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.
2019/08/02 14:01:52
Subject: Re:A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
3. Everyone knows that the Chaos Knight codex shouldn't exist as is. Look at how little it has in content. At most you need 1 page in the main Knight codex to explain how switching keywords makes them enemies of the Imperium and we can give you 5 pages of fluff on how they go Renegade or chaotic sometimes.
funny chaos players have wanted this for a long time. honest to god question, whats it to you if GW puts out new material for other players?
You didn't even bother to look at the "content" in the Chaos Knight codex I bet. In fact, I already know you didn't.
Basically all shared datasheets, not a lot of new fluff. You really don't think that a page dedicated to switching keywords would be handled everything and gave Chaos players (like me) what they wanted? The answer is yes it would have. You're being naive on purpose to say otherwise.
Lance845 wrote: Slayer, this isn't a logical argument for them. It's an emotional one. They want because they want and no amount of reasoning will matter next to those wants.
It doesn't matter that you could just give ALL terminators the option to take a single storm shield and it wouldn't make any difference. They want Deathwing to have their own datasheet for reasons.
lance845, we've been nothing but logical with our arguments, and your dismissiveness is insulting. Grow up.
No you haven't. "I like fluff and pictures of painted models" isn't a logical argument. It's an emotional one.
On the one hand I don't mean to be insulting. On the other I don't actually care how you feel about it..
No, but "people who buy GW products like fluff and painted models" is a logical argument.
On the one hand it doesn't matter if you meant to, on the other, you're just lashing out because you're wrong about everything in this thread.
Lance845 wrote: Slayer, this isn't a logical argument for them. It's an emotional one. They want because they want and no amount of reasoning will matter next to those wants.
It doesn't matter that you could just give ALL terminators the option to take a single storm shield and it wouldn't make any difference. They want Deathwing to have their own datasheet for reasons.
lance845, we've been nothing but logical with our arguments, and your dismissiveness is insulting. Grow up.
Where have you been logical in defending Crowe? I'd like to see that please.
Reread my posts. You might have to first look up what a logical argument is though, since you don't seem to recognize one when you see it.
3. Everyone knows that the Chaos Knight codex shouldn't exist as is. Look at how little it has in content. At most you need 1 page in the main Knight codex to explain how switching keywords makes them enemies of the Imperium and we can give you 5 pages of fluff on how they go Renegade or chaotic sometimes.
funny chaos players have wanted this for a long time. honest to god question, whats it to you if GW puts out new material for other players?
Everything new, and everything they don't use is bloat to them. You can see it every time these 'debates happen.
As already stated by Lance you weren't logical in your argument in defending the unit entry for Crowe. It's pointless and it's bloat and it needs to go.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/02 14:03:57
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/08/02 14:11:00
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
Crimson wrote: Primarchs, Phoenix Lords etc. Everything else can be represented by just adding more customisablity to the generic characters.
Yes, and Abbaddon should just be replaced by.. um.. by... Generic 10,000 year old uber almost a primarch Chaos Lords. And Marneus Calgar isn't unique, you can just replace him with... the generic Primaris Chapter Master with unique gear and special CP generating abilities.
The idea that this unique guy with a name and special rules is unique, and that unique guy with a name and special rules isn't doesn't carry a lot of water.
Maybe not Tiggy, but I have made mention of removing Chronus and Tellion before. Nobody will miss them and they'd be perfect as generic stand-ins for the purposes you listed.
You keep adding to this list of characters you've decided the people arguing against squatting them wouldn't miss - as an argument for why they wouldn't miss them. I've got Telion, and I use him all the time, loved him as a Scout Squad upgrade. I've got Chronus. Use him less than all the time but still fairly often. I'd miss him. And I'd miss Asmodai. And I still miss Sapphon. I even miss Invictus now that we have a way to kitbash a model for him. Any others you want to add to the list?
There's several characters that don't need entries actually. Outside Tellion and Chronus and Asmodai, we can lose the entries for Crowe, Corbulo, Lemartes (as Death Company should've been Fearless again in the first place), Artemis, Faaaaabulous Bile, and possibly Androcles off the top of my head.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/08/02 14:22:22
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
"People like [thing] therefore [conclusion] to make them happy" is a logical argument based on emotional claims.
"I like Crowe.
Therefore, nobody liking Crowe is inaccurate.
Therefore, removing him would remove something that is liked.
Therefore, removing the unit based on the rationale that nobody likes it is unfounded."
Is a very logical argument. A very basic and logical siligism based on a single emotional claim.
2019/08/02 14:22:55
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
You mean my posts acknowledged that people with different tastes and wants purchase codexes, which are currently designed to appeal to as many of them as possible, while your posts are trying to force your own personal view on it?
Yeah, totally a mistake on my part. How dare I consider people who aren't me.
The fact that you don't recognize the logic behind having a product that is as inclusive as possible is worrisome. I'm not sure you're properly equipped to be having this discussion. Until you actually start figuring out what a real logical argument is, consider your posts in this thread to be ignored for their lack of value.
Nice try though Cupcake.
This discussion starts and ends with why the same datasheets are reprinted over and over again in different publications and the merits or flaws of merging them into a single codex.
The current codex format is flawed. And your arguments for their current format is "But I like it, and I think a majority of other people also like it so I am going to state that everyone who buys GW likes it as though it's a fact". I am all for products that support everyone's favorite aspects of the hobby. I am not for selling people 4 books when you could sell them 1.
Ding ding ding we have a winner! Anyone saying it can't be done didn't even bother to look at how I would format the codex a couple pages back.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/02 14:24:04
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/08/02 14:24:56
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
Crimson wrote: Primarchs, Phoenix Lords etc. Everything else can be represented by just adding more customisablity to the generic characters.
Yes, and Abbaddon should just be replaced by.. um.. by... Generic 10,000 year old uber almost a primarch Chaos Lords. And Marneus Calgar isn't unique, you can just replace him with... the generic Primaris Chapter Master with unique gear and special CP generating abilities.
The idea that this unique guy with a name and special rules is unique, and that unique guy with a name and special rules isn't doesn't carry a lot of water.
Maybe not Tiggy, but I have made mention of removing Chronus and Tellion before. Nobody will miss them and they'd be perfect as generic stand-ins for the purposes you listed.
You keep adding to this list of characters you've decided the people arguing against squatting them wouldn't miss - as an argument for why they wouldn't miss them. I've got Telion, and I use him all the time, loved him as a Scout Squad upgrade. I've got Chronus. Use him less than all the time but still fairly often. I'd miss him. And I'd miss Asmodai. And I still miss Sapphon. I even miss Invictus now that we have a way to kitbash a model for him. Any others you want to add to the list?
There's several characters that don't need entries actually. Outside Tellion and Chronus and Asmodai, we can lose the entries for Crowe, Corbulo, Lemartes (as Death Company should've been Fearless again in the first place), Artemis, Faaaaabulous Bile, and possibly Androcles off the top of my head.
We don't need entries for Tac Marines. Or Intercessors. Scouts. Or anything else. In fact, we don't need Astartes. In fact, we don't need the Imperium. In fact, we don't need 40k.
It's not a question of absolute need. It's a question of relative value. Because "need" is relative; it only has meaning in relation to a demand. We "need" food "to live". We "need" rules to "play a rules-based games".
So what's the "need" we're trying to satisfy?
The "need" you're trying to satisfy is "SM should be one book" - so any argument based on that is circular.
2019/08/02 14:27:56
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
Crimson wrote: Primarchs, Phoenix Lords etc. Everything else can be represented by just adding more customisablity to the generic characters.
Yes, and Abbaddon should just be replaced by.. um.. by... Generic 10,000 year old uber almost a primarch Chaos Lords. And Marneus Calgar isn't unique, you can just replace him with... the generic Primaris Chapter Master with unique gear and special CP generating abilities.
The idea that this unique guy with a name and special rules is unique, and that unique guy with a name and special rules isn't doesn't carry a lot of water.
Maybe not Tiggy, but I have made mention of removing Chronus and Tellion before. Nobody will miss them and they'd be perfect as generic stand-ins for the purposes you listed.
You keep adding to this list of characters you've decided the people arguing against squatting them wouldn't miss - as an argument for why they wouldn't miss them. I've got Telion, and I use him all the time, loved him as a Scout Squad upgrade. I've got Chronus. Use him less than all the time but still fairly often. I'd miss him. And I'd miss Asmodai. And I still miss Sapphon. I even miss Invictus now that we have a way to kitbash a model for him. Any others you want to add to the list?
There's several characters that don't need entries actually. Outside Tellion and Chronus and Asmodai, we can lose the entries for Crowe, Corbulo, Lemartes (as Death Company should've been Fearless again in the first place), Artemis, Faaaaabulous Bile, and possibly Androcles off the top of my head.
We don't need entries for Tac Marines. Or Intercessors. Scouts. Or anything else. In fact, we don't need Astartes. In fact, we don't need the Imperium. In fact, we don't need 40k.
It's not a question of absolute need. It's a question of relative value. Because "need" is relative; it only has meaning in relation to a demand. We "need" food "to live". We "need" rules to "play a rules-based games".
So what's the "need" we're trying to satisfy?
The "need" you're trying to satisfy is "SM should be one book" - so any argument based on that is circular.
The need is to get rid of unnecessary bloat from characters that aren't worth keeping around. Can you say with a straight face Artemis something TRULY unique that deserves his own entry?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/08/02 14:34:43
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
I never really understood why people like special characters. I would much rather have a flexible rules for generic characters with a lot of customisability that would allow people to create a number of their own unique characters, as well as represent the official GW lore characters.
Same with chapters and units. I would rather have a big customisable sandbox than limited predetermined builds.
But some people just seem to love (to me) pointless restrictions.
To them it is 'flavour' that red marines can have an options A, B and C and blue marines options A, B and D (and if you think your custom chapter would be best represented by options A, C and D you're out of luck.) Instead of, you know, having marines with options A, B, C and D and letting every player to choose what they like.
Crimson wrote: Primarchs, Phoenix Lords etc. Everything else can be represented by just adding more customisablity to the generic characters.
Yes, and Abbaddon should just be replaced by.. um.. by... Generic 10,000 year old uber almost a primarch Chaos Lords. And Marneus Calgar isn't unique, you can just replace him with... the generic Primaris Chapter Master with unique gear and special CP generating abilities.
The idea that this unique guy with a name and special rules is unique, and that unique guy with a name and special rules isn't doesn't carry a lot of water.
Maybe not Tiggy, but I have made mention of removing Chronus and Tellion before. Nobody will miss them and they'd be perfect as generic stand-ins for the purposes you listed.
You keep adding to this list of characters you've decided the people arguing against squatting them wouldn't miss - as an argument for why they wouldn't miss them. I've got Telion, and I use him all the time, loved him as a Scout Squad upgrade. I've got Chronus. Use him less than all the time but still fairly often. I'd miss him. And I'd miss Asmodai. And I still miss Sapphon. I even miss Invictus now that we have a way to kitbash a model for him. Any others you want to add to the list?
There's several characters that don't need entries actually. Outside Tellion and Chronus and Asmodai, we can lose the entries for Crowe, Corbulo, Lemartes (as Death Company should've been Fearless again in the first place), Artemis, Faaaaabulous Bile, and possibly Androcles off the top of my head.
So you say. There are people who disagree with you. Stop presenting your opinion as fact.
2019/08/02 14:42:52
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
Crimson wrote: I never really understood why people like special characters. I would much rather have a flexible rules for generic characters with a lot of customisability that would allow people to create a number of their own unique characters, as well as represent the official GW lore characters.
Same with chapters and units. I would rather have a big customisable sandbox than limited predetermined builds.
But some people just seem to love (to me) pointless restrictions.
To them it is 'flavour' that red marines can have an options A, B and C and blue marines options A, B and D (and if you think your custom chapter would be best represented by options A, C and D you're out of luck.) Instead of, you know, having marines with options A, B, C and D and letting every player to choose what they like.
Yeah. Did you know Dark Angels and their successors can't have Centurions, a unit that clearly fits their fighting doctrine, and have never had access to them ever for...reasons? So unique everyone! Buy the whole unnecessary codex!!!
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/08/02 14:44:30
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
You mean my posts acknowledged that people with different tastes and wants purchase codexes, which are currently designed to appeal to as many of them as possible, while your posts are trying to force your own personal view on it?
Yeah, totally a mistake on my part. How dare I consider people who aren't me.
The fact that you don't recognize the logic behind having a product that is as inclusive as possible is worrisome. I'm not sure you're properly equipped to be having this discussion. Until you actually start figuring out what a real logical argument is, consider your posts in this thread to be ignored for their lack of value.
Nice try though Cupcake.
This discussion starts and ends with why the same datasheets are reprinted over and over again in different publications and the merits or flaws of merging them into a single codex.
The argument against merging is firmly footed in whether being inclusive is worth having the same unit in multiple forces (although reprinting vs referencing runs orthogonal to it). That is no more emotional an argument than "Marines shouldn't be 100ppm for current stats because it'd make the game bad".
Dismissing the argument as not relevant to the merge-or-not question is like dismissing relativity from the GPS system; sure, it might make more sense for people who don't really grasp the whole question, but you've made it pointless.
The current codex format is flawed. And your arguments for their current format is "But I like it, and I think a majority of other people also like it so I am going to state that everyone who buys GW likes it as though it's a fact".
Here's where you're way off. His argument is "Your solution is worse than the problem". Similarly, if my problem is my car is too dirty, lighting it on fire is one possible solution. Pointing out that that solution is worse than the problem is very much logical.
Further, he's not saying "everyone who buys GW likes it". You're saying "I don't, therefore those that do are being emotional".
I am all for products that support everyone's favorite aspects of the hobby.
Only so far as they confine themselves to what you think is best. Because you know best.
I am not for selling people 4 books when you could sell them 1.
I am all for people being able to buy what they want. Ideally, you could buy the book you want. I wish GW would make it so I didn't have to buy BA, DA, and SW books so I can play my UltraMarine descendants (he said sarcastically).
First, people only need to buy the book they want to play. The idea that you must buy all four is silly. Unless you want to play all four armies. And people who actually *do* want to collect and play a BA army independant of their SW army are highly unlikely to want BA and SW to be identical. Further, if they did, they could use BA rules to play their SW army today. So your solution doesn't help. And certainly hurts.
Ding ding ding we have a winner! Anyone saying it can't be done didn't even bother to look at how I would format the codex a couple pages back.
We could put all of 40k in 1 book. Even without removing anything. But it'd be a huge fething book. We could make it smaller by removing stuff. But then we've lost content. It's all a tradeoff. But the amounts of content (or the resulting size) of such a book would be far too much of a tradeoff from the status quo to be reasonable.
You laid out an argument. That argument contains flaws. Those flaws are being pointed out. You're doing no one any favors by blindly ignoring them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/02 17:08:35
2019/08/02 14:46:28
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
You mean my posts acknowledged that people with different tastes and wants purchase codexes, which are currently designed to appeal to as many of them as possible, while your posts are trying to force your own personal view on it?
Yeah, totally a mistake on my part. How dare I consider people who aren't me.
The fact that you don't recognize the logic behind having a product that is as inclusive as possible is worrisome. I'm not sure you're properly equipped to be having this discussion. Until you actually start figuring out what a real logical argument is, consider your posts in this thread to be ignored for their lack of value.
Nice try though Cupcake.
This discussion starts and ends with why the same datasheets are reprinted over and over again in different publications and the merits or flaws of merging them into a single codex.
The current codex format is flawed. And your arguments for their current format is "But I like it, and I think a majority of other people also like it so I am going to state that everyone who buys GW likes it as though it's a fact". I am all for products that support everyone's favorite aspects of the hobby. I am not for selling people 4 books when you could sell them 1.
Ding ding ding we have a winner! Anyone saying it can't be done didn't even bother to look at how I would format the codex a couple pages back.
How you would have formated the codex...yes we did notice. No one but people like you and Lance want to buy a printed out word doc. Oh wait, I addressed that when you first said it.
2019/08/02 14:46:31
Subject: Re:A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
3. Everyone knows that the Chaos Knight codex shouldn't exist as is. Look at how little it has in content. At most you need 1 page in the main Knight codex to explain how switching keywords makes them enemies of the Imperium and we can give you 5 pages of fluff on how they go Renegade or chaotic sometimes.
you'd be wrong, I own the codex, I'm sorry Slayer-fan should I be insulted at the rules of this book too?
the differance between us is I reckongize Codex Chaos Knights for what it is. A good start we;ve long had a single page of rules telling us how to run Knight 's as chaos. https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ENG_Index_Renegade_Knights.pdf remember this? unsuprisingly chaos knight players wanted something more. and they where given it. GW however had certain perimeters they had to work within. the first was that they'd already given chaos knights certain things in that PDF, which meant they had to ensure they didn't remove any options. (this is kinda important when the knight renegade index is less then 6 months old and each model in an army costs over a hundred and fifty USDs) now that chaos Knights have their own codex, GW can in future editions make it more distinct. GW's taking a long game with regards to the chaos knights codex. you meanwhile are taking the short term view.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/02 14:46:46
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/08/02 14:48:46
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
Crimson wrote: I never really understood why people like special characters. I would much rather have a flexible rules for generic characters with a lot of customisability that would allow people to create a number of their own unique characters, as well as represent the official GW lore characters.
Same with chapters and units. I would rather have a big customisable sandbox than limited predetermined builds.
But some people just seem to love (to me) pointless restrictions.
To them it is 'flavour' that red marines can have an options A, B and C and blue marines options A, B and D (and if you think your custom chapter would be best represented by options A, C and D you're out of luck.) Instead of, you know, having marines with options A, B, C and D and letting every player to choose what they like.
They were less of a big deal when we actually could customize characters. Now many of them can't be. Besides, it's not my place to tell someone they can't enjoy a legal model, even if my preferences towards characters are more in line with you.
As for armies though, that really doesn't work as well.
2019/08/02 16:24:52
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
I would like consolidated codexes, but I'd settle for better keywords AND:
Datasheet consolidation of the main space marine codex, and changing some of the old Ultramarines unique characters to generic upgrades. For example, change Telion to "veteran scout sergeant". Change Chronus to "astartes tank commander". These types of units should not be limited to Ultramarines. I'm not saying to get rid of all unique characters, but spread the love with some of them.
Consolidate captains to 2 datasheets. Captain, and Primaris Captain. Land Raiders should be 1 datasheet. Etc.
Make Chapter Master a 50 to 75 point ungrade instead of 3 CP.
2019/08/02 16:39:02
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
You mean my posts acknowledged that people with different tastes and wants purchase codexes, which are currently designed to appeal to as many of them as possible, while your posts are trying to force your own personal view on it?
Yeah, totally a mistake on my part. How dare I consider people who aren't me.
The fact that you don't recognize the logic behind having a product that is as inclusive as possible is worrisome. I'm not sure you're properly equipped to be having this discussion. Until you actually start figuring out what a real logical argument is, consider your posts in this thread to be ignored for their lack of value.
Nice try though Cupcake.
This discussion starts and ends with why the same datasheets are reprinted over and over again in different publications and the merits or flaws of merging them into a single codex.
The argument against merging is firmly footed in whether being inclusive is worth having the same unit in multiple forces (although reprinting vs referencing runs orthogonal to it). That is no more emotional an argument than "Marines shouldn't be 100ppm for current stats because it'd make the game bad".
Dismissing the argument as not relevant to the merge-or-not question is like dismissing relativity from the GPS system; sure, it might make more sense for people who don't really grasp the whole question, but you've made it pointless.
The current codex format is flawed. And your arguments for their current format is "But I like it, and I think a majority of other people also like it so I am going to state that everyone who buys GW likes it as though it's a fact".
Here's where you're way off. His argument is "Your solution is worse than the problem". Similarly, if my problem is my car is too dirty, lighting it on fire is one possible solution. Pointing out that that solution is worse than the problem is very much logical.
Further, he's not saying "everyone who buys GW likes it". You're saying "I don't, therefore those that do are being emotional".
I am all for products that support everyone's favorite aspects of the hobby.
Only so far as they confine themselves to what you think is best. Because you know best.
I am not for selling people 4 books when you could sell them 1.
I am all for people being able to buy what they want. Ideally, you could buy the book you want. I wish GW would make it so I didn't have to buy BA, DA, and SW books so I can play my UltraMarine descendants (he said sarcastically).
First, people only need to buy the book they want to play. The idea that you must buy all four is silly. Unless you want to play all four armies. And people who actually *do* want to collect and play a BA army independant of their SW army are highly unlikely to want BA and SW to be identical. Further, if they did, they could use BA rules to play their SW army today. So your solution doesn't help. And certainly hurts.
Ding ding ding we have a winner! Anyone saying it can't be done didn't even bother to look at how I would format the codex a couple pages back.
We could put all of 40k in 1 book. Even without removing anything. But it'd be a huge fething book. We could make it smaller by removing stuff. But then we've lost content. It's all a tradeoff. But the amounts of content (or the resulting size) of such a book would be far too much of a tradeoff from the status quo to be reasonable.
You laid out an argument. That argument contains flaws. Those flaws are being pointed out. You're doing no one any favors by blindly ignoring them.
Tacs and Custodes are both generic choices for their armies. What in the cornbread hell are you babbling about?
That Tacs aren't simply Custodes. That some armies will use Tacs, other armies will use Custodes.
That Crowe isn't simply a Generic but worse. That a model can have same-but-worse rules, but with a lower price point, can still be just as good (or better). The idea that a model can't be worth it's points regardless of how low they go just because something (for more points) is stronger is mind-bogglyingly stupid.
I love the 'cornbread hell' pejorative, though. Nice touch.
Kindly use spoiler tags.
As an ad-hoc "Just sell two books, so I can get my Index-replacement, and fluffbunnies can pound sand" not-answer.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/02 19:42:53
2019/08/02 17:27:58
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
Codex Compliant Space Marines: This book deals with the Chapters that are Codex Compliant, including the First Founding Legions and Second Founding Chapters that adopted the codex completely with maybe fancy local names for things. So Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists, Raven Guard for certain, perhaps Salamanders and White Scars too.
Codex Deviant Space Marines: This book deals with Chapters that accepted the Codex Astartes but have minor/major modifications to the core structure. This book would include Blood Angels and Dark Angels, with perhaps Salamanders or White Scars.
Wipes their Arse with the Codex Space Marines: For the Chapters that don't utilise the Codex Astartes whatsoever. These would be the Space Wolves, the Iron Hands (Damn you GW it's been how many decades make the rules reflect the Lore Emperor Damn It) and Black Templars.
2019/08/02 17:56:35
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
My preferred:
Codex Astartes All the rules for current Astartes kit available to all chapters. Can include the almost-entirely-compliant chapters (UM, IF, etc).
Blood Angels A suppliment that lists all the differences between them and entirely-compliant chapters. So it'd have Furiosos, Sanguinary Priests, any replacement Traits/Strats/etc, relics, and so forth. It'd also list (blacklist) all choices in the Astartes book that are unavailable. As a blacklist, it'd mean added Astartes kit (such as the new tank) would default to be allowed, not disallowed.
Dark Angels As above
And soforth.
Each of these supliments would be a "minidex", not a full book. It would not list the shared units (aside from pointing out the variants - like Heavy Flamers on BA Tacs).
This means no duplicate entries. And it means buy-what-you-want (a-la-carte consumption). While increasing the ability to differentiate chapters. And fixes the "But can BA take it?" confusions.
2019/08/02 19:44:50
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
Bharring wrote: Except that there's really nothing to fix here. I've never seen this misplayed or be a serious problem. Blood Angels from the "Ultramarines" chapter use the BA book, not the SM book.
it's just p[art of the intellctually dishonest "duur it's too confusing, they need to consilidate the marines for 'ease" arguement.
Not confusing, pointless waste of book realestate. You could have 4 more interesting armies if you jammed all the special snowflake marines into one book.
2019/08/02 19:56:49
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
ERJAK wrote: Not confusing, pointless waste of book realestate. You could have 4 more interesting armies if you jammed all the special snowflake marines into one book.
That's not how it works. It isn't a Zero Sum game.
2019/08/02 23:45:13
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
Bharring wrote: Except that there's really nothing to fix here. I've never seen this misplayed or be a serious problem. Blood Angels from the "Ultramarines" chapter use the BA book, not the SM book.
it's just p[art of the intellctually dishonest "duur it's too confusing, they need to consilidate the marines for 'ease" arguement.
Not confusing, pointless waste of book realestate. You could have 4 more interesting armies if you jammed all the special snowflake marines into one book.
GW hasn't exactly shown that they care how many armies they have when it comes to adding more. Having four different flavors of marines isn't holding anything new back. GW's perception on how well they can sell said new armies is.
ERJAK wrote: Not confusing, pointless waste of book realestate. You could have 4 more interesting armies if you jammed all the special snowflake marines into one book.
That's not how it works. It isn't a Zero Sum game.
OH NO!!!!
I AGREE WITH BACONCATBUG!!!!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/02 23:45:42
2019/08/03 00:53:41
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
Bharring wrote: Except that there's really nothing to fix here. I've never seen this misplayed or be a serious problem. Blood Angels from the "Ultramarines" chapter use the BA book, not the SM book.
it's just p[art of the intellctually dishonest "duur it's too confusing, they need to consilidate the marines for 'ease" arguement.
Not confusing, pointless waste of book realestate. You could have 4 more interesting armies if you jammed all the special snowflake marines into one book.
no if GW jammed all the special snowflake marines into one book.. you would have 4 less armies. that is all. GW doesn't have some magical required number of codexes. GW didn't give us Codex Imperial Knights simply because the Black Templars where folded into codex space marines.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/08/03 05:44:21
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
You keep adding to this list of characters you've decided the people arguing against squatting them wouldn't miss - as an argument for why they wouldn't miss them. I've got Telion, and I use him all the time, loved him as a Scout Squad upgrade. I've got Chronus. Use him less than all the time but still fairly often. I'd miss him. And I'd miss Asmodai. And I still miss Sapphon. I even miss Invictus now that we have a way to kitbash a model for him. Any others you want to add to the list?
There's several characters that don't need entries actually. Outside Tellion and Chronus and Asmodai, we can lose the entries for Crowe, Corbulo, Lemartes (as Death Company should've been Fearless again in the first place), Artemis, Faaaaabulous Bile, and possibly Androcles off the top of my head.
Lemartes has special rules in addition to his relic, so doesn't meet the criteria of being a normal guy with a relic. Nor is Morale the only time one takes a Leadership test. I'm sure Death Company being hit by Psychic Scourge will be happy to use Lemartes 2 extra LD. Brother Corbulo also has a special rule outside of his Relic. Fabius Bile has a special rule outside of his Relic(s) - and in fact has multiple relics something a generic character can't do. And I'd miss them too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: I never really understood why people like special characters. I would much rather have a flexible rules for generic characters with a lot of customisability that would allow people to create a number of their own unique characters, as well as represent the official GW lore characters.
Same with chapters and units. I would rather have a big customisable sandbox than limited predetermined builds.
But some people just seem to love (to me) pointless restrictions.
To them it is 'flavour' that red marines can have an options A, B and C and blue marines options A, B and D (and if you think your custom chapter would be best represented by options A, C and D you're out of luck.) Instead of, you know, having marines with options A, B, C and D and letting every player to choose what they like.
That was sort of how Special Characters started. They gave you 75-80% of the choices you could make predetermined, and you got to flesh out the last little bit (usually one wargear card roughly equivalent to Relics) to replicate that character having access to most of if not the entire armory to draw gear from to put in their Batman Utility Belt based on their current mission and whimsy. It did not work especially well. Marneus Calgar with a 2+ invulnerable field that didn't work in close combat while his gauntlets made him practically invulnerable in close combat (Back then subsequent attacks got a "Swarming" bonus of +1A and +1S per attacker before them. So the 20th Grot had 21 attacks at S23 or some such. Except against Calgar.) I don't remember the Abby combo, but it was even worse.
They did try giving people a chance to "Wing" their own chapter with some sort of custimizable construction point system where Veteran Sergeants could become Apothecaries with Nartheciums and such, but it didn't last sadly. I'm not sure how abused/abusable it was. And I think they tried to dip their toe in that water again with Create Your Own Vehicle stuff, but they just haven't been willing to give it enough of a system/effort for it to hang around permanently/long term yet.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/03 06:03:53
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2019/08/04 08:34:29
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
So exciting! What could have been condensed into a single book is now being spread out into a single core and a whole series of supplements. Now BA, DA, and SW are going to have to buy 2 books to get their most current rules. And so will ultramarines and everyone else.
I would bet money that the combined cost is going to be 80.00-100 minimum.
Again, comparison.
Pathfinder 2nd Ed. Just released. 59.99 600+ page hardcover with a great binding that allows the book to sit flat when open and jam packed with rules art and fluff with logical good formatting and indexes and such for quick reference. 15.99 for the pdf version.
GW. 2 hardcovers with a gak binding required for you to play a single army. No prices yet, but if previous codexes are any indicator then 50.00 each for maybe 250ish pages a piece. PDFs will cost 34.99 each. Thats right. It will cost more money for less pages in PDF form then it does for Pathfinders book in hardcover.
But hey! This is basically what you wanted! More books!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/04 08:46:27
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2019/08/04 09:32:48
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
Lance845 wrote: So exciting! What could have been condensed into a single book is now being spread out into a single core and a whole series of supplements. Now BA, DA, and SW are going to have to buy 2 books to get their most current rules. And so will ultramarines and everyone else.
I would bet money that the combined cost is going to be 80.00-100 minimum.
Again, comparison.
Pathfinder 2nd Ed. Just released. 59.99 600+ page hardcover with a great binding that allows the book to sit flat when open and jam packed with rules art and fluff with logical good formatting and indexes and such for quick reference. 15.99 for the pdf version.
GW. 2 hardcovers with a gak binding required for you to play a single army. No prices yet, but if previous codexes are any indicator then 50.00 each for maybe 250ish pages a piece. PDFs will cost 34.99 each. Thats right. It will cost more money for less pages in PDF form then it does for Pathfinders book in hardcover.
But hey! This is basically what you wanted! More books!
So much dishonesty:
More options doesn't necessarily mean more books.
The non-codex compliant chapters now take their units from the main book. This is closer to what you wanted... merging them all.
The Current Codex Dark Angels - with all those duplicative datasheets you railed about as evidence they needed to be merged was 240 pages.
At 2 pages of fluff, and 1 page of datasheet for the unique units and special characters, that's 34 +17 = 51 pages, + 36 pages of color photos. and 50 pages of Introcution, and Chapter Fluff. 137 pages.
Was it you who said the Index Imperium 1 was under 200 pages? It was 224 not?
The Current Codex: Space Marines with fluff, and datasheets for what, 8 chapters - was 410?
Surely the supplements won't have all those duplicated fluff and datasheets anymore, and will end up being smaller? Because you said that was how it was going to work. You'll understand if I take your estimations of page counts with a grain of salt won't you?
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2019/08/04 09:53:58
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
Lance845 wrote: So exciting! What could have been condensed into a single book is now being spread out into a single core and a whole series of supplements. Now BA, DA, and SW are going to have to buy 2 books to get their most current rules. And so will ultramarines and everyone else.
I would bet money that the combined cost is going to be 80.00-100 minimum.
Again, comparison.
Pathfinder 2nd Ed. Just released. 59.99 600+ page hardcover with a great binding that allows the book to sit flat when open and jam packed with rules art and fluff with logical good formatting and indexes and such for quick reference. 15.99 for the pdf version.
GW. 2 hardcovers with a gak binding required for you to play a single army. No prices yet, but if previous codexes are any indicator then 50.00 each for maybe 250ish pages a piece. PDFs will cost 34.99 each. Thats right. It will cost more money for less pages in PDF form then it does for Pathfinders book in hardcover.
But hey! This is basically what you wanted! More books!
So much dishonesty: More options doesn't necessarily mean more books.
To suggest that an Imperial Fist and a White Scar fight in the same way is nearly heresy – and the new codex and codex supplements really lean into the distinct identities of each Chapter to ensure they work on the tabletop the way they do in the lore. Codex: Space Marines has everything you need to play with an army of gene-enhanced super-soldiers, and each of the supplements offers you additional, Chapter-specific datasheets and thematic rules that emphasise their unique heritage and the genetic legacy of their Primarch.
It's more books.
The non-codex compliant chapters now take their units from the main book. This is closer to what you wanted... merging them all.
And yet not. Because it's more books not less.
The Current Codex Dark Angels - with all those duplicative datasheets you railed about as evidence they needed to be merged was 240 pages. At 2 pages of fluff, and 1 page of datasheet for the unique units and special characters, that's 34 +17 = 51 pages, + 36 pages of color photos. and 50 pages of Introcution, and Chapter Fluff. 137 pages.
Yup. Look at that page count. Look at the price to content. And then look at Pathfinder. And then consider how badly you were being ripped off. Now go look at what they are going to make you do with 2 books. And consider how much worse it's about to get. Especially now that you have to reference 2 books in place of 1 to access your rules at the table. Still with crap binding that doesn't sit flat when open.
Was it you who said the Index Imperium 1 was under 200 pages?
Incorrect. I said the datasheets for the codexes that we were suggesting get merged were under 200 pages. Remove everything GK and DW from the index. Remove the redundant pointless units.
It was 224 not? The Current Codex: Space Marines with fluff, and datasheets for what, 8 chapters - was 410?
Surely the supplements won't have all those duplicated fluff and datasheets anymore, and will end up being smaller? Because you said that was how it was going to work. You'll understand if I take your estimations of page counts with a grain of salt won't you?
And you think smaller will mean cheaper? Codex GSC ALSO costs 50.00 and doesn't have 410 pages. All the chapter specific fluff will get cut from the core SM book and saved for the supplements. The page count of core SM will plummet from that. The cost won't. Good luck my friend. You are about to get fethed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/04 09:56:01
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2019/08/04 10:46:26
Subject: A BA, SW, DA, DW detachment is not a space marine detachment, but BA, SW, DA, DW are space marines
You can put more options in books without making more books, so suggesting people who wanted more options wanted more books was... wait for it... dishonest.
Was it you who said the Index Imperium 1 was under 200 pages?
Incorrect. I said the datasheets for the codexes that we were suggesting get merged were under 200 pages. Remove everything GK and DW from the index. Remove the redundant pointless units.
Lance845 wrote: @Mmmpi You wouldn't. The datasheets have so much in common across all the codexes that you just don't need that many pages. Evidence, Index Imperium 1. It has all the datasheets and isn't 200 pages and includes the other armies people are not suggesting get folded into the SM dex. GK and DW can get folded into a agents of the imperium dex with sisters of silence and the assassins.
I repeat:
Lance845 wrote: Evidence, Index Imperium 1. It has all the datasheets and isn't 200 pages
I think its great that more Chapters are getting some love from GW. Of course I'll buy the new Codex: I'll get great use out of it and they made it compatible with Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves so we don't have to wait for a new book to use the new models. They also gave buffs to all the Chapters at once. I won't buy all the supplements, but it'll be good to see more fleshed-out Chapters on the tabletop.
We can choose to buy and play what we want. It looks like GW figures that many people do indeed buy and play the various Space Marines chapters. Let the market decide!
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
