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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

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

Deathwatch isn't related to the Inquisition anymore.

What?

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

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

Deathwatch isn't related to the Inquisition anymore.

What?

1d4chan > Deathwatch > Recent Origins for an explanation.

Yeah, as years have passed the Inquisiton has become more and more irrelevant from a 40k wargame point of view (They are very much relevant in fluff, novels, videogames, etc...), and the three chamber militants have basically become their own thing.

Sisters of Battle, Deathwatch and Grey Knights mind their own bussines, but then they helpe Inquisitors when they are needed... or not. One example is the last DA comics of Titan Comics where a happy thing happens between the Inquisitor Protagonist and some Grey Knights.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
1d4chan > Deathwatch > Recent Origins for an explanation.

That's a bit unclear and them not being a chamber militant of Ordo Xenos would be colossally stupid. So once they are back in the Codex: Inquisition where they belong this connection can be clearly reaffirmed.

 Charistoph wrote:
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?

Heres hoping they get the Index Astartes treatment in WD. I love the concept behind the Templars.

 Charistoph wrote:
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?

It would be perfectly fluffy, if only GW would finally change the fluff to acknowledge that DA are a Tzeentch cult. I could definitely see some Helldrake-style demon engines with prisoner transport cages included.

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

Nope, because of the separation of powers. It's fluffy for that organization to want close support gunships, but it's a deliberate choice by the Imperium that they don't get any under their direct command. If they want those close support gunships then they need to convince the Imperial Navy that they remain loyal and deserve to have a squadron of Vultures temporarily assigned to support their attack. The whole point is that no Imperial faction can be self sufficient and everyone has to cooperate and remain loyal or the united loyalists opposing them will have plenty of weaknesses to exploit.

 Peregrine wrote:
...

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

Nope, because of the separation of powers. It's fluffy for that organization to want close support gunships, but it's a deliberate choice by the Imperium that they don't get any under their direct command. If they want those close support gunships then they need to convince the Imperial Navy that they remain loyal and deserve to have a squadron of Vultures temporarily assigned to support their attack. The whole point is that no Imperial faction can be self sufficient and everyone has to cooperate and remain loyal or the united loyalists opposing them will have plenty of weaknesses to exploit.

The Space Marines have quite a lot of close support gunships under their own command, between Thunderhawks, Stormravens, Stormtalons, and various Chapter-specific vehicles. The thing they're not supposed to have is a battlefleet; they get capital ships deliberately optimized for planetary assaults that aren't supposed to be able to handle a fleet engagement.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The Space Marines have quite a lot of close support gunships under their own command, between Thunderhawks, Stormravens, Stormtalons, and various Chapter-specific vehicles. The thing they're not supposed to have is a battlefleet; they get capital ships deliberately optimized for planetary assaults that aren't supposed to be able to handle a fleet engagement.

Yes, and that's the problem I'm objecting to. Those aircraft should not exist. I don't deny that they currently do, but GW's decision to create them was a serious mistake.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The Space Marines have quite a lot of close support gunships under their own command, between Thunderhawks, Stormravens, Stormtalons, and various Chapter-specific vehicles. The thing they're not supposed to have is a battlefleet; they get capital ships deliberately optimized for planetary assaults that aren't supposed to be able to handle a fleet engagement.

Yes, and that's the problem I'm objecting to. Those aircraft should not exist. I don't deny that they currently do, but GW's decision to create them was a serious mistake.

But they do exist. I actually agree with you that if we had a magic wand and go back in time I would support not releasing some of the stuff GW has over the years for some factions. However we can't do that and those models do exist and have for a while. What your advocating is making potentially a huge portion of current units and options not being valid in game choices.

That's not something I can get behind cause that is telling people who spend time money and effort to buy build and paint a model that it can't be used or has to be used as a potentially confusing proxy for another unit. Simply saying all the space marine fighters now just have one generic profile doesn't work when they are all different size, have different looking weapons. In a game that runs on TLOS and physical movement that creates a whole new host of potential issues.

Your solution for fixing 40k seems to boil down to trash most of it and start over. Is it really surprising that a lot of people are not taking your side on that.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
But they do exist. I actually agree with you that if we had a magic wand and go back in time I would support not releasing some of the stuff GW has over the years for some factions. However we can't do that and those models do exist and have for a while. What your advocating is making potentially a huge portion of current units and options not being valid in game choices.

That's not something I can get behind cause that is telling people who spend time money and effort to buy build and paint a model that it can't be used or has to be used as a potentially confusing proxy for another unit. Simply saying all the space marine fighters now just have one generic profile doesn't work when they are all different size, have different looking weapons. In a game that runs on TLOS and physical movement that creates a whole new host of potential issues.

Your solution for fixing 40k seems to boil down to trash most of it and start over. Is it really surprising that a lot of people are not taking your side on that.

Not feeling a whole lot of sympathy for this when I've got piles of models that either have no rules at all or have such awful rules that they might as well not exist.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
...

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

Nope, because of the separation of powers. It's fluffy for that organization to want close support gunships, but it's a deliberate choice by the Imperium that they don't get any under their direct command. If they want those close support gunships then they need to convince the Imperial Navy that they remain loyal and deserve to have a squadron of Vultures temporarily assigned to support their attack. The whole point is that no Imperial faction can be self sufficient and everyone has to cooperate and remain loyal or the united loyalists opposing them will have plenty of weaknesses to exploit.

The Space Marines have quite a lot of close support gunships under their own command, between Thunderhawks, Stormravens, Stormtalons, and various Chapter-specific vehicles. The thing they're not supposed to have is a battlefleet; they get capital ships deliberately optimized for planetary assaults that aren't supposed to be able to handle a fleet engagement.

The Chapter specific ones that Dark Angels have are functionally the same as the ones in the vanilla codex. It's honestly silly to pretend otherwise.

Hell, the Stormhawk and Talon shouldn't be separate entries in the first place.

Yes, it would be good for the game to have just one big marine book.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
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?

It would be perfectly fluffy, if only GW would finally change the fluff to acknowledge that DA are a Tzeentch cult. I could definitely see some Helldrake-style demon engines with prisoner transport cages included.

Why? Ravenwing is supposed to hunt down the Fallen. Attack planes are not needed for transport, but used to clear the way for transport, and are meant to maneuver in low altitude making them decent for keeping track of targets that ground units may not be able to follow as easily. Might as well ask why the Ravenwing's bikes and speeders don't have such cages and dragon styling. You're putting pressures and considerations on a concept which do not match the needs or "realities" of the situation and using them as a strawman.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

Nope, because of the separation of powers. It's fluffy for that organization to want close support gunships, but it's a deliberate choice by the Imperium that they don't get any under their direct command. If they want those close support gunships then they need to convince the Imperial Navy that they remain loyal and deserve to have a squadron of Vultures temporarily assigned to support their attack. The whole point is that no Imperial faction can be self sufficient and everyone has to cooperate and remain loyal or the united loyalists opposing them will have plenty of weaknesses to exploit.

And they aren't self-sufficient. They have gunships, attack planes, and assault transports. Sure, good pilots can dogfight with such, but compared to dedicated fighters with even decent pilots, they hardly qualify as self-sufficient. Their mission isn't air superiority, but to punch holes in ground targets.

 Peregrine wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
But they do exist. I actually agree with you that if we had a magic wand and go back in time I would support not releasing some of the stuff GW has over the years for some factions. However we can't do that and those models do exist and have for a while. What your advocating is making potentially a huge portion of current units and options not being valid in game choices.

That's not something I can get behind cause that is telling people who spend time money and effort to buy build and paint a model that it can't be used or has to be used as a potentially confusing proxy for another unit. Simply saying all the space marine fighters now just have one generic profile doesn't work when they are all different size, have different looking weapons. In a game that runs on TLOS and physical movement that creates a whole new host of potential issues.

Your solution for fixing 40k seems to boil down to trash most of it and start over. Is it really surprising that a lot of people are not taking your side on that.

Not feeling a whole lot of sympathy for this when I've got piles of models that either have no rules at all or have such awful rules that they might as well not exist.

And there it is, ladies and gentlemen. "I was treated badly, so feth everyone else."

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


And there it is, ladies and gentlemen. "I was treated badly, so feth everyone else."

Makes more sense, then I was treated badly, so now others should have improved game expiriance to be honest.

Karol wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


And there it is, ladies and gentlemen. "I was treated badly, so feth everyone else."

Makes more sense, then I was treated badly, so now others should have improved game expiriance to be honest.

Actually, the inverse is the far more logical and helpful approach.

If you were treated badly, surely instead of being petty, you should want to improve the experience for others and make sure that no-one else has to suffer the same as what you did. If your experience of 40k was "your units are trash, git gud", surely the more logical thing to do would be to dismantle that kind of attitude and create a world where other people don't have to deal with that same kind of negativity?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
1d4chan > Deathwatch > Recent Origins for an explanation.

That's a bit unclear and them not being a chamber militant of Ordo Xenos would be colossally stupid. So once they are back in the Codex: Inquisition where they belong this connection can be clearly reaffirmed.

As far as I'm aware, Deathwatch aren't a Chamber Militant, but also, like the GK, work closely with their respective Ordo. They seem to have been created during the War of the Beast, but not necessarily beholden to an Inquisitor beyond that of a normal Astartes Chapter.

I think I prefer them as a Chamber Militant, but right now, the fluff says otherwise.

Actually, the inverse is the far more logical and helpful approach.

If you were treated badly, surely instead of being petty, you should want to improve the experience for others and make sure that no-one else has to suffer the same as what you did. If your experience of 40k was "your units are trash, git gud", surely the more logical thing to do would be to dismantle that kind of attitude and create a world where other people don't have to deal with that same kind of negativity?

Changes nothing about your own situation, worse if you or GW does succesfuly pull the change off, your opponents who may have had only a bit better time playing then you now have a great time, but you with your unchanged army get worse with every updated army that is made better. Has nothing to do with being petty, pure game realism, if your army sucks and it doesn't look like GW is trying to fix it, then fixing other people armies not only makes your gaming expiriance worse, but also the people who get better or updated armies are going to tell you that everything is more then fine, I mean they just got a fun an updated army

One would have to be 100% sure that their own army is going to be updated and be made good, and the update would have to happen in a short enough time for you to expiriance it. I mean who cares if Black Templars are planed to get good rules in 15th edition, if you stop playing around 9th ?

Am not sure about the lack of get good argument in a space where your army is bad and other armies are good or at least getting better. Does not help the person with the bad army in any way, but gives the people with the good or improving armies the argument that clearly stuff is being done and the game is getting better. But it only gets better for them, not for you. you would have to put others above oneself for this to be true, and that seems very strange. not even in families do people put others over themselfs.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The Space Marines have quite a lot of close support gunships under their own command, between Thunderhawks, Stormravens, Stormtalons, and various Chapter-specific vehicles. The thing they're not supposed to have is a battlefleet; they get capital ships deliberately optimized for planetary assaults that aren't supposed to be able to handle a fleet engagement.

Yes, and that's the problem I'm objecting to. Those aircraft should not exist. I don't deny that they currently do, but GW's decision to create them was a serious mistake.

...Wait, the decision to create the Thunderhawk was a serious mistake? How old are you?

 Peregrine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The Space Marines have quite a lot of close support gunships under their own command, between Thunderhawks, Stormravens, Stormtalons, and various Chapter-specific vehicles. The thing they're not supposed to have is a battlefleet; they get capital ships deliberately optimized for planetary assaults that aren't supposed to be able to handle a fleet engagement.

Yes, and that's the problem I'm objecting to. Those aircraft should not exist. I don't deny that they currently do, but GW's decision to create them was a serious mistake.

But GW has created them. So the old fluff parts that have been contradicted are invalid under the current scope of things. Therefore claims of unfluffyness with concern to this issue are invalid. Because this is the new fluff. Take off your rose-tinted glasses.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

[

Peregrine,

In your original post that kicked off this tangent you said "the Imperial Navy had control of all aircraft..." This was clearly incorrect - the Thunderhawk is an aircraft and has always been in the fluff. You made no qualifying reference to the Thunderhawk in your original post - I suspect that you got caught up in the moment and forgot about it - calling for the execution of heretics etc. The old fluff talks about separating the Imperial Navy from the Imperial Army and breaking up the Chapters into smaller entities. The Space Marine Chapters were still capable of independent action - just not on a large scale. It is perfectly sensible for the Space Marines to have their own flyers, and indeed they always did ( just like the real world USMC). The Dark Angels in particular carry out independent missions. Having their own flyers makes also perfect sense in the fluff. In any case, Dark Talons are absolutely canon now.

Yes, the range of Space Marine aircraft has increased as the game added Flyers - they take about the Nephilim being build in M40 with newly-discovered STC engines. They had a Thunderhawk in the old days - impossible to build and too large for the games. The Stormraven is really just a scaled down playable Thunderhawk. We can debate whether flyers were a good idea, but they are part of the game now.

Variety is good. My Dark Talon does play differently than other Marine flyers. I don't like long core rule books, but I am very happy to collect and face a wide variety of units. Looking at the pages and pages of people agonizing over army lists I think that its a crucial part of the hobby. You don't seem to like it - that fine! You don't need to. Just don't expect to impose your vision on everybody else.

Except the Dark Talon and Nephilim do not play differently to the other Marine fliers. The Nephilim acts exactly like the Stormhawk (to the point the rules are basically the same) and the Dark Talon is not much different to the Stormtalon except with an unreliable Mortal Wound mechanic.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except the Dark Talon and Nephilim do not play differently to the other Marine fliers. The Nephilim acts exactly like the Stormhawk (to the point the rules are basically the same) and the Dark Talon is not much different to the Stormtalon except with an unreliable Mortal Wound mechanic.

They have completely different weapon suites and special rules from each other. Sure, their movement profiles are similar, but otherwise there are plenty of differences.

The Nephilim has different weapons than the Stormhawk. The Nephilim has Strafing Run while the Stormhawk has Interceptor. The Nephilim can Jink and use Speed of the Raven. The Stormhawk has an Infernium Halo Launcher. The net result is that they play differently.

The Dark Talon has Twin Hurricane Bolters and the rather unique Rift Cannon that you allude to. The Stormtalon has different weapons, and also has Interceptor rather than Strafing Run.

A Dark Angels player cannot take the Stormhawk and Stormtalon even if he wants to (well, without mixing Detachments). The inverse is true for an Ultramarines player. Its good to have choices and consequences for those choices.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except the Dark Talon and Nephilim do not play differently to the other Marine fliers. The Nephilim acts exactly like the Stormhawk (to the point the rules are basically the same) and the Dark Talon is not much different to the Stormtalon except with an unreliable Mortal Wound mechanic.

No, the Dark Talon is not the same as the Stormtalon, not even close. It has 2 hurricane bolters, a rift cannon and a bomb that causes Mortal Wounds. The stormtalon is closer to a glorified landspeeder than a Dark Talon.

The Nephilim is a different story, but I guess when they designed the Talon they figured why not make a second kit? However, even though it's classed as an interceptor, it doesn't have any bonus to targeting flying opponents unlike the hawk. In fact it has strafing run making it a ground attack fighter, which the hawk clearly is not.

The Talon is a very specific DA flier with ancient tech (which is a feature for DAs) and fluff wise is used to capture and transport Fallen back to the Rock. It in no way replicates what other marine fliers do.

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except the Dark Talon and Nephilim do not play differently to the other Marine fliers. The Nephilim acts exactly like the Stormhawk (to the point the rules are basically the same) and the Dark Talon is not much different to the Stormtalon except with an unreliable Mortal Wound mechanic.

No, the Dark Talon is not the same as the Stormtalon, not even close. It has 2 hurricane bolters, a rift cannon and a bomb that causes Mortal Wounds. The stormtalon is closer to a glorified landspeeder than a Dark Talon.

The Nephilim is a different story, but I guess when they designed the Talon they figured why not make a second kit? However, even though it's classed as an interceptor, it doesn't have any bonus to targeting flying opponents unlike the hawk. In fact it has strafing run making it a ground attack fighter, which the hawk clearly is not.

The Talon is a very specific DA flier with ancient tech (which is a feature for DAs) and fluff wise is used to capture and transport Fallen back to the Rock. It in no way replicates what other marine fliers do.

The Dark Talon and the Nephilim, however, do copy-paste the profile (almost exactly, their Attacks don't degrade) and all the special rules of the Storm Talon.

Imagine, for the moment, that you're writing a big unified Marine book that has one entry for the Storm Talon, and then there's a bullet point in the "options" section that says "Dark Angels only: replace all weapons with two hurricane bolters and a rift cannon, add the Jink special rule." Would this really do so much damage to the Dark Angels' distinctiveness if you were to define the Dark Talon as a weapon option for the Storm Talon rather than as a unique datasheet that just copy-pastes 90% of its text from the Storm Talon?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except the Dark Talon and Nephilim do not play differently to the other Marine fliers. The Nephilim acts exactly like the Stormhawk (to the point the rules are basically the same) and the Dark Talon is not much different to the Stormtalon except with an unreliable Mortal Wound mechanic.

No, the Dark Talon is not the same as the Stormtalon, not even close. It has 2 hurricane bolters, a rift cannon and a bomb that causes Mortal Wounds. The stormtalon is closer to a glorified landspeeder than a Dark Talon.

The Nephilim is a different story, but I guess when they designed the Talon they figured why not make a second kit? However, even though it's classed as an interceptor, it doesn't have any bonus to targeting flying opponents unlike the hawk. In fact it has strafing run making it a ground attack fighter, which the hawk clearly is not.

The Talon is a very specific DA flier with ancient tech (which is a feature for DAs) and fluff wise is used to capture and transport Fallen back to the Rock. It in no way replicates what other marine fliers do.

The Dark Talon and the Nephilim, however, do copy-paste the profile (almost exactly, their Attacks don't degrade) and all the special rules of the Storm Talon.

Imagine, for the moment, that you're writing a big unified Marine book that has one entry for the Storm Talon, and then there's a bullet point in the "options" section that says "Dark Angels only: replace all weapons with two hurricane bolters and a rift cannon, add the Jink special rule." Would this really do so much damage to the Dark Angels' distinctiveness if you were to define the Dark Talon as a weapon option for the Storm Talon rather than as a unique datasheet that just copy-pastes 90% of its text from the Storm Talon?

Imo that's totally the way to go. However I think they prefer different datasheets for different models/kits. The fact that the bullet point changes the kit you buy could be confusing from a user standpoint.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except the Dark Talon and Nephilim do not play differently to the other Marine fliers. The Nephilim acts exactly like the Stormhawk (to the point the rules are basically the same) and the Dark Talon is not much different to the Stormtalon except with an unreliable Mortal Wound mechanic.

No, the Dark Talon is not the same as the Stormtalon, not even close. It has 2 hurricane bolters, a rift cannon and a bomb that causes Mortal Wounds. The stormtalon is closer to a glorified landspeeder than a Dark Talon.

The Nephilim is a different story, but I guess when they designed the Talon they figured why not make a second kit? However, even though it's classed as an interceptor, it doesn't have any bonus to targeting flying opponents unlike the hawk. In fact it has strafing run making it a ground attack fighter, which the hawk clearly is not.

The Talon is a very specific DA flier with ancient tech (which is a feature for DAs) and fluff wise is used to capture and transport Fallen back to the Rock. It in no way replicates what other marine fliers do.

The Dark Talon and the Nephilim, however, do copy-paste the profile (almost exactly, their Attacks don't degrade) and all the special rules of the Storm Talon.

Imagine, for the moment, that you're writing a big unified Marine book that has one entry for the Storm Talon, and then there's a bullet point in the "options" section that says "Dark Angels only: replace all weapons with two hurricane bolters and a rift cannon, add the Jink special rule." Would this really do so much damage to the Dark Angels' distinctiveness if you were to define the Dark Talon as a weapon option for the Storm Talon rather than as a unique datasheet that just copy-pastes 90% of its text from the Storm Talon?

Imo that's totally the way to go. However I think they prefer different datasheets for different models/kits. The fact that the bullet point changes the kit you buy could be confusing from a user standpoint.

My problem with this is that it makes the game more complicated to make it simpler. Right now there are four different Terminator squads in the basic standard-issue Space Marine Codex because GW sells four different boxes (standard, assault, Tartaros, Cataphractii), but because they all have to do the same thing slightly differently you need to explain to newbies that they should never take (squad X) because (squad Y) does the same thing better, when to the newbie's eye they're pretty much identical. Is it more user-friendly to tell people "oh, you have options on this model that you need a different box for", or "oh, the version of this model that looks cool is worse than the one that doesn't look cool, you should buy the ugly one for an efficiency boost we can't explain to you without spreadsheets"?

But what stops Gw from giving each termintor unit rules that make the units really different and not kind of a copy of each other. +1inv is not a difference enough, maybe those termintors if they stand, they give other units inv. Maybe tartarors get personal teleporters and move more like jump pack units etc.

"But what stops Gw from giving each termintor unit rules that make the units really different and not kind of a copy of each other."
Nothing at all.

But then, consolidation wouldn't prevent it either.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except the Dark Talon and Nephilim do not play differently to the other Marine fliers. The Nephilim acts exactly like the Stormhawk (to the point the rules are basically the same) and the Dark Talon is not much different to the Stormtalon except with an unreliable Mortal Wound mechanic.

No, the Dark Talon is not the same as the Stormtalon, not even close. It has 2 hurricane bolters, a rift cannon and a bomb that causes Mortal Wounds. The stormtalon is closer to a glorified landspeeder than a Dark Talon.

The Nephilim is a different story, but I guess when they designed the Talon they figured why not make a second kit? However, even though it's classed as an interceptor, it doesn't have any bonus to targeting flying opponents unlike the hawk. In fact it has strafing run making it a ground attack fighter, which the hawk clearly is not.

The Talon is a very specific DA flier with ancient tech (which is a feature for DAs) and fluff wise is used to capture and transport Fallen back to the Rock. It in no way replicates what other marine fliers do.

The Dark Talon and the Nephilim, however, do copy-paste the profile (almost exactly, their Attacks don't degrade) and all the special rules of the Storm Talon.

Imagine, for the moment, that you're writing a big unified Marine book that has one entry for the Storm Talon, and then there's a bullet point in the "options" section that says "Dark Angels only: replace all weapons with two hurricane bolters and a rift cannon, add the Jink special rule." Would this really do so much damage to the Dark Angels' distinctiveness if you were to define the Dark Talon as a weapon option for the Storm Talon rather than as a unique datasheet that just copy-pastes 90% of its text from the Storm Talon?

Imo that's totally the way to go. However I think they prefer different datasheets for different models/kits. The fact that the bullet point changes the kit you buy could be confusing from a user standpoint.

My problem with this is that it makes the game more complicated to make it simpler. Right now there are four different Terminator squads in the basic standard-issue Space Marine Codex because GW sells four different boxes (standard, assault, Tartaros, Cataphractii), but because they all have to do the same thing slightly differently you need to explain to newbies that they should never take (squad X) because (squad Y) does the same thing better, when to the newbie's eye they're pretty much identical. Is it more user-friendly to tell people "oh, you have options on this model that you need a different box for", or "oh, the version of this model that looks cool is worse than the one that doesn't look cool, you should buy the ugly one for an efficiency boost we can't explain to you without spreadsheets"?

I think keeping it at as close to a one-to-one relationship between kits and datasheets is a reasonable way to go, especially when you can include the datasheet in the kit.

Karol wrote:
But what stops Gw from giving each termintor unit rules that make the units really different and not kind of a copy of each other. +1inv is not a difference enough, maybe those termintors if they stand, they give other units inv. Maybe tartarors get personal teleporters and move more like jump pack units etc.

Why should they be different? GW sells a "Farseer on foot" in two different kits yet they don't have different rules. GW has four different boxes labeled "Tactical squad" (standard, Blood Angels, Mk.IV, Mk.III) on sale today, they don't have different rules. And going the other direction there's one "Dreadnaught" kit that has four different unit profiles (normal Dreadnaught with some guns that aren't in the box, Venerable Dreadnaught with some guns that aren't in the box, Deathwatch Venerable Dreadnaught with no guns that aren't in the box, and Mortis Dreadnaught with all the rest of the guns that aren't in the box), why isn't there just one Dreadnaught that's allowed all the upgrade options GW sells for the model?

To clarify: I have no objection to kit-to-rules correspondence. I love kit-to-rules correspondence. But I think that using "it isn't in the kit" is a weak justification for deleting options when GW makes the option (heavy flamers on Tactical Marines, for instance), and "different patterns of armour should have different rules" is sort of nonsensical to me given that if you have to do meaningfully different rules for slight cosmetic variations you end up with too many units. Consider that at the moment the "ladder" of Imperial infantry includes Conscripts < Guardsmen < Guard Veterans < Stormtroopers < Battle Sisters < Scouts < Space Marines < Veteran Space Marines < Primaris Marines < Terminators < Aggressors < Centurions < Custodians < Custodian Wardens < Allarus. That is already ludicrous for a wargame. Shoving stats around at one step on that ladder has a knock-on effect to everywhere else on the ladder because the game isn't granular enough for Tartaros/Cataphractii/Indomitus to be a meaningful distinction, any more than the ten different marks of power armour can be a meaningful distinction.