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.

72Canadian72 wrote:
Fluff changes all the time. If you legit think an entire faction deserves to be barred from having an entire category of units commonly use in the game just because of some old lore books, you are the embodiment of self centered and are the perfect example of a player trying to prevent others from having fun.

But you aren't barred from it, you get to use the standard Imperial Navy aircraft that are perfectly adequate for the job. You just don't get special snowflake units that exist because the marketing department doesn't give a about the fluff. And I'll note that my Tau don't get any melee death star units, but you don't see me whining and begging GW to change the fluff so the Tau can have an assault terminator equivalent.

PS: the lore is why we play this game, so don't be too eager to ignore it in search of 1% more profits this quarter.

You missed my follow up line where I said, using his logic all Imperium factions should be just locked to the same flier for each of three battlefield roles fliers are used for.

And that logic is correct: all Imperial factions get the same Imperial Navy aircraft because that's what the fluff says.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

Always? Even in 2nd ed? You absolutely sure the time when they were blast weapons(one of their prime bonuses when shooting at vehicles. Rather than hitting one location you hit several. d6+2d12+8 vs 3d6+9 on lascannon also didn't hurt Average 24.5 vs 19.5. When leman russ hull had armour 22 and turret 25 ability to hut both and average success on both was rather valuable.

Just because it's bad now doesn't mean it has to be bad always.

Small blast or large blast? Small blasts are bad.

4" Diameter Blast for a Multimelta in 2nd Edition. AP -4 and 2D12 damage. Great weapon.

Now that their price has dropped in 8th, and with the instances of increased cover saves, they're getting more value again.

What's getting a cover save so bad that you can't point a Lascannon at it and get the same result from a safer weapon? Hell, people are starting to drop that because of GW handing out Invul saves like candy.

A Custodes in heavy cover requires a -4 AP to get to their 4++ invuln. Plus heavier terrain coverage reduces the usefulness of Lascannon ranges. As more cityfight is played locally, the Multimelta is looking better.

Amazing that it isn't even a wound caused outside the Melta range! Or that you get almost TWO wounds in Melta range! Chapter Masters and Lieutenants don't help much either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer, you're just getting more and more ridiculous. Now it's only tournament lists that doesn't use them. The goal posts have now been moved off the field.

Just stop while you're so far behind.

Here is another BR with my Ravenwing....including Meltaguns and Multi-meltas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om51IyUSIUw&t=197s

Stop thinking you know how everyone plays, you have no clue, period. The MM has a place in my list when I field pure Ravenwing. I like the Attack Bike and will continue to use it. Would I take it to a tournament? No, but that makes up a very small percentage of my games.

I don't care about some amateur battle report. I gave you a task and that was to prove the actual worth with numbers rather than silly anecdotal evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

72Canadian72 wrote:
If anyone is upset that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously lacked one they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.

If anyone is happy that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously had explicit fluff that they are not, under penalty of death for heresy, permitted to have them they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.

And please tell me more about how the Dark Talon and Nep. Jetfighter serving the same battlefield role as other fliers means they should be removed, given they are the only fliers for those roles available in 8th ed DA.

Give DA the same Thunderbolt/Lightning/Avenger/etc as every other Imperial faction. Or at least give them the heretical space marine abominations that are almost identical kits, just with different chapter-specific bits glued on.

Bingo. The Dark Angel fliers are not functionally different that they require a whole separate datasheet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You can't improve a weapon that doesn't work and has no use. It would have to be so absurdly cheap that it outranks the Melta Gun.
Even ignoring infantry models being useless with it, single shot weapons with that little reliability aren't good for a reason, moreso if you have to risk that distance to actually make use of the rule it has.

It used to have a blast. Make it a D3 shot weapon.

Great, now you've made plasma cannons obsolete because a multimelta is better 95% of the time. And that's the problem. Any weapon can be made overpowered by buffing it enough, the hard part is making it viable without wrecking anything else in the process. Consolidating the various heavy weapons into 2-3 allows everything to be viable, and you can just use your multimeltas and plasma cannons and lascannons as alternative models for the same "anti-tank" stat line.

And TBH, if you have to fall back on 2nd edition examples where it was the same weapon in name only to prove that it wasn't "always" that bad I think it's a pretty clear concession of defeat.

Exactly. There's just no design space for a Multi-Melta, especially on an infantry unit platform.

 Peregrine wrote:

72Canadian72 wrote:
Fluff changes all the time. If you legit think an entire faction deserves to be barred from having an entire category of units commonly use in the game just because of some old lore books, you are the embodiment of self centered and are the perfect example of a player trying to prevent others from having fun.

But you aren't barred from it, you get to use the standard Imperial Navy aircraft that are perfectly adequate for the job. You just don't get special snowflake units that exist because the marketing department doesn't give a about the fluff. And I'll note that my Tau don't get any melee death star units, but you don't see me whining and begging GW to change the fluff so the Tau can have an assault terminator equivalent.

PS: the lore is why we play this game, so don't be too eager to ignore it in search of 1% more profits this quarter.

The person I was talking to was literally saying people are STILL pissed about SM getting fliers. My response was that if you are upset that another faction got something it lacked, you are self centered and the embodiment of a bad player as you quite literally want others to not be able to have fun. You responded that the fluff says it shouldnt have happened and if you go against the fluff you are a bad player. That is a BS argument and you know it. If Tau were given a quality melee unit to play with, there is no reason why I as a non Tau player should be mad and yelling about how Tau players dont deserve that unit. Such vitriol and anger is non nonsensical and makes a person look like an ass.

PS. the fluff exists to support the marketing department in selling you models. Why act surprised when the fluff is used to build up hype or acceptance of new models. Getting mad over that is fairly pointless.

You missed my follow up line where I said, using his logic all Imperium factions should be just locked to the same flier for each of three battlefield roles fliers are used for.

And that logic is correct: all Imperial factions get the same Imperial Navy aircraft because that's what the fluff says.

Except game play wise all imperial factions have a multitude of different fliers, and are restricted to only certain fliers depending on which faction you look at. His argument regarding battlefield roles implies there should only be three fliers, one for each role available to all imperial factions, and all other fliers should be scrapped for being unnecessary which is frankly just silly.

72Canadian72 wrote:
The person I was talking to was literally saying people are STILL pissed about SM getting fliers. My response was that if you are upset that another faction got something it lacked, you are self centered and the embodiment of a bad player as you quite literally want others to not be able to have fun. You responded that the fluff says it shouldnt have happened and if you go against the fluff you are a bad player.

Space marines had flyers. Want an air superiority fighter? Take a Thunderbolt like the fluff states. There was no need to give them special snowflake flyers that only exist because some marketing person said " the fluff, I bet we can sell X copies of this kit" and released some hideously ugly flyers for space marines only. If anything it's you who is the "embodiment of a bad player" by your standards since you're the one arguing that space marines should have their special snowflake toy that nobody else gets to use and sharing the Thunderbolt with everyone else isn't good enough.

That is a BS argument and you know it. If Tau were given a quality melee unit to play with, there is no reason why I as a non Tau player should be mad and yelling about how Tau players dont deserve that unit. Such vitriol and anger is non nonsensical and makes a person look like an ass.

Of course there's a reason: because it devalues the fluff aspect of the game. It's like the My Little Pony troll armies and such, it doesn't belong in normal games. If you don't care about the fluff then why play 40k at all?

Except game play wise all imperial factions have a multitude of different fliers, and are restricted to only certain fliers depending on which faction you look at. His argument regarding battlefield roles implies there should only be three fliers, one for each role available to all imperial factions, and all other fliers should be scrapped for being unnecessary which is frankly just silly.

Gameplay-wise they aren't different enough to matter. If your goal is to kill enemy flyers do you play a Storm-whatever differently from how you play a Thunderbolt? No. Which air superiority flyer you have is irrelevant, outside of GW making balance mistakes and one of them being more overpowered than the other.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer, you're just getting more and more ridiculous. Now it's only tournament lists that doesn't use them. The goal posts have now been moved off the field.

Just stop while you're so far behind.

Here is another BR with my Ravenwing....including Meltaguns and Multi-meltas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om51IyUSIUw&t=197s

Stop thinking you know how everyone plays, you have no clue, period. The MM has a place in my list when I field pure Ravenwing. I like the Attack Bike and will continue to use it. Would I take it to a tournament? No, but that makes up a very small percentage of my games.

I don't care about some amateur battle report. I gave you a task and that was to prove the actual worth with numbers rather than silly anecdotal evidence.

What a sad little man you are, but at least your true colours come through. Hope you're getting a great salary as an elite, professional 40k player. lol

 Peregrine wrote:

72Canadian72 wrote:
The person I was talking to was literally saying people are STILL pissed about SM getting fliers. My response was that if you are upset that another faction got something it lacked, you are self centered and the embodiment of a bad player as you quite literally want others to not be able to have fun. You responded that the fluff says it shouldnt have happened and if you go against the fluff you are a bad player.

Space marines had flyers. Want an air superiority fighter? Take a Thunderbolt like the fluff states. There was no need to give them special snowflake flyers that only exist because some marketing person said " the fluff, I bet we can sell X copies of this kit" and released some hideously ugly flyers for space marines only. If anything it's you who is the "embodiment of a bad player" by your standards since you're the one arguing that space marines should have their special snowflake toy that nobody else gets to use and sharing the Thunderbolt with everyone else isn't good enough.

Yes because being happy that other armies get models unique to their army for their players to play with makes me the bad sportsman
Notice how you don't see me complaining that DA cant use storm talons/hawks, and how they should be removed from the game because they are too similar to my own armies fliers, and everyone should just use my models and rules instead.

That is a BS argument and you know it. If Tau were given a quality melee unit to play with, there is no reason why I as a non Tau player should be mad and yelling about how Tau players dont deserve that unit. Such vitriol and anger is non nonsensical and makes a person look like an ass.

Of course there's a reason: because it devalues the fluff aspect of the game. It's like the My Little Pony troll armies and such, it doesn't belong in normal games. If you don't care about the fluff then why play 40k at all?

Ya because getting angry that the lore of an army you dont play has changed or developed to allow new models or battlefield roles, sure deprives your ability to enjoy the game. Get real, that argument essentially boils down to "you cant use that model or unit, because I dont think you should, and if you do use it, you are ruining my game".

Except game play wise all imperial factions have a multitude of different fliers, and are restricted to only certain fliers depending on which faction you look at. His argument regarding battlefield roles implies there should only be three fliers, one for each role available to all imperial factions, and all other fliers should be scrapped for being unnecessary which is frankly just silly.

Gameplay-wise they aren't different enough to matter. If your goal is to kill enemy flyers do you play a Storm-whatever differently from how you play a Thunderbolt? No. Which air superiority flyer you have is irrelevant, outside of GW making balance mistakes and one of them being more overpowered than the other.

Which is why its funny that the poster I was engaging with was complaining about Dark Talons being useless cause storm whatevers existed, when they themselves are similar to other existing fliers in the Imperium arsenal, yet they werent saying the 'stormwhatevers' should be removed, only the DA fliers. Do as I say, not as I do eh?

72Canadian72 wrote:
Yes because being happy that other armies get models unique to their army for their players to play with makes me the bad sportsman

You're being happy that someone isn't allowed to play with the space marine toys, exactly the sort of thing you complained about when I said it. You aren't satisfied with all Imperial players having aircraft available, the space marines need their special snowflake and it's very important that Imperial Guard players don't get to use it.

Ya because getting angry that the lore of an army you dont play has changed or developed to allow new models or battlefield roles, sure deprives your ability to enjoy the game. Get real, that argument essentially boils down to "you cant use that model or unit, because I dont think you should, and if you do use it, you are ruining my game".

Of course I care about the fluff for armies I don't play, because all fluff is part of the same story. If GW destroys the fluff for one faction that damages my enjoyment of the game because I'm going to play against that army, read fluff involving it, etc. And, again, the battlefield roles were already covered. There was no reason to change that fluff, other than GW's marketing department sacrificing fluff integrity for sales.

Which is why its funny that the poster I was engaging with was complaining about Dark Talons being useless cause storm whatevers existed, when they themselves are similar to other existing fliers in the Imperium arsenal, yet they werent saying the 'stormwhatevers' should be removed, only the DA fliers. Do as I say, not as I do eh?

I am not responsible for the posts of other people. The DA flyers should be removed, and so should all of the other space marine flyers. But if we absolutely can't remove all space marine flyers then the DA ones at least should be removed since they're just the same storm-whatever hull with some chapter-specific bits glued on.

 Peregrine wrote:

72Canadian72 wrote:
Yes because being happy that other armies get models unique to their army for their players to play with makes me the bad sportsman

You're being happy that someone isn't allowed to play with the space marine toys, exactly the sort of thing you complained about when I said it. You aren't satisfied with all Imperial players having aircraft available, the space marines need their special snowflake and it's very important that Imperial Guard players don't get to use it.

Yes because me being happy that someone else gets something fun to enjoy, providing more variety and flavour to the game, really means Im deriving enjoyment at the thought that others are being denied this cool model. By that logic me enjoying the new Chaos model releases, really means I'm just getting off to the fact that Xenos and Imperial players can't use those models. You have a very pessimistic outlook mate, if you think that being happy others get cool, fun things to play with even if I dont get to use it, is somehow a bad thing.

Ya because getting angry that the lore of an army you dont play has changed or developed to allow new models or battlefield roles, sure deprives your ability to enjoy the game. Get real, that argument essentially boils down to "you cant use that model or unit, because I dont think you should, and if you do use it, you are ruining my game".

Of course I care about the fluff for armies I don't play, because all fluff is part of the same story. If GW destroys the fluff for one faction that damages my enjoyment of the game because I'm going to play against that army, read fluff involving it, etc. And, again, the battlefield roles were already covered. There was no reason to change that fluff, other than GW's marketing department sacrificing fluff integrity for sales.

Again fluff exists, to drive sales. Being mad over that is pointless.

Again your argument derives down to, "you cant play that way / or use that thing, because I say so, and doing otherwise hurts me!". That is prime poor sportsmanship right there.

Which is why its funny that the poster I was engaging with was complaining about Dark Talons being useless cause storm whatevers existed, when they themselves are similar to other existing fliers in the Imperium arsenal, yet they werent saying the 'stormwhatevers' should be removed, only the DA fliers. Do as I say, not as I do eh?

I am not responsible for the posts of other people. The DA flyers should be removed, and so should all of the other space marine flyers. But if we absolutely can't remove all space marine flyers then the DA ones at least should be removed since they're just the same storm-whatever hull with some chapter-specific bits glued on.

I never said you were? I was just elaborating on why I said the other guys argument was silly, in my previous message that you quote replied to.

If you agree with the logic that you only need as many fliers as there are battlefield roles, than you agree with my point that only three fliers are needed for all imperial factions. If you squat DA fliers, why cant you squat, the excess IG/DW/BA/SW/SM fliers to get down to the three fliers, one to fill air superiority, one for ground support and one for transport. Its no more difficult to toss away the Dark Talon as it is the Stormtalon. Why have Stormeagles, Valkyries and Corvus Blackstars? After all they all fill the carrier role. Its just as easy to squat any of them as any other imperial factions fliers. After all you just dont print a dataslate, and shut off the production lines.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You can't improve a weapon that doesn't work and has no use. It would have to be so absurdly cheap that it outranks the Melta Gun.
Even ignoring infantry models being useless with it, single shot weapons with that little reliability aren't good for a reason, moreso if you have to risk that distance to actually make use of the rule it has.

It used to have a blast. Make it a D3 shot weapon.

Great, now you've made plasma cannons obsolete because a multimelta is better 95% of the time. And that's the problem. Any weapon can be made overpowered by buffing it enough, the hard part is making it viable without wrecking anything else in the process. Consolidating the various heavy weapons into 2-3 allows everything to be viable, and you can just use your multimeltas and plasma cannons and lascannons as alternative models for the same "anti-tank" stat line.

And TBH, if you have to fall back on 2nd edition examples where it was the same weapon in name only to prove that it wasn't "always" that bad I think it's a pretty clear concession of defeat.

Extend Plasma Cannon Range to 48" and you're doing fine. There's plenty of possible adjustments to be made if you want it.

A MultiMelta wasn't the same "in name only" during 2nd, it was a short-ranged, high damage energy weapon, which is what it is now. It happened to also be good against infantry, although Grav takes that role now.

TBH, stating things in absolutes like "always" is more likely the losing proposition. It was a fine option during other editions anyways, being cheap with good anti-tank hitting power. The bonus on the damage chart was excellent, and the range wasn't an issue if you're expecting to be closer to the enemy. I outfitted my Tacs with Multimeltas for much of 6th edition, because I was often podding them or expecting them to be in the middle of things.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

A Custodes in heavy cover requires a -4 AP to get to their 4++ invuln. Plus heavier terrain coverage reduces the usefulness of Lascannon ranges. As more cityfight is played locally, the Multimelta is looking better.

Amazing that it isn't even a wound caused outside the Melta range! Or that you get almost TWO wounds in Melta range! Chapter Masters and Lieutenants don't help much either.

You mean more effective than a Lascannon, and cheaper.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Extend Plasma Cannon Range to 48" and you're doing fine. There's plenty of possible adjustments to be made if you want it.

Indeed. Or alternatively make the D3 shot multimelta range 18". The point of melta weapons is that they're difficult to manoeuvre into optimal firing position, but is you do, they hit like a truck.

We're arguing about weapons in a fantasy game. Some users need to take a breath and a break from the keyboard. If rudeness continues after this warning it will be dealt with

72Canadian72 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

72Canadian72 wrote:
Yes because being happy that other armies get models unique to their army for their players to play with makes me the bad sportsman

You're being happy that someone isn't allowed to play with the space marine toys, exactly the sort of thing you complained about when I said it. You aren't satisfied with all Imperial players having aircraft available, the space marines need their special snowflake and it's very important that Imperial Guard players don't get to use it.

Yes because me being happy that someone else gets something fun to enjoy, providing more variety and flavour to the game, really means Im deriving enjoyment at the thought that others are being denied this cool model. By that logic me enjoying the new Chaos model releases, really means I'm just getting off to the fact that Xenos and Imperial players can't use those models. You have a very pessimistic outlook mate, if you think that being happy others get cool, fun things to play with even if I dont get to use it, is somehow a bad thing.

Ya because getting angry that the lore of an army you dont play has changed or developed to allow new models or battlefield roles, sure deprives your ability to enjoy the game. Get real, that argument essentially boils down to "you cant use that model or unit, because I dont think you should, and if you do use it, you are ruining my game".

Of course I care about the fluff for armies I don't play, because all fluff is part of the same story. If GW destroys the fluff for one faction that damages my enjoyment of the game because I'm going to play against that army, read fluff involving it, etc. And, again, the battlefield roles were already covered. There was no reason to change that fluff, other than GW's marketing department sacrificing fluff integrity for sales.

Again fluff exists, to drive sales. Being mad over that is pointless.

Again your argument derives down to, "you cant play that way / or use that thing, because I say so, and doing otherwise hurts me!". That is prime poor sportsmanship right there.

Which is why its funny that the poster I was engaging with was complaining about Dark Talons being useless cause storm whatevers existed, when they themselves are similar to other existing fliers in the Imperium arsenal, yet they werent saying the 'stormwhatevers' should be removed, only the DA fliers. Do as I say, not as I do eh?

I am not responsible for the posts of other people. The DA flyers should be removed, and so should all of the other space marine flyers. But if we absolutely can't remove all space marine flyers then the DA ones at least should be removed since they're just the same storm-whatever hull with some chapter-specific bits glued on.

I never said you were? I was just elaborating on why I said the other guys argument was silly, in my previous message that you quote replied to.

If you agree with the logic that you only need as many fliers as there are battlefield roles, than you agree with my point that only three fliers are needed for all imperial factions. If you squat DA fliers, why cant you squat, the excess IG/DW/BA/SW/SM fliers to get down to the three fliers, one to fill air superiority, one for ground support and one for transport. Its no more difficult to toss away the Dark Talon as it is the Stormtalon. Why have Stormeagles, Valkyries and Corvus Blackstars? After all they all fill the carrier role. Its just as easy to squat any of them as any other imperial factions fliers. After all you just dont print a dataslate, and shut off the production lines.

They could replace the Corvus with the Stormraven datasheet for all I care. Lovely model, but the rules are more important and for it to be functional it should be a Stormraven. So we're actually well on track!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer, you're just getting more and more ridiculous. Now it's only tournament lists that doesn't use them. The goal posts have now been moved off the field.

Just stop while you're so far behind.

Here is another BR with my Ravenwing....including Meltaguns and Multi-meltas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om51IyUSIUw&t=197s

Stop thinking you know how everyone plays, you have no clue, period. The MM has a place in my list when I field pure Ravenwing. I like the Attack Bike and will continue to use it. Would I take it to a tournament? No, but that makes up a very small percentage of my games.

I don't care about some amateur battle report. I gave you a task and that was to prove the actual worth with numbers rather than silly anecdotal evidence.

What a sad little man you are, but at least your true colours come through. Hope you're getting a great salary as an elite, professional 40k player. lol

You didn't accomplish the task so you kinda forfeit your point. Most other weapons can at least find a role, yet Multi-Meltas don't. There's quite a simple reason behind it and you simply ignore it for whatever reason.

Start pretending they're Grav Cannons or Heavy Flamers and you'll gain better results. For the Attack Bikes, they're just nice display pieces not fit for any game.

If you agree with the logic that you only need as many fliers as there are battlefield roles, than you agree with my point that only three fliers are needed for all imperial factions. If you squat DA fliers, why cant you squat, the excess IG/DW/BA/SW/SM fliers to get down to the three fliers, one to fill air superiority, one for ground support and one for transport. Its no more difficult to toss away the Dark Talon as it is the Stormtalon. Why have Stormeagles, Valkyries and Corvus Blackstars? After all they all fill the carrier role. Its just as easy to squat any of them as any other imperial factions fliers. After all you just dont print a dataslate, and shut off the production lines.

Wow you just never stop with the extreme panic strawman do you.

I would prefer that the Marine flyers don;t exisit - mainly for reasons that Peregrine stated BUT if they have to stay - then they CAN be represented by a single or maybe two dateslates and likely a single kit with add ons

But some people just need to have all the focuss and resoruces on their sub-sub faction.....

 Peregrine wrote:

72Canadian72 wrote:
If anyone is upset that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously lacked one they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.

If anyone is happy that an army got a Flyer unit when they previously had explicit fluff that they are not, under penalty of death for heresy, permitted to have them they need to seriously get the over themselves as they are the worst type of player.

And please tell me more about how the Dark Talon and Nep. Jetfighter serving the same battlefield role as other fliers means they should be removed, given they are the only fliers for those roles available in 8th ed DA.

Give DA the same Thunderbolt/Lightning/Avenger/etc as every other Imperial faction. Or at least give them the heretical space marine abominations that are almost identical kits, just with different chapter-specific bits glued on.

As I said earlier, Space Marines have always had Thunderhawks in the fluff. It's a Flyer. You deflected by saying that they were more like transports - doesn't matter. This is not the US Army and USAF arguing over who can operate a given platform under US law.

What is fluff to you? Is the fluff locked into the form it was when you started? To me, its what is in the Codexes and books. Dark Talons and Nephilim are in both (the 6th Ed Codex and Gav Thorpe's Unforgiven). I think I will go with the Codex writer and Gav Thorpe when it comes to what is fluff/cannon.

The DA flyers are different than the other Space Marine flyers, both in fluff and rules. If you don't like the Dark Talon then don't buy it. You couldn't get them for a while last year because they sold out. Even with the two nerfs aimed at them they are still quite good. They are also very fluffy, transporting captured Fallen etc.

72Canadian72 wrote:
Yes because being happy that other armies get models unique to their army for their players to play with makes me the bad sportsman

Of course, don't you know good sportsmanship is defined by wanting to take every everything their opponent likes about their army away and turn it in to forgettable genericness?

This thread's really gone downhill.

 Melissia wrote:
Of course, don't you know good sportsmanship is defined by wanting to take every everything their opponent likes about their army away and turn it in to forgettable genericness?

This thread's really gone downhill.

If everything is "forgettable" because you don't have endless pages of special snowflake rules like "this unit re-rolls 1s just like every other unit, except the rule has a special name" then the fault is with your lack of imagination.

 Peregrine wrote:
If everything is "forgettable" because you don't have endless pages of special snowflake rules

Translation: "Peregrine wish all armies were the exact same."

You say "endless pages of special snowflake rules", I say "unique armies which have unique playstyles and unit choices". All army codices are "endles pages of special snowflake rules".

I don't play checkers, Peregrine. It's boring to me.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
As I said earlier, Space Marines have always had Thunderhawks in the fluff. It's a Flyer. You deflected by saying that they were more like transports - doesn't matter. This is not the US Army and USAF arguing over who can operate a given platform under US law.

Actually it's very much like that argument between branches of the military. The whole point is that as an anti-heresy measure the various Imperial factions are deliberately limited in what they can do so that no single regiment/chapter/etc turning traitor can have everything it needs to win a war. Want tanks to support your IG infantry regiment? Better stay loyal so that you can fight alongside a tank regiment. Want an air superiority fighter squadron to get your space marines through the enemy interceptors without getting shot down? Better make sure the Imperial Navy thinks you're loyal enough to deserve that Thunderbolt squadron.

The Thunderhawk is the rare exception to the policy, likely because it's a transport with guns bolted on and very limited in what it can do besides deliver space marines to a ground battle. Thunderhawks flying without conventional Imperial Navy support would be free kills for enemy air superiority fighters. But when you give space marines the full range of aircraft you break that dependence.

What is fluff to you? Is the fluff locked into the form it was when you started? To me, its what is in the Codexes and books. Dark Talons and Nephilim are in both (the 6th Ed Codex and Gav Thorpe's Unforgiven). I think I will go with the Codex writer and Gav Thorpe when it comes to what is fluff/cannon.

Of course fluff isn't static. But there had better be a good reason for changing that fluff, and "we can sell this horrifically ugly flyer kit" is not a good reason. Obviously they're canon now, but they never should have been added and the best thing GW could do would be to discontinue those kits and remove them from the fluff.

The DA flyers are different than the other Space Marine flyers, both in fluff and rules. If you don't like the Dark Talon then don't buy it. You couldn't get them for a while last year because they sold out. Even with the two nerfs aimed at them they are still quite good. They are also very fluffy, transporting captured Fallen etc.

Different? Lol. It's literally a storm talon kit with some wings bolted on, wings that most people think the original kit should have had.

 Mr Morden wrote:

If you agree with the logic that you only need as many fliers as there are battlefield roles, than you agree with my point that only three fliers are needed for all imperial factions. If you squat DA fliers, why cant you squat, the excess IG/DW/BA/SW/SM fliers to get down to the three fliers, one to fill air superiority, one for ground support and one for transport. Its no more difficult to toss away the Dark Talon as it is the Stormtalon. Why have Stormeagles, Valkyries and Corvus Blackstars? After all they all fill the carrier role. Its just as easy to squat any of them as any other imperial factions fliers. After all you just dont print a dataslate, and shut off the production lines.

Wow you just never stop with the extreme panic strawman do you.

I would prefer that the Marine flyers don;t exisit - mainly for reasons that Peregrine stated BUT if they have to stay - then they CAN be represented by a single or maybe two dateslates and likely a single kit with add ons

But some people just need to have all the focuss and resoruces on their sub-sub faction.....

you keep thinking that if only space marines had less sub factions more resources would be spent on other factions Morden. you're wrong. yet again GW is a corperation and is expected to make so much money a year, Space Marines is a proven way to make money. Space Marine sales subsidize the development of other less popular factions. they don't take it away.

 Melissia wrote:
Translation: "Peregrine wish all armies were the exact same."

You say "endless pages of special snowflake rules", I say "unique armies which have unique playstyles and unit choices". All army codices are "endles pages of special snowflake rules".

I don't play checkers, Peregrine. It's boring to me.

It's almost like there's a difference between giving armies legitimately different roles and rules to support those rules vs. a million different ways of saying "re-roll 1s" and options that are so similar you have to do a bunch of probability math to justify taking one over the other. Have you actually played any games other than 40k? If you had you'd see how you can have different units/armies with different play styles without having 40k's absurd word count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
you keep thinking that if only space marines had less sub factions more resources would be spent on other factions Morden. you're wrong. yet again GW is a corperation and is expected to make so much money a year, Space Marines is a proven way to make money. Space Marine sales subsidize the development of other less popular factions. they don't take it away.

You have cause and effect backwards IMO. Are space marines somehow unique in their fluff, to the point that people want to buy vast numbers of them and would ignore anything else? Not really. Much more likely is that space marines sell the most because GW puts them at the front of all of their marketing, players know that they will always have priority in rules support, every starter set comes with marine armies to get people committed to the faction, etc. Balance out the support instead of treating 40k as "space marines plus supporting characters" and sales would probably balance out to match.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's almost like there's a difference between giving armies legitimately different roles

There isn't.

Why should Tyranids have Synapse? Make them use standard leadership rules, the frakkin' snowflakes don't need a special rule. Why should Orks have WAAAGH! and crap? It's just a special snowflake rule to make Ork players less whiney, completely unnecessary. Why give Sisters Acts of Faith? Ain't nobody else have it, the snowflakes should have to do without it! And They Shall Know No Fear? Toss it out, nobody got time for them snowflakey marines. Death to the False Emperor? Who do they think they are, special? Screw 'em.

Your "Special snowflake rules" whine is complete and utter tripe, a pathetic non-argument not really even worth considering any more.

 Melissia wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
It's almost like there's a difference between giving armies legitimately different roles

There isn't.

Why should Tyranids have Synapse? Make them use standard leadership rules, the frakkin' snowflakes don't need a special rule. Why should Orks have WAAAGH! and crap? It's just a special snowflake rule to make Ork players less whiney, completely unnecessary. Why give Sisters Acts of Faith? Ain't nobody else have it, the snowflakes should have to do without it! And They Shall Know No Fear? Toss it out, nobody got time for them snowflakey marines. Death to the False Emperor? Who do they think they are, special? Screw 'em.

Your "Special snowflake rules" whine is complete and utter tripe, a pathetic non-argument not really even worth considering any more.

It must be so much easier to win arguments when you can just build your straw Peregrine and make it say whatever you want my position to be instead of having any constructive discussion of the subject.

 Peregrine wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
As I said earlier, Space Marines have always had Thunderhawks in the fluff. It's a Flyer. You deflected by saying that they were more like transports - doesn't matter. This is not the US Army and USAF arguing over who can operate a given platform under US law.

Actually it's very much like that argument between branches of the military. The whole point is that as an anti-heresy measure the various Imperial factions are deliberately limited in what they can do so that no single regiment/chapter/etc turning traitor can have everything it needs to win a war. Want tanks to support your IG infantry regiment? Better stay loyal so that you can fight alongside a tank regiment. Want an air superiority fighter squadron to get your space marines through the enemy interceptors without getting shot down? Better make sure the Imperial Navy thinks you're loyal enough to deserve that Thunderbolt squadron.

The Thunderhawk is the rare exception to the policy, likely because it's a transport with guns bolted on and very limited in what it can do besides deliver space marines to a ground battle. Thunderhawks flying without conventional Imperial Navy support would be free kills for enemy air superiority fighters. But when you give space marines the full range of aircraft you break that dependence.

What is fluff to you? Is the fluff locked into the form it was when you started? To me, its what is in the Codexes and books. Dark Talons and Nephilim are in both (the 6th Ed Codex and Gav Thorpe's Unforgiven). I think I will go with the Codex writer and Gav Thorpe when it comes to what is fluff/cannon.

Of course fluff isn't static. But there had better be a good reason for changing that fluff, and "we can sell this horrifically ugly flyer kit" is not a good reason. Obviously they're canon now, but they never should have been added and the best thing GW could do would be to discontinue those kits and remove them from the fluff.

The DA flyers are different than the other Space Marine flyers, both in fluff and rules. If you don't like the Dark Talon then don't buy it. You couldn't get them for a while last year because they sold out. Even with the two nerfs aimed at them they are still quite good. They are also very fluffy, transporting captured Fallen etc.

Different? Lol. It's literally a storm talon kit with some wings bolted on, wings that most people think the original kit should have had.

Except you did not mention the Thunderhawk when you first went on about the DA flyers being anti-fluff/against the policy. That tells me that you hadn't thought about it. The Thunderhawk is a pretty big long-standing exception to your policy then. GW sets the "Imperial policy" - not you or I.

You complain that folks are making a strawman Peregrine. You should look at your own argument. If you were saying: "I find the DA, and all Marine flyers except the Thunderhawk, ugly and against my head cannon and therefore I will not buy them" I wouldn't really care. What you do not like is totally up to you. What you are arguing in the this thread, though, is that "I find the DA flyers ugly, redundant and against my fluff head-cannon - therefore they should be removed from the game." If this is not what you are arguing please correct me.

Once again, if DA and Space Marine flyers are part of the official GW fluff you might just want to get over it and not try to impose your own vision on everybody else. Go ahead and share your vision, but you are advocating to get ride of things because you don't like them. You don't have to buy the models. Enough other people do to make them a viable product line, and the Dark Talons are indeed competitive models for what that is worth.

Cheers

T2B

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Except you did not mention the Thunderhawk when you first went on about the DA flyers being anti-fluff/against the policy. That tells me that you hadn't thought about it. The Thunderhawk is a pretty big long-standing exception to your policy then. GW sets the "Imperial policy" - not you or I.

I am well aware that the Thunderhawk exists. I didn't mention it because it effectively isn't a 40k model, so there's no point in talking about removing it from 40k rules. Its obscenely high point cost, poor rules, and extreme difficulty of use on a normal table already remove it and make it nothing more than a display piece.

And yes, GW writes the fluff. I'm pointing out that GW's marketing department went directly against their own fluff in a way that damaged the quality of the game and its background fiction. Consistency matters, and disregarding that consistency for the sake of short term sales is a great way to ruin the game.

You complain that folks are making a strawman Peregrine. You should look at your own argument. If you were saying: "I find the DA, and all Marine flyers except the Thunderhawk, ugly and against my head cannon and therefore I will not buy them" I wouldn't really care. What you do not like is totally up to you. What you are arguing in the this thread, though, is that "I find the DA flyers ugly, redundant and against my fluff head-cannon - therefore they should be removed from the game." If this is not what you are arguing please correct me.

"I find them against the previously established fluff, and a textbook example of GW's rules bloat that should be removed to improve the game".

 Peregrine wrote:

The DA flyers are different than the other Space Marine flyers, both in fluff and rules. If you don't like the Dark Talon then don't buy it. You couldn't get them for a while last year because they sold out. Even with the two nerfs aimed at them they are still quite good. They are also very fluffy, transporting captured Fallen etc.

Different? Lol. It's literally a storm talon kit with some wings bolted on, wings that most people think the original kit should have had.

Ding ding ding we have a winner folks!

 Mr Morden wrote:

If you agree with the logic that you only need as many fliers as there are battlefield roles, than you agree with my point that only three fliers are needed for all imperial factions. If you squat DA fliers, why cant you squat, the excess IG/DW/BA/SW/SM fliers to get down to the three fliers, one to fill air superiority, one for ground support and one for transport. Its no more difficult to toss away the Dark Talon as it is the Stormtalon. Why have Stormeagles, Valkyries and Corvus Blackstars? After all they all fill the carrier role. Its just as easy to squat any of them as any other imperial factions fliers. After all you just dont print a dataslate, and shut off the production lines.

Wow you just never stop with the extreme panic strawman do you.

I would prefer that the Marine flyers don;t exisit - mainly for reasons that Peregrine stated BUT if they have to stay - then they CAN be represented by a single or maybe two dateslates and likely a single kit with add ons

But some people just need to have all the focuss and resoruces on their sub-sub faction.....

Please explain how Ive made an 'extreme panic strawman', for simply pointing out that Slayers original argument applies to almost every Imperial flier, not just the DA ones, and that its just as easy to remove all the other fliers as it is the DA ones. Arguing only one faction should have squatted fliers when the process is the exact same to remove and model from the game is a bs argument as the process to squat a unit from the game is the exact same for every unit in the game, just turn off the production line and stop printing data sheets. Bam model is now unavailable and unplayable. Its no more difficult to do this to a DA flier than it is to do it to the SM stormtalon/hawk. At least as far as GW is concerned.

Pretty simple, you wanna combine all marines to one book? Fine, as long as a DA and DW player I lose absolutely ZERO options I have now, sure thing. It'll just be some extra weight training to lug that codex around with me.
Otherwise, nope. Deal with separate codexes and find another cause to cry over.

It's not fluffy for a secretive chapter who has a secret hunting mission to have attack planes specifically designed to work as part of their hunting group?

And it's not fluffy for a ground attack organization to have close support gunships?

It's not like these things are used as bombers against another battlefleet or anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
Pretty simple, you wanna combine all marines to one book? Fine, as long as a DA and DW player I lose absolutely ZERO options I have now, sure thing. It'll just be some extra weight training to lug that codex around with me.
Otherwise, nope. Deal with separate codexes and find another cause to cry over.

Just like the Black Templar lost none of their options?

 bullyboy wrote:
Pretty simple, you wanna combine all marines to one book? Fine, as long as a DA and DW player I lose absolutely ZERO options I have now, sure thing. It'll just be some extra weight training to lug that codex around with me.
Otherwise, nope. Deal with separate codexes and find another cause to cry over.

Deathwatch need to go into an Inquisition codex, so...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Deathwatch need to go into an Inquisition codex, so...

Deathwatch isn't related to the Inquisition anymore.