliations.
There's no bullying here. Make honest arguments with me, and I won't give you tools you're humiliting yourself with.
You're the one making slippery slope arguments. Stop doing it, and I won't call them out.
You are proposing something ridiculous
In what way is it? Address my ACTUAL proposal, not the one you think I'm making.
If people want to powergame, people will powergame. Points exist to try and curtail that (unsuccessfully, in many cases), but if you only care about getting that Sweet Sweet Flavour, you shouldn't care about that.
lol , so your argument against giving people new ways to min/max is, that's not your problem and if we care about fluff then we shouldnt care about people abusing the game XD ?
My argument is that this won't change anything about how minmaxers see the game. If you want to do something about minmaxers, either tackle their ideology, or rebalance the points.
And if you're THAT bothered about people abusing the game, learn to say no to players who do. If I know the person on the other side of the table is minmaxing, I just won't play them. Simple.
But seriously, how do you address this clear and obvious design problem you'd be introducing to the game with this solution ?
Do you think 30k has a clear and obvious design issue? Because that's what 30k does with their Terminators.
There is a clear problem with how much better marines are because of having more access to customization, abilities, and loadout options which result in greater tactical affordances. and the way you counter that argument is "don't look behind the curtain, this isn't your problem" lol ... do you really not care that your 'solution' would create more problems lol XD
You haven't stated any problems though. You're claiming that more options for this one unit would lead to minmaxing, but without me stating what any of the points costs would be, you can't make that point. If the options are priced accordingly, even harshly, then the only people taking the unit are those who REALLY want that fluff and flavour. You seem to think I'd want to make it a powerful, undercosted unit, when I'm more likely to lean towards making it OVERpriced.
Again, "greater tactical affordances" - like what?
so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ?
I gave examples. Veteran Bikers. Ravenwing. Entirely new lore entries, like Salamanders riding great lizards, other Chapters with their own warbeasts, any kind of elite mounted cadre.
what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ?
To delete all the others. Let's say we have 4 veteran cavalry datasheets, all spread out between a variety of Codexes - the core Space Marine Veteran Bikers, the Blood Angels copy of that, the Dark Angels Ravenwing Command Squad/Black Knights, and Thunderwolf Cavalry. That's four units that could be merged into ONE unit, one unit with the potential to represent unlimited unique customisable command cavalry squads.
why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions they have.
Because I want Space Wolves to be merged into Space Marines, but not to lose any of their abilities. Because customisation on a MEANINGFUL level is good. I'm not doing this because *I* want it, I don't even like bikes. I'm doing it because I want the playing field levelled, for any Space Marine player from any Chapter to pick up something they think is cool and play with it.
Why is your response to the introduction of such an absurd amount of min/max potential that "its none of my concern if their are power gamers."
Because powergamers will exist regardless of this. If you're so afraid of minmaxers, why don't TWC only have one weapon option? I thought it was YOU who was asking for the option for players to customise their forces?
I think you have my point entirely mistaken. I'm PRO-customisation. But I think it should be done from a generic baseline, not bespoke datasheets.
(Also, my god, that was hard to format.)
Type40 wrote:Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ?
Right, want to get rid of "insane amounts of minmax potential"? Fine - everyone plays with the same units, with the same loadout, with no customising. That's the kind of slippery slope you were doing on the rest of us, wasn't it?
After all, you're so afraid of minmaxers, right?
how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have.
In the age of allies, do you REALLY think that SM were at all limited by this?
You are allowing access and affordances to something without forcing them to take the restrictions that come along with making that choice. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Whew boy, I think you really ought to get a sense of perspective if you think letting all Space Marines share a generic Veteran Cavalry entry would break the game.
Jimbobbyish wrote:To be fair he went from combine with Outriders
No, I didn't. That was someone else's claim. If you're going to kick up a fuss, kick it up about what I actually said.
to make a new generic unit so that everyone can have thunderwolf Cavalry. Might as well let everyone have baal predator give everyone have librarian Dreadnought give everyone a generic primarch, give everyone black knights, give everyone kill teams!
To most of those, yes.
Let everyone have Baal Predators. Hell, just make it part of the Predator entry.
Yes, let everyone have Librarian Dreadnoughts. And Chaplain Dreadnoughts. And Techmarine Dreadnoughts. Put in a 1CP stratagem or similar ability to upgrade any Dreadnought into a X variant, with an equipment upgrade and special rule, like the Chapter Master one.
Yes, give everyone Black Knights, have them as part of the Veteran Bikers thing I mentioned above.
By Kill Teams, you mean Deathwatch Kill Teams? What part of them am I transferring?
Primarch? Actually, I'm totally on board with Guilliman being made generic. He's the Lord Commander of the Imperium. If anyone should be universally available, it should be him. Throw him a rule where he might benefit mostly Ultras, but can be taken in ANY Space Marine army without breaking detachment rules.
Yeah, I'm not seeing your complaint here.
Quasistellar wrote:It's flavor and head-canon.
Exactly. So "flavour" the speed and toughness of this generic cavalry entry to represent your wolf.
If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
"If there's no difference to represent this Mark 3 armour and this Mark 4 armour, why have different models!"
Because not EVERYTHING needs rules. Do Cadians and Catachans need unique datasheets?
There have been lots of generic rules sets over the years like this and they never catch on because people (including me) like their special little dudes to have special rules.
Your dudes HAVE special rules. But you don't need EVERY little detail to have rules. Unless you're arguing that the former need differentiation?
40k is a game built more on the fluff and models to be sure, but to sell those models they need rules to differentiate them.
No, they don't. Do White Scars bikes need unique datasheets compared to Ultramarines bikers to differentiate them? In 5th edition, when Iron Hands and Raven Guard were identical in rules, did they need rules to differentiate them?
BrianDavion wrote:except these threads are always driven by 99% jelousy.
What am I jealous of, exactly? I don't play bikes. There's nothing stopping me playing SW. There's nothing stopping me allying in TWC into my armies.
What am I jealous of?
we've now gone from "they should be treated as just cosmetic bikers" to "FOLD THEM INTO CODEX SPACE MARINES AS A NEW GENERIC UNIT"
at about this point it seems to me that the goal isn't simplification, the goal is to deny someone a toy..
What am I denying? Some precious sense of snowflakiness? That these wolves are too unique to be like any other *scoff* Generic Unit?
It reeks of entitlement. I'm the one positing for EVERYONE to get the same thing. There's no "denying a toy" here. If TWC got made generic, would it stop anyone from using their existing ones? No. So how am I denying your toy, unless your toy came with a side order of exclusivity?
Unit1126PLL wrote:Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
perhaps if you want to keep making this comparison you can show us the "Space marine with purity seals" kit?
if not then maybe just maybe it's a gakky intellectually dishonest comparison?
We have separate kits for Mk3 and Mk4 Power Armor. Why don't they have different rules just like with the Terminator armors all being different?
The same reason some bolters look different yet have the same rules while others have different rules. It's an arbitrary line. I would argue that dudes riding wolves meets an arbitrary level of difference to justify bespoke rules.
Please understand that I'm also one of those that thinks some consolidation of units/rules regarding space marines would be nice (e.g. grey hunters and devastators, etc etc).
Once more for emphasis: it's arbitrary.
But the question is why is it that arbitrary that the different Terminators have different rules (AND entries for Storm Bolter or straight melee)? It's completely silly.
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
perhaps if you want to keep making this comparison you can show us the "Space marine with purity seals" kit?
if not then maybe just maybe it's a gakky intellectually dishonest comparison?
Okay. Mark 3 and Mark 4 Space Marines.
Type40 wrote: because this is hyperbole.
Overexaggerating the point to a degree of ridiculousness is not worth answering.
Type40 wrote: But again, if our goal is to just dilute the game down into base datasheets... why not roll all the factions together and play the game with 5-20 datasheets all together ?
What is the real difference in playing different factions at that point... also,,, we are kind of now talking about a completely different game.
Heh.
PenitentJake wrote:I get the point though about "Load out difference only" units not needing a separate sheet, and part of me does agree. But has anyone considered yet that for some units, that creates a multi-page data sheet? And would a single data sheet 5 pages long be any better than 5 one page data sheets?
Why would it be a multipage sheet? If something like Intercessors or a Deathwatch Kill Team can fit on one page, I think any of the proposed combination datasheets will fit fine.
Combining datasheets might not make everyone happy. But if they're done right, they won't lose any of the Sweet Sweet Flavour that they wanted. I am in favour of consolidation AND in keeping those bespoke rules. In cases, those rules might become generic and widely available, but I don't want to invalidate anything.
There's this idea that Consolidation = Mechanical Removal. That is not the case. Might it be a case that power weapons are treated the same? Maybe. But will you still have rules for your weapon? Yes, you will. Will your Wolf Priests still have their healing balms? As a stratagem, yes. And so on, so forth.
Also, the number of data sheets does make it easier to write about/ talk about than the few sheet approach. Imagine trying to write up a battle report for an army where you could only differentiate units from one another by listing the equipment they carry, instead of using the Unit name shorthand that bespoke datasheets gives you.
By that metric, should we have three different Intercessor datasheets? Myriads of different ones for Captain with plasma pistol and chainsword, Captain with bolt pistol of chainsword, etc etc
Type40 wrote:I only fought for two things... people actively ignored my arguments constantly and claimed I was arguing something else.
Wow! Just like what you were doing with me! Remember - when you were claiming I was after Outrider TWC?
Again, stop telling me what I am arguing for and read what I am actually arguing for.
Maybe you should take those words and apply them to yourself too.
Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
Even though you want to give everyone the same thing. Even though what you want to give them is "better" (debatably) ... People arn't playing these factions just to be a clone of everyone else. There are a lot of players who have picked their faction because it feels unique to them... Again, imagine telling an Aldari player that they can have access to all the customization in the game with every option and load out possible,,, and every faction gets to have that too.
Do you really not understand how some people feel about this ?
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
Even though you want to give everyone the same thing. Even though what you want to give them is "better" (debatably) ... People arn't playing these factions just to be a clone of everyone else. There are a lot of players who have picked their faction because it feels unique to them... Again, imagine telling an Aldari player that they can have access to all the customization in the game with every option and load out possible,,, and every faction gets to have that too.
Do you really not understand how people feel about this ?
Is 100+ datasheets not enough?
To put another way, why do Space Wolves deserve more customization than Dark Eldar? Or Nurgle Daemons? Or SoB? Or Inquisition?
Edit: To quote myself...
Yeah. Space Marines getting a lot of stuff is fine-but other armies need support too.
Hell, the current Space Wolves Index has 28 datasheets. (12 are unique characters.) Nurgle Daemons have 15 datasheets. (3 are unique characters and 3 are generic Daemons capable of being taken as Nurgle.)
One would assume that the faction more in need of new datasheets would get them-but that's not the case, for GW.
It's frustrating. I hope you, Type40, can understand that and sympathize.
You've not really shown any sympathy beyond the token level.
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
But is it a *problem*?
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
There's nothing wrong with wanting what you have. But I'm not taking that away. I'm just presenting at as part of a wider option available to everyone. The only thing being lost is exclusivity.
People arn't playing these factions just to be a clone of everyone else.
Right, so if having unique units and codexes is this benchmark of "not being a clone" - what about people who play Ultramarines, as opposed to White Scars? Or Raven Guard, as opposed to Imperial Fists? Or Homebrew Chapter instead of Iron Hands?
There are a lot of players who have picked their faction because it feels unique to them...
Not disputing that. But that "unique feel" doesn't come from "HA I HAVE THIS UNIT AND YOU DON'T AND IF YOU HAD THIS UNIT I WOULDN'T FEEL UNIQUE!", does it?
Again, imagine telling an Aldari player that they can have access to all the customization in the game with every option and load out possible,,, and every faction gets to have that too.
Can you seriously not tell the difference between an Eldar and a Space Marine wearing fur?
Do you really not understand how some people feel about this ?
Seemingly not, because the only thing I'm getting from this is "You're not allowed to have my special toy because only I can have that!"
Think of it this way: a restaurant that serves your favourite steak. They cook it just right for you. Then, they offer a vegan steak alternative on the menu. You don't have to change your order, but now other people can order an approximation. Has your dining experience been ruined? Does the steak taste different, despite no changes to how it's cooked or your consumption? Surely not.
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
Even though you want to give everyone the same thing. Even though what you want to give them is "better" (debatably) ... People arn't playing these factions just to be a clone of everyone else. There are a lot of players who have picked their faction because it feels unique to them... Again, imagine telling an Aldari player that they can have access to all the customization in the game with every option and load out possible,,, and every faction gets to have that too.
Do you really not understand how people feel about this ?
Is 100+ datasheets not enough?
To put another way, why do Space Wolves deserve more customization than Dark Eldar? Or Nurgle Daemons? Or SoB? Or Inquisition?
Again, they don't. Me wanting to keep the SW unique units (and honestly not caring about the plethora of marine bloat) is not me saying that the other factions do not deserve way more attention then they are getting.
What will removing the unique units from SWs do to get other factions more attention ?
I agree, the marine bloat is egregious and out of control. What does removing the unique SW units (other then maybe the new hounds) do for giving more attention to the other factions ?
I 100% undertand, I 100% am frustrated as well (i am not only a SW player) and I 100% sympathize.
Again why is me not wanting you to take away the unique units, that have existed for YEARS, have to do with not giving design time towards other factions ? Again, I'll willingly go withouth the vanilla primaries wave.
But you keep accusing me of not wanting others to get attention whilst I am saying "maybe we don't put in a crap ton of effort to overhall the power-armor factions, get rid of variety in the process, and instead spend that time actually focusing on other factions"
I really don't understand how your making a connection between wanting to keep my unique units and that making design room ?
Not that this would happen, but do you think that if they rolled any other factions units into being a clone of marines that would free up design space ? that doesn't make sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can you seriously not tell the difference between an Eldar and a Space Marine wearing fur?
If you seriously can't tell the difference between a wolf and bike,,, ya then sure, I can't tell the difference. Its arbitrary at that point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Think of it this way: a restaurant that serves your favourite steak. They cook it just right for you. Then, they offer a vegan steak alternative on the menu. You don't have to change your order, but now other people can order an approximation. Has your dining experience been ruined? Does the steak taste different, despite no changes to how it's cooked or your consumption?
Surely not.
Eating dinner is a solitary experience... so no,
Now if everyone elses dinner and express impact on my dinner... then yes.
Not disputing that. But that "unique feel" doesn't come from "HA I HAVE THIS UNIT AND YOU DON'T AND IF YOU HAD THIS UNIT I WOULDN'T FEEL UNIQUE!", does it?
Yes, this is a crude way of describing the word unique.
Think of it this way: a restaurant that serves your favourite steak. They cook it just right for you. Then, they offer a vegan steak alternative on the menu. You don't have to change your order, but now other people can order an approximation. Has your dining experience been ruined? Does the steak taste different, despite no changes to how it's cooked or your consumption?
Surely not.
Eating dinner is a solitary experience... so no,
Now if everyone elses dinner and express impact on my dinner... then yes.
Sorry, what? How does it affect YOU if I come to table with my Generic Veteran Cavalry unit?
Now I am interested to hear this. In this restaurant example, I've come up and am sitting opposite you with my vegan steak. How am I taking away from your own meal?
Not disputing that. But that "unique feel" doesn't come from "HA I HAVE THIS UNIT AND YOU DON'T AND IF YOU HAD THIS UNIT I WOULDN'T FEEL UNIQUE!", does it?
Yes, this is a crude way of describing the word unique.
No, that's an incredibly selfish way of describing "unique".
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
If we're talking about the context of merging stuff like TWC/biker or the various terminator units into one entry, then that sounds pretty much like the definition of entitlement to me. If people still get to play with their toys, and they'll function in pretty much the same way as before (or at least within the variation one would expect of something like a normal edition or codex change), and the only change is that they just wouldn't have a whole special specific separate unit entry to take up an extra page on its own, I don't see where there's a problem. If they're going to get mad about that, I have zero issues calling that out as entitlement, particularly given the substantially rougher treatment given to other units and armies over the editions, from wholesale re-imaginings and re-definitions to simply dropping and abandoning them entirely.
In a case like this, the details being argued over for unit design in this case are small enough that anyone getting bent out of shape about them is going to get just as bent out of shape at *any* codex or edition change, so I wouldn't worry about it. The breadth of changes being discussed aren't any larger than one would expect to see in such cases.
TL;DR if someone is mad that their unit doesn't have a separate unique page entry, but can otherwise be played and kitted identically (or very nearly so) under a generic entry, I don't really see that as a valid game design concern.
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
If we're talking about the context of merging stuff like TWC/biker or the various terminator units into one entry, then that sounds pretty much like the definition of entitlement to me. If people still get to play with their toys, and they'll function in pretty much the same way as before (or at least within the variation one would expect of something like a normal edition or codex change), and the only change is that they just wouldn't have a whole special specific separate unit entry to take up an extra page on its own, I don't see where there's a problem. If they're going to get mad about that, I have zero issues calling that out as entitlement, particularly given the substantially rougher treatment given to other units and armies over the editions, from wholesale re-imaginings and re-definitions to simply dropping and abandoning them entirely.
In a case like this, the details being argued over for unit design in this case are small enough that anyone getting bent out of shape about them is going to get just as bent out of shape at *any* codex or edition change, so I wouldn't worry about it. The breadth of changes being discussed aren't any larger than one would expect to see in such cases.
So why isn't an aldari player getting called entitled for asking for their rules not to become merged with the regular marine units as well ?
You are calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now I am interested to hear this. In this restaurant example, I've come up and am sitting opposite you with my vegan steak. How am I taking away from your own meal?
Your saying I don't have to play against you ?
And all your new options, that you can synergize with your old options ? which you were restricted from doing before ?
You have fundamentally changed how we are going to play the game together.
No, that's an incredibly selfish way of describing "unique".
How do you define unique ?
dictionary:
"being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else."
Its not really unique if you get to have the same thing with out taking the same choices and restrictions I took in order to gain access to that thing?
Like, I wouldnt be rude and say " HA I HAVE THIS UNIT AND YOU DON'T AND IF YOU HAD THIS UNIT I WOULDN'T FEEL UNIQUE! " but that does hit the nail on the head... people play certain factions to feel unique... you wouldn't feel unique as a harlequin player if some SM player came in with bikes that could do everything your bikes could do would you ?
Because Eldar share zero units and maybe two pieces of wargear with Space Marines. Merging them would completely wreck one or both of them.
Space Wolves share over 100 units with Space Marines, and I only count 8 pieces of unique wargear in their Index that don't belong to unique characters.
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
If we're talking about the context of merging stuff like TWC/biker or the various terminator units into one entry, then that sounds pretty much like the definition of entitlement to me. If people still get to play with their toys, and they'll function in pretty much the same way as before (or at least within the variation one would expect of something like a normal edition or codex change), and the only change is that they just wouldn't have a whole special specific separate unit entry to take up an extra page on its own, I don't see where there's a problem. If they're going to get mad about that, I have zero issues calling that out as entitlement, particularly given the substantially rougher treatment given to other units and armies over the editions, from wholesale re-imaginings and re-definitions to simply dropping and abandoning them entirely.
In a case like this, the details being argued over for unit design in this case are small enough that anyone getting bent out of shape about them is going to get just as bent out of shape at *any* codex or edition change, so I wouldn't worry about it. The breadth of changes being discussed aren't any larger than one would expect to see in such cases.
So why isn't an aldari player getting called entitled for asking for their rules not to become merged with the regular marine units as well ?
You are calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique.
Can you honestly not tell the difference between 2 different armies having different datasheets versus marines?
JNAProductions wrote: Because Eldar share zero units and maybe two pieces of wargear with Space Marines. Merging them would completely wreck one or both of them.
Space Wolves share over 100 units with Space Marines, and I only count 8 pieces of unique wargear in their Index that don't belong to unique characters.
The SW dreads and Wulfen alone have more unique pieces of wargear.
and they may share almost 90 units with SMs but they don't share TWC with SMs ?
so what's your point ?
What does amount unique units have to do with not wanting to lose my unique units ?
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
If we're talking about the context of merging stuff like TWC/biker or the various terminator units into one entry, then that sounds pretty much like the definition of entitlement to me. If people still get to play with their toys, and they'll function in pretty much the same way as before (or at least within the variation one would expect of something like a normal edition or codex change), and the only change is that they just wouldn't have a whole special specific separate unit entry to take up an extra page on its own, I don't see where there's a problem. If they're going to get mad about that, I have zero issues calling that out as entitlement, particularly given the substantially rougher treatment given to other units and armies over the editions, from wholesale re-imaginings and re-definitions to simply dropping and abandoning them entirely.
In a case like this, the details being argued over for unit design in this case are small enough that anyone getting bent out of shape about them is going to get just as bent out of shape at *any* codex or edition change, so I wouldn't worry about it. The breadth of changes being discussed aren't any larger than one would expect to see in such cases.
So why isn't an aldari player getting called entitled for asking for their rules not to become merged with the regular marine units as well ?
You are calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique.
Can you honestly not tell the difference between 2 different armies having different datasheets versus marines?
I can.
TWC are one unit....
Outriders / bikers are completely different units .
Can you not tell the difference between two completely different datasheets ?
I agree with Vaktathi. All this is is Type40 shouting entitlement and "I want". And he resorts to absurdity like saying the eldar codex should be merged into the SM codex when presented with arguments and evidence to counter him.
JNAProductions wrote: Because Eldar share zero units and maybe two pieces of wargear with Space Marines. Merging them would completely wreck one or both of them.
Space Wolves share over 100 units with Space Marines, and I only count 8 pieces of unique wargear in their Index that don't belong to unique characters.
The SW dreads and Wulfen alone have more unique pieces of wargear.
but they don't share TWC with SMs ?
what's your point ?
What does amount unique units have to do with not wanting to lose my unique units ?
Wulfen Dread has two unique wargear options-the Fenrisian Great Axe and the Great Wolf Claw.
Ah, Blizzard Shield-missed that! Was only looking at weapons.
Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf has Crushing Teeth and Claws.
Grey Hunters have the Wolf Standard, another bit I missed.
Wulfen have the Stormfrag, the Wulfen Frost Claws, the Great Frost Axe, and the Wulfen Claws.
Cyberwolves and Fenrisian Wolves have Teeth and Claws.
Stormfang Gunship has the Helfrost Destructor and Melta Array.
Stormwolf has the Twin Helfrost Cannon.
That's a total of 12-my bad.
But the point is that you're needlessly bringing up Eldar and saying "You might as well merge THEM with Marines!" when they share almost nothing.
Whereas Space Wolves are Marines with a few extra units and wargear options.
Lance845 wrote: I agree with Vaktathi. All this is is Type40 shouting entitlement and "I want". And he resorts to absurdity like saying the eldar codex should be merged into the SM codex when presented with arguments and evidence to counter him.
I am not shouting I want at all.
You guys are attempting theft. I am shouting STOP.
I don't need to "want" it... I currently HAVE it. You are proposing to take it away.
You can agree with Vaktathi all you want... it just means you are both wrong.
JNAProductions wrote: Because Eldar share zero units and maybe two pieces of wargear with Space Marines. Merging them would completely wreck one or both of them.
Space Wolves share over 100 units with Space Marines, and I only count 8 pieces of unique wargear in their Index that don't belong to unique characters.
The SW dreads and Wulfen alone have more unique pieces of wargear.
but they don't share TWC with SMs ?
what's your point ?
What does amount unique units have to do with not wanting to lose my unique units ?
Wulfen Dread has two unique wargear options-the Fenrisian Great Axe and the Great Wolf Claw.
Ah, Blizzard Shield-missed that! Was only looking at weapons.
Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf has Crushing Teeth and Claws.
Grey Hunters have the Wolf Standard, another bit I missed.
Wulfen have the Stormfrag, the Wulfen Frost Claws, the Great Frost Axe, and the Wulfen Claws.
Cyberwolves and Fenrisian Wolves have Teeth and Claws.
Stormfang Gunship has the Helfrost Destructor and Melta Array.
Stormwolf has the Twin Helfrost Cannon.
That's a total of 12-my bad.
But the point is that you're needlessly bringing up Eldar and saying "You might as well merge THEM with Marines!" when they share almost nothing.
Whereas Space Wolves are Marines with a few extra units and wargear options.
How many of those frost weapons can easily be represented as power weapons? Crushing teeth and claws can just be the bike attacks. Blizzard shield is just a storm shield.
JNAProductions wrote: Because Eldar share zero units and maybe two pieces of wargear with Space Marines. Merging them would completely wreck one or both of them.
Space Wolves share over 100 units with Space Marines, and I only count 8 pieces of unique wargear in their Index that don't belong to unique characters.
The SW dreads and Wulfen alone have more unique pieces of wargear.
but they don't share TWC with SMs ?
what's your point ?
What does amount unique units have to do with not wanting to lose my unique units ?
Wulfen Dread has two unique wargear options-the Fenrisian Great Axe and the Great Wolf Claw.
Ah, Blizzard Shield-missed that! Was only looking at weapons.
Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf has Crushing Teeth and Claws.
Grey Hunters have the Wolf Standard, another bit I missed.
Wulfen have the Stormfrag, the Wulfen Frost Claws, the Great Frost Axe, and the Wulfen Claws.
Cyberwolves and Fenrisian Wolves have Teeth and Claws.
Stormfang Gunship has the Helfrost Destructor and Melta Array.
Stormwolf has the Twin Helfrost Cannon.
That's a total of 12-my bad.
But the point is that you're needlessly bringing up Eldar and saying "You might as well merge THEM with Marines!" when they share almost nothing.
Whereas Space Wolves are Marines with a few extra units and wargear options.
so wargear is one of several elements that make up a unique unit. you are ignoring ,
unique statelines, unique unit compositions, unique special rules, unique unite sizes, unique keywords, unique wargear OPTIONS, and unique access to stratagems.
So,,, sure,,, 12 unique sets of wargear stats... that makes up a very small part of what makes SW units unique.
True. This is all generaly is a strange thing. Balanced is supposed to be achived by removing marine options and nerfing their rules, before even people getting their own books. At the same time the great balancers are asking for bringing back sub faction FW armies, more rules for their factions and if they get powerful books themselfs they ain't going to be asking for nerfs, because I remember them not asking for those when they had a powerful rules in 8th.
JNAProductions wrote: Because Eldar share zero units and maybe two pieces of wargear with Space Marines. Merging them would completely wreck one or both of them.
Space Wolves share over 100 units with Space Marines, and I only count 8 pieces of unique wargear in their Index that don't belong to unique characters.
The SW dreads and Wulfen alone have more unique pieces of wargear.
but they don't share TWC with SMs ?
what's your point ?
What does amount unique units have to do with not wanting to lose my unique units ?
Wulfen Dread has two unique wargear options-the Fenrisian Great Axe and the Great Wolf Claw.
Ah, Blizzard Shield-missed that! Was only looking at weapons.
Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf has Crushing Teeth and Claws.
Grey Hunters have the Wolf Standard, another bit I missed.
Wulfen have the Stormfrag, the Wulfen Frost Claws, the Great Frost Axe, and the Wulfen Claws.
Cyberwolves and Fenrisian Wolves have Teeth and Claws.
Stormfang Gunship has the Helfrost Destructor and Melta Array.
Stormwolf has the Twin Helfrost Cannon.
That's a total of 12-my bad.
But the point is that you're needlessly bringing up Eldar and saying "You might as well merge THEM with Marines!" when they share almost nothing.
Whereas Space Wolves are Marines with a few extra units and wargear options.
How many of those frost weapons can easily be represented as power weapons? Crushing teeth and claws can just be the bike attacks. Blizzard shield is just a storm shield.
You got your wish, thats exactly how it works this edition ? you really should get on top of what your arguing for ...
and damn,,, if a dreadnaught got a SS that would be so broken... do you know what any of this even is ?
JNAProductions wrote: Because Eldar share zero units and maybe two pieces of wargear with Space Marines. Merging them would completely wreck one or both of them.
Space Wolves share over 100 units with Space Marines, and I only count 8 pieces of unique wargear in their Index that don't belong to unique characters.
The SW dreads and Wulfen alone have more unique pieces of wargear.
but they don't share TWC with SMs ?
what's your point ?
What does amount unique units have to do with not wanting to lose my unique units ?
Wulfen Dread has two unique wargear options-the Fenrisian Great Axe and the Great Wolf Claw.
Ah, Blizzard Shield-missed that! Was only looking at weapons.
Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf has Crushing Teeth and Claws.
Grey Hunters have the Wolf Standard, another bit I missed.
Wulfen have the Stormfrag, the Wulfen Frost Claws, the Great Frost Axe, and the Wulfen Claws.
Cyberwolves and Fenrisian Wolves have Teeth and Claws.
Stormfang Gunship has the Helfrost Destructor and Melta Array.
Stormwolf has the Twin Helfrost Cannon.
That's a total of 12-my bad.
But the point is that you're needlessly bringing up Eldar and saying "You might as well merge THEM with Marines!" when they share almost nothing.
Whereas Space Wolves are Marines with a few extra units and wargear options.
How many of those frost weapons can easily be represented as power weapons? Crushing teeth and claws can just be the bike attacks. Blizzard shield is just a storm shield.
You got your wish, thats exactly how it works this edition ? you really should get on top of what your arguing for ...
so wargear is one of several elements that make up a unique unit. you are ignoring ,
unique statelines, unique unit compositions, unique special rules, unique unite sizes, unique keywords, unique wargear OPTIONS, and unique access to stratagems.
So,,, sure,,, 12 unique sets of wargear stats... that makes up a very small part of what makes SW units unique.
But mr Type, if all those options were removed, then the next argument would be to remove all the marines as separate factions, I mean if they have the same rule set, why would there be need for a BA or SW book. Have just one sm codex for all marines.
Good chance that marines will get less popular and less played, and with lower sales there is a bigger chance non marine player would get more rules and models for themselfs. A win/win situation, if you don't happen to play marines.
So why isn't an aldari player getting called entitled for asking for their rules not to become merged with the regular marine units as well ?
Because an Eldar unit isn't sharing the bulk of its wargear, lore, statline, or role of the Marine. However, a marine on a bike that's fundamentally really portraying cavalry (and not actually bikes, because bikes are garbage fighting platforms and have never actually been used as such and the Bike profiles and rules are basically evolutions of the Fantasy cav rules) probably should just have the same unit entry as actual marine cavalry.
You are calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique.
I very clearly stated, "If people still get to play with their toys, and they'll function in pretty much the same way as before, and they're going to get mad about that, I have zero issues calling that out as entitlement". This is not the same thing as "calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique", because fundamentally the things in question aren't actually all that unique, they just have different visual portrayal.
There is a qualifier in there. One you are actively avoiding addressing and are purposefully cutting out when replying to me. I don't think it's a particularly subtle qualifier, but I will restate it. If the unit can still be played and fill its tabletop role and represent the appropriate wargear options in some meaningful way, and the only issue is that the unit doesn't get a unique page spread and has to share a unit entry, then it's not actually all that unique, and I consider getting mad about that to be entitlement.
Given that GW just told my DKoK Assault Brigade that it's now a Legends force and I don't even have a reasonable way to counts-as the army because the Tempestus Scions keywords don't allow it to take all the Chimera transports the force was built around, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the idea that having to combine TWC and Bikes or Assault Terminators/Relic Terminators/Stormbolter Terminators into one unit entry is somehow a bad thing as long as their unit options remain intact.
And that's not even getting into the total garbage Doctrine they slapped onto the DKoK in place of the old Cult of Sacrifice and enhanced WS rules. That I can live and deal with or at least Counts-As around
JNAProductions wrote: What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?
Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?
What does proportion have to do with keeping unique units unique ? XD proportion doesn't change that a TWC is not a Outrider.
in the same way that it does not change a harlequin skyweaver isn't an outrider.
Well then it's not unique wargear is it?
I an tired of the circular arguments lol .
See where I have repeated that
unique statelines, unique unit compositions, unique special rules, unique unite sizes, unique keywords, unique wargear OPTIONS, and unique access to stratagems.
are what make up a unique unit,,, not simply "wargear" XD.
Lets really focus on this because I have said this so many times.
JNAProductions wrote: What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?
Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?
What does proportion have to do with keeping unique units unique ? XD proportion doesn't change that a TWC is not a Outrider.
in the same way that it does not change a harlequin skyweaver isn't an outrider.
Consolidating something that's already 85% or more the same is different from consolidating two things that have maybe 1% overlap.
Will you at least promise to not bring up the "Might as well merge Eldar and Marines" malarky again?
PenitentJake wrote:I get the point though about "Load out difference only" units not needing a separate sheet, and part of me does agree. But has anyone considered yet that for some units, that creates a multi-page data sheet? And would a single data sheet 5 pages long be any better than 5 one page data sheets?
Why would it be a multipage sheet? If something like Intercessors or a Deathwatch Kill Team can fit on one page, I think any of the proposed combination datasheets will fit fine.
Combining datasheets might not make everyone happy. But if they're done right, they won't lose any of the Sweet Sweet Flavour that they wanted. I am in favour of consolidation AND in keeping those bespoke rules. In cases, those rules might become generic and widely available, but I don't want to invalidate anything.
There's this idea that Consolidation = Mechanical Removal. That is not the case. Might it be a case that power weapons are treated the same? Maybe. But will you still have rules for your weapon? Yes, you will. Will your Wolf Priests still have their healing balms? As a stratagem, yes. And so on, so forth.
Also, the number of data sheets does make it easier to write about/ talk about than the few sheet approach. Imagine trying to write up a battle report for an army where you could only differentiate units from one another by listing the equipment they carry, instead of using the Unit name shorthand that bespoke datasheets gives you.
By that metric, should we have three different Intercessor datasheets? Myriads of different ones for Captain with plasma pistol and chainsword, Captain with bolt pistol of chainsword, etc etc
To the first point, the part that you didn't quote was the part where I pointed out that I intentionally used hyperbole to illustrate the point using fewer words. I have seen people complain that the DW vet unit entry is too complex. But Terminators WOULD take more than vets because of the fact that squads don't mix weapon options the way vets do. If you take Assault Terminators, ALL of them are equipped with Assault wepons (or at the very least, they can't ALSO include Assault Cannons, Cyclone Launchers, Heavy Flamers, etc). With DW vets, taking a model on a bike doesn't affect what the rest of the unit is able to take, but with Termies, it absolutely does. Maybe I should have said two pages instead of five.
And if all power weapons were treated the same, that IS mechanical removal. It removes two of the three existing mechanics.Saying that you haven't removed anything because a single rule exists where once three did is kinda... Well, quite frankly it's not how words work.
And finally, think about detachment composition in matched play: let's say I want to field a First Company army. Using a single data sheet, I can take 3 units of termies in a matched play game. As is, I could take 3 Assault Termies, 3 tactical Termies, and 3 relic termies. Which option feels more like a first company to you?
As to the second point, HQ units are far less ubiquitous than other types of units so there's less need for language to differentiate between them; you'd never want nine of them in an army the way you might want nine units of termies either. I'm not familiar enough with Intercessors to speak intelligently about them, so I won't try to fake it.
JNAProductions wrote: What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?
Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?
going by the xeno players metrics? eldar shoty unit, eldar stabby unit, eldar small transport , eldar big transport, eldar leader. eldar support unit melee, eldar support shoty. Could cover all types of eldar with those, if you used the metric that are supposed to be used for marines.
And if you need a list, then it is WG, Long Fangs, BC, GH, the new reavers, all the characters, TWC, wulfen , the mounted khan, apothecaries, chaplains, dreadoughts, SW flyers. And all the differences that come from having different chapter tactics and stratagems. Meaning the same stuff is limited to stuff like predators, primaris tanks and generaly vehicles, but not the fast moving ones, because WS speeders work different from SW ones.
So why isn't an aldari player getting called entitled for asking for their rules not to become merged with the regular marine units as well ?
Because an Eldar unit isn't sharing the bulk of its wargear, lore, statline, or role of the Marine. However, a marine on a bike that's fundamentally really portraying cavalry (and not actually bikes, because bikes are garbage fighting platforms and have never actually been used as such and the Bike profiles and rules are basically evolutions of the Fantasy cav rules) probably should just have the same unit entry as actual marine cavalry.
You are calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique.
I very clearly stated, "If people still get to play with their toys, and they'll function in pretty much the same way as before, and they're going to get mad about that, I have zero issues calling that out as entitlement". This is not the same thing as "calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique", because fundamentally the things in question aren't actually all that unique, they just have different visual portrayal.
There is a qualifier in there. One you are actively avoiding addressing and are purposefully cutting out when replying to me. I don't think it's a particularly subtle qualifier, but I will restate it. If the unit can still be played and fill its tabletop role and represent the appropriate wargear options in some meaningful way, and the only issue is that the unit doesn't get a unique page spread and has to share a unit entry, then it's not actually all that unique, and I consider getting mad about that to be entitlement.
Given that GW just told my DKoK Assault Brigade that it's now a Legends force and I don't even have a reasonable way to counts-as the army because the Tempestus Scions keywords don't allow it to take all the Chimera transports the force was built around, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the idea that having to combine TWC and Bikes or Assault Terminators/Relic Terminators/Stormbolter Terminators into one unit entry is somehow a bad thing as long as their unit options remain intact.
And that's not even getting into the total garbage Doctrine they slapped onto the DKoK in place of the old Cult of Sacrifice and enhanced WS rules. That I can live and deal with or at least Counts-As around
Ah,,, I see, so because you lost YOUR unique stuff it means SWs should arbitrarily lose their unique datasheets as well ?
It doesn't mater that if eldar is sharing the bulk of its wargear, lore, statline or role with marines... The TWC is also sharing none of those things with the normal marines. and if you argue outriders and TWC have the same role, I argue that skyweavers and outriders have the same role.
we are talking about a unique unit, whether it is a unique eldar unit or a unique SW unit doesnt change the fact that it is a unique unit.
JNAProductions wrote: What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?
Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?
going by the xeno players metrics? eldar shoty unit, eldar stabby unit, eldar small transport , eldar big transport, eldar leader. eldar support unit melee, eldar support shoty. Could cover all types of eldar with those, if you used the metric that are supposed to be used for marines.
And if you need a list, then it is WG, Long Fangs, BC, GH, the new reavers, all the characters, TWC, wulfen , the mounted khan, apothecaries, chaplains, dreadoughts, SW flyers. And all the differences that come from having different chapter tactics and stratagems. Meaning the same stuff is limited to stuff like predators, primaris tanks and generaly vehicles, but not the fast moving ones, because WS speeders work different from SW ones.
WS Speeders work differently from SW ones? That's news to me.
I was unaware the datasheet actually changed-because no one here has advocated getting rid of Chapter Tactics. Just that when the Core Marine Dex has 100+ datasheets in it, you don't ALSO need another dozen for each individual chapter.
JNAProductions wrote: What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?
Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?
going by the xeno players metrics? eldar shoty unit, eldar stabby unit, eldar small transport , eldar big transport, eldar leader. eldar support unit melee, eldar support shoty. Could cover all types of eldar with those, if you used the metric that are supposed to be used for marines.
And if you need a list, then it is WG, Long Fangs, BC, GH, the new reavers, all the characters, TWC, wulfen , the mounted khan, apothecaries, chaplains, dreadoughts, SW flyers. And all the differences that come from having different chapter tactics and stratagems. Meaning the same stuff is limited to stuff like predators, primaris tanks and generaly vehicles, but not the fast moving ones, because WS speeders work different from SW ones.
WS Speeders work differently from SW ones? That's news to me.
I was unaware the datasheet actually changed-because no one here has advocated getting rid of Chapter Tactics. Just that when the Core Marine Dex has 100+ datasheets in it, you don't ALSO need another dozen for each individual chapter.
I dont care about the vanilla sheets, they can keep those... I'lll keep our unique stuff thank you.
The unique sheets have divergent, statlines, wargear options, unit sizes, unit compositions, special rules, access to datasheets, keywords, and mechanics then anything in the marine dex... just like every unique datasheet in the aldari codex has divergent , statlines, wargear options,unit sizes, unit compositions, special rules, access to datasheets, keywords and mechanics then anthing in the marine dex... (they do have powerswords though (but i am being factitious with this statement and don't mean for you to take it seriously before someone goes "HA HA LOOK WHAT YOU SAID") )
I was unaware the datasheet actually changed-because no one here has advocated getting rid of Chapter Tactics. Just that when the Core Marine Dex has 100+ datasheets in it, you don't ALSO need another dozen for each individual chapter.
Yes the stats can be the same, but if you have centurions in one army walk the table and the other lets you teleport or deploy them 9" away from the enemy, then those are two very different units, doesn't matter if they cost the same and technicaly have the same stats, or even names.
Ah,,, I see, so because you lost YOUR unique stuff it means SWs should arbitrarily lose their unique datasheets as well ?
No, my point was that if a consolidated entry allows a unit to retain its functionality and portrayal, being mad about it not having its own unique entry is silly because there's nothing being lost but page count, while other factions have to deal with substantially harsher treatment.
What I'm mad about is that I have a force that's no longer legal for event play and I don't even have a way to counts-as it. I'd have zero problem running that force as basic Tempestus Scions if the options for their transports and running them alongside the other DKoK units were there, but they are not. These are very different things to be mad about.
I'm perfectly happy to use to consolidate unit entry if that entry is constructed in such a way as to allow those options. If people have a consolidated entry that does those things and are just mad that it's not broken out into separate entries, that's what I consider entitled. Same way I don't need distinct unit entries for Armageddon Ork Hunters or Schaeffers Last Chancers and just have the Veterans unit option, and am perfectly happy to use my DKoK Combat Engineers as such.
It doesn't mater that if eldar is sharing the bulk of its wargear, lore, statline or role with marines... The TWC is also sharing none of those things with the normal marines.
If someone is going to insist that comparing a Space Marine riding a warbeast is so different from another Space Marine riding a Bike with rules that are fundamentally intended to reflect the riding of a warbeast, that it's the same thing as comparing an Eldar to a Marine, I'm going to feel comfortable calling that both disingenuous and entitled.
Ah,,, I see, so because you lost YOUR unique stuff it means SWs should arbitrarily lose their unique datasheets as well ?
No, my point was that if a consolidated entry allows a unit to retain its functionality and portrayal, being made about it not having its own unique entry is silly because there's nothing being lost but page count, while other factions have to deal with substantially harsher treatment.
What I'm mad about is that I have a force that's no longer legal for event play and I don't even have a way to counts-as it. I'd have zero problem running that force as basic Tempestus Scions if the options for their transports and running them alongside the other DKoK units were there, but they are not. These are very different things to be mad about.
I'm perfectly happy to use to consolidate unit entry if that entry is constructed in such a way as to allow those options. If people have a consolidated entry that does those things and are just mad that it's not broken out into separate entries, that's what I consider entitled.
Ok,.,,,, so remind me what that has to do with you wanting me to lose my rules ?
It doesn't mater that if eldar is sharing the bulk of its wargear, lore, statline or role with marines... The TWC is also sharing none of those things with the normal marines.
If someone is going to insist that comparing a Space Marine riding a warbeast is so different from another Space Marine riding a Bike with rules that are fundamentally intended to reflect the riding of a warbeast, that it's the same thing as comparing an Eldar to a Marine, I'm going to feel comfortable calling that both disingenuous and entitled.
Except they arn't,,, if they were GW would have made the datasheets more similar... but the datasheets have different, statlines, abilities, wargear options, unit sizes, unit compositions, keywords and access to stratagems... Why are you convinced that they are the same ? nothing about their model or datasheet is the same unless you change everything that makes them different... Why should GW listen to you, some guy on the internet, about whether or not they "should" be representing their models differently. Why are you so hellbent on my model not being unique in the way that it is now but instead being a clone of a different model that doesn't have the same , statlines, abilities, wargear options, unit sizes, unit compositions, keywords and access to stratagems... ? They are mechanically different. If GW want them to be the same they WOULD have the same , statlines, abilities, wargear options, unit sizes, unit compositions, keywords and access to stratagems
I was unaware the datasheet actually changed-because no one here has advocated getting rid of Chapter Tactics. Just that when the Core Marine Dex has 100+ datasheets in it, you don't ALSO need another dozen for each individual chapter.
Yes the stats can be the same, but if you have centurions in one army walk the table and the other lets you teleport or deploy them 9" away from the enemy, then those are two very different units, doesn't matter if they cost the same and technicaly have the same stats, or even names.
It's one data sheet and then you pay for a teleporter upgrade. And if one can deepstrike and the other can't but they cost the same then there is a balance issue and the deepstriking one should cost more.
Ah,,, I see, so because you lost YOUR unique stuff it means SWs should arbitrarily lose their unique datasheets as well ?
No, my point was that if a consolidated entry allows a unit to retain its functionality and portrayal, being made about it not having its own unique entry is silly because there's nothing being lost but page count, while other factions have to deal with substantially harsher treatment.
What I'm mad about is that I have a force that's no longer legal for event play and I don't even have a way to counts-as it. I'd have zero problem running that force as basic Tempestus Scions if the options for their transports and running them alongside the other DKoK units were there, but they are not. These are very different things to be mad about.
I'm perfectly happy to use to consolidate unit entry if that entry is constructed in such a way as to allow those options. If people have a consolidated entry that does those things and are just mad that it's not broken out into separate entries, that's what I consider entitled.
Ok,.,,,, so remind me what that has to do with you wanting me to lose my rules ?
Reply to an specific point I made please, don't just quote a block of text and ask a rhetorical question.
It doesn't mater that if eldar is sharing the bulk of its wargear, lore, statline or role with marines... The TWC is also sharing none of those things with the normal marines.
If someone is going to insist that comparing a Space Marine riding a warbeast is so different from another Space Marine riding a Bike with rules that are fundamentally intended to reflect the riding of a warbeast, that it's the same thing as comparing an Eldar to a Marine, I'm going to feel comfortable calling that both disingenuous and entitled.
Except they arn't,,, if they were GW would have made the datasheets more similar... but the datasheets have different, statlines, abilities, wargear options, unit sizes, unit compositions, keywords and access to stratagems... Why are you convinced that they are the same ? nothing about their model or datasheet is the same unless you change everything that makes them different... Why should GW listen to you, some guy on the internet, about whether or not they "should" be representing their models differently. Why are you so hellbent on my model not being unique in the way that it is now but instead being a clone of a different model that doesn't have the same , statlines, abilities, wargear options, unit sizes, unit compositions, keywords and access to stratagems... ?
You are projecting a...whole lot of issues and misconceptions onto me here, and I'm going to ask you take them somewhere else.
I am just a random dude on an internet message board about plastic toy soldiers talking about game design. I never made any claim otherwise. I'm not hellbent on anything. You are inserting a lot of emotion into this.
I have repeatedly explained my stance on why I believe many of these units are similar. Feel free to reread my previous posts. A hint is that a lot of the detail you're obsessing over frequently changes anyway. I will note that many units have emerged and been reabsorbed into generic entries over the years without meaningful harm. Kasrkin for example.
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
perhaps if you want to keep making this comparison you can show us the "Space marine with purity seals" kit?
if not then maybe just maybe it's a gakky intellectually dishonest comparison?
We have separate kits for Mk3 and Mk4 Power Armor. Why don't they have different rules just like with the Terminator armors all being different?
The same reason some bolters look different yet have the same rules while others have different rules. It's an arbitrary line. I would argue that dudes riding wolves meets an arbitrary level of difference to justify bespoke rules.
Please understand that I'm also one of those that thinks some consolidation of units/rules regarding space marines would be nice (e.g. grey hunters and devastators, etc etc).
Once more for emphasis: it's arbitrary.
But the question is why is it that arbitrary that the different Terminators have different rules (AND entries for Storm Bolter or straight melee)? It's completely silly.
Can you seriously not tell the difference between an Eldar and a Space Marine wearing fur?
If you seriously can't tell the difference between a wolf and bike,,, ya then sure, I can't tell the difference. Its arbitrary at that point.
What is the mechanical difference? I've asked you repeatedly, and you STILL can't answer!
You're right though at the end. It IS arbitrary, the difference between a wolf and bike.
Well I'm not sure if he's the one who answered, but the the answer that extra attacks are only on the charge for bikes and they're always on for cavalry has been given more than once. And you can say that's arbitrary, but I say it's based on physics, because inertia affects heavy metal objects on wheels more than it does living creatures and quadrupedal creatures in particular. Creatures also have a better turning radius, so more physics.
Think of it this way: a restaurant that serves your favourite steak. They cook it just right for you. Then, they offer a vegan steak alternative on the menu. You don't have to change your order, but now other people can order an approximation. Has your dining experience been ruined? Does the steak taste different, despite no changes to how it's cooked or your consumption?
Surely not.
Eating dinner is a solitary experience... so no,
Now if everyone elses dinner and express impact on my dinner... then yes.
Sorry, what? How does it affect YOU if I come to table with my Generic Veteran Cavalry unit?
Now I am interested to hear this. In this restaurant example, I've come up and am sitting opposite you with my vegan steak. How am I taking away from your own meal?
Your interpretation of the metaphor would be accurate if you were advocating for a generic cavalry unit that continued to co-exist with TWC unit. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but that's not what I thought you were advocating. I thought you meant that the TWC (meat steak) would cease to exist because your generic cavalry unit (vegan steak) could aproximate the meat steak closely enough that YOU think the meat eater should tolerate it.
Now to be fair to you, you might design the Generic Cavalry unit so well that it could, rule for rule, strat for strat, stat for stat and wargear for wargear exactly match the TWC. And if you can, then yes, you are right- your vegan steak, in that case (and only in that case) could in fact perfectly mimic the meat steak, in which case I would owe you both respect for being such an awesome designer and an apology. But again, I don't think that's what you're actually advocating, because you mentioned that your generic cavalry unit could also represent flying or reptilian mounts. And a bespoke approach allows us to do that better.
Consider: In addition to the obvious fact that birds fly and wolves don't, there are other differences that could (and should, IMHO) be explained by rules just like the differences between wolves and bikes. For example: wolves are bite attackers only; birds are claw/claw/bite; land based animals have higher bone density and bone mass; the silhouette of a flying bird is almost all wing, so a non-lethal hit is more likely to compromise its movement than a non-lethal shot vs a wolf. All of these things could be represented by bespoke rules that actually make wolves feel like wolves and birds feel like birds if you ditch this idea that a birdwolf will somehow please both bird lovers and wolf lovers.
Granted, Generic Cavalry is a far more elegant solution than wolf = bike, and I do think the idea has serious merit.
But even assuming your vegan steak can do all that when you're talking about your generic cavalry, it certainly can't when we use the food metaphor for power weapons, because if my meat steak is one of the 3 currently available power weapons and your vegan steak is another, you HAVE destroyed my meat steak, unless you're talking about creating a generic PW profile IN ADDITION to the 3 we have which would be pointless because it would lead to more weapon profiles, not fewer.
BTW the same posts that described the differences between TWC and Outriders ALSO described many differences beside the one that I carried over in this post. I think one of said posts is on PG 1 or 2 and another appears on page 3 or 4. If you're really interested in knowing the differences, you might consider scrolling back, because there are quite a few. And again, thank you for being lucid enough to suggest wolves = generic cavalry than wolves = bikes. It's way better. I just happen to think it's a solution without a problem.
Reply to an specific point I made please, don't just quote a block of text and ask a rhetorical question.
I don't know how to reply to that. You losing your armies unique stuff isn't a justification for my army to lose its unique stuff ?
Also, if your wondering why I don't advocate for all marine units to get access to TWC clones or a datasheet that CAN function as a TWC clone... see my points above. I'd rather have my unique flavour and I'd rather SMs didn't get options they have been previously restricted from arbitrarily because people do not want me to have unique things. The game is now fundamentally different because A: I am not being rewarded for choosing to restrict my self by playing my faction v.s. another and now SM players have access to a slew of new options that may synergize in unintended and unbalanced ways. This increases potential for imbalance and time working out correct balancing and does not decrease it.
I really can not understand why the argument for they are giving too much time to marine design seems to be "spend time overhauling the marines, give the general marines access to even more, and create new min/max balancing issues whilst simultaneously removing the occasional variety and variance that comes with a players choice to restrict themselves to a specific faction/subfaction.
I want other factions to have attention... giving marines a rule overhaul is not what is going to accomplish that. Removing my unique units from the game by allowing a generic SM unit to do all the stuff mine does will free up as much design space as doing that with any datasheet from any faction (aka, none, they will still focus on the marine stuff, you just lose your unique stuff in the process and a ton of marine players gain even more customization) ...
Getting rid of what exists doesnt magically make the space that it took to make that thing in the past appear as if it was never used, that space has already been spent,,, i am not saying it has always deserved to be spent there, i am saying it is ilogical think you can unspend it by puting in way more effort, time, and resources into removing it , rebalancing it and doing an overall rules infastructure re-work for all the power armor factions as a whole.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Does losing some of the DKOK unique datasheets or losing the Elysium unique datasheets somehow free up extra design space ? no, and it is really gakky for the people who lost their unique datasheets. Sure they can just use generic gaurd datasheets and imagine their models behave the same way, and look fondly at their nice paint job... but thats not the same as having unique rules. Imagination and paint isn't the same as having a flavourful ruleset that represents your unit. Removing one that already exists does not free up space... the space is spent.
You are projecting a...whole lot of issues and misconceptions onto me here, and I'm going to ask you take them somewhere else.
I am just a random dude on an internet message board about plastic toy soldiers talking about game design. I never made any claim otherwise. I'm not hellbent on anything. You are inserting a lot of emotion into this.
You are claiming that the being defensive about the theft of the units that make a faction unique makes people entitled and you expect people who have invested time, money and a massive amount of energy into that faction shouldn't take this as some sort of insult?
Your the one calling us entitled for thinking it wouldn't be fair to lose our unique units XD. what gives you and everyone else the entitlement to suggest that they should be taken from us ? Don't placate your charged statement with "why are you getting emotional" after insulting us and unjustifiably calling us entitled XD... lol entitled for wanting to keep what we have whilst random guys on the internet say we shouldnt have it ,,, come on.
It's what makes our faction unique and for what ever reason the circular logic is "your not unique because if we remove everything that makes your stuff unique it will be just like everything else" ... Ya... if pointing out that this is flawed logic is entitlement,,, I think you have misconstrued idea of what entitlement is.
p.s.
As a Vegan, I would prefer a separate entry for my vegan option... this why I don't have to be confused about what additions, restrictions and side options to the meal are correct for my diet and what options are not correct for my diet... Just saying.
Consolidating something that's already 85% or more the same is different from consolidating two things that have maybe 1% overlap.
Will you at least promise to not bring up the "Might as well merge Eldar and Marines" malarky again?
Again, this means nothing... a unique datasheet is a unique datasheet... You either want unique datasheets to be consolidated or not ?
A wolf is less of a bike then an elf jet bike isnt a space marine bike...
TWC is not 85% the same its a completely different datasheet. do you really not get this... So, no I will not stop bringing up this 'malarky' due to the fact that I am using EXACTLY the logic you guys are proposing to propose the same kind of merge...
Karol wrote:True. This is all generaly is a strange thing. Balanced is supposed to be achived by removing marine options and nerfing their rules, before even people getting their own books. At the same time the great balancers are asking for bringing back sub faction FW armies, more rules for their factions and if they get powerful books themselfs they ain't going to be asking for nerfs, because I remember them not asking for those when they had a powerful rules in 8th.
The point of this thread isnt about balance, its about reducing bloat.
Type40 wrote:
Lance845 wrote: I agree with Vaktathi. All this is is Type40 shouting entitlement and "I want". And he resorts to absurdity like saying the eldar codex should be merged into the SM codex when presented with arguments and evidence to counter him.
I am not shouting I want at all.
You guys are attempting theft. I am shouting STOP.
I don't need to "want" it... I currently HAVE it. You are proposing to take it away.
You can agree with Vaktathi all you want... it just means you are both wrong.
Its not theft, ive shown you a way to implement it that lets you keep 100% of your fluff and even opens up space for more armies to have fluffy units too. You keep bringing up the "you want to remove TWC'' argument when its not at all what were saying.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What is the mechanical difference? I've asked you repeatedly, and you STILL can't answer!
You're right though at the end. It IS arbitrary, the difference between a wolf and bike.
I have answered this question so many times.
You have replied. You've not ANSWERED.
Statline, special rules, wargear, access to stratagems, unit composition, unit size, keywords, type of unit and restrictions to whom can take it.
Great. But WHY are they different? Statline? They're... pretty much identical to Veteran Bikers. Special rules? Like... Swift Attack? A sweeping rule that could just be tied to ALL Space Wolf Cavalry as a keyword, or even to this unit in particular as a generic rule? I mean, Bikes are Swift and Attacky. Why don't they have it too? Arbitrary differences. Wargear - nope, again, same general options as Veteran Bikers, except the Bikers get more. Why don't the TWC get more? No good reason, so lets give the TWC more options. Oh, and the Biting attack from the wolves? What about attacks representing the mass of the bike or running over enemies? So, no difference there. Stratagems - again, stratagems can be reworded. The three stratagems that directly affect TWC can become Space Wolf unique ones that affect <Veteran Cavalry> units. There. No need for a datasheet. Unit composition - um... bikes have three models too? Unit size - again, why can't Bikes have 6 models overall? Again - arbitrary rules with no reason to be WHY they are. Keywords - so, totally arbitrary. Type of unit - the difference between cavalry and bikes is arbitrary, next. Restrictions - WHY is there a restriction?
So, yeah - there's no REASON why they can't be linked beyond your own appeals to status quo.
You are calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique.
Yes. Exactly. Emphasis on that last part. "Keep it unique" - aka, in your own words, "exclusive to me".
I've demonstrated repeatedly how I could recreate TWC in a generic format and keep all the same mechanical systems. They wouldn't play any differently. The only change is that other people get to use it. And you seem to kick up such a fuss about other people getting to touch your special toys.
Yeah. That's entitlement.
Now I am interested to hear this. In this restaurant example, I've come up and am sitting opposite you with my vegan steak. How am I taking away from your own meal?
Your saying I don't have to play against you ?
I'm saying how does me putting my non-Space Wolf TWC take away from your own.
I'm not stopping you from playing with you stuff. I'm just making it available to other Chapters. Why is that a problem for you?
You have fundamentally changed how we are going to play the game together.
... because I can take a unit with the same stats as TWC? My god, you are fragile.
How do you define unique ?
dictionary: "being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else."
Its not really unique if you get to have the same thing with out taking the same choices and restrictions I took in order to gain access to that thing?
Being one of it's kind doesn't mean "only available to Space Wolves". It would still be a unique unit - a unique unit to Space Marines. The fluff of them being giant wolves could still be unique, but their mechanics don't need to be.
And again - if something were to have the same mechanical properties as TWC, but without the name - are they unique then?
Like, I wouldnt be rude and say " HA I HAVE THIS UNIT AND YOU DON'T AND IF YOU HAD THIS UNIT I WOULDN'T FEEL UNIQUE! " but that does hit the nail on the head...
You can't turn around and expect me to take you seriously on "I wouldn't say... except I am saying that", right?
people play certain factions to feel unique...
Unique fluff, lore, and maybe tabletop behaviour - but if I play against someone else with the same army as me, or some units in common, you wouldn't hear me crying about it. What, do you hate that SW have Primaris too, or that you share Rhinos with Chaos Marines?
you wouldn't feel unique as a harlequin player if some SM player came in with bikes that could do everything your bikes could do would you ?
But Harlequins have totally different lore, aesthetics, and faction design. So, no, I wouldn't care at all. Sorry if that burst you bubble.
I play most of my armies because I like how they look or behave. And if another faction comes along that behaves similarly on tabletop, good for them? I still have what *I* want.
Type40 wrote:You guys are attempting theft.
Please, my sides can only take so much more!
PenitentJake wrote:To the first point, the part that you didn't quote was the part where I pointed out that I intentionally used hyperbole to illustrate the point using fewer words. I have seen people complain that the DW vet unit entry is too complex. But Terminators WOULD take more than vets because of the fact that squads don't mix weapon options the way vets do. If you take Assault Terminators, ALL of them are equipped with Assault wepons (or at the very least, they can't ALSO include Assault Cannons, Cyclone Launchers, Heavy Flamers, etc). With DW vets, taking a model on a bike doesn't affect what the rest of the unit is able to take, but with Termies, it absolutely does. Maybe I should have said two pages instead of five.
Terminators should be mixed anyway. There shouldn't BE an Assault Terminators entry, just Terminators. Want your Terminators all with lightning claws? Sure, go for it! You don't need a dedicated entry for what should be a mixed unit anyway.
It'd be as simple as: Unit of 5 Terminators armed with storm bolters and power fists. The Sergeant has a power weapon and storm bolter. Any model may replace their power fist/power weapon and storm bolter with either 2x lightning claws, or a thunder hammer and storm shield. In addition, one model armed with a storm bolter and power fist may replace the storm bolter for an assault cannon, plasma cannon, heavy flamer, or reaper autocannon; alternatively, they may take a cyclone missile launcher in addition to their storm bolter and power fist. Any model armed with a power fist may replace their power fist with a chainfist. Insert rules about sergeant weapons etc etc, but you get the gist.
The DW entry is mostly complex because it adds single unique models. All of my proposals are about whole units.
And if all power weapons were treated the same, that IS mechanical removal. It removes two of the three existing mechanics.Saying that you haven't removed anything because a single rule exists where once three did is kinda... Well, quite frankly it's not how words work.
But what is LOST? Like, meaningfully?
And finally, think about detachment composition in matched play: let's say I want to field a First Company army. Using a single data sheet, I can take 3 units of termies in a matched play game. As is, I could take 3 Assault Termies, 3 tactical Termies, and 3 relic termies. Which option feels more like a first company to you?
That's an issue with the Rule of 3, which I'd abolish too, and have always been in favour of abolishing. There'd be no such issue in my proposal.
As to the second point, HQ units are far less ubiquitous than other types of units so there's less need for language to differentiate between them; you'd never want nine of them in an army the way you might want nine units of termies either. I'm not familiar enough with Intercessors to speak intelligently about them, so I won't try to fake it.
But regardless, that's still advocating for HQ datasheets even for small wargear changes. And on the Intercessor front, they have access to three different types of main gun that the whole squad takes. It can take them from mobile short ranged gunners to long ranged snipers, and anywhere in between, just from a gun swap. But they're all the same datasheet. I, personally, am in favour of merging that with Assault Intercessors, instead of breaking them apart.
Vaktathi wrote:I'm perfectly happy to use to consolidate unit entry if that entry is constructed in such a way as to allow those options. If people have a consolidated entry that does those things and are just mad that it's not broken out into separate entries, that's what I consider entitled.
Exactly.
If someone is going to insist that comparing a Space Marine riding a warbeast is so different from another Space Marine riding a Bike with rules that are fundamentally intended to reflect the riding of a warbeast, that it's the same thing as comparing an Eldar to a Marine, I'm going to feel comfortable calling that both disingenuous and entitled.
Agreed.
PenitentJake wrote:Well I'm not sure if he's the one who answered, but the the answer that extra attacks are only on the charge for bikes and they're always on for cavalry has been given more than once. And you can say that's arbitrary, but I say it's based on physics, because inertia affects heavy metal objects on wheels more than it does living creatures and quadrupedal creatures in particular. Creatures also have a better turning radius, so more physics.
Right - so by that logic, the BIKES should have more attacking power than the living creatures, what with all that inertia slamming into them. Represented by, I don't know, 3 S5 AP-1 attacks?
I'm asking why Bikes *can't* give extra attacks. Because mounts being able to attack, but a massive hunk of metal driving into you not feels off.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry, what? How does it affect YOU if I come to table with my Generic Veteran Cavalry unit?
Now I am interested to hear this. In this restaurant example, I've come up and am sitting opposite you with my vegan steak. How am I taking away from your own meal?
Your interpretation of the metaphor would be accurate if you were advocating for a generic cavalry unit that continued to co-exist with TWC unit. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but that's not what I thought you were advocating. I thought you meant that the TWC (meat steak) would cease to exist because your generic cavalry unit (vegan steak) could aproximate the meat steak closely enough that YOU think the meat eater should tolerate it.
No, because the real steak still exists *mechanically*. That's the point I'm making. The meat steak still exists, but it's part of a larger menu, which contains imposter steaks - nothing has changed, the steak is still there, but there's other things that share that menu space now.
Now to be fair to you, you might design the Generic Cavalry unit so well that it could, rule for rule, strat for strat, stat for stat and wargear for wargear exactly match the TWC. And if you can, then yes, you are right- your vegan steak, in that case (and only in that case) could in fact perfectly mimic the meat steak, in which case I would owe you both respect for being such an awesome designer and an apology. But again, I don't think that's what you're actually advocating, because you mentioned that your generic cavalry unit could also represent flying or reptilian mounts. And a bespoke approach allows us to do that better.
No, that's exactly what I'm advocating. If the SW player doesn't want to add on those extra flavour things, because they don't fit their flavour, they just don't take those options. Simple.
My Chapter might have no Apothecaries, for example. I don't need a unique Codex to represent that. I just don't take Apothecaries. Same as this - the option EXISTS to upgrade the mount to be flying (either as a jetbike or a creature), but a self-respecting SW player wouldn't take that option, because it doesn't fit their fluff. There is no fault there.
Consider: In addition to the obvious fact that birds fly and wolves don't, there are other differences that could (and should, IMHO) be explained by rules just like the differences between wolves and bikes. For example: wolves are bite attackers only; birds are claw/claw/bite; land based animals have higher bone density and bone mass; the silhouette of a flying bird is almost all wing, so a non-lethal hit is more likely to compromise its movement than a non-lethal shot vs a wolf. All of these things could be represented by bespoke rules that actually make wolves feel like wolves and birds feel like birds if you ditch this idea that a birdwolf will somehow please both bird lovers and wolf lovers.
Firstly, if we're going to quibble over "higher bone density", may I remind you these are magical space wolves (not the Chapter), and presumably also magic space birds? So, I think we can ignore that appeal to realism. Secondly, the TWC's own statblock calls the wolves out as "crushing teeth AND CLAWS" - so, yeah, I think birds getting to claw is fine. Thirdly, about critical hits - why is riding a big wolf suddenly giving protection like Terminator armour? T5 and an extra wound? For riding a big space dog? (I have the same quibble about bikes too.)
No. It's not abstract to imagine "Beast-riding Space Marine" as only applying to wolves. Drakes, lions, tigers, giant space otters, hedgehogs - all fine in my book.
But even assuming your vegan steak can do all that when you're talking about your generic cavalry, it certainly can't when we use the food metaphor for power weapons, because if my meat steak is one of the 3 currently available power weapons and your vegan steak is another, you HAVE destroyed my meat steak, unless you're talking about creating a generic PW profile IN ADDITION to the 3 we have which would be pointless because it would lead to more weapon profiles, not fewer.
Sure, power swords, axes, lances and mauls are gone, replaced with a generic power weapon that covers all manner of stuff. What was lost?
BTW the same posts that described the differences between TWC and Outriders ALSO described many differences beside the one that I carried over in this post. I think one of said posts is on PG 1 or 2 and another appears on page 3 or 4. If you're really interested in knowing the differences, you might consider scrolling back, because there are quite a few. And again, thank you for being lucid enough to suggest wolves = generic cavalry than wolves = bikes. It's way better. I just happen to think it's a solution without a problem.
I addressed every one of those points raised about "how" they're different. I received none explaining "why" - which is what I'm trying to get to. There is no REASON that bikes and wolves can't use the same statblock, no innate thing a wolf can do that a bike can't replicate. The only thing holding over is inertia.
I'm not necessarily suggesting Wolves=Generic Cavalry INSTEAD of Wolves=Bikes. I'm saying Wolves=Generic Cavalry=Bikes, with options to buy features like "flying" or "armoured" and so on.
JNAProductions wrote: What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?
Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?
going by the xeno players metrics? eldar shoty unit, eldar stabby unit, eldar small transport , eldar big transport, eldar leader. eldar support unit melee, eldar support shoty. Could cover all types of eldar with those, if you used the metric that are supposed to be used for marines.
.
Stop injecting your eldar hate fetish in every single thread for gods sake.
Eldars don't have 8 datasheet for their Autarch unlike the space marine captains.
Eldars don't have multiple units that do exactly the same thing
Eldars don't have hundreads of datasheets.
I was unaware the datasheet actually changed-because no one here has advocated getting rid of Chapter Tactics. Just that when the Core Marine Dex has 100+ datasheets in it, you don't ALSO need another dozen for each individual chapter.
Yes the stats can be the same, but if you have centurions in one army walk the table and the other lets you teleport or deploy them 9" away from the enemy, then those are two very different units, doesn't matter if they cost the same and technicaly have the same stats, or even names.
This has nothing to do with the current thread which proposes/discusses a change that wouldnt remove magically remove chapter tactics/stratagems from the game. And its still the same unit with the same datasheet
Karol wrote:True. This is all generaly is a strange thing. Balanced is supposed to be achived by removing marine options and nerfing their rules, before even people getting their own books. At the same time the great balancers are asking for bringing back sub faction FW armies, more rules for their factions and if they get powerful books themselfs they ain't going to be asking for nerfs, because I remember them not asking for those when they had a powerful rules in 8th.
The point of this thread isnt about balance, its about reducing bloat.
Type40 wrote:
Lance845 wrote: I agree with Vaktathi. All this is is Type40 shouting entitlement and "I want". And he resorts to absurdity like saying the eldar codex should be merged into the SM codex when presented with arguments and evidence to counter him.
I am not shouting I want at all.
You guys are attempting theft. I am shouting STOP.
I don't need to "want" it... I currently HAVE it. You are proposing to take it away.
You can agree with Vaktathi all you want... it just means you are both wrong.
Its not theft, ive shown you a way to implement it that lets you keep 100% of your fluff and even opens up space for more armies to have fluffy units too. You keep bringing up the "you want to remove TWC'' argument when its not at all what were saying.
Because what you arn't noticing ,,, is some of your comrades ARE proposing replacing the TWC with the outrider datasheet.
You still havn't responded to the fact that your proposal does remove it from being a unique option (and thus it is stolen as a unique option) and brings along a series of balancing issues by increasing the general marine options whilst not restricting them to the same restrictions emplaced by forcing them to play SWs to gain accesses to it... Also, you havn't addressed the issues this would bring in terms of forcing more time to be put into balancing. Now instead of balancing seperate datasheets, the designers must balance each individual upgrade, and not just those upgrades under the SW chapter rules but under the othe chapter rules too... this now means even more time will be dedicated to power armor factions... Now we also have the issue of how much time it will take to rehaul the marine datasheets... this will take yet again EVEN more design time away from other factions...
Are you really not seeing the slew of problems this would bring for everyone ? your solution means even less design time for everyone else, new min/maxing potential, new synergy problems, balancing issues due to increased customization, a removal of unique options given to players for chosing to restrict themselves to particular factions, and a less user friendly set of massive variable use datasheets...
Ok,.,,,, so remind me what that has to do with you wanting me to lose my rules ?
nothing
because youre not losing any fething rule
Except unique access to my faction unit rules...XD ?
"don't wory, we arn't taking anything from you, except your identity" lol "they are exactly the same anyways, except for all the things that make them different, so we ll make sure they arn't different anymore" lol .
"oh but this other datasheet, from this other faction, even though its as different as your datasheet is, I say its the same because, these bikes fly" lol.
"no non, wolves and bikes are too similar,,, not like flying bikes and driving bikes" lol.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because they're nearly all working from the same core units.
So you want to remove all variety from an army because their core units are the same?
What variety is this?
Just to illustrate my point - I am essentially in favour of nearly ALL unique units being made generic, available to everyone, without skimping on making them mechanically identical to their pre-merge counterpart. No rules are lost, no army or model is being made illegal.
Can we not trust players to regulate their OWN armies to foster their OWN variety? If a SW player or BT player believes they should take Apothecaries or Librarians because of their lore, do they need a rule saying they can't?
"don't wory, we arn't taking anything from you, except your identity" lol "they are exactly the same anyways, except for all the things that make them different, so we ll make sure they arn't different anymore" lol .
"oh but this other datasheet, from this other faction, even though its as different as your datasheet is, I say its the same because, these bikes fly" lol.
"no non, wolves and bikes are too similar,,, not like flying bikes and driving bikes" lol.
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.
(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options.
(Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit.
(Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability.
(Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1
(Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.
Ok,.,,,, so remind me what that has to do with you wanting me to lose my rules ?
nothing
because youre not losing any fething rule
Except unique access to my faction unit...XD ?
One last time: You're not losing access to it. It's just that other people are getting the keys as well. You lose nothing except exclusivity.
"don't wory, we arn't taking anything from you, except your identity" lol
Sorry, your identity depends on exclusivity against other people? You identity revolves around "HAHA I HAVE THIS AND YOU DON'T!!"? My god that's shallow.
"they are exactly the same anyways, except for all the things that make them different, so we ll make sure they arn't different anymore" lol .
That's not what my proposal was, and you know it. My proposal was more than capable of replicating TWC mechanically identically. The only issue was that EVERYONE got it. But that was too much for you, huh?
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.
(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options. (Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit. (Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability. (Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1 (Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.
Not quite how I'd personally do it, but it has exactly the same mechanical effect, and that's the main thing.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because they're nearly all working from the same core units.
So you want to remove all variety from an army because their core units are the same?
What variety is this?
Just to illustrate my point - I am essentially in favour of nearly ALL unique units being made generic, available to everyone, without skimping on making them mechanically identical to their pre-merge counterpart. No rules are lost, no army or model is being made illegal.
Can we not trust players to regulate their OWN armies to foster their OWN variety? If a SW player or BT player believes they should take Apothecaries or Librarians because of their lore, do they need a rule saying they can't?
I'd like to play my TWC as though they could auto advance 6", move 16", have fly, rising cresendo, access to harlie strats, masque froms , haywire cannons and zepherglaives Lets do it ! lets consolidate those datasheets . Skyweavers are just like TWC if we make t hem do the same thing .
p.s. no, we can not trust players to regulate their OWN armies... that isn't 40k,,, that is a different game. In 40k you pick datasheets that represent your unit, that provide unique rules fluff and playstyles as the designers saw fit, because, in theory the designers create relatively balanced units for casual and up to tournament play... but sure,,, we could play BolterAction where we customly build our datasheets and play based completely on our own customized why of seeing fit... but that's a completely different game and that is going to require a complete rules overhaul to every army.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because they're nearly all working from the same core units.
So you want to remove all variety from an army because their core units are the same?
What variety is this?
Just to illustrate my point - I am essentially in favour of nearly ALL unique units being made generic, available to everyone, without skimping on making them mechanically identical to their pre-merge counterpart. No rules are lost, no army or model is being made illegal.
Can we not trust players to regulate their OWN armies to foster their OWN variety? If a SW player or BT player believes they should take Apothecaries or Librarians because of their lore, do they need a rule saying they can't?
I'd like to play my TWC as though they could auto advance 6", move 16", have fly, rising cresendo, access to harlie strats, masque froms and haywire cannons. and zepherglaives .
p.s. no, we can not trust players to regulate their OWN armies... that isn't 40k,,, that is a different game. In 40k you pick datasheets that represent your unit, that provide unique rules fluff and playstyles as the designers saw fit, because, in theory the designers create relatively balanced units for casual and up to tournament play... but sure,,, we could play BolterAction where we customly build our datasheets and play based completely on our own customized why of seeing fit... but that's a completely different game and that is going to require a complete rules overhaul to every army.
Are you an alt account of BaconCatBug? Thats the type of ridiculus claims he would do.
"if you want to shoot your assault weapons after advancing then my marines are toughness 9000 with a 0+ save and get 350 attacks each"
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because they're nearly all working from the same core units.
So you want to remove all variety from an army because their core units are the same?
What variety is this?
Just to illustrate my point - I am essentially in favour of nearly ALL unique units being made generic, available to everyone, without skimping on making them mechanically identical to their pre-merge counterpart. No rules are lost, no army or model is being made illegal.
Can we not trust players to regulate their OWN armies to foster their OWN variety? If a SW player or BT player believes they should take Apothecaries or Librarians because of their lore, do they need a rule saying they can't?
I'd like to play my TWC as though they could auto advance 6", move 16", have fly, rising cresendo, access to harlie strats, masque froms and haywire cannons. and zepherglaives .
p.s. no, we can not trust players to regulate their OWN armies... that isn't 40k,,, that is a different game. In 40k you pick datasheets that represent your unit, that provide unique rules fluff and playstyles as the designers saw fit, because, in theory the designers create relatively balanced units for casual and up to tournament play... but sure,,, we could play BolterAction where we customly build our datasheets and play based completely on our own customized why of seeing fit... but that's a completely different game and that is going to require a complete rules overhaul to every army.
Are you an alt account of BaconCatBug? Thats the type of ridiculus claims he would do.
"if you want to shoot your assault weapons after advancing then my marines are toughness 9000 with a 0+ save and get 350 attacks each"
LOL... what is the difference ?
We are letting players regulate their OWN armies... XD is it frustrating to see your logic in play.
You want to arbitrarily let other factions have a datasheet that does the same thing as a SW unique unit ... So now, I also propose we make the SW unique unit do things that a unit nothing like it does ?
What is the difference... wolf, bike , dinosaure, jet bike, whats the diference right ? a little paint, imagination and the ability to regulate my own army .
"Everyone TWC will not be unique to SWs , it will be way easier to balance the game if every SM faction can just do the same thing"
"oh, the TWC datasheet is nothing like any other datasheet in the SM range, that's fine, we'll make them same now"
"oh,,, not that datasheet, that datasheet is completely different in all the same ways,,, but that belongs to someone else, only SWs don't deserve a custom identity" lol
H.B.M.C. wrote: HQ:
Space Marine High Level Commander
Space Marine Low Level Commander
Space Marine Psyker
Elites:
Space Marine Terminator Unit
Space Marine Veteran Power Armour Unit
Space Marine Dreadnought
Space Marine Apothecary
Space Marine Tech-Marine
Troops:
Space Marine Troops Unit
Space Marine Heavy Troops Unit
Space Marine Scout Troops Unit
Fast Attack:
Space Marine Fast Assault Unit
Space Marine Bike
Space Marine Heavy Bike
Space Marine Land Speeder
Heavy Support:
Space Marine Tank
Space Marine Heavy Tank
Space Marine Artillery Tank
Transports:
Space Marine Transport
Space Marine Drop Pod
Flyers:
Space Marine Flying Transport
Space Marine Flying Gunship
Yeah. I could see this working. It just screams "fun" and "variety".
Totally fun and full of variance... you know what would be even "better" for balance and design function... why specify Space Marines at all
High Level Commander
Low Level Commander
Psyker
Elites:
Terminator Unit
Veteran Power Armour Unit
Dreadnought
Apothecary
Tech-Marine
Troops:
Troops Unit
Heavy Troops Unit
Scout Troops Unit
Fast Attack:
Fast Assault Unit
Bike
Heavy Bike
Land Speeder
Heavy Support:
Tank
Heavy Tank
Artillery Tank
Transports:
Transport
Drop Pod
Flyers:
Flying Transport
Flying Gunship
we can do the whole game this way.
Each one of these datasheets can have the option to become any unit in the game and the players can regulate their OWN army ? why not ? XD .
Yeah. It does. You're describing exactly what other armies have.
So this is a good model to consolidate all 3 eldar armies ?
After putting in the enormous effort to create this rules overhaul, remove tons of players sense of identity and uniqueness, force players into a vanilfied situatiion, make choices meaningless, have the designer spend even more time ensuring all the new options and uprades synergize and are balanced with each chapter... do you think there will still be time to focus on other factions XD lol... do you think keeping the balance of this level of customization would be easy XD. You just turned SMs into an unbeatable super customizable faction OR you removed the flavour of 50% of power armor faction players who entered the game for that flavour OR you created a set of datasheets that will need complex flow charts just to use .
You are proposing the opposite of what you want... this isn't going to remove design space from marines, this is redesigning the entire faction and would probobly take the design team, at minimum another year, focused only on marines lol. Your basically proposing a new game.
Gonna leave it now. We can agree to disagree; I'm cool with that.
Not sure any Blood Angels want BA on wolves, or DA on wolves, but if you think the dex needs to be rewritten for a 14th or 15th time to make that possible instead of just getting on with making all the non-marine dexes just to make that possible, well then nothing I can say is going to change your mind; I doubt there's much anyone could say to change mine, though Smudge came close on some stuff.
Keep on rockin in the free world y'all. Much respect all around, and I'll likely see you all again the next time the topic shows up. Rinse and repeat.
And for two, do you still not understand the difference between consolidating Marines and consolidating the entire game?
for the last time, this isn't a question of consolidating MARINES.
You are proposing the consolidation of specific sheets.
So NO consolidating TWC into outriders continues to be just as logical as consolidating skyweavers into outriders.
Two completely different units gaining all of each others abilities and rules to fit onto one datasheet will do nothing but create further balancing issues and force the design team to focus even more on ensuring balancing problems due to removal restriction and thus requiring the new upgrades and alternatives on this "new consolidated datasheet" is balanced in the context of all the new customizations it has all of a sudden gained.
Troops:
Termagants - Troops Unit
Tyranid Warriors - Heavy Troops Unit
Hormagaunts - Scout Troops Unit?
Ripper Swarm - Joke Troops Unit
Fast Attack:
Raveners - Fast Assault Unit
Gargoyles - Bike
Trygon? Heavy Bike
And some spore mines and sky slasher swarms which will never be taken as fast attack.
Heavy Support:
Carnifex - Dred
Tyrannofex - Tank
Exocrine - Heavy Tank
Biovore - Artillery Tank
Mawlocs and Toxicrenes as specialists.
Honestly Mawloc should be a variation of or upgrade to the Trygon/prime
Transports:
Tyrannocyte Drop Pod
Flyers:
Harpy - Flying Gunship
Hive Crone - Flying Gunship
I'd like to play my TWC as though they could auto advance 6", move 16", have fly, rising cresendo, access to harlie strats, masque froms , haywire cannons and zepherglaives Lets do it ! lets consolidate those datasheets . Skyweavers are just like TWC if we make t hem do the same thing .
I don't think that's what he was saying. It's not about players making up their own rules (although in an environment where all of the players are ok with that, it's totally fine) but about people making selections based on when fits their chosen theme. If your Chapter fluff says that they don't use Librarians, then you don't take Librarians. If your fluff says that your Chapter uses a lot of fast moving units, then you select as many fast moving units as you can. This stuff doesn't actually have to be restricted in the rules.
So this is a good model to consolidate all 3 eldar armies ?
it would be if they had any units in common.[/quot]
What unit is the same as a TWC or a Wulfen.... lol but the two fighty elf units with shurriken weapopns are more different then a wolf and a bike XD.
PenitentJake wrote: Gonna leave it now. We can agree to disagree; I'm cool with that.
Not sure any Blood Angels want BA on wolves, or DA on wolves, but if you think the dex needs to be rewritten for a 14th or 15th time to make that possible instead of just getting on with making all the non-marine dexes just to make that possible, well then nothing I can say is going to change your mind; I doubt there's much anyone could say to change mine, though Smudge came close on some stuff.
Keep on rockin in the free world y'all. Much respect all around, and I'll likely see you all again the next time the topic shows up. Rinse and repeat.
Peace.
Ya, I got to dip on this too.
If you guys can't see the flaw in your proposals ,,, I don't know how else to explain it XD.
But I hope to god GW doesn't go with any of your plans... they ll be releasing marine updates for another year and the balance of the game will be so hard to keep up with it wont even be funny. not to mention all the players who will leave because they had their identities stolen...
Peace guys.
We had a good conversation while it lasted, but I really can't argue in these circles your leading me through anymore, I am re-answering questions asked of me days ago XD.
We had a good conversation while it lasted, but I really can't argue in these circles your leading me through anymore, I am re-answering questions asked of me days ago XD.
we really didnt, mostly you shifting goalposts and appealing to extremes.
We had a good conversation while it lasted, but I really can't argue in these circles your leading me through anymore, I am re-answering questions asked of me days ago XD.
we really didnt, mostly you shifting goalposts and appealing to extremes.
not even once lol XD not even once. I have repeated the same set of issues, concerns and problems with consolidation proposals through the entire argument. Arbitrarily accusing me of shifting the goal post doesn't actually make it true lol. You can't just accuse people of that because you don't know how to respond to their disputes with your proposals... I can't shift a goal post when I have been the one responding and disputing to YOUR proposals lol ,,, that's just not how discourse works XD... you propose it, I dispute it,,, you were incharge of the goal posts lol.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because they're nearly all working from the same core units.
So you want to remove all variety from an army because their core units are the same?
I just don't see the reason for the push for this is, what possiable use is there to focus on weather or not space wolves have a datasheet for TWC or not?.... other then to fill the dakkadakka "marine complaints" quota.
Also, if your wondering why I don't advocate for all marine units to get access to TWC clones or a datasheet that CAN function as a TWC clone... see my points above. I'd rather have my unique flavour and I'd rather SMs didn't get options they have been previously restricted from arbitrarily because people do not want me to have unique things. The game is now fundamentally different because A: I am not being rewarded for choosing to restrict my self by playing my faction v.s. another and now SM players have access to a slew of new options that may synergize in unintended and unbalanced ways. This increases potential for imbalance and time working out correct balancing and does not decrease it.
I really can not understand why the argument for they are giving too much time to marine design seems to be "spend time overhauling the marines, give the general marines access to even more, and create new min/max balancing issues whilst simultaneously removing the occasional variety and variance that comes with a players choice to restrict themselves to a specific faction/subfaction.
I want other factions to have attention... giving marines a rule overhaul is not what is going to accomplish that. Removing my unique units from the game by allowing a generic SM unit to do all the stuff mine does will free up as much design space as doing that with any datasheet from any faction (aka, none, they will still focus on the marine stuff, you just lose your unique stuff in the process and a ton of marine players gain even more customization) ...
Getting rid of what exists doesnt magically make the space that it took to make that thing in the past appear as if it was never used, that space has already been spent,,, i am not saying it has always deserved to be spent there, i am saying it is ilogical think you can unspend it by puting in way more effort, time, and resources into removing it , rebalancing it and doing an overall rules infastructure re-work for all the power armor factions as a whole.
None of the other factions are ever going to get that level of support. Isn't going to happen. Simple as. We can end that line of thought. Many lines are in fact losing, or have already lost, a whole lot more than anyone is proposing here. Dark Eldar, Renegades and Heretics, etc.
Space Marines, one of the smallest and ostensibly one of the most tightly disciplined and mostly codex-bound forces in the entire galaxy, have more variety and rules and unit support than the entirety of the forces of Chaos, more subtle RPG level distinction and nuance than the fighting force that encompasses the great mass of humanity in all its stripes that is the Imperial Guard, more subfaction rules support than the ancient Eldar, etc ad nauseum. We have Codex adherent chapters with more dedicated rules support for their subtle distinctions than the entirety of mortal chaos armies have, or for any single Chaos Legion.
And hell, I have marine armies. I play Iron Warriors and just finished painting a Grey Knights army. I get and like that there are differences between subfactions.
But I'm also aware that a ton of this stuff all treads on each others toes, a lot of it is just different interpretations and visual portrayals of the same thing. I don't demand that I need special rules of Possessed Iron Warriors who would be wielding daemonically powered cybernetics instead of allowing Daemons to infest their bodies for example, the generic Possessed unit statline will work for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Does losing some of the DKOK unique datasheets or losing the Elysium unique datasheets somehow free up extra design space ? no, and it is really gakky for the people who lost their unique datasheets.
Sure they can just use generic gaurd datasheets and imagine their models behave the same way, and look fondly at their nice paint job... but thats not the same as having unique rules. Imagination and paint isn't the same as having a flavourful ruleset that represents your unit. Removing one that already exists does not free up space... the space is spent.
As a DKoK player, I'm 100% ok with not needing unique datasheets for Death Korps specific infantry and just using a Doctrine applied to the basic Infantry Squad instead. I have zero problems with that. There was never any benefit to the DKoK having a unique infantry entry, all it ever meant was that they were notably more expensive for no reason with fewer options and a smaller array of weapons upgrades, with worse Orders functionality and constantly lagging rules support. Honestly, the Catachan doctrine works as a DKoK doctrine for me, reflects enhanced CC emphasis, greater morale (at least when near officers), and some bonus to the big guns, touches all the DKoK buttons, what's not to like? That works for me better than the traditional 20% points premium for slightly enhanced WS and Morale rules with no ability to take heavy weapons.
The problem with their handling of the Grenadiers is that Tempestus Scions don't have ways to replicate the Grenadier entry, like access to Chimeras. If they fixed that, I'd have no issue just using the Tempestus Scion unit entry for Grenadiers.
You are claiming that the being defensive about the theft of the units that make a faction unique makes people entitled and you expect people who have invested time, money and a massive amount of energy into that faction shouldn't take this as some sort of insult?
Because it's a game, with shifting design and lore paradigms, where the things being proclaimed as unique pillars of identity shift and change over the editions and often are relatively new additions to decades old lore, and because I acknowledge that there's limits to D6 based design space in a game that's basically got a total of 3 or 4 meaningful unit actions (move, shoot, charge, psychic powers) and the fact that similar concepts are adopted by many different factions which reflect them in their own unique visual manner without inherently being fundamentally different things. If you're getting that insulted over a post about game design on an internet message board, you're taking it a wee bit too seriously.
Your the one calling us entitled for thinking it wouldn't be fair to lose our unique units XD.
Only if you insist on the defining "losing unique units" by simply not having a unique datasheet. I will, again, repeat my point, with its qualifications.
I'm perfectly happy to use to consolidate unit entry if that entry is constructed in such a way as to allow those options. If people have a consolidated entry that does those things and are just mad that it's not broken out into separate entries, that's what I consider entitled.
If the consolidated entry cannot be constructed to reasonably portray the unit and its options, then no, it shouldn't be part of a consolidated unit, but if it can, and you just want a separate entry just because, that's silly, and we could easily have tens of thousands of different units in the game otherwise.
A wolf is less of a bike then an elf jet bike isnt a space marine bike...
As I've pointed out several times, the SM biker units are, in terms of rules design and heritage, reskinned Warhammer Fantasy heavy cavalry. They don't actually operate the way bikes do, they're not used the way motorcyles actually are, nobody fights from the seat of a motorcycle in reality, SM bikes act and function like cavalry with a scifi skin.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because they're nearly all working from the same core units.
So you want to remove all variety from an army because their core units are the same?
I just don't see the reason for the push for this is, what possiable use is there to focus on weather or not space wolves have a datasheet for TWC or not?.... other then to fill the dakkadakka "marine complaints" quota.
the thread originally used TWC as an example because i got the idea from the hounds of morkai thread. This could be applied to many other units (mostly space marines because of the sheer number of datasheet they have) but if any other army has redundant or very similar units, they could be used as an example. Its about reducing the bloat more than nerfing marines in particular
I'm still completely confused. Is the problem with generic names? Like, would it be better if every name was Faux-Latin gibberish?
Or is this a problem with having a separate dataslate for e.g. 'Captain' and 'Captain with Gravis Armour', as opposed to a single Captain dataslate who also has the option of Gravis Armour?
Sorry if I'm just being thick here. I did try to read the last 4 or so pages, but everyone seemed to be talking at cross-purposes and I realised my eyes had started skipping whole paragraphs in self-defence.
A wolf is less of a bike then an elf jet bike isnt a space marine bike...
As I've pointed out several times, the SM biker units are, in terms of rules design and heritage, reskinned Warhammer Fantasy heavy cavalry. They don't actually operate the way bikes do, they're not used the way motorcyles actually are, nobody fights from the seat of a motorcycle in reality, SM bikes act and function like cavalry with a scifi skin.
On a historical note - in the days before TWC were a thing, people were converting Space Marine 'Bikers' riding WHFB Cold Ones, and nobody ever batted an eyelid at it.
vipoid wrote: I'm still completely confused. Is the problem with generic names? Like, would it be better if every name was Faux-Latin gibberish?
Or is this a problem with having a separate dataslate for e.g. 'Captain' and 'Captain with Gravis Armour', as opposed to a single Captain dataslate who also has the option of Gravis Armour?
Sorry if I'm just being thick here. I did try to read the last 4 or so pages, but everyone seemed to be talking at cross-purposes and I realised my eyes had started skipping whole paragraphs in self-defence.
the bolded part is what i had in mind. and its not necessarily a problem, it was more of thought experiment about the pros and cons of the idea.
vipoid wrote: I'm still completely confused. Is the problem with generic names? Like, would it be better if every name was Faux-Latin gibberish?
Or is this a problem with having a separate dataslate for e.g. 'Captain' and 'Captain with Gravis Armour', as opposed to a single Captain dataslate who also has the option of Gravis Armour?
Sorry if I'm just being thick here. I did try to read the last 4 or so pages, but everyone seemed to be talking at cross-purposes and I realised my eyes had started skipping whole paragraphs in self-defence.
It's not the names, it's about having multiple datasheets that do the same thing, just for the sake of artificial variety.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because they're nearly all working from the same core units.
So you want to remove all variety from an army because their core units are the same?
I just don't see the reason for the push for this is, what possiable use is there to focus on weather or not space wolves have a datasheet for TWC or not?.... other then to fill the dakkadakka "marine complaints" quota.
the thread originally used TWC as an example because i got the idea from the hounds of morkai thread. This could be applied to many other units (mostly space marines because of the sheer number of datasheet they have) but if any other army has redundant or very similar units, they could be used as an example. Its about reducing the bloat more than nerfing marines in particular
Agreed. The 4 types of carnifex (including the FW stone crusher) should be a single datasheet. The codex can have some fluffy foot notes about how to build classic fexes like the screamer killer.
The Trygon should be one data sheet with a points cost to add a mawloc head and it's reburrow ability or upgrade to a prime and gain it's electric thing. Also can the prime be a damn synapse creature? Id appreciate it and pay for it.
The warriors should have a purchasable upgrade to be shrikes. And instead of the red terror the Tyranid prime should have upgrade options to gain wings to function with shrikes or a tail and burrowing to act as the new red terror.
I guess is sky slasher swarms are going to stick around they should be an upgrade to rippers.
I think thats about all the consolidating Nids can do. Im happy to have it done.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because they're nearly all working from the same core units.
So you want to remove all variety from an army because their core units are the same?
I just don't see the reason for the push for this is, what possiable use is there to focus on weather or not space wolves have a datasheet for TWC or not?.... other then to fill the dakkadakka "marine complaints" quota.
the thread originally used TWC as an example because i got the idea from the hounds of morkai thread. This could be applied to many other units (mostly space marines because of the sheer number of datasheet they have) but if any other army has redundant or very similar units, they could be used as an example. Its about reducing the bloat more than nerfing marines in particular
Agreed. The 4 types of carnifex (including the FW stone crusher) should be a single datasheet. The codex can have some fluffy foot notes about how to build classic fexes like the screamer killer.
The Trygon should be one data sheet with a points cost to add a mawloc head and it's reburrow ability or upgrade to a prime and gain it's electric thing. Also can the prime be a damn synapse creature? Id appreciate it and pay for it.
The warriors should have a purchasable upgrade to be shrikes. And instead of the red terror the Tyranid prime should have upgrade options to gain wings to function with shrikes or a tail and burrowing to act as the new red terror.
I guess is sky slasher swarms are going to stick around they should be an upgrade to rippers.
I think thats about all the consolidating Nids can do. Im happy to have it done.
Thats the thing i was missing as an example, i think the fact that i used SW instead of Nids as an example made the thread go full-on into peoples emotions
A tip for you guys : just because marines are mentionned doesnt immediately make it a marine complain thread
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because they're nearly all working from the same core units.
So you want to remove all variety from an army because their core units are the same?
I just don't see the reason for the push for this is, what possiable use is there to focus on weather or not space wolves have a datasheet for TWC or not?.... other then to fill the dakkadakka "marine complaints" quota.
the thread originally used TWC as an example because i got the idea from the hounds of morkai thread. This could be applied to many other units (mostly space marines because of the sheer number of datasheet they have) but if any other army has redundant or very similar units, they could be used as an example. Its about reducing the bloat more than nerfing marines in particular
Agreed. The 4 types of carnifex (including the FW stone crusher) should be a single datasheet. The codex can have some fluffy foot notes about how to build classic fexes like the screamer killer.
The Trygon should be one data sheet with a points cost to add a mawloc head and it's reburrow ability or upgrade to a prime and gain it's electric thing. Also can the prime be a damn synapse creature? Id appreciate it and pay for it.
The warriors should have a purchasable upgrade to be shrikes. And instead of the red terror the Tyranid prime should have upgrade options to gain wings to function with shrikes or a tail and burrowing to act as the new red terror.
I guess is sky slasher swarms are going to stick around they should be an upgrade to rippers.
I think thats about all the consolidating Nids can do. Im happy to have it done.
Thats the thing i was missing as an example, i think the fact that i used SW instead of Nids as an example made the thread go full-on into peoples emotions
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And while we're at it, please stick to the topic. No need to make it personal.
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
Thats fair. Some people can be testy. The SM subject tends to bring out more vocal people because they are most in need of consolidation.
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
I mean you mostly got your wish, we just have supplements now as well. that said I think space marine players are just tired of our faction constantly coming under attack by the same people in every thread.
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
I mean you mostly got your wish, we just have supplements now as well. that said I think space marine players are just tired of our faction constantly coming under attack by the same people in every thread.
We simply need a consolidation of Manlet Marine options into Primaris. Just pull the bandaid off and get it over with. The sooner the better.
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
I mean you mostly got your wish, we just have supplements now as well. that said I think space marine players are just tired of our faction constantly coming under attack by the same people in every thread.
We simply need a consolidation of Manlet Marine options into Primaris. Just pull the bandaid off and get it over with. The sooner the better.
1000% This. The primaris army list is a pretty damn reasonable army. It's only having both going that does this.
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
I mean you mostly got your wish, we just have supplements now as well. that said I think space marine players are just tired of our faction constantly coming under attack by the same people in every thread.
I think arguments for consolidation could be valid as well, if presented right.
But claiming TWC is = Outriders
and claiming wulfen are = vet vans...
is a bit of a stretch don't you think.
there is a few things that give us the ability to have some unique flavour. we don't want to lose that.
why not talk about the 3 kinds of primaris ruplsatators
or the mutliple enteries for all the new primaris type armor....
I'd even agree if we we're talking about these new hounds...
but come on TWC being consolidated into outriders... lets be a little less farfetched... this is why I bring up farfetched examples like skyweavers and outriders... the units are just as different.
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
I mean you mostly got your wish, we just have supplements now as well. that said I think space marine players are just tired of our faction constantly coming under attack by the same people in every thread.
I think arguments for consolidation could be valid as well, if presented right.
But claiming TWC is = Outriders
and claiming wulfen are = vet vans...
is a bit of a stretch don't you think.
there is a few things that give us the ability to have some unique flavour. we don't want to lose that.
why not talk about the 3 kinds of primaris ruplsatators
or the mutliple enteries for all the new primaris type armor....
I'd even agree if we we're talking about these new hounds...
but come on TWC being consolidated into outriders... lets be a little less farfetched... this is why I bring up farfetched examples like skyweavers and outriders... the units are just as different.
can you leave the thread already?
TWC were an example that applies to multiple other units.
Relic terminators already got that treatment, the other terminators shouldve been included in this.
the repulsors SHOULD be a single entry
the 3 new floaty predators SHOULD be a single entry
the 8 captains SHOULD be a single entry
the 4 carnifex SHOULD be a single entry.
You focused way too much on my TWC example and now youre even adding in the wulfen-vet vans comparison which i never suggested because wulfen IMO are unique enough to warrant their own datasheet
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
I mean you mostly got your wish, we just have supplements now as well. that said I think space marine players are just tired of our faction constantly coming under attack by the same people in every thread.
I think arguments for consolidation could be valid as well, if presented right.
But claiming TWC is = Outriders
and claiming wulfen are = vet vans...
is a bit of a stretch don't you think.
there is a few things that give us the ability to have some unique flavour. we don't want to lose that.
why not talk about the 3 kinds of primaris ruplsatators
or the mutliple enteries for all the new primaris type armor....
I'd even agree if we we're talking about these new hounds...
but come on TWC being consolidated into outriders... lets be a little less farfetched... this is why I bring up farfetched examples like skyweavers and outriders... the units are just as different.
What unique units do leviathan hive fleet get? Jormungandr?
What unique units do Tallern get? The different forgeworlds for Admech? Different craftworlds for eldar? Different sept world for Tau?
Everyone else creates their "unique identity" with their "chapter tactics", warlord traits, relics, strats, and if they are VERY lucky 1 character. Nobody gets unique wargear. Nobody gets 12 unique datasheets. You can create your identity like everyone else.
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
I mean you mostly got your wish, we just have supplements now as well. that said I think space marine players are just tired of our faction constantly coming under attack by the same people in every thread.
I think arguments for consolidation could be valid as well, if presented right.
But claiming TWC is = Outriders
and claiming wulfen are = vet vans...
is a bit of a stretch don't you think.
there is a few things that give us the ability to have some unique flavour. we don't want to lose that.
why not talk about the 3 kinds of primaris ruplsatators
or the mutliple enteries for all the new primaris type armor....
I'd even agree if we we're talking about these new hounds...
but come on TWC being consolidated into outriders... lets be a little less farfetched... this is why I bring up farfetched examples like skyweavers and outriders... the units are just as different.
What unique units do leviathan hive fleet get? Jormungandr?
What unique units do Tallern get? The different forgeworlds for Admech? Different craftworlds for eldar? Different sept world for Tau?
Everyone else creates their "unique identity" with their "chapter tactics", warlord traits, relics, strats, and if they are VERY lucky 1 character. Nobody gets unique wargear. Nobody gets 12 unique datasheets. You can create your identity like everyone else.
no one else needs to pretend a wolf and a bike work the same... p.s. starweavers and voidweavers. Aspect wariors have unique wargear XD ... your objectively wrong here.
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
I mean you mostly got your wish, we just have supplements now as well. that said I think space marine players are just tired of our faction constantly coming under attack by the same people in every thread.
I think arguments for consolidation could be valid as well, if presented right.
But claiming TWC is = Outriders
and claiming wulfen are = vet vans...
is a bit of a stretch don't you think.
there is a few things that give us the ability to have some unique flavour. we don't want to lose that.
why not talk about the 3 kinds of primaris ruplsatators
or the mutliple enteries for all the new primaris type armor....
I'd even agree if we we're talking about these new hounds...
but come on TWC being consolidated into outriders... lets be a little less farfetched... this is why I bring up farfetched examples like skyweavers and outriders... the units are just as different.
What unique units do leviathan hive fleet get? Jormungandr?
What unique units do Tallern get? The different forgeworlds for Admech? Different craftworlds for eldar? Different sept world for Tau?
Everyone else creates their "unique identity" with their "chapter tactics", warlord traits, relics, strats, and if they are VERY lucky 1 character. Nobody gets unique wargear. Nobody gets 12 unique datasheets. You can create your identity like everyone else.
no one else needs to pretend a wolf and a bike work the same...
Yup. Avoid the question and repeat the same bullcrap again. Thank you very much. Good bye.
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
I mean you mostly got your wish, we just have supplements now as well. that said I think space marine players are just tired of our faction constantly coming under attack by the same people in every thread.
I think arguments for consolidation could be valid as well, if presented right.
But claiming TWC is = Outriders
and claiming wulfen are = vet vans...
is a bit of a stretch don't you think.
there is a few things that give us the ability to have some unique flavour. we don't want to lose that.
why not talk about the 3 kinds of primaris ruplsatators
or the mutliple enteries for all the new primaris type armor....
I'd even agree if we we're talking about these new hounds...
but come on TWC being consolidated into outriders... lets be a little less farfetched... this is why I bring up farfetched examples like skyweavers and outriders... the units are just as different.
What unique units do leviathan hive fleet get? Jormungandr?
What unique units do Tallern get? The different forgeworlds for Admech? Different craftworlds for eldar? Different sept world for Tau?
Everyone else creates their "unique identity" with their "chapter tactics", warlord traits, relics, strats, and if they are VERY lucky 1 character. Nobody gets unique wargear. Nobody gets 12 unique datasheets. You can create your identity like everyone else.
no one else needs to pretend a wolf and a bike work the same...
Yup. Avoid the question and repeat the same bullcrap again. Thank you very much. Good bye.
LOL XD... have a good night XD...
woves really arn't bikes XD ... I don't know how else to explain this. Aspect warriors have unique wargear,,, because they have unique datasheets compared to the other elf datasheets, they are different units that do different things whilst using different things XD and they arn't the same thing lol...
like if you have a square,,, and a circle... they just arn't the same thing.... TWC is jsut not an Outrider...
A starweaver and a voidweaver,,, that I can buy,
One of the new hounds and a riever,,, THAT I can buy,
The repulsor variants,,, totally, I can believe it
TWC and an outrider.... sorry, just not happening.
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
I mean you mostly got your wish, we just have supplements now as well. that said I think space marine players are just tired of our faction constantly coming under attack by the same people in every thread.
I think arguments for consolidation could be valid as well, if presented right.
But claiming TWC is = Outriders
and claiming wulfen are = vet vans...
is a bit of a stretch don't you think.
there is a few things that give us the ability to have some unique flavour. we don't want to lose that.
why not talk about the 3 kinds of primaris ruplsatators
or the mutliple enteries for all the new primaris type armor....
I'd even agree if we we're talking about these new hounds...
but come on TWC being consolidated into outriders... lets be a little less farfetched... this is why I bring up farfetched examples like skyweavers and outriders... the units are just as different.
What unique units do leviathan hive fleet get? Jormungandr?
What unique units do Tallern get? The different forgeworlds for Admech? Different craftworlds for eldar? Different sept world for Tau?
Everyone else creates their "unique identity" with their "chapter tactics", warlord traits, relics, strats, and if they are VERY lucky 1 character. Nobody gets unique wargear. Nobody gets 12 unique datasheets. You can create your identity like everyone else.
and space marine players are universally happy to say they'd love to see stuff like that for everyone else.
no one else needs to pretend a wolf and a bike work the same...
Multiple posts have explained in great detail multiple times how SM bikes are fundamentally portraying Cavalry units derived from Fantasy rules for Cavalry. You have thus far actively ignored and avoided this point, and are pretending it doesn't exist, but your reply has most definitely been answered.
Type40 wrote: p.s. starweavers and voidweavers. Aspect wariors have unique wargear XD ... your objectively wrong here.
Starweavers and voidweavers have the <MASQUE> Keyword because they can be used for any troupe. Guess what? Consolidate them. Same for the various units that fall under aspect warriors.Not that they should be consolidated (because they have different stat lines and do different jobs) but that they are not unique to any sub faction. YOU are objectively wrong.
no one else needs to pretend a wolf and a bike work the same... p.s. starweavers and voidweavers. Aspect wariors have unique wargear XD ... your objectively wrong here.
Excuse me? Aspect warriors are the same for every craftworlds.
no one else needs to pretend a wolf and a bike work the same...
Multiple posts have explained in great detail multiple times how SM bikes are fundamentally portraying Cavalry units derived from Fantasy rules for Cavalry. You have thus far actively ignored and avoided this point, and are pretending it doesn't exist, but your reply has most definitely been answered.
Then why don't they use the same rules... clearly GW has chosen to use different statlines, wargear options, abilities, keywords, unit sizes, unit compositions and access to wargear options. I am not pretending it doesn't exist. It just isn't what is happening... This maybe how the original bikers got the original stats back in 2nd or 3rd edition ... Its just not accurate anymore,,, if it was GW wouldn't have made them different units... but alas GW did make their datasheets vastly different. Your call back to the days of yore and how the bike rules were derived from cavalary rules is 20+ years out of date and not relevant due to the shear existence of a separate set of rules for TWC.
no one else needs to pretend a wolf and a bike work the same...
Multiple posts have explained in great detail multiple times how SM bikes are fundamentally portraying Cavalry units derived from Fantasy rules for Cavalry. You have thus far actively ignored and avoided this point, and are pretending it doesn't exist, but your reply has most definitely been answered.
Then why don't they use the same rules...
For the same reason I have 4 datasheets for the carnifex. GW sucks.
Type40 wrote: p.s. starweavers and voidweavers. Aspect wariors have unique wargear XD ... your objectively wrong here.
Starweavers and voidweavers have the <MASQUE> Keyword because they can be used for any troupe. Guess what? Consolidate them. Same for the various units that fall under aspect warriors.Not that they should be consolidated (because they have different stat lines and do different jobs) but that they are not unique to any sub faction. YOU are objectively wrong.
differnet statlines like the different statline between a TWC and an Outrider XD lol. Or the fact that they play differently LOL ...
I am not objectively wrong. I am SUBJECTIVELY WRONG based on your flawed logic aparently...
I OBJECTIVELY can see there is a diference between a wolf and a bike... which you can't seem to acknowledge lol.
For the same reason I have 4 datasheets for the carnifex. GW sucks.
The whole point is that they don't need to use different rules. Having a division between bikes and cavalry was fine when 40K was a smaller game, but at this point they might as well be the same, and leave it up to the players to decide whether the mount is a bike, or a wolf, or a dinosaur, or a couple of guys in a panto donkey outfit.
no one else needs to pretend a wolf and a bike work the same... p.s. starweavers and voidweavers. Aspect wariors have unique wargear XD ... your objectively wrong here.
Excuse me? Aspect warriors are the same for every craftworlds.
There datasheets are different and they are all still elves XD...
You arn't getting it... they all have different datasheets XD ... TWC is a different datasheet... do you really not get this... lol.
The whole point is that they don't need to use different rules. Having a division between bikes and cavalry was fine when 40K was a smaller game, but at this point they might as well be the same, and leave it up to the players to decide whether the mount is a bike, or a wolf, or a dinosaur, or a couple of guys in a panto donkey outfit.
RIGHT,,, ok,,,,
So then my TWC should and could work like any "cavalry" then and it would be fine ? cool cool cool cool. I want my TWC to work exactly like an aldari jetbike then... If we are arbitrarily choosing,,, I pick aldari jetbike and not two wheels and bolters... Niether are a wolf, so I pcik the jetbike.
To free up design space and to make balance easier (that's the common argument right ?) or are you asking why you wouldn't want GW designers to spend time and effort into removing the unique flavour of your wolf unit so that it behave exacrtly like a bike, even though if they spent less time not consolidating the two sheets you would have a datasheet that accurately represents a wolf instead of pretend the bike is a wolf...
Living Battering Ram: When a Carnifex finishes a charge move, roll a dice; on a 4+ one enemy unit within 1" suffers a mortal wound. In addition, add 1 to all hit rolls in the Fight phase for a Carnifex that charged in the same turn.
Monstrous Brood: The first time this unit is set up on the battlefield, all of its models must be placed within 6" of at least one other model in their unit. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit.
Chitin Thorns: Аt the end of the Fight phase, roll a D6 for each enemy unit within 1" of any models with chitin thorns. On a 6, that unit suffers a mortal wound.
Enhanced Senses: A Carnifex with enhanced senses has a Ballistic Skill characteristic of 3+.
Spore Cysts: Your opponent must subtract 1 from their hit rolls for ranged attacks that target a Carnifex with spore cysts. This is not cumulative with the penalties to hit rolls incurred from the Venomthrope’s Shrouding Spores ability.
Tusks: You can add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of a Carnifex with tusks in the Fight phase if it charged in the preceding Charge phase.
Wargear options: • Any model may replace one of its pairs of monstrous scything talons with an item from the Monstrous Bio-cannons list. • Any model may replace both of its pairs of monstrous scything talons with two items from the Monstrous Bio-cannons list. • Any model may replace one of its pairs of monstrous scything talons with monstrous crushing claws. • Any model may have toxin sacs and/or adrenal glands. • Any model may have one of the following: bio-plasma, enhanced senses, a monstrous acid maw or tusks. • Any model may have a thresher scythe or a bone mace. • Any model may have spine banks or spore cysts. • Any model may have chitin thorns.
Screamer-Killer
Spoiler:
7" 4+ 4+ 6 7 8 4 6 3+
Unit 1-2
Rules Living Battering Ram: When a Screamer-Killer finishes a charge move, roll a dice; on a 4+ one enemy unit within 1" suffers a mortal wound. In addition, add 1 to all hit rolls in the Fight phase for a Screamer-Killer that charged in the same turn.
Monstrous Brood: The first time this unit is set up on the battlefield, all of its models must be placed within 6" of at least one other model in their unit. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit.
Spore Cysts: Your opponent must subtract 1 from their hit rolls for ranged attacks that target a Carnifex with spore cysts. This is not cumulative with the penalties to hit rolls incurred from the Venomthrope’s Shrouding Spores ability.
Terrifying: Your opponent must add 1 to any Morale tests for enemy units within 8" of one or more Screamer-Killers.
Wargear
• Any model may have toxin sacs and/or adrenal glands. • Any model may have spore cysts.
Thornback
Spoiler:
7" 4+ 4+ 6 7 8 4 6 3+
Unit 1-3
Rules
Thorned Battering Ram: When a Thornback finishes a charge move, roll a dice; on a 4+ one enemy unit within 1" suffers a mortal wound. INFANTRY units instead suffer D3 mortal wounds. In addition, add 1 to all hit rolls in the Fight phase for a Thornback that charged in the same turn.
Monstrous Brood: The first time this unit is set up on the battlefield, all of its models must be placed within 6" of at least one other model in their unit. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit.
Chitin Thorns: Аt the end of the Fight phase, roll a D6 for each enemy unit within 1" of any models with chitin thorns. On a 6, that unit suffers a mortal wound.
Enhanced Senses: A Carnifex with enhanced senses has a Ballistic Skill characteristic of 3+.
Vicious Hunter: Enemy INFANTRY units never gain any bonus to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks made by a Thornback.
Wargear:
• Any model may replace its monstrous scything talons with a stranglethorn cannon. • Any model may replace both of its devourers with two deathspitters with slimer maggots. • Any model may have toxin sacs and/or adrenal glands. • Any model may have enhanced senses, spine banks and/or a thresher scythe.
Stone Crusher
Spoiler:
7" 4+ 4+ 6 7 8 4 6 3+
Unit 1-3
Rules:
Carapace Chitin Rams: When a Stone Crusher Carnifex finishes a charge move, roll a dice; on a 4+, one enemy unit of your choice within 1" suffers a mortal wound. If this unit is a VEHICLE or BUILDING, it instead suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Monstrous Brood: The first time this unit is set up on the battlefield, all of its models must be placed within 6" of at least one other model in their unit. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit.
Wargear
• Any model may exchange one wrecker claw for a bio-flail. • Any model may exchange its thresher scythe for a bone mace. • Any model may be armed with bio-plasma.
Hey look! they all have unique special rules and wargear! They totally deserve to be different datasheets apparently! This couldn't be solved with a single data sheet with an upgrade called "stone crusher" or anything!
So then my TWC should and could work like any "cavalry" then and it would be fine ? cool cool cool cool. I want my TWC to work exactly like an aldari jetbike then... If we are arbitrarily choosing,,, I pick aldari jetbike and not two wheels and bolters... Niether are a wolf, so I pcik the jetbike..
There are constructive ways to make a point.Deliberately missing the point in an attempt to make fun of it is not one of them.
Unless jetbikes are going to be restricted to the same rules as ground-going bikes, for example, then no, it wouldn't make much sense for them to be lumped in with other ground-based cavalry. On the other hand, a flying cavalry category, to encompass jetbikes and, say, eldar on flying dinosaurs and so on, would work.
And that's ignoring the fact that nobody was actually asking for Eldar and Marines to be consolidated. That's a strawman that you keep defaulting to for no apparent reason. Please stop.
Living Battering Ram: When a Carnifex finishes a charge move, roll a dice; on a 4+ one enemy unit within 1" suffers a mortal wound. In addition, add 1 to all hit rolls in the Fight phase for a Carnifex that charged in the same turn.
Monstrous Brood: The first time this unit is set up on the battlefield, all of its models must be placed within 6" of at least one other model in their unit. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit.
Chitin Thorns: Аt the end of the Fight phase, roll a D6 for each enemy unit within 1" of any models with chitin thorns. On a 6, that unit suffers a mortal wound.
Enhanced Senses: A Carnifex with enhanced senses has a Ballistic Skill characteristic of 3+.
Spore Cysts: Your opponent must subtract 1 from their hit rolls for ranged attacks that target a Carnifex with spore cysts. This is not cumulative with the penalties to hit rolls incurred from the Venomthrope’s Shrouding Spores ability.
Tusks: You can add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of a Carnifex with tusks in the Fight phase if it charged in the preceding Charge phase.
Wargear options: • Any model may replace one of its pairs of monstrous scything talons with an item from the Monstrous Bio-cannons list. • Any model may replace both of its pairs of monstrous scything talons with two items from the Monstrous Bio-cannons list. • Any model may replace one of its pairs of monstrous scything talons with monstrous crushing claws. • Any model may have toxin sacs and/or adrenal glands. • Any model may have one of the following: bio-plasma, enhanced senses, a monstrous acid maw or tusks. • Any model may have a thresher scythe or a bone mace. • Any model may have spine banks or spore cysts. • Any model may have chitin thorns.
Screamer-Killer
7" 4+ 4+ 6 7 8 4 6 3+
Unit 1-2
Rules Living Battering Ram: When a Screamer-Killer finishes a charge move, roll a dice; on a 4+ one enemy unit within 1" suffers a mortal wound. In addition, add 1 to all hit rolls in the Fight phase for a Screamer-Killer that charged in the same turn.
Monstrous Brood: The first time this unit is set up on the battlefield, all of its models must be placed within 6" of at least one other model in their unit. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit.
Spore Cysts: Your opponent must subtract 1 from their hit rolls for ranged attacks that target a Carnifex with spore cysts. This is not cumulative with the penalties to hit rolls incurred from the Venomthrope’s Shrouding Spores ability.
Terrifying: Your opponent must add 1 to any Morale tests for enemy units within 8" of one or more Screamer-Killers.
Wargear
• Any model may have toxin sacs and/or adrenal glands. • Any model may have spore cysts.
Thornback
7" 4+ 4+ 6 7 8 4 6 3+
Unit 1-3
Rules
Thorned Battering Ram: When a Thornback finishes a charge move, roll a dice; on a 4+ one enemy unit within 1" suffers a mortal wound. INFANTRY units instead suffer D3 mortal wounds. In addition, add 1 to all hit rolls in the Fight phase for a Thornback that charged in the same turn.
Monstrous Brood: The first time this unit is set up on the battlefield, all of its models must be placed within 6" of at least one other model in their unit. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit.
Chitin Thorns: 5 Аt the end of the Fight phase, roll a D6 for each enemy unit within 1" of any models with chitin thorns. On a 6, that unit suffers a mortal wound.
Enhanced Senses: 10 A Carnifex with enhanced senses has a Ballistic Skill characteristic of 3+.
Vicious Hunter: Enemy INFANTRY units never gain any bonus to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks made by a Thornback.
Wargear:
• Any model may replace its monstrous scything talons with a stranglethorn cannon. • Any model may replace both of its devourers with two deathspitters with slimer maggots. • Any model may have toxin sacs and/or adrenal glands. • Any model may have enhanced senses, spine banks and/or a thresher scythe.
Stone Crusher
7" 4+ 4+ 6 7 8 4 6 3+
Unit 1-3
Rules:
Carapace Chitin Rams: When a Stone Crusher Carnifex finishes a charge move, roll a dice; on a 4+, one enemy unit of your choice within 1" suffers a mortal wound. If this unit is a VEHICLE or BUILDING, it instead suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Monstrous Brood: The first time this unit is set up on the battlefield, all of its models must be placed within 6" of at least one other model in their unit. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit.
Wargear
• Any model may exchange one wrecker claw for a bio-flail. • Any model may exchange its thresher scythe for a bone mace. • Any model may be armed with bio-plasma.
Hey look! they all have unique special rules and wargear! They totally deserve to be different datasheets apparently! This couldn't be solved with a single data sheet with an upgrade called "stone crusher" or anything!
so they are different ? I dunno man, if you say so ?
Weird though, as I have repeated before TWC have a different statline, wargear options, rules, unit size, unit composition, keywords and access to different stratagems. Not just different rules and wargears... not to mention,,, those 3 datasheets ALL represent a carnifex... a TWC represents a WOLF and Outriders repesents Aa BIKE.
no one else needs to pretend a wolf and a bike work the same... p.s. starweavers and voidweavers. Aspect wariors have unique wargear XD ... your objectively wrong here.
Excuse me? Aspect warriors are the same for every craftworlds.
There datasheets are different and they are all still elves XD...
You arn't getting it... they all have different datasheets XD ... TWC is a different datasheet... do you really not get this... lol.
I mean, if you gave me an "Aspect Warrior" ruleset and then gave me equipment/rule choices to reflect Striking Scorpions or Fire Dragons, I'd be for it
SM players can be testy about there almost to over 3 times the number of datasheets as everyone else. They are the one most in need of consolidation. They just don't like to hear it.
Let's try to avoid insulting stereotypes that are just going to get people more riled, hmm?
And for the record, I'm a Marine player with 5 different Marine armies, and I've been hoping for Marines to be consolidated into a single codex (with a doctrine system for customisability) for nearly 20 years now. If only because it means fewer books to buy, although the reduced difficulty of keeping up with all the different rules would have been a bonus.
I mean you mostly got your wish, we just have supplements now as well. that said I think space marine players are just tired of our faction constantly coming under attack by the same people in every thread.
I think arguments for consolidation could be valid as well, if presented right.
But claiming TWC is = Outriders
and claiming wulfen are = vet vans...
is a bit of a stretch don't you think.
there is a few things that give us the ability to have some unique flavour. we don't want to lose that.
why not talk about the 3 kinds of primaris ruplsatators
or the mutliple enteries for all the new primaris type armor....
I'd even agree if we we're talking about these new hounds...
but come on TWC being consolidated into outriders... lets be a little less farfetched... this is why I bring up farfetched examples like skyweavers and outriders... the units are just as different.
What unique units do leviathan hive fleet get? Jormungandr?
What unique units do Tallern get? The different forgeworlds for Admech? Different craftworlds for eldar? Different sept world for Tau?
Everyone else creates their "unique identity" with their "chapter tactics", warlord traits, relics, strats, and if they are VERY lucky 1 character. Nobody gets unique wargear. Nobody gets 12 unique datasheets. You can create your identity like everyone else.
and space marine players are universally happy to say they'd love to see stuff like that for everyone else.
Not at the morbid rate to give everyone a fething extra codex or supplement though.
I mean, if you gave me an "Aspect Warrior" ruleset and then gave me equipment/rule choices to reflect Striking Scorpions or Fire Dragons, I'd be for it
Hell, yeah... a base 'Aspect Warrior' selection with a tonne of different options to build either any of the existing shrines or a custom one of your own devising would be awesome.
Let me be the first in this thread to say that if GW ever decided to bloat any of my armies to such an extent that I had to buy a codex and a supplement to play I would be completely disgusted at the wreck my army had become.
So then my TWC should and could work like any "cavalry" then and it would be fine ? cool cool cool cool. I want my TWC to work exactly like an aldari jetbike then... If we are arbitrarily choosing,,, I pick aldari jetbike and not two wheels and bolters... Niether are a wolf, so I pcik the jetbike..
There are constructive ways to make a point.Deliberately missing the point in an attempt to make fun of it is not one of them.
Unless jetbikes are going to be restricted to the same rules as ground-going bikes, for example, then no, it wouldn't make much sense for them to be lumped in with other ground-based cavalry. On the other hand, a flying cavalry category, to encompass jetbikes and, say, eldar on flying dinosaurs and so on, would work.
I am not making fun.
The comparison is arbitary
currently bikes and wolves are represented differently.
also currently
Jetbikes and ground bikes are represented differently.
also curently
Jetbikes and wolves are represented differently.
Bike = 14" move, sometimes attacks extra attacks on the charge,
Wolf= 10" move, always extra attacks from the wolf itself, and advance and charge
aldari Jetbike= 16" mov, and fly.
Not even talking about the differences between the riders
If we are just going to consolidate two of the different types of bikes together because they are all "cavalry" then why can't we choose for them to get the jetbike representation... niether the jetbike representation or the Bike is a wolf.
and actually far more people have advocated for the TWC to use the Outrider datasheet... For the few who talk about generic cavalary and bikes are still a seperate thing.... what's the point,,, just so regular marines have less retrictions to access TWC ? ... why not leave it as is with the restrictions and the time spent on balancing efforts in place.
I mean, if you gave me an "Aspect Warrior" ruleset and then gave me equipment/rule choices to reflect Striking Scorpions or Fire Dragons, I'd be for it
Hell, yeah... a base 'Aspect Warrior' selection with a tonne of different options to build either any of the existing shrines or a custom one of your own devising would be awesome.
Awesome and a nightmare for balance, user interfacing, and implementations of restrictions... even worse if this was done for marines... also just play Bolter Action no ? that game already lets you develop your lists and units in a similar way ? it's a different game... why are we proposing 40k becomes this other game ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: No no no.. People are advocating for consolidation.
I suspect when the old marines get squatted that all you will have are outriders. But thats a different thing.
insaniak wrote: Take that and combine it with a Chapter Traits system, and you get plenty of variety without needing a dozen different books.
The supplements are mainly fluff and additional special rules, not additional units, so I don't see how what you're saying has any bearing.
What I'm saying is that incorporating those special rules into a Chapter Trait system removes the need to buy (and refer to) a whole additional book to play that army.
Supplements should be used for supplemental material like campaigns, or alternate game modes, not for core army building.
If this is just an attempt to point out how many unit entries Tyranids have vs Marines, well, that's not really up for debate. Marines have over 100 (if we include DA/BA/SW/DW) unit types. Tyranids, which are one Codex, have what they have. I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove here.
Lance845 wrote: Termagants - Troops Unit Tyranid Warriors - Heavy Troops Unit Hormagaunts - Scout Troops Unit? Ripper Swarm - Joke Troops Unit
All these units do different things and you cannot just put a generic box on them.
Lance845 wrote: Fast Attack: Raveners - Fast Assault Unit Gargoyles - Bike Trygon? Heavy Bike And some spore mines and sky slasher swarms which will never be taken as fast attack.
And the fact that you're putting question marks after some means that you either completely miss the point of my simplification of the Marine list, or are being wilfully ignorant.
Lance845 wrote: Honestly Mawloc should be a variation of or upgrade to the Trygon/prime
Why?
There's a lot of people throwing out "should"s in this thread, without ever explaining why.
insaniak wrote: What I'm saying is that incorporating those special rules into a Chapter Trait system removes the need to buy (and refer to) a whole additional book to play that army.
What's wrong with having additional books?
insaniak wrote: Supplements should be used for supplemental material like campaigns, or alternate game modes, not for core army building.
Lance845 wrote: Yeah. It does. You're describing exactly what other armies have.
That's a blatant and outrageous lie.
Yeah. I don't have that much variety.
Wait no one thinks that SM should have access to TWC or that TWC should use the Outrider datasheet...
Then fine... leave the TWC as is . That's all I have been saying all along .
That's... That's not a response that's at all related to those posts. It's a complete non sequitor.
What was said is that, even when you strip Marines down to the bare-flipping minimum of concepts, they have far more than other Codecs have right now.
Yes...
I never disagreed with this ...
but you don't want to remove SW access to the unique rules of TWC and give general marines access to TWC ? If that's the case,,, cool.
But ya, totally marines down to the bare flipping mniimum of concepts have far more than other codex, and that isn't fair.
Removing a unique and flavourful unit doesn't fix this. Consolidating the TWC into some generic SW datasheet gives general SMs more options with even less restrictions and will take up time for the designers to figure out and balance (continously, with every different Chapter Tactic change these new options will have to be looked at and rebalanced instead of just with every SWCT change)... so that can't be the answer
What fixes this is putting design attention into other factions. Removing flavourful unique units from a faction doesn't provide extra space for anyone else,,, the design time was already spent.
Considering spacewolves have been a subfaction for like a month. people are very quick to decide they "should" have nothing unique and be vanilla like the rest... the unique stuff is there, why do you want to get rid of it,,, it doesnt help any other faction out... thats not how design works, the time designing these units is already spent, its gone, you dont magically get it back by squating stuff arbitrarily.
no one else needs to pretend a wolf and a bike work the same...
Multiple posts have explained in great detail multiple times how SM bikes are fundamentally portraying Cavalry units derived from Fantasy rules for Cavalry. You have thus far actively ignored and avoided this point, and are pretending it doesn't exist, but your reply has most definitely been answered.
Then why don't they use the same rules...
For the same reason I have 4 datasheets for the carnifex. GW sucks.
and if GW folded them all into one datasheet you'd be saying they sucked because of rule of 3 limiting you
So if we, say, removed all Cult-based troops from Chaos and instead changed them to "Cult Troops", with a list of options to that make them like the old Berzerker/Plague Marine/Noise Marines/1KSons, that would be ok?
I remember when GW decided to make something generic once, consolidating every single unit type into two unit types: Greater and Lesser Daemons from the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex.
You want to emulate the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex in 9th, but for all races?
Mechanically, would it not be as simple as having an option on the biker profile that replaces 'Turbo Boost' with a 'Teeth and Claws' attack? Plus, presumably, any SW-unique wargear if that all stays the same. Maybe with a movement penalty as well, if I'm remembering TWC stats correctly compared to biker stats.
I'm not trying to be facetious here, it just seems that the profiles are actually pretty similar.
That being said, if I was going to merge SM units into single dataslates, TWC and bikers would probably be last on my list.
If this is just an attempt to point out how many unit entries Tyranids have vs Marines, well, that's not really up for debate. Marines have over 100 (if we include DA/BA/SW/DW) unit types. Tyranids, which are one Codex, have what they have. I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove here.
It's a single piece of the whole argument. I was showing how Tyranids fit into the list someone else provided to show how yeah... the list provided is a pretty good analog to the way other armies run and you can create a fun and varied army list with that many units.
Lance845 wrote: Termagants - Troops Unit Tyranid Warriors - Heavy Troops Unit Hormagaunts - Scout Troops Unit? Ripper Swarm - Joke Troops Unit
All these units do different things and you cannot just put a generic box on them.
The only box on them is "troops". I was showing how they fit within the list someone else provided.
Lance845 wrote: Fast Attack: Raveners - Fast Assault Unit Gargoyles - Bike Trygon? Heavy Bike And some spore mines and sky slasher swarms which will never be taken as fast attack.
And the fact that you're putting question marks after some means that you either completely miss the point of my simplification of the Marine list, or are being wilfully ignorant.
The question mark represents that I guess the trygon is an analog to the "heavy bike" concept? I mean, nids don't fit 1 for 1 with marines and they shouldn't. Sorry if that was unclear.
Lance845 wrote: Honestly Mawloc should be a variation of or upgrade to the Trygon/prime
Why?
There's a lot of people throwing out "should"s in this thread, without ever explaining why.
Because the Mawloc is a 1 trick pony who does his burst out of the ground and then reburrow thing and otherwise sucks in a fight. Making the Mawlock trick an upgrade to the trygon platform gives it some actual weapons to stick around and fight too. It also gives it the ability to bring other units with it in the burrow which is just great. The 2 units are so similar and the Mawlock is basically half a unit anyway. Just make it an upgrade. The Trygon Prime is literally just an upgrade to the Trygon Platform. Again, just make it an upgrade. I am fine with the mawlock and prime upgrade being mutually exclusive and in fact advocate for it.
The point of this whole thing was to show you that yes. That list makes for a good and varied list of datasheets that can make a good and varied list of armies especially when you factor in things like chapter/hive fleet specific enhancements.
insaniak wrote: Supplements should be used for supplemental material like campaigns, or alternate game modes, not for core army building.
Why?
Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.
Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.
Mechanically, would it not be as simple as having an option on the biker profile that replaces 'Turbo Boost' with a 'Teeth and Claws' attack? Plus, presumably, any SW-unique wargear if that all stays the same. Maybe with a movement penalty as well, if I'm remembering TWC stats correctly compared to biker stats.
I'm not trying to be facetious here, it just seems that the profiles are actually pretty similar.
That being said, if I was going to merge SM units into single dataslates, TWC and bikers would probably be last on my list.
also, you would have to change keywords, stratagem access add the swift hunters rule , you would have to add ALL the wargear as the TWC has access to all the wargear a worlfgaurd has access too and finally restrict that to just SWs... after ALL that,,, yes, you could have it on a single datasheet... but why would you want that ? you didn't change anything in terms of design space (its still just as much variation) and you just changed 1 page with two datasheets into 1 page with 1 datasheet whilst simultaneously requiring extra balancing considerations if any changes would need to be made to either unit.
But ya,,, this proposal is doable... its just not ideal ... More work for the designers with worse results in the end.
insaniak wrote: Supplements should be used for supplemental material like campaigns, or alternate game modes, not for core army building.
Why?
Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.
Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.
So a single codex for SWs with one set of convenient datasheets. That would be dope. But it looks niether of us are getting our way lol because unfortunately GW wants me to buy two books,,, so ugghh. Just as much variety in a more confusing format is what I have instead of a standalone codex.
insaniak wrote: Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.
People are being forced to refer to books?
insaniak wrote: Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.
8th Edition - All the Marines have different books, or supplements.
"There are too many Marine books!"
9th Edition - Consolidates Marines into a single book, with supplements for anything that's unique to various Chapters.
"There are too many Marine books!"
So which is it?
In any case, I think people are looking at this backwards. And upsidedown. And in a mirror.
The current Space Marine Codex exists so that all common units have a single point of reference, rather than being repeated over and over and over again. Remember how so much page space in Psychic Awakening was wasted on repeating the Primaris datasheets? That's what the 9th Ed Marine Codex is there to stop.
They then expanded the supplement idea that we already got with the second tier 1st Founding Chapters and applied them to BA/DA/SW/DW. However, as those four (or three, really, Deathwatch are an odd duck here) were already well established army lists of their own with a host of unique units, their supplement books tent to have far more in them than say, the Imperial Fist one, or the Salamander one.
Having a central book for all the common Marine units is a good thing. It decreases the amount of possible mistakes between identical datasheets in different books. It means that FAQs and Errata need not be duplicated (again, with the potential for mistakes) across multiple documents.
This is the reason the 9th Ed Marine Codex exists as it is. It's got nothing to do with needing "ultra precise datasheets" and everything to do with the fact that BA/DA/SW were stand-alone armies and GW didn't want them losing what they had even though they were consolidating all their basic units into a single book.
And saying that everyone should have their choices taken away and turned into a generic list just stinks of arrogance and some weird form of elitism or entitlement. I'm not quite sure what the word for it is. "I don't care about this, therefore it should not exist". No, screw you. Some people love their unique units. You do not have the right to just demand they go away because you don't like them.
Every option we lose, every unique quirk or interesting unit/weapon/upgrade that goes away, is a loss for the game as a whole. Just look at the "equipment" strats in the new books.
insaniak wrote: Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.
People are being forced to refer to books?
insaniak wrote: Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.
8th Edition - All the Marines have different books, or supplements.
"There are too many Marine books!"
9th Edition - Consolidates Marines into a single book, with supplements for anything that's unique to various Chapters.
"There are too many Marine books!"
So which is it?
It's squat old marines. Finish the primaris line. Put all the chapters in one book.
insaniak wrote: Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.
People are being forced to refer to books?
insaniak wrote: Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.
8th Edition - All the Marines have different books, or supplements.
"There are too many Marine books!"
9th Edition - Consolidates Marines into a single book, with supplements for anything that's unique to various Chapters.
"There are too many Marine books!"
So which is it?
It's squat old marines. Finish the primaris line. Put all the chapters in one book.
Maybe we should squat YOUR army instead?
it's reallly easy to call for something to be swatted when you don't play it
insaniak wrote: Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.
People are being forced to refer to books?
insaniak wrote: Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.
8th Edition - All the Marines have different books, or supplements.
"There are too many Marine books!"
9th Edition - Consolidates Marines into a single book, with supplements for anything that's unique to various Chapters.
"There are too many Marine books!"
So which is it?
It's squat old marines. Finish the primaris line. Put all the chapters in one book.
Maybe we should squat YOUR army instead?
it's reallly easy to call for something to be swatted when you don't play it
I didn't ask for your army to get squatted. I asked for your army wide upgrade to get finished so we can move forward into whats next.
insaniak wrote: Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.
People are being forced to refer to books?
insaniak wrote: Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.
8th Edition - All the Marines have different books, or supplements.
"There are too many Marine books!"
9th Edition - Consolidates Marines into a single book, with supplements for anything that's unique to various Chapters.
"There are too many Marine books!"
So which is it?
It's squat old marines. Finish the primaris line. Put all the chapters in one book.
"DOOM TO THE FBs !!! damn the players who have collected them for years ! DOOM I say ! replace the unique factions with the vanilla stuff already"
You realize this just isn't happening this eddition... right ,,, but I will totally be 100% on board with a single book of consolidated datasheets after the FB apocalypse in an edition or two when all my unique units go to legends. But right now, my unique faction is still full of variety and playable... so i'd like to keep playing them in their unique and flavourful way thank you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I didn't ask for your army to get squatted. I asked for your army wide upgrade to get finished so we can move forward into whats next.
But they arn't armywide "upgrades" they are new units that do completely different things. XD .
How about we release 20 new units into your army then squat everything you own LOL XD.
You kind of ARE asking some of us to squat our armies... I own a single primaris model... XD ragnar,,, XD
If they gave me better versions of everything I have with extra wounds, longer ranged guns with higher AP and more guns then ever on the bigger platforms...
sure. Yeah. Squat my old gak. Il take a 20w flyrant with 8 guns and more psychic powers a turn.
Absolutely would I use 2w hormagaunts with -1AP on their scytal and an extra attack. Please. Give me that kit and squat the old one.
Lance845 wrote: I didn't ask for your army to get squatted. I asked for your army wide upgrade to get finished so we can move forward into whats next.
So this really is just "Dakka's Anti-Marine Whine Thread #443-A".
I mean, for feth's sake, 40K General has become a really boring place of late:
It's just you and Type40 who are adamantly against consolidating marine datasheets. It wouldn't be about marines if the marines were not fighting about it. I have provided examples of nids and other eldar players have said they would enjoy some consolidation too.
Lance845 wrote: If they gave me better versions of everything I have with extra wounds, longer ranged guns with higher AP and more guns then ever on the bigger platforms...
sure. Yeah. Squat my old gak. Il take a 20w flyrant with 8 guns and more psychic powers a turn.
Absolutely would I use 2w hormagaunts with -1AP on their scytal and an extra attack. Please. Give me that kit and squat the old one.
Like I said,,, we are different kind of players... You paly for the stat, I play for unique rules fluff and flavour on the table... and that's ok... but stop forgetting their are tons of players like me... GW hasn't forgotten.
Why would I loose any fluff or flavor on the table? Nids are constantly evolving to face new threats. With the emergence of primaris the hive mind decided to bolster the strains. Once new strains of Nid are viable for mass production why would they produce weaker less effective forms?
It's just you and Type40 who are adamantly against consolidating marine datasheets. It wouldn't be about marines if the marines were not fighting about it. I have provided examples of nids and other eldar players have said they would enjoy some consolidation too.
Oh man,,, did you keep a strait face while you wrote out that lie XD.
There are people arguing against the marine whine on every single thread... we just happen to be the ones on this one right now XD.
Ya, you have a little consolidated group of people who are good at teaming up and bullying people... but to suggest its just us two is hilarious XD.
Lance845 wrote: If they gave me better versions of everything I have with extra wounds, longer ranged guns with higher AP and more guns then ever on the bigger platforms...
sure. Yeah. Squat my old gak. Il take a 20w flyrant with 8 guns and more psychic powers a turn.
Absolutely would I use 2w hormagaunts with -1AP on their scytal and an extra attack. Please. Give me that kit and squat the old one.
Lance845 wrote: I didn't ask for your army to get squatted. I asked for your army wide upgrade to get finished so we can move forward into whats next.
So this really is just "Dakka's Anti-Marine Whine Thread #443-A".
I mean, for feth's sake, 40K General has become a really boring place of late:
It's just you and Type40 who are adamantly against consolidating marine datasheets. It wouldn't be about marines if the marines were not fighting about it. I have provided examples of nids and other eldar players have said they would enjoy some consolidation too.
except I'm strongly opposed to it to. yeah you don't see a LOT of marine posters on this thread. I suspect the absolutely toxic additude has driven a LOT of them from the forums these days
It's just you and Type40 who are adamantly against consolidating marine datasheets. It wouldn't be about marines if the marines were not fighting about it. I have provided examples of nids and other eldar players have said they would enjoy some consolidation too.
Oh man,,, did you keep a strait face while you wrote out that lie XD.
There are people arguing against the marine whine on every single thread... we just happen to be the ones on this one right now XD.
Ya, you have a little consolidated group of people who are good at teaming up and bullying people... but to suggest its just us two is hilarious XD.
It's just you and Type40 who are adamantly against consolidating marine datasheets. It wouldn't be about marines if the marines were not fighting about it. I have provided examples of nids and other eldar players have said they would enjoy some consolidation too.
Oh man,,, did you keep a strait face while you wrote out that lie XD.
There are people arguing against the marine whine on every single thread... we just happen to be the ones on this one right now XD.
Ya, you have a little consolidated group of people who are good at teaming up and bullying people... but to suggest its just us two is hilarious XD.
THIS thread isn't about marines. It's about the whole game. The topic of discussion for pages has been marines because you are against the topic of the thread in relation to marines.
Lance845 wrote: It's just you and Type40 who are adamantly against consolidating marine datasheets.
I'm against removing flavour and options from a book because I remember what it looks like to have your entire army sundered by consolidation.
3.5 to 4th Chaos.
you have to keep in mind, many of the loudest voices don't care. judging by his gallery pictures, I'm pretty sure Lance doesn't even play space Marines, you think he cares if space marine fans have to put up with a boring flavorless codex with no passion behind it?
It's just you and Type40 who are adamantly against consolidating marine datasheets. It wouldn't be about marines if the marines were not fighting about it. I have provided examples of nids and other eldar players have said they would enjoy some consolidation too.
Oh man,,, did you keep a strait face while you wrote out that lie XD.
There are people arguing against the marine whine on every single thread... we just happen to be the ones on this one right now XD.
Ya, you have a little consolidated group of people who are good at teaming up and bullying people... but to suggest its just us two is hilarious XD.
THIS thread isn't about marines. It's about the whole game. The topic of discussion for pages has been marines because you are against the topic of the thread in relation to marines.
no dude, this thread is about Marines. it's transparently about marines
It's just you and Type40 who are adamantly against consolidating marine datasheets. It wouldn't be about marines if the marines were not fighting about it. I have provided examples of nids and other eldar players have said they would enjoy some consolidation too.
Oh man,,, did you keep a strait face while you wrote out that lie XD.
There are people arguing against the marine whine on every single thread... we just happen to be the ones on this one right now XD.
Ya, you have a little consolidated group of people who are good at teaming up and bullying people... but to suggest its just us two is hilarious XD.
THIS thread isn't about marines. It's about the whole game. The topic of discussion for pages has been marines because you are against the topic of the thread in relation to marines.
Exactly! for once its not an anti marine thread but an actual 40k General thread yet you marine players just gotta keep playing the victim and derail threads for some god damn reason.
Marines are in most need of consolidation. But as I pointed out, so are carnifexes, mawlocks and the trygons, shrikes and warriors, the prime needing some upgrade options, and sky slasher/rippers.
Here is me in the first page. Answering the OP.
Lance845 wrote: The only value is emotional for the people who really like to have their own unique datasheet. Mechanically and practically there is none.
Further this can get applied to war gear as well. It has been argued that having power axe, power sword, power spear, etc etc... is a waste. Just have a singular stat line for power weapon and then the player is free to model whatever weapon they want onto the model to flavor it however they see fit.
The extra granularity isn't actually helping anything and doesn't actually make that big of a difference while the modeling options would become vastly better.
Yes. I use a power weapon as an example. But it is only an example.
no dude, this thread is about Marines. it's transparently about marines
i made the thread and i specified many times that it wasnt about marines but that marines were used as an example because they were the only army i could think of that has these very similar units and because i got the idea from the hounds of morkai thread.
It's just you and Type40 who are adamantly against consolidating marine datasheets. It wouldn't be about marines if the marines were not fighting about it. I have provided examples of nids and other eldar players have said they would enjoy some consolidation too.
Oh man,,, did you keep a strait face while you wrote out that lie XD.
There are people arguing against the marine whine on every single thread... we just happen to be the ones on this one right now XD.
Ya, you have a little consolidated group of people who are good at teaming up and bullying people... but to suggest its just us two is hilarious XD.
THIS thread isn't about marines. It's about the whole game. The topic of discussion for pages has been marines because you are against the topic of the thread in relation to marines.
Exactly! for once its not an anti marine thread but an actual 40k General thread yet you marine players just gotta keep playing the victim and derail threads for some god damn reason.
it's not about marines! we're just conveniantly using marines as the only examples! we're just conveniantly calling for a mass squating of marines, but we're really not discussing marines.
Lance845 wrote: It's about the whole game. The topic of discussion for pages has been marines because you are against the topic of the thread in relation to marines.
So we just consolidate things huh?
So, maybe we do this?
Troops: Tyranid Gaunt - 4 points per model.
A unit of Gaunts must take one of the following:
1. Fleshborers & Living Ammo - +2 points per model. 2. Scything Talons & Bounding Leap - +3 points per model. 3. Fleshborers & Wings - +4 points per model*
*Gaunt units that take this option change to a Fast Attack slot.
Or maybe we do this:
Elite: Cult Chaos Space Marines - 16 points per model
A unit of Cult Chaos Space Marines must take one of the following:
1. Bolt Pistols, Chainaxes & [Some Khorne Rule] - +4 points per model. 2. Inferno Bolt Guns & [Some Tzeentch Rule] - +4 points per model. 3. Bolt Guns, Plague Knives & Disgustingly Resilient - +6 points per model 4. Sonic Blasters & [Some Slaanesh Rule] - +3 points per model
It's just you and Type40 who are adamantly against consolidating marine datasheets. It wouldn't be about marines if the marines were not fighting about it. I have provided examples of nids and other eldar players have said they would enjoy some consolidation too.
Oh man,,, did you keep a strait face while you wrote out that lie XD.
There are people arguing against the marine whine on every single thread... we just happen to be the ones on this one right now XD.
Ya, you have a little consolidated group of people who are good at teaming up and bullying people... but to suggest its just us two is hilarious XD.
THIS thread isn't about marines. It's about the whole game. The topic of discussion for pages has been marines because you are against the topic of the thread in relation to marines.
Exactly! for once its not an anti marine thread but an actual 40k General thread yet you marine players just gotta keep playing the victim and derail threads for some god damn reason.
it's not about marines! we're just conveniantly using marines as the only examples! we're just conveniantly calling for a mass squating of marines, but we're really not discussing marines.
im not calling for a fething marine squat, i said after carnifexes were pointed out to me that i very well couldve used them as an example (and evidently shouldve) but im not as familiar with the tyrannids codex as with the SM one.
Lance845 wrote: Why would I loose any fluff or flavor on the table? Nids are constantly evolving to face new threats. With the emergence of primaris the hive mind decided to bolster the strains. Once new strains of Nid are viable for mass production why would they produce weaker less effective forms?
Thats full of fluff and flavor
Lol,,, you really just do not comprehend do you XD.
that's not what I meant lol XD... yes the "cannon story" fluff, I am sure will justify why your nids get replaced LOL.
but again, you arn't the same kind of player as me,,,, and that is fine, you enjoy the game and use the best unit for the best role and make the spiky tactically charged list you want... That's fine. The game is all about tactics for you, and using the best unit for the job is the right call, right down to the numbers. That's fine, that's your game.
But my Wolfgaurd FB marine who leads a unit of blood claws is palyed , rules wise, in a way that is unique from any new vanilla primaris,,, even though he isn't as good, I play him because I like and enjoy the unique nature of his alternative rules. The same with my TWC, they cross the field doing things differently from any Vanilla Primaris, even though the outriders may be the better otpion , I choose their unique style of play due to their alternative rules... I am not just going to replace them for the best unit for the job... I don't want that, I want my rules flavour to stay in tact until the FB apocalypes... which seems like it wont be at least until the next SM codex... so lets hope you all get your wish and its xenos factions releases for the next two years XD
Lance845 wrote: It's about the whole game. The topic of discussion for pages has been marines because you are against the topic of the thread in relation to marines.
So we just consolidate things huh?
So, maybe we do this?
Troops: Tyranid Gaunt - 4 points per model.
A unit of Gaunts must take one of the following:
1. Fleshborers & Living Ammo - +2 points per model.
2. Scything Talons & Bounding Leap - +3 points per model.
3. Fleshborers & Wings - +4 points per model*
*Gaunt units that take this option change to a Fast Attack slot.
Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Lance845 wrote: Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Why are you cool with this?
As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?
Lance845 wrote: Yes. Carnifexes and Aspect warriors are totally marine examples.
Imagine consolidated aspect warriors... lets get warp spider movement shenanigan's on those guys with fire warrior guns. Honestly though, I guess it would be good for balance,,, but giving that kind of customization to marines XD ... please no.
Lance845 wrote: Yes. Carnifexes and Aspect warriors are totally marine examples.
Imagine consolidated aspect warriors... lets get warp spider movement shenanigan's on those guys with fire warrior guns. Honestly though, I guess it would be good for balance,,, but giving that kind of customization to marines XD ... please no.
woah, imagine if it was allowed and correct pts cost were attributed to every wargear option
Lance845 wrote: Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Why are you cool with this?
As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?
Why would I not be? The kit still exists. I still get all the units on the table. They still have all their options. Does calling the gargoyles gargoyles mean much? Not even a little bit. Know what got squatted for nids with legends? Weapon options for the termagants. Wanna know why nobody complained? Because those weapons sucked and nobody took them anyway. Having weapon options wasting space on the data sheet was just that. Wasted data sheet. That is a concise datasheet that I could fit on a regular playing card and represents what used to take 3 pages.
Lance845 wrote: Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Why are you cool with this?
As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?
Why would I not be? The kit still exists. I still get all the units on the table. They still have all their options. Does calling the gargoyles gargoyles mean much? Not even a little bit. Know what got squatted for nids with legends? Weapon options for the termagants. Wanna know why nobody complained? Because those weapons sucked and nobody took them anyway. Having weapon options wasting space on the data sheet was just that. Wasted data sheet. That is a concise datasheet that I could fit on a regular playing card and represents what used to take 3 pages.
100% wrong LOL.
I personally know two people who complained... They shared the same army and were hoping their gear options that they painstakingly custom built and magnetized would get better and you know,,, not squated XD... not everyone is so happy to lose options,,, even bad ones XD.
Lance845 wrote: Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Why are you cool with this?
As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?
Why would I not be? The kit still exists. I still get all the units on the table. They still have all their options. Does calling the gargoyles gargoyles mean much? Not even a little bit. Know what got squatted for nids with legends? Weapon options for the termagants. Wanna know why nobody complained? Because those weapons sucked and nobody took them anyway. Having weapon options wasting space on the data sheet was just that. Wasted data sheet. That is a concise datasheet that I could fit on a regular playing card and represents what used to take 3 pages.
100% wrong LOL.
I personally know two people who complained... They shared the same army and were hoping their gear options that they painstakingly custom built and magnetized would get better and you know,,, not squated XD... not everyone is so happy to lose options,,, even bad ones XD.
Yeah, these forums were overflowing with rage over the strangleweb. SO MANY players custom built that gun that did no damage. No literally. It dealt no damage.
Lance845 wrote: Yes. Carnifexes and Aspect warriors are totally marine examples.
Imagine consolidated aspect warriors... lets get warp spider movement shenanigan's on those guys with fire warrior guns. Honestly though, I guess it would be good for balance,,, but giving that kind of customization to marines XD ... please no.
woah, imagine if it was allowed and correct pts cost were attributed to every wargear option
The game would be an entire mess.
Balancing the game would for every little change would be a nightmare XD .
You would have to change pt costs with every detail change on any army ability, chapter tactic or when ever there was a new strat.
When one abuse was found you would trigger a series of events where EVERY SINGLE point cost would have to be adjusted.
The access and potential to min/max paly would be atrocious. You would constantly be struggling to keep up with the meta because every time you changed somethin, some other imbalance would emerge...
You understand that restrictions make balance easier not harder right ? XD
I can't believe this is the argument XD. This isn't even game design 101 ...
I do admit that you could field what ever fluffy thing you wanted though... It would just never be unique... because for total balance you'd need to give every faction access to everything otherwise you are looking at even more balancing issues... imagine the time that would have to be wasted by the designers on absolutely every detail in this complex machine constantly changing and shift .... oh man.... I really hope that mess never comes to pass.
Balancing the game for every little change would be exactly like balancing the game for every little datasheet now. Nobody changes point costs for chapter tactics now. So on and so forth.
Lance845 wrote: Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Why are you cool with this?
As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?
Why would I not be? The kit still exists. I still get all the units on the table. They still have all their options. Does calling the gargoyles gargoyles mean much? Not even a little bit. Know what got squatted for nids with legends? Weapon options for the termagants. Wanna know why nobody complained? Because those weapons sucked and nobody took them anyway. Having weapon options wasting space on the data sheet was just that. Wasted data sheet. That is a concise datasheet that I could fit on a regular playing card and represents what used to take 3 pages.
100% wrong LOL.
I personally know two people who complained... They shared the same army and were hoping their gear options that they painstakingly custom built and magnetized would get better and you know,,, not squated XD... not everyone is so happy to lose options,,, even bad ones XD.
Yeah, these forums were overflowing with rage over the strangleweb. SO MANY players custom built that gun that did no damage. No literally. It dealt no damage.
I'll ask them for a picture.
p.s. just because your friends in your echo chamber don't think a certain way,,, doesn't mean your the majority lol.
Balancing the game for every little change would be exactly like balancing the game for every little datasheet now. Nobody changes point costs for chapter tactics now. So on and so forth.
100% not true. when PA came out,,, new point costs... when the marine dex came out ,,, new point cost,,, new eddition,,, new point cost.... they might not have done a good job of it,,, but there is a reason the point costs changed and that was because the balance of the units changed with introduction new stratagems, abilties and etc...
They are having enough trouble keeping up whilst some restrictions ARE in place, you think they ll be able to keep balance sans restrictions and with total customization ? you got to be kidding me.
Lance845 wrote: Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Why are you cool with this?
As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?
Why would I not be? The kit still exists. I still get all the units on the table. They still have all their options. Does calling the gargoyles gargoyles mean much? Not even a little bit. Know what got squatted for nids with legends? Weapon options for the termagants. Wanna know why nobody complained? Because those weapons sucked and nobody took them anyway. Having weapon options wasting space on the data sheet was just that. Wasted data sheet. That is a concise datasheet that I could fit on a regular playing card and represents what used to take 3 pages.
100% wrong LOL.
I personally know two people who complained... They shared the same army and were hoping their gear options that they painstakingly custom built and magnetized would get better and you know,,, not squated XD... not everyone is so happy to lose options,,, even bad ones XD.
Yeah, these forums were overflowing with rage over the strangleweb. SO MANY players custom built that gun that did no damage. No literally. It dealt no damage.
I'll ask them for a picture.
p.s. just because your friends in your echo chamber don't think a certain way,,, doesn't mean your the majority lol.
And vice versa. I am not claiming to be a majority. I am using logic. H.B.M.C. can't understand why I would be cool with a single datasheet for gaunts gants and gargs despite me loosing nothing. What the hell sense does that make?
Lance845 wrote: Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Why are you cool with this?
As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?
Why would I not be? The kit still exists. I still get all the units on the table. They still have all their options. Does calling the gargoyles gargoyles mean much? Not even a little bit. Know what got squatted for nids with legends? Weapon options for the termagants. Wanna know why nobody complained? Because those weapons sucked and nobody took them anyway. Having weapon options wasting space on the data sheet was just that. Wasted data sheet. That is a concise datasheet that I could fit on a regular playing card and represents what used to take 3 pages.
100% wrong LOL.
I personally know two people who complained... They shared the same army and were hoping their gear options that they painstakingly custom built and magnetized would get better and you know,,, not squated XD... not everyone is so happy to lose options,,, even bad ones XD.
Yeah, these forums were overflowing with rage over the strangleweb. SO MANY players custom built that gun that did no damage. No literally. It dealt no damage.
dakkadakka is hardly the entire 40k community dude.
Balancing the game for every little change would be exactly like balancing the game for every little datasheet now. Nobody changes point costs for chapter tactics now. So on and so forth.
100% not true. when PA came out,,, new point costs... when the marine dex came out ,,, new point cost,,, new eddition,,, new point cost.... they might not have done a good job of it,,, but there is a reason the point costs changed and that was because the balance of the units changed with introduction new stratagems, abilties and etc...
They are having enough trouble keeping up whilst some restrictions ARE in place, you think they ll be able to keep balance sans restrictions and with total customization ? you got to be kidding me.
The workload is either equal (less datasheets more options) or less (with less datasheets and more options you likely are consolidating duplicate options so there are actually less lines of data to adjust.)
Lance845 wrote: Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Why are you cool with this?
As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?
Why would I not be? The kit still exists. I still get all the units on the table. They still have all their options. Does calling the gargoyles gargoyles mean much? Not even a little bit. Know what got squatted for nids with legends? Weapon options for the termagants. Wanna know why nobody complained? Because those weapons sucked and nobody took them anyway. Having weapon options wasting space on the data sheet was just that. Wasted data sheet. That is a concise datasheet that I could fit on a regular playing card and represents what used to take 3 pages.
100% wrong LOL.
I personally know two people who complained... They shared the same army and were hoping their gear options that they painstakingly custom built and magnetized would get better and you know,,, not squated XD... not everyone is so happy to lose options,,, even bad ones XD.
Yeah, these forums were overflowing with rage over the strangleweb. SO MANY players custom built that gun that did no damage. No literally. It dealt no damage.
I'll ask them for a picture.
p.s. just because your friends in your echo chamber don't think a certain way,,, doesn't mean your the majority lol.
And vice versa. I am not claiming to be a majority. I am using logic. H.B.M.C. can't understand why I would be cool with a single datasheet for gaunts gants and gargs despite me loosing nothing. What the hell sense does that make?
Sure if you lose nothing AND gain no new customization options,,, then there is literally no change... just a user interfacing difference... and in that case... what's the point.
Lance845 wrote: Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Why are you cool with this?
As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?
Why would I not be? The kit still exists. I still get all the units on the table. They still have all their options. Does calling the gargoyles gargoyles mean much? Not even a little bit. Know what got squatted for nids with legends? Weapon options for the termagants. Wanna know why nobody complained? Because those weapons sucked and nobody took them anyway. Having weapon options wasting space on the data sheet was just that. Wasted data sheet. That is a concise datasheet that I could fit on a regular playing card and represents what used to take 3 pages.
100% wrong LOL.
I personally know two people who complained... They shared the same army and were hoping their gear options that they painstakingly custom built and magnetized would get better and you know,,, not squated XD... not everyone is so happy to lose options,,, even bad ones XD.
Yeah, these forums were overflowing with rage over the strangleweb. SO MANY players custom built that gun that did no damage. No literally. It dealt no damage.
dakkadakka is hardly the entire 40k community dude.
Correct. By all means, find me some rage about the strangleweb. I would love to see it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 8th Edition - All the Marines have different books, or supplements.
"There are too many Marine books!"
9th Edition - Consolidates Marines into a single book, with supplements for anything that's unique to various Chapters.
"There are too many Marine books!"
So which is it?
Whether you have 6 standalone books, or 1 core book and 5 supplements that refer back to the core book, you still have 6 books. If 6 books is too many in scenario 1, it's still too many in scenario 2.
To be clear, I'm not saying that choices should be taken away. I'm saying that they should be consolidated, but that, if combined with a robust Trait system, doesn't have to mean losing options. If anything, it opens up options, because it means that the things that currently make a particular Chapter 'unique' (just like all of the other Chapters that use the same rules because they're using the same codex!) can't only be taken in specific combinations. When the system allows for you to make 'The Totes Not Space Wolves' Chapter using the Space Wolf codex, the idea that rolling the Space Wolf-only goodies into the basic Marine book removes their uniqueness goes straight out the window. When you only have Thunderwolves in the Space Wolf Codex, they're not actually unique to Space Wolves... they're just unique to Space Wolves and any other chapter that is unique in the exact same way as Space Wolves.
Instead, you have a single Marine codex, which has a cavalry option, and traits that can be taken to make your army more Space Wolfy. So people can make Space Wolf Thunderwolf cavalry, or they can make Space Gheckos Lizard Rider Cavalry, or they can make White Scar Bikers... all by taking the same generic unit with optional modifications via the traits. The end result is more choice, not less.
. But as long as 
