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.

To save rehashing this for an 18th page:
Is this now a mechanical debate about your proposals for rewriting the core Space Marine Codex & all supplementary material under your design paradigm?

Because I feel we've answered why GW currently makes them separate even if you disagree on this (and so your redesign proposal).

Honestly this debate has become fairly circular as everyone is set in their. Points of view and their views on the legitimate points are different.

Also I'd like them to give back the error from the fourth edition book were I could also a cyclone on a Terminator with th/ss.

As Slayer and some others point out there is no legitimate reason why we don't have Thunderfire cannons or Centurions. But then again it's GW. Legitimate reason aren't always needed. Also the real reason DA have plasma Cannons on Terminators. ..to make the kit more unique and sellable.

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't tackle why not a single other Chapter doesn't have a single Plasma Cannon on their Terminators.

Standard plasma cannon ports are compatible with specially-designed backpacks for Devastators, but not with the Terminator Armour ports, and Terminator suits are far too valuable for techmarines to dare experiment. The Dark Angels, with their known vault of ancient tech, have the adaptors, but thanks to their distrust of the rest of the imperium, they haven't shared the tech with anyone other than the other Unforgiven.

Not official lore (actually, saying that, it wouldn't surprise me if it were), but 100% consistent with existing lore and the reasoning behind other differences.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. Fluff sections being too big is a reason to make a codex as expensive as they are. You can easily chop out 1/2 of the Marine codex, so Dark Angels and Blood Angels would be no different than another Chapter entry.
2. Showcase Section isn't that big. Not a good argument.
3. Why are we limiting what we can't have? No reason Dark Angels shouldn't have Centurions, which honestly fit their Tactics well for a gunline. The only Chapter that has an excuse not to include something is Black Templars with Librarians, and that's literally covered in their Chapter Tactic section.
4. We've already discussed your "unique" datasheets aren't all that unique for the most part. You lose literally nothing by replacing "Deathwing" with the regular Terminator section anymore than you lost anything with the other Mk Terminators. Not that there should entries for those, for the record.
5. Nobody NEEDS 6 separate Warlord Traits, Relics, Psyker Powers, and that many Stratagems. 3 Warlord Traits and Powers, 4 Relics, and 5 Stratagems covers a lot more than you want to believe as you have this inane idea that if nothing is separate nothing can be unique. This mindset is what led to the Supplements being a thing, and they should NOT be a thing.

1. Lots of people like the fluff sections. If your argument is "you can cut out the fluff", you're killing half the appeal of codices.
2. It's big enough, and interesting enough for people who like fluff, that it would be missed if it was cut or even pared down. Glad to see you acknowledge your point wasn't a good argument, though.
3. Because in their lore, Dark Angels are extremely distrustful of new developments and anything that goes outside their way of doing things, and will avoid taking them on as far as possible.
4. Yes, if you take out all the things that make Deathwing unique and give them to everyone else, then Deathwing have nothing unique.
5. That's pure opinion - it's impossible to refute because you've drawn a totally arbitrary line and said "this is acceptable but that is not." Some people like having more variety and more options, others think these can be pared back without it affecting the game too much. Neither side is wrong, neither side is right.

You still didn't answer the question. There are 1000 Chapters all with a bunch of stuff that's secret technology and all that garbage.

1. You're not refuting the argument of the fluff sections being too big anyway to try and increase the price of the codex. I didn't say to lose the fluff, I said to lose around half of it because half of it is not even close to necessary.
2. I'm saying it isn't a good argument on your end, actually. Neither Chapter requires a bigger showcase than any other Chapter in the main codex. Why you think that is a mystery.
3. That's probably one of the worst arguments I've seen. Nothing about Centurions interferes with their way of doing things or their Successors. Why wouldn't a Successor have access to them or Thunderfire Cannons? Unless you can actually give a reasonable idea of how, you're just making stuff up because they're "super secretive".
4. Nobody mixes loadouts because mixed loadouts do jack gak, and you already weren't taking Plasma Cannons. If anything, trying to say they're unique is incorrect. Bad options might as well not be options anyway. If other Chapters could mix and/or Deathwing lost Plasma Cannons, nobody would notice outside the fluff bunnies, who honestly shouldn't have any say whatsoever on game balance and design.
5. No, one side IS wrong because the wrong side is the one leading to the same bloat that happened in 7th. How quickly people forget, huh?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. You're not refuting the argument of the fluff sections being too big anyway to try and increase the price of the codex. I didn't say to lose the fluff, I said to lose around half of it because half of it is not even close to necessary.

So you admit you want to cut background which, again, is a large part of the reason some people buy the codices.

2. I'm saying it isn't a good argument on your end, actually.

Neither Chapter requires a bigger showcase than any other Chapter in the main codex. Why you think that is a mystery.

It's almost like having their own showcase allows them to showcase shared stuff (tacticals, primaris, vehicles etc) as well as the unique things (ravenwing, deathwing, special characters) and give photos which show off their unique style of combat.

3. That's probably one of the worst arguments I've seen. Nothing about Centurions interferes with their way of doing things or their Successors. Why wouldn't a Successor have access to them or Thunderfire Cannons? Unless you can actually give a reasonable idea of how, you're just making stuff up because they're "super secretive".

Being secretive and being distrustful of new tech are (subtly) different. Dark Angels are explicitly distrustful of techmarines (given the dual loyalty to the chapter and to Mars) and don't trust them to do more than necessary, which is why they don't use techmarine-piloted artillery.

4. Nobody mixes loadouts because mixed loadouts do jack gak

I do. Just because you think they're inefficient from a power gaming perspective (and I'm not saying you're wrong about that) doesn't mean people don't run them.

and you already weren't taking Plasma Cannons. If anything, trying to say they're unique is incorrect. Bad options might as well not be options anyway. If other Chapters could mix and/or Deathwing lost Plasma Cannons, nobody would notice outside the fluff bunnies, who honestly shouldn't have any say whatsoever on game balance and design.

Where do you think game ideas come from? Here's a hint: it's almost never just from "we need to fill a gap for balance reasons" - a lot of the time, fluff comes first, and game design follows it, so yes, background absolutely should be taken into account with game design.

5. No, one side IS wrong because the wrong side is the one leading to the same bloat that happened in 7th. How quickly people forget, huh?

So having DA / BA etc separate led to the 7th edition rules bloat? But they'd had separate codices since, what, 4th?

Huh. Almost like you're mistaken about the cause and effect there.

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. You're not refuting the argument of the fluff sections being too big anyway to try and increase the price of the codex. I didn't say to lose the fluff, I said to lose around half of it because half of it is not even close to necessary.

So you admit you want to cut background which, again, is a large part of the reason some people buy the codices.

2. I'm saying it isn't a good argument on your end, actually.

Neither Chapter requires a bigger showcase than any other Chapter in the main codex. Why you think that is a mystery.

It's almost like having their own showcase allows them to showcase shared stuff (tacticals, primaris, vehicles etc) as well as the unique things (ravenwing, deathwing, special characters) and give photos which show off their unique style of combat.

3. That's probably one of the worst arguments I've seen. Nothing about Centurions interferes with their way of doing things or their Successors. Why wouldn't a Successor have access to them or Thunderfire Cannons? Unless you can actually give a reasonable idea of how, you're just making stuff up because they're "super secretive".

Being secretive and being distrustful of new tech are (subtly) different. Dark Angels are explicitly distrustful of techmarines (given the dual loyalty to the chapter and to Mars) and don't trust them to do more than necessary, which is why they don't use techmarine-piloted artillery.

4. Nobody mixes loadouts because mixed loadouts do jack gak

I do. Just because you think they're inefficient from a power gaming perspective (and I'm not saying you're wrong about that) doesn't mean people don't run them.

and you already weren't taking Plasma Cannons. If anything, trying to say they're unique is incorrect. Bad options might as well not be options anyway. If other Chapters could mix and/or Deathwing lost Plasma Cannons, nobody would notice outside the fluff bunnies, who honestly shouldn't have any say whatsoever on game balance and design.

Where do you think game ideas come from? Here's a hint: it's almost never just from "we need to fill a gap for balance reasons" - a lot of the time, fluff comes first, and game design follows it, so yes, background absolutely should be taken into account with game design.

5. No, one side IS wrong because the wrong side is the one leading to the same bloat that happened in 7th. How quickly people forget, huh?

So having DA / BA etc separate led to the 7th edition rules bloat? But they'd had separate codices since, what, 4th?

Huh. Almost like you're mistaken about the cause and effect there.

1. Not all the background is necessary. Nobody would've noticed if half of it was cut out in the last codex and you can't deny that at this point. That's just plain ignorance.
2. Wow, it is almost as though their Terminators would take up the same amount of space as...Terminators of other Chapters! Wowzers! Got anything else amazing to say???
3. If this were at all correct, Techmarines wouldn't even see the battlefield and wouldn't be an entry, seeing as they can't be trusted with much. This also would mean they shouldn't have access to relics, because why trust someone Loyal to Mars with something like Heavenfall, a clearly important sword, or Foesmiter, a clearly important Bolt weapon.
So which shall it be?
4. That means people are just fielding a unit just for it to die the next turn having done nothing. Guess how little I care to hear from those people on game balance?
And no, reliance on background for rules has always been bad. Remember D weapons being available for everyone and their mother in an Eldar army? Space Marines being able to requisition more vehicles because of impending doom and therefore getting them free?
5. This did lead to bloat, yes. It simply got worse as editions progressed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

4. That means people are just fielding a unit just for it to die the next turn having done nothing. Guess how little I care to hear from those people on game balance?

This is your mistake condensed to its finest point.

Game balance is not the only thing that matters in 40K. Until you can understand that some people are looking for a different experience, your arguments about why stuff doesn't matter are completely irrelevant to a significant portion of the player base.

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

4. That means people are just fielding a unit just for it to die the next turn having done nothing. Guess how little I care to hear from those people on game balance?

This is your mistake condensed to its finest point.

Game balance is not the only thing that matters in 40K. Until you can understand that some people are looking for a different experience, your arguments about why stuff doesn't matter are completely irrelevant to a significant portion of the player base.

Game balance is more relevant than the feelings of some fluff bunnies. Your type of thinking already almost killed the game in 7th and it's already repeating itself with the endless supplements and "campaigns".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

4. That means people are just fielding a unit just for it to die the next turn having done nothing. Guess how little I care to hear from those people on game balance?

This is your mistake condensed to its finest point.

Game balance is not the only thing that matters in 40K. Until you can understand that some people are looking for a different experience, your arguments about why stuff doesn't matter are completely irrelevant to a significant portion of the player base.

Game balance is more relevant than the feelings of some fluff bunnies. Your type of thinking already almost killed the game in 7th and it's already repeating itself with the endless supplements and "campaigns".

Cool.

It's now apparent that you don't care about a significant part of the player base, don't understand how to consider other points of view, and resort to name-calling and petty insults to undermine people rather than even trying to engage in good faith.

I'm done trying to have a sensible discussion with you.

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

4. That means people are just fielding a unit just for it to die the next turn having done nothing. Guess how little I care to hear from those people on game balance?

This is your mistake condensed to its finest point.

Game balance is not the only thing that matters in 40K. Until you can understand that some people are looking for a different experience, your arguments about why stuff doesn't matter are completely irrelevant to a significant portion of the player base.

Game balance is more relevant than the feelings of some fluff bunnies. Your type of thinking already almost killed the game in 7th and it's already repeating itself with the endless supplements and "campaigns".

Cool.

It's now apparent that you don't care about a significant part of the player base, don't understand how to consider other points of view, and resort to name-calling and petty insults to undermine people rather than even trying to engage in good faith.

I'm done trying to have a sensible discussion with you.

Seeing as that's the mindset to justify things like D Weapons, yeah I do dismiss fluff bunnies as someone reasonable to have discussion with.

I feel like, at this point, the thread has about run its course. Both "sides" have stated their opinions and reasons for those opinions, and it doesn't seem like anyone is willing to give up their stance in favor of their "opposition's". Probably best to just lock this one up.

 flandarz wrote:
I feel like, at this point, the thread has about run its course. Both "sides" have stated their opinions and reasons for those opinions, and it doesn't seem like anyone is willing to give up their stance in favor of their "opposition's". Probably best to just lock this one up.

I'd agree with you on that one, flandarz, especially with the debating "style" of certain users.

 flandarz wrote:
I feel like, at this point, the thread has about run its course. Both "sides" have stated their opinions and reasons for those opinions, and it doesn't seem like anyone is willing to give up their stance in favor of their "opposition's". Probably best to just lock this one up.

When terms like "fluff bunnies" are thrown around, I think that's for the best.

I might also be pro-consolidation, but I do not support the idea of ignoring or invalidating people's experiences of the game because they're "fluff bunnies". Hell, I'm sure Slayer regards me as one.

 flandarz wrote:
I feel like, at this point, the thread has about run its course. Both "sides" have stated their opinions and reasons for those opinions, and it doesn't seem like anyone is willing to give up their stance in favor of their "opposition's". Probably best to just lock this one up.

If the discussion was just: could DA/BA/etc work as a supplement there's a fair few of us throughout here that have agreed that's possible. Y'know, compromised on it if you will. The line seems to be about rewriting the core+ codices during the said supplement-isation of those factions, which is where the problem is since there's no common ground

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I feel like, at this point, the thread has about run its course. Both "sides" have stated their opinions and reasons for those opinions, and it doesn't seem like anyone is willing to give up their stance in favor of their "opposition's". Probably best to just lock this one up.

When terms like "fluff bunnies" are thrown around, I think that's for the best.

I might also be pro-consolidation, but I do not support the idea of ignoring or invalidating people's experiences of the game because they're "fluff bunnies". Hell, I'm sure Slayer regards me as one.

I wouldn't object to consolidation in principle, I'm just waiting for someone to give a good reason why it would be better than the current situation. I'm just annoyed at Slayer consistently moving the goalposts, misrepresenting people, and dismissing people out of hand if they say anything that disagrees with his viewpoints.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The Dark Angels are a secretive Chapter that might also be a Legion.

Like the relictors.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
They have a terrible secret and a hidden agenda.

Like the relictors!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The have a large collection of ancient technology and weapons and also do not fully trust their Techmarines.

Like the relictors!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
They have lots of Plasma.

Not like the relictors!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Why have Centurions when you have lots of Terminator suits.

Why have centurion when you can have DAEMONIC ARMOR!!!

Aelyn wrote:
So you admit you want to cut background which, again, is a large part of the reason some people buy the codices.

It does seem fair and natural to have a common marine codex where you get some equivalent amount of fluff for all "official" chapters, and all the extra fluff for each chapter in a dedicated supplement, though. Better for newcomers too, as someone mentioned!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

4. That means people are just fielding a unit just for it to die the next turn having done nothing. Guess how little I care to hear from those people on game balance?

This is your mistake condensed to its finest point.

Game balance is not the only thing that matters in 40K. Until you can understand that some people are looking for a different experience, your arguments about why stuff doesn't matter are completely irrelevant to a significant portion of the player base.

Game balance is more relevant than the feelings of some fluff bunnies.

Citation needed.

If game balance is all you care about, Chess is better.

My personal opinion is that balance and fluff are equally, and incredibly, important. But if I had to choose a fluffy game with no balance or a balanced game with no fluff, I would lean towards the latter every time. Preferably you'd have both in equal measure, however.

Jeesus. This Slayer guy is a little bit off

123ply wrote:
Jeesus. This Slayer guy is a little bit off

There's nothing wrong with preferring the game to be balanced, and that being *your* personal preference from what experience you get from the game. But calling other people's views irrelevant because they don't match yours, and using language like "fluff bunnies" in an attempt to belittle the people who enjoy the game differently? Not cool.

I have a feeling that Slayer is Dakka's equivalent of Orson in GOT, but instead of smashing beetles, he just sits in a dark corner of his basement smashing BA, SW, and DA models.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But calling other people's views irrelevant because they don't match yours, and using language like "fluff bunnies" in an attempt to belittle the people who enjoy the game differently? Not cool.

Competitive players are regularly called WAAC or TFG also. It goes both ways.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But calling other people's views irrelevant because they don't match yours, and using language like "fluff bunnies" in an attempt to belittle the people who enjoy the game differently? Not cool.

Competitive players are regularly called WAAC or TFG also. It goes both ways.

"An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind".

"Fluffbunny", "WAAC", "CAAC" and more are loaded terms. They can be used in moderation to reasonable effect, but when they're slung around they just ruin discorse. It doesn't really matter whether it's "WAAC" or "CAAC" you're shouting at all the time - all that gets heard is incoherent shouting.

TFG is something entirely different. The concept itself isn't loaded - it's *That friggen guy*. He's a nasty piece of work. He can be any of the above (yes, there are fluffbunny TFGs). It's still an extreme term, but carries more weight. References to TFG are like saying "I have no interest interacting with X". The term can be used to proper and reasonable effect, but overuse of course dilutes it's meaning and trivializes the speaker's points.

When you consider yourself more competitive, you see 'WAAC' get bandied about all the time. When you consider yourself narrative, you see 'CAAC' get bandied about all the time. It's sharpening. There are TFGs of every stripe, and many of them use 'WAAC' and 'CAAC' far too casually. And it's easy to be incensed by those who oppose you while minimizing/ignoring those who agree with you (Hence why "the media" has always had a consistant "liberal" or "conservative" bias according to most politicos. Which way it leans is always in opposition to the perceiver).

Instead of excusing excessive use of 'CAAC' or 'WAAC' because "the other side does it, too", stop defending your "allies" who use it. Start respecting the form of discourse (by ignoring and/or calling out bad actors), and discourse will be more constructive.

TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But calling other people's views irrelevant because they don't match yours, and using language like "fluff bunnies" in an attempt to belittle the people who enjoy the game differently? Not cool.

Competitive players are regularly called WAAC or TFG also. It goes both ways.

I never said it didn't. As you said - it goes both ways, but that doesn't excuse it, from either side.

Slayer and I are both on the "side" of consolidation in this argument, but I'm still going to call out comments like that.

Bharring wrote:
"An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind".

"Fluffbunny", "WAAC", "CAAC" and more are loaded terms. They can be used in moderation to reasonable effect, but when they're slung around they just ruin discorse. It doesn't really matter whether it's "WAAC" or "CAAC" you're shouting at all the time - all that gets heard is incoherent shouting.

TFG is something entirely different. The concept itself isn't loaded - it's *That friggen guy*. He's a nasty piece of work. He can be any of the above (yes, there are fluffbunny TFGs). It's still an extreme term, but carries more weight. References to TFG are like saying "I have no interest interacting with X". The term can be used to proper and reasonable effect, but overuse of course dilutes it's meaning and trivializes the speaker's points.

When you consider yourself more competitive, you see 'WAAC' get bandied about all the time. When you consider yourself narrative, you see 'CAAC' get bandied about all the time. It's sharpening. There are TFGs of every stripe, and many of them use 'WAAC' and 'CAAC' far too casually. And it's easy to be incensed by those who oppose you while minimizing/ignoring those who agree with you (Hence why "the media" has always had a consistant "liberal" or "conservative" bias according to most politicos. Which way it leans is always in opposition to the perceiver).

Instead of excusing excessive use of 'CAAC' or 'WAAC' because "the other side does it, too", stop defending your "allies" who use it. Start respecting the form of discourse (by ignoring and/or calling out bad actors), and discourse will be more constructive.

I'm not stating a preference for one way or another. I'll stay within the boundaries of the conversation as low or as high as it goes. Slayer's not wrong though, bringing canonical reasoning to a rules discussion is pretty stupid though. We might as well have Dan Abnett write the rules and really call it an RPG and stop pretending it's attempting any competitive balance. We can have fan-fiction tournaments and cosplay, maybe some women will actually show up.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
I'm not stating a preference for one way or another. I'll stay within the boundaries of the conversation as low or as high as it goes. Slayer's not wrong though, bringing canonical reasoning to a rules discussion is pretty stupid though. We might as well have Dan Abnett write the rules and really call it an RPG and stop pretending it's attempting any competitive balance. We can have fan-fiction tournaments and cosplay, maybe some women will actually show up.

The topic is not about rules only, though, is it? Fluff and rules are equally influencing each other here. DA have different rules because the fluff says so. Because the fluff says they are like that, they got unit X as a model. So bringing fluff into the discussion is not stupid. Some people just can't be nice to each other on the internet, once somebody has a different opinion.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
I'm not stating a preference for one way or another. I'll stay within the boundaries of the conversation as low or as high as it goes.

Fair enough, but I think it's important to ensure that those boundaries don't get to the point where any party should feel free to insult people because of their preferences. Whichever side you're on - it's poor discourse, and if all you can rely on is insulting swathes of people because they don't enjoy the game like you do, you probably shouldn't post.

See it, call it out. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Slayer's not wrong though, bringing canonical reasoning to a rules discussion is pretty stupid though.

When the canon and lore are oftentimes what guide the rules, I don't think it's a stupid reasoning at all. After all, it's a combination of the two that keep people invested in the game. Would I still play 40k if it was stripped of all the lore and background that I love? No, I'd probably go and play something else.

I think it's important to remember that both not everyone cares for the game to be ultra-balanced (I don't), but also that the game can be reflective of the canon/lore, and also balanced. Price things appropriately, and we'll get there one day.

maybe some women will actually show up.

Not cool. There's plenty of women in the hobby as is. And if making the hobby more rules-tight would drive them away (as you seem to imply), I think that's a pretty good reason to not do that.

a_typical_hero wrote:
The topic is not about rules only, though, is it? Fluff and rules are equally influencing each other here. DA have different rules because the fluff says so. Because the fluff says they are like that, they got unit X as a model. So bringing fluff into the discussion is not stupid. Some people just can't be nice to each other on the internet, once somebody has a different opinion.

We are definitely playing in the fluff times, that's for sure. Closest the game has ever had to movie marines. Not surprisingly, everyone else feels like they're playing NPC factions.

You do recognize that you can't really balance fluff right? You do realize that using fluff as justification is completely antithetical to any attempt at balance right? You might as well toss the math out the window and just call out random verbs at the table and claim victory.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
I'm not stating a preference for one way or another. I'll stay within the boundaries of the conversation as low or as high as it goes. Slayer's not wrong though, bringing canonical reasoning to a rules discussion is pretty stupid though. We might as well have Dan Abnett write the rules and really call it an RPG and stop pretending it's attempting any competitive balance. We can have fan-fiction tournaments and cosplay, maybe some women will actually show up.

The topic is not about rules only, though, is it? Fluff and rules are equally influencing each other here. DA have different rules because the fluff says so. Because the fluff says they are like that, they got unit X as a model. So bringing fluff into the discussion is not stupid. Some people just can't be nice to each other on the internet, once somebody has a different opinion.

Exactly. Though I support consolidation, that doesn't mean it's not guided by my understanding of the fluff. For me, my interpretation is that while the DA/BA/SW Chapters are absolutely unique and special, so is every other First Founding Chapter, and because I can replicate all the mechanical differences between the DA/BA/SW and the baseline Space Marines without too much paperwork, I think that it would be more fair and more accommodating for new players if they were treated as supplements.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
You do recognize that you can't really balance fluff right? You do realize that using fluff as justification is completely antithetical to any attempt at balance right? You might as well toss the math out the window and just call out random verbs at the table and claim victory.

The point that was discussed was allowing Terminator squads to take a mixed loadout for fluff reasons. An option that is even seen as weaker than specialising. The option is there in addition and some people enjoy it. What are you trying to express here with your statement?

Fluff is the reason why rules exist. Somebody in the 80s thought about some guy in space armour with a gun first and then created a statline for it. The fluff that this guy in space armor is genetically enhanced is the justification that the statline is better than that of an unaugmented human.
Fluff is the justification why things exist. It is not the reason why 30 years later an Intercessor Marine costs 17 points. I have not seen anybody make that argument in this thread, though.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Fluff is the reason why rules exist. Somebody in the 80s thought about some guy in space armour with a gun first and then created a statline for it. The fluff that this guy in space armor is genetically enhanced is the justification that the statline is better than that of an unaugmented human.
Fluff is the justification why things exist. It is not the reason why 30 years later an Intercessor Marine costs 17 points. I have not seen anybody make that argument in this thread, though.

Fluff is what you drape over rules to give them form and make them pretty, not the other way around.