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.
2020/10/29 17:00:44
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Disagree greatly. In 30k there is a single datasheet for the Preator. The preator then has numerous upgrade "packages" on his datasheet that turns him into a chaplain equivalent, or a librarian, or a apothocary equivalent etc etc...
You don't introduce unbalance to the game because you made a singular generic HQ that you can specialize. And you wouldn't be doing that to the outrider by just giving the outrider options.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2020/10/29 17:03:48
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. You are allowing access and affordances to something without forcing them to take the restrictions that come along with making that choice. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Minmax is already in the game, i don't see how this would change anything. Theres a reason TWC were mostly seen with TH+SS in 8th, the other options were bad. Every unit is always going to have a "minmaxed" option, unless its an optionless unit.
And exactly what " restriction and limitations that SMs have" am i removing? We already have precedent with 30k and all the upgrade options it has for basic units that are shared between all marines.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 17:04:26
2020/10/29 17:03:56
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Disagree greatly. In 30k there is a single datasheet for the Preator. The preator then has numerous upgrade "packages" on his datasheet that turns him into a chaplain equivalent, or a librarian, or a apothocary equivalent etc etc...
You don't introduce unbalance to the game because you made a singular generic HQ that you can specialize. And you wouldn't be doing that to the outrider by just giving the outrider options.
Ok so what does this have to do with giving regular marines access to an entirely new cavalry unit without forcing them to be restricted to using SWs ?
What does a 30k predator "package" have to do with a proposal for complete and unlimited customization ?
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. You are allowing access and affordances to something without forcing them to take the restrictions that come along with making that choice. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Minmax is already in the game, i don't see how this would change anything. Theres a reason TWC were mostly seen with TH+SS in 8th, the other options were bad. Every unit is always going to have a "minmaxed" option, unless its an optionless unit.
And exactly what " restriction and limitations that SMs have" am i removing? We already have precedent with 30k and all the upgrade options it has for basic units that are shared between all marines.
The fact that currently general SMs have a restriction from just being able to take this SW specific unit and the customized wargear that comes with it? You are literally proposing all SMs should have unlimited access to what may objectively be one the best units currently in the game with 0 restrictions. For the sake of 'balance' XD. ?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 17:08:09
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
2020/10/29 17:11:13
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Disagree greatly. In 30k there is a single datasheet for the Preator. The preator then has numerous upgrade "packages" on his datasheet that turns him into a chaplain equivalent, or a librarian, or a apothocary equivalent etc etc...
You don't introduce unbalance to the game because you made a singular generic HQ that you can specialize. And you wouldn't be doing that to the outrider by just giving the outrider options.
Ok so what does this have to do with giving regular marines access to an entirely new cavalry unit without forcing them to be restricted to using SWs ?
What does a 30k predator "package" have to do with a proposal for complete and unlimited customization ?
Your argument that it would become unbalanced to give the options to the outrider datasheet and then scrap the TWC datasheet would unbalance the game are wrong because we have examples of singular datasheets with tons of options that are not unbalanced now. I can point at examples of how it can be done well. So you should see that it is possible to do. There fore your argument is bad. Complete and unlimited customization can come with exclusion causes. Do I want them in gravis armor? Yes? then here are your weapon choices. Do you want them to be have a storm shield? Yes? Then here are the options for the other hand. Pay the price for the wargear. Move on.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2020/10/29 17:12:13
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
The fact that currently general SMs have a restriction from just being able to take this SW specific unit and the customized wargear that comes with it? You are literally proposing all SMs should have unlimited access to what may objectively be one the best units currently in the game with 0 restrictions. For the sake of 'balance' XD. ?
wait , TWC are "objectively one of the best units in the game"?
The proposal would obviously require balancing and wouldnt be applied mid-edition. We're talking about an alternate reality where GW proceeded differently.
I think arguing with you won't achieve anything, you keep shifting the goalposts.
First you were saying that "the fluff would be lost", we showed you how to keep the fluff.
Then you're saying the balance would be lost, we showed you evidence that such types of datasheet do not equate to bad balance by using 30k as an example.
2020/10/29 17:13:44
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Jimbobbyish wrote: Sounds like someone is envious of SW and their calvary...
Sounds like someone wasn't interested in contributing and instead just wants to be mean for no reason with an ad-hominem!
you just did the same so it's a moot point lol. To be fair he went from combine with Outriders, to make a new generic unit so that everyone can have thunderwolf Cavalry. Might as well let everyone have baal predator give everyone have librarian Dreadnought give everyone a generic primarch, give everyone black knights, give everyone kill teams!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 17:38:20
Primaris fanboy: "NO, you can't just give old marines 2W, they're supposed to be squatted!" GW: "Heavy Bolters go brrrrrrrr"
If the argument for their uniqueness is spamming Wulfen and Thunderwolves, then it wasn't really a unique army to begin with whether you like it or not.
The fact that currently general SMs have a restriction from just being able to take this SW specific unit and the customized wargear that comes with it? You are literally proposing all SMs should have unlimited access to what may objectively be one the best units currently in the game with 0 restrictions. For the sake of 'balance' XD. ?
wait , TWC are "objectively one of the best units in the game"?
The proposal would obviously require balancing and wouldnt be applied mid-edition. We're talking about an alternate reality where GW proceeded differently.
I think arguing with you won't achieve anything, you keep shifting the goalposts.
First you were saying that "the fluff would be lost", we showed you how to keep the fluff.
Then you're saying the balance would be lost, we showed you evidence that such types of datasheet do not equate to bad balance by using 30k as an example.
I am learning that this is what Type40 does. He is not having the conversation you are having. He is having the conversation HE is having. And no amount of examples, logic, or argument will persuade him that what you are saying is pertinent to his arguments.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2020/10/29 17:20:29
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Type40 wrote: Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.
He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.
But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.
Disagree greatly. In 30k there is a single datasheet for the Preator. The preator then has numerous upgrade "packages" on his datasheet that turns him into a chaplain equivalent, or a librarian, or a apothocary equivalent etc etc...
You don't introduce unbalance to the game because you made a singular generic HQ that you can specialize. And you wouldn't be doing that to the outrider by just giving the outrider options.
Ok so what does this have to do with giving regular marines access to an entirely new cavalry unit without forcing them to be restricted to using SWs ?
What does a 30k predator "package" have to do with a proposal for complete and unlimited customization ?
Your argument that it would become unbalanced to give the options to the outrider datasheet and then scrap the TWC datasheet would unbalance the game are wrong because we have examples of singular datasheets with tons of options that are not unbalanced now. I can point at examples of how it can be done well. So you should see that it is possible to do. There fore your argument is bad. Complete and unlimited customization can come with exclusion causes. Do I want them in gravis armor? Yes? then here are your weapon choices. Do you want them to be have a storm shield? Yes? Then here are the options for the other hand. Pay the price for the wargear. Move on.
A: Sgt.Smudge has repeated over and over that his proposal is NOT for the outrider datasheet... so lets start there.
B: Yes, some datasheets have customization (this is a design and balance choice) some datasheets do not (this is also a design and balance choice) . Again, see my points about user interfacing and why having a single datasheet with affordances, exceptions, restrictions, variable wargear, variable rule sets, variable statlines variable unit compositions, and variable unit sizes , takes longer to design then static separate sheets and is not a good User Interface for displaying data.
C: Are you seriously going to keep thinking that TWC are the same as Outriders ? please go check the datasheet for TWC on the FAQ index... they are simply different units with different statline,wargear options,rules, keywords, unit composition, and unit size. So if you are actually proposing we have some general datasheet where every little stat, rule, and piece of text is variable and can be swaped out at will ... then this is a really bad example... like, if your just flipping from page to page to figure out what stats you qualify for or choose XD what makes you think that takes less design effort and provides better readability XD ?
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
2020/10/29 17:33:10
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
A) I am saying that MY argument is for most datasheets and wargear. All power weapon varieties should just be power weapon. TWC SHOULD just be outriders. Unless there is a meaningful mechanical difference so that it fills a specific role it shouldn't exist. Go look over the apocalypse datasheets.
No devourers/deathspitters/spikers/boneswords/bonesword+whip/scytal.
It's not a bunch of gak nobody is ever going to use. It's just a singular good profile so the unit can do it's job.
Just melee bioweapon and ranged bioweapon. I can model them however I want and the unit functions great.
B) Disagree. You keep saying it's bad for user interface but whats ACTUALLY bad for user interface is everything GW has ever done with 40k. Know whats good for user interface? Battlescribe. It gives me exactly what I need when I need it. And it doesn't matter how many options the unit has, I have only the data I need when I am playing.
C) Guess what, units change edition to edition. The consolidation of TWC into Outriders in terms of stat line, number of attacks, so on and so forth wouldn't even be the most crazy thing that has ever happened to a unit.
It's a bad argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 17:35:02
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2020/10/29 17:33:20
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
The fact that currently general SMs have a restriction from just being able to take this SW specific unit and the customized wargear that comes with it? You are literally proposing all SMs should have unlimited access to what may objectively be one the best units currently in the game with 0 restrictions. For the sake of 'balance' XD. ?
wait , TWC are "objectively one of the best units in the game"?
The proposal would obviously require balancing and wouldnt be applied mid-edition. We're talking about an alternate reality where GW proceeded differently.
I think arguing with you won't achieve anything, you keep shifting the goalposts.
First you were saying that "the fluff would be lost", we showed you how to keep the fluff.
Then you're saying the balance would be lost, we showed you evidence that such types of datasheet do not equate to bad balance by using 30k as an example.
I havn't shifted anything.
I have repeatedly stated the exact same points, over and over and over.
There are 3 options for consolidating datasheets.
1. removing any sembelance of unique rules, abilities or flavour from units so that they have an easy static datasheet. This is where I disagree based on losing the fluffy feel of units.
2. create a datasheet where there is total customization with no restrictions, thus allowing full access to flavour but also allowing for insane amounts of min/max potential.
3. create single datasheets that harbour restrictions, exceptions, affordance for wargear, rules, keywords, statlines, unit sizes and unit compositions. This 'solution' would result in longer design time (in order to achieve proper synergy and compatibility) and detract from User Interfacing. Having static seperate datasheets would allow for less time dedicated to design and easier to read and less complex datasheets.
I havn't shifted the goal posts once. I have done nothing but repeat these same arguments over and over and over. You can go back through this thread and see I have argued these things consistently. No lack of logic here XD.
What everyone else needs to do is first a: understand that you guys are actually arguing for different versions of single datasheet solutions, so that's actually something you guys seem to disagree on.
My disputes are different depending on which approach to consolidating the datasheets you are going by.
Again, I have outlined this several times in the thread, havn't 'shifted the goal post' once. but rather outlined each one of these and disputed each for different reasons.
Eitheway, the fact that their are clear falacies with any kind of mass consolidation of datasheets whether that is because of the removal of fluff or the introductions of clear imbalances to the game, is a problem with the proposal and not a problem with me not grasping 'logic.'
circular argumentation is not me not grasping 'logic' lol.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
2020/10/29 17:47:45
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
1. removing any sembelance of unique rules, abilities or flavour from units so that they have an easy static datasheet. This is where I disagree based on losing the fluffy feel of units.
2. create a datasheet where there is total customization with no restrictions, thus allowing full access to flavour but also allowing for insane amounts of min/max potential.
3. create single datasheets that harbour restrictions, exceptions, affordance for wargear, rules, keywords, statlines, unit sizes and unit compositions. This 'solution' would result in longer design time (in order to achieve proper synergy and compatibility) and detract from User Interfacing. Having static seperate datasheets would allow for less time dedicated to design and easier to read and less complex datasheets.
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.
(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options.
(Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit.
(Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability.
(Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1
(Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.
so you get a basic datasheet that you can upgrade to fit whatever you want to play.
Want space marines riding on dragons all equipped with storm shield and thunder hammers ? You get a Veteran Airborn Ferocious cavalry.
Want TWC equivalents ? Veteranns ferocious space marine cavalry
What is lost here? you keep your fluffy options to run your TWC and you even open up more areas for future models.
Before you say that balance would be lost, notice how i have you pay pts for every upgrade? thats how you balance the unit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 17:48:46
2020/10/29 17:49:55
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Lance845 wrote: A) I am saying that MY argument is for most datasheets and wargear. All power weapon varieties should just be power weapon. TWC SHOULD just be outriders. Unless there is a meaningful mechanical difference so that it fills a specific role it shouldn't exist. Go look over the apocalypse datasheets.
why SHOULD they ? because you said so ? better go tell GW that some guy on the internet thinks they should remove the flavour rules of the TWC because he doesn't think they SHOULD be different. The fact that the unit has a different statline, different wargear, different special rules, different keywords, different access to stratagems, different unit composition and different unit size options IS meaningful mechanic differences. You can't just pretend its not ? if its not for statlines, wargear, special rules, keywords, access to stratagems, unit composition and unit size , what else makes a unit a different unit ?
Again, sure, the unit will be exactly the same if you erase everything that makes them different ... but why do you think you get to be the guy who arbitrarily makes the decision to do that and remove peoples options for having a unique and flavorfully different feeling unit ? Should GW just listen to you ? just because ?
No devourers/deathspitters/spikers/boneswords/bonesword+whip/scytal.
Just melee bioweapon and ranged bioweapon. I can model them however I want and the unit functions great.
Ya, a game with significantly less nuance like apocalypse is not the same thing as 40k.
I guess they could redsign and streamline the game to work like apocalypse,,, but then we are playing a different game... I thought we wanted to find solutions for 40k,,, not some new Apocalypse Lite.
B) Disagree. You keep saying it's bad for user interface but whats ACTUALLY bad for user interface is everything GW has ever done with 40k. Know whats good for user interface? Battlescribe. It gives me exactly what I need when I need it. And it doesn't matter how many options the unit has, I have only the data I need when I am playing.
Just because you CAN read it and interpret in this format doesn't make it the BEST format. but I am glad you are confident in your own abilities. I am sure I would figure it out too
C) Guess what, units change edition to edition. The consolidation of TWC into Outriders in terms of stat line, number of attacks, so on and so forth wouldn't even be the most crazy thing that has ever happened to a unit.
sure it wouldn't be the craziest thing to happen... but why would it happen ? because you , some guy on the internet, thinks it should ? because you, some guy on the internet, believe there is no need for a flavourful rules difference between TWC and vanilla outrides... Hate to break it to you, at least for now, GW seems to disagree with your view on this ... and that's because many people, like my self, would feel pretty robbed if our unique choices of taking a wolf rider had no significant meaning compared to taking a primaris bike dude and GW knows this.
It's a bad argument.
What is a bad argument lol ? that is a very vague statement, I have a whole slew of disputes.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
2020/10/29 17:55:10
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
There have been lots of generic rules sets over the years like this and they never catch on because people (including me) like their special little dudes to have special rules.
40k is a game built more on the fluff and models to be sure, but to sell those models they need rules to differentiate them.
2020/10/29 17:58:35
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Jimbobbyish wrote: Sounds like someone is envious of SW and their calvary...
Sounds like someone wasn't interested in contributing and instead just wants to be mean for no reason with an ad-hominem!
except these threads are always driven by 99% jelousy. we've now gone from "they should be treated as just cosmetic bikers" to "FOLD THEM INTO CODEX SPACE MARINES AS A NEW GENERIC UNIT"
at about this point it seems to me that the goal isn't simplification, the goal is to deny someone a toy..
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/10/29 17:58:41
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
2020/10/29 18:01:58
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
1. removing any sembelance of unique rules, abilities or flavour from units so that they have an easy static datasheet. This is where I disagree based on losing the fluffy feel of units.
2. create a datasheet where there is total customization with no restrictions, thus allowing full access to flavour but also allowing for insane amounts of min/max potential.
3. create single datasheets that harbour restrictions, exceptions, affordance for wargear, rules, keywords, statlines, unit sizes and unit compositions. This 'solution' would result in longer design time (in order to achieve proper synergy and compatibility) and detract from User Interfacing. Having static seperate datasheets would allow for less time dedicated to design and easier to read and less complex datasheets.
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.
(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options.
(Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit.
(Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability.
(Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1
(Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.
so you get a basic datasheet that you can upgrade to fit whatever you want to play.
Want space marines riding on dragons all equipped with storm shield and thunder hammers ? You get a Veteran Airborn Ferocious cavalry.
Want TWC equivalents ? Veteranns ferocious space marine cavalry
What is lost here? you keep your fluffy options to run your TWC and you even open up more areas for future models.
Before you say that balance would be lost, notice how i have you pay pts for every upgrade? thats how you balance the unit.
yes, this is one of the possible single datasheet proposals.
Well you just invented a new unit for generic marines to get access to ?
nothing is lost here, you just gave everything to everyone else in the process.
points arn't the only thing that balances a game... imagine if SMs were allowed to take harlequin jetbikes with haywire cannons,,, even if they had to pay the same amount of points for it ?
Should we just let anyone take anything as long as they pay the right amount of points for it ? is that the argument now ?
So ya, I will continue to say "balance will be lost" even though you need to pay pts for every upgrade.
If you do this, every tournament ever will just be what ever the best combination of things possible is and thus removing even more variance on the table due to having 0 restrictions between the subfactions. you are introducing incredible new min/max potential and removing even more variance in anything but totally casual games.
In terms of fluff... yes, this solution does 100% preserve rules fluff. no argument there.
In terms of the user interface... sure, its understandable... but what's the real difference between this set up and seperate datasheets... you are still going to have to tweak the point costs seperately for each different upgrade, you are still going to have to have to balance things with at least the same amount of minutia if not more. As now you have to make sure every combination is compatible.
So now as a player I have to decipher what part of this datasheet is relevant for me to use... sure I CAN do that... and then do it again for every different unit, and again, and again, and again. until i am done my list.... OR i could go "right here is the datasheet for my unit,, ah yes, here is what it can do, here are its specific options.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 18:02:16
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
2020/10/29 18:03:17
Subject: Re:What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
I'm going to be real honest, Bikes in 40k, for the most part, are Cavalry. Everything about them functions as Cavalry. Back before AoS became a thing, 40k bike rules were generally closer to Fantasy cavalry rules than the 40k rules for Beasts were and reflected similar bonuses.
Bikes honestly are absolutely garbage fighting platforms in real life, when militaries have used them, it's been as transport for what effectively were motorcycle dragoons who fought dismounted or scout units with a single sidecar mounted MG that turned and ran at the first sign of return fire, nobody is fighting from the seat of a motorcycle because it's stupid to do so. 40k basically abstracts bikes acting as the role of Cavalry because actual Cavalry doesn't thematically really work for most 40k factions, particularly Space Marines, but GW wanted to fit something in that vein.
Consolidating many bike and cavalry units can make absolutely perfect sense in that regard, and a lot of the stuff people are arguing about is the kind of stuff that changes from codex to codex or edition to edition anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 18:03:36
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.
2020/10/29 18:05:00
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Your statement is subjective.
You can not be correct objectively by virtue of me not buying different models for that reason... I know many people who buy different models because of the flavour and fluffy ruleset the bring with them,,,, including me... but if that's how you enjoy the game, that is fine, but you don't get to have the right to say I am not allowed to enjoy the game in the way I do.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
2020/10/29 18:09:37
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Of course it's subjective, but so is the number of fiddly rules a unit can have before it "deserves its own model."
I once had a guy who played Exodite Eldar using the CWE codex back in 7th. His "jetbikes" were guys on dinosaurs (based on Cold Ones from fantasy at the time). And you know what? I thought it was a bit wonkey, because they could fly over units and stuff that the jetbikes could do that the dinosaurs really shouldn't do. But I would rather let him do it than not because it's awesome. Should we have made him take the ability to fly away from his bikes just because the model looked different? Should we have given him another special rule, such as more attacks from the mount?
It's inherently subjective where a unit is sufficiently "different" to warrant different rules. That's obvious. But recognize that that subjective judgement has wider objective impacts (e.g. design space for, say, an Eldar Exodites supplement instead of Space Wolves). So it's not an unworthy objection for people who think those units are "too samey" to be like "hang on, why are those different?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 18:10:01
2020/10/29 18:11:18
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
perhaps if you want to keep making this comparison you can show us the "Space marine with purity seals" kit?
if not then maybe just maybe it's a gakky intellectually dishonest comparison?
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/10/29 18:11:18
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
1. removing any sembelance of unique rules, abilities or flavour from units so that they have an easy static datasheet. This is where I disagree based on losing the fluffy feel of units.
2. create a datasheet where there is total customization with no restrictions, thus allowing full access to flavour but also allowing for insane amounts of min/max potential.
3. create single datasheets that harbour restrictions, exceptions, affordance for wargear, rules, keywords, statlines, unit sizes and unit compositions. This 'solution' would result in longer design time (in order to achieve proper synergy and compatibility) and detract from User Interfacing. Having static seperate datasheets would allow for less time dedicated to design and easier to read and less complex datasheets.
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.
(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options.
(Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit.
(Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability.
(Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1
(Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.
so you get a basic datasheet that you can upgrade to fit whatever you want to play.
Want space marines riding on dragons all equipped with storm shield and thunder hammers ? You get a Veteran Airborn Ferocious cavalry.
Want TWC equivalents ? Veteranns ferocious space marine cavalry
What is lost here? you keep your fluffy options to run your TWC and you even open up more areas for future models.
Before you say that balance would be lost, notice how i have you pay pts for every upgrade? thats how you balance the unit.
yes, this is one of the possible single datasheet proposals.
Well you just invented a new unit for generic marines to get access to ?
nothing is lost here, you just gave everything to everyone else in the process.
points arn't the only thing that balances a game... imagine if SMs were allowed to take harlequin jetbikes with haywire cannons,,, even if they had to pay the same amount of points for it ?
Should we just let anyone take anything as long as they pay the right amount of points for it ? is that the argument now ?
So ya, I will continue to say "balance will be lost" even though you need to pay pts for every upgrade.
If you do this, every tournament ever will just be what ever the best combination of things possible is and thus removing even more variance on the table due to having 0 restrictions between the subfactions. you are introducing incredible new min/max potential and removing even more variance in anything but totally casual games.
In terms of fluff... yes, this solution does 100% preserve rules fluff. no argument there.
In terms of the user interface... sure, its understandable... but what's the real difference between this set up and seperate datasheets... you are still going to have to tweak the point costs seperately for each different upgrade, you are still going to have to have to balance things with at least the same amount of minutia if not more. As now you have to make sure every combination is compatible.
So now as a player I have to decipher what part of this datasheet is relevant for me to use... sure I CAN do that... and then do it again for every different unit, and again, and again, and again. until i am done my list.... OR i could go "right here is the datasheet for my unit,, ah yes, here is what it can do, here are its specific options.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a bit of effort when designing a list.
And honestly? Those options are dead easy to parse. Obviously, without points, I can't speak to the balance, but nothing on that list is inherently unbalanced-there's no mechanic there that would be horrendous to face if pointed appropriately.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/29 18:13:50
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
In terms of the user interface... sure, its understandable... but what's the real difference between this set up and seperate datasheets... you are still going to have to tweak the point costs seperately for each different upgrade, you are still going to have to have to balance things with at least the same amount of minutia if not more. As now you have to make sure every combination is compatible.
So now as a player I have to decipher what part of this datasheet is relevant for me to use... sure I CAN do that... and then do it again for every different unit, and again, and again, and again. until i am done my list.... OR i could go "right here is the datasheet for my unit,, ah yes, here is what it can do, here are its specific options.
Fair enough, but i'd argue that parsing through the mess that some datasheets are with weapons options is already a chore. this wouldnt be that much more difficult.
Especially not if youre playing with models that represent your choices , like TWC.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 18:15:42
2020/10/29 18:16:33
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Your statement is subjective.
You can not be correct objectively by virtue of me not buying different models for that reason... I know many people who buy different models because of the flavour and fluffy ruleset the bring with them,,,, including me... but if that's how you enjoy the game, that is fine, but you don't get to have the right to say I am not allowed to enjoy the game in the way I do.
I like you completely ignored the point about purity seals. It doesn't even stop there though. Why don't we have different rules for Mk2-8 of Power Armor since three of the Terminators all have different rules?
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.
2020/10/29 18:16:39
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Im sorry. Apocs actual game play has far more depth and nuance then standard 40k. Regular 40k has all the tactical depth of tic tac toe. First turn advantage and all.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2020/10/29 18:20:04
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
perhaps if you want to keep making this comparison you can show us the "Space marine with purity seals" kit?
if not then maybe just maybe it's a gakky intellectually dishonest comparison?
We have separate kits for Mk3 and Mk4 Power Armor. Why don't they have different rules just like with the Terminator armors all being different?
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.
2020/10/29 18:20:37
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Of course it's subjective, but so is the number of fiddly rules a unit can have before it "deserves its own model."
I once had a guy who played Exodite Eldar using the CWE codex back in 7th. His "jetbikes" were guys on dinosaurs (based on Cold Ones from fantasy at the time). And you know what? I thought it was a bit wonkey, because they could fly over units and stuff that the jetbikes could do that the dinosaurs really shouldn't do. But I would rather let him do it than not because it's awesome. Should we have made him take the ability to fly away from his bikes just because the model looked different? Should we have given him another special rule, such as more attacks from the mount?
It's inherently subjective where a unit is sufficiently "different" to warrant different rules. That's obvious. But recognize that that subjective judgement has wider objective impacts (e.g. design space for, say, an Eldar Exodites supplement instead of Space Wolves). So it's not an unworthy objection for people who think those units are "too samey" to be like "hang on, why are those different?"
I do agree that he could totally proxy those dino's to work how ever he wants. I am even totally all for I am "playing this as" style armies.
But again, if our goal is to just dilute the game down into base datasheets... why not roll all the factions together and play the game with 5-20 datasheets all together ?
What is the real difference in playing different factions at that point... also,,, we are kind of now talking about a completely different game.
My arguments from earlier are still sound
the proposal that @VladimirHerzog has admiralty maintains my fluff concerns.
I have responded to this approach earlier though, this is the
2. create a datasheet where there is total customization with no restrictions,
solution.
However, with it brings tons of other game design and rules issues whilst solving very few problems.
This doesn't reduce design time, this introduces more min/maxing potential, more problems with figuring minutia in terms of point balancing. Whilst simultaneously reducing the archetype that non-spacemarine factions have more access to customization (which has admiralty been reduced over the years) . It also arbitrarily creates a debatably worse user interface... with the problems this solution brings... what's the point ? Its not like this stops GW from putting all there attention into the marine faction... or even making SW specific units or DA/DW/BA specific units... It just means when those new units come out, they'll be tacing on even more options to the "general datasheet' giving general SMs even MORE as a whole.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
2020/10/29 18:21:24
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Your statement is subjective.
You can not be correct objectively by virtue of me not buying different models for that reason... I know many people who buy different models because of the flavour and fluffy ruleset the bring with them,,,, including me... but if that's how you enjoy the game, that is fine, but you don't get to have the right to say I am not allowed to enjoy the game in the way I do.
I like you completely ignored the point about purity seals. It doesn't even stop there though. Why don't we have different rules for Mk2-8 of Power Armor since three of the Terminators all have different rules?
im pretty sure terminators were all clumped in a single datasheet with the new codex, or am i mistaken?
This actually supports my proposal of consolidating datasheets. GW still sells tartaros/Cataphractii/indomitus terminator kits yet there is only one datasheet.
2020/10/29 18:21:38
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Your statement is subjective.
You can not be correct objectively by virtue of me not buying different models for that reason... I know many people who buy different models because of the flavour and fluffy ruleset the bring with them,,,, including me... but if that's how you enjoy the game, that is fine, but you don't get to have the right to say I am not allowed to enjoy the game in the way I do.
I like you completely ignored the point about purity seals. It doesn't even stop there though. Why don't we have different rules for Mk2-8 of Power Armor since three of the Terminators all have different rules?
because this is hyperbole.
Overexaggerating the point to a degree of ridiculousness is not worth answering.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
2020/10/29 18:21:58
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Which can be solved by giving similar attention to other factions too.
I would LOVE for Daemons to have a generic unit in every Force Org Slot, with tons of customization to represent my Daemonic forces how I please.
Type40 wrote: because this is hyperbole.
Overexaggerating the point to a degree of ridiculousness is not worth answering.
Type40 wrote: But again, if our goal is to just dilute the game down into base datasheets... why not roll all the factions together and play the game with 5-20 datasheets all together ?
What is the real difference in playing different factions at that point... also,,, we are kind of now talking about a completely different game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 18:23:01
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/29 18:22:54
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Your statement is subjective.
You can not be correct objectively by virtue of me not buying different models for that reason... I know many people who buy different models because of the flavour and fluffy ruleset the bring with them,,,, including me... but if that's how you enjoy the game, that is fine, but you don't get to have the right to say I am not allowed to enjoy the game in the way I do.
I like you completely ignored the point about purity seals. It doesn't even stop there though. Why don't we have different rules for Mk2-8 of Power Armor since three of the Terminators all have different rules?
im pretty sure terminators were all clumped in a single datasheet with the new codex, or am i mistaken?
This actually supports my proposal of consolidating datasheets. GW still sells tartaros/Cataphractii/indomitus terminator kits yet there is only one datasheet.
They were, I am not saying it is never possible. But there is also a reason why Assault terminators, terminators and wolfgaurd termniators were not consolidated into those sheets as well.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
nervous sweating 
