Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Because people like their minis to mean something. They want there to be differences with the things they choose.

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.

That's all. /thread.

 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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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 ?"

So its basically purely from a marketing angle.

 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.

Karol wrote:

 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?

Karol wrote:

 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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

BrianDavion wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

 Type40 wrote:

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

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

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.

Also TWC are cavalry, not bikes, so they interact diferently with terrain. Or at least they did before.


But really, this spam of threads to talk about fething space wolves are becoming tiresome.

 Type40 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

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"