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.

No idea, but from what I know the last time GW tried that thing with my army they removed half the codex from what people told me. Trusting GW to make good by sliming down stuff, is like trusting an alcoholic to keep watch over potato mash for vodka.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Remember: flavor comes from the models, not rules.

Other way around in many cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Remember: flavor comes from the models, not rules.

You should tell those the Chaos players, they don't need dedicated rules als long as they can buy the old Legion models.....

and this also means that we would not even need supplements, just a generic Marine Codex would be enough

We actually only need two:
1. Loyalist Scum + a couple of pages to handle Renegades
2. Legions proper

I've already shown how to do the former many times.

Unimpressively. You seem more impressed by what you churn out then anyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Remember: flavor comes from the models, not rules.

You should tell those the Chaos players, they don't need dedicated rules als long as they can buy the old Legion models.....

and this also means that we would not even need supplements, just a generic Marine Codex would be enough

We actually only need two:
1. Loyalist Scum + a couple of pages to handle Renegades
2. Legions proper

I've already shown how to do the former many times.

To what end? Why are we talking about removing content? You can show how to do it all you want, but until there's an actual valid reason to do it other than "I don't collect those armies so I don't want them to have things", there's no gain to be had by doing it.

I'm talking about removing filler, not content. Remember, people here can pretend they were using the S+1 bonus for the Sanguine Priest, but the truth of the matter is that they weren't. You keep actual unique stuff and share units/upgrades that should've been shared from the get-go (because two Chapters and ALL their successors don't have and never had Thunderfire Cannons? LOL that's stupid sorry) and we would be good.

Or people actually are using them, and you just can't wrap your head around that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Part of the problem here is that anyone dares suggest that (as is the case) most "unique" units in the bloated Marine dexes are (In game) are basically slight variations on existing units - weapon option/a minor rule etc you get this complete BS strawgiant. In the lore - yes they are different culturally but so are the other 996 Marine Chapters that are out there.

why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.

Somehow that allowing (for example) other Marine tac squads to take chainswords or allowing the mixing of weapons in Terminator Squads is tableflipping the entire game, destroying the lore ( whats not been gak upon by recent dexes) and might as well have a single unit with options in the game.

You keep using the word 'strawgiant'. You seem to forget that it has absolutely no meaning. The same with every argument you post where you use that term.

1. Not really. They're mostly all the same options, or are you seriously going to argue Ravenwing are functionally different to Bikers? Spoiler Alert: they aren't.
2. Did you bother to see what my fixes were? Of course not, as you're too obsessed with this viewpoint that they need to be separate codices when almost all the entries are shared or just need to be shared for the sake of balance.
3. It's not removing ACTUAL content, it is about removing the filler nobody uses, like Sanguine Priests or Deathwing as if they were something special when they, in fact, aren't.
4. Look, you guys can pretend you're using this S+1 bonus for your Blood Angels, but there's a reason why he ain't tagging with Slamguinus: the aura is useless!
5. We already kinda got Devs with Jump Packs in the form of Suppressors. Also it is a strawman because you seem to forget there's literally no shared entries between Guard and Marines. Can you say the same for even CSM vs Loyalists? Nope.

Karol wrote:
Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.

Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.

So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
3. It's not removing ACTUAL content, it is about removing the filler nobody uses, like Sanguine Priests or Deathwing as if they were something special when they, in fact, aren't.
4. Look, you guys can pretend you're using this S+1 bonus for your Blood Angels, but there's a reason why he ain't tagging with Slamguinus: the aura is useless!

It's amazing how you've managed to check every single list for every single player of two of the most popular chapters in the game and confirm none of them use these units! I mean, I don't even remember the interview, and I certainly don't remember saying I don't use my Angelwing (dual ravenwing/deathwing) force...

Or, in case you're blind to sarcasm, just because you haven't seen things be used, doesn't mean no-one uses them.

Until you can understand that your opinion on what is and is not a relevant unit is just that - an opinion - why do you think anyone would or should listen to you when you say GW should get rid of them?

Basically, the only thing about the Dark Angels that is unique are their Wings - there is no need to have to repeat the same generic units that are already in Codex: Space Marines, so why not tie the two together, and put the unique things in the supplement, like everyone else does?

Do you even know anything about the DA tho ?

I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.

Karol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
You mean like it was during 5th Edition?

I don't know what happened in 5th ed, so I can't say if it was or was not like that.

Codex SM made the better Ravenwing and Space Wolves the better Deathwing (specially for tournaments as the necessary DA BCM were banned) and Codex Marines could do anything the others could do as well but better
Except for Wolves as Grey Hunters were also good in melee and their "core tax" was none as everyone was taking more units freely

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sanguinari priests are an essential part of Blood Angels' fluff ... you know like the fact that they have a thirst for blood and that they have been searching a cure for this for thousand years ... Why would you want to just drop that kind of things is beyond me : what does it change ? Why are you so mad that they somehow doesn't have the same unit as all other chapters ?
It's the same for DA - and no it's not only the ravenwing and the deathwing that sets them appart. For exemple they have very little trust in techmarines because they are affiliated to mars and thus it is not techmarines that pilot their flyer - which is the reason why they have specific flyers (one of which is basically a portative prison) and why their fleet is bigger than most chapters (they don't need help from mars to build out their flyers and train pilots).

WhiteDog wrote:

Basically, the only thing about the Dark Angels that is unique are their Wings - there is no need to have to repeat the same generic units that are already in Codex: Space Marines, so why not tie the two together, and put the unique things in the supplement, like everyone else does?

Do you even know anything about the DA tho ?

Okay, let's assume I don't.

Please, fill me in on what is unique about the Dark Angels' organisation and units that cannot be easily reflected by generic units gaining certain keywords and rewarding certain builds?

WhiteDog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sanguinari priests are an essential part of Blood Angels' fluff ... you know like the fact that they have a thirst for blood and that they have been searching a cure for this for thousand years ... Why would you want to just drop that kind of things is beyond me : what does it change ? Why are you so mad that they somehow doesn't have the same unit as all other chapters ?

They're a medic equivalent on the table, they can be represented by an Apothecary in terms of rules just fine. Blood Angels can still have that fluff, but there's no reason it needs to be treated as a distinct separate unit with its own unique abilities other than to be different for its own sake, same way my Iron Warriors Chaos Lord would technically be a Warsmith but doesn't need a separate special unit entry. Same way I don't need a distinct unit entry for Armageddon Ork Hunters or Tanith First and Only survivors, I can just use the IG Veterans unit to portray either.

It's the same for DA - and no it's not only the ravenwing and the deathwing that sets them appart.

Except every chapter has a veteran company and a mobile company and bike suport, they just don't usually deploy them en masse as the DA do routinely, however sometimes will (just as when the Ultramarines first company did so against the Tyranids and were wiped out). Deathwing Terminators are just that, Terminators, not a unique unit. The White Scars are also all about bikes and use them extensively, yet they dont need a unique bike unit.

For exemple they have very little trust in techmarines because they are affiliated to mars and thus it is not techmarines that pilot their flyer - which is the reason why they have specific flyers (one of which is basically a portative prison) and why their fleet is bigger than most chapters (they don't need help from mars to build out their flyers and train pilots).

Which is really going out of one's way to justify a reason for a need for a distinct flyer. This is one of those things that was invented relatively recently post facto after many editions and codex books to justify their existence as a separate faction after many editions of DA basically just being an FoC swap for terminators and bikes.

That sort of fluff is also the kind of thing that gets changed or dropped from edition to edition, it wasn't too long ago that Dreadnoughts among the Iron Hands were extremely rare and valuable, then GW flipped that and now they spam dreads like crazy. Black Templars once had no access to Psykers and could not include them as allies, that too has now changed. Storm Ravens used to be unique to Blood Angels, now everyone has them.

WhiteDog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sanguinari priests are an essential part of Blood Angels' fluff ... you know like the fact that they have a thirst for blood and that they have been searching a cure for this for thousand years ... Why would you want to just drop that kind of things is beyond me : what does it change ?

What does using the datasheet of an Apothecary change from the Sanguinary Priest?

Sure, it's all well and good in the fluff that the Sanguinary Priests are vitally important to the Blood Angels, and I would never advocate for getting rid of that. But why can't they just use the Apothecary datasheet, and add in some fluff in the supplement "Blood Angel Apothecaries are known as Sanguinary Priests, and fulfil a certain role in their rites and ceremonies". If you really want some gameplay, add some kind of rule like "<Blood Angels> Apothecaries gain XYZ ability".

Why are you so mad that they somehow doesn't have the same unit as all other chapters ?

Because aside from it's basic lore, there is very little in the way of gameplay mechanic for it. By all means, all the Chapters should have their special idiosyncracies and organisations and unique naming conventions, but it doesn't mean they need a whole new datasheet for it. In my opinion, we should stick to the core datasheets where possible, and attach specific abilities to those generic units via the keyword system.

It's the same for DA - and no it's not only the ravenwing and the deathwing that sets them appart. For exemple they have very little trust in techmarines because they are affiliated to mars and thus it is not techmarines that pilot their flyer - which is the reason why they have specific flyers (one of which is basically a portative prison) and why their fleet is bigger than most chapters (they don't need help from mars to build out their flyers and train pilots).

Okay, but you don't need to have "Dark Angels Stormraven" and "Dark Angels Stormtalon" - you just tell the player that in the fluff, and then they can paint and model their flyer with a non-Techmarine! It's not difficult.

Not all fluff and flavour of a Chapter *needs* gameplay representation. If the fluff for your Chapter is that Librarians fill the role of Company leaders, and Captains are actually treated as auxiliary tacticians and battlefield advisors, you don't need separate datasheets to reflect that, just make your Librarian your Warlord! If your Terminators have a dark super secret purpose, and paint their armour white because XYZ reasons, that doesn't really make them any different to the Terminators of other Chapters, they just look cool and have some nice fluff.

The idea that you need a full Codex for your fluff to be legitimate spits on the unique and interesting lore of Chapters that don't have a Codex (Iron Hands specifically), and implies that they are less unique (which is far from the truth).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sanguinari priests are an essential part of Blood Angels' fluff ... you know like the fact that they have a thirst for blood and that they have been searching a cure for this for thousand years ... Why would you want to just drop that kind of things is beyond me : what does it change ? Why are you so mad that they somehow doesn't have the same unit as all other chapters ?

They're a medic equivalent on the table, they can be represented by an Apothecary in terms of rules just fine. Blood Angels can still have that fluff, but there's no reason it needs to be treated as a distinct separate unit with its own unique abilities other than to be different for its own sake, same way my Iron Warriors Chaos Lord would technically be a Warsmith but doesn't need a separate special unit entry. Same way I don't need a distinct unit entry for Armageddon Ork Hunters or Tanith First and Only survivors, I can just use the IG Veterans unit to portray either.

Exactly. No-one's advocating that "Blood Angels now just have Apothecaries like everyone else, and Deathwing don't hunt the Fallen and have their inner circle shenanigans", but just that "you could use existing generic units to represent these culturally significant assets!" Yeah, the Raven Guard have "Shadow Captains", but we don't need a special entry just because their name changed.

It's the same for DA - and no it's not only the ravenwing and the deathwing that sets them appart.

Except every chapter has a veteran company and a mobile company and bike suport, they just don't usually deploy them en masse as the DA do routinely, however sometimes will (just as when the Ultramarines first company did so against the Tyranids and were wiped out). Deathwing Terminators are just that, Terminators, not a unique unit. The White Scars are also all about bikes and use them extensively, yet they dont need a unique bike unit.

Yup. If the Deathwing fluff is about them mass deploying, just take an army of lots of Terminators! As I've said, I would want to reward a DA player for doing this by giving them CP, but the Terminators themselves aren't exactly any more special than just a reskin and name change. That's not to say they have no cultural significance to their Chapter, but that's the point -it's *cultural*.

For exemple they have very little trust in techmarines because they are affiliated to mars and thus it is not techmarines that pilot their flyer - which is the reason why they have specific flyers (one of which is basically a portative prison) and why their fleet is bigger than most chapters (they don't need help from mars to build out their flyers and train pilots).

Which is really going out of one's way to justify a reason for a need for a distinct flyer. This is one of those things that was invented relatively recently post facto after many editions and codex books to justify their existence as a separate faction after many editions of DA basically just being an FoC swap for terminators and bikes.

Not only that, but there's nothing to stop that particular idiosyncrasy of the Chapter being portrayed by simply painting your pilots green/black/white.

 Vaktathi wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sanguinari priests are an essential part of Blood Angels' fluff ... you know like the fact that they have a thirst for blood and that they have been searching a cure for this for thousand years ... Why would you want to just drop that kind of things is beyond me : what does it change ? Why are you so mad that they somehow doesn't have the same unit as all other chapters ?

They're a medic equivalent on the table, they can be represented by an Apothecary in terms of rules just fine. Blood Angels can still have that fluff, but there's no reason it needs to be treated as a distinct separate unit with its own unique abilities other than to be different for its own sake, same way my Iron Warriors Chaos Lord would technically be a Warsmith but doesn't need a separate special unit entry. Same way I don't need a distinct unit entry for Armageddon Ork Hunters or Tanith First and Only survivors, I can just use the IG Veterans unit to portray either.

It's the other way around : BA have a specific miniature to represent the fact that they have a specific disease and thus they have specific rules. It's known that GW write their rules after the arrival of new miniatures.

It's the same for DA - and no it's not only the ravenwing and the deathwing that sets them appart.

Except every chapter has a veteran company and a mobile company and bike suport, they just don't usually deploy them en masse as the DA do routinely, however sometimes will (just as when the Ultramarines first company did so against the Tyranids and were wiped out). Deathwing Terminators are just that, Terminators, not a unique unit. The White Scars are also all about bikes and use them extensively, yet they dont need a unique bike unit.

No it's not like all other chapters : DA have terminators armors in huge quantity because they are the first, better equip than most, and still have most of their pre heresy armory within the rock. I don't know if you've read about SM fluff but terminator armors are very rare. And the fact that the DA have access to specific gear is almost as old as 2nd ed. By the way DA also have relic anti grav bikes (used by the master of the 2nd compagny) : will you also argue that all chapter have antigrav bike somewhere but somehow don't use them ?

For exemple they have very little trust in techmarines because they are affiliated to mars and thus it is not techmarines that pilot their flyer - which is the reason why they have specific flyers (one of which is basically a portative prison) and why their fleet is bigger than most chapters (they don't need help from mars to build out their flyers and train pilots).

Which is really going out of one's way to justify a reason for a need for a distinct flyer. This is one of those things that was invented relatively recently post facto after many editions and codex books to justify their existence as a separate faction after many editions of DA basically just being an FoC swap for terminators and bikes.

That sort of fluff is also the kind of thing that gets changed or dropped from edition to edition, it wasn't too long ago that Dreadnoughts among the Iron Hands were extremely rare and valuable, then GW flipped that and now they spam dreads like crazy. Black Templars once had no access to Psykers and could not include them as allies, that too has now changed. Storm Ravens used to be unique to Blood Angels, now everyone has them.

This can be said about any fluff at all in the game. Now those flyers are in the game since what 3 editions now ? And the idea that the DA are secretive and don't trust techmarine is as old as the 3rd ed. at least. Your arguments doesn't have any weight, because you don't know much about the faction you criticize.

The idea that you need a full Codex for your fluff to be legitimate spits on the unique and interesting lore of Chapters that don't have a Codex (Iron Hands specifically), and implies that they are less unique (which is far from the truth).

Again it's not an argument. Nobody is saying that Iron Hands or any other legion are less unique than DA/BA/SW. It's just that GW didn't produce any miniatures to enlight those specificities. The answer to that should be to ask GW to create new miniatures / content to translate the specificity of the IH and other legions in the game, not to cut down what BA/DA/SW have just because you are somehow jealous.

Please, fill me in on what is unique about the Dark Angels' organisation and units that cannot be easily reflected by generic units gaining certain keywords and rewarding certain builds?

Flyers, the specific type of heavy land speeder that they have, and specifically the land speeder Darkshroud which is mounted with a relic statue tainted by the warp ... You just want to cut those units.

WhiteDog wrote:It's the other way around : BA have a specific miniature to represent the fact that they have a specific disease and thus they have specific rules. It's known that GW write their rules after the arrival of new miniatures.

Lovely, but what does having the disease change about the fact they just renamed their Apothecaries and gave them off-battlefield roles and duties? Again, as per my suggestions, why not just have a rule in the Blood Angels supplement saying "<Blood Angels> Apothecaries grant XYZ in addition to their Narthecium ability".

No it's not like all other chapters : DA have terminators armors in huge quantity because they are the first, better equip than most, and still have most of their pre heresy armory within the rock.

Which can be represented by, you guessed it, simply taking lots of Terminators in your army. White Scars are renowned for often taking to the field with bikes. Do they get special bikers? No.

I don't know if you've read about SM fluff but terminator armors are very rare. And the fact that the DA have access to specific gear is almost as old as 2nd ed. By the way DA also have relic anti grav bikes (used by the master of the 2nd compagny) : will you also argue that all chapter have antigrav bike somewhere but somehow don't use them ?

No, which is why you just make Sammael (or just Master of the Ravenwing) a unique unit. Again, no-one's saying that "every unique unit and character must be stripped out!", but only the ones with an immediate analogue.

This can be said about any fluff at all in the game. Now those flyers are in the game since what 3 ed. now ? And the idea that the DA are secretive and don't trust techmarine is as old as the 3rd ed. at least. Your arguments doesn't have any weight, because you don't know much about the faction you criticize.

I still don't see why you can't just paint your pilots as non-Techmarines to represent this part of their culture.

In my homebrew Chapter's culture, women can be inducted provided they undergo gender reassignment surgery. That doesn't need any kind of gameplay representation, that's just my Chapter's culture and background - just like how the Dark Angels don't trust Mars and happen to have a vendetta against the Fallen.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

4. Look, you guys can pretend you're using this S+1 bonus for your Blood Angels, but there's a reason why he ain't tagging with Slamguinus: the aura is useless!

Can you just stop using this strawman please?. Why else are we using the sanguinary priest if not? And 0 characters are tagging along with Slamguinus because the only character in the game that could on the loyalist side is a Raven Guard slam captain. That is why he is so good. Should we also remove Lemartes, Dante, Sanguinor, Tycho, Corbulo, Astorath and the Sanguinary Ancient because they cant keep up and buff the slam captain?

The aura is really good if you have death company, vanguard veterans with chain swords or sanguinary guard with swords (to be fair this is a unit that shouldnt be used with swords until GW halfs the price). It even makes other support characers and troops quite deadly in CC. Suddenly your librarian, your intercessors and your scouts wound t4 on 2+.

You are only undermining your other argument by insisting with this one. If this one is so bad do we even need to read the others are what other people might ask.

I'm still ok with just using a apotechary datasheet for the model if they would remove it but in that case I think the special characters without JP should be removed first if any trimming were to be done. Sanguinary Priest could just become a stratagem even if I think it isnt that neccessary to trim BA down more than the predator, weapon options and the dreads.

Problem is, all of your arguments are based in fluff. If every fluff excerpt were represented by its own unique rules, every sub-Faction would have a Codex with 100+ entries.

They aren't arguing that DA fluff isn't unique. They're arguing whether or not that uniqueness requires representation with units and rules that are only slight variations of what other Chapters get.

For example: Goffz are bigger, stronger, and fightier than other Orkz. It's what makes them Goffz. But do I need an entire Codex with slight variations of the normal Ork stuff to represent this? Or is it sufficient that Goffz get exploding 6s in CC, a WL Trait that increases Attack and Strength, and a Stratagem that gives my Boyz +1 S? Then I can build an army that feels "Goffy" using the units that every Ork can take. This seems just fine to me.

So, I guess what I'm asking is: do you NEED it, or do you just WANT it?

WhiteDog wrote:

The idea that you need a full Codex for your fluff to be legitimate spits on the unique and interesting lore of Chapters that don't have a Codex (Iron Hands specifically), and implies that they are less unique (which is far from the truth).

Again it's not an argument. Nobody is saying that Iron Hands or any other legion are less unique than DA/BA/SW. It's just that GW didn't produce any miniatures to enlight those specificities. The answer to that should be to ask GW to create new miniatures / content to translate the specificity of the IH and other legions in the game, not to cut down what BA/DA/SW have just because you are somehow jealous.

Just because there are unique sculpts, it doesn't mean they need to have unique rules, and just because there are no unique sculpts, that doesn't mean they don't have those specificities.

I know just as well as you that Iron Hands and other Chapters have vast amounts of flavour, but you don't need super fancy rules and unique units just because your guys have a colour swap, and new name, and happen to be numerous. Flavour does not have to be reflected in bespoke units and rules, because simply in *background*. Again, back to Shadow Captains - should they have unique rules?

But, seeing as you seem to think that, just for the record, do you think all of the first founding Chapters should have gotten full Codexes instead of supplements?

Please, fill me in on what is unique about the Dark Angels' organisation and units that cannot be easily reflected by generic units gaining certain keywords and rewarding certain builds?

Flyers, the specific type of heavy land speeder that they have, and specifically the land speeder Darkshroud which is mounted with a relic statue tainted by the warp ... You just want to cut those units.

I never said I wanted to cut the Darkshroud. Why? It has no acceptable equivalent. This is exactly what my point was about - singling out the units that are actually genuinely unique and not just reskins of generic ones. Darkshroud, Nephilim, Sammael on jetbike, Deathwing Knights, etc.
Now, the Deathwing Terminators, who are literally just Terminators with some cool fluff and a colour scheme swap? What's unique about them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
Problem is, all of your arguments are based in fluff. If every fluff excerpt were represented by its own unique rules, every sub-Faction would have a Codex with 100+ entries.

They aren't arguing that DA fluff isn't unique. They're arguing whether or not that uniqueness requires representation with units and rules that are only slight variations of what other Chapters get.

Nailed it.

No-one wants to make Dark Angels just generic flavourless Marines. It's just that you don't always need a unique datasheet because your Centurions wear pink on Wednesdays, and your Librarians are called "Soothsayers".

WhiteDog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sanguinari priests are an essential part of Blood Angels' fluff ... you know like the fact that they have a thirst for blood and that they have been searching a cure for this for thousand years ... Why would you want to just drop that kind of things is beyond me : what does it change ? Why are you so mad that they somehow doesn't have the same unit as all other chapters ?

They're a medic equivalent on the table, they can be represented by an Apothecary in terms of rules just fine. Blood Angels can still have that fluff, but there's no reason it needs to be treated as a distinct separate unit with its own unique abilities other than to be different for its own sake, same way my Iron Warriors Chaos Lord would technically be a Warsmith but doesn't need a separate special unit entry. Same way I don't need a distinct unit entry for Armageddon Ork Hunters or Tanith First and Only survivors, I can just use the IG Veterans unit to portray either.

It's the other way around : BA have a specific miniature to represent the fact that they have a specific disease and thus they have specific rules. It's known that GW write their rules after the arrival of new miniatures.

And there are specific distinct models for Warsmiths, First and Only, etc too, they just don't have unique rules. Lots of stuff has multiple models to represent the same unit, GW doesnt do unqiue rules for each model, they just dont make rules for units without models, these are not the same thing however.

No it's not like all other chapters : DA have terminators armors in huge quantity because they are the first, better equip than most, and still have most of their pre heresy armory within the rock. I don't know if you've read about SM fluff but terminator armors are very rare

Rare is not the same as different. How is a Dark Angel space marine Terminator different from an Ultramarine in Terminator armor? In terms of deploying on the table, what needs different rules, especially at the unit level? They can take a plasma cannon...that needs a whole new unit entry?

And the fact that the DA have access to specific gear is almost as old as 2nd ed.

For Terminators? Not really, about all that came up there is the plasma cannon access added in 6E. Just about every subfaction can point to something unique they've had at some point. Whether it really needs distinct unit rules and whatnot or requires a distinct book is another question, and that sort of thing changes from edition to edition often anyway.

By the way DA also have relic anti grav bikes (used by the master of the 2nd compagny) will you also argue that all chapter have antigrav bike somewhere but somehow don't use them

That fluff is mutable, GW used to make Imperial Guard models on jetbikes and all SM's had access to them as well. That sort of thing can and does change.

However, what a unqiue SC has isn't at issue here, we're talking about generally shared common units.

This can be said about any fluff at all in the game. Now those flyers are in the game since what 3 ed. now ? And the idea that the DA are secretive and don't trust techmarine is as old as the 3rd ed. at least.

They don't trust anyone, thats been part of their schtick forever. Needing a unique flyer to express that however is relatively new.

Your arguments doesn't have any weight, because you don't know much about the faction you criticize.

I own every DA book printed, going back to the 2E Angels of Death book. If you're going to resort to these sort of ad hominem arguments, you probably need to shift tactics.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:
Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.

Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.

So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).

it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:
Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.

Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.

So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).

it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.

They lost nothing besides the vows, and only ever one of them was taken.

So no they're the worst people to ask.

How DID it work out for them? Objectively, did it change a lot about their fluff? Their uniqueness? Their viability/competitiveness?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:
Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.

Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.

So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).

it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.

They gained access to a gargantuan number of new units and abilities in exchange for losing Vows (the kind of thing that might not have survived a new codex iteration anyway) and some artefacts of 4E codex design?

Not trying to be snide there, I just honestly don't see what BT lost in terms of fielding fluffy and capable tabletop armies when they were reconsolidated.

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:
Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.

Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.

So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).

it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.

They gained access to a gargantuan number of new units and abilities in exchange for losing Vows (the kind of thing that might not have survived a new codex iteration anyway) and some artefacts of 4E codex design?

Not trying to be snide there, I just honestly don't see what BT lost in terms of fielding fluffy and capable tabletop armies when they were reconsolidated.

a lotta em felt that they basicly lost their unqiueness.

So Grey Knights are too similar to warrant being in a seperate book than UltraMarines, but Traitor Marines and Legion reinforcements vary too much from Legion VOTLWs, so the CSM book should be split?

If they felt/feel like they lost their uniqueness just because they don't have their own Codex, then like 80% of 40k players should also be feeling pretty generic and cookie cutter.

Bharring wrote:
So Grey Knights are too similar to warrant being in a seperate book than UltraMarines, but Traitor Marines and Legion reinforcements vary too much from Legion VOTLWs, so the CSM book should be split?

thats about the size of what slayer fan is saying yes

 Mr Morden wrote:
Strawgiant - lke a strawman but bigger - how hard was that

Which is unnessisary beecause the word your basing it on already doesn't depend on size.

Not to mention, you're the one using the strawman arguments.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Remember: flavor comes from the models, not rules.

Other way around in many cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Remember: flavor comes from the models, not rules.

You should tell those the Chaos players, they don't need dedicated rules als long as they can buy the old Legion models.....

and this also means that we would not even need supplements, just a generic Marine Codex would be enough

We actually only need two:
1. Loyalist Scum + a couple of pages to handle Renegades
2. Legions proper

I've already shown how to do the former many times.

Unimpressively. You seem more impressed by what you churn out then anyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Remember: flavor comes from the models, not rules.

You should tell those the Chaos players, they don't need dedicated rules als long as they can buy the old Legion models.....

and this also means that we would not even need supplements, just a generic Marine Codex would be enough

We actually only need two:
1. Loyalist Scum + a couple of pages to handle Renegades
2. Legions proper

I've already shown how to do the former many times.

To what end? Why are we talking about removing content? You can show how to do it all you want, but until there's an actual valid reason to do it other than "I don't collect those armies so I don't want them to have things", there's no gain to be had by doing it.

I'm talking about removing filler, not content. Remember, people here can pretend they were using the S+1 bonus for the Sanguine Priest, but the truth of the matter is that they weren't. You keep actual unique stuff and share units/upgrades that should've been shared from the get-go (because two Chapters and ALL their successors don't have and never had Thunderfire Cannons? LOL that's stupid sorry) and we would be good.

Or people actually are using them, and you just can't wrap your head around that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Part of the problem here is that anyone dares suggest that (as is the case) most "unique" units in the bloated Marine dexes are (In game) are basically slight variations on existing units - weapon option/a minor rule etc you get this complete BS strawgiant. In the lore - yes they are different culturally but so are the other 996 Marine Chapters that are out there.

why not make Space marines, and IG. If you want Tau Crisis suites, just use space marine devastators with jump packs? Banshees? Use stormtroopers with powerswords and x special rules.

Somehow that allowing (for example) other Marine tac squads to take chainswords or allowing the mixing of weapons in Terminator Squads is tableflipping the entire game, destroying the lore ( whats not been gak upon by recent dexes) and might as well have a single unit with options in the game.

You keep using the word 'strawgiant'. You seem to forget that it has absolutely no meaning. The same with every argument you post where you use that term.

1. Not really. They're mostly all the same options, or are you seriously going to argue Ravenwing are functionally different to Bikers? Spoiler Alert: they aren't.
2. Did you bother to see what my fixes were? Of course not, as you're too obsessed with this viewpoint that they need to be separate codices when almost all the entries are shared or just need to be shared for the sake of balance.
3. It's not removing ACTUAL content, it is about removing the filler nobody uses, like Sanguine Priests or Deathwing as if they were something special when they, in fact, aren't.
4. Look, you guys can pretend you're using this S+1 bonus for your Blood Angels, but there's a reason why he ain't tagging with Slamguinus: the aura is useless!
5. We already kinda got Devs with Jump Packs in the form of Suppressors. Also it is a strawman because you seem to forget there's literally no shared entries between Guard and Marines. Can you say the same for even CSM vs Loyalists? Nope.

1. Besides the extra rules and equipment you mean? Yeah totally identical.
2.Yes. They were mostly bull droppings.
3. People use those. Maybe not in tournaments, but definitely in casual play. You've had people besides me say they use those. You're just being willfully ignorant now.
4. Can't say it's pretending if people (myself included) are actually using it. You do realize there's more to those factions than a jump captain with a thunderhammer right? It's important you realize that.
5. Strawman means a false argument. Nothing I said is a false argument. It's just one you don't like and don't have a good answer for. Which is why you constantly post bull droppings in these threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aelyn wrote:


Until you can understand that your opinion on what is and is not a relevant unit is just that - an opinion - why do you think anyone would or should listen to you when you say GW should get rid of them?

This is my entire point against him. He's just going to call you a 'strawman', never mind the word doesn't work that way, and bury his head in a sand bucket.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not sure why sanguinary priests cant just be apothecaries, and why Deathwing can't just be Terminators like they were until relatively recently. Why they need to be special distinct units for ostensibly codex adherent chapters doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sanguinary priests: Better equipment, extra special rules, and different fluff. Some people actually use the buff from them.

Deathwing: They haven't been assault or tactical terminators for five editions now. They have different equipment and extra rules. Keep in mind, DA don't get regular terminators.

For the same reason that sub-chapters in the marine codex get different rules for their chapter trait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
They're a medic equivalent on the table, they can be represented by an Apothecary in terms of rules just fine. Blood Angels can still have that fluff, but there's no reason it needs to be treated as a distinct separate unit with its own unique abilities other than to be different for its own sake, same way my Iron Warriors Chaos Lord would technically be a Warsmith but doesn't need a separate special unit entry. Same way I don't need a distinct unit entry for Armageddon Ork Hunters or Tanith First and Only survivors, I can just use the IG Veterans unit to portray either.

Regular apothicaries don't get the aura ability the SP do.

Except every chapter has a veteran company and a mobile company and bike suport, they just don't usually deploy them en masse as the DA do routinely, however sometimes will (just as when the Ultramarines first company did so against the Tyranids and were wiped out). Deathwing Terminators are just that, Terminators, not a unique unit. The White Scars are also all about bikes and use them extensively, yet they dont need a unique bike unit.

They also don't give them the same style of training the DA do either.

Which is really going out of one's way to justify a reason for a need for a distinct flyer. This is one of those things that was invented relatively recently post facto after many editions and codex books to justify their existence as a separate faction after many editions of DA basically just being an FoC swap for terminators and bikes.

That sort of fluff is also the kind of thing that gets changed or dropped from edition to edition, it wasn't too long ago that Dreadnoughts among the Iron Hands were extremely rare and valuable, then GW flipped that and now they spam dreads like crazy. Black Templars once had no access to Psykers and could not include them as allies, that too has now changed. Storm Ravens used to be unique to Blood Angels, now everyone has them.

DA terminators and bikes have long had different equipment and/or rules, not just a ForceOrg change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

" What does using the datasheet of an Apothecary change from the Sanguinary Priest? "
You mean besides the lose of an aura ability?

"Because aside from it's basic lore, there is very little in the way of gameplay mechanic for it. By all means, all the Chapters should have their special idiosyncracies and organisations and unique naming conventions, but it doesn't mean they need a whole new datasheet for it. In my opinion, we should stick to the core datasheets where possible, and attach specific abilities to those generic units via the keyword system. "

Or realize that because we're dealing with separate books, there's no need to stick to specific data sheets.

"No-one's advocating that "Blood Angels now just have Apothecaries like everyone else"

Some people actually are.

" If the Deathwing fluff is about them mass deploying, just take an army of lots of Terminators!"

Yup, let's just ignore the differences between the DA terminators and other terminators.

" Not only that, but there's nothing to stop that particular idiosyncrasy of the Chapter being portrayed by simply painting your pilots green/black/white. "

That hasn't been true since 4th edition.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:
Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.

Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.

So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).

it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.

They gained access to a gargantuan number of new units and abilities in exchange for losing Vows (the kind of thing that might not have survived a new codex iteration anyway) and some artefacts of 4E codex design?

Not trying to be snide there, I just honestly don't see what BT lost in terms of fielding fluffy and capable tabletop armies when they were reconsolidated.

a lotta em felt that they basicly lost their unqiueness.

I would struggle to see how. Again, not trying to be snarky about that, but the rules stuff that was lost was largely 4E era codex paradigm stuff that probably wasn't going to stick around anyway, no models were invalidated or lost, they still have unique CC oriented army wide rules and they were able to dramatically increase the number of units and options they had access to over what they did previously. They just don't have a separate book is all, they certainly lost a lot less than many armies do between simple edition changes.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:
Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.

Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.

So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).

it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.

They gained access to a gargantuan number of new units and abilities in exchange for losing Vows (the kind of thing that might not have survived a new codex iteration anyway) and some artefacts of 4E codex design?

Not trying to be snide there, I just honestly don't see what BT lost in terms of fielding fluffy and capable tabletop armies when they were reconsolidated.

a lotta em felt that they basicly lost their unqiueness.

Well those people would be completely incorrect. Too bad.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:
Because it would always be done at the cost of the DA.

Why? In this hypothetical, whatever GW has done or would do is irrelevant, this is how *I* would do it.

So if I say "nothing would be lost or scrapped", it doesn't matter what GW would do, because it's a hypothetical argument. So, in my ideal supplement, DA would not lose anything that can't be easily analogous to existing units, and the theme and flavour of those units would be added in via keyword status effects and stratagems, with specific factions gaining extra CP if they take the more "sub-par" detachments (ie, Deathwing players right now feeling that they can't take all-Terminator detachments because of the CP penalty).

it's fine to argue that but many of these people think GW should consolidate, ask a black templars player how that worked out for them.

They gained access to a gargantuan number of new units and abilities in exchange for losing Vows (the kind of thing that might not have survived a new codex iteration anyway) and some artefacts of 4E codex design?

Not trying to be snide there, I just honestly don't see what BT lost in terms of fielding fluffy and capable tabletop armies when they were reconsolidated.

a lotta em felt that they basicly lost their unqiueness.

Well those people would be completely incorrect. Too bad.

Other way around there buddy. You should be pointing that finger at yourself.