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.

If you give DA everything that standard Marines, then remove options that make them different (and right now I frankly don't care how you would change them, right now from rules to lore to models they ARE different whether you are willing to accept that fact or not) then yes you have now removed any reason for the DA to be different. Congrats, thought exercise over, if you had design control and had your way that's how it would be and feth anyone that disagrees because 'well it's now better for you because I said so'.

The original question as I understand it was 'what makes those Chapters different'. If you remove the differences then you're right, there's nothing different about them. I assume you'll be using the same design paradigm and explaining why Chaos Marines don't justify having a faction. I mean, after all, they can be represented with non-Chaos Marines, right?




I thought I was out but no, looks like I can't keep away from this. So let me ask you a serious question Smudge:
Can you accept that right now, without putting your own personal 'this is how I want them to be' take on it, can you accept that there are differences within lore, rules and models that define factions like the DA (and BA and SW) being separate entities to generic Space Marines?

Nope thats not what was said

Remove the false "unique" elelments that are already used by other Chapters in the lore and just have the actual (very few) unique differences as unit upgrades or similar specific to DA Chapter tactics.

See nothing gone. Other Chapters can have the stuff they actually have.

You and others are already saying feth everyone else because they want their DA thier way.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

I don't take it for power. I take it for coolness and because it feels appropriate to the lore.

That unit consistently - as in 100% of the time - does exactly what I want it to.

Morden I'm saying feth this argument. Because when asked what are the differences it gets dismissed because the reply we get is 'but but I think these other chapters should have the same things' with very little, if anything, to back it up outside 'I'm right, you cannot prove me wrong'.

You think it's 'false'. How? Where? Proof? 25yrs+ of Dark Angels (the ones I follow story, models and have dipped in regularly for so I have a decent grasp on them) being separate, being shown as separate, being treat as separate EXCEPT during 3rd ed. backs up my argument that the are different. But you're going to dismiss all of that material again.

And yet you cannot accept these differences, you dismiss them because 'you now better' and... your argument is what? The BA Space Hulk game and associated fiction and nothing else? Where's the 100+ Terminator deployments from the Ultramarines (it wasn't against the Tyranids on Macragge), where's the dedicated fast weapon platforms the Salamanders are known for, where's the mutating Raven Guard that must be corralled and only released when no-one is looking? 'They could have them' is not a good enough reason to decide that factions that 'do' have that as part of there identity should be watered down so that everyone now has exactly the same.. lore? Rules? Models?

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...Can you accept that right now, without putting your own personal 'this is how I want them to be' take on it, can you accept that there are differences within lore, rules and models that define factions like the DA (and BA and SW) being separate entities to generic Space Marines?

Turn this on its head for a moment. Why are BA, DA, and SW their own Codexes, while Iron Hands, White Scars, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, Ultramarines, and Salamanders stuffed in their own books? FW sure found enough stuff to give them all unique units and Rites of War in 30k, didn't they?

The fact that SW, BA, and DA are 'different enough to be separate entities' isn't an immutable fact, it is a design decision. GW could turn around and choose to stuff them back into one Codex with a supplement like the other Chapters tomorrow. They're their own Codexes now, the fundamental disagreement of this thread is whether there's enough reason to keep them separate Codexes. Why aren't all the First Founding Chapters on equal footing? Why do some get unique units and some don't? Is "but we have non-character datasheets we don't share with everyone else" a reason something has to be its own Codex and not a supplement? What would be wrong with putting the Deathwing/Ravenwing datasheets into a supplement? There's even rules precedent in 8e for saying "This sub-faction gets (units X, Y, Z, etc.) from the main book but doesn't get (units A, B, C, etc.)", see Krieg and Elysians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...'They could have them' is not a good enough reason to decide that factions that 'do' have that as part of there identity should be watered down so that everyone now has exactly the same.. lore? Rules? Models?

Wouldn't saying "here's the core book and then here's the supplement with all the stuff that's unique to this sub-faction" be easier than saying "every sub-faction must have a unique standalone Codex"?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...Can you accept that right now, without putting your own personal 'this is how I want them to be' take on it, can you accept that there are differences within lore, rules and models that define factions like the DA (and BA and SW) being separate entities to generic Space Marines?

Turn this on its head for a moment. Why are BA, DA, and SW their own Codexes, while Iron Hands, White Scars, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, Ultramarines, and Salamanders stuffed in their own books? FW sure found enough stuff to give them all unique units and Rites of War in 30k, didn't they?

The fact that SW, BA, and DA are 'different enough to be separate entities' isn't an immutable fact, it is a design decision. GW could turn around and choose to stuff them back into one Codex with a supplement like the other Chapters tomorrow. They're their own Codexes now, the fundamental disagreement of this thread is whether there's enough reason to keep them separate Codexes. Why aren't all the First Founding Chapters on equal footing? Why do some get unique units and some don't? Is "but we have non-character datasheets we don't share with everyone else" a reason something has to be its own Codex and not a supplement? What would be wrong with putting the Deathwing/Ravenwing datasheets into a supplement? There's even rules precedent in 8e for saying "This sub-faction gets (units X, Y, Z, etc.) from the main book but doesn't get (units A, B, C, etc.)", see Krieg and Elysians.

Emphasised because I've answered that question before: I'd love to see Raven Guard, etc get fully expanded into dedicated books. GW have not put that level of effort into them. You want to try to reason out the finnicky trade/sales/marketing/design decisions made by GW, ask one who made that decision. All I can say is 'because that's what GW focused on'. Anything else is guesswork at best, and wishful thinking at worst. DA/BA were made as separate entities back in 2nd edition. They have been separate for a very long time.

I have also said I have no issue with DA being a supplement (how many times have I said that line so far), the line in the sand is condensing units like the Death/Ravenwing(s) to be 'take terminators/bikers from core book then add x,y,z' instead of just leaving the datasheets alone and simply having a list of 'no terminators from the core book, use the Deathwing datasheet instead'. That's the sticking point here.

As I see it, those advocating the blandification of of Deathwing into 'terminators but you have to pay for these extra upgrades if you want them to actually be Deathwing terminators' don't like that those units are separate and have decided that all teminators must be the same (again picking on Deathwing as it's an easy unit to use for examples) even if extra wargear options/loadouts are the key mechanical and narrative differences (which I can almost bet someone is going to say that's not good enough to have them separate and that everyone should have those options, not just a unit to make it 'unique'... yeah, dismissing what makes them different is not a good argument for condensing them).

BroodSpawn wrote:If you give DA everything that standard Marines, then remove options that make them different (and right now I frankly don't care how you would change them, right now from rules to lore to models they ARE different whether you are willing to accept that fact or not) then yes you have now removed any reason for the DA to be different.

That's not my proposal whatsoever? Or are you not responding to mine?

Let's go over DA comprehensively, shall we?
My proposed changes:

Include a phrase on the Dark Angels supplement that states "Friendly Dark Angels <Terminator> units gain the <Deathwing> faction keyword. Friendly Dark Angels <Biker> and <Land Speeder> units gain the <Ravenwing> faction keyword."
Remove Bikers, Land Speeders, and Attack Bikes, but add a sentence into the existing Dark Angels Chapter Tactics that says "<Biker> and <Land Speeder> units with this Chapter Tactic gain a 4+ Invulnerable Save on any turn they Advance." (which is exactly the same as what they already have, mechanically).
Remove the Deathwing Terminator, Deathwing Cataphractii, and Deathwing Tartaros datasheets. Combine the Assault Terminator and Terminator Squad datasheets in the same way that Deathwing do, in Codex: Space Marines. Add plasma cannons to the Terminator Heavy Weapons list in Codex: Space Marines. Then, add a rule to the Dark Angels supplement or Chapter Tactic, I don't mind which, stating "<Deathwing> units gain the 'Inner Circle' rule." Reprint the existing Inner Circle rule into the supplement.
Finally, either Watchers in the Dark becomes a stratagem with a 1CP cost, or as an option in the Dark Angels supplement, stating "Friendly units with the <Deathwing> keyword may purchase a Watcher in the Dark for X points, or 1 Power Level."
Remove all of the obviously generic entries (Tactical Squads, etc etc)
This leaves us with a core of unique Dark Angels units:

All stratagems, relics, warlord traits, psychic powers, etc etc are added into the supplement, as well as Relics for successor Chapters, and certain added stratagems where needed.
In addition, you also gain Combat Doctrines, and a boost suitable to DA specifically (ie, while Tactical Doctrine is active, XYZ), and rules to the effect of "any Dark Angels detachment made up exclusively of units with the <Deathwing> or <Ravenwing> keyword gains 4 extra Command Points."

You also gain all the standard units of Codex: Space Marines, with no restrictions.

Congrats, thought exercise over, if you had design control and had your way that's how it would be and feth anyone that disagrees because 'well it's now better for you because I said so'.

I mean, I've yet to see someone argue why my proposal doesn't work without misrepresenting my argument.

As you've demonstrated in this post here, you've vastly overestimated just how much I was getting rid of.

The original question as I understand it was 'what makes those Chapters different'. If you remove the differences then you're right, there's nothing different about them.

But artificial difference when it makes no sense in lore is just making excuses. Why shouldn't DA have certain Codex wargear options, and why shouldn't Codex Marines have certain DA traits?

As you can see from my proposal, I've kept the Lion's (heh) share of unique units, only stripping out the most basic of them. If your entire sovereignty, as it were, revolved around just one Terminator Squad getting to stubbornly have plasma and mixed weapons when it makes absolute sense for everyone else to also have it, maybe you shouldn't have been sovereign to begin with.

I assume you'll be using the same design paradigm and explaining why Chaos Marines don't justify having a faction. I mean, after all, they can be represented with non-Chaos Marines, right?

Aside from all the Daemons and entirely different keywords and lack of access to completely generic wargear like grav-weaponry, you mean.

Again, I don't think the Chaos Space Marines Codex shares 85% of it's units almost word for word the same as the Space Marines Codex.

Can you accept that right now, without putting your own personal 'this is how I want them to be' take on it, can you accept that there are differences within lore, rules and models that define factions like the DA (and BA and SW) being separate entities to generic Space Marines?

Lore, yes, just as much as there are differences between Ultramarines and Iron Hands.
Rules, for the 15% of DA units that aren't generic? Yes, there are differences, as much as there are between Ultramarines and Iron Hands.
Models, yes, but as I've made clear, I don't support GW's policy of "no model, no rules", and it's clear that they don't even implement it evenly themselves (see Salamanders being the only source of Primaris thunder hammers, but all Primaris Marines, including DA ones, having access to them).

And I'd want to agree on your final point, and very nearly said that I did, but then drop it just on the last three words.
See, I would absolutely agree that DA/BA/SW are all separate entities, just like in the way that Ultramarines, White Scars, Iron Hands, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, Salamanders, and Black Templars are all separate entities: in that they all share a common core of units, and expand on that core with a cast of unique characters, units, stratagems, special rules, psychic powers, and so on.
But that's not what you said.
You claimed that DA/BA/SW were separate entities from "generic Space Marines" as if such a thing really existed any more. As I'm sure you'll agree, Ultramarines and Iron Hands are just as different and separate from eachother, but why are they both treated as "generic". And that is where I think the problem lies - in perception.
See, as per my proposal, you really do lose nothing. Nothing except the illusion of sovereignty, the *idea* that you're more unique, more deserving, not worth being even related to the "generic" Chapters, as if they were some kind of massive indistinguishable collection of flavourless mush.
Maybe there was a time when DA/BA/SW genuinely WERE worth not being related, I know they certainly were when I started. Back then, Codex: Space Marines was so "generic" that you could literally take characters from one Chapter into another! Kantor, leading the Iron Hands, with his trusty Captain Lysander by his side and Chief Librarian Tigurius supporting them.
But now? Every one of the main Chapters has a unique book. They have their own traits, rules, units, characters, stratagems, etc etc, and they're STILL all based on the same core book, just like how DA/BA/SW are based on that core of 85% of the same units. And there's plenty of difference between the supplements, I don't think you'll find anyone saying that Ultramarines feel just like Iron Hands, who feel just like Raven Guard, who feel like White Scars. So, if there can be that much difference given by supplements only between the "generic" Marines, why would a supplement take that away from you?

What is *wrong* with a supplement done well? What's wrong with cutting loose those 85% of units that everyone else already has, and just changing your name from "Codex" to "Supplement"?

 Mr Morden wrote:

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

Karol's point is actually bang on. in partiuclar I draw your attention to "they are just not worth the risk"
a new army is a risk for GW, developing rules releasing the book (which takes up shelf space etc) DA, BA SW all have their own codex because GW has detirmined it's more profitable to do it that way. if they genuinely felt that those codices where a waste of shelf space... they'd not do it.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
I have also said I have no issue with DA being a supplement (how many times have I said that line so far), the line in the sand is condensing units like the Death/Ravenwing(s) to be 'take terminators/bikers from core book then add x,y,z' instead of just leaving the datasheets alone and simply having a list of 'no terminators from the core book, use the Deathwing datasheet instead'. That's the sticking point here.

But when they end up having exactly the same mechanical effect, what is the objection? Sentiment? Pride of seeing the words "Deathwing" on an otherwise generic unit?

My whole point is to condense datasheets where possible, and save space where possible too. And writing my proposed rules for using the pre-existing keyword system to manipulate keywords into affording units unique rules takes up far less space than explaining what units you can and can't take, and then having to fill out full datasheets for those replacements.

My proposal saves about 6 units worth of space - Deathwing, Cataphractii Deathwing and Tartaros Deathwing being replaced by generic versions (generic Terminators rewritten to feature mixed weapons, just how it should be even without this merging), and Ravenwing Bikes, Attack Bikes and Land Speeders being replaced by their generic versions.

That's about two to three pages of space that could be used for, well, anything else.

As I see it, those advocating the blandification of of Deathwing into 'terminators but you have to pay for these extra upgrades if you want them to actually be Deathwing terminators' don't like that those units are separate and have decided that all teminators must be the same (again picking on Deathwing as it's an easy unit to use for examples) even if extra wargear options/loadouts are the key mechanical and narrative differences.

My proposal doesn't force anyone to pay more for their Deathwing than they already did (aside from the Watcher, which was already a squad upgrade, and again, I'm not decided if it should be a stratagem or not). You wouldn't need to pay any more than you already do - the extra melee weapons cost points, the plasma cannon costs points, etc etc.
Again, I'm happy leaving the Inner Circle rule as a perk of being <Dark Angels> - no need to pay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
Karol's point is actually bang on. in partiuclar I draw your attention to "they are just not worth the risk"
a new army is a risk for GW, developing rules releasing the book (which takes up shelf space etc) DA, BA SW all have their own codex because GW has detirmined it's more profitable to do it that way. if they genuinely felt that those codices where a waste of shelf space... they'd not do it.

Perhaps, but just like with a lot of GW's decisions, it doesn't mean it's always right, and alternatives shouldn't be constructively discussed.

Which is why I'm happy, in my magical imaginary dream world, to propose ideas irrespective of what GW's current policy is right now. Yes, I'm aware they probably won't change anything, but I am at least curious to see what my proposal overlooks.

I think constantly saying "GW should get rid of codexes" isn't a good thing, imagine coming to these forums as a new member and the first thing you see are a buncha people screaming how your codex shouldn't even exist.

BrianDavion wrote:
I think constantly saying "GW should get rid of codexes" isn't a good thing, imagine coming to these forums as a new member and the first thing you see are a buncha people screaming how your codex shouldn't even exist.

Imagine coming to these forums as a new Ork or Necron player and the first thing you see is a bunch of people screaming about how it'd be an unbearable injustice if Space Marines had fewer than five Codexes while you're stuck with one.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I think constantly saying "GW should get rid of codexes" isn't a good thing, imagine coming to these forums as a new member and the first thing you see are a buncha people screaming how your codex shouldn't even exist.

Imagine coming to these forums as a new Ork or Necron player and the first thing you see is a bunch of people screaming about how it'd be an unbearable injustice if Space Marines had fewer than five Codexes while you're stuck with one.

Except very rarely do people say anything of that nature.
People just do what you're doing and pretend that their 'opposition' is arguing the point they want them to argue rather than the point that was actually made.

I cannot think of any time where I've seen anyone even remotely come close to arguing the point you're trying to pretend has been made. I think the closest argument might be that Kult of Speed is less of a "full codex" in and of itself but rather a supplement?

text removed.

Reds8n

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Balance in the game is far more important than you feeling special you make bad unit design choices.

For you, maybe. Not to Aelyn, and not to myself.

If someone wants to take a varied loadout, I won't stop them, and I'd rather see a squad of guys bedecked with cool and esoteric weapons than everyone holding the same one because it's more effective.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Balance in the game is far more important than you feeling special you make bad unit design choices.

For you, maybe. Not to Aelyn, and not to myself.

If someone wants to take a varied loadout, I won't stop them, and I'd rather see a squad of guys bedecked with cool and esoteric weapons than everyone holding the same one because it's more effective.

Slayer isn't interested in any opinion but the one he has decided is right.

As for unique loadouts .....Yeah its fun, and a bit of tactical as it seems to hearken to a fluff choice the Unforgiven made... A small thing but a nice little bit. I think a rules difference that was slightly more pronounced would work.

Also leave my cataphractii alone! Lol The 4++ makes lightning claws a more viable choice. However if they were condensed I wouldn't care that much. It's just not that important

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

I don't take it for power. I take it for coolness and because it feels appropriate to the lore.

That unit consistently - as in 100% of the time - does exactly what I want it to.

It dies? Wonderful. I couldn't care less. Balance in the game is far more important than you feeling special you make bad unit design choices.

Strange, since your original point was:

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.

I was pointing out that, in fact, people (such as myself) do play that exact sort of unit and are happy with it being somewhat underpowered. You then moved the goalposts to say "but the unit is bad in game, so I don't care about the fact that people like it."

You're not qualified to comment on whether or not something has a reason to exist unless you're able to at least understand where both sides are coming from, and claiming that an entire play style either doesn't exist or doesn't matter proves that you don't.

That's why that attitude weakens your position. People feel justified ignoring you on the basis that they see you as ignoring them.

Would people be less against Consolidation if the consolidation would lead to more customizability options?

F.E. You get a Tac profile that can use any of the others speciality and be therefore used to represent all of the subfactions?
Aswell as traits (chosing between subfactions having special formations etc?)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

Those special rules and keywords are part of the mentioned options. You pick one set, and that detachment doesn't get to use others.







Sorry you can't seem to read my posts. Once you gain that ability, I suggest you check again. Literally the only thing I didn't do was type out a list of each special rule and equipment change for three codexes.

It's like arguing with a creationist.




You'll just claim that people 'aren't playing right' like you do every time this comes up. People have posted them to you in the past. Nope, you just move the goalposts again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


It doesn't work because you're lost in your own universe. I don't know anyone who uses your load out, but I know a few players who have some variation on SSx3, Heavy weapon, sargent, or SSx1, Heavy weapon, SBx3.
If you don't care, just stop posting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Nope thats not what was said

Remove the false "unique" elelments that are already used by other Chapters in the lore and just have the actual (very few) unique differences as unit upgrades or similar specific to DA Chapter tactics.

See nothing gone. Other Chapters can have the stuff they actually have.

You and others are already saying feth everyone else because they want their DA thier way.

You do realize that we would have to agree on what qualifies as a 'false' unique unit right? So far in 14 pages this hasn't happened yet, and you've given no one any incentive to agree with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...Can you accept that right now, without putting your own personal 'this is how I want them to be' take on it, can you accept that there are differences within lore, rules and models that define factions like the DA (and BA and SW) being separate entities to generic Space Marines?

Turn this on its head for a moment. Why are BA, DA, and SW their own Codexes, while Iron Hands, White Scars, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, Ultramarines, and Salamanders stuffed in their own books? FW sure found enough stuff to give them all unique units and Rites of War in 30k, didn't they?

The fact that SW, BA, and DA are 'different enough to be separate entities' isn't an immutable fact, it is a design decision. GW could turn around and choose to stuff them back into one Codex with a supplement like the other Chapters tomorrow. They're their own Codexes now, the fundamental disagreement of this thread is whether there's enough reason to keep them separate Codexes. Why aren't all the First Founding Chapters on equal footing? Why do some get unique units and some don't? Is "but we have non-character datasheets we don't share with everyone else" a reason something has to be its own Codex and not a supplement? What would be wrong with putting the Deathwing/Ravenwing datasheets into a supplement? There's even rules precedent in 8e for saying "This sub-faction gets (units X, Y, Z, etc.) from the main book but doesn't get (units A, B, C, etc.)", see Krieg and Elysians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
...'They could have them' is not a good enough reason to decide that factions that 'do' have that as part of there identity should be watered down so that everyone now has exactly the same.. lore? Rules? Models?

Wouldn't saying "here's the core book and then here's the supplement with all the stuff that's unique to this sub-faction" be easier than saying "every sub-faction must have a unique standalone Codex"?

You do realize that many of the people here who are arguing against consolidation have all said they're fine with more expanded sub-factions right?
GW could turn around and put them back into the codex, or make them a supplement. So far they haven't, and have said they aren't planning on it.
The other FF chapters aren't because GW decided not to. Maybe back in 2nd they weren't as popular. Maybe GW felt that their vision for those chapters fit better in the marine book. Maybe GW was just lazy.
Krieg and Elysians are forgeworld, not straight GW. There has been little cross pollination between their their writing teams in terms of what makes it into most GW codexes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Would people be less against Consolidation if the consolidation would lead to more customizability options?

F.E. You get a Tac profile that can use any of the others speciality and be therefore used to represent all of the subfactions?
Aswell as traits (chosing between subfactions having special formations etc?)

No, pretty much because there are large enough differences between the three chapters and the core chapters to make that system work well, without being a troublesome mess. There's also the fact that the three also have quite a large following, almost as many as core space marines in general, who would probably be appalled to lose their army. For them emotionally it would be like telling Dark Eldar players that they were being pushed into the Craftworld Eldar book.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Would people be less against Consolidation if the consolidation would lead to more customizability options?

F.E. You get a Tac profile that can use any of the others speciality and be therefore used to represent all of the subfactions?
Aswell as traits (chosing between subfactions having special formations etc?)

I mentioned that in one of my earlier posts, but I want to say it again. This would be a great solution to give people alot of customisation. Should be done for all factions. Dark Angels for example could then be portrayed by a pre selection of the options available. Maybe give an incentive to take preconfigured factions. Similar to FF and successor traits right now.

How would that happen if GW limits rules to what model options they have and their models come very rare with more then one weapon option. Codex consolidation could end up with something like a thundar hammer chapter master being gone from the options, because GW does not produce one right now. All the cool marine melee stuff gets a lot less potent if the guy using it is moving on foot up the board with a speed of a snail.

All the datasheets already exist so we are past the point of "no model, no rule".

All the options are there, just not in one single box.

Mmmpi wrote:Sorry you can't seem to read my posts. Once you gain that ability, I suggest you check again. Literally the only thing I didn't do was type out a list of each special rule and equipment change for three codexes.

Which is, funnily enough, evidence. If you didn't supply that (as you now freely admit to doing), then you didn't supply evidence.

Again, instead of wasting time screaming "bbBBuT i dID provIdE eVIdeNcE", why don't you show us? It's not just me who can't see anything, and I don't see anyone barring yourself claiming that you did provide evidence. The onus is on you.

It's like arguing with a creationist.

Strange. I was under the impression that the person not supporting any of their points with any kind of facts or evidence when called upon to do so was exhibiting those kind of traits.

Say what you like, but I'm at least supporting my arguments with data and fully explained proposals. You, my friend, are not.

No, pretty much because there are large enough differences between the three chapters and the core chapters to make that system work well, without being a troublesome mess.

Again, are there? DA share ~85% of the same units with no further changes, and a not-insignificant portion of their unique units (notably the Ravenwing bikes, attack bikes, and land speeders) are only one rule away from being generic, which is exactly the same as some of the Codex: Space Marine units*. When DA were the only Chapter (other than Grey Knights) capable of taking all Terminator or all Bike/Land Speeder armies, yes, then they would have been widely unique enough, especially considering that supplements weren't a thing at the time!

But now, the infrastructure exists to combine them in a relatively painless way. I mean, you call consolidation a "troublesome mess" - did you read my proposal? It's smooth, doesn't feature any kind of "you can take this, but you can't take this!" shenanigans, and ensures a common baseline that DA already have in everything but name. Meanwhile a whole seperate Codex creates the kind of problems we saw with the Vanguard Primaris releases and the recent updates to Codex: Space Marines - of DA/BA/SW getting emergency FAQs and PDF datasheets to bring them to the same standard the other Chapters were. Now, if DA/BA/SW didn't get all those new things, maybe you could argue that this clearly shows GW's intent to keep them completely unrelated and increasingly distinct via active rejection of the new abilities: but no, GW gave BA/DA/SW all the same new units and abilities, clearly showing that they want those Chapters to work from the same core units and abilities.

*such as White Scars bikers and Ravenwing bikers being only one rule away in difference - should White Scars be a unique Codex while everyone else remains as a supplement, purely because of this?

There's also the fact that the three also have quite a large following, almost as many as core space marines in general, who would probably be appalled to lose their army. For them emotionally

So it's a sentimental reason. Despite the fact that my proposal would literally take none of their autonomy away or ability to play what they already have, the fact that they lose the status of being a solo Codex and have to share their core units (yanno, like they already do) with the 'boring generic Codex Marines' is the problem?

Because honestly, if that is the case, that's incredibly elitist.

it would be like telling Dark Eldar players that they were being pushed into the Craftworld Eldar book.

If Dark Eldar shared 85% of their units with Craftworld Eldar, I'd be advocating for it. But they don't.

I've made this point before with Genestealer Cults and Tyranids. Despite being closely related in fluff, and even sharing a few units, the vast majority of each book is incredibly distinct and unique in terms of their units. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Space Wolves are not this. They still share ~85% (in the Dark Angels' case, haven't calculated what it is for the others) of the same units, and some (not all) of their unique features either make no sense being unique in the first place(Blood Angel flamers, Space Wolves chainsword Tacticals, and Dark Angels mixed Terminators).

That's the point I'm getting at here - the DA didn't share so many of their units with "regular" Space Marines, then I would support them being independent, like I do with the Grey Knights. But 85% is a lot of units, and if everyone else is getting supplement treatment, I don't see why DA can't suck it up and bite the bullet too.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
How would that happen if GW limits rules to what model options they have and their models come very rare with more then one weapon option. Codex consolidation could end up with something like a thundar hammer chapter master being gone from the options, because GW does not produce one right now. All the cool marine melee stuff gets a lot less potent if the guy using it is moving on foot up the board with a speed of a snail.

That's not a problem with consolidation, that's a problem with GW's 'no model, no rules' policy.

The 'no model, no rules' policy would have this effect on thunder hammer jump Captains even if consolidation didn't occur.

Your consolidation is only not a mess in your opinion. I and others have disagreed.

I've also roughly listed rules differences in units, but from your most recent reply you're dismissing them because it's not verbatim typed.

With the respect I think this topic deserves, you've made your point about how you think things should be and those opposing you have made ours about how things are. Dislike it if you must, but stop dismissing it because you have a valid idea (I didn't say good idea, just that it's a valid one I personally dont want to see in print by GW).

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Your consolidation is only not a mess in your opinion. I and others have disagreed.

Yes, but with all due respect, the reasons for it being a mess haven't exactly been clear.

There's this idea of "but it's not the same flavour", but when my supplement includes all the same mechanical functions as the old Codex, barring literally one (the Watcher in the Dark), it's hard to see what this idea of "flavour" means without further explanation.

As far as I was aware, the flavour was in the result of the game mechanics you got (A --> B). My mechanics are different, but lead to the same result (A ---->B). However, if that is a problem, then must not be about the result of the mechanics, but the fact that something was implemented in a certain way (represented by the shorter arrow, in my bracketed examples). If that is the case, then it completely irrelevant what rules you actually get, so long as you get to cling to the idea of separation and being more unique than everyone else.

Which, if that's so, kinda smells like a bit of elitism to me.

I've also roughly listed rules differences in units, but from your most recent reply you're dismissing them because it's not verbatim typed.

If you want me to understand your points properly without bringing up how you guys haven't really explained them in detail, maybe it's worth having be verbatim typed.

I've also mentioned these differences in units, and I've approached each one with either a way to implement it as a unique ability afforded via keywords or stratagems, or pointed out how it has no real reason to be a difference in the first place. And before anyone says it, "it's always been like that" doesn't affect if the discussion is "why is it like that?"
Deathwing being given some kind of CP boost if they take all Deathwing units? That makes sense as a mechanical reward for all-Deathwing armies. Deathwing being the only Chapter to have mixed units? Why does this make sense?

With the respect I think this topic deserves, you've made your point about how you think things should be and those opposing you have made ours about how things are.

And other people have made their points on why my proposal should not be. I am trying to get people to elaborate on why that is the case, with a greater depth than many responses are right now.

So far, the main gist seems to be "they're different because they always have been" (ignoring that times have changed and now nearly all Chapters are different in some respect mechanically), "they'd lose their flavour" (despite my proposal resulting exactly the same mechanical effect, and none of their options being removed, only renamed), and "that would make them less exclusive" (which is the only one I can't argue against, but then I would call that point of view kind of elitist, because then it's not about mechanics or having your own flavour at that point, it's about having the prestige of having your own Codex and not having to be associated with the other Chapters).

If the best you can do is just insult other users, then it's best you don't post at all.

Or you won;t be posting.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Your consolidation is only not a mess in your opinion. I and others have disagreed.

I've also roughly listed rules differences in units, but from your most recent reply you're dismissing them because it's not verbatim typed.

With the respect I think this topic deserves, you've made your point about how you think things should be and those opposing you have made ours about how things are. Dislike it if you must, but stop dismissing it because you have a valid idea (I didn't say good idea, just that it's a valid one I personally dont want to see in print by GW).

Smudge knows what they are, he talks about them with familiarity. He's just trying to find a reason to ignore logical arguments. Nevermind the forum has rules against just flat out posting rules and stats.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Your consolidation is only not a mess in your opinion. I and others have disagreed.

I've also roughly listed rules differences in units, but from your most recent reply you're dismissing them because it's not verbatim typed.

With the respect I think this topic deserves, you've made your point about how you think things should be and those opposing you have made ours about how things are. Dislike it if you must, but stop dismissing it because you have a valid idea (I didn't say good idea, just that it's a valid one I personally dont want to see in print by GW).

Smudge knows what they are, he talks about them with familiarity. He's just trying to find a reason to ignore logical arguments. Nevermind the forum has rules against just flat out posting rules and stats.

Smudge has presented a lot of good arguments.

I have not seen the same from you.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Smudge has presented a lot of good arguments.

I have not seen the same from you.

In good faith, I'm willing to concede that they may have posted some kind of evidence in this thread. I haven't seen it, but perhaps I've missed it, in each of the various times I've looked through their posts. I'm not infallible.

But in the interest of resolving it, I ask that Mmmpi show me their detailed evidence that they claim to have posted previously in the thread. It would be much easier than dragging this out.

(Also, regarding flat out posting rules and stats, I believe the main restriction was on reposting rules in verbatim, and specifically detailed points costs. Not a basic rundown of what an ability does.)

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Your consolidation is only not a mess in your opinion. I and others have disagreed.

I've also roughly listed rules differences in units, but from your most recent reply you're dismissing them because it's not verbatim typed.

With the respect I think this topic deserves, you've made your point about how you think things should be and those opposing you have made ours about how things are. Dislike it if you must, but stop dismissing it because you have a valid idea (I didn't say good idea, just that it's a valid one I personally dont want to see in print by GW).

Smudge knows what they are, he talks about them with familiarity. He's just trying to find a reason to ignore logical arguments. Nevermind the forum has rules against just flat out posting rules and stats.

Smudge has presented a lot of good arguments.

I have not seen the same from you.

Sorry to read that.
I'm sure if you go back about 10 pages you'll see the ones he's been pretending didn't apply.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Sorry to read that.
I'm sure if you go back about 10 pages you'll see the ones he's been pretending didn't apply.

Would you care to show us, please?