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.
2019/10/31 23:31:16
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
2019/11/01 00:02:52
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
because rules bloat is more the "cause celebre" of a handfull of very vocal posters most people seem pretty cool with the idea of getting new rules etc for their faction. case in point the only complaint we heard about PA1 was that eldar coulda used MORE.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/11/01 00:16:46
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Though in this case, it's less rules bloat and more just separating army specific rules and units to their own book. The number of rules really wouldn't change.
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
Despite the fact that, not including special characters, the three solo marine dexes have 12ish units, not four. That's not counting the units that have different options/equipment.
We've discussed this.
2019/11/01 00:17:22
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
because rules bloat is more the "cause celebre" of a handfull of very vocal posters most people seem pretty cool with the idea of getting new rules etc for their faction. case in point the only complaint we heard about PA1 was that eldar coulda used MORE.
It isn't that they could've used more, but they absolutely needed the redone Craftworld Traits and it was mostly a lazy release.
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.
2019/11/01 00:17:31
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
because rules bloat is more the "cause celebre" of a handfull of very vocal posters most people seem pretty cool with the idea of getting new rules etc for their faction. case in point the only complaint we heard about PA1 was that eldar coulda used MORE.
It isn't that they could've used more, but they absolutely needed the redone Craftworld Traits and it was mostly a lazy release.
It was obviously both.
most players though are happy to have more in-depth rules for their armies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/01 00:18:35
2019/11/01 00:19:49
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Though in this case, it's less rules bloat and more just separating army specific rules and units to their own book. The number of rules really wouldn't change.
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
Despite the fact that, not including special characters, the three solo marine dexes have 12ish units, not four. That's not counting the units that have different options/equipment.
We've discussed this.
Yes because Blood Angels are the only Chapter that ever did Librarian Dreads...because.
Also those "unique" options are slowly going down. The main codex got the Terminator Ancient for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mostly everything can be represented by other means. Sanguine Priests are really just glorified Apothecaries and will never be known for anything else outside fluffbunnies like you.
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
because rules bloat is more the "cause celebre" of a handfull of very vocal posters most people seem pretty cool with the idea of getting new rules etc for their faction. case in point the only complaint we heard about PA1 was that eldar coulda used MORE.
It isn't that they could've used more, but they absolutely needed the redone Craftworld Traits and it was mostly a lazy release.
It was obviously both.
most players though are happy to have more in-depth rules for their armies.
You didn't bother to counter my TFC point so I'm going to assume that put you at a pause!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/01 00:21:22
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.
2019/11/01 00:22:31
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Though in this case, it's less rules bloat and more just separating army specific rules and units to their own book. The number of rules really wouldn't change.
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
Despite the fact that, not including special characters, the three solo marine dexes have 12ish units, not four. That's not counting the units that have different options/equipment.
We've discussed this.
Yes because Blood Angels are the only Chapter that ever did Librarian Dreads...because.
Also those "unique" options are slowly going down. The main codex got the Terminator Ancient for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mostly everything can be represented by other means. Sanguine Priests are really just glorified Apothecaries and will never be known for anything else outside fluffbunnies like you.
Just because some of them are being added to the general list doesn't mean all of them are. It also doesn't mean they won't get new unique units either.
And the same can be said for basilisks. It's a great artillery piece. Why don't the marines use it. Oh right, reasons.
2019/11/01 00:24:38
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2019/11/01 00:31:40
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Though in this case, it's less rules bloat and more just separating army specific rules and units to their own book. The number of rules really wouldn't change.
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
Despite the fact that, not including special characters, the three solo marine dexes have 12ish units, not four. That's not counting the units that have different options/equipment.
We've discussed this.
Yes because Blood Angels are the only Chapter that ever did Librarian Dreads...because.
Also those "unique" options are slowly going down. The main codex got the Terminator Ancient for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mostly everything can be represented by other means. Sanguine Priests are really just glorified Apothecaries and will never be known for anything else outside fluffbunnies like you.
Just because some of them are being added to the general list doesn't mean all of them are. It also doesn't mean they won't get new unique units either.
And the same can be said for basilisks. It's a great artillery piece. Why don't the marines use it. Oh right, reasons.
Because Imperial Guard aren't Space Marines but Dark and Blood Angels are.
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.
2019/11/01 00:31:48
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
My main issue with rules bloat is that the more rules (and the more complex they are), the less balanced the game is gonna be. As evidenced by every FAQ that has had to fix unintended rule interactions. Or the CA point fixes which have hurt Mono lists badly to fix some OP soup build (though, to be fair, my main gripe with that is allowing multi-Codex soup in the first place, but that's neither here nor there).
As an Ork player, I would absolutely love more rules and options for my Boyz. A Goff Dex would be dope. Deathskullz supplement? Yes please! More unit choices? Bring back my Looted Rhinos!
But I can also step back from my bias and realise that we don't really NEED more rules. What we need are competent and balanced rules, and if a simplified ruleset helps make that a reality, then I can swallow my pride and accept that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/01 00:39:17
2019/11/01 00:32:00
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Though in this case, it's less rules bloat and more just separating army specific rules and units to their own book. The number of rules really wouldn't change.
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
Despite the fact that, not including special characters, the three solo marine dexes have 12ish units, not four. That's not counting the units that have different options/equipment.
We've discussed this.
Yes because Blood Angels are the only Chapter that ever did Librarian Dreads...because.
Also those "unique" options are slowly going down. The main codex got the Terminator Ancient for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mostly everything can be represented by other means. Sanguine Priests are really just glorified Apothecaries and will never be known for anything else outside fluffbunnies like you.
Just because some of them are being added to the general list doesn't mean all of them are. It also doesn't mean they won't get new unique units either.
And the same can be said for basilisks. It's a great artillery piece. Why don't the marines use it. Oh right, reasons.
Because Imperial Guard aren't Space Marines but Dark and Blood Angels are.
GW has made it clear that they don't see Blood Angel Space Marines as the same thing as Space Marines, so my argument is still relevant to the conversation.
2019/11/01 00:49:02
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
because rules bloat is more the "cause celebre" of a handfull of very vocal posters most people seem pretty cool with the idea of getting new rules etc for their faction. case in point the only complaint we heard about PA1 was that eldar coulda used MORE.
It isn't that they could've used more, but they absolutely needed the redone Craftworld Traits and it was mostly a lazy release.
irrelevant, my point stands, you might complain about Bloat but you are in the minority.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/11/01 01:45:35
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
because rules bloat is more the "cause celebre" of a handfull of very vocal posters most people seem pretty cool with the idea of getting new rules etc for their faction. case in point the only complaint we heard about PA1 was that eldar coulda used MORE.
It isn't that they could've used more, but they absolutely needed the redone Craftworld Traits and it was mostly a lazy release.
irrelevant, my point stands, you might complain about Bloat but you are in the minority.
Though in this case, it's less rules bloat and more just separating army specific rules and units to their own book. The number of rules really wouldn't change.
1. 3 unique Warlord Traits
2. 4 unique units
3. 4 unique relics (probably one Range, one Melee, one Armor, one Buffer/Support)
4. 5 unique Stratagems
Suddenly you have flavor without as much bloat that's being justified by the fluffbunnies and GW.
Despite the fact that, not including special characters, the three solo marine dexes have 12ish units, not four. That's not counting the units that have different options/equipment.
We've discussed this.
Yes because Blood Angels are the only Chapter that ever did Librarian Dreads...because.
Also those "unique" options are slowly going down. The main codex got the Terminator Ancient for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mostly everything can be represented by other means. Sanguine Priests are really just glorified Apothecaries and will never be known for anything else outside fluffbunnies like you.
Just because some of them are being added to the general list doesn't mean all of them are. It also doesn't mean they won't get new unique units either.
And the same can be said for basilisks. It's a great artillery piece. Why don't the marines use it. Oh right, reasons.
Because Imperial Guard aren't Space Marines but Dark and Blood Angels are.
GW has made it clear that they don't see Blood Angel Space Marines as the same thing as Space Marines, so my argument is still relevant to the conversation.
Except they ARE Space Marines. So you're literally wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/01 01:46:01
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.
2019/11/01 01:51:01
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
AnomanderRake wrote: Because GW released some unique models for them. A "supplement" is a Codex that has only unique character models, a "Codex" has unique units as well.
Nonsense. Why? Ultramarines are a supplement.
2019/11/01 01:54:07
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
My theory is that there won't be a ninth edition at all, and all factions will eventually get the dex + supplements treatment.
What some people call bloat, I call GW's persistent edition strategy. And you know what? I'd rather hope that a real alien auxilia for Tau; that Dark Eldar will get their characters back; that ALL aspects will plastic models, Phoenix Lords- all of that, rather than a reset button that pushes back the clock on development by years, while they rerelease everything we've already seen.
I rant about this often [sorry], and someone in another thread gracious pointed out that there is precedent for the soft reboot, where rules changes didn't invalidate dexes in order to allow a soft reboot. Maybe that wouldn't interfere quite as much with the actual development cycle, but it still interferes more than say, giving it 5-10 years worth of annual campaign content, cross-platform integration between BSF/ Kill Team/ Apocalypse and 40k under the current edition (though a decade of CA could transform the game radically, doing it so gradually that we hardly notice).
I don't play marines at all, but if I did, someone suggesting that I need to lose unique units to make the game smoother for everyone else, I'd be a bit offended. Of course, if I were a tournament player, I would be encouraged to only value the best four strategems, or the best unit of every type and automatically regard all the others as trash, so I wouldn't even miss the content. But I am super story based guy, so I LOVE many of the units that Dakka hates. I've never met another person who actually LIKES Drukari Beast masters and their packs and wants to see them redone and improved. As a story based guy, I can allow my beast master to control an Ambull, and I really don't care whether it's a "good" unit, though of course I would prefer that. Ditto for the court of the archon.
And I think that is the potential that dex + supplement brings. I WANT the hive fleets to be developed enough that they get enough variety to justify a dex + supplement, and I'll actually start playing Tau if the do Alien Auxiliary right, or even just give the Kroot Capacity to stand alone.
So I don't want BA, DA, and SW to be made into supplements, because I think that it would inevitably result in a loss of options for those players. It certainly COULD be done, but something would be lost.
2019/11/01 02:43:13
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Except they ARE Space Marines. So you're literally wrong.
They are Blood Angel Space Marines (ect), so I'm literally right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: My theory is that there won't be a ninth edition at all, and all factions will eventually get the dex + supplements treatment.
What some people call bloat, I call GW's persistent edition strategy. And you know what? I'd rather hope that a real alien auxilia for Tau; that Dark Eldar will get their characters back; that ALL aspects will plastic models, Phoenix Lords- all of that, rather than a reset button that pushes back the clock on development by years, while they rerelease everything we've already seen.
I rant about this often [sorry], and someone in another thread gracious pointed out that there is precedent for the soft reboot, where rules changes didn't invalidate dexes in order to allow a soft reboot. Maybe that wouldn't interfere quite as much with the actual development cycle, but it still interferes more than say, giving it 5-10 years worth of annual campaign content, cross-platform integration between BSF/ Kill Team/ Apocalypse and 40k under the current edition (though a decade of CA could transform the game radically, doing it so gradually that we hardly notice).
I don't play marines at all, but if I did, someone suggesting that I need to lose unique units to make the game smoother for everyone else, I'd be a bit offended. Of course, if I were a tournament player, I would be encouraged to only value the best four strategems, or the best unit of every type and automatically regard all the others as trash, so I wouldn't even miss the content. But I am super story based guy, so I LOVE many of the units that Dakka hates. I've never met another person who actually LIKES Drukari Beast masters and their packs and wants to see them redone and improved. As a story based guy, I can allow my beast master to control an Ambull, and I really don't care whether it's a "good" unit, though of course I would prefer that. Ditto for the court of the archon.
And I think that is the potential that dex + supplement brings. I WANT the hive fleets to be developed enough that they get enough variety to justify a dex + supplement, and I'll actually start playing Tau if the do Alien Auxiliary right, or even just give the Kroot Capacity to stand alone.
So I don't want BA, DA, and SW to be made into supplements, because I think that it would inevitably result in a loss of options for those players. It certainly COULD be done, but something would be lost.
This is the crux of the argument. So many of them insist that it has to be their way, that no one wants what you just described, when in general, supplements, expanded armies, and stand alone codexes are popular.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/01 02:45:00
2019/11/01 02:51:03
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
I apologize if you feel like I'm trying to make you conform to my opinion. I just wanted to state what mine was, and you're absolute free to have your own on the matter. Mine is, and will likely remain, that I would rather have fewer options and a balanced, well-written and tested, and fun ruleset versus having a ton of options that are nigh-impossible to balance and rules which require frequent FAQs and Errata.
Obviously, like most people, I'd rather have my cake and eat it too. Ideally, every sub-Faction could have it's own unique rules, units, and gimmicks, and there would even be rules for building "custom" Factions/sub-Factions. And we could have this in a world where you could build a list to your liking, with whatever options your heart desired, and it would be equally viable to any other list. Where skill and strategy would be the determination of the victor, and you wouldn't need constant FAQs, Erratas, point-adjustments, or social contracts to have a fun game.
But I don't think this is realistic. Complication and bloat breed imbalance and mistakes. You may feel like options are better than a solid rules foundation, and I can't say I don't relate with that. For myself, I lean in the opposite direction. To each their own, I suppose.
2019/11/01 03:44:18
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
I don't mind separate rules for UM, WS, RG, IH, IF, Salamanders, specific CSM legions, any of the IG regiments, various craftworlds etc. Bring it on, make each group different.
What I DO mind is the overpriced format of these SM supplements.
For Ex: the IH supplement is $30. It's 64 pages long. ($2.133/page*) So: It has 9 pages of rules,, 20! pages of nothing but full color art/pics, & 35 pages of lore (most having 1/4 - 1/2 of the page taken up by more art/pics). Oh, and the inside front/back cover & cover pages? Are completely wasted on identical 2 page B&W spreads - looks nice, but they could've just as easily used 4 of those 20 pages of art/pics there instead of eating up page count.
That's A LOT of essentially dead space we just bought in order to get those 9 pages of rules - wich were then promptly erratted.
(If you're only really interested in the rules? That works out to $3.333/page)
2019/11/01 04:48:45
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
flandarz wrote: I apologize if you feel like I'm trying to make you conform to my opinion. I just wanted to state what mine was, and you're absolute free to have your own on the matter. Mine is, and will likely remain, that I would rather have fewer options and a balanced, well-written and tested, and fun ruleset versus having a ton of options that are nigh-impossible to balance and rules which require frequent FAQs and Errata.
Obviously, like most people, I'd rather have my cake and eat it too. Ideally, every sub-Faction could have it's own unique rules, units, and gimmicks, and there would even be rules for building "custom" Factions/sub-Factions. And we could have this in a world where you could build a list to your liking, with whatever options your heart desired, and it would be equally viable to any other list. Where skill and strategy would be the determination of the victor, and you wouldn't need constant FAQs, Erratas, point-adjustments, or social contracts to have a fun game.
But I don't think this is realistic. Complication and bloat breed imbalance and mistakes. You may feel like options are better than a solid rules foundation, and I can't say I don't relate with that. For myself, I lean in the opposite direction. To each their own, I suppose.
Most of us are in the same Cake camp that you are. But you're not one of the people trying to push opinion as fact, or make unfounded claims about popularity (in either direction). No need to apologize.
2019/11/01 07:15:13
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
flandarz wrote: I'm still in the boat of "dividing sub-Factions into individual Codexes seems unnecessary and bulky." One of the top complaints around here is rules bloat, so why aren't we championing less rules? I mean, it ain't like Tau got a bunch of Codexes for their sub-Factions. Or Orkz. Or really anyone aside from the Imperium. I kinda get that not every Imperium army is the same (it'd be awfully weird to have Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle in the same book), but at the same time if you CAN streamline, I feel like you should.
I don't mind separate rules for UM, WS, RG, IH, IF, Salamanders, specific CSM legions, any of the IG regiments, various craftworlds etc. Bring it on, make each group different.
What I DO mind is the overpriced format of these SM supplements.
For Ex: the IH supplement is $30. It's 64 pages long. ($2.133/page*) So: It has 9 pages of rules,, 20! pages of nothing but full color art/pics, & 35 pages of lore (most having 1/4 - 1/2 of the page taken up by more art/pics). Oh, and the inside front/back cover & cover pages? Are completely wasted on identical 2 page B&W spreads - looks nice, but they could've just as easily used 4 of those 20 pages of art/pics there instead of eating up page count.
That's A LOT of essentially dead space we just bought in order to get those 9 pages of rules - wich were then promptly erratted.
(If you're only really interested in the rules? That works out to $3.333/page)
Sounds like it could be covered by a thematic WD, which I'd like.
I'd appreciate Supplement rules for everything, the problem I see though is abilities still costing nothing. I'm not saying GW is incompetent for not creating all of them with equal worth, I'm saying that's not possible as long as they cost you no points. Be it Warlord traits, psychic powers, faction tactics - pay for them. You could even make it an additional Pool to choose from. Say you have 50 "ability points" you can use for these, but the... Suppurating plate and miasma of pestilence will each cost 25 already, while the pandemic staff only costs 10 and blades of putrefaction costs 20, so you can "buy" your subfaction ability as well. If you literally had 100 supplements with abilities that cost nothing, you'll need something to balance these.
2019/11/01 07:17:34
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Except they ARE Space Marines. So you're literally wrong.
They are Blood Angel Space Marines (ect), so I'm literally right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: My theory is that there won't be a ninth edition at all, and all factions will eventually get the dex + supplements treatment.
What some people call bloat, I call GW's persistent edition strategy. And you know what? I'd rather hope that a real alien auxilia for Tau; that Dark Eldar will get their characters back; that ALL aspects will plastic models, Phoenix Lords- all of that, rather than a reset button that pushes back the clock on development by years, while they rerelease everything we've already seen.
I rant about this often [sorry], and someone in another thread gracious pointed out that there is precedent for the soft reboot, where rules changes didn't invalidate dexes in order to allow a soft reboot. Maybe that wouldn't interfere quite as much with the actual development cycle, but it still interferes more than say, giving it 5-10 years worth of annual campaign content, cross-platform integration between BSF/ Kill Team/ Apocalypse and 40k under the current edition (though a decade of CA could transform the game radically, doing it so gradually that we hardly notice).
I don't play marines at all, but if I did, someone suggesting that I need to lose unique units to make the game smoother for everyone else, I'd be a bit offended. Of course, if I were a tournament player, I would be encouraged to only value the best four strategems, or the best unit of every type and automatically regard all the others as trash, so I wouldn't even miss the content. But I am super story based guy, so I LOVE many of the units that Dakka hates. I've never met another person who actually LIKES Drukari Beast masters and their packs and wants to see them redone and improved. As a story based guy, I can allow my beast master to control an Ambull, and I really don't care whether it's a "good" unit, though of course I would prefer that. Ditto for the court of the archon.
And I think that is the potential that dex + supplement brings. I WANT the hive fleets to be developed enough that they get enough variety to justify a dex + supplement, and I'll actually start playing Tau if the do Alien Auxiliary right, or even just give the Kroot Capacity to stand alone.
So I don't want BA, DA, and SW to be made into supplements, because I think that it would inevitably result in a loss of options for those players. It certainly COULD be done, but something would be lost.
This is the crux of the argument. So many of them insist that it has to be their way, that no one wants what you just described, when in general, supplements, expanded armies, and stand alone codexes are popular.
LOL no they're just red Space Marines.
text removed.
Reds8n
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/01 14:12:17
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.
2019/11/01 07:35:23
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Except they ARE Space Marines. So you're literally wrong.
They are Blood Angel Space Marines (ect), so I'm literally right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: My theory is that there won't be a ninth edition at all, and all factions will eventually get the dex + supplements treatment.
What some people call bloat, I call GW's persistent edition strategy. And you know what? I'd rather hope that a real alien auxilia for Tau; that Dark Eldar will get their characters back; that ALL aspects will plastic models, Phoenix Lords- all of that, rather than a reset button that pushes back the clock on development by years, while they rerelease everything we've already seen.
I rant about this often [sorry], and someone in another thread gracious pointed out that there is precedent for the soft reboot, where rules changes didn't invalidate dexes in order to allow a soft reboot. Maybe that wouldn't interfere quite as much with the actual development cycle, but it still interferes more than say, giving it 5-10 years worth of annual campaign content, cross-platform integration between BSF/ Kill Team/ Apocalypse and 40k under the current edition (though a decade of CA could transform the game radically, doing it so gradually that we hardly notice).
I don't play marines at all, but if I did, someone suggesting that I need to lose unique units to make the game smoother for everyone else, I'd be a bit offended. Of course, if I were a tournament player, I would be encouraged to only value the best four strategems, or the best unit of every type and automatically regard all the others as trash, so I wouldn't even miss the content. But I am super story based guy, so I LOVE many of the units that Dakka hates. I've never met another person who actually LIKES Drukari Beast masters and their packs and wants to see them redone and improved. As a story based guy, I can allow my beast master to control an Ambull, and I really don't care whether it's a "good" unit, though of course I would prefer that. Ditto for the court of the archon.
And I think that is the potential that dex + supplement brings. I WANT the hive fleets to be developed enough that they get enough variety to justify a dex + supplement, and I'll actually start playing Tau if the do Alien Auxiliary right, or even just give the Kroot Capacity to stand alone.
So I don't want BA, DA, and SW to be made into supplements, because I think that it would inevitably result in a loss of options for those players. It certainly COULD be done, but something would be lost.
This is the crux of the argument. So many of them insist that it has to be their way, that no one wants what you just described, when in general, supplements, expanded armies, and stand alone codexes are popular.
LOL no they're just red Space Marines..
GW disagrees with you. and guess who writes the rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/01 14:12:47
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/11/01 08:01:11
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
If you don't care for fluff, why do you even pay for that most expensive wargame and not choose a different one? Yes, supplements, just like campaign books, are for fluff fans, but I assume that's the majority of players and therefore they will sell. Everyone who has invested in a certain subfaction will get the respective supplement, and the fotm / waac tournament people will get it, too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/01 14:13:46
