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.
Klickor wrote: When all the options suck, why even have them? They all play the same right now which is they play badly. You are just punishing one look more than the other. And it is quite unlikely GW will make the 3 different terminator armors and the different equipments balanced if they even were to try so at best one of the armors would be superior and if you were unlucky and chose wrong you are punished,
People are for some reason discussing all the datasheets as if they are all both well balanced between each other, other elite choices, other units in the book and even between other books. They arent and will never be as long its GW who writes the rules.
Isnt it better to just have 1 unit with lots of different options both with equipment and look and then have it almost good than 5+ that all suck?
Not everybody play units because they are good from a competitive standpoint... Deathwing Knight are not a great unit frankly but, like most deathwing units, they have charism and thus some people play them even if they know that those will not make them win games. You guys are constantly thinking warhammer 40k is or should be something closer to chess and that's absurd.
Plus this arguments makes no sense whatsoever : the current weakness of terminator armies does not play negatively on the overall balance/playability of the game, and saying the contrary is absurd. If you're really interested in making this game more balanced, then ask GW to remove Knights and the like out of competitive 40k. DA/SW/BA is not even a subject.
I think even those that advocate removing datasheets and consolidating units wish that it wasnt needed. Think most would love to have each unit be more unique and have different mechanics and be meaningful choices in list building. But the game is too big in scope and GW sucks at writing good and well balanced rules. I rather have 50 datasheets that are balanced and do different things well than 150 with just 10-15 of them being well written. Use all those other models for different looks and asthetics, you can still play them as they are still marines just that their "unique" sheet isnt there anymore.
That's just false : some people in here just feel some frustration that some army have some original units.
I must add that the game has never been balanced (it was even arguably worst a few edition ago) and the number of units was way less back then. So the causality you make between the number of datasheets and the balance of the game is unproven. 40 datasheets with the same statlines are way easier to balance than ten datasheets with different statlines and abilities. The source of the lack of balance in 40k is linked with all the faction specific rules, the synergies between units, the imbalance in stratagems between one codex to another and the ability to take allied detachment - it has nothing to do with DA/BA/SW having a few original units.
If you want to seriously improve the game, there are a lot of things that must be done way before even putting the question of the number of units on the table. For exemple : why is there no actual template for strategems and relics ? Why the number of relic and stratagem from one codex to another is vastly different ? Why is it that only a few codex get the vect while it is such a massive strategic advantage ? Those are the actual topic that matter.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/20 10:20:21
That's just false : some people in here just feel some frustration that some army have some original units.
I must add that the game has never been balanced (it was even arguably worst a few edition ago) and the number of units was way less back then. So the causality you make between the number of datasheets and the balance of the game is unproven. 40 datasheets with the same statlines are way easier to balance than ten datasheets with different statlines and abilities. The source of the lack of balance in 40k is linked with all the faction specific rules, the synergies between units, the imbalance in stratagems between one codex to another and the ability to take allied detachment - it has nothing to do with DA/BA/SW having a few original units.
Sure it is easier to balance when you have almost the same stat line but how fun is that? I thought we wanted different options so they actually felt different. When you have 5 units that do basically the same thing and you still dont know how to balance them after 20 years perhaps the effort should be on how to make the unit viable and not feel like you are punishing yourself instead of trying to make tiny differences between the units. If you let all terminators have the same options then you could still have your terminator squads do and look however you want and maybe they will also be a better unit. GW spends a minimum amount of effort in writing rules so if anything is good it is more of a lucky coincidence. I do feel like there are more obvious balance misses in the game now than a decade ago in the marine books. No wonder when you have many times more units and options that some will be complete gak with GWs efforts. They obviously have too many different datasheets they try to make unique and dont know how to do it for Space Marines. I get the feeling that for a certain book they look at some things and "fix" them but they don't even try doing every unit and every option. Terminators still look like the worst unit in the marine book to me and feel completely glossed over when almost everything else got buffed.
Ginjitzu wrote: But I'm curious, what would you call these units? Wulfen/Dragon Claws?
Something like mutated marines or abnormal marines I guess? Could include death company as well.
Mmmpi wrote: It's no different then codex + supplement. You have to wait for the supplement to get updated anyway.
If and only if the new SM codex is not compatible with the old supplement, and if it's the case they can just release a free pdf mini-supplement with the bare minimum in the meantime.
Ginjitzu wrote: But I'm curious, what would you call these units? Wulfen/Dragon Claws?
Something like mutated marines or abnormal marines I guess? Could include death company as well.
Mmmpi wrote: It's no different then codex + supplement. You have to wait for the supplement to get updated anyway.
If and only if the new SM codex is not compatible with the old supplement, and if it's the case they can just release a free pdf mini-supplement with the bare minimum in the meantime.
Yeah, but GW almost never does that.
it's worth noting thery did put out a supplement with the datasheets removed from codex space marines
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
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.
But you can do that by electing to have them as assault termies or cataprachts, you can fit that all in one one profile, yeah it would be long but the only difference is movement speed and the invulnerable speed for the marks of termies.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
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.
But you can do that by electing to have them as assault termies or cataprachts, you can fit that all in one one profile, yeah it would be long but the only difference is movement speed and the invulnerable speed for the marks of termies.
So long as Deathwing Knights get something unique, sure I don't care too much if that is a shared datasheet or separate Datasheets.
I don't really see any advantage to a huge unwieldy shared datasheet though, seems worse than what we have now to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/21 07:33:16
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.
But you can do that by electing to have them as assault termies or cataprachts, you can fit that all in one one profile, yeah it would be long but the only difference is movement speed and the invulnerable speed for the marks of termies.
So long as Deathwing Knights get something unique, sure I don't care too much if that is a shared datasheet or separate Datasheets.
I don't really see any advantage to a huge unwieldy shared datasheet though, seems worse than what we have now to me.
Save the trees, man. Use that paper on more stuff in the book.
Heck, join all the captain profiles (sans primaris) into one where armor choices are upgrades. Same with lieutenants, ancients, librarians all down the line. Less data sheets and paper for them, conceivably more paper to use for other goodies.
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
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!
The marks of Astartes armour dont change their abilities/stats. Indomitus moves differently compared to Cataphrachtii, same goes for Tartaros. They also have diff invuln and other abilities. So why would they be consolidated? that would literally be removing options, which I am against. I do think that marines could be covered by main codex and then any changes applied to the supplements. Kinda like how it works in 30k.
oh BTW I am specifically not on anyone's side, just the side of ASTARTES.
I am not advocating that anyone "special" or otherwise losing stuff. it just boggles the mind that anybody is wanting to remove stuff from the game. If it doesnt effect your army comp, how is it a problem? But...but, balance, unfortunately that ship sailed a while ago. GW obviously don't want to so just deal with it or bounce.
If someone is upset that another faction gets something and whine/bitch/moan about it, its gotta suck to be you. People need to get off their high horse and realize that wanting to remove stuff from ones collection/army is a bad idea. It may seem like a good one, but it seems like if it doesnt effect them, they dont care.
Not whats suggested in the OP - AT ALL.
Also all the Marks of armour used to have rules.
Within 40k, not the 40kRPGs? Citation required.
In White Dwarf IIRC - but would need some digging to find it. it was based around a lore article with optional rules
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
GW never put the snowflake marine chapters into supplement for the main SM codex, yes.
But GW regularly release free/inexpensive rule placeholders to allow to play existing models. More often on the fantasy side of things, I remember Ravening Hordes (which wasn't free download because it's too old for that but was iirc in white dwarf or something): https://fr.scribd.com/doc/165569943/Warhammer-6th-Edition-Ravening-Hordes-pdf , the WFB armies at the beginning of AOS, …
For 40k they released the Index not that cheap, but that would have happened the same no matter if the BA were in a supplement or in their own codex.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
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.
But you can do that by electing to have them as assault termies or cataprachts, you can fit that all in one one profile, yeah it would be long but the only difference is movement speed and the invulnerable speed for the marks of termies.
So long as Deathwing Knights get something unique, sure I don't care too much if that is a shared datasheet or separate Datasheets.
I don't really see any advantage to a huge unwieldy shared datasheet though, seems worse than what we have now to me.
IMO the advantages is that as I said at the beginning, that these type of units that are likely to be present in other Chapters can be represented.
They would also all be in one place.
More choice, nothing lost for anyone.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Im using my ba as successors now, and all special units are on the bench. Im not gonna miss them. SW have meaningful special units though. Wulfen are nuts.
Martel732 wrote: Im using my ba as successors now, and all special units are on the bench. Im not gonna miss them. SW have meaningful special units though. Wulfen are nuts.
You (and everyone else) would still have them - if you wanted them and they fitted your playstyle etc.
Space Wolf "unique" units are rarely that and many other Chapters have similar minor idosyncracies for their versions of tactical, devestator or sergeants etc.
Fewer (like Black Dragons) would tolerate (or be allowed) to have mutated monsters like Wulfen but I could see some having modified aspirants or similar which would have similar game stats....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/22 06:44:09
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Martel732 wrote: Im using my ba as successors now, and all special units are on the bench. Im not gonna miss them. SW have meaningful special units though. Wulfen are nuts.
some people tend to see the special units as being more a matter of the identity of the faction not simply "whats most powerful" that said I'd agree Wulven aren't exactly something that can just be slotted into a space marine armyy, whereas at least death company is something you could make a stratigium
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Martel732 wrote: I used to care more, but the drought since 5th has made me willing to forget about dc and sg. They really dont eork in 8th anyway. Not really.
BA identity was gone when people quit fearing them.
some people don't judge a faction entirely on how powerful it is on table top.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Mr Morden wrote: I own reasonable Dark Angels and Wolves armies (about 3000pts each) and some Blood Angels (about 1500pts).
There has always been alot of discussion of the "unique" units that have been given to the Angels and Wolves to make their codex fuller and boost sales, especially since the "basic" marine range has been complete for years (one of the reasons for Primaris).
However looking at the actual units - how many of them are actually in any way unique, how many would not actually be represented in some form in other Chapters both in terms of Lore and game stats.
The Librarian Dreadnoughts are only in one chapter? Really?
No other Chapter has Sargeants leading squads in Terminator armour? Isn't that an Iron Hands thing too?
No other Chapter has more flexible teminator squads mixing close and ranged combat versons?
No other Chapter has mutations like Wolfen - isn't that a Black Dragons thing
No other Chapter rides beasts (much as I hate Wolves on Wolves) to battle?
Surely the basic unit templates for pretty much every Unique unit could and should be expanded to include these slight variations, with the relevant Chapter Keyword allowing access to a few other special rules /armoury should cover anything else?
What am I missing here. What would be lost by allowing those units be represeted in other Chapters?
It would also remove the problems of trying to cater for fans of these Chapters wanting everything plus their own "unique" units to make them Marines+ or having to have lesser versions of the same unit so that the three Chapters can retain a sense of specialness.
thanks
Personally I cannot fathom why BA have actual Librarian Dreads and GK do not (other than the wonky FW variant). Seems like a huge oversight imo.
Sergeants in Term - It's always been an IH thing, though I could see Salamaders doing this too.
Codex Terminators are just bleh. Kind of ironic that the term "codex" is associated with tactical flexibility but non-SW Term squads can only be armed for shooting or CC.
Wulfen supposedly have spent more time in the EoT than any other "Imperial" space marine, hard to argue with that.
I liked how powerful Thunderwolves were in 7th edition, not so much in 8th; That being said 8-9 ft tall marines in powered armor riding beasts the size of a Voltswagon Beetle never felt "right" to me. Tough to believe any other chapters being that crazy.
"The only problem with your genepool is that there wasn't a lifeguard on duty to prevent you from swimming."
"You either die a Morty, or you live long enough to see yourself become a Rick."
Martel732 wrote: Have you feared ba since 5th? Im guessing no. Thats the very definition of failure. How else do you judge 10 years of power armor turkey shoot?
I dont see the fluff players balking at easy wins over a bad army.
So the only time BA had identity was when they were considered really strong? And even then if you wanted feared you would've gone back to 4th or 3rd Rhino Rush era.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/22 13:56:59
Codex Terminators are just bleh. Kind of ironic that the term "codex" is associated with tactical flexibility but non-SW Term squads can only be armed for shooting or CC.
Unless they wear Tartaros or Cataphracti armour, then they're mixing weapons with no problems!
Martel732 wrote: Have you feared ba since 5th? Im guessing no. Thats the very definition of failure. How else do you judge 10 years of power armor turkey shoot?
I dont see the fluff players balking at easy wins over a bad army.
So the only time BA had identity was when they were considered really strong? And even then if you wanted feared you would've gone back to 4th or 3rd Rhino Rush era.
They were half-feared in 5th. I'll round up. And yes, identity as an easy win isnt really fluff-compatible at all.
2019/08/22 23:38:45
Subject: Re:"Unique" Units of the Wolves and Angels
I like SW, and their wolves on wolves action. In their defense I have not read of other chapters using wolves, dogs, or any beasts to the extent of SW. There is also Bran Redmaw, who turns in to a large werewolf.
Spoiler:
I also like chapter unique units, gives flavor. other then that this thread reminds me of
Spoiler:
Primaris fanboy: "NO, you can't just give old marines 2W, they're supposed to be squatted!" GW: "Heavy Bolters go brrrrrrrr"
If the argument for their uniqueness is spamming Wulfen and Thunderwolves, then it wasn't really a unique army to begin with whether you like it or not.
Martel732 wrote: Have you feared ba since 5th? Im guessing no. Thats the very definition of failure. How else do you judge 10 years of power armor turkey shoot?
I dont see the fluff players balking at easy wins over a bad army.
So the only time BA had identity was when they were considered really strong? And even then if you wanted feared you would've gone back to 4th or 3rd Rhino Rush era.
I think Martel doesn't pay much mind to table top lore, for him faction identity isn't the fluff etc so much as their abilities.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/08/23 10:27:32
Subject: Re:"Unique" Units of the Wolves and Angels
The flavour stays exactly the same by the way if you read the OP - its just that we can represent other chapters have unusual stuff as well rather than just a "special" 4 (including the UM's now)
Looking bakc through the thread I can only see somewhat compelling arguments for the uniqueness of:
Named "Relic" vehicles, characters and maybe the Wolves on Wolves.
All the rest still seem to be generic unit upgrades or single line options in Codexes?
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
at the end of the day GW is going to have to choose some marine chapters to focus more on, thats just the name of the game, and given GW's actions over all it's clear that GW has concluded the main focus of player intreast is on the first founding chapters
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/08/23 13:49:10
Subject: Re:"Unique" Units of the Wolves and Angels
BrianDavion wrote: at the end of the day GW is going to have to choose some marine chapters to focus more on, thats just the name of the game, and given GW's actions over all it's clear that GW has concluded the main focus of player intreast is on the first founding chapters
Those First Founding Chapters include White Scars, Iron Hands, Salamanders, Raven Guard - not seeing many special units for them. Just picked up the White Scars supplement as its always been an intersting lore chapter for me - I'll have to see what opportunities were missed......apart from of course only one character.... Ah well.
I will admit the issue is massively compounded by the no model no rules - well unless its a Grandmaster baby carrier..........
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/23 13:55:23
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Mmmpi wrote: No, I mean when GW releases a supplemental codex it almost never comes out at the same time as the parent codex, and thus needs a pdf to update.
Yes but often the SM codex with a pdf is/would be better than the old codex...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimbobbyish wrote: I also like chapter unique units, gives flavor. other then that this thread reminds me of
Spoiler:
What you want is for the user to have a choice between set, uniform options.
What we want is for the user to have the choice to build their army, with their personality, with as much options as possible.
Don't pretend we want uniformisation...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/23 15:55:58
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
- 8k /// 
- 5k /// 
- 5k /// 
- 6k /// 
- 6k /// 
- 4k /// 
- 4k /// Cust - 3k 
nervous sweating 