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.
2019/11/11 06:05:03
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Mmmpi wrote: ...People have said more than "Because GW said so". Those answers were also dismissed as 'irrelevant'. This conversation is like arguing with creationists...
Usually "because GW said so" is irrelevant because in six months they may about-face, revise the lore, and say "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT EVERYONE HAS ALWAYS HAD MIXED TERMINATOR SQUADS WITH PLASMA CANNONS". Things GW says now directly contradict things GW has said in the past. Armies people may have built in the past may contain illegal models or configurations because GW has taken them away to give the special-Codex Chapters more unique things, or tomorrow they may give you a new configuration to force you to buy a bunch of new models to keep up with the power curve.
What GW says now is a bad justification for claiming things have always been that way (they haven't) or that they will always be that way (they won't) or that they should always be that way (they shouldn't).
"There are no real differences between vanilla units and snowflake units, so we should just consolidate them together"
to
"There are no real differences between vanilla units and snowflake units if you take what makes those units unique and give it to everyone because reasons"
2019/11/11 06:20:11
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
"There are no real differences between vanilla units and snowflake units, so we should just consolidate them together"
to
"There are no real differences between vanilla units and snowflake units if you take what makes those units unique and give it to everyone because reasons"
When the things that make those units unique were taken away from vanilla units to make those units unique I question whether those units are actually unique. It's like Inquisitor Coteaz. Go back to the 3e Daemonhunters book and literally everything he does was a thing you could give any Inquisitor, in 5e during the culling of the armouries they took them away from everyone else and made them Coteaz' unique thing. People are complaining about the snowflakiness because it feels like GW is forcing us to play crappy Mary Sue fanfiction of their stories instead of making up our own; every battle needs to have all the named Chapter Masters in it and be First Founding Chapters against First Founding Chapters, want to play something you made up yourself? Too bad, all your stuff has been cannibalized to make our cool things cooler.
If I wanted to play a game of only-named-characters-with-defined-lore I could go play Warmachine and at least the game would be better-designed. The point of 40k is that it's supposed to be a thing where you can make up your own stuff and tell your own stories (see the general refrain of "We know the game isn't balanced, f*** off and play narrative"), so it'd be nice if GW stopped punishing us for doing that instead of turning our brains off and going to join the special-character thunderdome.
That's kind of a good point. Having certain things only belonging to certain sub-Factions DOES hinder your ability to build "your" army. I can't, for instance, have a small group of Iron Hands who, after fighting alongside the DA for a few centuries, saw the effectiveness of some of their weaponry, tactics, and other such things and decided to incorporate it into their strategy. Even if it'd be an entirely realistic thing to have happen.
2019/11/11 07:04:21
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
flandarz wrote: 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.
You might not like it, but it's the single biggest reason why things are the way they are. GW writes the fluff that made it this way. GW writes the rules that made it this way. GW publishes the books, and makes the models.
In this situation it's a more comprehensive answer than saying 'just cuz' because GW does have so much control over things, and much of it is based on their whims. That makes the answer relevant, if unsatisfying.
Or it's a half step. Potatoes potatoes. I don't really care.
2019/11/11 07:05:51
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Black Templars cant have chainswords on tacticals. Salamanders cant have flamers or melta on their assault marines nor have a flamer predator nor heavy flamer on normal infantry.
But I can build a complete long range vehicle park as BA without a single jump pack or flying vehicle. It will be crap though because BA has 0 rules to support it.
We already have situations that dont allow fluffy builds but allow weird and bad unfluffy ones. Its mostly artificial limitations to justify them being unique despite it not making that much sense. If everyone have mire choices you could build lists that dit your chapter better.
Lets say that we do as smudge has said but instead of making it a supplement every first founding get a codex with every data sheet printed but they all get more options. Would that be fine? You still get your separate book with all the options but now everyone else can also have chainswords on tacticals and flamers or meltas on assault marines etc. But you lose nothing and everyone else gains something, including DA/BA/SW. Why wouldnt this be fine? They are all marines after all and they arent stupid and should all be able to do some very basic stuff.
2019/11/11 09:57:44
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Black Templars very much can have chainswords on Tacticals; it's called a Crusader Squad and still exists despite efforts to remove anything that is different.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2019/11/11 11:43:34
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Black Templars very much can have chainswords on Tacticals; it's called a Crusader Squad and still exists despite efforts to remove anything that is different.
Arent they just a normal codex marine chapter at the moment?
Nvm. White scars or Blood Angels cant have chain swords on their tacticals.
2019/11/11 11:54:03
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Mmmpi wrote: I only took it one step higher, out of marines into general 40K. So...no.
Good to see you only have ad hominum responses.
I was explicitly attacking the argument, not you as a person, but if you nonetheless feels like it is an ad hominem, please do click on the Yellow Triangle of Friendship to warn the mods! I'm not worried, because anyone can clearly see I'm fully within the rules of Dakka by posting this.
And I'll even go on to explain why your argument is wrong. Do you know why my argument works on a chapter-to-chapter scope and not on a entirely-different-species scope, as you want to put it? Because of the scale of 40k!
- If 40k was like 30k (or flames of war, for that matter, or ...) where the different factions are all from the same species, with relatively similar wargear, then sure, the slight difference in culture, organization and wargear should be represented. Because those would be relevant in regard of the scope of the game.
- If 40k was like Epic 40k, or Battlefield Gothic, or Aeronautica Imperialis, where the difference between two type of infantry is not necessarily relevant due to them not being the focus of the game, and being overshadowed by the other game pieces (titans, spaceships, planes, ...) then sure, it makes sense to have a few shared profiles, like one for rookie infantry, one for elite infantry, .... Or even just one for all infantry.
But given the scope of 40k, it is extremely obvious that two different units representing troopers from literally two different species, using wargear based on entirely different technology, should be represented by two different sets of rules. Because those differences are just very relevant at the scope the game is trying to cover. But two different units representing troopers from the same species, modified in similar ways using the same technology, with extremely similar wargear built using the exact same technology, doesn't involve differences that are relevant at the game's scope. Because those difference, as even you agreed, are a whole step below the above mentioned difference.
Same datasheet for Cadians, Chem Dogs, Vostroyans and Catachans, and those units are FAR more different from each others than marines are. All marines are elite, Cadians and Catachans are elite while Chem dogs aren't. All marines have power armor, Catachans don't get anywhere near the level of armor that Cadians get. All marines have extremely similar bolters, Vostroyans get very good lasgun while Chem dogs get only what they can find. If some faction should get different datasheet for subfactions, with the lore and the scope of the game, it's definitely Imperial Guard.
"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 12:31:24
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Mmmpi wrote: I only took it one step higher, out of marines into general 40K. So...no.
Good to see you only have ad hominum responses.
I was explicitly attacking the argument, not you as a person, but if you nonetheless feels like it is an ad hominem, please do click on the Yellow Triangle of Friendship to warn the mods! I'm not worried, because anyone can clearly see I'm fully within the rules of Dakka by posting this.
And I'll even go on to explain why your argument is wrong. Do you know why my argument works on a chapter-to-chapter scope and not on a entirely-different-species scope, as you want to put it? Because of the scale of 40k!
- If 40k was like 30k (or flames of war, for that matter, or ...) where the different factions are all from the same species, with relatively similar wargear, then sure, the slight difference in culture, organization and wargear should be represented. Because those would be relevant in regard of the scope of the game.
- If 40k was like Epic 40k, or Battlefield Gothic, or Aeronautica Imperialis, where the difference between two type of infantry is not necessarily relevant due to them not being the focus of the game, and being overshadowed by the other game pieces (titans, spaceships, planes, ...) then sure, it makes sense to have a few shared profiles, like one for rookie infantry, one for elite infantry, .... Or even just one for all infantry.
But given the scope of 40k, it is extremely obvious that two different units representing troopers from literally two different species, using wargear based on entirely different technology, should be represented by two different sets of rules. Because those differences are just very relevant at the scope the game is trying to cover. But two different units representing troopers from the same species, modified in similar ways using the same technology, with extremely similar wargear built using the exact same technology, doesn't involve differences that are relevant at the game's scope. Because those difference, as even you agreed, are a whole step below the above mentioned difference.
Same datasheet for Cadians, Chem Dogs, Vostroyans and Catachans, and those units are FAR more different from each others than marines are. All marines are elite, Cadians and Catachans are elite while Chem dogs aren't. All marines have power armor, Catachans don't get anywhere near the level of armor that Cadians get. All marines have extremely similar bolters, Vostroyans get very good lasgun while Chem dogs get only what they can find. If some faction should get different datasheet for subfactions, with the lore and the scope of the game, it's definitely Imperial Guard.
sure and I'd support a Catachan supplement without hesitation, I don't however play guard so I'd not buy it, but I'd support the idea of it. the reason for marine subfaction codices/supplements though is DEMAND. GW isn't shoveling crap no one wants down people's throats. Marine players, who make up a large percentage of the player base, have long said they want rules to better represent the marine subfactions. GW thus saw there was a market for the product and... capitalized on it.
For the record, I think there'd proably be a market for CSM and IG supplements. imagine if GW put out supplements for each of the famous guard regiments, releasing a plastic kit of guardsmen from said regiment to go with it. that's something I'd LOVE to see
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/11/11 12:34:49
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/11/11 12:44:36
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
The reaction is kind of a fast though. marines were okey in 7th right, and they weren't totaly bad most of the 8th, so they fixed and rewrote marine rules in under an edition. Some factions have been asking for a fix for multiple editions and nothin is happening.
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 14:33:04
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
And I'll even go on to explain why your argument is wrong. Do you know why my argument works on a chapter-to-chapter scope and not on a entirely-different-species scope, as you want to put it? Because of the scale of 40k!
- If 40k was like 30k (or flames of war, for that matter, or ...) where the different factions are all from the same species, with relatively similar wargear, then sure, the slight difference in culture, organization and wargear should be represented. Because those would be relevant in regard of the scope of the game.
- If 40k was like Epic 40k, or Battlefield Gothic, or Aeronautica Imperialis, where the difference between two type of infantry is not necessarily relevant due to them not being the focus of the game, and being overshadowed by the other game pieces (titans, spaceships, planes, ...) then sure, it makes sense to have a few shared profiles, like one for rookie infantry, one for elite infantry, .... Or even just one for all infantry.
But given the scope of 40k, it is extremely obvious that two different units representing troopers from literally two different species, using wargear based on entirely different technology, should be represented by two different sets of rules. Because those differences are just very relevant at the scope the game is trying to cover. But two different units representing troopers from the same species, modified in similar ways using the same technology, with extremely similar wargear built using the exact same technology, doesn't involve differences that are relevant at the game's scope. Because those difference, as even you agreed, are a whole step below the above mentioned difference.
Same datasheet for Cadians, Chem Dogs, Vostroyans and Catachans, and those units are FAR more different from each others than marines are. All marines are elite, Cadians and Catachans are elite while Chem dogs aren't. All marines have power armor, Catachans don't get anywhere near the level of armor that Cadians get. All marines have extremely similar bolters, Vostroyans get very good lasgun while Chem dogs get only what they can find. If some faction should get different datasheet for subfactions, with the lore and the scope of the game, it's definitely Imperial Guard.
The scale is irrelevant to how things interact. Stats interact, special rules modify that.
In 8th especially, those differences are muted, and even before that, most weapons were just tweaked versions of other weapons. A shuriken catapult is a rending stormbolter with half range (in 7th), and a half range assault bolter with rending in 8th. A las gun in 8th is just bolter with -1 strength.
Literally the only thing separating armies is fluff and access to equipment and special rules.
Cadians, ect only have one rule in difference from one another. One. The only difference from marines are the options available, and a reduced stat line for less points. That's it. They still interact the same way on the board.
And yes, I do think guard, eldar and most other armies do deserve supplements.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 14:40:01
2019/11/11 14:56:23
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
BrianDavion wrote: I don't however play guard so I'd not buy it, but I'd support the idea of it. the reason for marine subfaction codices/supplements though is DEMAND.
Well okay, but that's irrelevant to what I was saying. I was just explaining why one specific comparison, for an argument separate from the one you are making, was disingenuous .
Mmmpi wrote: The scale is irrelevant to how things interact.
The scale does inform which kind of differences between units are relevant enough to warrants different rules.
Mmmpi wrote: The only difference from marines are the options available, and a reduced stat line for less points. That's it.
And special rules. Oh, and keywords.
The only difference between guards and marines are different statlines, different wargear, different options, different special rules, different faction keyword, different unit keywords.
I am not sure how they could be made more different, because I don't see what other difference the system allow for.
"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 15:52:29
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Hey don't worry everyone - the poor super neglected Marines just got a whole load of new Relics, Strats and other stuff in the new PA book.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
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.
Yeah, that's not a great argument.
Grey Knights are different from other Marines for a far wider range of differences than DA/BA/SW are.
Grey Knights are not one of the original Legions, and operate under completely different combat conditions.
Grey Knights are all psykers, and their basic infantry carry Force Weaponry and storm bolters.
Grey Knights have Terminator Armoured Troops.
Even aesthetically, they look very distinctly different.
Compare and contrast to Grey Hunters, who are unique because they can take a basic melee weapon (that all Space Marines are known to be capable with), can take two special weapons at 10 men (so, only unique at 10 men, and there isn't a reason why other assault focused Chapters can't do this too), and can have a Terminator sergeant (yanno, like the Iron Hands should be able to).
Sooooooooooo unique.
The idea that "you can't call Grey Hunters and Tacticals the same, because then that means Orks are the same!" is absolutely ridiculous as an argument, because so much is the same about Grey Hunters and Tacticals, but not about Orks and Tacticals. But, just to indulge your argument:
Strength has an in game effect, even if it's not hyper-critical.
Save absolutely matters, see how quickly an Ork dies to a lasgun compared to a Space Marine and tell me that save doesn't matter then.
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.
The same lore that said that Stormravens were only used by Blood Angels and Grey Knights, that quickly got ignored?
Blood Angels are known to have fast tanks, with superior engines, but this can easily be reflected via a "<Blood Angels> Tanks add an extra 3" to their movement speed" or "ignore the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons" - thematically, why don't Salamanders have a flame tank?
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.
And none of that technology exists anywhere else? I haven't got a problem with things like the Dark Angels flyers, as I've said. I do have a problem with plasma cannon terminators, because there's no reason why such a thing can't be replicated elsewhere, other than to preserve the illusion of the Dark Angels' "specialness".
Especially when we literally have examples of non-Dark Angel Terminators with plasma weaponry (Captain Invictus).
Same reason why BA are the only ones who can create heavy flamers that work with space marine power armour.
What about Sisters of Battle? What about Sternguard Veterans?
And what reason is there that Salamanders shouldn't be able to have heavy flamer tacticals? Indeed, why *should* the Blood Angels, a Chapter that doesn't have anywhere near the same theme of fire that the Salamanders do?
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.
And why shouldn't other Chapters be able to do this? It's not a "only Space Wolves can make chainswords/special weapons/Terminator Sergeants" thing, because those things could be done by a vast number of Chapters. The only "unique" feature is their totem, which could be an attachment to their Chapter Tactic (because I honestly wouldn't mind all Space Wolves getting to reroll 1s on their charge/advance rolls).
It's not about getting rid of what the Wolves have. It's about letting Chapters that realistically should have those things as well have them.
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.
The difference is that Wolves can still "compete", as you put it. It's not like Tactical Marines are just becoming flat-out better, they're just gaining the same stuff the Grey Hunters had, and the Grey Hunters are gaining the same things the Tacticals had, because they're basically the same unit!
In your example (assuming that the four best hammer throwers are male), there is one outright superior choice, because you've not made any attempt to make the two equal. In my example, the two choices are made exactly identical.
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.
That's tinfoil hat theory, and unrelated to what I propose.
I am discussing my proposal, not whatever GW would do, and so bringing in "this is bad because GW would do..." is just avoiding my points.
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.
Space Wolves already HAVE all the same Primaris units as everyone else. They still have all their unique units.
Stop acting like GW have stripped out all the flavour until it actually happens. Right now, this is just plain misinformation.
Also BC, GH etc are not like marines units.
As above, I disagree.
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.
What??
Why is this any different from the people who already have supplements? Why should they need to buy two books (no idea where you're getting three from, you only need the most recent Codex and your supplement), but DA/BA/SW who share 85% of the same units don't? Bit unfair, no?
Spoiler:
BroodSpawn wrote: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.
Actually, Captain Invictus of the Ultramarines had a plasma blaster. And while I've not seen a plasma cannon on another Chapter, I don't really see a lore reason why not.
Mixed squads. Okay sure, they've been done once or twice by other chapters. Have at it, I'm too tired to care anymore.
Lovely, thank you.
Models. Oh come on, we both know if you want a generic plasma cannon that means resculpting the sprue.
No, it doesn't.
Intercessor Sergeants can have power swords, thunder hammers, and hand flamers, and none of them are on the sprue. Same as Bike squads - no grav gun model, but the rules exist.
Make the rules, and the people will model it themselves.
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.
Sounds more like a problem of GW's "no model, no rules" policy, which I disagree with. So, in my purely hypothetical imaginary "what GW does is irrelevant" proposal, why is this 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 *why* should only Salamanders get hammers? It's not like there's loads of other Chapters out there who have hammers as a big part of their iconography (oh, hi Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Hammers of Dorn, etc etc)
But, if we were to assume only Salamanders got thunder hammers - should they have a whole unique datasheet just to reflect how one guy have optionally carry a thunder hammer?
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.
My question is "why is it unique"? And if that reason is "so the Chapter can justify being unique", then that's just exclusivity for the sake of it.
I get why things like the Deathwing Knights are unique, I get why Wulfen are unique. But a weapon option for an otherwise generic squad, which could just as well be used by any other Chapter? What reason does it have, beyond forced exclusivity?
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.
But what's the *real* difference? A forcibly exclusive wargear option, special rule which could be tied to their keyword, and a one-use-only ability? What would they actually lose if plasma cannons were generic, their special rule applied via keywords, and the Watcher became either a separate purchasable wargear item, or a stratagem?
Why do they need a unique datasheet when so much is normal?
Deathwing must use the regular terminators sheet but then have a page somewhere with extra rules tacked on to make them unique again.
As opposed to a page somewhere with rules tacked on saying how they aren't allowed to use XYZ units from the regular Codex, and then need to reprint three versions of Terminator datasheets (regular, Cataphractii, and Tartaros)?
If we assume that each datasheet and page of extra explanatory rules took up a (hypothetical) page, my proposal saves three pages.
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?
I would judge this on a case-by-case basis, but the main focus for me isn't about condensing rules, it's about condensing datasheets.
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).
In my proposal, I'd want it laid out with the extra <Deathwing> and <Ravewing> abilities on the same page as the Chapter Tactics/Combat Doctrines entry in their supplement. So, the Codex open to the Terminators entry, and the supplement open to the "<Deathwing>" 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
Fair point. I suppose it is more of a homebrew rewrite of the DA/BA/SW books to make them fit as supplements.
Spoiler:
Mmmpi wrote:
Mr Morden wrote: Sgt - you are being to logical, accurate and making too much sense - its not going to work.....
I provide evidence
Well, there's your first problem: you don't.
You mean I'm not reprinting codex material verbatim. Because that literally the only thing I haven't done to support my arguments.
Well, and supporting them generally.
If you want to convince people with 'facts and logic', you might want to post some.
Spoiler:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:Sgt Smudge,
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 Space Marine book would be no different from what it currently is now.
All the unique Dark Angels stuff, just like all the unique Ultramarines/Imperial Fists/White Scars, etc etc stuff, would be put in a separate book. The unique DA stuff would not conflict with anyone else, and you'd be interacting with your stuff in the same way that all the other Chapters currently do right now. If you had no interest in Dark Angels, you wouldn't buy their supplement, just like how someone who doesn't like Ultramarines wouldn't buy their supplement.
The only sacrifice DA would make is needing to buy two books - one generic one (only containing the generic units that make up 85% of their current Codex), and a supplement that contains all their unique units - which is exactly the same as every one of the "normal" Chapters.
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.
And I wouldn't want to get rid of any of those unique things that make sense for only the Dark Angels to have. By all means, I want Dark Angels to keep their flyers and unique land speeders, to keep their characters and Deathwing Knights, and I want them to continue to have the option of having a TH/SS in a squad of all storm bolters. I don't want to get rid of that. What I do want is for the generic Deathwing datasheet to be folded in to the generic Terminator datasheet, because every Chapter should have the ability to have a TH/SS in a storm bolter squad (also demonstrated by lore), every Chapter should have a plasma cannon option (semi-supported by lore), and it would save a tonne of space. I would want their morale rules and stratagems to remain DA only though, which can be reflected via their unique Chapter Tactic. In the same way, I would get rid of the standard Ravenwing Biker, Attack Bike, and Land Speeder entries, having DA players use the generic entries, and give them their unique Jink rule via their Chapter Tactic as well.
It's not about removing rules and abilities. It's about moving those rules and abilities elsewhere, and having them apply to generic units taken in a Dark Angels army.
Or, to explain it another way:
Let assume Deathwing Terminators (hypothetically) are just regular Terminators with the Inner Circle rule. Their unique flavour is represented by this special rule.
There are two ways of having this Inner Circle rule take effect.
You can print three Terminator datasheets (regular, Cataphractii, and Tartaros), which are effectively the same as the generic ones, only they also have the Inner Circle rule, and then print a rule saying how <Dark Angel> armies cannot use the generic three Terminator entries
OR You can print a rule saying how <Dark Angels> <Terminator> units gain the <Deathwing> keyword, and then print a second rule saying how units with the <Deathwing> keyword gain the Inner Circle rule and then a third rule explaining the Inner Circle rules. Three rules, taking up just about a sentence each to explain - far smaller than reprinting three datasheets.
In both outcomes the Dark Angel Terminators get the same rule, which reflects their unique flavour, but are implemented in different ways.
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.
It's a case of consistency. Every one of the First Founding Chapters now has a unique book, be it a supplement of the main Codex, or a whole unique Codex. I just wonder why the remaining BA/DA/SW Codexes shouldn't just become supplements, especially when 85% of their units are just the same generic ones in the normal Codex, and what the problem would be if they were mixed together.
Spoiler:
Spoletta wrote:I like how the goal of this post went from:
"There are no real differences between vanilla units and snowflake units, so we should just consolidate them together"
to
"There are no real differences between vanilla units and snowflake units if you take what makes those units unique and give it to everyone because reasons"
Likewise, why are unique units the only ones to have things that should be generic, beyond 'reasons'?
Why are Space Wolves the only Chapter to give their Tacticals chainswords and an extra special weapon?
Why are Blood Angels the only Chapter to have heavy flamers available to their Tactical Marines?
Why are Dark Angels the only Chapter to mix and match their Terminators' weapons, and have plasma cannons, despite both existing in other Chapters' fluff?
Why are Ultramarines the only Chapter with an honour guard option?
Why can't Iron Hands take Terminator Sergeants like their unique fluff once said they could, but Space Wolves still can?
They/them
2019/11/11 16:16:18
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
I didn't enter in the who and why of generic versus snowflake, i was just commenting that at the start of this thread we were trying to understand if it was possible to consolidate snowflake units into vanilla units, since they seemed to be like just a datasheet option away from being identical.
Now we are discussing if it is correct that they get to be special... We are getting a bit OT.
2019/11/11 17:22:23
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Well, you didn't offer any harm that the current model poses - you say consistency but the Dark Angels are not Codex Compliant and have consistently had their own Codex each edition. It's not a new thing. You method of consolidation makes the datasheets more convoluted, and as you admit I would then have to have two books where one sufficed. 40K has moved away from USRs etc - you seem to want to move back towards that. Leave me with my nice, tight Codex and stop trying to help me by making me buy two more convoluted books!
Regarding choices, choosing to play Dark Angels opens up units to me that others do not have access to while restricting me from choosing some that other Chapters can take. It's part of the deal - you gain and you lose. I am not going to flip the table if other Chapters get to mix weapon load-outs with their Terminators, but at a certain point if everybody can take everything the distinctiveness of the Chapters suffers. I like having choices that have consequences.
It's all academic, of course, since nobody here is a decision-maker outside of our own decision regarding what we play and don't play.
Warm regards,
T2B
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2019/11/11 17:42:12
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.
.
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!"
Yeah, when you can show off several battle reports of people using Terminator squads with 1 pair of LCs, 1 TH/SS, 1 Assault Cannon, 1 Chainfist, and 1 Sarge with the Power Sword and doing anything worthwhile you let me know.
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.
2019/11/11 17:55:56
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Well, you didn't offer any harm that the current model poses - you say consistency but the Dark Angels are not Codex Compliant and have consistently had their own Codex each edition.
Maybe check the lore of the Dark Angels? and I QUOTE from latest canon information (WD Vol no 37)
The Dark Angels are, for the most part, strict Adherents of the Codex in terms of their Chapter's structure
There are some cosemetic and cultural differences to other Chapters that have IMO sadly been massively flansderised over recent editions but they are a pretty average Chapter in terms of deviation from the base line of the Codex.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Well, you didn't offer any harm that the current model poses - you say consistency but the Dark Angels are not Codex Compliant and have consistently had their own Codex each edition.
Maybe check the lore of the Dark Angels? and I QUOTE from latest canon information (WD Vol no 37)
The Dark Angels are, for the most part, strict Adherents of the Codex in terms of their Chapter's structure
There are some cosemetic and cultural differences to other Chapters that have IMO sadly been massively flansderised over recent editions but they are a pretty average Chapter in terms of deviation from the base line of the Codex.
Thanks, I have that WD. Mostly compliant does not mean compliant. The Codex offers that the Dark Angels "did not strictly adhere." Yes they have somethings in common, but they have unique organizations and units and have had them for multiple editions. It's not some new fad.
If your concern is about so-called "flanderization" then I guess we are really arguing about tastes. Our tastes may indeed differ, and that's OK.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2019/11/11 18:32:38
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Yeah, when you can show off several battle reports of people using Terminator squads with 1 pair of LCs, 1 TH/SS, 1 Assault Cannon, 1 Chainfist, and 1 Sarge with the Power Sword and doing anything worthwhile you let me know.
First, let me say that I actually wouldn't mind if DA were done as a supplement. It would be annoying to have data sheets that I couldn't take, and it would feel weird to have significantly more unique content than most chapters, but whatever. But this specific argument is really, really bad, can feel lot like gatekeeping, and make it sounds like you don't even acknowledge non-tournament perspectives.
As it happens, that is *exactly* the load out I use with my DW squad. I take it because I like it and I feel that a squad that can, in-universe, handle almost any type of (vaguely human-sized) individual is exactly what would be sent to work with an otherwise-greenwing force. It feels like a load out uniquely suited to the DW agenda (where they might not know exactly what they're going to face) as opposed to traditional terminator squads which typically have very specific, predetermined missions.
Is it great on the table? No, of course not. It's not intended for super-competitive play. But I take it because it feels very unique and specific to the Unforgiven. Not everyone takes units for raw in-game power.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/11 18:41:18
2019/11/11 18:32:57
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Well, you didn't offer any harm that the current model poses - you say consistency but the Dark Angels are not Codex Compliant and have consistently had their own Codex each edition.
Maybe check the lore of the Dark Angels? and I QUOTE from latest canon information (WD Vol no 37)
The Dark Angels are, for the most part, strict Adherents of the Codex in terms of their Chapter's structure
There are some cosemetic and cultural differences to other Chapters that have IMO sadly been massively flansderised over recent editions but they are a pretty average Chapter in terms of deviation from the base line of the Codex.
Thanks, I have that WD. Mostly compliant does not mean compliant. The Codex offers that the Dark Angels "did not strictly adhere." Yes they have somethings in common, but they have unique organizations and units and have had them for multiple editions. It's not some new fad.
If your concern is about so-called "flanderization" then I guess we are really arguing about tastes. Our tastes may indeed differ, and that's OK.
Mostly compliant - like pretty much all Chapters - many are less compliant than the Dark Angels but that can;t be represented because.......
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Because they don't have an existing history of books, fans buying stuff etc. There maybe some mega non codex chapter, and maybe even it has official lore writen 30 years ago. But if it is last mentioned 30 years ago, in a single issue of WD, they are just not worth a risk to get rules.
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 18:53:48
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Karol wrote: Because they don't have an existing history of books, fans buying stuff etc. There maybe some mega non codex chapter, and maybe even it has official lore writen 30 years ago. But if it is last mentioned 30 years ago, in a single issue of WD, they are just not worth a risk to get rules.
Still missing the point - the Dark Angels are not particuarily divergent - they are NOT unusual - but you can;t represent similarly non repreentive Chapters becuase they have to pretend that the Angels adn the Wolves are so so very different
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Well, you didn't offer any harm that the current model poses - you say consistency but the Dark Angels are not Codex Compliant and have consistently had their own Codex each edition.
Not exactly correct. The Dark Angels are a Codex compliant Chapter, just like how the Blood Angels are (and funnily enough, it's Chapters like the Black Templars and Iron Hands who, despite historically being organised in a very different way from the Codex Astartes, are actually integrated into the core Space Marine book!).
The reason for the Dark Angels being unique is because of their plethora of unique units and their method of fighting (aka, en mass deployment of the Deathwing and Ravenwing). In previous editions, this was actually incredibly different - you couldn't take all Terminator and all Bike/Land Speeder armies without being Dark Angels. However, with detachments being a lot more open, the advent of keyword shenanigans, more granular Chapter Tactics, and unique stratagems, it's hard to ignore that they share 85% of the same units as everyone else, just with reskins of existing generic ones.
When every other first founding Chapter now also has unique rules, units, stratagems, etc etc and are making do with supplements, why should the Dark Angels not do the same?
You method of consolidation makes the datasheets more convoluted
Not at all? The datasheet stays exactly the same. What changes is that you can apply extra rules to an otherwise generic datasheet by simply looking at a single page in your supplement.
My proposed idea could literally work with the current publication of Codex: Space Marines (adding in the DA/BA/SW Chapter Tactics rules that have been printed in books like the Vanguard Primaris Marines booklet and the Kill Team: Elites book without issue). All I'd need to do is write a supplement book.
and as you admit I would then have to have two books where one sufficed.
Which is exactly what every other First Founding Chapter has had to do! Why is the idea of Dark Angels players having to buy a new book to play their army any worse than Ultramarines players having to do the same?
Note, this isn't a defence of GW forcing people to pay for supplements to play their armies. It is a "why should DA/BA/SW players be exempt from the same conditions other Space Marine players deal with?"
40K has moved away from USRs etc - you seem to want to move back towards that.
No? I'm doing the same kind of keyword applications that they've been implementing on their new books since 8th edition.
It's simple - call out which keyword you want to target, and assign units with that keyword a rule. That's literally the foundation of the Chapter Tactics system that nearly every faction has!
Leave me with my nice, tight Codex and stop trying to help me by making me buy two more convoluted books!
Yeah, screw those other Space Marine players! Who cares if they have to pay to have their Chapter rules, even though my Codex is 85% the same as theirs! /s
I'd love to leave you with your nice tight Codex, but what about Ultramarines players? What about Iron Hands players? The ones you share 85% of your units with?
Regarding choices, choosing to play Dark Angels opens up units to me that others do not have access to while restricting me from choosing some that other Chapters can take.
This would be a fair point, if it weren't for the fact that you already share 85% of the same units. Sure, Genestealer Cult and Tyranids share some units (Broodlords/Patriarchs and Genestealers), but they make up a very small fraction of their respective Codexes. Dark Angels share a majority of units, can't take others for seemingly random and arbitrary reasons (seriously, why can't Dark Angels have Centurions? There's no lore reason why not, beyond the idea of artificially creating a divide between the Dark Angels and every other Chapter), and a great many of their "unique" units are unique in name only.
I'm all for keeping the differences that are actually meaningful (Dark Angels not having access to Ultramarines Victrix Honour Guard, for example), but there isn't a meaningful difference why they can't take Centurions, or why their Bikers are a unique datasheet because they have a unique special rule that could just as easily be applied via their Chapter Tactics.*
*I say this, because as the White Scars <Biker> units all ignore penalties for moving and firing Heavy Weapons, but this is included as part of their Chapter Tactic.
According to how the Dark Angels Biker units were treated, surely it should make sense for all White Scars biker units to be given unique datasheets which have that rule built in to their unique datasheet?
My proposal would treat the Dark Angels <Biker> and <Land Speeder> units much like how the White Scars <Biker> units are - add a rule to the basic Dark Angels Chapter Tactic saying "Dark Angels <Bike> and <Land Speeder> units gain a 4+ Invulnerable Save on any turn they Advance".
It's part of the deal - you gain and you lose. I am not going to flip the table if other Chapters get to mix weapon load-outs with their Terminators, but at a certain point if everybody can take everything the distinctiveness of the Chapters suffers. I like having choices that have consequences.
So are Ultramarines not distinct from Iron Hands? After all, they share the same core units, but the plethora of special rules, stratagems, relics, and units that are supplied in their supplements create distinct factions.
As an Ultramarines player, I lose out on bonuses that other Space Marine factions from the core Codex get, but that's fine. I don't need an arbitrary list of units I can't take for no other reason to reflect that. My choice of playing the boys in blue has consequences.
It's all academic, of course, since nobody here is a decision-maker outside of our own decision regarding what we play and don't play.
Quite so - this is purely my hypothetical solution, and trying to figure out why it is rejected by some.
Warm regards,
T2B
Pleasure discussing!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aelyn wrote:It would be annoying to have data sheets that I couldn't take, and it would feel weird to have significantly more unique content than most chapters, but whatever.
Something I feel my proposal hasn't made clear - I would want Dark Angels armies to have full access to Codex: Space Marine units - no reason they can't have Centurions and suchlike, I'd love to see Dark Angels Centurions.
Is it great on the table? No, of course not. It's not intended for super-competitive play. But I take it because it feels very unique and specific to the Unforgiven. Not everyone takes units for raw in-game power.
I love this take, and fully agree with it. I absolutely don't want to take unique options away, I only want to make them more accessible where it makes sense.
DA should have mixed Terminators just as much as Ultramarines should, and by that, I mean they both should have them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 19:10:56
They/them
2019/11/11 20:15:11
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
I don't think that having a Dark Angels book has inflicted anything on the Space Marine players who run other Chapters. Heck, we have more books now with more specialization. I think it's a good thing. Time will tell if Iron Hands etc players are happy having Supplements.
Me, I am content with my Codex. I would like a refresh in the next year, but I am happy losing access to some units while gaining others. I don't want to dig through extra books/sheets for my units. It's working just fine right now with a single Codex. Now, if you value tabletop dominance over everything else and you are a Dark Angel then this is not a great time...The worm will turn.
We risk losing flavour by consolidating. Let the hyper-competitive run Iron Hands for now. I'm quite happy with my Dark Angels and your proposal will dilute part off what I like about them while adding nothing (that I can see).
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2019/11/11 21:54:37
Subject: Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
Yeah, when you can show off several battle reports of people using Terminator squads with 1 pair of LCs, 1 TH/SS, 1 Assault Cannon, 1 Chainfist, and 1 Sarge with the Power Sword and doing anything worthwhile you let me know.
First, let me say that I actually wouldn't mind if DA were done as a supplement. It would be annoying to have data sheets that I couldn't take, and it would feel weird to have significantly more unique content than most chapters, but whatever. But this specific argument is really, really bad, can feel lot like gatekeeping, and make it sounds like you don't even acknowledge non-tournament perspectives.
As it happens, that is *exactly* the load out I use with my DW squad. I take it because I like it and I feel that a squad that can, in-universe, handle almost any type of (vaguely human-sized) individual is exactly what would be sent to work with an otherwise-greenwing force. It feels like a load out uniquely suited to the DW agenda (where they might not know exactly what they're going to face) as opposed to traditional terminator squads which typically have very specific, predetermined missions.
Is it great on the table? No, of course not. It's not intended for super-competitive play. But I take it because it feels very unique and specific to the Unforgiven. Not everyone takes units for raw in-game power.
Trying to use the "competitive" argument doesn't work because it doesn't even work in a casual setting. So honestly you made me care even less.
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.
2019/11/11 22:21:21
Subject: Re:Why are DA, BA and SW not treated as supplements of SM? (Even GK)
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I don't think that having a Dark Angels book has inflicted anything on the Space Marine players who run other Chapters. Heck, we have more books now with more specialization. I think it's a good thing. Time will tell if Iron Hands etc players are happy having Supplements.
The main issue I have with having DA/BA/SW running around with what is 85% the same book as every other Space Marine player is that, as I will address below, when changes are made to the core Space Marine line, DA/BA/SW also have those changes made, but because Codexes are not updated simultaneously, it means that DA/BA/SW players have to settle for a half-baked FAQ and external sources to add in the units that regular Marines got. Having them work off the same central core (which they do, in all but name) would eliminate this need for emergency FAQs and PDFs, and if/when the core Codex gets an update, ALL non-Ordo Space Marines are updated together. If my proposal was in place a few months ago, DA/BA/SW players would all have immediate access to all new Primaris units immediately, in essentially two hardback publications, as well as updated Relics lists, stratagems, Combat Doctrines, points balancing, and so on. You'd all have the Bolter Discipline and Shock Assault rules on hand too.
Basically, with all Space Marines working from the same core (which, as I've pointed out, 85% of Dark Angels units are literally just core Space Marine units), they can be updated together.
Me, I am content with my Codex. I would like a refresh in the next year, but I am happy losing access to some units while gaining others.
I understand your contentedness, but why do you oppose my proposal? Deathwing Terminators are literally the only unit that is affected in a meaningful way (the Watcher in the Dark becomes either a stratagem or an externally purchased upgrade), and in return, you get full access to all Space Marine units, updated stratagems, psychic powers, relics, and warlord traits, for literally nothing.
You wouldn't lose anything mechanically (barring literally only the Watcher in the Dark, and only in it's current form), and gain a hell of a lot more, that there was no lore or flavour reason not to have anyway.
I don't want to dig through extra books/sheets for my units.
Unfortunately, you already are. Where else do you get the Shock Assault and Bolter Discipline rules? Where else can you play with the new Primaris units?
It's working just fine right now with a single Codex. Now, if you value tabletop dominance over everything else and you are a Dark Angel then this is not a great time...The worm will turn.
Perhaps, but if I'm assuming correctly, I'm just as unperturbed about tabletop dominance as you are. This isn't about making Dark Angels stronger, or weaker, or making everyone else stronger or weaker.
It's out streamlining datasheets and sources. With every Space Marine Chapter being based off the same core (which, I've said before, you essentially already are), it means that changes made to basic Marine units can affect all Chapters in just one publication. No need to wait for the worm to turn, no need to need half a dozen FAQs and PDFs just so you can use Shock Assault and Bolter Discipline. Everything all in one place, and you can expand from that as you see fit.
Not only that, but supplements encourage people to diversify and play multiple Chapters - the buy-in to other Chapters becomes a lot lower when you don't need to pay for the same core 85% units over and over again. Say I wanted to collect the main three Chapters of the Imperium Secundus, UM, DA, and BA. Under current pricing, I'm paying out around £92.50 for those three Chapters, and a significant portion of that is just the same units being duplicated. Under my proposed supplement idea, it would cost much less - £77.50 for the three of them, with no duplication, and enough money left over that you could nearly buy a whole other supplement!
We risk losing flavour by consolidating. Let the hyper-competitive run Iron Hands for now. I'm quite happy with my Dark Angels and your proposal will dilute part off what I like about them while adding nothing (that I can see).
I have to ask, what are you losing in my proposal?
I respect that you feel it would "dilute" what you have, but what exactly is getting watered down?
As for gaining, you would have the same core stratagems, psychic powers, units, and such that every other Chapter has (much of which you don't already have, either printed in your own Codex, or even available, and no real reason why you shouldn't have it*). Aka, you would be treated to the same core of units that every other Chapter has, as well as free access to your own unique units.
*A non-exhaustive list includes:
Spoiler:
All Phobos units
Suppressors
Repulsor Executioner
Impulsor
Invictor Warsuit
The updated Intercessor Squad profile (all of these above are units that aren't printed in your book, meaning you still need to use multiple sources even now - this situation would be avoided if you were part of the core Space Marine book, and what my proposal seeks to prevent in the future).
Ironclad Dreadnoughts
Stormhawk
Stormtalon
Centurions
Thunderfire Cannons (all of these here units have no real reason not to be an option in a Dark Angels army - aside from creating forced diversity, there isn't really a lore explanation why Dark Angel don't have Centurion warsuits or Thunderfire Cannons).
.
