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.
More of a “weird rule artifact” than a difference.
And by weird artifact, you mean something that's been tweaked occasionally over the last 15 years, showing that GW has been looking at it and chose to leave it in?
Okay, then let me give you some other answer:
Because it makes GW more money!
What, you don't like that answer? Well, GW does like it!
and that is literally the only argument GW needs. I've said again, those chapters merit their own codex because they are profitable as their own codex. Black Templars meanwhile wheren't popular eneugh for their own 'dex
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
BroodSpawn wrote: The reasons why they devoted time to those 4 and not the 996+ is because that's what the writers at various times decided to work on. You're complaining that people in the past put extra work in to differentiate an army of MArines from another army of Marines and now you want them to ignore and retroactively cancel out all that work just so you can make your super-special-awesome chapter that has 'Not-Deathwing' backed up by 'Not-Wulfen'.
How is that even a question?
How on earth did you get that from what I said?
The idea I support is to have a base Codex, that includes most or possibly all of the Space Marine units. From there, you have limited access to special units, possibly coming with restrictions on what can be selected together, and stuff like the "Make Your Own Chapter Tactic", so that way you can represent the chapters that get tons of attention, but ALSO represent those that don't.
Not removing any units.
Not removing any fluff.
When a quarter to a third of the units are specialty, then it makes more sense to keep a separate codex.
Sounds good to me = but apparently its just too hard a concept too grasp that people don't loose stuff, the paranoia is so prevelant about this issue......
But isn't it kind of a hard to trust that GW will do a supplment for your codex, that the supplement is going to be good and as a separate matter no one wants to buy their codex twice, specialy when you already have to buy CAs each year, want it or not.
Not to mention, why should DA/BA/SW players have to buy two books, just because the core marines aren't 'special snowflake' enough?
It. Doesn't. Need. To. Be. Two. Books.
Also those "specialty units" aren't really a specialty. I proved as such and you just refuse to accept it because "muh snowflake rules" instead of realizing that the balance (and therefore how your fluff plays out) would be a LOT better.
If anything, Black Templars and Iron Hands are actually divergent compared to Blood Angels (who really just have Death Company as different in their Chapter organization) and Dark Angels (where everyone in 1st Company can get a Terminator suit).
It isn't justified so don't pretend it is.
There are already far too many differences to be one book, and you're one of the only people saying one book anyway. Almost everyone else is shouting 'supplemental'.
You really didn't prove anything other than that you think they aren't special. Sorry Cupcake.
So yeah, it is justified, no matter how much you pretend.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: I think that if GW could split it in to 3 or more books they would. Look at vigilus, all the people that bought those book must now feel dumb, that now to use the rules they need to buy the new sm codex and supplement.
In fact, if GW could they would probably be willing to sell books with just one unit rules inside. heck they could do it for a weapon upgrade to a unit. And people would be buying them, because they need rules to legaly play, and if something makes a unit good people are going to be buy it no matter how it looks.
Mmmpi wrote: Not to mention, why should DA/BA/SW players have to buy two books, just because the core marines aren't 'special snowflake' enough?
Codex Marines have to buy two books if they want to use a chapter supplement too atm so not really an argument. If you want to play marines you need one book. If you want to play a specific chapter, you buy two books, one on marines and one on the specificity of your chapter.
Why do people believe GW has infinite resources - if you make one thing - you are not making another. Again how am I wrong here.
we don't we just contest your idea that somehow if GW squatted the various marine chapters (and the existance of 1k sons and death guard as their own codex suggests GW isn't going to be reducing the number of armies out there anytime soon) they'd suddenly pay more attention to YOUR faction. they'd just ohh.. put out the space wolves supplement instead of the space wolves codex
This is not why we want consolidation and we have been over this.
No, you want to field all of the broken units in one army, despite the fact that you can already do that.
Why do people believe GW has infinite resources - if you make one thing - you are not making another. Again how am I wrong here.
we don't we just contest your idea that somehow if GW squatted the various marine chapters (and the existance of 1k sons and death guard as their own codex suggests GW isn't going to be reducing the number of armies out there anytime soon) they'd suddenly pay more attention to YOUR faction. they'd just ohh.. put out the space wolves supplement instead of the space wolves codex
"SIGH" I don't have one just faction - I collect pretty much ALL of them including the Wolves and Angels - AS I said about a million fething times.
Still ignoring the question - does GW have infinite resources or does, in fact, making one thing mean you don't do another?????????
You aren't everyone else. There are plenty of others who have argued this.
And he answered your question.
"My Terminators can take a SS in their shooting squad" isn't a difference hahahahahaha! Neither is "my apothecaries look different".
Yeah you need to get over it. The circlejerk for the Angels codices is unbelievable, you proving as much thinking they're even close to different.
That is literally a difference. And considering those 'different looking apothicaries' have added rules (which is why they're HQ instead of Elites), they aren't the same unit either.
So you need to get over it. The circle jerk of pushing your opinion as fact is sadly all too common, you're providing no thinking at all.
Try again Princess.
I proved in one post how consolidation would work and you chose to ignore it, without actually stating how I impacted ANYTHING worthwhile and "unique".
For someone slinging "princess" as an insult, I'm not the one acting like the entitled princess.
More of a “weird rule artifact” than a difference.
And by weird artifact, you mean something that's been tweaked occasionally over the last 15 years, showing that GW has been looking at it and chose to leave it in?
Why tweak something that's literally NEVER worked? Deathwing Terminators have NEVER worked, and that's a fact. Meanwhile other attempts have gotten at least somewhat below mediocre Terminators. Wonder why that is?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/28 01:08:21
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
BroodSpawn wrote: The reasons why they devoted time to those 4 and not the 996+ is because that's what the writers at various times decided to work on. You're complaining that people in the past put extra work in to differentiate an army of MArines from another army of Marines and now you want them to ignore and retroactively cancel out all that work just so you can make your super-special-awesome chapter that has 'Not-Deathwing' backed up by 'Not-Wulfen'.
How is that even a question?
How on earth did you get that from what I said?
The idea I support is to have a base Codex, that includes most or possibly all of the Space Marine units. From there, you have limited access to special units, possibly coming with restrictions on what can be selected together, and stuff like the "Make Your Own Chapter Tactic", so that way you can represent the chapters that get tons of attention, but ALSO represent those that don't.
Not removing any units.
Not removing any fluff.
When a quarter to a third of the units are specialty, then it makes more sense to keep a separate codex.
Sounds good to me = but apparently its just too hard a concept too grasp that people don't loose stuff, the paranoia is so prevelant about this issue......
But isn't it kind of a hard to trust that GW will do a supplment for your codex, that the supplement is going to be good and as a separate matter no one wants to buy their codex twice, specialy when you already have to buy CAs each year, want it or not.
Not to mention, why should DA/BA/SW players have to buy two books, just because the core marines aren't 'special snowflake' enough?
It. Doesn't. Need. To. Be. Two. Books.
Also those "specialty units" aren't really a specialty. I proved as such and you just refuse to accept it because "muh snowflake rules" instead of realizing that the balance (and therefore how your fluff plays out) would be a LOT better.
If anything, Black Templars and Iron Hands are actually divergent compared to Blood Angels (who really just have Death Company as different in their Chapter organization) and Dark Angels (where everyone in 1st Company can get a Terminator suit).
It isn't justified so don't pretend it is.
There are already far too many differences to be one book, and you're one of the only people saying one book anyway. Almost everyone else is shouting 'supplemental'.
You really didn't prove anything other than that you think they aren't special. Sorry Cupcake.
So yeah, it is justified, no matter how much you pretend.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: I think that if GW could split it in to 3 or more books they would. Look at vigilus, all the people that bought those book must now feel dumb, that now to use the rules they need to buy the new sm codex and supplement.
In fact, if GW could they would probably be willing to sell books with just one unit rules inside. heck they could do it for a weapon upgrade to a unit. And people would be buying them, because they need rules to legaly play, and if something makes a unit good people are going to be buy it no matter how it looks.
Mmmpi wrote: Not to mention, why should DA/BA/SW players have to buy two books, just because the core marines aren't 'special snowflake' enough?
Codex Marines have to buy two books if they want to use a chapter supplement too atm so not really an argument. If you want to play marines you need one book. If you want to play a specific chapter, you buy two books, one on marines and one on the specificity of your chapter.
Why do people believe GW has infinite resources - if you make one thing - you are not making another. Again how am I wrong here.
we don't we just contest your idea that somehow if GW squatted the various marine chapters (and the existance of 1k sons and death guard as their own codex suggests GW isn't going to be reducing the number of armies out there anytime soon) they'd suddenly pay more attention to YOUR faction. they'd just ohh.. put out the space wolves supplement instead of the space wolves codex
This is not why we want consolidation and we have been over this.
No, you want to field all of the broken units in one army, despite the fact that you can already do that.
Why do people believe GW has infinite resources - if you make one thing - you are not making another. Again how am I wrong here.
we don't we just contest your idea that somehow if GW squatted the various marine chapters (and the existance of 1k sons and death guard as their own codex suggests GW isn't going to be reducing the number of armies out there anytime soon) they'd suddenly pay more attention to YOUR faction. they'd just ohh.. put out the space wolves supplement instead of the space wolves codex
"SIGH" I don't have one just faction - I collect pretty much ALL of them including the Wolves and Angels - AS I said about a million fething times.
Still ignoring the question - does GW have infinite resources or does, in fact, making one thing mean you don't do another?????????
You aren't everyone else. There are plenty of others who have argued this.
And he answered your question.
"My Terminators can take a SS in their shooting squad" isn't a difference hahahahahaha! Neither is "my apothecaries look different".
Yeah you need to get over it. The circlejerk for the Angels codices is unbelievable, you proving as much thinking they're even close to different.
That is literally a difference. And considering those 'different looking apothicaries' have added rules (which is why they're HQ instead of Elites), they aren't the same unit either.
So you need to get over it. The circle jerk of pushing your opinion as fact is sadly all too common, you're providing no thinking at all.
Try again Princess.
I proved in one post how consolidation would work and you chose to ignore it, without actually stating how I impacted ANYTHING worthwhile and "unique".
For someone slinging "princess" as an insult, I'm not the one acting like the entitled princess.
You didn't prove anything. You just blathered on about your opinion.
You actually are acting entitled.
Not surprising that you can't see it though.
More of a “weird rule artifact” than a difference.
And by weird artifact, you mean something that's been tweaked occasionally over the last 15 years, showing that GW has been looking at it and chose to leave it in?
Why tweak something that's literally NEVER worked? Deathwing Terminators have NEVER worked, and that's a fact. Meanwhile other attempts have gotten at least somewhat below mediocre Terminators. Wonder why that is?
Deathwing Terminators aren't popular in tournaments. Several people have already posted that they like and use them.
2019/08/28 03:10:13
Subject: Re:"Unique" Units of the Wolves and Angels
BrianDavion wrote: and if we got rid of every unit that wasn't sued for winning tourny lists, well.. let's get rid of every codex but Imperial Guard and Knights!
Why do people believe GW has infinite resources - if you make one thing - you are not making another. Again how am I wrong here.
we don't we just contest your idea that somehow if GW squatted the various marine chapters (and the existance of 1k sons and death guard as their own codex suggests GW isn't going to be reducing the number of armies out there anytime soon) they'd suddenly pay more attention to YOUR faction. they'd just ohh.. put out the space wolves supplement instead of the space wolves codex
"SIGH" I don't have one just faction - I collect pretty much ALL of them including the Wolves and Angels - AS I said about a million fething times.
Still ignoring the question - does GW have infinite resources or does, in fact, making one thing mean you don't do another?????????
You aren't everyone else. There are plenty of others who have argued this.
And he answered your question.
What - he quoted me direct - so who the feth else was he talking to/ about. What are you on about?
No he didn't - he mumbled some rubbish and diverted and acted out.
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
But if they tweaked terminators you could still play your terminators as Deathwing terminators.
I dont understand why people are getting so hung up on the name of the actual rules. If you had good and working terminators that allowed you to equip them like deathwing terminators and you could paint them as deathwing terminators but the data sheet said "Terminators". Wouldn't that be better than the same terminators but under the old forgotten datasheet called "Deathwing Terminators" that had rules that if translated to modern english would be "You will lose the game since you cared more about the name of the rule than what it actually represent on the tabletop". Isn't it just more fluffy to have good terminators than 10 different versions that are all just bad but with a different rule to explain why they are bad. Could still have a DA specific stratagem called "DeathWing xxx" that does something unique for your terminators that other chapters dont get.
The actual name of the rules shouldnt matter at all. Its what they do with your models when they are on the table that is important. For me its way more important that I can play my Blood Angels as jumpy assaulty marines than which actual book I take the rules from to represent them on the table. If the BA book is complete garbage and the normal marine book have good rules that support the BA play style and fit their identity better I'm sure as hell gonna use those rules. They are all the emperors angels anyway. A bolter is a bolter and a chainsword is a chainsword. 99% the same anyway.
People should try to separate the fluff section and the rules section a bit more I think, GW too. Have good rules that can allow you the represent the background on the table should be the priority. Not how fluffy it sounds or a certain legacy mechanic still following despite the core rules have changed. Make terminators walking tanks that are worth putting on the table and then put in some rules for different load outs and let players then build them like their favorite background terminator squad visually.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/28 09:03:14
Klickor wrote: But if they tweaked terminators you could still play your terminators as Deathwing terminators.
I dont understand why people are getting so hung up on the name of the actual rules. If you had good and working terminators that allowed you to equip them like deathwing terminators and you could paint them as deathwing terminators but the data sheet said "Terminators". Wouldn't that be better than the same terminators but under the old forgotten datasheet called "Deathwing Terminators" that had rules that if translated to modern english would be "You will lose the game since you cared more about the name of the rule than what it actually represent on the tabletop". Isn't it just more fluffy to have good terminators than 10 different versions that are all just bad but with a different rule to explain why they are bad. Could still have a DA specific stratagem called "DeathWing xxx" that does something unique for your terminators that other chapters dont get.
The actual name of the rules shouldnt matter at all. Its what they do with your models when they are on the table that is important. For me its way more important that I can play my Blood Angels as jumpy assaulty marines than which actual book I take the rules from to represent them on the table. If the BA book is complete garbage and the normal marine book have good rules that support the BA play style and fit their identity better I'm sure as hell gonna use those rules. They are all the emperors angels anyway. A bolter is a bolter and a chainsword is a chainsword. 99% the same anyway.
People should try to separate the fluff section and the rules section a bit more I think, GW too. Have good rules that can allow you the represent the background on the table should be the priority. Not how fluffy it sounds or a certain legacy mechanic still following despite the core rules have changed. Make terminators walking tanks that are worth putting on the table and then put in some rules for different load outs and let players then build them like their favorite background terminator squad visually.
Because it's a unit in a separate army. Your example is ridiculous. People aren't taking the unit because of the name. People take the unit because they play the faction and it fits their army. There's also no reason that general improvements to terminators can't also be applied to DW, WGT, and such. As for the stratagem, why bother, when the unit already does things differently.
The name isn't important, the army it's a part of is however. And for others, the fact that the BA are separate is important, because of the fluff, because of the more emphasis on their army, and because they don't have to buy a $200 book with 1/3 the pages not applying to them. If the BA book is garbage, it's your prerogative to play generic marines instead. But plenty of people will still be playing BA, even if it sucks. And while a bolter is a bolter, an encarmine axe isn't a power axe, and death company aren't veterans. 25-33% of the non-codex marines are unique units. If you condense characters (captains with bike captains, with jump pack captains for example) that ratio gets even steeper towards unique.
No, if people like the fluff it's not our place to tell them they're wrong. Oftherwise you're just forcing your views on what is 'valid' about an army on other people. Good rules =/= a single book. And attempting to shoehorn them all into one book will just piss people off. Again, just because you don't consider the fluff to be important doesn't mean others don't. And again, there's no reason you can't improve terminators while also improving DW/DWK/WGT.
No, if people like the fluff it's not our place to tell them they're wrong. Oftherwise you're just forcing your views on what is 'valid' about an army on other people.
Very much this.
So much of this thread essentially boils down to people saying 'I don't understand why this is important to people, therefore it's not important'. And that simply isn't good enough.
Klickor wrote: But if they tweaked terminators you could still play your terminators as Deathwing terminators.
I dont understand why people are getting so hung up on the name of the actual rules. If you had good and working terminators that allowed you to equip them like deathwing terminators and you could paint them as deathwing terminators but the data sheet said "Terminators". Wouldn't that be better than the same terminators but under the old forgotten datasheet called "Deathwing Terminators" that had rules that if translated to modern english would be "You will lose the game since you cared more about the name of the rule than what it actually represent on the tabletop". Isn't it just more fluffy to have good terminators than 10 different versions that are all just bad but with a different rule to explain why they are bad. Could still have a DA specific stratagem called "DeathWing xxx" that does something unique for your terminators that other chapters dont get.
The actual name of the rules shouldnt matter at all. Its what they do with your models when they are on the table that is important. For me its way more important that I can play my Blood Angels as jumpy assaulty marines than which actual book I take the rules from to represent them on the table. If the BA book is complete garbage and the normal marine book have good rules that support the BA play style and fit their identity better I'm sure as hell gonna use those rules. They are all the emperors angels anyway. A bolter is a bolter and a chainsword is a chainsword. 99% the same anyway.
People should try to separate the fluff section and the rules section a bit more I think, GW too. Have good rules that can allow you the represent the background on the table should be the priority. Not how fluffy it sounds or a certain legacy mechanic still following despite the core rules have changed. Make terminators walking tanks that are worth putting on the table and then put in some rules for different load outs and let players then build them like their favorite background terminator squad visually.
Because it's a unit in a separate army. Your example is ridiculous. People aren't taking the unit because of the name. People take the unit because they play the faction and it fits their army. There's also no reason that general improvements to terminators can't also be applied to DW, WGT, and such. As for the stratagem, why bother, when the unit already does things differently.
The name isn't important, the army it's a part of is however. And for others, the fact that the BA are separate is important, because of the fluff, because of the more emphasis on their army, and because they don't have to buy a $200 book with 1/3 the pages not applying to them. If the BA book is garbage, it's your prerogative to play generic marines instead. But plenty of people will still be playing BA, even if it sucks. And while a bolter is a bolter, an encarmine axe isn't a power axe, and death company aren't veterans. 25-33% of the non-codex marines are unique units. If you condense characters (captains with bike captains, with jump pack captains for example) that ratio gets even steeper towards unique.
No, if people like the fluff it's not our place to tell them they're wrong. Oftherwise you're just forcing your views on what is 'valid' about an army on other people. Good rules =/= a single book. And attempting to shoehorn them all into one book will just piss people off. Again, just because you don't consider the fluff to be important doesn't mean others don't. And again, there's no reason you can't improve terminators while also improving DW/DWK/WGT.
I consider the fluff important. But the rules =! the fluff. The rules are only there to represent the fluff, not being the fluff. If the fluff is so important why be so adamant to follow the rules 100%? Outside of named characters its more like 5-10% that are "unique" units. And those units arent really that unique except for their looks. Baal Predator, Sanguinary Guard, Deathcompany, Sanguinary Priest and Librarian Dread. That is far from 30% difference. Sure SW are way different and I dont think they should be put in the same book as normal marines. But BA sure can.
Sure an encarmine axe isnt a power axe but why couldnt it have the same rules as a power axe? Because it looks slightly different? Do we need 2h and 1h rules for encarmine axes then since there are 2 versions of it? We dont have different rules for lots of other armors/weapons that are similar but slightly different. They just used to be master crafted powerweapons, or perhaps it were relic blades despite being represented with both 2 handed and one handed swords and axes. It worked fine to have smoe abstraction back then but now we cant? Sanguinary Guard are iconic honor guard models for BA but what makes them really unique is mostly their look and not their rules. Their unique rules and weapons are mostly garbage anyway. Especially since their weapons have the exact same stats as force weapons but cost more. If their weapons didnt have a unique name they would be a much better unit since they would get the same buffs/nerfs as more common weapons and not be forgotten like they are now. Perfect example of how tiny worthless name differentions make the iconic weapons of a unique Blood Angels unit complete crap. They pay for a thunderhammer but get a slightly improved power axe.
Wish we had more different models and kits to help make each chapter look more unique and iconic on the battlefield. But the rules should go in the other direction and be less bloated.
I wish GW would make a codex with just rules so I dont have to buy a book with mostly useless fluff. I love the fluff but I dont want to pay 50$ for a few pages of rules every few years. They should be 2 different things. I would rather have the marine core consolidated so we dont have it like right now. Half the marines are awesome and while we share almost all the datasheets and rules some flavours are really good and other garbage just due to them being in different books. With the way they are designing the books I probably wont buy them anyway. They are worthless for list building anyway if compared to battlescribe so they are mostly fluff books due to how convoluted the rules part is. I still look through my old 4th/5th edition books and 7th edition from fantasy from time to time and they are so much easier to use. Back then you could actually just build a list by going through each unit page by page and add it together. Now you have so many different datasheets with their options on a different page with their points in another book and this without using the index options. Cant see how they will continue this model in the future. Apps make the books obsolete, not in that they are free and accessible but in how easy they are to use. I actually got turned off by getting back in to 40k just due to how bad the books were and I couldnt even make a normal army list easily, until a month or 2 later a friend showed me battlescribe and that I didnt have to even bother with the worthless books.
Klickor wrote: But if they tweaked terminators you could still play your terminators as Deathwing terminators.
I dont understand why people are getting so hung up on the name of the actual rules. If you had good and working terminators that allowed you to equip them like deathwing terminators and you could paint them as deathwing terminators but the data sheet said "Terminators". Wouldn't that be better than the same terminators but under the old forgotten datasheet called "Deathwing Terminators" that had rules that if translated to modern english would be "You will lose the game since you cared more about the name of the rule than what it actually represent on the tabletop". Isn't it just more fluffy to have good terminators than 10 different versions that are all just bad but with a different rule to explain why they are bad. Could still have a DA specific stratagem called "DeathWing xxx" that does something unique for your terminators that other chapters dont get.
The actual name of the rules shouldnt matter at all. Its what they do with your models when they are on the table that is important. For me its way more important that I can play my Blood Angels as jumpy assaulty marines than which actual book I take the rules from to represent them on the table. If the BA book is complete garbage and the normal marine book have good rules that support the BA play style and fit their identity better I'm sure as hell gonna use those rules. They are all the emperors angels anyway. A bolter is a bolter and a chainsword is a chainsword. 99% the same anyway.
People should try to separate the fluff section and the rules section a bit more I think, GW too. Have good rules that can allow you the represent the background on the table should be the priority. Not how fluffy it sounds or a certain legacy mechanic still following despite the core rules have changed. Make terminators walking tanks that are worth putting on the table and then put in some rules for different load outs and let players then build them like their favorite background terminator squad visually.
Because it's a unit in a separate army. Your example is ridiculous. People aren't taking the unit because of the name. People take the unit because they play the faction and it fits their army. There's also no reason that general improvements to terminators can't also be applied to DW, WGT, and such. As for the stratagem, why bother, when the unit already does things differently.
The name isn't important, the army it's a part of is however. And for others, the fact that the BA are separate is important, because of the fluff, because of the more emphasis on their army, and because they don't have to buy a $200 book with 1/3 the pages not applying to them. If the BA book is garbage, it's your prerogative to play generic marines instead. But plenty of people will still be playing BA, even if it sucks. And while a bolter is a bolter, an encarmine axe isn't a power axe, and death company aren't veterans. 25-33% of the non-codex marines are unique units. If you condense characters (captains with bike captains, with jump pack captains for example) that ratio gets even steeper towards unique.
No, if people like the fluff it's not our place to tell them they're wrong. Oftherwise you're just forcing your views on what is 'valid' about an army on other people. Good rules =/= a single book. And attempting to shoehorn them all into one book will just piss people off. Again, just because you don't consider the fluff to be important doesn't mean others don't. And again, there's no reason you can't improve terminators while also improving DW/DWK/WGT.
I consider the fluff important. But the rules =! the fluff. The rules are only there to represent the fluff, not being the fluff. If the fluff is so important why be so adamant to follow the rules 100%? Outside of named characters its more like 5-10% that are "unique" units. And those units arent really that unique except for their looks. Baal Predator, Sanguinary Guard, Deathcompany, Sanguinary Priest and Librarian Dread. That is far from 30% difference. Sure SW are way different and I dont think they should be put in the same book as normal marines. But BA sure can.
Sure an encarmine axe isnt a power axe but why couldnt it have the same rules as a power axe? Because it looks slightly different? Do we need 2h and 1h rules for encarmine axes then since there are 2 versions of it? We dont have different rules for lots of other armors/weapons that are similar but slightly different. They just used to be master crafted powerweapons, or perhaps it were relic blades despite being represented with both 2 handed and one handed swords and axes. It worked fine to have smoe abstraction back then but now we cant? Sanguinary Guard are iconic honor guard models for BA but what makes them really unique is mostly their look and not their rules. Their unique rules and weapons are mostly garbage anyway. Especially since their weapons have the exact same stats as force weapons but cost more. If their weapons didnt have a unique name they would be a much better unit since they would get the same buffs/nerfs as more common weapons and not be forgotten like they are now. Perfect example of how tiny worthless name differentions make the iconic weapons of a unique Blood Angels unit complete crap. They pay for a thunderhammer but get a slightly improved power axe.
Wish we had more different models and kits to help make each chapter look more unique and iconic on the battlefield. But the rules should go in the other direction and be less bloated.
I wish GW would make a codex with just rules so I dont have to buy a book with mostly useless fluff. I love the fluff but I dont want to pay 50$ for a few pages of rules every few years. They should be 2 different things. I would rather have the marine core consolidated so we dont have it like right now. Half the marines are awesome and while we share almost all the datasheets and rules some flavours are really good and other garbage just due to them being in different books. With the way they are designing the books I probably wont buy them anyway. They are worthless for list building anyway if compared to battlescribe so they are mostly fluff books due to how convoluted the rules part is. I still look through my old 4th/5th edition books and 7th edition from fantasy from time to time and they are so much easier to use. Back then you could actually just build a list by going through each unit page by page and add it together. Now you have so many different datasheets with their options on a different page with their points in another book and this without using the index options. Cant see how they will continue this model in the future. Apps make the books obsolete, not in that they are free and accessible but in how easy they are to use. I actually got turned off by getting back in to 40k just due to how bad the books were and I couldnt even make a normal army list easily, until a month or 2 later a friend showed me battlescribe and that I didnt have to even bother with the worthless books.
No, the rules and the fluff are of equal value. The rules are followed so everyone can have an enjoyable game. But without the fluff, everything is just meaningless stats. Outside of the named characters, it's still 25-33%. Remember, the generic marines also have special characters which we would have to ignore in this situation. Baal Preditor: completely different weapons, and a special rule. Sanguinary Guard, different rules and different armor and weapons. Death company, different rules and options. Sanguinary Priest: doesn't exist anywhere else. It's not an apothicary clone. Same with the Librarian Dread. Doesn't exist outside the BA codex. You also forgot the DC dread, and the units the BA don't get that are in the generic codex. BA should definitely be separate.
An encarmine axe shouldn't have the same rules because it's not the same. It has different stats. You're asking why a wraithguard isn't a terminator. Sanguinary Guard are unique because of their look, the artificer armor + jumppack, their better one handed weapon (both are one handed), their different bolter, their special rules, and their death masks. That's five differences from basic honor guard (which are an ultra marine specific unit now from what I understand.) The weapons have a unique name because they're unique weapons. They have different rules from power axes, power swords, and bolters. They pay for a thunder hammer and get a weapon that lets them wound marines on a 2+ without a penalty to hit....that seems worth it.
You say bloated, I say indepth.
I'm glad GW makes codexes with fluff, because the fluff is some of the best parts. If you don't want the fluff, just buy a Battle Scribe subscription. I'm happy the marines are separate armies, because it lets the focus on the ones people are interested in. Half the marines being awesome isn't a "The BA/DA/SW are in another codex" problem. That's a rules in general problem, as well as a reflection of the hypercompetative mindset of much of the people who post here. People have done well with 'crap' units in casual settings. I can still build a list using my codex, going page by page. Wargear has always been on a separate page, and the rules for them have frequently been in separate books. If you can't see them using this model in the future, then you haven't been paying attention. If building a list for 40K turns you off, then just quit dude. No one is making you play. And you're one of the rare few who has an issue with it.
You do know that Sanguinary Guards weapon used to be just mastercrafted powerweapons/relic blades. Then they made them encarmine swords/axes with different rules depending on which weapon you equipped them with. They used the same rule for both since they were just abstracted as Encarmine Blades and they didnt even have unique stats for those blades, just a line saying they were counted as mastercrafted X. The models have one handed and two handed versions of both the sword and the axe yet for some reason they are treated the same. Them having unique and fluffy names only recently gave them partially new weapons that still doesnt even reflect fully what the model has. I don't think the game would be better if you had 2 handed axes and swords in the rules for them. Having encarmine weapons counts as relic blades for 9pts each on the other hand would be better than what we have now. Especially since you don't get enough weapons in the box to fully kit a squad with the same weapon. They were designed to have abstracted rules for their weapons since you got 1 powerfist, 1 2h axe, 1 2h sword and 2? each of 1h axe and sword. Could use whatever weapon you think look better and if they change the point cost or stats of relic blades it would be upgraded for Sanguinary Guard as well.
Their melee weapon is the most overpriced weapon in the whole codex. They can even choose a powerfist for 7pts less. A power axe also wounds a marine on a 2+ but costs less than a THIRD of what they pay for their axe. Their deathmasks costs 2pts per model and suck and their unique rule that gives rerolls does nothing with Dante. Their special honor guard rule does nothing when played with Dante, so fluffy wow!. You say indepth. I say bloated rules that just drag down the unit. That unit should be cleaned up and changed so it would feel great fielding them since they look so distinct. Having a bunch of useless rules doesnt really make a unit feel different if you never use them.
I don't really know why GW is removing the abstraction in weapons and had power weapons become 4 or 5 different weapons or have Intercessors have 3 different guns. Usually one choice will almost always be the better one. It lessens the creativity. I used to have a variety of power weapons on my models since I thought a sword fitted some models better, an axe another pose and a maul a third. Now they all have the same axe. Each weapon in a list means much less now than it used to and now having 28 wound knights as potential targets each stat on the normal weapons means even less. It just a bunch of meaningless choice on the tiny level while Terminators are still a bad unit. We think we have a lot of choice and perhaps we do between 5 of almost the same choices that dont really matter, any of the 4-5pt costed power weapons will do about the same. But if we want to compete, taking terminators or not isnt even a choice, It's the illusion of choice while not really having any if we want to feel like we play a fair/balanced game.
I want to see different units and different load outs be taken and played on the battlefield. Rather than have shotgun scouts be bad this edition why not just have shooty scouts and dont differentiate rules wise between a shotgun and a bolter. Then you can load up your squad with whatever ranged weapon and have the same rules. More models would be playable and you dont have to feel bad for having glued on the "wrong" gun. With so many things that had meaningful details in the game being gone it just feels weird to have so extremely much meaningless detail on the tiny stuff. How many different bolter weapons do we have now? 20? 30? Do we still need more? I don't think we have a 25" RF1 STR4 AP0 bolter yet. I want a bit more abstraction going on since most of it is pointless when it turned from a skirmish game to apocalypse with 700pts knight models.
If GW came out and said that they have a goal of making rules that are balanced and gives lots of meaningful choices then I would be hesitant to consolidate weapons and units and give them a chance. But with their record so far I think this current trend will hurt the game more than it gives them. With solid core rules, both for the game and each faction its really easy for people and GW to make up more fluffy rules to more portrait the fluff on the battlefield. But that should be a bonus after everything else works and not something an amateurish company like GW should even try to do from the start.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/28 12:28:38
No, if people like the fluff it's not our place to tell them they're wrong. Oftherwise you're just forcing your views on what is 'valid' about an army on other people.
Very much this.
So much of this thread essentially boils down to people saying 'I don't understand why this is important to people, therefore it's not important'. And that simply isn't good enough.
Or people screaming the world is going to end because other people might be allowed, shock horror to have units that could actually reperesent various Chapters many of whom are as or more codex divergent than the super special four..
We say - lets have base units and options that allow all the current "unique" builds - plus others - Immediate SCREAMS of -
"Your taking our stuff, you hate wolves, Angels etc."
We say the base unit, with a few adjusments is the same and can also incoproate all these different flavours - Immediate sceams of -
You might as well have one unit for all armies, or Wraithgaurd should be terminators or other BS, you just want chess. You hate us and our mdoels, stop trying to take out models away from us.
Very sad ....
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
Klickor wrote: You do know that Sanguinary Guards weapon used to be just mastercrafted powerweapons/relic blades. Then they made them encarmine swords/axes with different rules depending on which weapon you equipped them with. They used the same rule for both since they were just abstracted as Encarmine Blades and they didnt even have unique stats for those blades, just a line saying they were counted as mastercrafted X. The models have one handed and two handed versions of both the sword and the axe yet for some reason they are treated the same. Them having unique and fluffy names only recently gave them partially new weapons that still doesnt even reflect fully what the model has. I don't think the game would be better if you had 2 handed axes and swords in the rules for them. Having encarmine weapons counts as relic blades for 9pts each on the other hand would be better than what we have now. Especially since you don't get enough weapons in the box to fully kit a squad with the same weapon. They were designed to have abstracted rules for their weapons since you got 1 powerfist, 1 2h axe, 1 2h sword and 2? each of 1h axe and sword. Could use whatever weapon you think look better and if they change the point cost or stats of relic blades it would be upgraded for Sanguinary Guard as well.
Their melee weapon is the most overpriced weapon in the whole codex. They can even choose a powerfist for 7pts less. A power axe also wounds a marine on a 2+ but costs less than a THIRD of what they pay for their axe. Their deathmasks costs 2pts per model and suck and their unique rule that gives rerolls does nothing with Dante. Their special honor guard rule does nothing when played with Dante, so fluffy wow!. You say indepth. I say bloated rules that just drag down the unit. That unit should be cleaned up and changed so it would feel great fielding them since they look so distinct. Having a bunch of useless rules doesnt really make a unit feel different if you never use them.
I don't really know why GW is removing the abstraction in weapons and had power weapons become 4 or 5 different weapons or have Intercessors have 3 different guns. Usually one choice will almost always be the better one. It lessens the creativity. I used to have a variety of power weapons on my models since I thought a sword fitted some models better, an axe another pose and a maul a third. Now they all have the same axe. Each weapon in a list means much less now than it used to and now having 28 wound knights as potential targets each stat on the normal weapons means even less. It just a bunch of meaningless choice on the tiny level while Terminators are still a bad unit. We think we have a lot of choice and perhaps we do between 5 of almost the same choices that dont really matter, any of the 4-5pt costed power weapons will do about the same. But if we want to compete, taking terminators or not isnt even a choice, It's the illusion of choice while not really having any if we want to feel like we play a fair/balanced game.
I want to see different units and different load outs be taken and played on the battlefield. Rather than have shotgun scouts be bad this edition why not just have shooty scouts and dont differentiate rules wise between a shotgun and a bolter. Then you can load up your squad with whatever ranged weapon and have the same rules. More models would be playable and you dont have to feel bad for having glued on the "wrong" gun. With so many things that had meaningful details in the game being gone it just feels weird to have so extremely much meaningless detail on the tiny stuff. How many different bolter weapons do we have now? 20? 30? Do we still need more? I don't think we have a 25" RF1 STR4 AP0 bolter yet. I want a bit more abstraction going on since most of it is pointless when it turned from a skirmish game to apocalypse with 700pts knight models.
If GW came out and said that they have a goal of making rules that are balanced and gives lots of meaningful choices then I would be hesitant to consolidate weapons and units and give them a chance. But with their record so far I think this current trend will hurt the game more than it gives them. With solid core rules, both for the game and each faction its really easy for people and GW to make up more fluffy rules to more portrait the fluff on the battlefield. But that should be a bonus after everything else works and not something an amateurish company like GW should even try to do from the start.
You do realize they don't have those now? They have separate weapons now. While you don't think the game would be better, people disagree with you. Making them relic blades works...for you. And not having enough is a typical GW thing. They've been doing that for the last 25 years. The rules do not have to be abstracted though. You just want them to be abstracted.
A power axe isn't an encarmine axe. Some people might value the difference, even if you don't. Same with death masks, and their rerolls. I say indepth. You saying 'bloated' doesn't change that, particularly as the changes you want won't actually remove 'bloat'. The unit is fine, it just .0000004 percent less points efficient compared to "flavor of the month". And just because you find the rules useless doesn't mean others don't. If you don't like them, take assault marines. Or play ultra marines and use honor guard.
GW did it because they wanted to. They felt there was value to it. I should also point out that while one choice might be better over all, it doesn't mean that the others don't have a point. But again, that would require not blindly netlisting.
If you want to see different units and load outs taken, then why are you trying to remove them? Shotguns and bolters have different rules because they're different weapons that do different things. If you want everything the same, do what someone else suggested and play chess, or if you must apocalypse. We have nine bolter weapons, including combi-weapons. I want less abstraction, since there is a point to it.
GW did come out and said that. Based on people's reaction here, even if they succeeded 100%, people would still complain about things, so you'll forgive me if I don't put any weight behind your claim here. If you don't like how GW does things (because they've made it clear over and over they aren't going to change), then just quit, and save yourself the aggravation.
Mmmpi wrote: and because they don't have to buy a $200 book with 1/3 the pages not applying to them.
Hrm, I don't think this particular angle works, plenty of other gaming companies make 200-300 page hardcover full color books that are in the same price range as GW Codex books, there's no reason they'd need to be $200, and likewise just because some unit entries won't apply to every player that shouldn't be a dealbreaker, that holds true for many codex and gaming books in general (when I played flames of war the book I ran had soviet, german, hungarian, and romanian armies, didn't bother me that I only played one of them) and plenty of other 40k factions (my undivided Iron Warriors couldn't care less about entries for TSons, Noise Marines, etc for example) and that doesn't seem to turn people off anywhere else. Plenty of people picked up the $50 200 page Vigilus books just for a couple pages of datasheets after all.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
BroodSpawn wrote: The reasons why they devoted time to those 4 and not the 996+ is because that's what the writers at various times decided to work on. You're complaining that people in the past put extra work in to differentiate an army of MArines from another army of Marines and now you want them to ignore and retroactively cancel out all that work just so you can make your super-special-awesome chapter that has 'Not-Deathwing' backed up by 'Not-Wulfen'.
How is that even a question?
How on earth did you get that from what I said?
The idea I support is to have a base Codex, that includes most or possibly all of the Space Marine units. From there, you have limited access to special units, possibly coming with restrictions on what can be selected together, and stuff like the "Make Your Own Chapter Tactic", so that way you can represent the chapters that get tons of attention, but ALSO represent those that don't.
Not removing any units.
Not removing any fluff.
When a quarter to a third of the units are specialty, then it makes more sense to keep a separate codex.
Sounds good to me = but apparently its just too hard a concept too grasp that people don't loose stuff, the paranoia is so prevelant about this issue......
But isn't it kind of a hard to trust that GW will do a supplment for your codex, that the supplement is going to be good and as a separate matter no one wants to buy their codex twice, specialy when you already have to buy CAs each year, want it or not.
Not to mention, why should DA/BA/SW players have to buy two books, just because the core marines aren't 'special snowflake' enough?
It. Doesn't. Need. To. Be. Two. Books.
Also those "specialty units" aren't really a specialty. I proved as such and you just refuse to accept it because "muh snowflake rules" instead of realizing that the balance (and therefore how your fluff plays out) would be a LOT better.
If anything, Black Templars and Iron Hands are actually divergent compared to Blood Angels (who really just have Death Company as different in their Chapter organization) and Dark Angels (where everyone in 1st Company can get a Terminator suit).
It isn't justified so don't pretend it is.
There are already far too many differences to be one book, and you're one of the only people saying one book anyway. Almost everyone else is shouting 'supplemental'.
You really didn't prove anything other than that you think they aren't special. Sorry Cupcake.
So yeah, it is justified, no matter how much you pretend.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: I think that if GW could split it in to 3 or more books they would. Look at vigilus, all the people that bought those book must now feel dumb, that now to use the rules they need to buy the new sm codex and supplement.
In fact, if GW could they would probably be willing to sell books with just one unit rules inside. heck they could do it for a weapon upgrade to a unit. And people would be buying them, because they need rules to legaly play, and if something makes a unit good people are going to be buy it no matter how it looks.
Mmmpi wrote: Not to mention, why should DA/BA/SW players have to buy two books, just because the core marines aren't 'special snowflake' enough?
Codex Marines have to buy two books if they want to use a chapter supplement too atm so not really an argument. If you want to play marines you need one book. If you want to play a specific chapter, you buy two books, one on marines and one on the specificity of your chapter.
Why do people believe GW has infinite resources - if you make one thing - you are not making another. Again how am I wrong here.
we don't we just contest your idea that somehow if GW squatted the various marine chapters (and the existance of 1k sons and death guard as their own codex suggests GW isn't going to be reducing the number of armies out there anytime soon) they'd suddenly pay more attention to YOUR faction. they'd just ohh.. put out the space wolves supplement instead of the space wolves codex
This is not why we want consolidation and we have been over this.
No, you want to field all of the broken units in one army, despite the fact that you can already do that.
Why do people believe GW has infinite resources - if you make one thing - you are not making another. Again how am I wrong here.
we don't we just contest your idea that somehow if GW squatted the various marine chapters (and the existance of 1k sons and death guard as their own codex suggests GW isn't going to be reducing the number of armies out there anytime soon) they'd suddenly pay more attention to YOUR faction. they'd just ohh.. put out the space wolves supplement instead of the space wolves codex
"SIGH" I don't have one just faction - I collect pretty much ALL of them including the Wolves and Angels - AS I said about a million fething times.
Still ignoring the question - does GW have infinite resources or does, in fact, making one thing mean you don't do another?????????
You aren't everyone else. There are plenty of others who have argued this.
And he answered your question.
"My Terminators can take a SS in their shooting squad" isn't a difference hahahahahaha! Neither is "my apothecaries look different".
Yeah you need to get over it. The circlejerk for the Angels codices is unbelievable, you proving as much thinking they're even close to different.
That is literally a difference. And considering those 'different looking apothicaries' have added rules (which is why they're HQ instead of Elites), they aren't the same unit either.
So you need to get over it. The circle jerk of pushing your opinion as fact is sadly all too common, you're providing no thinking at all.
Try again Princess.
I proved in one post how consolidation would work and you chose to ignore it, without actually stating how I impacted ANYTHING worthwhile and "unique".
For someone slinging "princess" as an insult, I'm not the one acting like the entitled princess.
You didn't prove anything. You just blathered on about your opinion.
You actually are acting entitled.
Not surprising that you can't see it though.
More of a “weird rule artifact” than a difference.
And by weird artifact, you mean something that's been tweaked occasionally over the last 15 years, showing that GW has been looking at it and chose to leave it in?
Why tweak something that's literally NEVER worked? Deathwing Terminators have NEVER worked, and that's a fact. Meanwhile other attempts have gotten at least somewhat below mediocre Terminators. Wonder why that is?
Deathwing Terminators aren't popular in tournaments. Several people have already posted that they like and use them.
Except they don't do anything different and I pointed that out. "I can take a SS!" (which is the only they do slightly more competitive compared to the basic entry) isn't a difference as much as you want to make it to be. Even their own Fearless rule isn't special because the Dark Angel Chapter Tactic basically does the same thing. So because even the competitive way doesn't make sense for them, nobody mixes half-melee half-range because it looks and performs bad, there's nothing important.
So yeah, we can replace the Deathwing entry, the Tart entry, and the Cata entry with the base Tactical + Assault entries. Nothing of value is lost.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan22, I don't know why this is so hard for you - if you can do something that someone else can't, that is a difference, no matter how small it may seem to you.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Klickor wrote: But if they tweaked terminators you could still play your terminators as Deathwing terminators.
I dont understand why people are getting so hung up on the name of the actual rules. If you had good and working terminators that allowed you to equip them like deathwing terminators and you could paint them as deathwing terminators but the data sheet said "Terminators". Wouldn't that be better than the same terminators but under the old forgotten datasheet called "Deathwing Terminators" that had rules that if translated to modern english would be "You will lose the game since you cared more about the name of the rule than what it actually represent on the tabletop". Isn't it just more fluffy to have good terminators than 10 different versions that are all just bad but with a different rule to explain why they are bad. Could still have a DA specific stratagem called "DeathWing xxx" that does something unique for your terminators that other chapters dont get.
The actual name of the rules shouldnt matter at all. Its what they do with your models when they are on the table that is important. For me its way more important that I can play my Blood Angels as jumpy assaulty marines than which actual book I take the rules from to represent them on the table. If the BA book is complete garbage and the normal marine book have good rules that support the BA play style and fit their identity better I'm sure as hell gonna use those rules. They are all the emperors angels anyway. A bolter is a bolter and a chainsword is a chainsword. 99% the same anyway.
People should try to separate the fluff section and the rules section a bit more I think, GW too. Have good rules that can allow you the represent the background on the table should be the priority. Not how fluffy it sounds or a certain legacy mechanic still following despite the core rules have changed. Make terminators walking tanks that are worth putting on the table and then put in some rules for different load outs and let players then build them like their favorite background terminator squad visually.
they don't have to buy a $200 book with 1/3 the pages not applying to them.
1. You keep pulling this number out of nowhere.
2. Raven Guard players have to pay for Salamanders and Imperial Fists stuff they don't use. Should they get a separate codex?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: Slayer-Fan22, I don't know why this is so hard for you - if you can do something that someone else can't, that is a difference, no matter how small it may seem to you.
Except it isn't because people don't do it. People will always specialize their unit as much as they can, meaning nobody is taking 2 LC Terminators with their 2 Storm Bolters and Assault Cannon.
Just because it CAN be done doesn't mean it should or would be done. Bad choices are the same as no choices at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/28 14:15:50
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Mmmpi wrote: And by weird artifact, you mean something that's been tweaked occasionally over the last 15 years, showing that GW has been looking at it and chose to leave it in?
By weird artifact, I mean something that GW changed from one to the other regularly, showing it's not something that they consider important or meaningful, yes!
"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
Klickor wrote: You do know that Sanguinary Guards weapon used to be just mastercrafted powerweapons/relic blades. Then they made them encarmine swords/axes with different rules depending on which weapon you equipped them with. They used the same rule for both since they were just abstracted as Encarmine Blades and they didnt even have unique stats for those blades, just a line saying they were counted as mastercrafted X. The models have one handed and two handed versions of both the sword and the axe yet for some reason they are treated the same. Them having unique and fluffy names only recently gave them partially new weapons that still doesnt even reflect fully what the model has. I don't think the game would be better if you had 2 handed axes and swords in the rules for them. Having encarmine weapons counts as relic blades for 9pts each on the other hand would be better than what we have now. Especially since you don't get enough weapons in the box to fully kit a squad with the same weapon. They were designed to have abstracted rules for their weapons since you got 1 powerfist, 1 2h axe, 1 2h sword and 2? each of 1h axe and sword. Could use whatever weapon you think look better and if they change the point cost or stats of relic blades it would be upgraded for Sanguinary Guard as well.
Their melee weapon is the most overpriced weapon in the whole codex. They can even choose a powerfist for 7pts less. A power axe also wounds a marine on a 2+ but costs less than a THIRD of what they pay for their axe. Their deathmasks costs 2pts per model and suck and their unique rule that gives rerolls does nothing with Dante. Their special honor guard rule does nothing when played with Dante, so fluffy wow!. You say indepth. I say bloated rules that just drag down the unit. That unit should be cleaned up and changed so it would feel great fielding them since they look so distinct. Having a bunch of useless rules doesnt really make a unit feel different if you never use them.
I don't really know why GW is removing the abstraction in weapons and had power weapons become 4 or 5 different weapons or have Intercessors have 3 different guns. Usually one choice will almost always be the better one. It lessens the creativity. I used to have a variety of power weapons on my models since I thought a sword fitted some models better, an axe another pose and a maul a third. Now they all have the same axe. Each weapon in a list means much less now than it used to and now having 28 wound knights as potential targets each stat on the normal weapons means even less. It just a bunch of meaningless choice on the tiny level while Terminators are still a bad unit. We think we have a lot of choice and perhaps we do between 5 of almost the same choices that dont really matter, any of the 4-5pt costed power weapons will do about the same. But if we want to compete, taking terminators or not isnt even a choice, It's the illusion of choice while not really having any if we want to feel like we play a fair/balanced game.
I want to see different units and different load outs be taken and played on the battlefield. Rather than have shotgun scouts be bad this edition why not just have shooty scouts and dont differentiate rules wise between a shotgun and a bolter. Then you can load up your squad with whatever ranged weapon and have the same rules. More models would be playable and you dont have to feel bad for having glued on the "wrong" gun. With so many things that had meaningful details in the game being gone it just feels weird to have so extremely much meaningless detail on the tiny stuff. How many different bolter weapons do we have now? 20? 30? Do we still need more? I don't think we have a 25" RF1 STR4 AP0 bolter yet. I want a bit more abstraction going on since most of it is pointless when it turned from a skirmish game to apocalypse with 700pts knight models.
If GW came out and said that they have a goal of making rules that are balanced and gives lots of meaningful choices then I would be hesitant to consolidate weapons and units and give them a chance. But with their record so far I think this current trend will hurt the game more than it gives them. With solid core rules, both for the game and each faction its really easy for people and GW to make up more fluffy rules to more portrait the fluff on the battlefield. But that should be a bonus after everything else works and not something an amateurish company like GW should even try to do from the start.
You do realize they don't have those now? They have separate weapons now. While you don't think the game would be better, people disagree with you. Making them relic blades works...for you. And not having enough is a typical GW thing. They've been doing that for the last 25 years. The rules do not have to be abstracted though. You just want them to be abstracted.
A power axe isn't an encarmine axe. Some people might value the difference, even if you don't. Same with death masks, and their rerolls. I say indepth. You saying 'bloated' doesn't change that, particularly as the changes you want won't actually remove 'bloat'. The unit is fine, it just .0000004 percent less points efficient compared to "flavor of the month". And just because you find the rules useless doesn't mean others don't. If you don't like them, take assault marines. Or play ultra marines and use honor guard.
GW did it because they wanted to. They felt there was value to it. I should also point out that while one choice might be better over all, it doesn't mean that the others don't have a point. But again, that would require not blindly netlisting.
If you want to see different units and load outs taken, then why are you trying to remove them? Shotguns and bolters have different rules because they're different weapons that do different things. If you want everything the same, do what someone else suggested and play chess, or if you must apocalypse. We have nine bolter weapons, including combi-weapons. I want less abstraction, since there is a point to it.
GW did come out and said that. Based on people's reaction here, even if they succeeded 100%, people would still complain about things, so you'll forgive me if I don't put any weight behind your claim here. If you don't like how GW does things (because they've made it clear over and over they aren't going to change), then just quit, and save yourself the aggravation.
I wonder how fast this tune would change if they decided tomorrow to roll everything into one big Supplement for SM.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/28 14:51:40
Mmmpi wrote: and because they don't have to buy a $200 book with 1/3 the pages not applying to them.
Hrm, I don't think this particular angle works, plenty of other gaming companies make 200-300 page hardcover full color books that are in the same price range as GW Codex books, there's no reason they'd need to be $200, and likewise just because some unit entries won't apply to every player that shouldn't be a dealbreaker, that holds true for many codex and gaming books in general (when I played flames of war the book I ran had soviet, german, hungarian, and romanian armies, didn't bother me that I only played one of them) and plenty of other 40k factions (my undivided Iron Warriors couldn't care less about entries for TSons, Noise Marines, etc for example) and that doesn't seem to turn people off anywhere else. Plenty of people picked up the $50 200 page Vigilus books just for a couple pages of datasheets after all.
Because that's about the price scale for a GW book of that size. What other companies do is irrelevant. If normal price standards mattered, each current codex would only be $20-$30, not $50.
BroodSpawn wrote: The reasons why they devoted time to those 4 and not the 996+ is because that's what the writers at various times decided to work on. You're complaining that people in the past put extra work in to differentiate an army of MArines from another army of Marines and now you want them to ignore and retroactively cancel out all that work just so you can make your super-special-awesome chapter that has 'Not-Deathwing' backed up by 'Not-Wulfen'.
How is that even a question?
How on earth did you get that from what I said?
The idea I support is to have a base Codex, that includes most or possibly all of the Space Marine units. From there, you have limited access to special units, possibly coming with restrictions on what can be selected together, and stuff like the "Make Your Own Chapter Tactic", so that way you can represent the chapters that get tons of attention, but ALSO represent those that don't.
Not removing any units.
Not removing any fluff.
When a quarter to a third of the units are specialty, then it makes more sense to keep a separate codex.
Sounds good to me = but apparently its just too hard a concept too grasp that people don't loose stuff, the paranoia is so prevelant about this issue......
But isn't it kind of a hard to trust that GW will do a supplment for your codex, that the supplement is going to be good and as a separate matter no one wants to buy their codex twice, specialy when you already have to buy CAs each year, want it or not.
Not to mention, why should DA/BA/SW players have to buy two books, just because the core marines aren't 'special snowflake' enough?
It. Doesn't. Need. To. Be. Two. Books.
Also those "specialty units" aren't really a specialty. I proved as such and you just refuse to accept it because "muh snowflake rules" instead of realizing that the balance (and therefore how your fluff plays out) would be a LOT better.
If anything, Black Templars and Iron Hands are actually divergent compared to Blood Angels (who really just have Death Company as different in their Chapter organization) and Dark Angels (where everyone in 1st Company can get a Terminator suit).
It isn't justified so don't pretend it is.
There are already far too many differences to be one book, and you're one of the only people saying one book anyway. Almost everyone else is shouting 'supplemental'.
You really didn't prove anything other than that you think they aren't special. Sorry Cupcake.
So yeah, it is justified, no matter how much you pretend.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: I think that if GW could split it in to 3 or more books they would. Look at vigilus, all the people that bought those book must now feel dumb, that now to use the rules they need to buy the new sm codex and supplement.
In fact, if GW could they would probably be willing to sell books with just one unit rules inside. heck they could do it for a weapon upgrade to a unit. And people would be buying them, because they need rules to legaly play, and if something makes a unit good people are going to be buy it no matter how it looks.
Mmmpi wrote: Not to mention, why should DA/BA/SW players have to buy two books, just because the core marines aren't 'special snowflake' enough?
Codex Marines have to buy two books if they want to use a chapter supplement too atm so not really an argument. If you want to play marines you need one book. If you want to play a specific chapter, you buy two books, one on marines and one on the specificity of your chapter.
Why do people believe GW has infinite resources - if you make one thing - you are not making another. Again how am I wrong here.
we don't we just contest your idea that somehow if GW squatted the various marine chapters (and the existance of 1k sons and death guard as their own codex suggests GW isn't going to be reducing the number of armies out there anytime soon) they'd suddenly pay more attention to YOUR faction. they'd just ohh.. put out the space wolves supplement instead of the space wolves codex
This is not why we want consolidation and we have been over this.
No, you want to field all of the broken units in one army, despite the fact that you can already do that.
Why do people believe GW has infinite resources - if you make one thing - you are not making another. Again how am I wrong here.
we don't we just contest your idea that somehow if GW squatted the various marine chapters (and the existance of 1k sons and death guard as their own codex suggests GW isn't going to be reducing the number of armies out there anytime soon) they'd suddenly pay more attention to YOUR faction. they'd just ohh.. put out the space wolves supplement instead of the space wolves codex
"SIGH" I don't have one just faction - I collect pretty much ALL of them including the Wolves and Angels - AS I said about a million fething times.
Still ignoring the question - does GW have infinite resources or does, in fact, making one thing mean you don't do another?????????
You aren't everyone else. There are plenty of others who have argued this.
And he answered your question.
"My Terminators can take a SS in their shooting squad" isn't a difference hahahahahaha! Neither is "my apothecaries look different".
Yeah you need to get over it. The circlejerk for the Angels codices is unbelievable, you proving as much thinking they're even close to different.
That is literally a difference. And considering those 'different looking apothicaries' have added rules (which is why they're HQ instead of Elites), they aren't the same unit either.
So you need to get over it. The circle jerk of pushing your opinion as fact is sadly all too common, you're providing no thinking at all.
Try again Princess.
I proved in one post how consolidation would work and you chose to ignore it, without actually stating how I impacted ANYTHING worthwhile and "unique".
For someone slinging "princess" as an insult, I'm not the one acting like the entitled princess.
You didn't prove anything. You just blathered on about your opinion.
You actually are acting entitled.
Not surprising that you can't see it though.
More of a “weird rule artifact” than a difference.
And by weird artifact, you mean something that's been tweaked occasionally over the last 15 years, showing that GW has been looking at it and chose to leave it in?
Why tweak something that's literally NEVER worked? Deathwing Terminators have NEVER worked, and that's a fact. Meanwhile other attempts have gotten at least somewhat below mediocre Terminators. Wonder why that is?
Deathwing Terminators aren't popular in tournaments. Several people have already posted that they like and use them.
Except they don't do anything different and I pointed that out. "I can take a SS!" (which is the only they do slightly more competitive compared to the basic entry) isn't a difference as much as you want to make it to be. Even their own Fearless rule isn't special because the Dark Angel Chapter Tactic basically does the same thing. So because even the competitive way doesn't make sense for them, nobody mixes half-melee half-range because it looks and performs bad, there's nothing important.
So yeah, we can replace the Deathwing entry, the Tart entry, and the Cata entry with the base Tactical + Assault entries. Nothing of value is lost.
[/spoiler]
In your opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: Slayer-Fan22, I don't know why this is so hard for you - if you can do something that someone else can't, that is a difference, no matter how small it may seem to you.
Klickor wrote: But if they tweaked terminators you could still play your terminators as Deathwing terminators.
I dont understand why people are getting so hung up on the name of the actual rules. If you had good and working terminators that allowed you to equip them like deathwing terminators and you could paint them as deathwing terminators but the data sheet said "Terminators". Wouldn't that be better than the same terminators but under the old forgotten datasheet called "Deathwing Terminators" that had rules that if translated to modern english would be "You will lose the game since you cared more about the name of the rule than what it actually represent on the tabletop". Isn't it just more fluffy to have good terminators than 10 different versions that are all just bad but with a different rule to explain why they are bad. Could still have a DA specific stratagem called "DeathWing xxx" that does something unique for your terminators that other chapters dont get.
The actual name of the rules shouldnt matter at all. Its what they do with your models when they are on the table that is important. For me its way more important that I can play my Blood Angels as jumpy assaulty marines than which actual book I take the rules from to represent them on the table. If the BA book is complete garbage and the normal marine book have good rules that support the BA play style and fit their identity better I'm sure as hell gonna use those rules. They are all the emperors angels anyway. A bolter is a bolter and a chainsword is a chainsword. 99% the same anyway.
People should try to separate the fluff section and the rules section a bit more I think, GW too. Have good rules that can allow you the represent the background on the table should be the priority. Not how fluffy it sounds or a certain legacy mechanic still following despite the core rules have changed. Make terminators walking tanks that are worth putting on the table and then put in some rules for different load outs and let players then build them like their favorite background terminator squad visually.
they don't have to buy a $200 book with 1/3 the pages not applying to them.
1. You keep pulling this number out of nowhere.
2. Raven Guard players have to pay for Salamanders and Imperial Fists stuff they don't use. Should they get a separate codex?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: Slayer-Fan22, I don't know why this is so hard for you - if you can do something that someone else can't, that is a difference, no matter how small it may seem to you.
Except it isn't because people don't do it. People will always specialize their unit as much as they can, meaning nobody is taking 2 LC Terminators with their 2 Storm Bolters and Assault Cannon.
Just because it CAN be done doesn't mean it should or would be done. Bad choices are the same as no choices at all.
Should RG and SL get their own book? GW seems to think yes. But there's a difference between two pages in a codex and 40 pages in a codex. RG and SL take up two each. BA unique units would take up 30-40, as would SW and DA.
What people in tournaments don't do is irrelivant because people do in fact do what you're claiming they don't. At least two in this thread. But of course, you're just ignoring them because it doesn't fit your narrative of perceived worthlessness.
Mmmpi wrote: And by weird artifact, you mean something that's been tweaked occasionally over the last 15 years, showing that GW has been looking at it and chose to leave it in?
By weird artifact, I mean something that GW changed from one to the other regularly, showing it's not something that they consider important or meaningful, yes!
But they leave it in. Repeatedly. So it's actually meaningful that it exists, even if the exact form changes as the base rules do.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/08/28 15:48:49
Klickor wrote: You do know that Sanguinary Guards weapon used to be just mastercrafted powerweapons/relic blades. Then they made them encarmine swords/axes with different rules depending on which weapon you equipped them with. They used the same rule for both since they were just abstracted as Encarmine Blades and they didnt even have unique stats for those blades, just a line saying they were counted as mastercrafted X. The models have one handed and two handed versions of both the sword and the axe yet for some reason they are treated the same. Them having unique and fluffy names only recently gave them partially new weapons that still doesnt even reflect fully what the model has. I don't think the game would be better if you had 2 handed axes and swords in the rules for them. Having encarmine weapons counts as relic blades for 9pts each on the other hand would be better than what we have now. Especially since you don't get enough weapons in the box to fully kit a squad with the same weapon. They were designed to have abstracted rules for their weapons since you got 1 powerfist, 1 2h axe, 1 2h sword and 2? each of 1h axe and sword. Could use whatever weapon you think look better and if they change the point cost or stats of relic blades it would be upgraded for Sanguinary Guard as well.
Their melee weapon is the most overpriced weapon in the whole codex. They can even choose a powerfist for 7pts less. A power axe also wounds a marine on a 2+ but costs less than a THIRD of what they pay for their axe. Their deathmasks costs 2pts per model and suck and their unique rule that gives rerolls does nothing with Dante. Their special honor guard rule does nothing when played with Dante, so fluffy wow!. You say indepth. I say bloated rules that just drag down the unit. That unit should be cleaned up and changed so it would feel great fielding them since they look so distinct. Having a bunch of useless rules doesnt really make a unit feel different if you never use them.
I don't really know why GW is removing the abstraction in weapons and had power weapons become 4 or 5 different weapons or have Intercessors have 3 different guns. Usually one choice will almost always be the better one. It lessens the creativity. I used to have a variety of power weapons on my models since I thought a sword fitted some models better, an axe another pose and a maul a third. Now they all have the same axe. Each weapon in a list means much less now than it used to and now having 28 wound knights as potential targets each stat on the normal weapons means even less. It just a bunch of meaningless choice on the tiny level while Terminators are still a bad unit. We think we have a lot of choice and perhaps we do between 5 of almost the same choices that dont really matter, any of the 4-5pt costed power weapons will do about the same. But if we want to compete, taking terminators or not isnt even a choice, It's the illusion of choice while not really having any if we want to feel like we play a fair/balanced game.
I want to see different units and different load outs be taken and played on the battlefield. Rather than have shotgun scouts be bad this edition why not just have shooty scouts and dont differentiate rules wise between a shotgun and a bolter. Then you can load up your squad with whatever ranged weapon and have the same rules. More models would be playable and you dont have to feel bad for having glued on the "wrong" gun. With so many things that had meaningful details in the game being gone it just feels weird to have so extremely much meaningless detail on the tiny stuff. How many different bolter weapons do we have now? 20? 30? Do we still need more? I don't think we have a 25" RF1 STR4 AP0 bolter yet. I want a bit more abstraction going on since most of it is pointless when it turned from a skirmish game to apocalypse with 700pts knight models.
If GW came out and said that they have a goal of making rules that are balanced and gives lots of meaningful choices then I would be hesitant to consolidate weapons and units and give them a chance. But with their record so far I think this current trend will hurt the game more than it gives them. With solid core rules, both for the game and each faction its really easy for people and GW to make up more fluffy rules to more portrait the fluff on the battlefield. But that should be a bonus after everything else works and not something an amateurish company like GW should even try to do from the start.
You do realize they don't have those now? They have separate weapons now. While you don't think the game would be better, people disagree with you. Making them relic blades works...for you. And not having enough is a typical GW thing. They've been doing that for the last 25 years. The rules do not have to be abstracted though. You just want them to be abstracted.
A power axe isn't an encarmine axe. Some people might value the difference, even if you don't. Same with death masks, and their rerolls. I say indepth. You saying 'bloated' doesn't change that, particularly as the changes you want won't actually remove 'bloat'. The unit is fine, it just .0000004 percent less points efficient compared to "flavor of the month". And just because you find the rules useless doesn't mean others don't. If you don't like them, take assault marines. Or play ultra marines and use honor guard.
GW did it because they wanted to. They felt there was value to it. I should also point out that while one choice might be better over all, it doesn't mean that the others don't have a point. But again, that would require not blindly netlisting.
If you want to see different units and load outs taken, then why are you trying to remove them? Shotguns and bolters have different rules because they're different weapons that do different things. If you want everything the same, do what someone else suggested and play chess, or if you must apocalypse. We have nine bolter weapons, including combi-weapons. I want less abstraction, since there is a point to it.
GW did come out and said that. Based on people's reaction here, even if they succeeded 100%, people would still complain about things, so you'll forgive me if I don't put any weight behind your claim here. If you don't like how GW does things (because they've made it clear over and over they aren't going to change), then just quit, and save yourself the aggravation.
I wonder how fast this tune would change if they decided tomorrow to roll everything into one big Supplement for SM.
So you're saying that I'd magically change my mind because GW did?
Because you'd be wrong.
Mmmpi wrote: and because they don't have to buy a $200 book with 1/3 the pages not applying to them.
Hrm, I don't think this particular angle works, plenty of other gaming companies make 200-300 page hardcover full color books that are in the same price range as GW Codex books, there's no reason they'd need to be $200, and likewise just because some unit entries won't apply to every player that shouldn't be a dealbreaker, that holds true for many codex and gaming books in general (when I played flames of war the book I ran had soviet, german, hungarian, and romanian armies, didn't bother me that I only played one of them) and plenty of other 40k factions (my undivided Iron Warriors couldn't care less about entries for TSons, Noise Marines, etc for example) and that doesn't seem to turn people off anywhere else. Plenty of people picked up the $50 200 page Vigilus books just for a couple pages of datasheets after all.
Because that's about the price scale for a GW book of that size. What other companies do is irrelevant. If normal price standards mattered, each current codex would only be $20-$30, not $50.
The Vigilus books were 200 pages and $50 each. Thats about the size a combined SM book would be. FW Imperial Armour books never approached anything near that price despie being a nonstandard oversized format with 200-400 pages in fullcover hardback, and even the insanely high quality Horus Heresy books, 300 pages with metal corners and leather binding and ribbon page keepers and foil edged pages, are only $115.
I dont see any reason a combined SM codex would be $200, or even anything near $100.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
But precisely no, they change it. They change the exact loadout available for terminators and of the differences in loadout have been exchanged, which is proof that those difference in loadout are rule artifact rather than anything meaningful.
But there's no blind as one who would not see...
"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
But precisely no, they change it. They change the exact loadout available for terminators and of the differences in loadout have been exchanged, which is proof that those difference in loadout are rule artifact rather than anything meaningful.
But there's no blind as one who would not see...
That's not a rules artifact. It would be a rules artifact if they didn't change it as the core rules changed.
Mmmpi wrote: The current SM book is bigger. Add in double the content.
Looking at GW's website, the newest SM book is 192 pages, and is $40. Looking at other codex books, the IG codex is $40, and is 144 pages. No difference in cost despite the SM codex having a third more pages.
You'd hardly need to double the size of the book given that two thirds of it (at least) is shared among all marines (bolters, rhinos, plasma guns, predators, dreadnoughts, land speeders, cyclone missile launchers, and most of the basic fluff loke the creation of space marines, etc), and the size of the book is a relatively minor part of the cost.
Looking at GW's current pricing of books, the page counts they have, that of other games and companies, it's really hard to see where a combined SM codex would come out at any significantly higher price point than any other codex. Maybe at worst it's $50 or 60 instead of 40? Even then I suspect they'd keep it about the same as the others, if for no other reason than to keep the main product line accessible, and it's certainly not going to be anywhere near $200, or even $100.
I don't expect we will ever see a single combined SM book for various other (mainly business cycle) reasons, but price isnt one of them.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
