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.

What do those differences actually change about the faction? What playstyle difference is there between, say, SW and BA/BT/fightyMarine?

um well a different set of rules, unique models, wargear, unique unit compositions, unique unit sizes, some unique unit stats, and unique unit rules kind of makes it a different army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am not sure how you don't think having different everything but some base statelines means they play the same ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
minus vanila primaris (because yes, an entire primaris army is an entire primaris army no mater how you look at it)

p.s. spacewolves have different genetics then normal marines in the lore,,, doesnt that make them a kind of WHOLE DIFFERENT BLOODY RACE .... and if you dont think different genetics is enough to make them a WHOLE DIFFERENT BLOODY RACE... then lets make gaurdsman use the tactical marine datasheets ? they are the same race after all ?
or where do you like the draw that line ?

There are no grasping at straws here. You have picked one example "the space marine captain" and are somehow convinced the fact that this one datasheet is exactly the same functionally that every other example of exceptions, unit composition differences, rules differences, wargear differences, and set of unique models do not count. quite frankly its getting ridiculous... how about you talk about something other then the space marine captain like we are XD >?

Wow what a lot of fething nonsese!

Space Wolves are Marines - why is that so hard for you to accept! Have you even read the lore?

Can you build a bigger strawman than this ill informed BS

then lets make gaurdsman use the tactical marine datasheets

 Type40 wrote:

What do those differences actually change about the faction? What playstyle difference is there between, say, SW and BA/BT/fightyMarine?

um well a different set of rules, unique models, wargear, unique unit compositions, unique unit sizes, some unique unit stats, and unique unit rules kind of makes it a different army.

How, though? In what way does it make it function differently.on the tabletop?

If I am fighting BA/BT/fighty regular SM as an opponent, what is there that is significantly different between them and wolves? They're still fighty marines with fighty units but your Vanguard Veterans have more hair and call themselves Wulfen. I still melt if they touch me.

Explain to me how they are different, not in terms of rules (because I get that) but in terms of playstyle.

 Mr Morden wrote:

p.s. spacewolves have different genetics then normal marines in the lore,,, doesnt that make them a kind of WHOLE DIFFERENT BLOODY RACE .... and if you dont think different genetics is enough to make them a WHOLE DIFFERENT BLOODY RACE... then lets make gaurdsman use the tactical marine datasheets ? they are the same race after all ?
or where do you like the draw that line ?

There are no grasping at straws here. You have picked one example "the space marine captain" and are somehow convinced the fact that this one datasheet is exactly the same functionally that every other example of exceptions, unit composition differences, rules differences, wargear differences, and set of unique models do not count. quite frankly its getting ridiculous... how about you talk about something other then the space marine captain like we are XD >?

Wow what a lot of fething nonsese!

Space Wolves are Marines - why is that so hard for you to accept! Have you even read the lore?

Yes I have,
Clearly more of the lore then you have. SWs are made from fenerisians who have already gone through genetic modifications. Magnus told his own thousand sons in 30k that a fenerisian could live on fenris but a TS wouldnt even be able to survive living there... that is right out of the books.
but w/e, lore arguments aside... they have been a unique army in the game since 2nd edition,,, is it really so hard for you to understand that some people do not want their unique faction to get lumped into some other army ?
Is it really so hard for you to see the different sets of rules, models, and units compositions, wargear and etc make this a different faction lol.

Oh they are a different faction alright. But the question is: why should they stay that way if it is unhealthy for the game? What do they offer as a different playstyle that couldn't be replicated by folding then in as Marines?

Factions should have good reasons to exist. Otherwise, let's make a Craftworld Altansar codex. I am sure we could make up a whole new set of wargear, units, datasheets, and whatever else right here on the spot

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

What do those differences actually change about the faction? What playstyle difference is there between, say, SW and BA/BT/fightyMarine?

um well a different set of rules, unique models, wargear, unique unit compositions, unique unit sizes, some unique unit stats, and unique unit rules kind of makes it a different army.

How, though? In what way does it make it function differently.on the tabletop?

If I am fighting BA/BT/fighty regular SM as an opponent, what is there that is significantly different between them and wolves? They're still fighty marines with fighty units but your Vanguard Veterans have more hair and call themselves Wulfen. I still melt if they touch me.

Explain to me how they are different, not in terms of rules (because I get that) but in terms of playstyle.

lol,, ya and the same when my horde of fighty unit from any faction touch you lol ... what do you want me to say ... they are clearly the same because they are good at melee ? lol ... it doesnt mater that these ones get 2 attacks on the charge and carry different weapons, or that these ones can advance and charge and have different stats / weapons... or that these ones can do XYZ ...

so, again, are you arguing we should have

1. Melee datasheet
2. shooty datasheet
3. heavy tank datasheet
4. light tank transport datasheet
5. walker datasheet

?

whats the difference between space marine scouts and eldar rangers !!! OMG WHY DO THEY NOT JUST ROLL THEM INTO ONE BOOK ,,, I can't believe they would dare have some overlap, they are all just snipers that MW on 6s !!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh they are a different faction alright. But the question is: why should they stay that way if it is unhealthy for the game? What do they offer as a different playstyle that couldn't be replicated by folding then in as Marines?

Factions should have good reasons to exist. Otherwise, let's make a Craftworld Altansar codex. I am sure we could make up a whole new set of wargear, units, datasheets, and whatever else right here on the spot

how is SWs remaining their own faction unhealthy for the game ?
that is a ridiculous notion... there is literally no difference now then there was 3 month ago except now SWs players need to buy 2 books and decipher their rules being spread out to 6 sections of 2 books.
If anything this is far worse then before.

People get into this hobby because the asthetics and playstyles of different armies appeal to them... does it really confuse you that some people want their choices to mean something ? they don't want to play symetrical game where no mater what choices they make they are playing the same faction ? is that really so hard for you to comprehend >?
Is it really so hard to understand how the uniqueness and significance of choice is what sells non-marine factions to players ?

Is it really so hard for you to see that these factions play different ,,, due to the fact that they have different rules, unique modles/units(with unique stats) , different wargear, unit sizes, and unique unit rules... are you really going to say they are "functionally the same on the tabletop because they are just 'fighty' like everything else that is fgihty" lol... do you really not understand the deliberate lack of nuance you have by stating that XD.

 Type40 wrote:
lol,, ya and the same when my horde of fighty unit from any faction touch you lol ... what do you want me to say ... they are clearly the same because they are good at melee ? lol ... it doesnt mater that these ones get 2 attacks on the charge and carry different weapons, or that these ones can advance and charge and have different stats / weapons... or that these ones can do XYZ ...

so, again, are you arguing we should have

1. Melee datasheet
2. shooty datasheet
3. heavy tank datasheet
4. light tank transport datasheet
5. walker datasheet

?

whats the difference between space marine scouts and eldar rangers !!! OMG WHY DO THEY NOT JUST ROLL THEM INTO ONE BOOK ,,, I can't believe they would dare have some overlap, they are all just snipers that MW on 6s !!!

Hey man, you said it not me. I think the game would be healthier if we only differentiated factions based on what was different about them, rather than the simple fact that they EXIST.

And no, it's not the same when a fighty unit from any faction touches me. I play against genestealers fundamentally differently than I play against wytches. The reason is that wytches typically ride in a tank and are very hard to kill in melee comparatively due to their better invuln, but are typically vulnerable to shooting. Furthermore, they aren't as fast and don't have a Fight Twice. So I can parry the wytches with an expendable unit (if I can't KO their transport) and then shoot them to death. Genestealers are less vulnerable to shooting and are faster, but don't have a tank to protect them, so I can focus my "lesser" weapons on them while knocking out harder targets with the larger weapons. I can't parry the genestealers as well typically due to greater speed, larger squad size, and a Fight Twice stratagem that lets them get a bunch of extra movement in the fight phase. When Genestealers make it to me, they move dramatically up in my priority list (if they weren't high already) while wytches remain fairly low due to different damage output - though they are a nuisance that can tie up my shooting units with their net...
I mean really, the difference between wytches and GS couldn't be starker...

Wulfen? I treat them the same as BT vanguard vets with TH/SS and the onus is on you to explain how they're different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:
People get into this hobby because the asthetics and playstyles of different armies appeal to them... does it really confuse you that some people want their choices to mean something ? they don't want to play symetrical game where no mater what choices they make they are playing the same faction ? is that really so hard for you to comprehend >?

You said they get into the hobby for different aesthetics and playstyles.

I'm asking you to demonstrate the second for the wolves - how is the playstyle different?

And I think people's choices should mean something ON THE TABLETOP. Choices during listbuilding should be less meaningful. Otherwise let's play a CCG.

Because people want less marines. Not more. It's simple enough to comprehend.

 Type40 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

p.s. spacewolves have different genetics then normal marines in the lore,,, doesnt that make them a kind of WHOLE DIFFERENT BLOODY RACE .... and if you dont think different genetics is enough to make them a WHOLE DIFFERENT BLOODY RACE... then lets make gaurdsman use the tactical marine datasheets ? they are the same race after all ?
or where do you like the draw that line ?

There are no grasping at straws here. You have picked one example "the space marine captain" and are somehow convinced the fact that this one datasheet is exactly the same functionally that every other example of exceptions, unit composition differences, rules differences, wargear differences, and set of unique models do not count. quite frankly its getting ridiculous... how about you talk about something other then the space marine captain like we are XD >?

Wow what a lot of fething nonsese!

Space Wolves are Marines - why is that so hard for you to accept! Have you even read the lore?

Yes I have,
Clearly more of the lore then you have. SWs are made from fenerisians who have already gone through genetic modifications. Magnus told his own thousand sons in 30k that a fenerisian could live on fenris but a TS wouldnt even be able to survive living there... that is right out of the books.
but w/e, lore arguments aside... they have been a unique army in the game since 2nd edition,,, is it really so hard for you to understand that some people do not want their unique faction to get lumped into some other army ?
Is it really so hard for you to see the different sets of rules, models, and units compositions, wargear and etc make this a different faction lol.

So cite where it states they are different to other Marines in terms of anything other than recruiting from one specfic genetic stock?

Are they or are they not Marines?

Blood Angels remold each aspirant - are they not Marines

Is a Human guardsman a Marine? No - thats the stupid BS comparision YOU made.

I have a Space Wolf army - I don't have all the flandersised crap of recent years.

Is it really so hard for you to realise that this pandering no stop bloat of one specific sub sub faction harms the chnaces of anyone else getting stuff - cos Wolves.

whats the difference between space marine scouts and eldar rangers !!! OMG WHY DO THEY NOT JUST ROLL THEM INTO ONE BOOK ,,, I can't believe they would dare have some overlap, they are all just snipers that MW on 6s !!!

oH god - this BS again Seriously read your posts before you type.

Marines and Eldar are different fething races - get it through your head that Space Wolves and Imperial Fists or Black Dragons are part of the same enhanced human race.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
lol,, ya and the same when my horde of fighty unit from any faction touch you lol ... what do you want me to say ... they are clearly the same because they are good at melee ? lol ... it doesnt mater that these ones get 2 attacks on the charge and carry different weapons, or that these ones can advance and charge and have different stats / weapons... or that these ones can do XYZ ...

so, again, are you arguing we should have

1. Melee datasheet
2. shooty datasheet
3. heavy tank datasheet
4. light tank transport datasheet
5. walker datasheet

?

whats the difference between space marine scouts and eldar rangers !!! OMG WHY DO THEY NOT JUST ROLL THEM INTO ONE BOOK ,,, I can't believe they would dare have some overlap, they are all just snipers that MW on 6s !!!

Hey man, you said it not me. I think the game would be healthier if we only differentiated factions based on what was different about them, rather than the simple fact that they EXIST.

And no, it's not the same when a fighty unit from any faction touches me. I play against genestealers fundamentally differently than I play against wytches. The reason is that wytches typically ride in a tank and are very hard to kill in melee comparatively due to their better invuln, but are typically vulnerable to shooting. So I can parry the wytches with an expendable unit (if I can't KO their transport) and then shoot them to death. Genestealers are less vulnerable to shooting and are faster, but don't have a tank to protect them, so I can focus my "lesser" weapons on them while knocking out harder targets with the larger weapons.

Wulfen? I treat them the same as BT vanguard vets with TH/SS and the onus is on you to explain how they're different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:
People get into this hobby because the asthetics and playstyles of different armies appeal to them... does it really confuse you that some people want their choices to mean something ? they don't want to play symetrical game where no mater what choices they make they are playing the same faction ? is that really so hard for you to comprehend >?

You said they get into the hobby for different aesthetics and playstyles.

I'm asking you to demonstrate the second for the wolves - how is the playstyle different?

And I think people's choices should mean something ON THE TABLETOP. Choices during listbuilding should be less meaningful. Otherwise let's play a CCG.

HOLY gak YOUR BT VANGAURD VETS CAN FIGHT WHEN THEY ARE KILLED ? dammmmmnnnnnnnn how did you figure out that hack .

so when are we going to get the generic sniper datasheet ? when are we rolling the eldar rangers and the SM scouts into one datasheet ? that's how we want it right ?

I can't wait to roll together my thunderwolf cavalry with melee bikers.

Oh and how about those custodes getting rolled intogether with heavy intecessors XD lol .

Might as well arbitrarily pick what datasheets should be rolled together based on how you , some guy on the internet, treats them when you are battling against them lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because people want less marines. Not more. It's simple enough to comprehend.

I don't want vanilla SM stuff either
I do like getting SW stuff though.
Especially when SWs were there own faction lol.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
There's a word for that - seflishness.

If everyone wants "their" army getting all the good stuff without looking at the bigger picture, then the army with the most fans/players would be the strongest.

Karol has a point IMHO. He didn't say: give me the best options ever, he said give me unique options.

Why even bother with supplements if the SM chapters were basically the same thing?

I also think that having 200 datasheets available is the opposite of internal balance, that's why chapters should have their 40-50 datasheets, with just a few ones in common with other chapters. Worked very well in the past, the whole codex+supplement thing was unnecessary, actually very annoying and doesn't provide any benefit for the players.

so when are we going to get the generic sniper datasheet ? when are we rolling the eldar rangers and the SM scouts into one datasheet ? that's how we want it right ?

Seriously just stop - your embarssing yourself with your hysterical nonsense.

 Type40 wrote:
HOLY gak YOUR BT VANGAURD VETS CAN FIGHT WHEN THEY ARE KILLED ? dammmmmnnnnnnnn how did you figure out that hack

No, but at the same time, that rule doesn't change the playstyle of the faction. Does it? If so, please tell me. Like I've been asking you to. Several times.

 Type40 wrote:
so when are we going to get the generic sniper datasheet ? when are we rolling the eldar rangers and the SM scouts into one datasheet ? that's how we want it right ?

Strawmen and slippery slope fallacy all in one. I'm just going to stop answering strawman fallacies. (That said, eldar rangers and SM scouts are actually really similar. If they were both on the same team I'd say "roll 'em together" in a heartbeat).

 Type40 wrote:
I can't wait to roll together my thunderwolf cavalry with melee bikers.

Exactly, now you're getting it.

 Type40 wrote:
Oh and how about those custodes getting rolled intogether with heavy intecessors XD lol

Custodes are a melee unit and heavy intercessors are not. If you'd said Saggitarum Guard, I'd say now you're getting it. Delete Heavy Intercessors and SM players can just take Saggitarum Guard if they want that.

 Type40 wrote:
Might as well arbitrarily pick what datasheets should be rolled together based on how you , some guy on the internet, treats them when you are battling against them lol.

No, not what I said. I said "If they can be demonstrated to have different playstyle differences, then keep them separate." Just waiting on an explanation of how they play differently. Any time now. *checks watch*

be happy, fwiw they could've squatted your faction far more readily if rules and units were the measurement as you demand, then my R&H

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
HOLY gak YOUR BT VANGAURD VETS CAN FIGHT WHEN THEY ARE KILLED ? dammmmmnnnnnnnn how did you figure out that hack

No, but at the same time, that rule doesn't change the playstyle of the faction. Does it? If so, please tell me. Like I've been asking you to. Several times.

 Type40 wrote:
so when are we going to get the generic sniper datasheet ? when are we rolling the eldar rangers and the SM scouts into one datasheet ? that's how we want it right ?

Strawmen and slippery slope fallacy all in one. I'm just going to stop answering strawman fallacies. (That said, eldar rangers and SM scouts are actually really similar. If they were both on the same team I'd say "roll 'em together" in a heartbeat).

 Type40 wrote:
I can't wait to roll together my thunderwolf cavalry with melee bikers.

Exactly, now you're getting it.

 Type40 wrote:
Oh and how about those custodes getting rolled intogether with heavy intecessors XD lol

Custodes are a melee unit and heavy intercessors are not. If you'd said Saggitarum Guard, I'd say now you're getting it. Delete Heavy Intercessors and SM players can just take Saggitarum Guard if they want that.

 Type40 wrote:
Might as well arbitrarily pick what datasheets should be rolled together based on how you , some guy on the internet, treats them when you are battling against them lol.

No, not what I said. I said "If they can be demonstrated to have different playstyle differences, then keep them separate." Just waiting on an explanation of how they play differently. Any time now. *checks watch*

1. If you really can't understand that there are tactical differences to consider when deciding whether or not to charge a unit or enter into melee with a unit that can fight back when it dies v.s. fighting a unit that can't,,,, honestly you can't be very good at this game.

2. It isn't a strawman, there are less differences between those two datasheets then BT Vangaurd and Wulfen LOL ... you can't just dismiss how absurd your argument would be if applied globally across each faction XD.

3. fine sggitarum gaurd,,, you go tell those custodes players that lol XD.

4. uhhhhh..... really ? lol are wolves the same "race" as bikes now XD. Is this your new argument ?

5. just because you can't seem to understand how they are different, despite having different rules, models (and stats), unit sizes, unit compositions, unique wargear, and unique unit rules... doesn't mean they arnt different, it just means you are being willfully ignorant and are ignoring nuances in game play because "fighty unit is fighty and shooty unit is shooty" lol

 Type40 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Why do so many people want this game to be less unique and less interesting.

Because you don't need every unit to have a unique datasheet for the smallest difference for the game to be unique and interesting?

Right, so why not play eldar guardians using the tactical marine datasheet ?
You know, when a datasheet has unique rules, unique wargear, unique unit composition, unique unit size and the only thing that is the same is most of the stateline... are we really talking about "the smallest difference for the game" lol

I do that. Eldar rules are depressing at this point, so I run Ultramarines rules when I run them against people playing marines.

Avatar = Guilliman
Dire Avengers = Assault Bolter Intercessors
Striking Scorpions = Incursors
Swooping Hawks = Bolter Incursors
Fire Dragons = Eradicators
Rangers = Eliminators

etc.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Why do so many people want this game to be less unique and less interesting.

Because you don't need every unit to have a unique datasheet for the smallest difference for the game to be unique and interesting?

Right, so why not play eldar guardians using the tactical marine datasheet ?
You know, when a datasheet has unique rules, unique wargear, unique unit composition, unique unit size and the only thing that is the same is most of the stateline... are we really talking about "the smallest difference for the game" lol

I do that. Eldar rules are depressing at this point, so I run Ultramarines rules when I run them against people playing marines.

I think this is just the sad state that I hope this game avoids in the future.

Honestly, I am sorry you have to do this, I think that if this becomes the norm, the game has failed and has become pretty boring... if I wanted to paly a symetrical board game I would have chosen a symetrical board game.

 Type40 wrote:
1. If you really can't understand that there are tactical differences to consider when deciding whether or not to charge a unit or enter into melee with a unit that can fight back when it dies v.s. fighting a unit that can't,,,, honestly you can't be very good at this game.

If I am entering melee with BT VV, it is either:
1) to stop them from charging next turn (which means I am not killing them in melee, so Wulfen wouldn't get to strike back either)
or
2) because I have no other option (in which case I'll charge the Wulfen anyways, because I have no other option...)
VV with a 2+/4++ are not good targets for another melee unit to charge, especially not if a judicator is nearby. Neither are wulfen.

 Type40 wrote:
2. It isn't a strawman, there are less differences between those two datasheets then BT Vangaurd and Wulfen LOL ... you can't just dismiss how absurd your argument would be if applied globally across each faction XD.

I don't think it's absurd. Historicals do this all the time. The difference between a Russian sniper and a German sniper in most WWII games isn't huge. I'd be fine folding them together (as I mentioned) if GW's game structure permitted different "teams" to share datasheets. I said that in the very post you quoted.

 Type40 wrote:
3. fine sggitarum gaurd,,, you go tell those custodes players that lol XD.

What would they care that Heavy Intercessors are being deleted?

 Type40 wrote:
4. uhhhhh..... really ? lol are wolves the same "race" as bikes now XD. Is this your new argument ?

No? I don't see how that is relevant to the fact that the rules are functionally identical (fighty SM riding a thing and go fast brrrr)

 Type40 wrote:
5. just because you can't seem to understand how they are different, despite having different rules, models (and stats), unit sizes, unit compositions, unique wargear, and unique unit rules... doesn't mean they arnt different, it just means you are being willfully ignorant and are ignoring nuances in game play because "fighty unit is fighty and shooty unit is shooty" lol

Then explain to me how they are different - and I mean in function, not in form. I can see how they are different in form, but I'd like to know what they functionally do differently - or, to rephrase:
How is their playstyle different?

Like I've asked what, eight times now?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
1. If you really can't understand that there are tactical differences to consider when deciding whether or not to charge a unit or enter into melee with a unit that can fight back when it dies v.s. fighting a unit that can't,,,, honestly you can't be very good at this game.

If I am entering melee with BT VV, it is either:
1) to stop them from charging next turn (which means I am not killing them in melee, so Wulfen wouldn't get to strike back either)
or
2) because I have no other option (in which case I'll charge the Wulfen anyways, because I have no other option...)
VV with a 2+/4++ are not good targets for another melee unit to charge, especially not if a judicator is nearby. Neither are wulfen.

 Type40 wrote:
2. It isn't a strawman, there are less differences between those two datasheets then BT Vangaurd and Wulfen LOL ... you can't just dismiss how absurd your argument would be if applied globally across each faction XD.

I don't think it's absurd. Historicals do this all the time. The difference between a Russian sniper and a German sniper in most WWII games isn't huge. I'd be fine folding them together (as I mentioned) if GW's game structure permitted different "teams" to share datasheets. I said that in the very post you quoted.

 Type40 wrote:
3. fine sggitarum gaurd,,, you go tell those custodes players that lol XD.

What would they care that Heavy Intercessors are being deleted?

 Type40 wrote:
4. uhhhhh..... really ? lol are wolves the same "race" as bikes now XD. Is this your new argument ?

No? I don't see how that is relevant to the fact that the rules are functionally identical (fighty SM riding a thing and go fast brrrr)

 Type40 wrote:
5. just because you can't seem to understand how they are different, despite having different rules, models (and stats), unit sizes, unit compositions, unique wargear, and unique unit rules... doesn't mean they arnt different, it just means you are being willfully ignorant and are ignoring nuances in game play because "fighty unit is fighty and shooty unit is shooty" lol

Then explain to me how they are different - and I mean in function, not in form. I can see how they are different in form, but I'd like to know what they functionally do differently - or, to rephrase:
How is their playstyle different?

Like I've asked what, eight times now?

So setting aside the very rude ad hominems you keep throwing out that imply something about my intelligence:

can you, or can you not, explain how SW function differently on the tabletop from other melee Space Marines?

If you cannot explain this, then SW will be fine being thrown into the same bucket as those, with their models remaining attractive alternative options for those who actually enjoy SW for their SWness rather than their rules.

If you can explain this, be my guest. I'm waiting. You say there is more to the game - then elucidate it. Tell me. You assert SW are way different than Black Templars, but I've seen exactly zero evidence except that Wulfen fight when they die, which, while true, doesn't explain to me why BT shouldn't have that rule or why SW should.

I'm asking to be educated about how those rules, datasheets, wargear, etc. are meaningfully different than the alternatives. Educate me.

Revivers with the collars of Khorne effect. That's it.


Sorry for going back to the original question.

 Type40 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Why do so many people want this game to be less unique and less interesting.

Because you don't need every unit to have a unique datasheet for the smallest difference for the game to be unique and interesting?

Right, so why not play eldar guardians using the tactical marine datasheet ?
You know, when a datasheet has unique rules, unique wargear, unique unit composition, unique unit size and the only thing that is the same is most of the stateline... are we really talking about "the smallest difference for the game" lol

I do that. Eldar rules are depressing at this point, so I run Ultramarines rules when I run them against people playing marines.

I think this is just the sad state that I hope this game avoids in the future.

Honestly, I am sorry you have to do this, I think that if this becomes the norm, the game has failed and has become pretty boring... if I wanted to paly a symetrical board game I would have chosen a symetrical board game.

Yeah, me too. It'd be great if GW had a big grand idea with how they were going to balance marines with everyone else that they'd just fuckin do it instead of making everyone wait until 2021 to MAYBE get their new codex where they might be able to compete.

An eldar guardian being 10ppm is the worst joke in the game. Primaris Ultramarines play more like eldar than eldar.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So setting aside the very rude ad hominems you keep throwing out that imply something about my intelligence:

can you, or can you not, explain how SW function differently on the tabletop from other melee Space Marines?

If you cannot explain this, then SW will be fine being thrown into the same bucket as those, with their models remaining attractive alternative options for those who actually enjoy SW for their SWness rather than their rules.

If you can explain this, be my guest. I'm waiting. You say there is more to the game - then elucidate it. Tell me. You assert SW are way different than Black Templars, but I've seen exactly zero evidence except that Wulfen fight when they die, which, while true, doesn't explain to me why BT shouldn't have that rule or why SW should.

I'm asking to be educated about how those rules, datasheets, wargear, etc. are meaningfully different than the alternatives. Educate me.

I am literally quoting you XD

"fighty SM riding a thing and go fast brrrr"

"fighty marines fight and melt me"

etc...

I have explained, and if you can't understand how being able to fight when a model is destroyed has different tactical implications then not being able to do that,,, again,,, that is on you ... not sure how to help you further then that...

I am not going to continue to explain differences to you when your only response is to go "WELL THATS NOT DIFFERENT ENOUGH EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY ARE DIFFERNT" lol... I am not playing your game, if you keep moving the goal post then its impossible for me to answer the question lol XD...

Honestly.
Lets stop pretending here. if you want to dilute the game to
"fighty unit"
"shooty unit"
"fast fight unit"
"fast shooty unit"
"HQ"

then do that... but it seems like a pretty damn boring game to me.

I haven't moved the goalpost one iota.

I asked how their playstyle was different, you gave me a rule. I asked how their playstyle was different, you talked about Eldar rangers. I asked how their playstyle was different, you teased me. I asked how their playstyle was different, you claim I want to dilute the game.

If you just explained how their playstyle was different, I wouldn't have to keep asking and we could end this charade.

'These units seem incredibly similar in their battlefield role and function, with only minor differences that don't impact how they behave on the tabletop. Why do they need to be different units, rather than minor variants of the same thing?'
'LOLOL MIGHT AS WELL MAKE GUARDSMEN USE SPACE MARINE STATS TURN THE GAME INTO FIVE UNITS'

???????????????????

Unit, you've got a lot more patience than I would dealing with an argument that is 100% bad faith and straw men.

Thanks, Catbarf, appreciated. I do try to have patience, as sometimes people who are wrong become angry, then they cool off and revisit the arguments later. As long as I am not angry, my points will still be clearly stated when they return with a clearer head to review them.

Sometimes, they get them and understand. Other times, they have more thoughtful refutations, but either way it becomes fruitful again.

 Blackie wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
I speculate that based on the image I've seen the models look like gak.

Like any other primaris models.

Wow, must of been hard getting into this hobby if primaris look like gak to you because minimarines were everywhere and so much worse, objectively, you must have projectile vomited every time you saw them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Thanks, Catbarf, appreciated. I do try to have patience, as sometimes people who are wrong become angry, then they cool off and revisit the arguments later. As long as I am not angry, my points will still be clearly stated when they return with a clearer head to review them.

Sometimes, they get them and understand. Other times, they have more thoughtful refutations, but either way it becomes fruitful again.

and sometimes people think their subjective beliefs about what should and shouldn't be given unique and flavorful consideration trumps other gamers and the manufactures idea of what constitutes as unique and interesting playstyles. It seems to be an inability comprehend the uses for something that they themselves have not put the time into considering a need for...

"fighty units be fighty,,, why need something else for fights ? unless its my own thing,,, give me attention not them !!!! I don't want these other people to have toys that do things when you could be giving attention to MY toys and make them do nice things instead !!!"

 Type40 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Thanks, Catbarf, appreciated. I do try to have patience, as sometimes people who are wrong become angry, then they cool off and revisit the arguments later. As long as I am not angry, my points will still be clearly stated when they return with a clearer head to review them.

Sometimes, they get them and understand. Other times, they have more thoughtful refutations, but either way it becomes fruitful again.

and sometimes people think their subjective beliefs about what should and shouldn't be given unique and flavorful consideration trumps other gamers and the manufactures idea of what constitutes as unique and interesting playstyles. It seems to be an inability comprehend the uses for something that they themselves have not put the time into considering a need for... "

Unique and flavorful consideration would require the thing being considered to be unique and flavorful, unfortunately. If it has a unique and flavorful playstyle, maybe I could be convinced, but I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

Otherwise it's just wasting time and release slots.

The unique and flavorful playstyle is looking at your roster and seeing wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf and wolf.

It does nothing for me, but it does for other people.

Realistically this kit is an existing kit and an upgrade sprue, which may also already exist. The development time is therefore quite minimal.