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.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
There's a difference in degree between "Terminators with set options" and "Terminators with mixed options" as compared to "Ancient Egyptian Robo Space Mummies" and "Blue Space Fish Communists with Tons Of Dakka".

Oh, I know! The first two sell well and the last two sit on the shelf.

And yet, not so poorly that their entire line is currently in the process of being squatted.

If SM were selling so well they would have never bothered with the complete overhaul of their line into Numarines. Clearly SM had hit a massive slump and every release over the last 2 years has been on the single trajectory of removing every unit you are currently fighting for in favor of the new units they are replacing them with.

or GW just needs to sell new things and realized the old marine line is pretty much complete. I'd be willing to bet tac marine squads still outsell the entire range of some xenos armies

Doubtful. If they did they wouldn't be squatting them. Too many tacs exist on the market. You can get them off ebay for nothing. You can buy them in massive lots from other players. And Intercessors are the ones in every new box.

Well, we are having our weekly thread on this subject.

The unique units for the Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Blood Angels allow for choice and variety in the game at a relatively low cost in game design. You get four factions with a sort-of unit "Venn Diagram" : an established common core of units and then the special stuff. For the player, choosing to play Dark Angels grants access to those DA unique units while losing access to others. Its a choice with benefits and drawbacks. I emphasize that its a choice. Giving players options has been central to the success of 40K over the years.

Regarding fluff/lore, there is plenty of justification for the Dark Angels to have unique bikes, vehicles and equipment. Its true that they can just write new lore, but the Ravenwing/Deathwing are well established over the real-time history of 40K as is the Dark Angels' penchant for secrecy. You don't have to like it, nor do you have to buy the models or the codex. That's cool.

Well, it would stand to reason that if Gman being in a codex, forces certain design choices because you " can " take him..it makes sense, having all these units for every marine group would lead to other such nightmares in balance yes ?

Which, would probably mean a lot of them would be tossed, and there wouldn't be really any special units anymore.

Now, ignoring the fact GW do this practice because they want to sell marine players different armies by making them different yet also the same, ignore that as I'm sure them making money didn't factor into the reasons at all.

Why does it bother people some armies are different than theirs ? If I'm that envious of a factions special toys, I may start that faction, if not, I won't.

This whole talk feels like keeping up with the neighbors.." But..Jimmy has werewolves !..I want werewolves ! " but Fred, you have different centurion mans.." But I don't want stupid centurions mans, I want Plasma Knight Riders instead ! " but Fred, you have " insert a few units " .." but but...they are stinky poo I want what they got ! "

Obviously GW does this for marketing reasons, but even if they didn't. Marines all being the same makes them extra boring, for one. For two, why can't each army, even marines have some special units ? For three, why can't we be happy with what we have and not want what everyone else does ? Sounds more like a problem with being content with what you have and always instead wanting what you don't.

So why should marines armies be different ? Because people like to feel different and have different clans, groups, gangs, etc. We're a herd and a tribal lot. We do lots of stuff to feel special, and different even in army choice. Some enjoy feeling special with their DW knights, and Black knights, death company, etc, etc. Why shouldn't they ? Just because someone else doesn't like them having a toy they don't ? Sounds petty to me.

Enjoy what you have, and don't covet what you don't, we'd all be happier in life if we did that in all things, not just in toy soldiers.

As well, if you really can't live without it, then just start those armies and mix detachments, ta da !

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well, it would stand to reason that if Gman being in a codex, forces certain design choices because you " can " take him..it makes sense, having all these units for every marine group would lead to other such nightmares in balance yes ?

Which, would probably mean a lot of them would be tossed, and there wouldn't be really any special units anymore.

Now, ignoring the fact GW do this practice because they want to sell marine players different armies by making them different yet also the same, ignore that as I'm sure them making money didn't factor into the reasons at all.

Why does it bother people some armies are different than theirs ? If I'm that envious of a factions special toys, I may start that faction, if not, I won't.

This whole talk feels like keeping up with the neighbors.." But..Jimmy has werewolves !..I want werewolves ! " but Fred, you have different centurion mans.." But I don't want stupid centurions mans, I want Plasma Knight Riders instead ! " but Fred, you have " insert a few units " .." but but...they are stinky poo I want what they got ! "

Obviously GW does this for marketing reasons, but even if they didn't. Marines all being the same makes them extra boring, for one. For two, why can't each army, even marines have some special units ? For three, why can't we be happy with what we have and not want what everyone else does ? Sounds more like a problem with being content with what you have and always instead wanting what you don't.

So why should marines armies be different ? Because people like to feel different and have different clans, groups, gangs, etc. We're a herd and a tribal lot. We do lots of stuff to feel special, and different even in army choice. Some enjoy feeling special with their DW knights, and Black knights, death company, etc, etc. Why shouldn't they ? Just because someone else doesn't like them having a toy they don't ? Sounds petty to me.

Enjoy what you have, and don't covet what you don't, we'd all be happier in life if we did that in all things, not just in toy soldiers.

As well, if you really can't live without it, then just start those armies and mix detachments, ta da !

I enjoy having my regret that I chose an army that can't do either of those things, and watches from the sidelines as poster boys get new toys.

Hey, play long enough we all have armies that languish and suck for long stretches. I think some other armies have cool stuff but I'm content with the forces I have and what they can do, even if they do it poorly lol.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well, it would stand to reason that if Gman being in a codex, forces certain design choices because you " can " take him..it makes sense, having all these units for every marine group would lead to other such nightmares in balance yes ?

Which, would probably mean a lot of them would be tossed, and there wouldn't be really any special units anymore.

Now, ignoring the fact GW do this practice because they want to sell marine players different armies by making them different yet also the same, ignore that as I'm sure them making money didn't factor into the reasons at all.

Why does it bother people some armies are different than theirs ? If I'm that envious of a factions special toys, I may start that faction, if not, I won't.

This whole talk feels like keeping up with the neighbors.." But..Jimmy has werewolves !..I want werewolves ! " but Fred, you have different centurion mans.." But I don't want stupid centurions mans, I want Plasma Knight Riders instead ! " but Fred, you have " insert a few units " .." but but...they are stinky poo I want what they got ! "

Obviously GW does this for marketing reasons, but even if they didn't. Marines all being the same makes them extra boring, for one. For two, why can't each army, even marines have some special units ? For three, why can't we be happy with what we have and not want what everyone else does ? Sounds more like a problem with being content with what you have and always instead wanting what you don't.

So why should marines armies be different ? Because people like to feel different and have different clans, groups, gangs, etc. We're a herd and a tribal lot. We do lots of stuff to feel special, and different even in army choice. Some enjoy feeling special with their DW knights, and Black knights, death company, etc, etc. Why shouldn't they ? Just because someone else doesn't like them having a toy they don't ? Sounds petty to me.

Enjoy what you have, and don't covet what you don't, we'd all be happier in life if we did that in all things, not just in toy soldiers.

As well, if you really can't live without it, then just start those armies and mix detachments, ta da !

I enjoy having my regret that I chose an army that can't do either of those things, and watches from the sidelines as poster boys get new toys.

, outside of a whopping 3 leuitenants every release for space marines in 8th edition has been for all space marines (shut up death watch and grey knight players ) so even if the BA/SW/DA where consolidated the impact on the release scheudle would be pretty minimal your army won't magicly get more stuff because another army was removed

Theoretically if there were no mehrons the releases would be for another army. Checkmate.

I do think the game needs less power armor. The sum total power armor codices only describe like .001% of the forces involved in the overall war.

If GW really cared about reason, they'd cease to be GW, sales dictate books, and marines sell so marines shall have a ton of books. Looking deeper than that I feel is just setting yourself up for madness. It's all about the money.

Hell, even the core book now is having how many supplement books ? So only more, and not less marine books are coming.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Theoretically if there were no mehrons the releases would be for another army. Checkmate.

or 40k would have failed long ago.

That's depressing.

Disagree, the first models I collected as a young lad were Tau.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
If GW really cared about reason, they'd cease to be GW, sales dictate books, and marines sell so marines shall have a ton of books. Looking deeper than that I feel is just setting yourself up for madness. It's all about the money.

Hell, even the core book now is having how many supplement books ? So only more, and not less marine books are coming.

Which is why I started the thread stating "Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne"

It's honestly unnecessary stuff that could've been taken care of in a simpler manner. NO we don't need separate entries for Tactical Terminators, Assault Terminators, Cata Terminators, and Tart Terminators.

Seriously, defend that kind of crap.

I actually like the different marks of terminator armor having slightly different rules. The non imdomintus pattern have slightly different rules that reflect a variance in tech and unit priority. Plus if you think that having five terminator entries is what's causing 40k to be a mess, I disagree with you.

It's not units entries or number of options but it's scale being way out of wack. If I wanted a game with far less unit options and granularity I would play Apoc. A game that is trying to have viable rules for a Grot, a Space Marine, a Knight and a Titan is never going to work properly.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I actually like the different marks of terminator armor having slightly different rules. The non imdomintus pattern have slightly different rules that reflect a variance in tech and unit priority. Plus if you think that having five terminator entries is what's causing 40k to be a mess, I disagree with you.

It's not units entries or number of options but it's scale being way out of wack. If I wanted a game with far less unit options and granularity I would play Apoc. A game that is trying to have viable rules for a Grot, a Space Marine, a Knight and a Titan is never going to work properly.

So do different Power Armor Mks. Do all those need separate rules? After all they have kits!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
If GW really cared about reason, they'd cease to be GW, sales dictate books, and marines sell so marines shall have a ton of books. Looking deeper than that I feel is just setting yourself up for madness. It's all about the money.

Hell, even the core book now is having how many supplement books ? So only more, and not less marine books are coming.

Which is why I started the thread stating "Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne"

It's honestly unnecessary stuff that could've been taken care of in a simpler manner. NO we don't need separate entries for Tactical Terminators, Assault Terminators, Cata Terminators, and Tart Terminators.

Seriously, defend that kind of crap.

Easy, the almighty dollar, there, defended. They want the bloat to sell more power armor books, and they sell. That is the only defense they need. Do you like it ? No. Do I ? Not really but we don't matter all we can do is stop playing, and stop buying that is our only voice to them and we wouldn't be a drop in the bucket to the many thousands of those books they will sell.

I was one of the few who knew the bloat wouldn't be gone but as long as they make our army stronger we'll keep buying all the bloat books and it won't ever change.

Depends on the game I'm playing. In a RPG like the FFG books, absolutely, and I wouldn't be opposed in for some variation for something kill team sized. In something like Apoc, no you shouldn't have that level of granularity.

This is my main point, i'm not trying to argue over individual entries, I'm simply trying to state that GW can't fix anything until it comes down on one side of the coin of what 40k is supposed to be. Is it supposed to lean more towards kill team or FFG of individual models and units having a ton of options and choices or do you want the main game to be apoc light were units are just generic blocks.

I take much more issues with the shoehorning of super heavies and flyers disrupting balance (along with an ever increasing emphasis on combo hammer) being the core issue with 40k, than giving a unique version of a bad unit to one faction of space marines.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Disagree, the first models I collected as a young lad were Tau.

.. So? you are not the entire player base. GW sells what makes them money, the sheer amount of Space Marines suggests heavily that Marines are their top selling minis

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Disagree, the first models I collected as a young lad were Tau.

.. So? you are not the entire player base. GW sells what makes them money, the sheer amount of Space Marines suggests heavily that Marines are their top selling minis

I play with about 7 people regularly. 3 of them have some degreee of SM (one a VERY small force as a second army. 1 DA 1 SW). I have Tau and Nids and used to have necrons. 1 has orks. 1 has eldar. 1 has Astra Militarum and nids. 1 has deamons. We all want variety. When i go to my FLGS we have a pretty even mix of all kinds of stuff. Not mostly SM. Same reason. Bolters and 3+ everywhere is boring.

There is also a direct correlation to number of releases and number of sales. SM sell because SM get releases. When other armies get releases they also get sales. Fortunately SM are currently being replaced with a new line so they have lots of new releases and lots of sales atm.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Disagree, the first models I collected as a young lad were Tau.

.. So? you are not the entire player base. GW sells what makes them money, the sheer amount of Space Marines suggests heavily that Marines are their top selling minis

Sure, it's an anecdote. But no mehrines and I would still be collecting

 Cruentus wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
You should, maybe, read some DA fluff to understand why they have what they have. SNIP....The ravenwing black knight on the other side are bikes that have a specific role (hunting fallen) and are equiped in order to accomplish this task with ... wait for it ... plasma weapons because the DA have more plasma than anyone else. Maybe you're starting to get the trend.

You're referring to the fluff for the DA that changes every edition?

Pretty sure it did mention the stuff that plasma and those landspeeders are based on. They being one of the chapters with the weirdest/most dark age of technology stuff in their armory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:


Sure... But the Codexes have never been fair. I'm one of the chumps that paid £25 for Codex Adeptus Custodes. That thing is tiny!

Well it's one thing to compare numbers of datasheets in a horde to an elite, or an elite to a REALLY elite. Or the supplement from one branch of an old codex to the supplement for a different branch from the old merged codex - When they could take a ton of the stuff from the other supplement either outright or in a counts-as scenario.

I feel pretty bad for White Scars - and probably Raven Guard, IF/CF/BT, Salamanders, etc. They're going to lose all the "shared" units and not get many or any, if White Scars is any indication.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:


There is also a direct correlation to number of releases and number of sales. SM sell because SM get releases.

Chicken meet Egg.

There is also a direct correlation to number of releases and number of sales. SM get releases because SM get sales.

Correlation is not causation.

I too have a lot of different armies. I've got UM, Nids, Orks, DA, Eldar, Chaos, and DG. Most of my different armies initially came from different boxed sets. Battle for Armageddon, Battle for Blackreach, Battle for Macragge Dark Imperium, Dark Millenium I'm really looking forward to Dark Battle for the Imperium Millenium.

Breton wrote:

Chicken meet Egg.

There is also a direct correlation to number of releases and number of sales. SM get releases because SM get sales.

Correlation is not causation.

Dark Eldar would like a word. Their release in 5th was a complete overhaul of their entire line in one go. None of the old models were kept as far as I can recall.

How often do you think anyone bought Dark Eldar before that release? How many Dark Eldar armies do people see with the old pre-5th metal models? If your sales performance dictated your releases, there is no way that they would have gotten a full line release.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Breton wrote:

Chicken meet Egg.

There is also a direct correlation to number of releases and number of sales. SM get releases because SM get sales.

Correlation is not causation.

Dark Eldar would like a word. Their release in 5th was a complete overhaul of their entire line in one go. None of the old models were kept as far as I can recall.

How often do you think anyone bought Dark Eldar before that release? How many Dark Eldar armies do people see with the old pre-5th metal models? If your sales performance dictated your releases, there is no way that they would have gotten a full line release.

About the same number of people who see me play with my old metal Marneus Calgar. I replaced him with Finecast/Plastic super fast. Even pinned metal models break super often at the superglue joints and end up looking bad the more often it happens. Also you're making the case about Correlation and Causation.

Not this debate again...

Yes, GW have to keep releasing kits to keep making money.
Yes, Marine sales specifically are helped by the number of kits they get.
Yes, other armies would get a sales boost if they had as many releases as marines.

HOWEVER Marines have the best potential sales due to what kind of faction they are. They are the heroic human faction - the personal power fantasy. This faction is ALWAYS the most popular when all other things are equal in any game. So it absolutely makes total logical sense to put the most attention into marines, because it will have the best return on investment.

There will demonising returns eventually with too much focus, which is why the periodically need to break away and do things for other factions.

I'd also argue, as I have in the past, that Marine sales help allow GW to do other things. "well thanks to the space marine release we're looking good this quarter, we can proably afford to drop codex: obscure xenos, even if it doesn't sell that well we've already made our needed profit for the year" In fact if I was going to introduce a brand new xenos army I'd proably start by bundling it with marines in a starter box.

BrianDavion wrote:
I'd also argue, as I have in the past, that Marine sales help allow GW to do other things. "well thanks to the space marine release we're looking good this quarter, we can proably afford to drop codex: obscure xenos, even if it doesn't sell that well we've already made our needed profit for the year" In fact if I was going to introduce a brand new xenos army I'd proably start by bundling it with marines in a starter box.

Absolutely. Marines and their appeal is what the whole IP is built on.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Ok this whole topic is a little meh ?

If you want to run say, black dragons with dragon wulfen, you can, just use the space wolf rules with dragon based upgrades and lizard like wulfen types, boom, jobs done.

You want the BA goodies, run a different chapter and use the BA rules, there you go.

Want the special units for DA ? I think you get what I'm going to say, get the book, make up the models and do it.

The power is yours, you don't need GW to tell you its ok to do so.

That's not what they want though. They want to run DW knights, Sanguinary Guard, ect with Guilliman giving the full benefits.

No, people know that certain units being exclusive for no good reason is stupid and always has been.

No, some people think that certain units being exclusive for reasons they don't like is stupid. Don't mistake your position as being the dominant one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Giving DA units to everyone is taking them away now?

Thats the standard knee jerk reaction sadly.

They aren't the ones constantly making whining threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
You should play chess, there's no annoying inconsistencies, and no "ad hoc" fluff to justify unit design.

You should stop using stupid, bad faith arguments.

Didn't you know? The moment we don't have a separate codex for EVERY Loyalist Chapter we're just playing Checkers!

Didn't you know? Having more than one marine codex is the most horrible thing ever, and justifies all of the whining.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

WhiteDog wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
You should play chess, there's no annoying inconsistencies, and no "ad hoc" fluff to justify unit design.

You should stop using stupid, bad faith arguments.

I'm adapting to the arguments presented to me, which are ignorant, stupid and phrased in an obnoxious manner as showed by your last comment.

You haven't been able to refute the arguments based on the whole "go play chess" thing, considering that three frickin armies are the same and there needs to be order.

Let me know when having 27% different units (before special characters) is the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
The point is that Cawl just built a brand new marine and a brand new suit and a bunch of new weapons and strapped a bunch of old weapons onto all new platforms. If you think other SM couldn't get some plasma strapped onto a bike your ignoring the very fluff you are trying to use to defend your position.

And all of this is moot. Every regular marine unit is heading towards getting squatted. Do you think they are going to make a special new primaris on wolves? New special deathwing primaris unit that are not just a paint scheme?

Clocks ticking on all these units.

So you say. As have others for over 10 years.

You guys are as bad as all the people thinking the world is going to end. "This has to be the year, it's divisible by five..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
I'm pretty sure the Salamanders make their own wargear, hence the whole Master Artisans thingy.


Let me reiterate that NO ONE IS SAYING TAKE ANYTHING AWAY from the snowflakes. But unfortunately this is the only reaction we get when this subject is discussed.

Except their codex, and any uniqueness for being separate armies...

But yeah, keep ignoring that part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Because you end up with 5 or so units fighting for the same space. At that point, from both a models and rules standpoint you have to continue to remove more things. You want everyone to have the equipment of the Deathwing terminators, then you end up removing the Deathwing box from sale and making a generic box that has ... maybe all the options but that's not likely.

Or you have 4 flyers in the same role, so at least 2 of them get removed. Will that be the DA specific kits or the generic kits? Probably the DA specific kits as so few people would want those extra bits, since they do t do anything in game except cause a disadvantage due to true LoS.

Now when you suggest removing options so everyone can have them you're still suggesting removal of models people obviously want to buy, otherwise they'd not have been made.

Can you see that side of this, or are you so stuck in calling things 'snowflakes' so you dont have to consider the other side to your argument?

If it's a choice between a better cleaner game or some kits because you like them I choose the game. Sorry.

Too bad having those kids makes it a better cleaner game, because it means someone didn't try to sandwich four units into one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
And that's the thing, you dont have any proof it will make the game cleaner by removing models from it. You have no proof that the issues in the game are caused by Deathwing terminators just existing as more than a paint job being the problem. You dont like it, fine. But removing those models and options under some perceived balancing act (let's ignore the fact you want you're also ignoring or removing 30+ years of stories at the same time, which is a big selling point for 40k) does not guarantee you will get the balance you demand

This is just plain wrong. Less is more. Bloat is bloat. The game inherently gets cleaner by removing units from it. Not kits. Not fluff. Units. You can have unique models with interesting stories but there is no reason those things need their own datasheet or special rules to exist. Upgrade sprues exist for different factions for exactly this purpose. Those heads, shoulder pads, weapons, and special bits don't make the "tac marines" a different datasheet. They just make them uniquely that chapter.

No, it doesn't guarantee the game will instantly become balanced and nobody is saying that this is the magic bullet that would suddenly fix everything. This is a PART of the problem and fixing it is a solid step in the right direction.

You know we've seen less not be more. Chaos players have been bitching about it since 3rd end ended. The game does not inherently get cleaner by removing units. It just gets smaller. And if it's being done by smooshing units together, then it's actually becoming more complicated. There are more to these armies than 'just a few shoulderpads"

@Racerguy180
Lancer here just talked about removing units, and he's on your side. So it's more than just "Us guys hating on your arguments".




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
List building is not tactical clean choices. Too many options fighting for the same design space is more is less.

Your next couple paragraphs of catastrophising nonesense is exactly that. Complete crap. Space marines are 1 army like tau are 1 army and nids are 1 army. Craftworlds and dark eldar are like astra militarum vs space marines. They are different armys.

Your understanding is wrong. Rules are not model is not fluff. The rules are bloated. The models are fine.

The people whos opinion is they like options, the game be damned, are more interested in fluff and models then the game. And thats fine. It also means their opinion matters less when talking about the rules and the game. They just dont actually care about it as a priority. You can have fluff and models that are not the game and thats fine. Meanwhile the game has problems.

And again, the new fex varients are the same problem. Thornbacks and screamer killers dont need to be theirs own datasheets. Its dumb that they are.

I put the reason to stop listening to you in bold above.

Everything else is just wrong. We've talked before about the difference between opinion and right/wrong, but you're still doing it. Stop.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
They’ll build up core things available to all.

Later they’ll add flavoured versions to sell new/repacked kits.

Then let's have the core things available to all in a common book, and the flavored special units in the supplement.

Then, because we have space in the supplement, we might as well reprint all the relative common units, so people don't have to buy two books to use their separate army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Oh look, more catastrophizing nonsense.

Then stop posting nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
There's a difference in degree between "Terminators with set options" and "Terminators with mixed options" as compared to "Ancient Egyptian Robo Space Mummies" and "Blue Space Fish Communists with Tons Of Dakka".

yeah, the first comparison apparently causes knee-jerk allergic reactions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
There's a difference in degree between "Terminators with set options" and "Terminators with mixed options" as compared to "Ancient Egyptian Robo Space Mummies" and "Blue Space Fish Communists with Tons Of Dakka".

Oh, I know! The first two sell well and the last two sit on the shelf.

And yet, not so poorly that their entire line is currently in the process of being squatted.

If SM were selling so well they would have never bothered with the complete overhaul of their line into Numarines. Clearly SM had hit a massive slump and every release over the last 2 years has been on the single trajectory of removing every unit you are currently fighting for in favor of the new units they are replacing them with.

Got any proof for this? Or are you just giving your opinion as fact again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Doubtful. If they did they wouldn't be squatting them. Too many tacs exist on the market. You can get them off ebay for nothing. You can buy them in massive lots from other players. And Intercessors are the ones in every new box.

Yup, you are presenting opinion as fact.

Terminators with maces and shields, in any reasonable world would use the same rules as Terminators with hammers and shields.

Tartarus and Cataphracti armour could each be a single line option for any Terminator model/unit.

Assault and Tactical Terminator squads could easily me merged into a single unit (like Blood Angels used to have).

Mixed weapon loadouts aren't unique to Dark Angels (everyone until 3rd edition., Blood Angels in Space Hulk, Salamanders in Codex Armageddon).
Neither are Terminator Command units.

But no - we totally need like sixteen different Terminator Squad entries.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Terminators with maces and shields, in any reasonable world would use the same rules as Terminators with hammers and shields.

Tartarus and Cataphracti armour could each be a single line option for any Terminator model/unit.

Assault and Tactical Terminator squads could easily me merged into a single unit (like Blood Angels used to have).

Mixed weapon loadouts aren't unique to Dark Angels (everyone until 3rd edition., Blood Angels in Space Hulk, Salamanders in Codex Armageddon).
Neither are Terminator Command units.

But no - we totally need like sixteen different Terminator Squad entries.

You just don't seem to grasp though - some of us get a lot more out of the game for them having different rules. That in itself is something I think is cool and makes me feel more invested in my faction. They're my guys that can do their unique thing. Lore alone doesn't cut it for me, it needs a reflection in the mechanics.