Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Lance845 wrote:


It is what Brain, who I quoted, did say.

no it isn't so you're eaither a liar of lack reading comprehension. what I said was that these armies where eistablished as unique armies quite some time ago, and as such began to diverse from the baseline as they got their own distinct units and rules. that's hardly circular logic, that's called divergant evolution;.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Why should Raven guard , one of the OG legions, get less content then SW's?

How should you explain this issue to someone that plays CSM? He can be happy if his veterans of the long war get some rules differing them from BL.

And that is even less of an issue to understand for literally any other faction in the game which have a blatant lack of specialisation and customization / choice to replace customization via subfaction choice?

toi start with because ravenguard have always been described as largely codex compliant.

as for CSMs etc. I'll spell it out for you one more time.

I am 100% in support of other armies subfactions getting sensable, expanded rules and unique units. I would LOVE to see chaos marines expanded. No one, NO ONE is arguing ONLY Loyalist space marines deserves this stuff.

This is insane. Is SPACE WOLVES a <CHAPTER> Keyword or not?

What the hell do you mean by stereotyping?

This isn't anyone interpreting anything in different ways based on opinions. SW are in fact a Subfaction because they are in fact a <CHAPTER>.

Thats it. Thats the whole of it. Any meaning you give to the SW beyond that is your own baggage.

BrianDavion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Why should Raven guard , one of the OG legions, get less content then SW's?

How should you explain this issue to someone that plays CSM? He can be happy if his veterans of the long war get some rules differing them from BL.

And that is even less of an issue to understand for literally any other faction in the game which have a blatant lack of specialisation and customization / choice to replace customization via subfaction choice?

toi start with because ravenguard have always been described as largely codex compliant.

as for CSMs etc. I'll spell it out for you one more time.

I am 100% in support of other armies subfactions getting sensable, expanded rules and unique units. I would LOVE to see chaos marines expanded. No one, NO ONE is arguing ONLY Loyalist space marines deserves this stuff.

However every SM speciality costs space and ressources torwards non SM speciality and customizabiliy because sadly the fact is , THAT GW uses a limited set of ressources for new and specialisation/customizability development for the players. SO sadly it is partially a 0 sum game, unless GW expands it's facilities. SO that any NON sm player sees an issue with all those wannabe codex sized supplement cashgrabs is a logical conclusion. Which was a point i allready made last page but you didn't even bother to respond to:

Not Online!!! wrote:
actually it kinda is, because it is a nigh zero investment for guaranteed return for nearly anything SM, whilest an eldar update would be more risk, far higher investment and less expected return.

GW actively enters a desinvestment cycle thus by doing the "easy" and guaranteed thing for all the factions that are not marine based...

so yes it is partially indeed a zero sum game. Because the attention torwards other factions get lessened for the guaranteed Sm and partially CSm support.

GW just fails to undertand as to WHY certain ranges don't sell as well. Just look at the SoB situation. Or any other slew of updated factions (rules OR modelwise) that were less popular before and afterwards just hiked massively in player count.

GW has limited Manpower, production facility and timetables. Money can aleviate some of these but money is investment and needs return. That is why gw choses the easy way and makes more SM's that however doesn't make the situation any better, especially since GW is extremely averse to risk and therefore not investing into f.e. updated ranges (only if there is massive pressure and therefore estimated market , cue SoB).

Wow this is complicated. It's so interesting that more people aren't disturbed by the marine fapfest on the part of GW.

Not Online!!! wrote:
if you regard this as stereotyping then you have no conception of the word. Because if enforcing standards is now stereotyping that is pretty far from the point i made...

And it is even internally, of the now banished to supplement standards, SM's unfair.
Why should Raven guard , one of the OG legions, get less content then SW's?

Raven gaurd have NOT gotten had a supplement or codex since 2nd edition like BA/DA/SWs... in fact ravengaurd didn't even get a supplement until 8th... This isn't a mater of Raven Gaurd "not getting content" its a mater of SWs having distinct fleshed out content and design space being dedicated to them as an army since 2nd edition and Raven Gaurd being made into a subfaction during 8th... you do see there is a difference there... no one is saying Raven Gaurd CANT have as much as SWs ,,, but they havn't been getting design attention for 2+ decades like SWs and I really don't think now is time to catch them up on that 2 decades to meet SWs level ,,,,, do you ? I think it would be a lot better if GW focused on some non-power armor for now ... don't you ? yes, while it is true ravengaurd is an OG legion in the lore, you are ignoring what actually IS the history of the 40k game and somehow equating it to the fictional history of the lore... SWs have existed, in the real world, as a unique army, for 2+ decades.... Raven Gaurd, in the real world, has existed as a subfaction for about 5 years at most and hasn't had nearly the amount of real world attention as SWs. You do get the difference, justifying that because they are equally significant in the fluff world doesn't make them the "exact same" in the real world... the two armies have very different real world histories.

How should you explain this issue to someone that plays CSM? He can be happy if his veterans of the long war get some rules differing them from BL.

speaking of CSM ,,, if DG or TS became CSM supplements... would we be arguing that DG and TS shouldn't have any unique units ? ... you do realize that those two codex overlap with CSM AND have existed for less time then SWs DA and BA have existed as standalone codexs ? just because a logistical choice to make them into a supplement so that overlap units are covered doesn't magically remove there worthyness to keep their army identities , keep their unique units or keep their unique rules... and squating or merging things like plague marines or rubrics into regular CSM units isn't going to magically bring back the design effort / time put into the creations of those units in the first place.

And that is even less of an issue to understand for literally any other faction in the game which have a blatant lack of specialisation and customization / choice to replace customization via subfaction choice?

again,,, this are unique armies that have recently been declared subfactions due to logistics and sales efforts. These subfactions didn't just magically get all this unique stuff out of nowhere, it has been being developed for 20+ years.

Gw's line is arbitrary torwards what sells. That is a bad standard.

"Gw's line is arbitrary torwards what sells. That is a bad standard."

this is precisely my point. You are totally right. The fact that GW has declared them a supplement is for sales. They are forcing SW, BA, DA players to buy a second book whilst simultaniously forcing their new primaris gak down our throats.... I agree that going by what GW is saying is a bad standard... this is why I am trying to point out that it is GW that declared them a "supplement/subfaction" yet it is also GW that treat them as though they are not... It is actually you guys who are saying "GW says they are subfaction so they can't be a unique army or have unique datasheets" whilst I am saying... "who the feth cares what GW is calling them, the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years and simply calling them a subfaction is not a good enough reason to get rid of everything that makes them unique"

"the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years"

Should they have gotten that stuff in the first place, though?

SecondTime wrote:
Wow this is complicated. It's so interesting that more people aren't disturbed by the marine fapfest on the part of GW.

I am pretty sure everyone here IS disturbed by it ... Some of us just don't think the solution is to squat or merge 20+ year old armies out of existence just because GW is trying to force feed those armies their vanilla sacks of primaris.

 Type40 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Wow this is complicated. It's so interesting that more people aren't disturbed by the marine fapfest on the part of GW.

I am pretty sure everyone here IS disturbed by it ... Some of us just don't think the solution is to squat or merge 20+ year old armies out of existence just because GW is trying to force feed those armies their vanilla sacks of primaris.

Primaris doesn't bother me though. SW jumped the shark long before primaris in my mind. I'm only disappointed they didn't squat the oldbois to free up some shelf space for others.

 Type40 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Wow this is complicated. It's so interesting that more people aren't disturbed by the marine fapfest on the part of GW.

I am pretty sure everyone here IS disturbed by it ... Some of us just don't think the solution is to squat or merge 20+ year old armies out of existence just because GW is trying to force feed those armies their vanilla sacks of primaris.

Except that already what happened, Space wolfes aren't a codex anymore. Thats not an opinion, thats a fact.

SecondTime wrote:
"the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years"

Should they have gotten that stuff in the first place, though?

Considering SWs were one of the first 5 armies in the game and had more differences from SMs then orks had at the time ... I don't know,,, probably. It would have been nice to have a faction that plays a little differently... especially back then... the fact that they were wearing power armor and so were SMs made very little difference back then,,, everything in the game shared wargear, they just had different rules on how they used them...

But who knows, who am I to decide whether or not one of the original divergent factions in the game deserves to be created at that time or not XD.
Maybe GW could have put them in orange jumpsuits with bowties but kept the rules the same... does the fact that they were wearing power armor v.s. anything else mater when it comes down to the fact that they were introduced as a faction that plays in an alternative way.

 Type40 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
"the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years"

Should they have gotten that stuff in the first place, though?

Considering SWs were one of the first 5 armies in the game and had more differences from SMs then orks had at the time ... I don't know,,, probably. It would have been nice to have a faction that plays a little differently... especially back then... the fact that they were wearing power armor and so were SMs made very little difference back then,,, everything in the game shared wargear, they just had different rules on how they used them...

But who knows, who am I to decide whether or not one of the original divergent factions in the game deserves to exist or not XD.

This is just all opinion on how to improve the game. GW's just going to try to sell as much stuff as it thinks it can get away with. That means two concurrent marines armies and two books for every marine player. I personally find it very boring that so many matchups have so many meqs on the table now.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Wow this is complicated. It's so interesting that more people aren't disturbed by the marine fapfest on the part of GW.

I am pretty sure everyone here IS disturbed by it ... Some of us just don't think the solution is to squat or merge 20+ year old armies out of existence just because GW is trying to force feed those armies their vanilla sacks of primaris.

Except that already what happened, Space wolfes aren't a codex anymore. Thats not an opinion, thats a fact.

YES !!!
for the last time,,, we all know that SWs don't have their own codex... are we really going to keep repeating that over and over and over.

What IS an OPINION, is what being a subfaction / suplement actually means in terms of what is worthy of being called an army or having a unique set of datasheets.

This is the circular logic people keep complaining about .... "but they arn't a faction they are subfaction" "so what, does that mean they are any different, their rules and units havent changed" "yes they are different they are subfaction" "how does that make them different" "because they are subfaction"

please.... try to compute that the stereotype and opinion is of what it means to be subfaction or supplement,,,, nowhere does GW or anyone else make a hard rule on what that means, it is only people here deciding that it can only mean what they want it to mean... and the crazy thing is what you guys are deciding it means isn't even inline with what is happening in real life.

Don't care if SW are a faction or subfaction; just want them gone. But I know this will never happen, so I guess its declining matches and snarky comments for me.

SecondTime wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
"the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years"

Should they have gotten that stuff in the first place, though?

Considering SWs were one of the first 5 armies in the game and had more differences from SMs then orks had at the time ... I don't know,,, probably. It would have been nice to have a faction that plays a little differently... especially back then... the fact that they were wearing power armor and so were SMs made very little difference back then,,, everything in the game shared wargear, they just had different rules on how they used them...

But who knows, who am I to decide whether or not one of the original divergent factions in the game deserves to exist or not XD.

This is just all opinion on how to improve the game. GW's just going to try to sell as much stuff as it thinks it can get away with. That means two concurrent marines armies and two books for every marine player. I personally find it very boring that so many matchups have so many meqs on the table now.

I can't argue with your opinion on this and it is a fair concern.
But I rather like that some of these power armor factions are a little more varied then vanilla marines. The fact is, if you remove the other marine armies and make them all one vanilla army, no one is going to throw out their armies, people are still going to play just as many marines,,, at least for a long while ... if you are going to fight marines all the time anyways,,, i think it is better to be playing against marines with some variance ...

Honestly @Type40, the fact that you keep saying "muh opinon" is getting really old.

 Type40 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
"the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years"

Should they have gotten that stuff in the first place, though?

Considering SWs were one of the first 5 armies in the game and had more differences from SMs then orks had at the time ... I don't know,,, probably. It would have been nice to have a faction that plays a little differently... especially back then... the fact that they were wearing power armor and so were SMs made very little difference back then,,, everything in the game shared wargear, they just had different rules on how they used them...

But who knows, who am I to decide whether or not one of the original divergent factions in the game deserves to exist or not XD.

This is just all opinion on how to improve the game. GW's just going to try to sell as much stuff as it thinks it can get away with. That means two concurrent marines armies and two books for every marine player. I personally find it very boring that so many matchups have so many meqs on the table now.

I can't argue with your opinion on this and it is a fair concern.
But I rather like that some of these power armor factions are a little more varied then vanilla marines. The fact is, if you remove the other marine armies and make them all one vanilla army, no one is going to throw out their armies, people are still going to play just as many marines,,, at least for a long while ... if you are going to fight marines all the time anyways,,, i think it is better to be playing against marines with some variance ...

So I can take on a wolf lord with a wolf banner leading wolf guard armed with a wolf blade hailing from the hall of the great wolf? That are just better than other power armor armies because wolf? In a game with absolutely absurd backgrounds, these guys still stand out as shamelessly terrible at every level.

SecondTime wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
"the fact is they have retained everything that has been developed for them over the past 20+ years"

Should they have gotten that stuff in the first place, though?

Considering SWs were one of the first 5 armies in the game and had more differences from SMs then orks had at the time ... I don't know,,, probably. It would have been nice to have a faction that plays a little differently... especially back then... the fact that they were wearing power armor and so were SMs made very little difference back then,,, everything in the game shared wargear, they just had different rules on how they used them...

But who knows, who am I to decide whether or not one of the original divergent factions in the game deserves to exist or not XD.

This is just all opinion on how to improve the game. GW's just going to try to sell as much stuff as it thinks it can get away with. That means two concurrent marines armies and two books for every marine player. I personally find it very boring that so many matchups have so many meqs on the table now.

I can't argue with your opinion on this and it is a fair concern.
But I rather like that some of these power armor factions are a little more varied then vanilla marines. The fact is, if you remove the other marine armies and make them all one vanilla army, no one is going to throw out their armies, people are still going to play just as many marines,,, at least for a long while ... if you are going to fight marines all the time anyways,,, i think it is better to be playing against marines with some variance ...

So I can take on a wolf lord with a wolf banner leading wolf guard armed with a wolf blade hailing from the hall of the great wolf? That are just better than other power armor armies because wolf? In a game with absolutely absurd backgrounds, these guys still stand out as shamelessly terrible.

Thats a good subjective opinion on the lore man... not sure what you want me to say about that XD .

Honestly @Type40, the fact that you keep saying "muh opinon" is getting really old.

So stop making arguments that are, in fact, just your opinion whilst trying to claim that it is an objective fact... that has been getting old since page one of this thread.

"Thats a good subjective opinion on the lore man... not sure what you want me to say about that XD"

Nothing, really. Just pointing out why the debate here confuses me. There's no higher purpose to my opinion. Just the intersection of "I hate Space Wolves" and "the game needs less power armor". It's not a big jump from there to squatting. The only FACTUAL issue is marine oversaturation. We can measure that and experience it to confirm it. Everything else... opinion.

GW missed their chance to write BA out with the Nids as well. Would have given them an epic ending. Instead we get sanguinary guard running around when they are all supposed to be dead. So again, the fluff or lore has no impact on the game.

ps. you know what else is a ridiculous lore wise and seems hilariously silly in terms of lore being represented on the table,

a bunch of elves who are perfect in every way , who have known the art of war for thousands of years, have masters psychic powers, built giant utopias and for some reason they a still a dying race XD ... LOL
But the lore in 40k is ridiculous. and there is a little piece of ridiculous for everyone to enjoy... I enjoy mine in a wolfy viking manor... some enjoy their ridiculous lore in a more Manga Mech way or a more scrapjack mad max way... whether or not the lore is ridiculous has no bearing on whether or not it should exist in the game,,, its all ridiculous.

Except we have done so, only for you to come and say "thats just your opinion".

And using that as a way to dismiss arguments does nothing to help the conversation and prove whatever point youre trying to make.

SecondTime wrote:
"Thats a good subjective opinion on the lore man... not sure what you want me to say about that XD"

Nothing, really. Just pointing out why the debate here confuses me. There's no higher purpose to my opinion. Just the intersection of "I hate Space Wolves" and "the game needs less power armor". It's not a big jump from there to squatting. The only FACTUAL issue is marine oversaturation. We can measure that and experience it to confirm it. Everything else... opinion.

GW missed their chance to write BA out with the Nids as well. Would have given them an epic ending. Instead we get sanguinary guard running around when they are all supposed to be dead. So again, the fluff or lore has no impact on the game.

Yes, agreed.
But whether or not something has gameplay identity is not the same thing as its "fluff" or lore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Except we have done so, only for you to come and say "thats just your opinion".

And using that as a way to dismiss arguments does nothing to help the conversation and prove whatever point youre trying to make.

Ok,,, so what makes a "subfaction" not worthy of unique datasheets compared to a full faction ,,, other then "MAHRINS" , "they don't deserve to be" or "SUBFACTIONs arn't full factions !!!" ?

You actually havn't really answered that ...

 Type40 wrote:
ps. you know what else is a ridiculous lore wise and seems hilariously silly in terms of lore being represented on the table,

a bunch of elves who are perfect in every way , who have known the art of war for thousands of years, have masters psychic powers, built giant utopias and for some reason they a still a dying race XD ... LOL
But the lore in 40k is ridiculous. and there is a little piece of ridiculous for everyone to enjoy... I enjoy mine in a wolfy viking manor... some enjoy their ridiculous lore in a more Manga Mech way or a more scrapjack mad max way... whether or not the lore is ridiculous has no bearing on whether or not it should exist in the game,,, its all ridiculous.

As I said, its an intersection of this problem and power armor saturation. Not all ridiculous is equally ridiculous to me.

 Type40 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Except we have done so, only for you to come and say "thats just your opinion".

And using that as a way to dismiss arguments does nothing to help the conversation and prove whatever point youre trying to make.

Ok,,, so what makes a "subfaction" not worthy of unique datasheets compared to a full faction ,,, other then "MAHRINS" , "they don't deserve to be" or "SUBFACTIONs arn't full factions !!!" ?

You actually havn't really answered that ...

I havn't said theyre not "worthy" of having them. I said that it would give other marine subfactions more options if the datasheet was made more generic and it would give more fluffy options for either GW in the future (drake riding salamanders as a possible model).
Oh, and i'll give a non-marine example so i dont seem to be anti marine, put all carnifexes variants on the same datasheet to reduce clutter.
Also, fact: having less datasheet that represent the same thing means that GW can errata things in a more effective manner in the future.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Except we have done so, only for you to come and say "thats just your opinion".

And using that as a way to dismiss arguments does nothing to help the conversation and prove whatever point youre trying to make.

Ok,,, so what makes a "subfaction" not worthy of unique datasheets compared to a full faction ,,, other then "MAHRINS" , "they don't deserve to be" or "SUBFACTIONs arn't full factions !!!" ?

You actually havn't really answered that ...

I havn't said theyre not "worthy" of having them. I said that it would give other marine subfactions more options if the datasheet was made more generic and it would give more fluffy options for either GW in the future (drake riding salamanders as a possible model).
Oh, and i'll give a non-marine example so i dont seem to be anti marine, put all carnifexes variants on the same datasheet to reduce clutter.
Also, fact: having less datasheet that represent the same thing means that GW can errata things in a more effective manner in the future.

Ok,,,
you are saying that. You ARE saying that SWs do not deserve to have unique units that are entirely theirs. BA don't deserve unique units that are entirely theirs. In the same way that Eldar or Nids have units that are not shared with SMs. You ARE saying that they are not the same thing... You are advocating for a merger. you also don't seem to have a grasp on what unique means...
and again,,, why not roll everything in the game into together... why are you drawing the line at "subfactions." you still arn't answering the question. You still arn't comprehending that you are choosing what should and shouldn't be rolled into together based on a subjective opinion about what does and doesn't constitute as being a unique army... I don't know how else I can explain this to you... You don't seem to be able to grasp that you are drawing up restrictions and customization groups based entirely on your stereotype and subjective opinion of what it means to be a supplement/subfaction...

Alright, mods, can we shut down this thread now? clearly no good conversation is going to come out of it anymore.

Wake up, see a ton of reports, the same circular arguments, yeah this thread is done.