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.
2019/11/10 19:04:11
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: True - which is worth me reiterating, my viewpoint isn't from a "what GW have done and will likely do", it's a "let's assume I had full creative control to a certain degree - what would I do" kind of hypothetical. Obviously, I wouldn't want units getting deleted with no appropriate support, and just questioning "why" it's so essential that DA have a Codex when so many of their things are done in the core SM books.
I guess they tried that in 3rd and it didn't work out for them (at the time). The problem that we're running into (on my side at least) is that the answer to 'why' has already been given. Lore, models, rules separation done in previous editions, etc. Those are all reasons for why the DA (and BA, SW, etc) aren't just supplements. They have a lot of crossover, but they also have a lot that doesn't (Centurions, heck in 7th when they made 40k rules for Cataphractii armour it wasn't available to non-Codex marines like the DA, and I'm sure there's more but I'm primarily a Heresy player nowadays). The DA list is really a 'take these 2/3rd's of the common Marines, ignore this 1/3rd so there's some differences in options and replace those with DA specific variants or flavour pieces like the flyers/skimmers/bikes/terminators'. So they could supplement it easily, here's my caveat to that - you add a list which contains the 1/3rd of common Marine units they don't get AND you don't cut or condense any current DA units. Then as a supplement it could work.
But likewise they could just drop those units in codex DA, switch out Combat Doctrines for a DA specific variant (The Lion's Tactical Scribbles) and have those keywords and rules all printed in one book, thus less flipping between 2 or three books for information.
2019/11/10 19:43:53
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
BroodSpawn wrote: ...I can see the argument for this, but this is where you and I are gonna disagree. Because I'll look at something like 'Guilliman decreed Tactical Terminators will shoot, and Assault terminators will hammer' (which was always low-key the in-universe reason for the units being split) and the DA saying 'yeah sod that, our Terminators do our own thing' as being a good enough reason for the units (rules and in-lore) to be operating in the different manners that they do. It's a very 40k thing, a decision made thousands of years ago that is followed to the letter, 'because that's what space-book says to do/they're more guidelines than actual rules' (in-lore)...
But at that point you're dictating other peoples' lore to them in order to 'protect' your own. "Yeah, you're all stooges who follow Guilliman's doctrine religiously no matter how little sense it makes, better be Space Wolves/Dark Angels if you want your Terminators to do anything different", and you're telling this to the Blood Angels? The Salamanders? The Black Templars? And nobody's later-founding Chapter is allowed to be even slightly Codex-deviant unless they're a Space Wolves or Dark Angels successor?
They have different, often unique gear, and a different unit structure and how they arm them. that is like saying grey hunters and tacticals are the same thing.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2019/11/10 20:47:44
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Karol wrote: They have different, often unique gear, and a different unit structure and how they arm them. that is like saying grey hunters and tacticals are the same thing.
They are, though. The only difference is that Grey Hunters can take Chainswords and two specials at 10 instead of one special, one heavy.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2019/11/10 20:49:29
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Karol wrote: They have different, often unique gear, and a different unit structure and how they arm them. that is like saying grey hunters and tacticals are the same thing.
And the fact that Grey Hunters and Tactical Marines are different things means that Tactical Marines in non-Space Wolf Legions somehow forget how chainswords work? The White Scars are so committed to the ideals of Guilliman that they insist every Tactical Squad has a heavy weapon, thereby nailing its feet to the floor, instead of two special weapons, because otherwise they'd step on the Space Wolves' toes?
That's actually part of how I want to consolidate Grey Hunters and Tactical Marines into the same entry.
1. Stick with the current 12 points
2. Extra Chainsword for 1 point
3. Special/Heavy at minimum squad, and then two of your choice of the opposite at 1p man squads, giving inventive to max the squad size
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.
2019/11/10 22:26:23
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Karol wrote: They have different, often unique gear, and a different unit structure and how they arm them.
As per my point, no, they really don't.
The only lore-wise unique features of the Deathwing are their preference for deploying en mass (which isn't something that can be represented by a unique datasheet), their unique style of combat (which every Chapter has and is reflected in their Chapter Tactic - for the Deathwing, this manifests via the Inner Circle rule), and a one-use-only Watcher in the Dark (which I've already proposed alternative methods for).
So, if I add a Watcher in the Dark to a unit of Codex: Space Marine Terminators, what's the difference between them and some Deathwing?
that is like saying grey hunters and tacticals are the same thing.
Is this a joke?
They literally are the same unit. The only difference is Space Wolves get chainswords (for some unknown reason, because there's plenty of Codex Chapters in lore that should have chainswords on their Tacticals - Flesh Tearers, Carcharadons, White Scars, Black Templars, etc etc), and get two special weapon options, instead of needing a special and heavy (again, literally all of the above Chapters also would make more sense, ESPECIALLY the non-Codex Black Templars, to have two specials per 10 men).
Honestly, there's very few Space Wolf units that genuinely should be unique, because so many are just reskins of the basic Codex units. Off the top of my head, the only unique ones I can think of (barring the special characters) are Wolf Lords on Thunderwolves, Thunderwolf Cavalry, Fenrisian Wolves, their unique flyers, Wolf Priest (idk, maybe? They combine Chaplains and Apothecaries), Wulfen, and Cyberwolves.
The rest can be covered via keyword shenanigans, stratagems, and suchlike. The largest issue I can see if in mixing Terminator Wolf Guard with regular squads, but that's also something the Iron Hands should have, and I think would be far cheaper to do with a single page explaining how XYZ units can give their Sergeant Terminator Armour and XYZ weaponry than reprinting all the units that can do it.
They/them
2019/11/10 23:33:08
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
So, if I add a Watcher in the Dark to a unit of Codex: Space Marine Terminators, what's the difference between them and some Deathwing?
plasma canons that are wrist mounted, for example.
The rest can be covered via keyword shenanigans, stratagems, and suchlike. The largest issue I can see if in mixing Terminator Wolf Guard with regular squads, but that's also something the Iron Hands should have, and I think would be far cheaper to do with a single page explaining how XYZ units can give their Sergeant Terminator Armour and XYZ weaponry than reprinting all the units that can do it.
which means SW would be losing a SW only option and giving it to other factions. That is not merging of codex, that is just removing of the SW codex. Considering allt he other SW units are non primaris. We may as well expect GW to just limit SW to a character or two that gets changed from normal marine to primaris. And that would be stupid. they already purged normal marines from the supplement books, with their over focus on primaris stuff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/10 23:36:34
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2019/11/10 23:45:27
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
So, if I add a Watcher in the Dark to a unit of Codex: Space Marine Terminators, what's the difference between them and some Deathwing?
plasma canons that are wrist mounted, for example.
And why shouldn't every Chapter have them? Same as chainswords on Tacticals as an option, considering how well connected certain Chapters can be, and how large the 40k universe is, the idea that only Dark Angels (and their successors, who have less political clout and infrastructure than any First Founder) have plasma cannons on their Terminators is baffling.
The rest can be covered via keyword shenanigans, stratagems, and suchlike. The largest issue I can see if in mixing Terminator Wolf Guard with regular squads, but that's also something the Iron Hands should have, and I think would be far cheaper to do with a single page explaining how XYZ units can give their Sergeant Terminator Armour and XYZ weaponry than reprinting all the units that can do it.
which means SW would be losing a SW only option and giving it to other factions.
They're not losing anything that wasn't already essentially the same as generic options.
If Space Wolves were only a unique Codex because their Tacticals could have chainswords, then that a terrible excuse for why they should be a unique Codex. Plenty of Chapters should have the same, and nothing is stopping the Wolves from having exactly what they had before.
That is not merging of codex, that is just removing of the SW codex.
But Karol! They're "gaining" Tactical Marines, by that logic - they're losing what are essentially knock-off Tacticals, and getting them replaced with exactly the same thing, only everyone can (and should) access it. If it's not about protecting the *idea* of exclusivity, what is it about?
Considering allt he other SW units are non primaris.
Errr, what? Space Wolves have Primaris units too, and it doesn't take a genius to work out that nearly all of their units are just renamed and reskinned versions of generic units. Grey Hunters = Tactical Marines Blood Claws = Assault Marines without jump packs, or just Tacticals with no bolters Skyclaws = Assault Marines with jump packs Swiftclaws = Bikers Wolf Guard Terminators = Terminators Long Fangs = Devastators
Just like Dark Angels and Blood Angels, the vast majority of the Space Wolves Codex is just reskinned and renamed generic units, who may as well just use the same datasheets as the ones everyone else uses.
We may as well expect GW to just limit SW to a character or two that gets changed from normal marine to primaris. And that would be stupid. they already purged normal marines from the supplement books, with their over focus on primaris stuff.
Okay, now this is actually ridiculous. What units got removed from new Codex because of the Primaris Marines? Huh. None, as far as I can tell. Hell, what about the supplements! The Ultramarines supplement actually has MORE old Marine units than new ones! (Calgar, Tigurius, and the Victrix Honour Guard, vs Cassius, Sicarius, Telion, Chronus, Tyrannic War Veterans, and the THREE Honour Guard variant units.)
Has Lysander been removed? Nope. What about Kantor? Nope as well. Vulkan He'stan? Still there. Sure, the Raven Guard had their one guy upgraded, and the Iron Hands got their first character!, but they're just two Chapters.
And, according to the previews on Faith and Fury, Helbrecht isn't a Primaris Marine either. If this is a purge, it's a poor one.
Old Marines aren't gone. That might be a yet, but as of right now, this is simply not correct, and pretending that Primaris are swooping in and stealing from regular Space Marines is just not a statement supported by any fact. Tactical Marines weren't nerfed, they weren't replaced, they even gained power due to the sweeping changes and buffs in their Codexes and supplements.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/10 23:59:42
They/them
2019/11/11 00:09:06
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
You know what I give up. I've spent multiple threads trying to argue the defence for why units are different.
Lore isn't a good enough defence for some people
Models aren't a good enough defence for some people.
Rules differences aren't good enough because they're all based on space marines, and well those can just be changed anyway.
I'm so done with this now. You want to blandify all marines go for it. You're just gonna find new ways of whining when you dont get what you want. Have at it, you won.
Not like GW are going to do it your way anyhow.
2019/11/11 00:13:21
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
The thing is... why does it need to be separate to be fluffy or to adhere to the lore? I got the Ork Codex, and if I wanna make a fluffy and lore-adherent list, I take the appropriate models/options and don't take the ones that aren't appropriate. Like if I'm running Evil Sunz, and I want it to be "fluffy", I take Buggies, Bikers, etc. and don't include "slow" units. If I'm trying to make a Goff list that stays with the lore, I don't include a lot of heavy shooters, but I DO take a bunch of CC units. That's how most Factions work. We don't need a separate Codex for all the sub-Factions to build a flavorful list that sticks to the lore. We just use the options we're given to do it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 00:26:14
2019/11/11 00:25:08
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Your arguments were bad is the problem. You didn't have a defense to begin with.
And your counter to everything was 'it's bad becuz I say so'. Kind of hard to have a reasoned discussion when one side is so stubborn in there opinion they cant see it's not fact.
Show me where I've been factually inaccurate in what I've said. Prove to me that theres no differences, shouldnt be too difficult for you to do should it.
2019/11/11 00:28:07
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
BroodSpawn wrote: You know what I give up. I've spent multiple threads trying to argue the defence for why units are different. Lore isn't a good enough defence for some people
Lore is a great defence, when it's actually accurate. I made it clear - the lore saying that Deathwing deploy en mass should be respected, via my proposal of extra CP for <Deathwing> detachments.
The lore that claims "only Deathwing deploy in mixed squads" isn't a good defence, because we see several times non-DA Terminator Squads having mixed weaponry. The lore that claims "only Deathwing should have terminators with plasma" isn't a good defence, because it makes sense for famous Chapters to have *some* terminator plasma, and some Terminators like Captain Invictus of the Ultramarines explicitly have it.
Models aren't a good enough defence for some people.
No-one wants to get rid of the models, they're awesome models. But that doesn't mean that they need a whole new datasheet for it, and maybe the wargear on those models could be made available for everyone, because the lore implies they should be able to.
Should only Salamanders Intercessor Sergeants have thunder hammers, because only the Salamanders upgrade pack comes with any?
Rules differences aren't good enough because they're all based on space marines, and well those can just be changed anyway.
When we're talking about *changing* those rules to suit the lore more accurately (at least, from my perspective) and to reduce the amount of units being repeated with just a slight reskin, why should the rules be the prime concern? And again, all of my proposals allow for existing rules to stay in the game, albeit in different representations.
I'm so done with this now. You want to blandify all marines go for it.
My main question was "why can't DA/BA/SW settle for a supplement, even if it happened to have all of their unique units, stratagems, and all the provisions in the world to create exactly the same things you already could with your existing armies". Not "blandifying" them. Consolidating them, and getting rid of the 85% of copy-pasted units that dwelt in their Codexes.
If the DA/BA/SW didn't have nearly as many of these generic units ported over, maybe I could see it, much like how the GSC Codex and Tyranids share some units (the Broodlord/Patriarch and Genestealers), but they're two units, not 85%.
Not like GW are going to do it your way anyhow.
True, but then if we all took that attitude, what would be the point in our Proposed Rules forum, or half the posts in General Discussions?
I've made it clear that my proposals are just that - my personal, imaginary, hypothetical ideas.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 00:28:54
They/them
2019/11/11 00:30:06
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Karol wrote: They have different, often unique gear, and a different unit structure and how they arm them. that is like saying grey hunters and tacticals are the same thing.
They are, though. The only difference is that Grey Hunters can take Chainswords and two specials at 10 instead of one special, one heavy.
yes, and GK are different from other marines because they have a poker and a stormbolters instead of a bolter. If we went with this logic, an orc is not much different from a marine. Same T, strenght doesn't matter on basic infantry only on squad leaders, save doesn't matter because of high AP spam, both have 1W etc.
And why shouldn't every Chapter have them?
because the lore, just like the one for baal predators, special speeders etc says they are the only one who know how to build and maintain those. As the political power argument, I don't see how it could be a valid one. They have the tech, so they use it. Imperial technology is based on old human technology that was ment to be used by untrained colonists. If those could use it, then DA techmarines can use their forges to build and maintain them.
Same reason why BA are the only ones who can create heavy flamers that work with space marine power armour.
If Space Wolves were only a unique Codex because their Tacticals could have chainswords, then that a terrible excuse for why they should be a unique Codex. Plenty of Chapters should have the same, and nothing is stopping the Wolves from having exactly what they had before.
But they are not tacticals. they don't use heavy weapons, they have totems, and can bring in squad leaders from outside of giving them termintor armored models in majority power armored units. they can take melee weapons and special weapons in larger number thanks to that, then tacticals.
But Karol! They're "gaining" Tactical Marines, by that logic - they're losing what are essentially knock-off Tacticals, and getting them replaced with exactly the same thing, only everyone can (and should) access it. If it's not about protecting the *idea* of exclusivity, what is it about?
If my trainers would suddenly decide to merge the male and female teams for hammer throw, and then gave the school the option to pick out of those the 4 best to represent our school at events, I can tell you the girls here would not be happy about it.
And it is about selfishness. If GW gets rid of BA/DA/SW/BT, then next thing they are going to do is put my army, without ever fixing it, in to legends.
Errr, what? Space Wolves have Primaris units too, and it doesn't take a genius to work out that nearly all of their units are just renamed and reskinned versions of generic units.
yes, but there are no primaris wulfen, no primaris wolf riders etc Ergo with the focus on primaris from GW, the options would sooner then later be cut. And SW players would be left with playing grey coloured ultramarines.
Also BC, GH etc are not like marines units. They have different gear options, different unit size and different upgrades. and while yes one could give each chapter four pages of special, about how thier tacticals can take termintor squad leaders , and tough luck all the gear people would have to replace because of it not being legal or having rules, it would not help with the goal of making the number of rules smaller, or even making the number of marine books being fewer. Only the names would change, it would no longer be a codex, but a supplement. With a small difference that now instead of one codex DA or SW, a person would have to buy two books. And if mid edition one of the books would get updated, they would have to buy the book too. So if codex marines comes out twice per edition, the minimum of rules books, not counting CA and core rules, would be three. Nice upgrade from one, if someone is responsible for making GW make more money. Not very fun for anyone else.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2019/11/11 01:01:17
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
BroodSpawn wrote: You know what I give up. I've spent multiple threads trying to argue the defence for why units are different.
Lore isn't a good enough defence for some people
Lore is a great defence, when it's actually accurate. I made it clear - the lore saying that Deathwing deploy en mass should be respected, via my proposal of extra CP for <Deathwing> detachments.
The lore that claims "only Deathwing deploy in mixed squads" isn't a good defence, because we see several times non-DA Terminator Squads having mixed weaponry.
The lore that claims "only Deathwing should have terminators with plasma" isn't a good defence, because it makes sense for famous Chapters to have *some* terminator plasma, and some Terminators like Captain Invictus of the Ultramarines explicitly have it.
Models aren't a good enough defence for some people.
No-one wants to get rid of the models, they're awesome models. But that doesn't mean that they need a whole new datasheet for it, and maybe the wargear on those models could be made available for everyone, because the lore implies they should be able to.
Should only Salamanders Intercessor Sergeants have thunder hammers, because only the Salamanders upgrade pack comes with any?
Rules differences aren't good enough because they're all based on space marines, and well those can just be changed anyway.
When we're talking about *changing* those rules to suit the lore more accurately (at least, from my perspective) and to reduce the amount of units being repeated with just a slight reskin, why should the rules be the prime concern? And again, all of my proposals allow for existing rules to stay in the game, albeit in different representations.
I'm so done with this now. You want to blandify all marines go for it.
My main question was "why can't DA/BA/SW settle for a supplement, even if it happened to have all of their unique units, stratagems, and all the provisions in the world to create exactly the same things you already could with your existing armies". Not "blandifying" them. Consolidating them, and getting rid of the 85% of copy-pasted units that dwelt in their Codexes.
If the DA/BA/SW didn't have nearly as many of these generic units ported over, maybe I could see it, much like how the GSC Codex and Tyranids share some units (the Broodlord/Patriarch and Genestealers), but they're two units, not 85%.
Not like GW are going to do it your way anyhow.
True, but then if we all took that attitude, what would be the point in our Proposed Rules forum, or half the posts in General Discussions?
I've made it clear that my proposals are just that - my personal, imaginary, hypothetical ideas.
I'm typing on a tablet so let's do the lore bit first. Other 1st founding chapters could have plasma terminators is purely theoretical. There is no evidence for it. Until that evidence is printed then no, they dont get them.but that's not good enough is it, so let's make up lore to change something. Your answer to this seems to be 'I think they could have this stuff' which is different from how its been presented and is pure wishlisting. I cant argue that because you're wilfully disregarding the elements of the lore you dont like.
Mixed squads. Okay sure, they've been done once or twice by other chapters. Have at it, I'm too tired to care anymore.
Models. Oh come on, we both know if you want a generic plasma cannon that means resculpting the sprue. If the data sheet is being condensed and all options are equally available to everyone the GW has to either sculpt a new kit or remove wargear and remove models. Doesn't matter if you like them, that's the 2 options. I can guess heavily which it will be, you can think otherwise but I'm doubtful they're ever making a new non Primaris kit again. So yes, this is entirely why I think condensing the rules is a bad idea.
And yeah I'd be fine with only Salamanders having hammers, it makes them more unique by having options others dont. But that's not the kind of options that are allowed in this discussion. Its either everyone gets it or noe one, because unique weapon or wargear isn't good enough to keep something different.
Rules. I've said I dont mind the supplement route, had it during 3rd. Where i draw the line is condensing options for the sake of it. Dont duplicate tactical marine sheets sure, but DA dont use regular terminators they have Deathwing instead. The problem is that's not a good enough compromise, Deathwing must use the regular terminators sheet but then have a page somewhere with extra rules tacked on to make them unique again. Apart from being counterintuitive to the condensing process at what point does tacking on extra rules to a unit not justify that unit having a separate data sheet like the already do now? Like yes, staying focused on Deathwing should make this really easy, but in practice if I have to jump through 4 to 6 pages over 2 books to find all the extra rules my single unit should have it's a failure on a designers part. Currently I need to look st potentially 2 (chapter tactics page and unit entry).
I'm not sure where else to go with this now. Like maybe head over to the games design subforum, because that's what this seems to want to become a homebrew thing? Because I honestly cant give better answers than j have and frankly I'm tired of them being dismissed put of hand
2019/11/11 01:37:12
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Models. Oh come on, we both know if you want a generic plasma cannon that means resculpting the sprue. If the data sheet is being condensed and all options are equally available to everyone the GW has to either sculpt a new kit or remove wargear and remove models.
Just to chime in, but this is false. Or at least there is precedence for GW condensing multiple kits into one datasheet that I know of: Guard infantry squads. Catachan squads have a boltgun, but cadians don't. And yet, cadians are allowed to take boltguns as well because they share the datasheet.
yes, and GK are different from other marines because they have a poker and a stormbolters instead of a bolter. If we went with this logic, an orc is not much different from a marine. Same T, strenght doesn't matter on basic infantry only on squad leaders, save doesn't matter because of high AP spam, both have 1W etc.
grey knights are psykers though...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 01:43:59
2019/11/11 01:59:12
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
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.
Taking it orders of magnitude higher is being disingenuous, yes!
Karol wrote: yes, and GK are different from other marines because they have a poker and a stormbolters instead of a bolter. If we went with this logic, an orc is not much different from a marine. Same T, strenght doesn't matter on basic infantry only on squad leaders, save doesn't matter because of high AP spam, both have 1W etc.
Woah, exactly the same disingenuous argument!
Karol wrote: Same reason why BA are the only ones who can create heavy flamers that work with space marine power armour.
You realize Sisters have always been able to do that and it wasn't even considered something worth mentioning to them?
lol.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2019/11/11 02:05:29
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
yes, but there are no primaris wulfen, no primaris wolf riders etc
Yet.
I expect as time goes by that'll change. it's too soon in the primaris cycle to bring this stuff in, once primaris are all fleshed out, (and we get that expected third wave) we can expect to see new unique units. in fact assuming further supplements continue to be things we could even see all the first founding units get their own units. Salamander "Flamer bearers" as flamer equipped intercessors, etc. if GW thinks it'll sell they'll do it
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 02:05:42
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/11/11 02:06:12
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except that "flexible loadout" is never used. Nobody is gonna throw 1 of each Terminator in a squad just because they can, as it wouldn't do anything but get on the table and do jack gak.
So if the argument really does boil down to that, you don't have an argument.
You mean besides the fact that people have replied with the fact that they have and do?
It's almost like you're ignoring things you don't like to hear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Sgt - you are being to logical, accurate and making too much sense - its not going to work.....
I provide evidence, he doesn't like it and demands I write out everything verbatim. That wasn't going to happen, so he's claiming I'm lying for the lulz.
Mr Morden wrote: Sgt - you are being to logical, accurate and making too much sense - its not going to work.....
Yeah. People can have disagreements on whether or not Codecs should be unified, and how to go about it, even if they agree they should be unified.
But what Mmmpi is doing is not a valid, reasonable debate about disagreements in the direction they think 40k should go. It's blatant rejection of arguments without any support of their own.
You mean I'm not reprinting codex material verbatim. Because that literally the only thing I haven't done to support my arguments.
Sorry this is hard for you.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/11 02:08:34
2019/11/11 02:15:11
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except that "flexible loadout" is never used. Nobody is gonna throw 1 of each Terminator in a squad just because they can, as it wouldn't do anything but get on the table and do jack gak.
So if the argument really does boil down to that, you don't have an argument.
You mean besides the fact that people have replied with the fact that they have and do?
It's almost like you're ignoring things you don't like to hear.
.
Slayer-fan basicly assumes everyone plays just like him and if they don't they're stupid and shouldn't be catered to. which proably explains why he champions consolidation. heck he proably thinks GW should just stop producing army books he doesn't play, I mean "Orks suck anyway, no one of worth plays them so just get rid of them!"
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/11/11 02:47:23
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
BroodSpawn wrote: Let's go through this shall we. Sticking to Deathwing terminators as an example for why the DA (and BA, SW, etc) are separate:
Differences:
Lore - outside of the Unforgiven no other chapters deploy there 1st company exclusively (as in - only and never any other way) as Terminators. This then impacts in how they're used in the lore.
Lore - before a certain BA expansion in 7th, the general rule was Terminator armour is a rarity even amongst the Astartes. Except for the Unforgiven who had it in seemingly abundance (see previous lore point).
Lore - the Unforgiven have access to technologies from the Crusade, back when the 1st legion had access to technology no other Legion had access to. Experimental weaponry, Warp-tech, etc that was not shared acorss the other. At the end of the Heresy/Caliban incident the 1st Legion (and subsequent chapters) still had access to a LT more tech than there counterparts in the other Legions.
Rules - for multiple editions the Deathwing have had a mixed single unit to emphasise the lore aspect of how they deploy. They're treat as a swiss army knife or toolbox in the lore, and as such train in that approach. No Other Chapter Trains Like This! So the datasheets reflect this on both sides (Deathwing being mixed, everyone else's being specialised).
Rules - Deathwing Terminators have access to a couple of weapon/wargear options that no-one else gets. This is also based on the Lore for them (see above).
Rules - 8th Deathwing have stratagems that are focussed on the shock/teleport assault they're known for. 7th (and other editions) had similar rules baked into the units rules. This again represents an element of the lore (see above).
Rules - the DA do not get Combat Doctrines, a decision made when the 8th edition codex was released.
So that's a small list of differences, but the important ones. This is why the unit has not been condensed into a 'generic' option. Notice how much of the units rules are based on the lore, or trying to put that lore onto the tabletop. And this is the same idea for things like the Ravenwing, there flyers, skimmers, characters. And for the unique units for the BA and SW. That's what makes them different from Ultramarines/'vanilla' Marines.
--
Okay so if you don't like that these differences exist and your argument is 'but, but why can't my special snowflake marines have that stuff' the answer is: check the lore, because that's what it boils down to. Then check the rules, because these are clear differences and the reasons why they exist. Granted that's a lot harder in 8th with the blandification of Marine factions but there was a greater mechanical difference not so long ago.
And I can already hear you saying 'but those reasons don't justify why Terminators can't be mixed, or why the DA get Plasma Cannons. It's not different, so everyone should get it!' at which point you are being intentionally obtuse or you're ignoring all the writing out there (of which I just gave you a very brief summary above). So let's do a little thought exercise and condense the Deathwing into the generic Terminators -
Pro's: Same rules for everyone
Con's: No need to have different models available for DA/BA/SW/Generic Terminators
Oh.. oh why is that a con? Because there's not a 'generic' plasma cannon available. So that falls into the 'no model, no rules' traps doesn't it. And then oh look, no more Deathwing terminator models. So of course you remove it as a wargear option for 'everyone', even though only 1 faction actually had the option originally. See, generic terminators everyone can have now.
And once you start applying that approach to one unit whilst condensing the DA into the generic list, you have to apply it to all. So you start cutting models. And your reason for that is what... rules parity? That's not a good reason to start removing model options considering how much noise this forum has generated on the loss of DE characters getting bikes, or bits for Orks, etc.
Now could they put the DA out as a supplement in the same way as Iron Hands? Sure, they could. But they could have given them Doctrines in the big update when the codex came out, they decided not to do that for a reason that is currently unclear outside of 'The DA operate differently to a 'codex' chapter to a more significant degree than say the White Scars'. It's all about design decisions and which route they want to go for. They DA could end up as a supplement with a list of core units that are not allowed to be 'DA' or they could just remake the codex (again).
Now I hope that clears up why the not-Codex-compliant chapters are different (reason 1: lore, reason 2: wargear options based on the lore). If that's not a good enough reason for you then I have no idea what will be now.
Amen
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: So only look at the lore which supports your own argument for why your "special snowflake marines can have that stuff' - gotcha.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If the lore difference you really want to go with is "oh Deathwing are deployed in mass", then you should have a minimum you have to take the moment you want to use them.
I'd also add a limit to non Deathwing Terminators honestly. A big problem with the Chapters is how much GW blurs the line between them like with Scouts.
I don't see the need for a limit for any Terminators. We just really need a consolidated entry for them. I already have one I finalized on for homebrew stuff, but I'm bad at creating codex layout and nobody uses the stuff anyway.
We really don't, and no one cares about your homebrew.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If the lore difference you really want to go with is "oh Deathwing are deployed in mass", then you should have a minimum you have to take the moment you want to use them.
I'd also add a limit to non Deathwing Terminators honestly. A big problem with the Chapters is how much GW blurs the line between them like with Scouts.
Whilst I can see what you mean, what if you want to play a game where you're actually taking the full 1st Company? I could be wrong, but don't most First Founders (barring Dropsite Massacre survivors) have a full compliment of Terminator Armour, but they just don't advocate deploying them all like the Dark Angels do?
In fluff, most 1st company deploy as vanguard and sternguard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's almost as though they don't have a leg to stand on to pretend Deathwing are "unique".
It's almost like you expect us to automatically follow your opinion blindly.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/11/11 03:00:19
2019/11/11 03:18:33
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Your sense of design would take us in the wrong direction. Right now, I can buy one decent-sized book for my Dark Angels. That book has the datasheets required for my army, along with the stratagems, relics etc without cluttering it up with other armies. I only have to manage the datasheets that I care about, and my unique datasheets do not clutter up some other book that would be bought by someone who doesn't want to play Dark Angels. Your design model would have a huge Space Marines book with cluttered datasheets and USRs. I cannot see what the benefit would be.
The Dark Angels have had distinct Deathwing and Ravenwing (in various forms/degrees) since 2nd Ed. Its not a new thing. The lore supports it. There are several ways in which the Deathwing are different in the datasheet. Just because some don't like it our respect it doesn't make it untrue. The Deathwing have distinct morale rules, stratagems, support characters and weapon load-outs. And yes, some folks do indeed put a Thunderhammer Stormshield in a squad with Storm Bolters. All of this is supported by years of lore. Ditto for the Ravenwing. Dark Angels have their own flyers and landspeeders.
I still fail to see the harm that the distinct books/factions causes to players who choose not to buy them. The established Dark Angels lore/models/rules are not stopping the creation of some awesome new Xenos faction. If you don't like them don't buy them. Its really simple.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2019/11/11 03:30:54
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
I don't see any harm in it. I just don't know *why* it has to be distinct from other Space Marines. Like, I wouldn't complain if GW dropped a Codex: Deathskullz, Codex: Hive Fleet Hydra, or Codex: Farsight Enclaves (fleshed out with slight variations of existing units and unique stuff), but I'd still wonder why they needed their own book, when they can operate just fine (both competitively and narratively) out of the same book the rest of the Faction uses.
2019/11/11 03:54:22
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And why shouldn't every Chapter have them? Same as chainswords on Tacticals as an option, considering how well connected certain Chapters can be, and how large the 40k universe is, the idea that only Dark Angels (and their successors, who have less political clout and infrastructure than any First Founder) have plasma cannons on their Terminators is baffling.
Because GW said they don't all get them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BroodSpawn wrote: You know what I give up. I've spent multiple threads trying to argue the defence for why units are different.
Lore isn't a good enough defence for some people
Models aren't a good enough defence for some people.
Rules differences aren't good enough because they're all based on space marines, and well those can just be changed anyway.
I'm so done with this now. You want to blandify all marines go for it. You're just gonna find new ways of whining when you dont get what you want. Have at it, you won.
Not like GW are going to do it your way anyhow.
Got it in one.
They dismiss everything for 'reasons' then declare no logic was used, while using slurs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Your arguments were bad is the problem. You didn't have a defense to begin with.
Says the guy who ignores 90% of people's posts in favor of his own misguided opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Lore is a great defence, when it's actually accurate. I made it clear - the lore saying that Deathwing deploy en mass should be respected, via my proposal of extra CP for <Deathwing> detachments.
your answer isn't good enough. And before you say anything, remember, that's the same argument you've been giving me.
Models. Oh come on, we both know if you want a generic plasma cannon that means resculpting the sprue. If the data sheet is being condensed and all options are equally available to everyone the GW has to either sculpt a new kit or remove wargear and remove models.
Just to chime in, but this is false. Or at least there is precedence for GW condensing multiple kits into one datasheet that I know of: Guard infantry squads. Catachan squads have a boltgun, but cadians don't. And yet, cadians are allowed to take boltguns as well because they share the datasheet.
This has more to do with GW's inconsistancy. GW has stated that the removal is the way they intend to do it, therefor it's the safest assumption when the situation arises.
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.
Taking it orders of magnitude higher is being disingenuous, yes!
I only took it one step higher, out of marines into general 40K. So...no.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except that "flexible loadout" is never used. Nobody is gonna throw 1 of each Terminator in a squad just because they can, as it wouldn't do anything but get on the table and do jack gak.
So if the argument really does boil down to that, you don't have an argument.
You mean besides the fact that people have replied with the fact that they have and do?
It's almost like you're ignoring things you don't like to hear.
.
Slayer-fan basicly assumes everyone plays just like him and if they don't they're stupid and shouldn't be catered to. which proably explains why he champions consolidation. heck he proably thinks GW should just stop producing army books he doesn't play, I mean "Orks suck anyway, no one of worth plays them so just get rid of them!"
The evidence is clear you're correct about play style. Not as clear about removing army books.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2019/11/11 04:05:52
2019/11/11 04:06:57
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
I think the "it's this way because GW said it's this way" argument isn't a great one. It's an argument of complacency and laziness. If there's good reasons for something, you should be able to present that argument with actual examples instead of "well, it's this way because GW said so". Have you done so? Maybe? But I wanted to address this particular part of your discourse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You actually took it 2 steps higher, as Marines also have the Imperium keyword. Just FYI. And considering that, at most, there's only 3 steps between "all of 40k" and "individual unit", a 2 step jump IS a big one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 04:09:04
2019/11/11 05:43:41
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
flandarz wrote: I think the "it's this way because GW said it's this way" argument isn't a great one. It's an argument of complacency and laziness. If there's good reasons for something, you should be able to present that argument with actual examples instead of "well, it's this way because GW said so". Have you done so? Maybe? But I wanted to address this particular part of your discourse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You actually took it 2 steps higher, as Marines also have the Imperium keyword. Just FYI. And considering that, at most, there's only 3 steps between "all of 40k" and "individual unit", a 2 step jump IS a big one.
People have said more than "Because GW said so". Those answers were also dismissed as 'irrelevant'. This conversation is like arguing with creationists.
I took it one step higher. Sorry you have a different idea of what that means.
2019/11/11 05:55:49
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
That doesn't really refute my point that "because GW said so" is a poor argument. Maybe you're frustrated, but it doesn't help your stance to fall back on on that point.
Your example of "one step up" was from Marines to all of 40k. I disagreed because Marines are also part of the Imperium Keyword (which is why they can "soup" with them). It's also why you can play Knights with Militarum; they share a common Keyword. That's kinda just how steps work.
