Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)

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.

**captain collius**

@Sgt. smudge yeah you and I are pretty much in lockstep here.

@Karol that just the point we aren't giving anything up. The GK are different it's a wildly divergent base soldier to the standard Marines. The challenge with Grey knights is they only have 3 unique model kits. Throw in a few from SM. They need another couple units that are unique to GK

**flandarz**

I'm kinda curious as to whether the negative responses to consolidation would be reversed if the choice was to either become a supplement and benefit from all the new Marine rules and units (and really not lose anything anyway) or to stay as a stand-alone Codex and not get those updates all the other Marines got.

**Sterling191**

flandarz wrote:
I'm kinda curious as to whether the negative responses to consolidation would be reversed if the choice was to either become a supplement and benefit from all the new Marine rules and units (and really not lose anything anyway) or to stay as a stand-alone Codex and not get those updates all the other Marines got.

This is an amusingly telling false choice you're putting forth here.

**Karol**

flandarz wrote:
I'm kinda curious as to whether the negative responses to consolidation would be reversed if the choice was to either become a supplement and benefit from all the new Marine rules and units (and really not lose anything anyway) or to stay as a stand-alone Codex and not get those updates all the other Marines got.

shouldn't it be get a new updated codex with new rules vs get a supplement, and have to buy the marine codex to run your army?

**captain collius**

Karol wrote:
flandarz wrote:
I'm kinda curious as to whether the negative responses to consolidation would be reversed if the choice was to either become a supplement and benefit from all the new Marine rules and units (and really not lose anything anyway) or to stay as a stand-alone Codex and not get those updates all the other Marines got.

shouldn't it be get a new updated codex with new rules vs get a supplement, and have to buy the marine codex to run your army?

Which is why most DA/BA/SW players really don't want it because it would require additional outlay. To be honest I don't want to pay for it either but it seems to be where we are going

**Karol**

captain collius wrote:

@Karol that just the point we aren't giving anything up. The GK are different it's a wildly divergent base soldier to the standard Marines. The challenge with Grey knights is they only have 3 unique model kits. Throw in a few from SM. They need another couple units that are unique to GK

Ok, but GW already said the cawl didn't have the GK geneseed and can't create primaris out of them, for what ever reason. And I doubt there are going to be scouts or tacticals added to GK. As it would go against all the lore in the codex, how GK never get to be scouts.

Plus it is not like marines use that many units either. they spam eliminators, intercessors, repulsors, the flyers and the heroes. Only special stuff is the heroes. I never understood why GK have so high price techmarines, but no options for a servo harnass or a bike , or a thunder cannon. It is not like there is a GK techmarine model without those things. I dislike how the power armour GK look like, but why can't there be a chapter master or a brother captin with an interceptor backpack, there is no GK master or captin model either. Paladins and termintors are one box, the power armoured models make 4 different units. How is it a problem if they made one or two more unit types. the problem is not the models, it is the rules they gave them. If purgators weapons were worth taking people would take them, and not just accept a naked unit of 5 as a tax they have to take to get a proper detachment.

But all of that would require someone actually writing and testing the GK book, and not just doing a copy paste of the Index, which also looked strangly like the codex from prior editions.

**Klickor**

Removed - piracy is not okay.

**Vaktathi**

flandarz wrote:
I'm kinda curious as to whether the negative responses to consolidation would be reversed if the choice was to either become a supplement and benefit from all the new Marine rules and units (and really not lose anything anyway) or to stay as a stand-alone Codex and not get those updates all the other Marines got.

This has, historically, been basically what happened. Stuff like SW's going almost a decade without a new codex from early 3rd through mid 5th, Black Templars strolling through 5th and early 6th with a 4E era codex and required extensive FAQ'ing to function, etc. It's only been the last couple years that GW's kept their codex & FAQ/Errata release schedule up to make such gaps less of an issue.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Karol wrote:Well I would rather get new codex. Then let say GW in X time deciding to make a GK supplement, working on the base of space marines chapter, that has zero GK models I own, being worth taken, but be loaded with strange new lore, how they are GK primaris etc.

But Grey Knights are far more divergent than DA/BA/SW - don't know about anyone else, but Grey Knights shouldn't be a supplement because, as you say, they are too different.

DA/BA/SW, which have a small handful of unique units, and a lot of shared ones? I don't see why they shouldn't be part of the main Space Marine Codex, and the flavour you want can be supplied in supplements, like every other named Chapter.

I don't think many DA/SW/BA players would be happy to give up most of their chapter character, in hope that maybe GW is going to bring some of it back in a supplement.

My proposal doesn't get rid of any of that character. You don't "need" a Codex to have character, so long as what was in the Codex is kept. By getting rid of all the generic units, and putting all the rest in a supplement, you still have all that character.

I'm not advocating for DA/BA/SW to get absolutely nothing and get reduced to having less unique stuff and flavour than the existing supplements. That would be unfair. What would be fair is each of those first founding Chapters getting a supplement off of the core Space Marine book.

Grey Knights and Deathwatch and CSM are not built off of the same core units (okay, maybe Chaos, but I'm okay with them having a self-contained book from which Chaos Legion supplements can split from), so wouldn't need to have supplements, and could have their own Codexes.

**Ishagu**

It would actually be better if they were supplements, as it means all Astartes are updated as one.

Also the new supplements have plenty of lore and fluff so no one is ignored.

Imo Grey Knights and Death Watch should be in one codex called "Forces of the Inquisition"

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Mmmpi wrote:
He also just described most of the difference between eldar and IG as well. A stat or two and equipment. If he was really interested in consolidation, 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.

The disingenuity here is magical!

WhiteDog wrote:
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)

I really don't see any kind of logical link between the first part of the quote and the second part of the quote.

WhiteDog wrote:
and why their fleet is bigger than most chapters (they don't need help from mars to build out their flyers and train pilots).

I don't get it. If they don't get help from the gigantic world-sized factory that constantly make new ships, they should have less ship than those who do get this help, not more. And less special variant, not more.
Mary Snowflake syndrome, where even the pretend flaws end up actually being advantages?

Sanguinary priests should be Apothecary with access to specific stratagems. Prove me otherwise!
(Same with almost every chapter-specific unit with an obvious generic equivalent)

**Spoletta**

Intercessors, Incursors and infiltrators should be a single datasheet, prove me otherwise!

**Karol**

And reavers? they are just incursors without the cool guns and mines.

**flandarz**

Sterling191 wrote:
flandarz wrote:
I'm kinda curious as to whether the negative responses to consolidation would be reversed if the choice was to either become a supplement and benefit from all the new Marine rules and units (and really not lose anything anyway) or to stay as a stand-alone Codex and not get those updates all the other Marines got.

This is an amusingly telling false choice you're putting forth here.

Wasn't trying to do that, but I understand. I was honestly just curious because, as far as I'm aware, GW hasn't stated any plans to release any other "Codex 2.0" books. So, you also have to consider this when you argue whether or not you want to stay as a Codex or become a supplement.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Spoletta wrote:
Intercessors, Incursors and infiltrators should be a single datasheet, prove me otherwise!

Incursors and Infiltrators, I can see that. Have two optional equipment "packages", one with marksman bolt carbines and omni-scramblers, and the other with occulus bolt carbines, multi-spectrum arrays and paired combat knives.

Intercessors should be separate, as they lack the shared Phobos keyword, smoke grenades, concealed positions rule, and have no squad support option like the haywire mines, comms array, or Helix Adept, and instead only have an aux grenade launcher option.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
And reavers? they are just incursors without the cool guns and mines.

Reivers have heavy bolt pistols as an option, as well as their terror troops rule, grav chutes and grapnels. However, I'm also in favour of giving Reivers more beefy melee weaponry to make that their speciality. I'm not really sure if Incursors should be a standalone option, or just folded into the Infiltrators.

**flandarz**

Karol wrote:
shouldn't it be get a new updated codex with new rules vs get a supplement, and have to buy the marine codex to run your army?

Has GW announced plans to update the stand-alones? I wasn't aware. If so, then I suppose my curiosity has no merit as a consideration.

**Not Online!!!**

Ishagu wrote:
It would actually be better if they were supplements, as it means all Astartes are updated as one.

Also the new supplements have plenty of lore and fluff so no one is ignored.

Imo Grey Knights and Death Watch should be in one codex called "Forces of the Inquisition"

Yeah and the Astartes update cycle would take even longer without breaks.
No thank you. It's allready excessive now thanks to GW's imcompetence.

**Klickor**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Ishagu wrote:
It would actually be better if they were supplements, as it means all Astartes are updated as one.

Also the new supplements have plenty of lore and fluff so no one is ignored.

Imo Grey Knights and Death Watch should be in one codex called "Forces of the Inquisition"

Yeah and the Astartes update cycle would take even longer without breaks.
No thank you. It's allready excessive now thanks to GW's imcompetence.

You think it would take less time than if they got a whole new codex each rather than a supplement? A new codex would probably get more marketing than 2 or 3 supplements just for being a "Codex"

Sure each cycle would last a bit longer but overall the time spent on marines would likely drop a bit.

**Not Online!!!**

Klickor wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Ishagu wrote:
It would actually be better if they were supplements, as it means all Astartes are updated as one.

Also the new supplements have plenty of lore and fluff so no one is ignored.

Imo Grey Knights and Death Watch should be in one codex called "Forces of the Inquisition"

Yeah and the Astartes update cycle would take even longer without breaks.
No thank you. It's allready excessive now thanks to GW's imcompetence.

You think it would take less time than if they got a whole new codex each rather than a supplement? A new codex would probably get more marketing than 2 or 3 supplements just for being a "Codex"

Sure each cycle would last a bit longer but overall the time spent on marines would likely drop a bit.

No i think if they solve them Via Supplement and then just release them after C:SM drops like now, then yes it get's excessive without a break.
Infact i am of the opinion they should've done Less supplements and thrown them out in one Go.
SO that we could see sisters, or the ongoing campaign (ok who am i kidding considering the first PA book i doubt anything decent will come out)

**Ishagu**

It would be a lot less time on Marines if they were one codex with lots of supplements. It means you'll get a big Astartes release every two years, as opposed to every 6 months.

**Karol**

And what GW be selling in the mean time, when their main sellers is marine stuff? It would just soon end up with marine player needing a codex, a supplement for specific type of game play and one or two campaign books, or something like that. And suddenly instead of one book, you would need 2-3 just to get the army rules.

And absolutly nothing can asure that there is a higher chance of having 3 good books to get a good rule set, then having one book for your army rules.

I understand that cost of books isn't a concern for a lot of people, but being made to buy maybe 2-3 bad books to play a bad army, on top of CA and edition rule book, does not sound good to me. Although I do think it sounds awesome for a GW sales depertment guy. I can imagine those people being happy to split a codex in to 32 options, you have to buy separate.

**Not Online!!!**

Ishagu wrote:
It would be a lot less time on Marines if they were one codex with lots of supplements. It means you'll get a big Astartes release every two years, as opposed to every 6 months.

Yes, and now follow this, everyone else.

So no issue.

**BrianDavion**

Ishagu wrote:
It would be a lot less time on Marines if they were one codex with lots of supplements. It means you'll get a big Astartes release every two years, as opposed to every 6 months.

no it wouldn't. it would mean every marine release would be stretched out as long as the last one was.

**Not Online!!!**

Equal long pikes for everyone.
So to speak.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Karol wrote:
And reavers? they are just incursors without the cool guns and mines.

Honestly if Reivers were eliminated nobody would care. The only thing they got going on is cool skull hemlets. Otherwise being used as ABR Intercessors is something I've seen commonly to be honest.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BroodSpawn wrote:
Slayer, you've made your point. You've also ignored or dismissed every valid reason given for why these armies are and have been treat as separate armies for the last 25yrs (maybe longer). You don't like that there's Deathwing Terminators, whatever the SW version is called, 'codex' terminators. You don't like that units like the Baal predator or Sanuguinary Priests exist as a a different version of codex units.

You complaint seems to boil down to 'but but Space Marines got models and kits and we need to condense the rules'. And if it's not that then I honestly don;t know what your point is anymore because it's the same circular logic every time. 'X unit is the same as Y unit, so let's remove all the bits that makes X different so it can be Y'. And, as valid an opinion as that is, it's not how the company (y'know with the designers, and developers, and manufacturing materials that make this stuff) wants to do it. They have a pretty clear design paradigm for why these armies are separate and, frankly, it's a decision taken 30+ years ago that they've stuck with.

Considering the backlash they still get over the Squats, Black Templars, removal of rules options for Eldar and Dark Eldar, the idea that they should just consolidate everything into 1 datasheet for terminators, or 1 data sheet for dreadnoughts, or 1 datasheet for 'veterans' eventually leads to the removal of those options from players and then the removal of models from the range. Why sell a Deathwin box when it's not going to have any content in it that the standard terminator box doesn't already have. And yes I can see that being precisely they way that they could go about doing that, because you wont get things like Plasma Cannons on 'all' Terminators you'll just remove Plasma Cannons from the 1 unit of that kind, in the 1 faction that can take them.

And before you go with the 'but you could just play a stratagem to do the same stuff', come on. We all know that the internet (and this forum especially) takes a 'tournament list only' approach, so just like how you never see anyone play a Sanguinary Priest (and anyone that does is 'lying') you'd also be telling people that they don't play the Deathwing strat and are 'lying' about playing what would be a sub-optimal option. Oh and it would be adding rules bloat, that thing you're arguing as the reason to condense into 1 datasheet anyway.

Saying they've been "standalone armies for 25 years" is a bit generous, as they still haven't added a lot of units to make them their own armies. They're really just Marines, pure and simple.

Also the backlash for Templars is because of how melee works in the last few editions. Black Templars getting consolidated was one of the best things that could've happened to them as they lost literally nothing but Vows (everyone only took one anyway so who cares?) and Terminator Command Squads (which everyone lost but Dark Angels because reasons). Regarding Eldar armies, you're referring to lost equipment, which is more akin to losing Power Spears for example, not that anybody used them anyway, and the lost option for Librarians and Chaps to get on bikes. That's a whole separate issue, and is not the same as Deathwing not being special snowflakes anymore.

**Mmmpi**

Tell me why it would be less flavourful.

Tell my why it would be just as flavorful.

I've already explained it. Again, just because you don't like that explanation doesn't mean it's not there.

Detail, depth, and actual reasoning, beyond just saying what amounts to a glorified "no u".

Then I suggest you actually read my posts.

Again, what about Chapter Masters and Chief Librarians? Hellfire shells and hunter killer missiles? What should they be? How about the "flavour" of my Ultramarines to be able to have overlapping Overwatch? Should that be automatic too?

I already flat out said both CM and CL should be their own data sheets. See above about you reading my posts.

More room than every single generic datasheet? Ridiculous.

I've already gone over this in length about how adding them to Codex:Space Marines takes up tons of space.

Let's make a compromise, shall we?

No. Not anymore.

Let's make a compromise, shall we? Let's say you get all your unique datasheets, and we include a single page (because that's all it would take) saying what units you can't take in a DA army (so anything with the <Terminator> keyword, etc etc). You still think that would be longer than a whole Codex filled with the same generic stratagems and units that make up the main Codex? Absolutely not. You'd have a slightly larger supplement, that's for sure, but it wouldn't even come close to the size of the generic Codex, not even by a long shot. And, because I'm so generous, I wouldn't charge you any more for it than any other supplement.

So, answer me - what's wrong with that?

Nope. The current system is better. Yes that's opinion.
Besides that, you're already forcing people to buy another book. Just because you wouldn't, doesn't mean GW wouldn't charge more.

Ah, I see what it is. You haven't got a problem with everyone else having to pay for their extra flavour and special characters ("yeah, I mean, screw the Iron Hands, if they want to take a single unique character, I guess they need to by a supplement!"), but if that were asked of you, that's completely out of line! /s

You need to work on your sarcasm.

Should we release an Iron Hands Codex too? All the generic units, plus their Iron Hands flavour aspects? Ultramarines too? Every Chapter with any kind of unique rules? Or are they not "special" enough?

Yes. Any chapter with enough unique rules and units stretching back for over two decades should have it's own codex.

Sorry, did you think I was going to be taken aback and declare you a genius for posting this?

You clearly have enough interest to keep discussing this. I'm not asking you to keep typing out "each unit's change to equipment and rules" - I'm asking you to do it to the Deathwing alone, beyond just saying "they're different!!!1!". So you say, but you're not saying why.

I have said why. Read my posts. And no, I'm not going to do it for deathwing now either.
I suggest you start doing your reading.

By all means, continue just saying "they'd be different because they'd be different", but I'm sure it's pretty clear to anyone reading that it's a facade of an argument.

Sure it's a facade of an argument when you ignore 90% of the words I used.
Stop doing that.

Let me pose to you a maths question: 2+2=5. Now, let me ask you another: "why is this sum wrong". At the moment, your answer is "it's wrong because it's not correct". That's not an answer, that's telling me absolutely nothing new or what I want to know.

I hate to break it to you, but "It's not correct" actually is an answer, and one that accurately describes the issue. But as to my posts, read them. I gave you actual answers. Again, you just don't like them. You can stop begging the question.

I'm asking you to clearly point out to me *exactly* why the Deathwing Terminators datasheet is different to normal Codex Terminators, beyond "they're different". Why are they different, in what way are they different? At the moment, you're getting no marks - no passing the exam: because you're not answering the question.

I suggest reading my answers then. Because I did say why. I didn't type out every single difference, but I have no incentive to do that. I just said what differences there are. Again, I'm fairly sure you don't know how to constructively read.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I find it amusing that the same people who complain about rules bloat are saying we should change something from a single codex into a bloated 3 book mess

It only needs to be two codices, actually. Supplements are a stupid idea and separate codices for Blood and Dark Angels are the same exact stupid idea.

In your opinion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

captain collius wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.

If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?

Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.

Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.

Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.

Additionally, I also think that the Rule of 3 is bad. So that would be something I'd want removing.

I agree with you long term, that units shouldn't need the rule of three to be balanced.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
captain collius wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
captain collius wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.

If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?

Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.

Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.

Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.
Additionally, I also think that the Rule of 3 is bad. So that would be something I'd want removing.

Rule of 3 is a lazy bandaid fix for GW when they can't figure out why certain units are broken even though we have told them before.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

captain collius wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The main rule Deathwing has is the morale thing, which already basically what the Chapter Tactic is to begin with. So really besides the Plasma Cannon there's nothing different.

If your argument is "but I can take a single TH/SS in my shooting squad!!!!1!" like another poster said, you still haven't a leg to stand on. Not that you did, anyway.
As a question: Do you think it should be NO Terminators should have the option to mix loadouts, or ALL Terminators should have the option?

Consolidation all into one thing, including the supposed different Mks that have no real difference functionally. Nobody mixes anyway and nobody is running more than 30 Terminators in a given list outside Grey Knights players that hate themselves. Otherwise, Terminator Command Squads were a thing for everyone before and should really be a thing again if you NEED another 15 for whatever reason.

Because, ya know, in GW's eyes, there wouldn't be a time that a Chapter wouldn't have all the same armor and there's an Autocannon Terminator around and they would NEVER be with another 4 dudes in the regular armor we already know, even though PA Marines mix all the time.

Hi player who has run 30 plus Terminators .....Your wrong.

Riiiiiiiight. Lemme know when that works out for you that you absolutely need all 4 different kinds of Terminator entries LOL

It works for me I love have multiple easy to access apothecaries that fit the fluff.
The champion is great.
The ancient is useful.
Knights smash face.
Does it win tournaments ....No.
That's because Terminators need a reworked statline. That's in all books

All you're doing is describing Characters. Did you even read my initial post about Terminators?

Yes. It was that no one uses them, and now you have someone saying they use them, so now you're moving the goalposts...again.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:
At this point having separate codices for BA, DA and SW is just silly. It causes all sorts of weird issues when things that are supposed to be similar really aren't because the books are written at different times.

These chapters would need a few datasheets more than other supplements have, but nothing massive.

You do realize that in just data sheets, we're talking almost 30 pages each right?

With fluff, stratagems, CT (+rules), WL traits, Psychic disciplines, ect, you're adding close to 30 more. Then there's the models showcase...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Mmmpi wrote:
He also just described most of the difference between eldar and IG as well. A stat or two and equipment. If he was really interested in consolidation, 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.

The disingenuity here is magical!

Not really. It's just the same argument taken a level higher.

**JNAProductions**

Mmmpi wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Mmmpi wrote:
He also just described most of the difference between eldar and IG as well. A stat or two and equipment. If he was really interested in consolidation, 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.

The disingenuity here is magical!

Not really. It's just the same argument taken a level higher.

If you speed by 1 MPH, you're unlikely to even get pulled over.

If you speed by 20 MPH, you'll get a ticket if you get caught.

If you speed by 100 MPH, that's a gorram felony.

Degree matters-taking something to its extreme is not accurately representing it.

**Karol**

Honestly if Reivers were eliminated nobody would care. The only thing they got going on is cool skull hemlets. Otherwise being used as ABR Intercessors is something I've seen commonly to be honest.

People here would be sad, mif reavers were gone. there are 3ed party model companies and private producers making sniper rifles that when fitted to easy to build reavers give cheaper eliminators.

If you speed by 100 MPH, that's a gorram felony.

and if you have a car doing that, the police will fear that you are either mob, politicians, both or you have a stickers that allows you to ignore transport rules&laws, and nothing will happen. GW does something like that a lot, that nerf and tweek orc, necron or even GK rules, but it takes them 6-12 months to "fix" the big problem stuff.

**JNAProductions**

Karol wrote:
Honestly if Reivers were eliminated nobody would care. The only thing they got going on is cool skull hemlets. Otherwise being used as ABR Intercessors is something I've seen commonly to be honest.

People here would be sad, mif reavers were gone. there are 3ed party model companies and private producers making sniper rifles that when fitted to easy to build reavers give cheaper eliminators.

If you speed by 100 MPH, that's a gorram felony.

and if you have a car doing that, the police will fear that you are either mob, politicians, both or you have a stickers that allows you to ignore transport rules&laws, and nothing will happen. GW does something like that a lot, that nerf and tweek orc, necron or even GK rules, but it takes them 6-12 months to "fix" the big problem stuff.

The point I was making is that taking an argument to an extreme is not a fair representation of it.

**Karol**

Well the thing is. GW are gung ho when they decide that GK brother captin or brother hood champion requires a nerf ASAP, you know on basis of GK being so dominant in w40k, but a castellan can run havock on the meta for months. Inari too. Broken flyer lists from eldar are broken since 8th start?

But that is not what GW goes after like a hawk, they rather blow up some orc or necron rule. they don't fix extrem bad, nor deal with the extrem good.