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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

It is entirely possible to do what you are describing in a workable manner. I just don't trust GW to do it, and thus would rather they left people's armies alone.

Why not? You trust the messed up system they already have in place. They've already messed with numerous other people's armies (including two of mine in the past, Chaos Marines and Black Templars), and they will do so again. In fact, they mess with every army whenever they release a new index or codex.

 Mr Morden wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Morden,

Spoiler:

Do you think that GW would keep putting resources into things that were not profitable? Dark Angels, Blood Angels and a space Wolves appear to have enough enduring distinctiveness and popularity to warrant their continued support as their own "factions." At the end of the day, I think what the community wants is more important than what one individual wants.

Do you think that a Codex Iron Hands would be distinct enough from the Space Marines Codex and popular enough to be successful? Go write one. Pitch it to GW. What we are seeing now is White Dwarf treatment of other Chapters - that is awesome.

The additional Marine codexes do use resources that I suppose could be devoted to make an additional Eldar or Tyranid Codex, or perhaps a whole new faction. I argue that the return on investment for the DA, BA and SW is better. It's not the same level of effort as a new force, and there is a good market for the modest investment for a DA Codex and line. The DA have a different structure that give three baseline army styles and a number of distinct units for a modest number of unique sculpts and boxes.

We have had a slew of Codexes since 8th dropped. The distinct Marine codexes do not seem to have stopped the other factions getting their due. Look at the rich GSC Codex and line. Vigilus shows that GW is spreading some love around to the various factions and indeed Chapters.

Cheers

And we have heard nothing but constant complaints from Marine players since the start of 8th edition.

My (insert sub faction) Marine dex is not out yet,
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex is out but too weak,
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex is after another faction when the other half dozen Marine dexes are alreayd out.
My (insert sub faction) Marine dex only gets X models (when other factions get none is a particular gem)

How exactly do you argue that the investment is better if its Never been tested? what kind of logic is that?

Now we are finally getting other Main factions releases - but ony after a river of the same old Marine dexes, clogging up the schedule with a few minor rules variants.

How many new or non Marine sub faction Dexes have been given a chance - none.

Your first five lines don't really add anything to the discussion. So what if people complained? Was I complaining? What does that have to do with my post? One of the loudest and most persistent Marine complainers is on your side of this debate for what its worth.

Regarding the return on investment, the Dark Angels Codex could take advantage of the baseline work already done on the Space Marines Codex. The Dark Angels model line already exists. It has an established player base. A new faction book would need much greater development costs across the board. The risk with a new faction would also be much greater. GW could look at sales for Dark Angels Codexes and units over the last two editions as a guide. They would not be able to do that with a new faction book.

What order should the Codexes have come out in? Arguable for sure. Some of the earlier ones might have actually wanted to be later!

Consolidate... as in sharing the same basic codex framework, plugging in DA/SW/BA rules into the Chapter Tactics system? -No. I think there are enough distinctions that you would end up with some confusion or severe watering down.

Compile all the rules into a super sized codex that simply removes the redundant unit entries... I think so. It's just very unlikely.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
At the risk of fething over everyone who plays a variant army.

What's fethed over via consolidation that I haven't already tackled? You for sure already lost the Black Templar argument.

You never adressed the loss of design space argument. Having a dedicated Codex to a specific subfaction with a specific playstyle means you can make that playstyle more coherent without having to worry about what knockoff effects it will have on other subfactions. I'm not opposed to adding a bunch of options to the Vanilla Codex (most blatantly the wargear options, but also stuff like specialist Terminators and Jump Pack Honour Guard and the like) but the advantage of having separate books is that you can make them more divergent in order to promote a different playstyle in a way that you're not going to replicate with just Chapter Tactics.

Using the Black Templars 4th edition Codex as an example, just porting over Righteous Zeal and the Vows as Chapter Tactic to a Vanilla Codex would make that Chapter Tactic massive compared to all the others, so what happens in practice is that the stuff you're porting gets cut down, because you now need to squeeze it in with a bunch of other stuff.

It is entirely possible to do what you are describing in a workable manner. I just don't trust GW to do it, and thus would rather they left people's armies alone.

Also, not agreeing with someone isn't the same as winning an argument.

EDIT: And successor Chapters is easily solvable by GW simply letting successors use the same stuff as the primogenitor Chapter, the way pretty much everyone (that I know of at least) already plays the game.

Design space applies to units. That's why it's silly to have the Dark Angel's fliers when they're functionally the exact same as the Stormhawk and Stormtalon.

In terms of combat style, nobody is actually that divergent to the Codex outside Space Wolves, and honestly it's impossible to argue otherwise. That's why a simple 3-4 SUPER specialized units or models + whatever Special Characters are all that's necessary to tackle whatever divergence exists.

Also you're still wrong about the "size" of a Chapter Tactic for Black Templars being an issue. Look at ones like the Dark Angels got, or White Scars, or even look to other outside armies like the hotblooded Sisters or Deathskulls or The Hivecult or Bladed Cog.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Consolidate... as in sharing the same basic codex framework, plugging in DA/SW/BA rules into the Chapter Tactics system? -No. I think there are enough distinctions that you would end up with some confusion or severe watering down.

Compile all the rules into a super sized codex that simply removes the redundant unit entries... I think so. It's just very unlikely.

If GW went for a digital version of that it could work. A physical book, even cutting out duplicate units would be the size of a text book between characters, background, model and paint examples and rules. I don't know off had how many pages it would be but considering the standard marine codex is already over 200 pages, adding in the rest would probably at least double that. I don't really want to lug around a 400 to 500 page book for a bunch of units and armies I don't play.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
At the risk of fething over everyone who plays a variant army.

What's fethed over via consolidation that I haven't already tackled? You for sure already lost the Black Templar argument.

You never adressed the loss of design space argument. Having a dedicated Codex to a specific subfaction with a specific playstyle means you can make that playstyle more coherent without having to worry about what knockoff effects it will have on other subfactions. I'm not opposed to adding a bunch of options to the Vanilla Codex (most blatantly the wargear options, but also stuff like specialist Terminators and Jump Pack Honour Guard and the like) but the advantage of having separate books is that you can make them more divergent in order to promote a different playstyle in a way that you're not going to replicate with just Chapter Tactics.

Using the Black Templars 4th edition Codex as an example, just porting over Righteous Zeal and the Vows as Chapter Tactic to a Vanilla Codex would make that Chapter Tactic massive compared to all the others, so what happens in practice is that the stuff you're porting gets cut down, because you now need to squeeze it in with a bunch of other stuff.

It is entirely possible to do what you are describing in a workable manner. I just don't trust GW to do it, and thus would rather they left people's armies alone.

Also, not agreeing with someone isn't the same as winning an argument.

EDIT: And successor Chapters is easily solvable by GW simply letting successors use the same stuff as the primogenitor Chapter, the way pretty much everyone (that I know of at least) already plays the game.

Design space applies to units. That's why it's silly to have the Dark Angel's fliers when they're functionally the exact same as the Stormhawk and Stormtalon.

In terms of combat style, nobody is actually that divergent to the Codex outside Space Wolves, and honestly it's impossible to argue otherwise. That's why a simple 3-4 SUPER specialized units or models + whatever Special Characters are all that's necessary to tackle whatever divergence exists.

Also you're still wrong about the "size" of a Chapter Tactic for Black Templars being an issue. Look at ones like the Dark Angels got, or White Scars, or even look to other outside armies like the hotblooded Sisters or Deathskulls or The Hivecult or Bladed Cog.

By that logic why does any Imperium faction have its own unique flyers? Everyone should only ever use Stormhawk/talons since they already fill the required role on the battle field

PS. You do realize for the Dark Angels, outside of characters, they only need five kits to field 17/19 of the unique models and accompanying datasheets in the codex. With the other two being an Interrogator chaplin and a chapter banner bearer (which are pretty much equivalent to just getting a model for a named character in terms of resources). So unless you want one kit to provide those 3 to 4 unit options, I dont see what gains you expect will happen, Or are you arguing that GW should just straight up remove portions of these five kits, so they cant make as many different options, but still invest the resources into having these four DA kits, just lite versions with less options and customization?

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Consolidate... as in sharing the same basic codex framework, plugging in DA/SW/BA rules into the Chapter Tactics system? -No. I think there are enough distinctions that you would end up with some confusion or severe watering down.

Compile all the rules into a super sized codex that simply removes the redundant unit entries... I think so. It's just very unlikely.

If GW went for a digital version of that it could work. A physical book, even cutting out duplicate units would be the size of a text book between characters, background, model and paint examples and rules. I don't know off had how many pages it would be but considering the standard marine codex is already over 200 pages, adding in the rest would probably at least double that. I don't really want to lug around a 400 to 500 page book for a bunch of units and armies I don't play.

I imagine it'd be like having a second core rule book.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We should scrap Tau. They're just another shooty army anyway. Fire Warriors are Guardians, Battle Suits are Wraithguard, Stormsurges are Wraithknights and we'll get rid of Riptides because they're just silly and won't be missed. Hammerheads are Fire Prisms, Devilfishes are Wave Serpents, Broadside Battlesuits are Wraithlords. Ethereals are Farseers, Fireblades are Autarchs, and so on and so forth.

Tau are a nonentity competetively compared to Eldar anyway, so I'm sure all the Tau players would enjoy their new options.

This just about sums up my opinion aswell.

The irony is, you'd think players were sick of having parts of their army squatted.
On this thread there are players asking for more squatting......... naturally for armies they do not have though lol.







As for multi meltas, I will state (and clearly state) piss off.
My salamanders are packed with them.
I'm not chopping up yet more models to swap weapons because they changed them (again)

So what's next from that? We just take them out of 40k completely?
Sorry sisters, guard, etc, but they are gone now.
In the year 40k they forgot how to make them and some sneaky git stole the remaining ones.

Not my fault you make bad choices.

It's a useless weapon for basically all Infantry units, so nobody is going to cry. Pretend it's something useful instead.

Give it a rest, how many times are you going to move the goalposts?

First it's nobody uses Multi-Meltas, then when that is proven to be absolutely false, it's now "not my fault you make bad choices".

If we're going by your logic we may as well say "no one is playing Tactical Marines", or "it's not by fault you use tactical marines". If your logic with the MM is applicable to Tac Marines, we should drop them too.

Are you going to tell me that my Ravenwing Attack Bike Multi-Meltas are crap too?

Moving the goalposts is all Slayer-Fan's argument has left, though.

 Melissia wrote:
Moving the goalposts is all Slayer-Fan's argument has left, though.

then the mature thing to do would be to conceed the arguement would it not?

72Canadian72 wrote:
By that logic why does any Imperium faction have its own unique flyers? Everyone should only ever use Stormhawk/talons since they already fill the required role on the battle field

This is a good question. The original fluff was that the Imperial Navy had control of all aircraft and every Imperial faction should have the same Thunderbolt/Lightning/Marauder/etc options, the various space marine aircraft are blatantly anti-fluffy and cartoonish abominations looks-wise. There was no reason to add them, other than GW's marketing department insisting that they needed new space marine kits. I would be perfectly happy if GW removed them all and added a note in the fluff that the heretics responsible were executed and all surviving stocks of space marine aircraft were scrapped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Using the Black Templars 4th edition Codex as an example, just porting over Righteous Zeal and the Vows as Chapter Tactic to a Vanilla Codex would make that Chapter Tactic massive compared to all the others, so what happens in practice is that the stuff you're porting gets cut down, because you now need to squeeze it in with a bunch of other stuff.

But why do you need to port over literally every single rule? This the trap that people, GW included, keep falling into: that every rule that has existed in the past needs to continue to exist. But realistically what defines Black Templars? Being Khorne berserkers in black armor. Have their chapter tactics give them +1 WS and replace all boltguns with bolt pistols and call it done. They have to get up close and start chopping to kill anything, but they're also good at it once they get there. The idea that every single minor space marine chapter with a slight variant on the stock tactical/assault/devastator trio needs a whole separate codex is utter lunacy. You can capture the essence of every space marine chapter with a chapter tactics rule and 1-2 special characters. There is no justification for having more than two space marine codices, one for normal marines and one for extra spiky marines.

 Peregrine wrote:

72Canadian72 wrote:
By that logic why does any Imperium faction have its own unique flyers? Everyone should only ever use Stormhawk/talons since they already fill the required role on the battle field

This is a good question. The original fluff was that the Imperial Navy had control of all aircraft and every Imperial faction should have the same Thunderbolt/Lightning/Marauder/etc options, the various space marine aircraft are blatantly anti-fluffy and cartoonish abominations looks-wise. There was no reason to add them, other than GW's marketing department insisting that they needed new space marine kits. I would be perfectly happy if GW removed them all and added a note in the fluff that the heretics responsible were executed and all surviving stocks of space marine aircraft were scrapped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Using the Black Templars 4th edition Codex as an example, just porting over Righteous Zeal and the Vows as Chapter Tactic to a Vanilla Codex would make that Chapter Tactic massive compared to all the others, so what happens in practice is that the stuff you're porting gets cut down, because you now need to squeeze it in with a bunch of other stuff.

But why do you need to port over literally every single rule? This the trap that people, GW included, keep falling into: that every rule that has existed in the past needs to continue to exist. But realistically what defines Black Templars? Being Khorne berserkers in black armor. Have their chapter tactics give them +1 WS and replace all boltguns with bolt pistols and call it done. They have to get up close and start chopping to kill anything, but they're also good at it once they get there. The idea that every single minor space marine chapter with a slight variant on the stock tactical/assault/devastator trio needs a whole separate codex is utter lunacy. You can capture the essence of every space marine chapter with a chapter tactics rule and 1-2 special characters. There is no justification for having more than two space marine codices, one for normal marines and one for extra spiky marines.

Do Thunderhawks appear in the "original" fluff? The Dark Talons are in the fluff as well.

Regarding your other points, we have established distinct Chapters that are doing quite well with their distinct Codexes. There is no need to strip down the Marine line as you propose. The Marine factions do play differently.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Do Thunderhawks appear in the "original" fluff?

They did, but they're primarily transport aircraft not air superiority or ground attack fighters. And it's pretty amusing, the one space marine flyer that isn't a very recent product of the GW marketing department is the only one that doesn't appear on the table.

The Dark Talons are in the fluff as well.

Only once GW invented that fluff to satisfy the marketing department's demand for a new space marine kit.

Regarding your other points, we have established distinct Chapters that are doing quite well with their distinct Codexes. There is no need to strip down the Marine line as you propose. The Marine factions do play differently.

There is plenty of need: reducing the rules bloat and trimming the game down to a point where GW can manage it and the extra attention required by all the special snowflake marine codices doesen't overwhelm all of the other factions. And sure, they play a bit differently, but more differently than different archetypes from a non-marine codex? I doubt it.

 Peregrine wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Do Thunderhawks appear in the "original" fluff?

They did, but they're primarily transport aircraft not air superiority or ground attack fighters. And it's pretty amusing, the one space marine flyer that isn't a very recent product of the GW marketing department is the only one that doesn't appear on the table.

The Dark Talons are in the fluff as well.

Only once GW invented that fluff to satisfy the marketing department's demand for a new space marine kit.

Regarding your other points, we have established distinct Chapters that are doing quite well with their distinct Codexes. There is no need to strip down the Marine line as you propose. The Marine factions do play differently.

There is plenty of need: reducing the rules bloat and trimming the game down to a point where GW can manage it and the extra attention required by all the special snowflake marine codices doesen't overwhelm all of the other factions. And sure, they play a bit differently, but more differently than different archetypes from a non-marine codex? I doubt it.

so old fluff to market the game is ok but new fluff to market the game is bad? gotcha

 Peregrine wrote:

The Dark Talons are in the fluff as well.

Only once GW invented that fluff to satisfy the marketing department's demand for a new space marine kit.

.....Thats the reason the fluff exists in the first place. To help GW sell models by telling a compelling story/background with which to play with them. Its not like thats unique to Dark Talons, its true for every single model.

Regarding your other points, we have established distinct Chapters that are doing quite well with their distinct Codexes. There is no need to strip down the Marine line as you propose. The Marine factions do play differently.

There is plenty of need: reducing the rules bloat and trimming the game down to a point where GW can manage it and the extra attention required by all the special snowflake marine codices doesen't overwhelm all of the other factions. And sure, they play a bit differently, but more differently than different archetypes from a non-marine codex? I doubt it.

The special snowflake chapters pay for themselves. If they didnt they would have gone the way of the BT or the Valhallan IG long ago. A profitable army line doesnt deprive other armies of anything. Those armies success or lack there of with players determines their own profitability and thus the amount of attention and investment from GW. Dont forget GW is in the business of selling models. That is their number one goal. Throwing away profitable armies is counter productive for GW, so dont expect to see it happen any time soon.

72Canadian72 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The Dark Talons are in the fluff as well.

Only once GW invented that fluff to satisfy the marketing department's demand for a new space marine kit.

.....Thats the reason the fluff exists in the first place. To help GW sell models by telling a compelling story/background with which to play with them. Its not like thats unique to Dark Talons, its true for every single model.

Regarding your other points, we have established distinct Chapters that are doing quite well with their distinct Codexes. There is no need to strip down the Marine line as you propose. The Marine factions do play differently.

There is plenty of need: reducing the rules bloat and trimming the game down to a point where GW can manage it and the extra attention required by all the special snowflake marine codices doesen't overwhelm all of the other factions. And sure, they play a bit differently, but more differently than different archetypes from a non-marine codex? I doubt it.

The special snowflake chapters pay for themselves. If they didnt they would have gone the way of the BT or the Valhallan IG long ago. A profitable army line doesnt deprive other armies of anything. Those armies success or lack there of with players determines their own profitability and thus the amount of attention and investment from GW. Dont forget GW is in the business of selling models. That is their number one goal. Throwing away profitable armies is counter productive for GW, so dont expect to see it happen any time soon.

But we are not asking to remove them... A consolidation would mean other players could buy into kits like the baal predator etc... How would this loose gw any profit?

Apart from selling book of course but I dont think that counts...

So all chapters get the same exact stuff?
They are then just red marines, blue marines, green marines etc.
The ability to make them individual chapters starts to vanish at this point.

Can't say I've seen other chapters use them in the fluff.


What's next, do we hand ultras death company to use and forge some new fluff quick?



This is also a snowball effect.
Chaos players then see this and they want it.
After all, if it's not exclusive to any chapter, they may aswell have it too.


Removing flavour from chapters just makes them boring and boring doesn't sell.



This is ironically my main draw to 30k.
Each chapter is different.
There is none of this "but my chapter wants that too!" (Alpha legion not counting here)

Jackal90 wrote:
So all chapters get the same exact stuff?
They are then just red marines, blue marines, green marines etc.
The ability to make them individual chapters starts to vanish at this point.

Can't say I've seen other chapters use them in the fluff.


What's next, do we hand ultras death company to use and forge some new fluff quick?



This is also a snowball effect.
Chaos players then see this and they want it.
After all, if it's not exclusive to any chapter, they may aswell have it too.


Removing flavour from chapters just makes them boring and boring doesn't sell.



This is ironically my main draw to 30k.
Each chapter is different.
There is none of this "but my chapter wants that too!" (Alpha legion not counting here)

So you are against the same basic principle that attracts you to the 30K Legions?

There are the basic marine units that everyone can have and a few actual special units which is wierdly what we are suggesting - you use Keywords, Chapter tactics and unit options to allow people to build unique, interesting and fluffy units for any Chapter not just three.

Why is it that everything has to pander to those three Chapters? When you can have the same variety but open to all.

I have no issue with other chapters having access to generic wargear where it's appropriate. This includes Baal Predators, Plasma cannons in terminator sqds, etc. By all means consolidate those into single entries, but chapter specific units need to remain that and not get squatted. DW knights, BK knights, Dark talons, TWC, DC, etc. With those units, the consolidated book would still be too big.

As for an earlier comment comparing Deathwing to regular terminator sqds, Deathwing have the opportunity to add TH/SS to a shooty sqd to help absorb high AP weaponry. Makes them more versatile than standard marines (although I'd be in favour of combining all terminator sqds into one unit so other chapters have this option too)

 Mr Morden wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
So all chapters get the same exact stuff?
They are then just red marines, blue marines, green marines etc.
The ability to make them individual chapters starts to vanish at this point.

Can't say I've seen other chapters use them in the fluff.


What's next, do we hand ultras death company to use and forge some new fluff quick?



This is also a snowball effect.
Chaos players then see this and they want it.
After all, if it's not exclusive to any chapter, they may aswell have it too.


Removing flavour from chapters just makes them boring and boring doesn't sell.



This is ironically my main draw to 30k.
Each chapter is different.
There is none of this "but my chapter wants that too!" (Alpha legion not counting here)

So you are against the same basic principle that attracts you to the 30K Legions?

There are the basic marine units that everyone can have and a few actual special units which is wierdly what we are suggesting - you use Keywords, Chapter tactics and unit options to allow people to build unique, interesting and fluffy units for any Chapter not just three.

Why is it that everything has to pander to those three Chapters? When you can have the same variety but open to all.

It's not even remotely close to 30k.
30k keeps what's exclusive to each chapter.
This isn't just alot of specific units, it's also wargear and army structure aswell.
What's being proposed would be like saying feth it, salamanders get firedrake terminators, let's give them to everyone.
Palantine blades? Yea why not, everyone can take those.

The only similarity is that it has a core of generic marines (but not always)

 bullyboy wrote:
I have no issue with other chapters having access to generic wargear where it's appropriate. This includes Baal Predators, Plasma cannons in terminator sqds, etc. By all means consolidate those into single entries, but chapter specific units need to remain that and not get squatted. DW knights, BK knights, Dark talons, TWC, DC, etc. With those units, the consolidated book would still be too big.

As for an earlier comment comparing Deathwing to regular terminator sqds, Deathwing have the opportunity to add TH/SS to a shooty sqd to help absorb high AP weaponry. Makes them more versatile than standard marines (although I'd be in favour of combining all terminator sqds into one unit so other chapters have this option too)

The DW terminators with mixed assult and ranged wargear is funilly enough the same wargear setup blood angels use in the space hulk board game. Yet currently only dark angels can do it in the main 40k game. Stuff like this should defenetly be universal terminator options.

The special snowflake chapters pay for themselves. If they didnt they would have gone the way of the BT or the Valhallan IG long ago. A profitable army line doesnt deprive other armies of anything. Those armies success or lack there of with players determines their own profitability and thus the amount of attention and investment from GW. Dont forget GW is in the business of selling models. That is their number one goal. Throwing away profitable armies is counter productive for GW, so dont expect to see it happen any time soon.

\
That sounds like a claim that armies are unpopular, because of players doing GW wrong. Armies or units aren't popular because GW gives them bad rules, if GW gave good rules to at least a majority of their models the armies would be played. If someone knows an army is in a bad state, they are not going to pick it up,

72Canadian72 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
At the risk of fething over everyone who plays a variant army.

What's fethed over via consolidation that I haven't already tackled? You for sure already lost the Black Templar argument.

You never adressed the loss of design space argument. Having a dedicated Codex to a specific subfaction with a specific playstyle means you can make that playstyle more coherent without having to worry about what knockoff effects it will have on other subfactions. I'm not opposed to adding a bunch of options to the Vanilla Codex (most blatantly the wargear options, but also stuff like specialist Terminators and Jump Pack Honour Guard and the like) but the advantage of having separate books is that you can make them more divergent in order to promote a different playstyle in a way that you're not going to replicate with just Chapter Tactics.

Using the Black Templars 4th edition Codex as an example, just porting over Righteous Zeal and the Vows as Chapter Tactic to a Vanilla Codex would make that Chapter Tactic massive compared to all the others, so what happens in practice is that the stuff you're porting gets cut down, because you now need to squeeze it in with a bunch of other stuff.

It is entirely possible to do what you are describing in a workable manner. I just don't trust GW to do it, and thus would rather they left people's armies alone.

Also, not agreeing with someone isn't the same as winning an argument.

EDIT: And successor Chapters is easily solvable by GW simply letting successors use the same stuff as the primogenitor Chapter, the way pretty much everyone (that I know of at least) already plays the game.

Design space applies to units. That's why it's silly to have the Dark Angel's fliers when they're functionally the exact same as the Stormhawk and Stormtalon.

In terms of combat style, nobody is actually that divergent to the Codex outside Space Wolves, and honestly it's impossible to argue otherwise. That's why a simple 3-4 SUPER specialized units or models + whatever Special Characters are all that's necessary to tackle whatever divergence exists.

Also you're still wrong about the "size" of a Chapter Tactic for Black Templars being an issue. Look at ones like the Dark Angels got, or White Scars, or even look to other outside armies like the hotblooded Sisters or Deathskulls or The Hivecult or Bladed Cog.

By that logic why does any Imperium faction have its own unique flyers? Everyone should only ever use Stormhawk/talons since they already fill the required role on the battle field

PS. You do realize for the Dark Angels, outside of characters, they only need five kits to field 17/19 of the unique models and accompanying datasheets in the codex. With the other two being an Interrogator chaplin and a chapter banner bearer (which are pretty much equivalent to just getting a model for a named character in terms of resources). So unless you want one kit to provide those 3 to 4 unit options, I dont see what gains you expect will happen, Or are you arguing that GW should just straight up remove portions of these five kits, so they cant make as many different options, but still invest the resources into having these four DA kits, just lite versions with less options and customization?

Space Marines originally didn't have Fliers, so forcibly adding them is something people still disagree on. However, at least Imperial Guard have a few unique ones compared to the Dark Angel's ones doing the EXACT same thing as the Stormhawk/Talon. Therefore, unnecessary profile to try and balance.

Those would simply be upgrade kits and bitz. Ravenwing aren't unique, they're just Bikers. Use the Biker profile and balance from there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jackal90 wrote:
So all chapters get the same exact stuff?
They are then just red marines, blue marines, green marines etc.
The ability to make them individual chapters starts to vanish at this point.

Can't say I've seen other chapters use them in the fluff.


What's next, do we hand ultras death company to use and forge some new fluff quick?



This is also a snowball effect.
Chaos players then see this and they want it.
After all, if it's not exclusive to any chapter, they may aswell have it too.


Removing flavour from chapters just makes them boring and boring doesn't sell.



This is ironically my main draw to 30k.
Each chapter is different.
There is none of this "but my chapter wants that too!" (Alpha legion not counting here)

CSM players wanting things like that is the reason Renegades should've been handled in the regular Marine codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We should scrap Tau. They're just another shooty army anyway. Fire Warriors are Guardians, Battle Suits are Wraithguard, Stormsurges are Wraithknights and we'll get rid of Riptides because they're just silly and won't be missed. Hammerheads are Fire Prisms, Devilfishes are Wave Serpents, Broadside Battlesuits are Wraithlords. Ethereals are Farseers, Fireblades are Autarchs, and so on and so forth.

Tau are a nonentity competetively compared to Eldar anyway, so I'm sure all the Tau players would enjoy their new options.

This just about sums up my opinion aswell.

The irony is, you'd think players were sick of having parts of their army squatted.
On this thread there are players asking for more squatting......... naturally for armies they do not have though lol.







As for multi meltas, I will state (and clearly state) piss off.
My salamanders are packed with them.
I'm not chopping up yet more models to swap weapons because they changed them (again)

So what's next from that? We just take them out of 40k completely?
Sorry sisters, guard, etc, but they are gone now.
In the year 40k they forgot how to make them and some sneaky git stole the remaining ones.

Not my fault you make bad choices.

It's a useless weapon for basically all Infantry units, so nobody is going to cry. Pretend it's something useful instead.

Give it a rest, how many times are you going to move the goalposts?

First it's nobody uses Multi-Meltas, then when that is proven to be absolutely false, it's now "not my fault you make bad choices".

If we're going by your logic we may as well say "no one is playing Tactical Marines", or "it's not by fault you use tactical marines". If your logic with the MM is applicable to Tac Marines, we should drop them too.

Are you going to tell me that my Ravenwing Attack Bike Multi-Meltas are crap too?

You purposely chose to use a weapon nobody else is using in a game because there's no design space for a short range weapon that loses accuracy on the move that has a single shot that relies on outside models or abilities to be mediocre. Hell, not even Assault Marine + Devastator Marine formation last edition made them a good choice, and they were only 10 points!
It's a false choice, all in all. You have the right to enjoy the look of the weapon, but its profile is hot garbage and always has been for any infantry units carrying them. Proxy them as something far better like a Lascannon or Grav Cannon, or even a fancy Heavy Flamer since you're so concerned about keeping the Salamanders theme.

Yeah actually, Attack Bikes with Multi-Meltas are garbage now. At least they were Relentless last edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Moving the goalposts is all Slayer-Fan's argument has left, though.

I didn't move the goalposts. The model isn't used because it's bad. People still buy Terminators after all. Hell I even own a couple of Grey Knights kits. That doesn't prove anything though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You also have yet to explain why illusion of choice is better than not having the option.

Terminators aren't used?
Maybe not in every tournament army but they are indeed used and they are a pretty popular model as a whole.

Again, you are trying to speak for every player, which is just a complete joke of an argument.


First it was that people don't use multimeltas atall.
Then it changed because people posted that they did.
Which is it?
Seems like grasping at straws now.



Edit: As a side note, you don't seem to grasp the concept of time either.
You assume people have recently got these models and assembled them.
You don't stop to think that maybe they have had them for some time now.
Rules change alot over time, people don't want to hack apart models constantly to change weapons.

 bullyboy wrote:
I have no issue with other chapters having access to generic wargear where it's appropriate. This includes Baal Predators, Plasma cannons in terminator sqds, etc. By all means consolidate those into single entries, but chapter specific units need to remain that and not get squatted. DW knights, BK knights, Dark talons, TWC, DC, etc. With those units, the consolidated book would still be too big.

I don't think so. It might need some extra pages but not much. You can also save space by combining unnecessarily separate options under one datasheet via wargear options. Like all Land Raiders can be just one datasheet with an option to pick gear, Baal Predator is just a new weapon option for Predator, etc. We can also get rid of some special characters by giving the generic characters gear options to represent them.

As for an earlier comment comparing Deathwing to regular terminator sqds, Deathwing have the opportunity to add TH/SS to a shooty sqd to help absorb high AP weaponry. Makes them more versatile than standard marines (although I'd be in favour of combining all terminator sqds into one unit so other chapters have this option too)

That is one of those things everybody should be able to do. Also combines two unnecessarily different datasheet under one Terminator entry.

Jackal90 wrote:
Terminators aren't used?
Maybe not in every tournament army but they are indeed used and they are a pretty popular model as a whole.

Again, you are trying to speak for every player, which is just a complete joke of an argument.


First it was that people don't use multimeltas atall.
Then it changed because people posted that they did.
Which is it?
Seems like grasping at straws now.



Edit: As a side note, you don't seem to grasp the concept of time either.
You assume people have recently got these models and assembled them.
You don't stop to think that maybe they have had them for some time now.
Rules change alot over time, people don't want to hack apart models constantly to change weapons.

His whole argument has become a joke now. Keeps making false claims with zero evidence to back them up.

 bullyboy wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
Terminators aren't used?
Maybe not in every tournament army but they are indeed used and they are a pretty popular model as a whole.

Again, you are trying to speak for every player, which is just a complete joke of an argument.


First it was that people don't use multimeltas atall.
Then it changed because people posted that they did.
Which is it?
Seems like grasping at straws now.



Edit: As a side note, you don't seem to grasp the concept of time either.
You assume people have recently got these models and assembled them.
You don't stop to think that maybe they have had them for some time now.
Rules change alot over time, people don't want to hack apart models constantly to change weapons.

His whole argument has become a joke now. Keeps making false claims with zero evidence to back them up.

The problem is that it isn't just false claims, they are just outright laughable as anyone that's been playing for more than 5 mins can see straight past the BS.

Karol wrote:

The special snowflake chapters pay for themselves. If they didnt they would have gone the way of the BT or the Valhallan IG long ago. A profitable army line doesnt deprive other armies of anything. Those armies success or lack there of with players determines their own profitability and thus the amount of attention and investment from GW. Dont forget GW is in the business of selling models. That is their number one goal. Throwing away profitable armies is counter productive for GW, so dont expect to see it happen any time soon.

\
That sounds like a claim that armies are unpopular, because of players doing GW wrong. Armies or units aren't popular because GW gives them bad rules, if GW gave good rules to at least a majority of their models the armies would be played. If someone knows an army is in a bad state, they are not going to pick it up,

except Space Marines are the top selling army in 40k, and are not the most powerful army.

I repeat the best selling army is not the most powerful army

which entirely proves your claim that sales are driven purely by how awesome their rules are, to be demonstratively FALSE

Whilst I think that combining would be a good idea, I strongly disagree with Slayer that it should entail removing some gear options. I want existing options to be shared across the chapters in greater degree, I don't want them to be removed.

" If someone knows an army is in a bad state, they are not going to pick it up"
Picked up Marines when they were bad.

Picked up Eldar when they were bad.

*Fewer* people pick up armies that are bad, but some still do. How strong an army is factors in for many people, sure, but it's only one factor.