Lance845 wrote: No. It is not my opinion that subfactions are not armies. That is a fact.
T.
your opinion is not fact.
GW seems to define whats an army, as do most sensable people, on what has a codex or not.
Correct. Let me know when the codex comes out.
for what? space wolves? blood angels? etc? the answer is second edition. they've long been around and thus have an eistablished identity. they where put into codex space marines sure, but they now have supplements which enabled GW to support that unique identity while keeping the rules for the subfactions consistant. just because you dislike those subfactions well.. frankly it doesn't matter.
Except yoy don't need a whole separate print for it. It's a rip off to the players and it's a waste of time for the "game designers" (hard to call them that at this point).
Loyalist Marines are Loyalist Marines are Loyalist Marines. Get over it.
Lance845 wrote: No. It is not my opinion that subfactions are not armies. That is a fact.
T.
your opinion is not fact.
GW seems to define whats an army, as do most sensable people, on what has a codex or not.
Correct. Let me know when the codex comes out.
for what? space wolves? blood angels? etc? the answer is second edition. they've long been around and thus have an eistablished identity. they where put into codex space marines sure, but they now have supplements which enabled GW to support that unique identity while keeping the rules for the subfactions consistant. just because you dislike those subfactions well.. frankly it doesn't matter.
I never said I dislike those subfactions. My like or dislike of any subfaction isn't a factor in this discussion. I am not interested in boosting things I like or dismantling things I don't. My feelings on any army or subfaction in terms of this discussion are purely mechanical in the context of the game as a whole.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except yoy don't need a whole separate print for it. It's a rip off to the players and it's a waste of time for the "game designers" (hard to call them that at this point).
No they don't NEED one, the army has a lot of overlap so allowing all the new vanilla stuff and the bit of old overlap to exist in a maindex makes sense in a way (could have been implemented better if you ask me, but it makes sense) but considering the new SWs supplement didn't lose anything.... it only took MORE work to integrate some datasheets into main the maindex and create variable balanced datasheets with new restrictions set to them... if anything that was a waste of time for the designers instead of just quickly writing a static datasheet... but sure... there is a point in adding them as subfactions.... it still isn't changing what we are saying ...
there seems to be this wall people hit when they see the words "subfaction" that they are convinced it means something very specific ... something which disallows for unique sets of datasheets... something that makes the subfaction not an "army" (completely undefined subjective game term ). What's weird is that GW is NOT defining this in the same way currently,,, by virtue of the new SW supplement... So why do people not understand that their opinion on this is a subjective one ... like,,, how else do explain to someone what is / isn't a fact vs. what is and isnt subjective opinion ... I really do not know ...
Loyalist Marines are Loyalist Marines are Loyalist Marines. Get over it.
again,,, if you can't understand that this is a subjective opinion ... I don't know what to tell you... lots of people consider SWsBADA to be fleshed out armies,,, especially SWs ...
Ya ...
Well, my point is completely validated.
Though what is and isn't an army or what is and isn't allowed to have a unique set of datasheets is defined no where in the game,
Some people are convinced that their subjective opinion on this is not subjective but a fact... this is where the divide in this entire thread is and this is why people can't seem to see eye to eye.
Yes, SWsBADA and DW are all "subfactions" ,,, we have all established that... but that, in it self, is not reason enough to squat or merge their unique army features/units into the vanilla... even though "subfaction" and even though "Mahrines." The argument "wargear" is met with SOB and the argument with similar units is met with "Rangers / scouts." The only argument you guys have is "its not my opinion it is 'subfaction' it is 'all the same', it is 'mahrines', it is 'not deserved" repeated over and over and over again.
for what? space wolves? blood angels? etc? the answer is second edition. they've long been around and thus have an eistablished identity. they where put into codex space marines sure, but they now have supplements which enabled GW to support that unique identity while keeping the rules for the subfactions consistant. just because you dislike those subfactions well.. frankly it doesn't matter.
We're not playing 2nd edition.
To remind the marine players - this is a zero-sum game, because GW only has so much time and effort. Every marine supplement or kit released is something that another faction that deserves it more doesn't get.
for what? space wolves? blood angels? etc? the answer is second edition. they've long been around and thus have an eistablished identity. they where put into codex space marines sure, but they now have supplements which enabled GW to support that unique identity while keeping the rules for the subfactions consistant. just because you dislike those subfactions well.. frankly it doesn't matter.
We're not playing 2nd edition, smartass.
To remind the marine players - this is a zero-sum game, because GW only has so much time and effort. Every marine supplement or kit released is something that another faction that deserves it more doesn't get.
damn,,, all my points are being validated....
The "they don't deserve to be a unique set of datasheets' argument ... because somehow squating or merging them will magically make 20+ years of design space that was spent on them magically come back XD. Lets squat / merge your army to make more room maybe ?
Again, here , there is an inability to grasps that we are just as fed up with the vanilla marine releases and all the marine attention as you are ... but ,,, its a 'subfaction' so its not the same ... been like for 1.5 months,,, means they are less deserving then other armies...
wanting our army to exists isn't the same as saying no one else should be getting new things... we can condemn GW for giving to much attention to mahrines whilst maintaining that it would detract from ours/many others game experience to squat or merge our armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The funny thing is, these armies currently DO have a unique set of datasheets, yet those of us who defend this are being told "to get over it" as though we are the ones asking for and not getting a change lol.
So, I propose we don't change the fact the SWs have their own unique set of datasheets and we don't stop treating them in an alternative way to simple vanilla marines... And guess what @slayerfan... That's the way it currently is so maybe you should, to quote, "get over it".
A subfaction is not an army. It doesn't get treated uniquely because it is not unique. Having some unique units is not the same as being a whole new army.
In 5th, 6th and 7th SW were a real standalone army, not a subfaction. Subfactions didn't exist until 8th, and even in 8th they had their own codex. An army is a subfaction or a standalone army because GW says so, not because it's logical.
Halrequins were just a single unit in a codex, then a standalone army with not a single unit in common with the other aeldari subfactions. They are a pretty functional army, even with just 8 datasheets. Should they just be part of a bigger codex? Maybe, but the game works perfectly with them having their own codex.
Do people really think that the they haver over lap argument is a valid one, and that GW when it finishs this cycle of codex won't start making primaris specific units for all the different type of marines.
How much is needed to design an upgrade sprue and slap a 10-15$ price hike on a unit of black outriders for DA or make 3 set of new specific gun to match the 3 eliminator models and have them be some sort of RG only new unit. Sang Guard primaris , upgrade sprue to apothecary to make a sang priest. options are limitless for GW. And hey don't have to invest much in to it. 2 new heads, 2 new arms a shoulder pad and presto a character is turned in to an iron hand or salamander.
Or is it that factions will only start being worthy of an army treatment when they get those units.
Blackie wrote: Halrequins were just a single unit in a codex, then a standalone army with not a single unit in common with the other aeldari subfactions. They are a pretty functional army, even with just 8 datasheets. Should they just be part of a bigger codex? Maybe, but the game works perfectly with them having their own codex.
That is an... interesting example, given the Harlequins consolidated army list was a thing before the mainline Eldar one (105-106 vs. 127). Stolen Imperial Rhinos and all.
A subfaction is not an army. It doesn't get treated uniquely because it is not unique. Having some unique units is not the same as being a whole new army.
In 5th, 6th and 7th SW were a real standalone army, not a subfaction. Subfactions didn't exist until 8th, and even in 8th they had their own codex. An army is a subfaction or a standalone army because GW says so, not because it's logical.
Halrequins were just a single unit in a codex, then a standalone army with not a single unit in common with the other aeldari subfactions. They are a pretty functional army, even with just 8 datasheets. Should they just be part of a bigger codex? Maybe, but the game works perfectly with them having their own codex.
this. I hate to say this but 99% of this all (slayer-fan is IMHO the only person here who I suspect is arguing simply from a "I belive this is better game design." I disagree with him but I don't question his motives)
the rest well.. look at what Hecaton is saying. they genuinely think their armies will be magicly better if GW stops porducing gak for the subfactions. nevermind that space wolves, dark angels etc are getting simply a codex supplement for units that have been already created (or in the case of the Hounds of Mokai, are not partiuclarly complex to craft) they can claim it's a zero sum game but they have no proof of it and frankly. I don't buy it. Codex Supplement death watch is not whats stopping a massive influx of new eldar models.
actually it kinda is, because it is a nigh zero investment for guaranteed return for nearly anything SM, whilest an eldar update would be more risk, far higher investment and less expected return.
GW actively enters a desinvestment cycle thus by doing the "easy" and guaranteed thing for all the factions that are not marine based...
so yes it is partially indeed a zero sum game. Because the attention torwards other factions get lessened for the guaranteed Sm and partially CSm support.
GW just fails to undertand as to WHY certain ranges don't sell as well. Just look at the SoB situation. Or any other slew of updated factions (rules OR modelwise) that were less popular before and afterwards just hiked massively in player count.
A subfaction is not an army. It doesn't get treated uniquely because it is not unique. Having some unique units is not the same as being a whole new army.
In 5th, 6th and 7th SW were a real standalone army, not a subfaction. Subfactions didn't exist until 8th, and even in 8th they had their own codex. An army is a subfaction or a standalone army because GW says so, not because it's logical.
Halrequins were just a single unit in a codex, then a standalone army with not a single unit in common with the other aeldari subfactions. They are a pretty functional army, even with just 8 datasheets. Should they just be part of a bigger codex? Maybe, but the game works perfectly with them having their own codex.
At the end of 8th and now in 9th they are a part of a bigger codex. RIGHT NOW, they are not their own army. This is fact. Not opinion.
Type40 wrote:Lol. @smudge. Reiterating that you don't think subfactions can be considered armies and that you don't think they are unique enough isn't going to change that all you keep saying is "subfaction"is not a real army... Repeating it over and over again won't make it true.
YOU don't think subfactions are the same as armies, by the very virtue of agreeing there's a distinction.
No-one's claiming that Eldar are a subfaction, but you're happy to agree that SW are a subfaction. If you can tell there's a difference, why do you compare SW and Eldar?
Also, the units exist already, you say they don't deserve to, I say they do.
Yes, you SAY they do, but your evidence and reasoning consists almost entirely of misrepresenting other people's arguments, or appealing to inertia.
Ignore that SW have had their own Codex in the past. Look at the PRESENT objectively. Justify to me, with CURRENT reasoning, without slippery slopes or retrospect, why TWC are unique.
But can you tell me why IG deserves to exist XD.
Imperial horde faction with emphasis on overwhelming static firepower and quantity over quality approach. There. I don't need to say "BECAUSE THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN A FACTION!!!!", I can justify it by the role they fill.
I am not the one proposing a change here so I am not going to try to defend the existence of an army to you, some guy on the internet, because you hate that they exist.
And that's your problem - you're unwilling (and likely also unable) to actually defend your points, so the moment you're actually confronted with someone asking you, you resort to emotionally driven outbursts - because that's all you've got.
It's not logic. It's not even facts. It's pure and sheer emotion, your gut reaction, your biases and attachment. And that's why your arguments simply aren't holding water.
(And, for what it's worth, I kinda like SW, in moderation. I'm considering adding a small pack to my 30k force. But I can like SW without them needing a Codex, in the same way I can like the Lamenters or Emperor's Spears.)
You don't like that they exist, that's your problem, unfortunately for you, they do exist XD.
As a supplement - not a full Codex.
GW did what you wanted and made the army a subfaction in order to consolidate datasheets. And now your like *it's not good enough, make everything vanilla*
It's a start, I'm very happy they began the supplement approach. But there's no need to stop there when there's still work to be done, IMO.
Relax. There is no reason for you to try and eradicate/vanilify someone else's army
And there we are again - this idea that being folded into the main Codex would "eradicate" or "vanillify" all the flavour from an army.
In 5th edition, Ultramarines and Raven Guard were mechanically identical. Were either faction "eradicated"?
i sti can not understand why you are so adamantly against them but arnt against anything else
What else am I "not against"?
Does the word "subfaction" really bring you so much anxiety that you believe that can only be implemented in ine homogenous way and... You know... Not how it is actually being implemented XD
In response, I ask "why does a subfaction need to exist?"
The worst part is when we bring up the same type of logic you use for other armies. .. All of sudden it's "bad faith" or "not the same thing" or "they are different" lol.
Because they're total non-sequiturs that show intellectual dishonesty? Like, I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just plain blind.
Rangers = scouts, merge them? Lol... But noooooo CWE are a different army and elves arnt the same as marines....
Yes.
But wolves arnt bikes and warewolves arnt veteran soldiers etc etc etc
So what's the difference?
Why can't wolves and bikes have the same mechanical profile? If we go down that route, why can't an Iron Hands player turn around and say "well, my Marines are mostly cybernetic, so we should get unique versions of EVERY unit".
And Wulfen wouldn't be merged with Vangard Vets. They'd become a Generic Berserker Unit, covering things like Black Dragons' units, Death Company, and any other kind of "berserker" unit. What's your issue with this?
"ooohhhh I didn't say wolves are bikes I said generic cavalry datasheet", and I didn't say elves are marines I siad generic sniper unit....
As I said, are you trolling, or just plain daft?
BrianDavion wrote: (slayer-fan is IMHO the only person here who I suspect is arguing simply from a "I belive this is better game design." I disagree with him but I don't question his motives)
As you're now singling out people - what argument am I coming from?
I hasten to repeat: I am a Space Marine player first and foremost. I am an Ultramarine player, and am supporting my own Ultramarines having all their "unique" units made generic. I also gain nothing personally from SW/BA/DA being combined, as I have no intent on personally using Generic Cavalry, Generic Jump Pack Honour Guard, Generic Berserk Marines, or whatever else. I'm fine with my own armies, and I don't wish to add those proposed Generic Units, because they don't fit my army's fluff. I don't need the game to tell me I shouldn't take them.
A subfaction is not an army. It doesn't get treated uniquely because it is not unique. Having some unique units is not the same as being a whole new army.
In 5th, 6th and 7th SW were a real standalone army, not a subfaction. Subfactions didn't exist until 8th, and even in 8th they had their own codex. An army is a subfaction or a standalone army because GW says so, not because it's logical.
Halrequins were just a single unit in a codex, then a standalone army with not a single unit in common with the other aeldari subfactions. They are a pretty functional army, even with just 8 datasheets. Should they just be part of a bigger codex? Maybe, but the game works perfectly with them having their own codex.
At the end of 8th and now in 9th they are a part of a bigger codex. RIGHT NOW, they are not their own army. This is fact. Not opinion.
Exactly. If people want to use the "WELL GW HAD THEM AS A UNIQUE ARMY BEFORE, SO THAT MEANS THEY'RE UNIQUE!!!" argument, they should also respect that GW clearly doesn't think they're unique armies, as they've been supplemented. Space Wolves are as unique as White Scars are.
Except SW have several dedicated kits for generic units and lots of unique signature units, while White Scars have what? One character?
But they're both supplements - that was my point.
If we were saying that unique "signature units" (which this whole debate is about how "unique" these units are, if they really NEED unique datasheets - saying "they get unique units because they're a unique faction, and they're a unique faction because of their unique units!" is a circular argument) and upgrade kits for generic units is justification for Codex-ship, where's the Ultramarine Codex?
Except SW have several dedicated kits for generic units and lots of unique signature units, while White Scars have what? One character?
But they're both supplements - that was my point.
If we were saying that unique "signature units" (which this whole debate is about how "unique" these units are, if they really NEED unique datasheets - saying "they get unique units because they're a unique faction, and they're a unique faction because of their unique units!" is a circular argument) and upgrade kits for generic units is justification for Codex-ship, where's the Ultramarine Codex?
codex ultramarines was actually what the 2nd edition marine codex was called.
the argument though may seem circular, but the point is that armies like space wolves etc, have had their own codices for sometime, and as such this gernerated unique units (and more importantly, unique models) this has created, yes a unique identity. the thing is consolidating units together tends to remove flavor when it happens.
as it is if people wanna talk consolidation I can think of some better places to start then chapter special units. Assault Marines and Vanguard Veterns come to mind as two units that could be merged and no one would care.
Except SW have several dedicated kits for generic units and lots of unique signature units, while White Scars have what? One character?
But they're both supplements - that was my point.
If we were saying that unique "signature units" (which this whole debate is about how "unique" these units are, if they really NEED unique datasheets - saying "they get unique units because they're a unique faction, and they're a unique faction because of their unique units!" is a circular argument) and upgrade kits for generic units is justification for Codex-ship, where's the Ultramarine Codex?
Yes, we know you keep repeating "SUPPLEMENT !!!" and "SUBFACTION" while simultaneously ignoring that space wolves lost none of their unique units/rules from this transition... whether or not the overlap is represented in the maindex or its own codex has little bearing on the units that make SWs unique.
Your perspective that the army doesn't deserve to keep its unique differences because "supplement" or "subfaction" is an opinion not a fact. The fact that they are a subfaction at all, has yet, to have very much impact on them. By virtue of this it is clear that this was a logistics move not some crazy attempt to vanilify the army. Why you guys can't seem to understand that is beyond me.
Yes, there are some merits to consolidating the overlap datasheets,,, of course,,, and what does that look like ,,, becoming a supplement, sure why not... but this isn't so magical status that has changed whether or not SWs are an army or whether or not space wolves deserve to have a set of unique datasheets as they have had since almost the beginning of this game.
You guys are so caught up on what you think a "subfaction" or "supplement" should be you arn't actually acknowledging what SWs/BAs/DA/DW are in their current form. They DO have unique datasheets, unique units, and unique rules that give them unique tabletop play identities . People DO treat them as seperate armies because they are far more fleshed out then the other supplements or even most other army subfactions.
But the fact that you are convinced a "subfaction" should only be viewed in the way you have decided it should be is your opinion. Us saying that these are fleshed out armies isn't us saying EVERY subfaction should be treated the same (it is also not us saying that it wouldn't be cool if other subfactions in all kinds of armies in the game eventually were [just so we are clear i am not saying "ONLY SPACE MARINES" as some people keep accusing me]).
We know they both supplements... you have repeated that over and over again. The word "supplement" isn't changing the fact that SWs currently have what they have. Whitescars are not as unique as SWs ... this is objective fact... yes they are both supplements,,,, but one of those two supplements hasn't had nearly as much design attention given to it, doesn't have nearly as many unique kits, doesn't have nearly as much tabletop special rules and hasn't been getting worked on by the GW design since 2nd edition. Surely you can acknowledge that one is clearly more fleshed out then the other and that the simple word 'supplement' doesn't magically make that untrue.
Why are you so hellbent on getting rid of their unique identity ? it is just frustrating to have you argue this, with the only justification being "because supplement" even though nothing for the SWs have changed except that one word and even that was just 1.5 months ago . Also, the fact that you can not seem to acknowledge that your view of how a 'supplement' or 'subfaction' shouldn't or can't be treated as a unique army with unique datasheets is , in fact, a subjective opinion that is not necessarily shared by everyone. furthermore; what is and isn't a unique army worthy of unique datasheet sets has not been defined anywhere in the game. You don't get to be an authority on this, niether do I. What we do know, is currently SWs BAs DA and DW do not seem to be losing any of their unique rules or units... so what we do know for now is that nothing has changed but the word supplement and for now the armies are as unique as they ever were... the only way for them to be "the same" like you keep sugesting is to remove the things making them different... all because they don't fit the stereotype you are insisting a "suplement" or "subfaction" should be... again, your choice to draw this line at subfaction,,, is your choice,,, i choose not too,,,
in the same way you think it is ridiculous for me to suggest rangers should be merged with scouts , we think it is ridiculous that you would remove or merge our armies unique units into the general SM line... The fact that you think this is a "bad faith" argument or absurd argument is only because you can't get around that what you think a subfaction or supplement should be is not what some other people think it should be,,, in fact your view on it isn't even what it actually is.
Except SW have several dedicated kits for generic units and lots of unique signature units, while White Scars have what? One character?
But they're both supplements - that was my point.
If we were saying that unique "signature units" (which this whole debate is about how "unique" these units are, if they really NEED unique datasheets - saying "they get unique units because they're a unique faction, and they're a unique faction because of their unique units!" is a circular argument) and upgrade kits for generic units is justification for Codex-ship, where's the Ultramarine Codex?
codex ultramarines was actually what the 2nd edition marine codex was called.
the argument though may seem circular, but the point is that armies like space wolves etc, have had their own codices for sometime, and as such this gernerated unique units (and more importantly, unique models) this has created, yes a unique identity. the thing is consolidating units together tends to remove flavor when it happens.
as it is if people wanna talk consolidation I can think of some better places to start then chapter special units. Assault Marines and Vanguard Veterns come to mind as two units that could be merged and no one would care.
Okay. First. It doesn't seem circular. It is circular. By definition. "God is real because his magic book says so and his magic book says so because God wrote it." Circular. A = B because B = A. "They are a unique faction because they get unique units and they get unique units because they are a unique faction" A = B because B = A.
Second, it doesn't matter what anyone had before the latest publications. The rules as they stand are they are not a unique faction. They are a subfaction of adeptus astartes. Nobody is suggesting the models go away. (which to you is more important). If your entire argument hinges on "tends to" and "used to" then you are arguing based on a fear of what might be, not because you have any substantial actual argument to make.
There are endless places to start because the game as a whole is sorely in need of it.
Keep in mind, I can only speak for myself, but I support other subfactions getting unique units where and when approperate. If the Uthewe craftworld ever gets a supplement (or even "supplement style material in a campaign book") I'd LOVE to see them get distinct rules for black guardians etc. if GW decides they want to give Catachan's a special type of "assault guardsmen unit"? I'm down for that.
BrianDavion wrote: Keep in mind, I can only speak for myself, but I support other subfactions getting unique units where and when approperate. If the Uthewe craftworld ever gets a supplement (or even "supplement style material in a campaign book") I'd LOVE to see them get distinct rules for black guardians etc. if GW decides they want to give Catachan's a special type of "assault guardsmen unit"? I'm down for that.
And again, I am not. I don't want options for home made subfactions locked behind keywords. 40k has ALWAYS (since rogue trader and straight through to 9th) been about making them your own guys. They have always included the option to paint them however you want. They have always included the ability to be any of the other unnamed whatevers. There are thousands of more SM chapters, craftworlds, hivefleets, etc etc...
The point has always been to make them YOUR guys. I don't want to be unable to make MY guys or for you to not be able to make YOUR guys because that unit that would be appropriate is locked behind THAT keyword. That is the WORST thing that can happen to the entire concept that has existed for longer then a SW codex.
BrianDavion wrote: Keep in mind, I can only speak for myself, but I support other subfactions getting unique units where and when approperate. If the Uthewe craftworld ever gets a supplement (or even "supplement style material in a campaign book") I'd LOVE to see them get distinct rules for black guardians etc. if GW decides they want to give Catachan's a special type of "assault guardsmen unit"? I'm down for that.
100% I completely agree.
More fleshed out factions for others is really cool in my opinion.
However, removing what we currently have doesn't take us any closer to other factions getting more attention... the time it took for our armies to get fleshed out (i.e. 20+ years) wont magically be unspent for use on other factions... so lets put time into some other factions please not time into removing armies that already exist.
BrianDavion wrote: Keep in mind, I can only speak for myself, but I support other subfactions getting unique units where and when approperate. If the Uthewe craftworld ever gets a supplement (or even "supplement style material in a campaign book") I'd LOVE to see them get distinct rules for black guardians etc. if GW decides they want to give Catachan's a special type of "assault guardsmen unit"? I'm down for that.
And again, I am not. I don't want options for home made subfactions locked behind keywords. 40k has ALWAYS (since rogue trader and straight through to 9th) been about making them your own guys. They have always included the option to paint them however you want. They have always included the ability to be any of the other unnamed whatevers. There are thousands of more SM chapters, craftworlds, hivefleets, etc etc...
The point has always been to make them YOUR guys. I don't want to be unable to make MY guys or for you to not be able to make YOUR guys because that unit that would be appropriate is locked behind THAT keyword. That is the WORST thing that can happen to the entire concept that has existed for longer then a SW codex.
No one is saying you can't make YOUR guys except for you. You want me to make generic guys that i can paint however I want. Not guys who behave in unique and different ways who I can STILL paint however I want. You are pushing for less variety not more.
Again, there are miniture game systems where you can literally sit and pick all the rules and abilities you want for each model in your army. Completely compatible with GW models... if that is what you want, it exists.
But GW has always had rule sets for how their armies play and then encouraged players to paint them how they want... asking to keep our army identity isn't saying you can't make YOUR guys... you seem to have this locked connection between how people paint their army and what availability to unique tabletop play is.
You can show up with a bunch of Lego men riding dinosaurs and say "counts as SWs" for all I care. However, when it comes to tabletop play, the unique playstyle, units, rules, gear and abilities SWs have are it's identity in terms of rules... this is precisely why you would choose it for your dino riding legos rather then generic ultramarines... Why rob the identity of an army ?
Again, your logic would make way more sense if you stopped arguing for just power armor being rolled in together... why not roll everything in together ? wouldn't that do what you want ? allow you to customize and make what ever you want YOUR dudes to be ?
You are still drawing a line at subfaction / supplement because you have a personal opinion/stereotype of what that should mean... Your argument is literally "less restrictions, more customization and removal of anything that makes stuff unique,,, but only for what I think should act that way,,, these other armies,,, they are allowed to be seperate and cut off,,,, but these ones,,,, they should be merged and squated." It is just an opinion on what should and shouldnt and the fact that you can't acknowledge that is just YOUR opinion is what people have a problem with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
"They are a unique faction because they get unique units and they get unique units because they are a unique faction" A = B because B = A.
If this is what you think people are saying to you... you really havn't been reading peoples posts...
I know this is what you think you are arguing against... that has become obvious... but deliberately ignoring what people are saying and deliberately ignoring that you are the one making an arbitrary definition of what does and doesn't constitute as an army is just ridiculous... have some integrity please.
No one is saying you can't make YOUR guys except for you. You want me to make generic guys that i can paint however I want. Not guys who behave in unique and different ways who I can STILL paint however I want. You are pushing for less variety not more.
Yes, consolidated datasheets and wargear is less options. Power weapon that can be anything is totally less options then 3 different power weapons. This has been disproven repeatedly. You just ignore the evidence.
Again, there are miniture game systems where you can literally sit and pick all the rules and abilities you want for each model in your army. Completely compatible with GW models... if that is what you want, it exists. But GW has always had rule sets for how their armies play and then encouraged players to paint them how they want... asking to keep our army identity isn't saying you can't make YOUR guys... you seem to have this locked connection between how people paint their army and what availability to unique tabletop play is.
Your army identity is Adeptus Astartes and nobody is suggesting that be taken from you.
You can show up with a bunch of Lego men riding dinosaurs and say "counts as SWs" for all I care. However, when it comes to tabletop play, the unique playstyle, units, rules, gear and abilities SWs have are it's identity in terms of rules... this is precisely why you would choose it for your dino riding legos rather then generic ultramarines... Why rob the identity of an army ?
Again, your logic would make way more sense if you stopped arguing for just power armor being rolled in together... why not roll everything in together ? wouldn't that do what you want ? allow you to customize and make what ever you want YOUR dudes to be ?
1) I am not just arguing for SM I have argued for how Tyranids could have their units and wargear consolidated too. I have said every army could use it. You are just ignoring that. 2) Oh and then a return to the absurd argument of rolling every army into one datasheet. Great. We are back to this juvenile crap.
You are still drawing a line at subfaction / supplement because you have a personal opinion/stereotype of what that should mean... Your argument is literally "less restrictions, more customization and removal of anything that makes stuff unique,,, but only for what I think should act that way,,, these other armies,,, they are allowed to be seperate and cut off,,,, but these ones,,,, they should be merged and squated" your opinion on what should and shouldnt and the fact that you can't acknowledge that is just YOUR opinion is what people have a problem with.
Nobody suggested squatting anything. I would appreciate it if you could arguing the things I actually argued in the thread instead of the things you exaggerated it to.
"They are a unique faction because they get unique units and they get unique units because they are a unique faction" A = B because B = A.
If this is what you think people are saying to you... you really havn't been reading peoples posts... I know this is what you think you are arguing against... that has become obvious... but deliberately ignoring what people are saying and deliberately ignoring that you are the one making an arbitrary definition of what does and doesn't constitute as an army is just ridiculous... have some integrity please.
No one is saying you can't make YOUR guys except for you. You want me to make generic guys that i can paint however I want. Not guys who behave in unique and different ways who I can STILL paint however I want. You are pushing for less variety not more.
Yes, consolidated datasheets and wargear is less options. Power weapon that can be anything is totally less options then 3 different power weapons. This has been disproven repeatedly. You just ignore the evidence.
I never said anything different about power weapons... where is this coming from ?
Again, there are miniture game systems where you can literally sit and pick all the rules and abilities you want for each model in your army. Completely compatible with GW models... if that is what you want, it exists.
But GW has always had rule sets for how their armies play and then encouraged players to paint them how they want... asking to keep our army identity isn't saying you can't make YOUR guys... you seem to have this locked connection between how people paint their army and what availability to unique tabletop play is.
Your army identity is Adeptus Astartes and nobody is suggesting that be taken from you.
Again,,, this is your opinion... that's fine... my opinion is that my army identity is SWs and you are trying to tell me it isn't ,,,, thanks again for reiterating your subjective opinion on this...
You can show up with a bunch of Lego men riding dinosaurs and say "counts as SWs" for all I care. However, when it comes to tabletop play, the unique playstyle, units, rules, gear and abilities SWs have are it's identity in terms of rules... this is precisely why you would choose it for your dino riding legos rather then generic ultramarines... Why rob the identity of an army ?
Again, your logic would make way more sense if you stopped arguing for just power armor being rolled in together... why not roll everything in together ? wouldn't that do what you want ? allow you to customize and make what ever you want YOUR dudes to be ?
1) I am not just arguing for SM I have argued for how Tyranids could have their units and wargear consolidated too. I have said every army could use it. You are just ignoring that. Oh and then a return to the absurd argument of rolling every army into one datasheet. Great. We are back to this juvenile crap.
lol, exactly my point... your logic goes as far as your stereotypes will let it... you claim its a bad faith argument because you think your view on what is and isn't an army is somehow objective truth... lol ... the fact that you can't comprehend that is bewildering.
You are still drawing a line at subfaction / supplement because you have a personal opinion/stereotype of what that should mean... Your argument is literally "less restrictions, more customization and removal of anything that makes stuff unique,,, but only for what I think should act that way,,, these other armies,,, they are allowed to be seperate and cut off,,,, but these ones,,,, they should be merged and squated" your opinion on what should and shouldnt and the fact that you can't acknowledge that is just YOUR opinion is what people have a problem with.
Nobody suggested squatting anything. I would appreciate it if you could arguing the things I actually argued in the thread instead of the things you exaggerated it to.
Except for you, who repeatedly seems to think "you can still use the same models" means they arn't being squatted... yes, I can also use little lego men to play the game, but if you are removing or merging the datasheets for existing unique units in a way where there unique rules, stats and gear no longer exists, you have just squatted the unique unit out of existenc (and yes this includes mergers because you have removed the unique representation of that unit,,, it is still a form of removal) ... just because I can still pretend and imagine my unit isn't just a clone of the vanilla unit doesn't mean it is a unique unit XD. Like you do understand you ARE asking people to lose things... by definition the things being lost are squatted ... just getting to keep a pretty model isn't the only factor to what makes a unit unique. Removing unique identity is also a form of squatting. Can you really not understand this ?
"They are a unique faction because they get unique units and they get unique units because they are a unique faction" A = B because B = A.
If this is what you think people are saying to you... you really havn't been reading peoples posts...
I know this is what you think you are arguing against... that has become obvious... but deliberately ignoring what people are saying and deliberately ignoring that you are the one making an arbitrary definition of what does and doesn't constitute as an army is just ridiculous... have some integrity please.
It is what Brain, who I quoted, did say.
Yes and Brian is also not making the circular logic that you claim he is making... come on, stop playing dumb.
Not Online!!! wrote: it is kinda funny, that gw once more devolved the "unique " sm into supplements like they were before gw decided to codex SM bloat that range...
it is even more funny that they managed to do it in a way that is as consumer unfriendly as possible with as much earnings as possible.
This is the first time SWs were not a separate codex since 3rd.
What is funny about it. They have overlapping units. No one is disagree with this ... but are you actually trying to say that the datasheets for things like TWC wulfen or logan grimnar are duplicates of sheets in the maindex ? you can acknowledge those datasheets are in fact different and unique from generic marine datasheets right ? they are, factually, not the same units.
I also think it is ridiculous the way GW has implemented this... again... SWs still have everything they had as separate codex... the only difference is now the players have to buy a second book...
Again, this seems to be another person who thinks the word "subfaction" or "supplement" means not unique, not worthy of being an army, or not deserving of unique datasheets sets... even though this would be a subjective opinion and A: not eflective of what is actually happened with the SW supplement and B: what does and doesn't make an army and army worthy of having its own unique units has not been defined anywhere in 40k and is certainly nowhere defined as whether or not it has a supplement book. Unless someone has a quote somewhere on this ? and if so, you should send it to GW because they arn't following that rule.
Not Online!!! wrote: it is kinda funny, that gw once more devolved the "unique " sm into supplements like they were before gw decided to codex SM bloat that range...
it is even more funny that they managed to do it in a way that is as consumer unfriendly as possible with as much earnings as possible.
This is the first time SWs were not a separate codex since 3rd.
What is funny about it. They have overlapping units. No one is disagree with this ... but are you actually trying to say that the datasheets for things like TWC wulfen or logan grimnar are duplicates of sheets in the maindex ? you can acknowledge those datasheets are in fact different and unique from generic marine datasheets right ? they are, factually, not the same units.
i prefer build a logan instead of gw's cookie cutter often breaking the game special charachters. alas
I also think it is ridiculous the way GW has implemented this... again... SWs still have everything they had as separate codex... the only difference is now the players have to buy a second book...
if SM players buy it en masse, why shouldn't gw pull this? not saying it is good, it's bad but frankly alongside a mid pandemic pricehike , questionable conversion rates etc it just one more consumer unfriendly choice.
Again, this seems to be another person who thinks the word "subfaction" or "supplement" means not unique, not worthy of being an army, or not deserving of unique datasheets sets... even though this would be a subjective opinion and A: not eflective of what is actually happened with the SW supplement and B: what does and doesn't make an army and army worthy of having its own unique units has not been defined anywhere in 40k and is certainly nowhere defined as whether or not it has a supplement book. Unless someone has a quote somewhere on this ? and if so, you should send it to GW because they arn't following that rule.
no i just value subfactions as what they are SUBFACTIONS, they should have the rules to support their playstyle, what i am however not okay with is the vastly diffrent standards that get applied torwards SM which in their subfactions, some of the more eregious ones, get loads of charachters, units and rules, whilest other subfactions can be happy if they even get a trait or a slot movement of a unit...
whilest other factions don't even get that. so yes, GW has double standards, and players will point it out.
Not Online!!! wrote: it is kinda funny, that gw once more devolved the "unique " sm into supplements like they were before gw decided to codex SM bloat that range...
it is even more funny that they managed to do it in a way that is as consumer unfriendly as possible with as much earnings as possible.
This is the first time SWs were not a separate codex since 3rd.
What is funny about it. They have overlapping units. No one is disagree with this ... but are you actually trying to say that the datasheets for things like TWC wulfen or logan grimnar are duplicates of sheets in the maindex ? you can acknowledge those datasheets are in fact different and unique from generic marine datasheets right ? they are, factually, not the same units.
i prefer build a logan instead of gw's cookie cutter often breaking the game special charachters. alas
I also think it is ridiculous the way GW has implemented this... again... SWs still have everything they had as separate codex... the only difference is now the players have to buy a second book...
if SM players buy it en masse, why shouldn't gw pull this? not saying it is good, it's bad but frankly alongside a mid pandemic pricehike , questionable conversion rates etc it just one more consumer unfriendly choice.
Again, this seems to be another person who thinks the word "subfaction" or "supplement" means not unique, not worthy of being an army, or not deserving of unique datasheets sets... even though this would be a subjective opinion and A: not eflective of what is actually happened with the SW supplement and B: what does and doesn't make an army and army worthy of having its own unique units has not been defined anywhere in 40k and is certainly nowhere defined as whether or not it has a supplement book. Unless someone has a quote somewhere on this ? and if so, you should send it to GW because they arn't following that rule.
no i just value subfactions as what they are SUBFACTIONS, they should have the rules to support their playstyle, what i am however not okay with is the vastly diffrent standards that get applied torwards SM which in their subfactions, some of the more eregious ones, get loads of charachters, units and rules, whilest other subfactions can be happy if they even get a trait or a slot movement of a unit...
whilest other factions don't even get that. so yes, GW has double standards, and players will point it out.
I agree with you on almost all of this except the last bit .... you are stereotyping what SUBFACTIONS are. You have a preconceived perception on what you think they should be even though GW is clearly demonstrating that they are not necessarily what you think they are.
I do agree that it is unfair and other armies should definitely have the same treatment, if not more.
I do also think alot of people are forgetting that it SWs have been their own codex for decades longer then sub factions have even existed. All of the characters, units and rules in SWs were designed to be a seperate army all the way back from 2nd edition forward in a similar way that orks shared gear with SMs back then and were designed further since. Its not that GW has said "lets make this subfaction more unique" rather they said "lets make this unique army into a subfaction." Sure SWs had some overlaping wargear. But back when I first started, the overlaping units were just a few vehicles at most. Now, its the entire primaris line. I get that vanilla primaris SWs arn't really a different army then any vanilla primaris army,,, but the unique stuff still plays, operates and creates identity on the table. Trust me, alot BA / SW / DA and DW players who don't just paint their primaris different colours are also fed up with the extra Primaris stuff gw is trying to shove down our throats... we don't want to play vanilla marines and we never did. We are now being forced to buy their codex when I am using maybe 5 datasheets from it otherwise my army is almost entirely SW datasheets. this isn't the same thing as simply being a subfaction invented in 7th/8th edition... these are factions that have existed from all the way back in 2nd now being told they have the status of subfaction... we need to acknowledge there is a difference between that and whitescars or ultramarines are.
We do understand that this isn't a subfaction gaining things this is a fleshed out codex no longer being represented as their own codex... nothing has been gained or lost, the only thing is, SW players now have to buy a second book ... Its really not the same thing... ignoring the 20+ years of SWsDAs and BAs having their own codexes doesn't magically make the fact that they still do, whilst being "subfactions", mean that GW is giving a subfaction anything... they got this identity and this stuff when they didnt have this arbitrary title of "subfaction." that everyone is getting mad about. Making these subfactions was an option of logistics... all the unique stuff people seem to be upset about here came from a time when the marine bloat wasn't so egregious... Trust me, most of us also think the primaris gak tidal wave is a load of crap...
if you regard this as stereotyping then you have no conception of the word. Because if enforcing standards is now stereotyping that is pretty far from the point i made...
And it is even internally, of the now banished to supplement standards, SM's unfair.
Why should Raven guard , one of the OG legions, get less content then SW's?
How should you explain this issue to someone that plays CSM? He can be happy if his veterans of the long war get some rules differing them from BL.
And that is even less of an issue to understand for literally any other faction in the game which have a blatant lack of specialisation and customization / choice to replace customization via subfaction choice?
Gw's line is arbitrary torwards what sells. That is a bad standard.
no it isn't so you're eaither a liar of lack reading comprehension. what I said was that these armies where eistablished as unique armies quite some time ago, and as such began to diverse from the baseline as they got their own distinct units and rules. that's hardly circular logic, that's called divergant evolution;.
Why should Raven guard , one of the OG legions, get less content then SW's?
How should you explain this issue to someone that plays CSM? He can be happy if his veterans of the long war get some rules differing them from BL.
And that is even less of an issue to understand for literally any other faction in the game which have a blatant lack of specialisation and customization / choice to replace customization via subfaction choice?
toi start with because ravenguard have always been described as largely codex compliant.
as for CSMs etc. I'll spell it out for you one more time.
I am 100% in support of other armies subfactions getting sensable, expanded rules and unique units. I would LOVE to see chaos marines expanded. No one, NO ONE is arguing ONLY Loyalist space marines deserves this stuff.
Why should Raven guard , one of the OG legions, get less content then SW's?
How should you explain this issue to someone that plays CSM? He can be happy if his veterans of the long war get some rules differing them from BL.
And that is even less of an issue to understand for literally any other faction in the game which have a blatant lack of specialisation and customization / choice to replace customization via subfaction choice?
toi start with because ravenguard have always been described as largely codex compliant.
as for CSMs etc. I'll spell it out for you one more time.
I am 100% in support of other armies subfactions getting sensable, expanded rules and unique units. I would LOVE to see chaos marines expanded. No one, NO ONE is arguing ONLY Loyalist space marines deserves this stuff.
However every SM speciality costs space and ressources torwards non SM speciality and customizabiliy because sadly the fact is , THAT GW uses a limited set of ressources for new and specialisation/customizability development for the players. SO sadly it is partially a 0 sum game, unless GW expands it's facilities. SO that any NON sm player sees an issue with all those wannabe codex sized supplement cashgrabs is a logical conclusion. Which was a point i allready made last page but you didn't even bother to respond to:
Not Online!!! wrote: actually it kinda is, because it is a nigh zero investment for guaranteed return for nearly anything SM, whilest an eldar update would be more risk, far higher investment and less expected return.
GW actively enters a desinvestment cycle thus by doing the "easy" and guaranteed thing for all the factions that are not marine based...
so yes it is partially indeed a zero sum game. Because the attention torwards other factions get lessened for the guaranteed Sm and partially CSm support.
GW just fails to undertand as to WHY certain ranges don't sell as well. Just look at the SoB situation. Or any other slew of updated factions (rules OR modelwise) that were less popular before and afterwards just hiked massively in player count.
GWhas limited Manpower, production facility and timetables. Money can aleviate some of these but money is investment and needs return. That is why gw choses the easy way and makes more SM's that however doesn't make the situation any better, especially since GW is extremely averse to risk and therefore not investing into f.e. updated ranges (only if there is massive pressure and therefore estimated market , cue SoB).
Not Online!!! wrote: if you regard this as stereotyping then you have no conception of the word. Because if enforcing standards is now stereotyping that is pretty far from the point i made...
And it is even internally, of the now banished to supplement standards, SM's unfair.
Why should Raven guard , one of the OG legions, get less content then SW's?
Raven gaurd have NOT gotten had a supplement or codex since 2nd edition like BA/DA/SWs... in fact ravengaurd didn't even get a supplement until 8th... This isn't a mater of Raven Gaurd "not getting content" its a mater of SWs having distinct fleshed out content and design space being dedicated to them as an army since 2nd edition and Raven Gaurd being made into a subfaction during 8th... you do see there is a difference there... no one is saying Raven Gaurd CANT have as much as SWs ,,, but they havn't been getting design attention for 2+ decades like SWs and I really don't think now is time to catch them up on that 2 decades to meet SWs level ,,,,, do you ? I think it would be a lot better if GW focused on some non-power armor for now ... don't you ? yes, while it is true ravengaurd is an OG legion in the lore, you are ignoring what actually IS the history of the 40k game and somehow equating it to the fictional history of the lore... SWs have existed, in the real world, as a unique army, for 2+ decades.... Raven Gaurd, in the real world, has existed as a subfaction for about 5 years at most and hasn't had nearly the amount of real world attention as SWs. You do get the difference, justifying that because they are equally significant in the fluff world doesn't make them the "exact same" in the real world... the two armies have very different real world histories.
How should you explain this issue to someone that plays CSM? He can be happy if his veterans of the long war get some rules differing them from BL.
speaking of CSM ,,, if DG or TS became CSM supplements... would we be arguing that DG and TS shouldn't have any unique units ? ... you do realize that those two codex overlap with CSM AND have existed for less time then SWsDA and BA have existed as standalone codexs ? just because a logistical choice to make them into a supplement so that overlap units are covered doesn't magically remove there worthyness to keep their army identities , keep their unique units or keep their unique rules... and squating or merging things like plague marines or rubrics into regular CSM units isn't going to magically bring back the design effort / time put into the creations of those units in the first place.
And that is even less of an issue to understand for literally any other faction in the game which have a blatant lack of specialisation and customization / choice to replace customization via subfaction choice?
again,,, this are unique armies that have recently been declared subfactions due to logistics and sales efforts. These subfactions didn't just magically get all this unique stuff out of nowhere, it has been being developed for 20+ years.
Gw's line is arbitrary torwards what sells. That is a bad standard.
"Gw's line is arbitrary torwards what sells. That is a bad standard."
this is precisely my point. You are totally right. The fact that GW has declared them a supplement is for sales. They are forcing SW, BA, DA players to buy a second book whilst simultaniously forcing their new primaris gak down our throats.... I agree that going by what GW is saying is a bad standard... this is why I am trying to point out that it is GW that declared them a "supplement/subfaction" yet it is also GW that treat them as though they are not... It is actually you guys who are saying "GW says they are subfaction so they can't be a unique army or have unique datasheets" whilst I am saying... "who the feth cares what GW is calling them, the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years and simply calling them a subfaction is not a good enough reason to get rid of everything that makes them unique"
SecondTime wrote: Wow this is complicated. It's so interesting that more people aren't disturbed by the marine fapfest on the part of GW.
I am pretty sure everyone here IS disturbed by it ... Some of us just don't think the solution is to squat or merge 20+ year old armies out of existence just because GW is trying to force feed those armies their vanilla sacks of primaris.
SecondTime wrote: Wow this is complicated. It's so interesting that more people aren't disturbed by the marine fapfest on the part of GW.
I am pretty sure everyone here IS disturbed by it ... Some of us just don't think the solution is to squat or merge 20+ year old armies out of existence just because GW is trying to force feed those armies their vanilla sacks of primaris.
Primaris doesn't bother me though. SW jumped the shark long before primaris in my mind. I'm only disappointed they didn't squat the oldbois to free up some shelf space for others.
SecondTime wrote: Wow this is complicated. It's so interesting that more people aren't disturbed by the marine fapfest on the part of GW.
I am pretty sure everyone here IS disturbed by it ... Some of us just don't think the solution is to squat or merge 20+ year old armies out of existence just because GW is trying to force feed those armies their vanilla sacks of primaris.
Except that already what happened, Space wolfes aren't a codex anymore. Thats not an opinion, thats a fact.
SecondTime wrote: "the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years"
Should they have gotten that stuff in the first place, though?
Considering SWs were one of the first 5 armies in the game and had more differences from SMs then orks had at the time ... I don't know,,, probably. It would have been nice to have a faction that plays a little differently... especially back then... the fact that they were wearing power armor and so were SMs made very little difference back then,,, everything in the game shared wargear, they just had different rules on how they used them...
But who knows, who am I to decide whether or not one of the original divergent factions in the game deserves to be created at that time or not XD.
Maybe GW could have put them in orange jumpsuits with bowties but kept the rules the same... does the fact that they were wearing power armor v.s. anything else mater when it comes down to the fact that they were introduced as a faction that plays in an alternative way.
SecondTime wrote: "the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years"
Should they have gotten that stuff in the first place, though?
Considering SWs were one of the first 5 armies in the game and had more differences from SMs then orks had at the time ... I don't know,,, probably. It would have been nice to have a faction that plays a little differently... especially back then... the fact that they were wearing power armor and so were SMs made very little difference back then,,, everything in the game shared wargear, they just had different rules on how they used them...
But who knows, who am I to decide whether or not one of the original divergent factions in the game deserves to exist or not XD.
This is just all opinion on how to improve the game. GW's just going to try to sell as much stuff as it thinks it can get away with. That means two concurrent marines armies and two books for every marine player. I personally find it very boring that so many matchups have so many meqs on the table now.
SecondTime wrote: Wow this is complicated. It's so interesting that more people aren't disturbed by the marine fapfest on the part of GW.
I am pretty sure everyone here IS disturbed by it ... Some of us just don't think the solution is to squat or merge 20+ year old armies out of existence just because GW is trying to force feed those armies their vanilla sacks of primaris.
Except that already what happened, Space wolfes aren't a codex anymore. Thats not an opinion, thats a fact.
YES !!!
for the last time,,, we all know that SWs don't have their own codex... are we really going to keep repeating that over and over and over.
What IS an OPINION, is what being a subfaction / suplement actually means in terms of what is worthy of being called an army or having a unique set of datasheets.
This is the circular logic people keep complaining about .... "but they arn't a faction they are subfaction" "so what, does that mean they are any different, their rules and units havent changed" "yes they are different they are subfaction" "how does that make them different" "because they are subfaction"
please.... try to compute that the stereotype and opinion is of what it means to be subfaction or supplement,,,, nowhere does GW or anyone else make a hard rule on what that means, it is only people here deciding that it can only mean what they want it to mean... and the crazy thing is what you guys are deciding it means isn't even inline with what is happening in real life.
Don't care if SW are a faction or subfaction; just want them gone. But I know this will never happen, so I guess its declining matches and snarky comments for me.
SecondTime wrote: "the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years"
Should they have gotten that stuff in the first place, though?
Considering SWs were one of the first 5 armies in the game and had more differences from SMs then orks had at the time ... I don't know,,, probably. It would have been nice to have a faction that plays a little differently... especially back then... the fact that they were wearing power armor and so were SMs made very little difference back then,,, everything in the game shared wargear, they just had different rules on how they used them...
But who knows, who am I to decide whether or not one of the original divergent factions in the game deserves to exist or not XD.
This is just all opinion on how to improve the game. GW's just going to try to sell as much stuff as it thinks it can get away with. That means two concurrent marines armies and two books for every marine player. I personally find it very boring that so many matchups have so many meqs on the table now.
I can't argue with your opinion on this and it is a fair concern.
But I rather like that some of these power armor factions are a little more varied then vanilla marines. The fact is, if you remove the other marine armies and make them all one vanilla army, no one is going to throw out their armies, people are still going to play just as many marines,,, at least for a long while ... if you are going to fight marines all the time anyways,,, i think it is better to be playing against marines with some variance ...
SecondTime wrote: "the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years"
Should they have gotten that stuff in the first place, though?
Considering SWs were one of the first 5 armies in the game and had more differences from SMs then orks had at the time ... I don't know,,, probably. It would have been nice to have a faction that plays a little differently... especially back then... the fact that they were wearing power armor and so were SMs made very little difference back then,,, everything in the game shared wargear, they just had different rules on how they used them...
But who knows, who am I to decide whether or not one of the original divergent factions in the game deserves to exist or not XD.
This is just all opinion on how to improve the game. GW's just going to try to sell as much stuff as it thinks it can get away with. That means two concurrent marines armies and two books for every marine player. I personally find it very boring that so many matchups have so many meqs on the table now.
I can't argue with your opinion on this and it is a fair concern.
But I rather like that some of these power armor factions are a little more varied then vanilla marines. The fact is, if you remove the other marine armies and make them all one vanilla army, no one is going to throw out their armies, people are still going to play just as many marines,,, at least for a long while ... if you are going to fight marines all the time anyways,,, i think it is better to be playing against marines with some variance ...
So I can take on a wolf lord with a wolf banner leading wolf guard armed with a wolf blade hailing from the hall of the great wolf? That are just better than other power armor armies because wolf? In a game with absolutely absurd backgrounds, these guys still stand out as shamelessly terrible at every level.
SecondTime wrote: "the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years"
Should they have gotten that stuff in the first place, though?
Considering SWs were one of the first 5 armies in the game and had more differences from SMs then orks had at the time ... I don't know,,, probably. It would have been nice to have a faction that plays a little differently... especially back then... the fact that they were wearing power armor and so were SMs made very little difference back then,,, everything in the game shared wargear, they just had different rules on how they used them...
But who knows, who am I to decide whether or not one of the original divergent factions in the game deserves to exist or not XD.
This is just all opinion on how to improve the game. GW's just going to try to sell as much stuff as it thinks it can get away with. That means two concurrent marines armies and two books for every marine player. I personally find it very boring that so many matchups have so many meqs on the table now.
I can't argue with your opinion on this and it is a fair concern.
But I rather like that some of these power armor factions are a little more varied then vanilla marines. The fact is, if you remove the other marine armies and make them all one vanilla army, no one is going to throw out their armies, people are still going to play just as many marines,,, at least for a long while ... if you are going to fight marines all the time anyways,,, i think it is better to be playing against marines with some variance ...
So I can take on a wolf lord with a wolf banner leading wolf guard armed with a wolf blade hailing from the hall of the great wolf? That are just better than other power armor armies because wolf? In a game with absolutely absurd backgrounds, these guys still stand out as shamelessly terrible.
Thats a good subjective opinion on the lore man... not sure what you want me to say about that XD .
Honestly @Type40, the fact that you keep saying "muh opinon" is getting really old.
So stop making arguments that are, in fact, just your opinion whilst trying to claim that it is an objective fact... that has been getting old since page one of this thread.
"Thats a good subjective opinion on the lore man... not sure what you want me to say about that XD"
Nothing, really. Just pointing out why the debate here confuses me. There's no higher purpose to my opinion. Just the intersection of "I hate Space Wolves" and "the game needs less power armor". It's not a big jump from there to squatting. The only FACTUAL issue is marine oversaturation. We can measure that and experience it to confirm it. Everything else... opinion.
GW missed their chance to write BA out with the Nids as well. Would have given them an epic ending. Instead we get sanguinary guard running around when they are all supposed to be dead. So again, the fluff or lore has no impact on the game.
ps. you know what else is a ridiculous lore wise and seems hilariously silly in terms of lore being represented on the table,
a bunch of elves who are perfect in every way , who have known the art of war for thousands of years, have masters psychic powers, built giant utopias and for some reason they a still a dying race XD ... LOL But the lore in 40k is ridiculous. and there is a little piece of ridiculous for everyone to enjoy... I enjoy mine in a wolfy viking manor... some enjoy their ridiculous lore in a more Manga Mech way or a more scrapjack mad max way... whether or not the lore is ridiculous has no bearing on whether or not it should exist in the game,,, its all ridiculous.
SecondTime wrote: "Thats a good subjective opinion on the lore man... not sure what you want me to say about that XD"
Nothing, really. Just pointing out why the debate here confuses me. There's no higher purpose to my opinion. Just the intersection of "I hate Space Wolves" and "the game needs less power armor". It's not a big jump from there to squatting. The only FACTUAL issue is marine oversaturation. We can measure that and experience it to confirm it. Everything else... opinion.
GW missed their chance to write BA out with the Nids as well. Would have given them an epic ending. Instead we get sanguinary guard running around when they are all supposed to be dead. So again, the fluff or lore has no impact on the game.
Yes, agreed.
But whether or not something has gameplay identity is not the same thing as its "fluff" or lore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: Except we have done so, only for you to come and say "thats just your opinion".
And using that as a way to dismiss arguments does nothing to help the conversation and prove whatever point youre trying to make.
Ok,,, so what makes a "subfaction" not worthy of unique datasheets compared to a full faction ,,, other then "MAHRINS" , "they don't deserve to be" or "SUBFACTIONs arn't full factions !!!" ?
Type40 wrote: ps. you know what else is a ridiculous lore wise and seems hilariously silly in terms of lore being represented on the table,
a bunch of elves who are perfect in every way , who have known the art of war for thousands of years, have masters psychic powers, built giant utopias and for some reason they a still a dying race XD ... LOL But the lore in 40k is ridiculous. and there is a little piece of ridiculous for everyone to enjoy... I enjoy mine in a wolfy viking manor... some enjoy their ridiculous lore in a more Manga Mech way or a more scrapjack mad max way... whether or not the lore is ridiculous has no bearing on whether or not it should exist in the game,,, its all ridiculous.
As I said, its an intersection of this problem and power armor saturation. Not all ridiculous is equally ridiculous to me.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Except we have done so, only for you to come and say "thats just your opinion".
And using that as a way to dismiss arguments does nothing to help the conversation and prove whatever point youre trying to make.
Ok,,, so what makes a "subfaction" not worthy of unique datasheets compared to a full faction ,,, other then "MAHRINS" , "they don't deserve to be" or "SUBFACTIONs arn't full factions !!!" ?
You actually havn't really answered that ...
I havn't said theyre not "worthy" of having them. I said that it would give other marine subfactions more options if the datasheet was made more generic and it would give more fluffy options for either GW in the future (drake riding salamanders as a possible model).
Oh, and i'll give a non-marine example so i dont seem to be anti marine, put all carnifexes variants on the same datasheet to reduce clutter.
Also, fact: having less datasheet that represent the same thing means that GW can errata things in a more effective manner in the future.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Except we have done so, only for you to come and say "thats just your opinion".
And using that as a way to dismiss arguments does nothing to help the conversation and prove whatever point youre trying to make.
Ok,,, so what makes a "subfaction" not worthy of unique datasheets compared to a full faction ,,, other then "MAHRINS" , "they don't deserve to be" or "SUBFACTIONs arn't full factions !!!" ?
You actually havn't really answered that ...
I havn't said theyre not "worthy" of having them. I said that it would give other marine subfactions more options if the datasheet was made more generic and it would give more fluffy options for either GW in the future (drake riding salamanders as a possible model).
Oh, and i'll give a non-marine example so i dont seem to be anti marine, put all carnifexes variants on the same datasheet to reduce clutter.
Also, fact: having less datasheet that represent the same thing means that GW can errata things in a more effective manner in the future.
Ok,,,
you are saying that. You ARE saying that SWs do not deserve to have unique units that are entirely theirs. BA don't deserve unique units that are entirely theirs. In the same way that Eldar or Nids have units that are not shared with SMs. You ARE saying that they are not the same thing... You are advocating for a merger. you also don't seem to have a grasp on what unique means...
and again,,, why not roll everything in the game into together... why are you drawing the line at "subfactions." you still arn't answering the question. You still arn't comprehending that you are choosing what should and shouldn't be rolled into together based on a subjective opinion about what does and doesn't constitute as being a unique army... I don't know how else I can explain this to you... You don't seem to be able to grasp that you are drawing up restrictions and customization groups based entirely on your stereotype and subjective opinion of what it means to be a supplement/subfaction...
