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.

Melissia wrote:The prompt for the first post of this thread was as such:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Would you still collect your chapter if GW do away with all the flavour and make marines just standard primaris, with no TWC, DC, Ravenwing etc.

In other words, no, the what if indicated there wouldn't be Ravenwing, or Death Company, or Thunderwolf Cavalry. There would only be basic Primaris Marines squads. Nothing else. No one gets to use any "generic ravenwing". Just your basic primaris squads. There's no indication they exist in lore any more, either. It would be one thing to say "all chapters get access to a variant of the unique units" and all. That'd be weird, but okay sure why not-- I wouldn't be upset if every chapter got a super-apothecary like the BA do, for example. But removing them entirely? That's just narrowing the game and making it less interesting.

I actually asked OP for more clarity on what was meant. It's still not clear to me what the extent of the question was - is it a lore change, with all those units disappearing from the lore? Is it just those models getting bigger? Is it those units staying in the lore, but with none of their original templates?

I asked, but I've had no clarification. That clarification would make which angle I look at this much more defined.

As I'm reading OP, I'm seeing it as "they still exist in the lore, but the units don't exist in the game". Which, actually, still fine by me, because I'd assume that there'd be suitable replacements for each, if GW was going all-in on Primaris. Things like Gravis armoured melee units, or Suppressor-like units with melee weaponry, or Primaris on fast moving mounts. Each of these can represent the unique specialist formation of the Chapters - gravis melee unit for the Deathwing, flying melee unit for the Sanguinary Guard, and mounted Primaris for White Scars/TWC. If people wanted to convert their guys to look more unique to their chosen Chapter, that's fine too.

You two need to learn how to read before you whine about entitlement in such smug, arrogant manners. It's like some people come here specifically so they can look down on others rather than have productive conversations...

I'm not looking down on anyone. I'm asking questions, to better understand viewpoints - in other words, to facilitate a productive conversation. I want to address the argument of "X Chapter has ALWAYS had this", when that's not always been the case, but also of "X Chapter deserves this, but Y Chapter doesn't".

I've said nothing about someone else being entitled. Please, stop accusing me of things I've not said. For someone who's accusing people of not reading - well, speaks for itself.

bullyboy wrote:Ok, so you want a space marine force that equally has access to black knights, TWC, sanguinary guard, Deathwing knights, and literally every other option in all of the current SM books? Bloat much?
What a ridiculous idea.

It wouldn't be bloated if those units were removed in favour of generic options.

Still don't understand your entitled point. GW has given options for my army and taken away others.

Like... what? What do Blood Angels not have that other Marines do? Dark Angels? Space Wolves?

JNAProductions wrote:I'd argue that they aren't different enough to warrant their own codex, when you've got similar deviations in, say, Orks.

Why do Marines get the biggest codex, three codex deviations (DA, BA, and SW), and two pseudo Marine dexes (GK and DW) whereas, say, Orks only get one codex that's much smaller than the Marine's one? or Guard?.

Exactly. Space Marines, for all their differences, are still largely the same. Even Space Wolves and Raven Guard, two of the most diametrically opposed Chapters, can still fight in largely the same way.
But guardsmen? That simply won't happen - Tanith will not fight in the same way as Mordian Iron Guard, or Cadians as Attilans. But how many unique units to they get?

Crimson wrote:Unique models are cool. Unique rules are often unnecessary though.

This. There's nothing wrong with the really cool and flavourful sculpts that have been made for these Chapters. But do they need special rules? Are they REALLY that different - like, are BA successors the ONLY Chapters who carry flame weapons on their Sergeants, and not Salamanders? Are Dark Angels the only Chapter with - what even IS their in-game uniqueness anyways??

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Well, you just described Index Imperium 1, which was a great way to reset the armies at the dawn of 8th Edition.

40k is best, IMO, with the "get-you -by" army lists - 2nd edition with the "black book", 3rd with the army lists in the back of the rulebook, 8th with the Indexes. :0

The Chapters that have their own books have a number of characteristics that warrant their having their own books. First, they are non-Codex compliant and have their own unique structures. Second, they have distinct play styles derived from structure, stratagems, characters, relics and chapter tactics. Thirdly, they have enough established lore along with continued development to make their book compelling for the person collecting the army. I recognize that not everybody finds the Dark Angels compelling. That's cool. We might like different music as well. Ultimately its up to the market to drive GW's decision-making on separate books/models. It would seem that the demand is there. While there is an opportunity cost, I'm not sure how it hurts other people that the Dark Angels have their own book. You don't need to buy it if you don't want to, and what is the Dark Angel's book preventing?

Dark Angels and Blood Angels are codex-compliant in nearly every way. The Blood Angels' only variation is the Death Company, and the Dark Angels' is the Ravenwing, but you don't need a whole different set of datasheets to field an army of bikes and land speeders - you just take a Vanguard detachment.

That's why i think the rules aren't needed. As I said, you can do the Space Wolves with a page of rules and a couple of datasheets, so any other Chapter needs even less. Most of the differences are in heraldry (nothing to do with rules) and doctrines and strategies (which the player can do themself without needing a whole different book).

Granted, the can is open and there's worms all over the floor ever since 2nd edition, so I don't think we'll ever go back, sadly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

JNAProductions wrote:I'd argue that they aren't different enough to warrant their own codex, when you've got similar deviations in, say, Orks.

Why do Marines get the biggest codex, three codex deviations (DA, BA, and SW), and two pseudo Marine dexes (GK and DW) whereas, say, Orks only get one codex that's much smaller than the Marine's one? or Guard?.

Exactly. Space Marines, for all their differences, are still largely the same. Even Space Wolves and Raven Guard, two of the most diametrically opposed Chapters, can still fight in largely the same way.
But guardsmen? That simply won't happen - Tanith will not fight in the same way as Mordian Iron Guard, or Cadians as Attilans. But how many unique units to they get?

Forge World did four different alternative Imperial guard army lists for 5th - 7th editions; Drop Troops, Siege and Armoured regiments and the Assault brigade list. granted, the Drop Troops list was described as "Elysian" and the Siege and Assault Brigade lists were described as "Death Korps", but there was nothing stopping you using the Drop Troops list to represent Harakoni Warhawks or even a Catachan airborne light infantry force. It'd be nice to see those updated (well, no need for the Armoured Regiment, but the others would be nice). If I were getting my way, I'd like to see any Guard regiment-specific lists be promoted as representing a type of regiment, not a single recruiting world. After all, Cadia, Mordian, Tallarn and Catachan and most others besides have raised various different regiments (Tallarn have raised light infantry, rough rider, armoured, artillery and superheavy armoured regiments for example). Tanith was an exception, but that's because it was destroyed during the raising of its very first regiment.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Apparently this slightly off tangent conversation is upsetting some of the posters so I made a new thread to continue it if you so wish

It's more accurate to say that your dishonest strawman and smug arrogance as you proclaim everyone else to be worse than you is annoying people.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I've said nothing about someone else being entitled.

Apparently you can't even read yout own posts. I quote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Back to Entitlement

Exactly.

So yes, you are calling people entitled because they don't want the flavorful aspects of their army removed entirely. Stop lying.

The argument that "you lose nothing because they're still in the lore" pretty much falls flat on their face, as well. My army would be entirely unplayable with primaris marines. They don't have terminators-- and terminators aren't even a unique aspect of Blood Angels, yet they'd still be lost if I was forced to only play Primaris. Aggressors aren't terminators, either. They can't even equip hammer and shield-- there's no assault variant, and they have no customization options for the tactical variant, making us lose the one per squad special weapon those squads have. I would be completely unable to just sit my models on the table and pretend they're some variant on Primaris Marines, and my models don't even use anything unique to Blood Angels in how the list is built.

I would have to completely start my army over, at which point, why would I bother?

That's something that all Space Marine chapters have access to, that they would lose if all non-Primaris were removed. Same with so many Captain customization options as well. It's not just the deviant chapters like BA or SW that would lose flavor and customization options, and pretending it's only them both demonstrates ignorance and also does a massive disservice to the Space Marine line.

To be fair, I missed the line about "if you only had Primaris marines" in the OP - that'd be a step too far. I still don't think you need separate Codexes for three different Chapters like we do at the moment, though.

I personaly don't care if you combine all Marines as long as we don't lose any customization options. Even if you generic-ify the chapter-unique options (say, if you give a "Death Seekers" upgrade option for Vanguard Veterans, for example, that lets you play them similarly to Death Company), as long as we can still use them, I'm fine with it.

I could see the outlier chapters rolled into one book (we had Angels of Death before), so in addition to Codex Space Marines, you'd have a second codex with DA, BA and SW in it. I would be fine with that if it's needed to cut down bloat, but I still want unique units for my chosen force and don't mind that this means I don't have access to other units. I just can't see all of them in one codex without some serious cutting of units, and I'm not cool with that.
If anyone thinks that 40K is not about Space Marines, you're probably wrong. There's a reason why it's the flagship of the franchise. This might leave Xenos players a little butthurt because they don't have their separate faction codexes (I play Eldar and I'm fine with no separate codex for Iyanden, it's nice that we actually get traits), but the game evolves around marines....it probably always will.

40k is about Space Marines, and also about non-Space Marines. I would prefer rather than we cut Space Marines that we expand everything else, instead.

 Melissia wrote:
40k is about Space Marines, and also about non-Space Marines. I would prefer rather than we cut Space Marines that we expand everything else, instead.

B-b-but if they do that for 3-4 factions they need to do it for EVERYBODY! Thats how the world works! Or everybody receives the exact same treatment or NOBODY DOES! And as its impossible for everybody to receive the same dept, then nobody should have it.
Fething miniature communists.

 Galas wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
40k is about Space Marines, and also about non-Space Marines. I would prefer rather than we cut Space Marines that we expand everything else, instead.

B-b-but if they do that for 3-4 factions they need to do it for EVERYBODY! Thats how the world works! Or everybody receives the exact same treatment or NOBODY DOES! And as its impossible for everybody to receive the same dept, then nobody should have it.
Fething miniature communists.

It is always funny to me that whenever this argument tends to get made, it's USUALLY the person who is getting something special that everyone else doesn't get...

"well wait, but if we give the special thing that currently I only get to someone else, then EVERYONE will want it!"

 Galas wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
40k is about Space Marines, and also about non-Space Marines. I would prefer rather than we cut Space Marines that we expand everything else, instead.

B-b-but if they do that for 3-4 factions they need to do it for EVERYBODY! Thats how the world works! Or everybody receives the exact same treatment or NOBODY DOES! And as its impossible for everybody to receive the same dept, then nobody should have it.
Fething miniature communists.

It IS kinda like that though.

Neither the Angels deviate enough like Space Wolves that you can't consolidate them. Simple as that. Ravenwing Bikers are just Bikers. Standard Deathwing Terminators are, well, just Terminators with access to a Plasma Cannon and that's it (you can't expect me to believe you mix and match everything you can just because you have the option to). Baal Predators simply have access to a TL Assault Cannon (and there's always the FW one that gives you the Flamestorm, making the Heavy Flamer option kinda unnecessary).

Today's generation don't care about background or flavour. So I doubt it would phase them at all.
So long as they have codex creep and a meta.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
40k is about Space Marines, and also about non-Space Marines. I would prefer rather than we cut Space Marines that we expand everything else, instead.

B-b-but if they do that for 3-4 factions they need to do it for EVERYBODY! Thats how the world works! Or everybody receives the exact same treatment or NOBODY DOES! And as its impossible for everybody to receive the same dept, then nobody should have it.
Fething miniature communists.

It IS kinda like that though.

Neither the Angels deviate enough like Space Wolves that you can't consolidate them. Simple as that. Ravenwing Bikers are just Bikers. Standard Deathwing Terminators are, well, just Terminators with access to a Plasma Cannon and that's it (you can't expect me to believe you mix and match everything you can just because you have the option to). Baal Predators simply have access to a TL Assault Cannon (and there's always the FW one that gives you the Flamestorm, making the Heavy Flamer option kinda unnecessary).

Amazing how you use Ravenwing Bikers and Deathwing terminators to try and reinforce your point while completely ignoring the more glaring Black Knights and Deathwing Knights. Good job!

the_scotsman wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
40k is about Space Marines, and also about non-Space Marines. I would prefer rather than we cut Space Marines that we expand everything else, instead.

B-b-but if they do that for 3-4 factions they need to do it for EVERYBODY! Thats how the world works! Or everybody receives the exact same treatment or NOBODY DOES! And as its impossible for everybody to receive the same dept, then nobody should have it.
Fething miniature communists.

It is always funny to me that whenever this argument tends to get made, it's USUALLY the person who is getting something special that everyone else doesn't get...

"well wait, but if we give the special thing that currently I only get to someone else, then EVERYONE will want it!"

I'm actually in favour of both opening all specialized options as generic options for all chapters and then making new cool models like the Iron Hand or Salamander special terminator units.
But I also realice that someone is gonna get cut because thats just how this works. So for example If I have to chose between ttwo options:
1)- Theres only one Imperial Guard/Orks/Tau Septs book because is impossible to give codex and miniature ranges to every subfaction.
2)- A couple of factions are expanded upon with rules that deviate enough from the base codex (Farsight Enclaves, Tau Auxiliaries, Freebotaz, Speed Freekz, Catachan, Tempestus Scions, for example) and with new and interesting miniature ranges (Because no models=no rules and every box=new and unique rules).

I would chose 2, because I prefer MORE options than less options.
The "But if GW has that many codex then they will take much longer to add things to older factions!" argument isn't one, to begin with. GW has chose to add a ton of mini factions and many other games to their roster and support them.
And lets be honest. Did we really receive more things to our factions in the 2003-2014 period where GW abandoned everything but 40k (Because Fantasy was mostly cold dead before End Times, they abandoned LOTR and closed Specialist Games) and we had 2-3 Codex a year?
At the end of the day, the amount of content factions will receive has nothing to do with the number of factions (If somebody in this industry has the capacity to give attention to everybody is GW) but with how interested GW is in doing it.


At the end of the day the push for putting all Space Marines in the same codex is not a movement born of critical analisis in how GW works, but in an idea that if GW would to do that they would then put more work in "neglected" factions when they are allready doing that.
Some people arguee that this is something born of a "balance desire" but thats just nonsense, you can balance 4 books that are nearly the same as easy as one big book with subfaction rules and a couple special characters.
And, I'll repeat, I don't oppose to opening all specialized options as generic options (Even something like Thunderwofl Cavalry can be made Xeno Cavalry or something like that for things like Salamanders riding giant lizards or any kind of successor chapter people can come with). Actually thats something I have always wanted, and also for special characters.

But I don't specially emphatize with people that ask for the toys of others kid to be put away so they can have some too (Or just because they don't like them even if their existence doesn't affect them in the slightest), instead of just aking for their own toys.

the_scotsman wrote:
It is always funny to me that whenever this argument tends to get made, it's USUALLY the person who is getting something special that everyone else doesn't get...

Heh. I remember making the argument "we should expand all factions not just marine factions" a decade ago. Pretty sure I made it on Dakka, too. Back then, I didn't play Marines, now I do... and my own argument remains the same.

ValentineGames wrote:
Today's generation

Ah uh. No. None of that. Shame on you.

ValentineGames wrote:
Today's generation don't care about background or flavour. So I doubt it would phase them at all.
So long as they have codex creep and a meta.

You know, speaking as someone who actually doesn't care overmuch about the background (though I know plenty of people who do, so your statement falls flat) I DON'T want Codex Creep. I want the game to be balanced, as best possible.

Also, do you know what a meta is? Because it doesn't matter whether you're a cut-throat tournament player or a casual garage-hammer guy, there's a meta. The meta is just what people tend to bring to the games. Now, the tournament meta can be more defined, since it's more recorded and has everyone trying to win as best they can, but a casual store or gaming club still has a meta.

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
40k is about Space Marines, and also about non-Space Marines. I would prefer rather than we cut Space Marines that we expand everything else, instead.

B-b-but if they do that for 3-4 factions they need to do it for EVERYBODY! Thats how the world works! Or everybody receives the exact same treatment or NOBODY DOES! And as its impossible for everybody to receive the same dept, then nobody should have it.
Fething miniature communists.

It IS kinda like that though.

Neither the Angels deviate enough like Space Wolves that you can't consolidate them. Simple as that. Ravenwing Bikers are just Bikers. Standard Deathwing Terminators are, well, just Terminators with access to a Plasma Cannon and that's it (you can't expect me to believe you mix and match everything you can just because you have the option to). Baal Predators simply have access to a TL Assault Cannon (and there's always the FW one that gives you the Flamestorm, making the Heavy Flamer option kinda unnecessary).

Amazing how you use Ravenwing Bikers and Deathwing terminators to try and reinforce your point while completely ignoring the more glaring Black Knights and Deathwing Knights. Good job!

It does reinforce my point though that most of these "special" units can be tossed, and you can just keep maybe a few. I mean, in a consolidated codex, I'd be for keeping the Knights, the funky Land Speeder, and the Deathwing Champ/Flag Bearer, but that's it.

I would absolutely still play, and I would still have the same lore, and same flavour. While I enjoy 8th, the power creep and absurdity of stratagems in certain situations reduces the fun rather than enhancing it. It was a good idea that quickly became completely over-the-top.

However, I will say that 40K could use a bit more crunch if you remove the traits/stratagems etc. A good game is a good game (something 40K has rarely been).

In fairness GW IS giving the subfaction codex treatment to others, Chaos Space Marines. so it';s being done more now so well we could see it done otherwise. thing is to get a subfaction codex you need a few things..

1: sufficantly deep subfaction lore to support new and differant models. 1K sons and Death guard for example both had this, they're fairly radically differant in orginization from say, Black Legion that they could support new stuff.
2: an existing fanbase. People need to be excited eneugh by the release to buy into it. yet again 1K sons and death guard had this. they seem to be some of the most popular traitor legions so they've clearly got that fanbase.
3: this might be perhaps best left as 1a but something that will make their new line stand out visually from their parent faction. be it new units or simply varient looks (such as robes , sculpted chest pieces or totems)
4: and least important, the army should have something that can make it's play style distinct from the parent codex the 3 marine varients where initally subtly differnt, but this has extended a fair bit now. but yeah if the army is going to play exactly the same, no reason to be a codex


so looking at these qualifications, the real question is ask is "are there any obvious canidates for a subfaction codex already out there?"

I can think of a few. ignoring Eldar corsairs whom have a forge world list, I think Orks could proably manage a Feebootaz codex, Catachans could possiably manage their own codex and be really fun in the process (a close assault guard army would be amazingly fun)

but not even space marine armies are destined to succeed. Black Templars for example. It's no suprise that the long lasting SM codices are all first founding chapters

Melissia wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I've said nothing about someone else being entitled.

Apparently you can't even read yout own posts.

I wrote them. I know the context. If you want to take that out of context (like below), that's not on me.

I quote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Back to Entitlement

Exactly.

So yes, you are calling people entitled because they don't want the flavorful aspects of their army removed entirely. Stop lying.

Selective editing much?
Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I apologise for any confusion, but I'm not agreeing with anything about "entitlement" - I'm agreeing with the rest of the point, that being "why should X Chapter get special unique rules and the other unique Chapters not?".
Hope that clears things up, instead of selectively choosing the context of what I've written.

The argument that "you lose nothing because they're still in the lore" pretty much falls flat on their face, as well. My army would be entirely unplayable with primaris marines. They don't have terminators-- and terminators aren't even a unique aspect of Blood Angels, yet they'd still be lost if I was forced to only play Primaris. Aggressors aren't terminators, either. They can't even equip hammer and shield-- there's no assault variant, and they have no customization options for the tactical variant, making us lose the one per squad special weapon those squads have. I would be completely unable to just sit my models on the table and pretend they're some variant on Primaris Marines, and my models don't even use anything unique to Blood Angels in how the list is built.

I would have to completely start my army over, at which point, why would I bother?

That's something that all Space Marine chapters have access to, that they would lose if all non-Primaris were removed. Same with so many Captain customization options as well. It's not just the deviant chapters like BA or SW that would lose flavor and customization options, and pretending it's only them both demonstrates ignorance and also does a massive disservice to the Space Marine line.

Which is why I asked OP for what exactly they mean by their post. Are those units gone, but their parent unit remains? Do those units still exist in the lore? Are there Primaris versions of the parent units? You're running on the assumption that "the unique units are gone, their parent units are gone, there's only Primaris!" - I'm running on the assumption that either those units are gone, but their parent units (ie, Terminators, Vanguard, etc etc) are still around, or alternatively, the units exist in lore, and the lore has moved on to reflect the Primaris units. So, for instance, Deathwing not getting Terminators, but now wear Gravis Armour, or Death Company now being based off of Reivers. The unit still exist, the lore exists - so that's the flavour still there. If it comes down to in-game flavour, why shouldn't other Chapters get the same units to pick from, and be fair to them all?

What's the difference, fundamentally, between Gravis Armour and Terminator Armour? Assuming weapon options are allowed to cross over, which is logical, why can't Deathwing wear Gravis Armour? Why couldn't Sanguinary Guard be Inceptors carrying Glaive Encarmines? Why couldn't Death Company be normal Primaris units with a different paintjob and stratagem - of course, still allowing the increased weapon variety.

If we can assume that GW have removed all of this, why can't we also assume that the Primaris range wouldn't be expanded to accommodate the vacuum?
I think that an argument of "GW will take all the unique units and we'll only have the current Primaris stuff!" is just as valid as an argument saying "GW will take the unique units, but replace them with an expanded Primaris line".

Again, I think a lot of this is people working off of different interpretations of what would happen.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I apologise for any confusion, but I'm not agreeing with anything about "entitlement"

There's no "giving me the benefit of the doubt", you responded to him calling people who disagreed with him "entitled" by saying "exactly" with no disagreement on the "entitled" part. Therefor, regardless of intent, in actual fact you were calling people entitled over it. And "selective editing" has nothing to do with it. I cut the post down because it was a pointlessly large quote pyramid and I'm not a rude person who spams threads with pointlessly large quote pyramids. In context, your post said the same thing as the cut-down version.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You're running on the assumption that "the unique units are gone, their parent units are gone, there's only Primaris!"

Because that is the scenario placed in the first post. Perhaps you should read that post. Here, I'll quote it for you:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Would you still collect your chapter if GW do away with all the flavour and make marines just standard primaris, with no TWC, DC, Ravenwing etc.

Exact words: "Just standard Primaris".

Take away all of those things, and use ONLY Primaris units, adding nothing new ("just standard") to replace what was lost.

My reading of it is not an "assumption", it's the literal meaning of his post. This entire thread you have not been answering the original post, but some idea in your head which you wanted to talk about that was entirely off topic from the original post.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Would you still collect your chapter if GW do away with all the flavour and make marines just standard primaris, with no TWC, DC, Ravenwing etc.

Nope.

 Melissia wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I apologise for any confusion, but I'm not agreeing with anything about "entitlement"

There's no "giving me the benefit of the doubt", you responded to him calling people who disagreed with him "entitled" by saying "exactly" with no disagreement on the "entitled" part.

Which was not my intent. I agreed with the rest of the comment, however, and didn't bother editing the tiny fragment I didn't really care about.

As said above, my apologies for the confusion.

Therefor, regardless of intent, in actual fact you were calling people entitled over it.

And I rescinded that. Time to move on.

And "selective editing" has nothing to do with it. I cut the post down because it was a pointlessly large quote pyramid and I'm not a rude person who spams threads with pointlessly large quote pyramids. In context, your post said the same thing as the cut-down version.

No, you took a tiny portion of my actual text, and assumed that your reduction of my post was still accurate. It wasn't.
Also, you're calling the fact that I do my best to retain as much context as possible "rude"? Also, "spamming"? As far as I'm concerned, I've not spammed this thread at all. Of course, seeing as spamming is discouraged by Dakka, I'm sure a moderator would have called me out of my "spamming" if it was a problem.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You're running on the assumption that "the unique units are gone, their parent units are gone, there's only Primaris!"

Because that is the scenario placed in the first post. Perhaps you should read that post. Here, I'll quote it for you:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Would you still collect your chapter if GW do away with all the flavour and make marines just standard primaris, with no TWC, DC, Ravenwing etc.

Exact words: "Just standard Primaris".

Take away all of those things, and use ONLY Primaris units, adding nothing new ("just standard") to replace what was lost.

My reading of it is not an "assumption", it's the literal meaning of his post. This entire thread you have not been answering the original post, but some idea in your head which you wanted to talk about that was entirely off topic from the original post.

I have asked for extra clarification from the OP about EXACTLY what this means. I want to know every detail, because I don't feel the information I'm given is enough.

The OP may imply that the only flavour of a Chapter comes from sooper speshul unique units, and not from their wealth of lore or background. I disagree with that, and so already, just on the first section, there's a difference in interpretation. I want to know what parameters the OP is working with here so I can answer the question better.
"doing away with all the flavour" and "make marines just standard primaris" are not mutually exclusive. You can have armies featuring non-Primaris having no flavour (by the lore being stripped away), or all Primaris lists with a ton of flavour (say, moving Deathwing to Gravis Armour). That's a second point of uncertainty I want clarification on.
"Standard Primaris" means what exactly? You seem to think it means "adding nothing new", but that's never mentioned at all. "Standard Primaris" could just mean Primaris units but no Chapter specific units, a standard selection - that doesn't mean we can't have more non-specific Primaris. Again, it very much depends on how you read it. Your idea of standard Primaris I wouldn't like, but *my* interpretation of standard Primaris I would.

This is what I mean by answering the OP - it relies too much on anti-Primaris language and assuming that flavour and standard units are mutually exclusive, that if you approach it from a different opinion, it becomes incredibly confusing. I'm just asking for clarification. No need to be rude about it, and assume I'm being off topic. I'm asking questions about the topic itself, which is fully on-topic.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
As a Dark Angels player, not a chance. The Deathwing/Ravenwing flavours make the army.

Back to Entitlement

You don't loose flavour - Flavour is nothing to do with rules.

- you don't loose rules - others gain them

Why exactly do a few snowflake Chapters, in this case YOUR special snowflake Chapter need these special rules and the other 990+ (including other First Founding Chapters) don't.

Hmm. I remember distinctly the Black Templar land raider crusader having a troop capacity of 20, not to mention other interesting rules.

Then everyone could have it and they were like "whoops, can't let all these other chapters have a 20 cap transport" and boom, the vehicle completely lost its purpose, in addition to the excuse for its otherwise stupidly​ weak sponsons which are only there to free up internal space...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
ersion.No, you took a tiny portion of my actual text, and assumed that your reduction of my post was still accurate. It wasn't.

It was, because there's no meaningful difference between the shortened quote and the ultralong spammy multi-tiered quote which took up six or seven times the space.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is what I mean by answering the OP - it relies too much on anti-Primaris language and assuming that flavour and standard units are mutually exclusive

So your argument is that a "standard primaris unit" is one that does not currently actually exist.

That's a very peculiar definition. If I walked up to the average player and started talking about making an army out of "just standard primaris" units, you think I'd be talking about primaris units that are purely theoretical, not the primaris units that already exist? I call bullgak. You're lying.

Melissia wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
ersion.No, you took a tiny portion of my actual text, and assumed that your reduction of my post was still accurate. It wasn't.

It was, because there's no meaningful difference between the shortened quote and the ultralong spammy multi-tiered quote which took up six or seven times the space.

The fact we're having this discussion says otherwise.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is what I mean by answering the OP - it relies too much on anti-Primaris language and assuming that flavour and standard units are mutually exclusive

So your argument is that a "standard primaris unit" is one that does not currently actually exist.

That's a very peculiar definition. If I walked up to the average player and started talking about making an army out of "just standard primaris" units, you think I'd be talking about primaris units that are purely theoretical, not the primaris units that already exist? I call bullgak. You're lying.

Keep making assumptions, but sure: you know how I think better than I do, don't you. Have we finished?

Honestly? Yeah, we are done. You're not being honest in this thread, and not making arguments in good faith. You're assuming a phrase like "just standard primaris" means "not actually just standard primaris, but also other primaris that don't currently exist" and acting like people who read "just standard primaris" as "just standard primaris" are the ones making assumptions.

LoftyS wrote:
Hmm. I remember distinctly the Black Templar land raider crusader having a troop capacity of 20, not to mention other interesting rules.

Then everyone could have it and they were like "whoops, can't let all these other chapters have a 20 cap transport" and boom, the vehicle completely lost its purpose, in addition to the excuse for its otherwise stupidly​ weak sponsons which are only there to free up internal space...

Most of these rules "advantages" for BT were the result of GW not updating codices for entire editions at a time. They weren't deliberate design choices for BT, they were the result of everyone else playing 5th edition while the BT rules were still 4th edition. The only "loss" was finally updating BT to current rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

LoftyS wrote:
Hmm. I remember distinctly the Black Templar land raider crusader having a troop capacity of 20, not to mention other interesting rules.

Then everyone could have it and they were like "whoops, can't let all these other chapters have a 20 cap transport" and boom, the vehicle completely lost its purpose, in addition to the excuse for its otherwise stupidly​ weak sponsons which are only there to free up internal space...

Most of these rules "advantages" for BT were the result of GW not updating codices for entire editions at a time. They weren't deliberate design choices for BT, they were the result of everyone else playing 5th edition while the BT rules were still 4th edition. The only "loss" was finally updating BT to current rules.

Which I'd like to think is a good reason for merging books and unit entries - that way, everyone is working from the same datasheets, in the same book, for factions which are largely the same. I'd expect the same from most factions.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LoftyS wrote:
Hmm. I remember distinctly the Black Templar land raider crusader having a troop capacity of 20, not to mention other interesting rules.

Then everyone could have it and they were like "whoops, can't let all these other chapters have a 20 cap transport" and boom, the vehicle completely lost its purpose, in addition to the excuse for its otherwise stupidly​ weak sponsons which are only there to free up internal space...

Most of these rules "advantages" for BT were the result of GW not updating codices for entire editions at a time. They weren't deliberate design choices for BT, they were the result of everyone else playing 5th edition while the BT rules were still 4th edition. The only "loss" was finally updating BT to current rules.

Which I'd like to think is a good reason for merging books and unit entries - that way, everyone is working from the same datasheets, in the same book, for factions which are largely the same. I'd expect the same from most factions.

That's how you get the current mess where BT can't play like they're supposed to because the rest of the book is shooting-centric.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LoftyS wrote:
Hmm. I remember distinctly the Black Templar land raider crusader having a troop capacity of 20, not to mention other interesting rules.

Then everyone could have it and they were like "whoops, can't let all these other chapters have a 20 cap transport" and boom, the vehicle completely lost its purpose, in addition to the excuse for its otherwise stupidly​ weak sponsons which are only there to free up internal space...

Most of these rules "advantages" for BT were the result of GW not updating codices for entire editions at a time. They weren't deliberate design choices for BT, they were the result of everyone else playing 5th edition while the BT rules were still 4th edition. The only "loss" was finally updating BT to current rules.

Which I'd like to think is a good reason for merging books and unit entries - that way, everyone is working from the same datasheets, in the same book, for factions which are largely the same. I'd expect the same from most factions.

That's how you get the current mess where BT can't play like they're supposed to because the rest of the book is shooting-centric.

Which is why I think BT should get more melee focus from their Chapter Tactic, unique Crusader Squads, and relic access. Aside from that, what are you missing? Sword Brethren work as both Vanguard and Terminators, which are vanilla units. In fact, they're the perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Sword Brethren are the Black Templar elite terminator force, just like how Deathwing are the Dark Angels elite terminator force, just like how the Firedrakes are the elite Salamander terminator force, and so on. They should all share a profile, and the differences come from their different Chapters (which may confer extra rules in the Chapter's Doctrine rules).