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.

I don't agree fully, as I think it depends on what you are doing.
If you come up with something completely new, you are thinking of fluff first. Try to think about a new game you want to create. Your first thoughts are (depending on your preferences) how it is going to look, what would be the core concept.

You might think about a group of adventurers going into a dungeon to slay dragons.
Later you come up with playable classes like ranger and knight.
At some point after you would put a knight's ability to shield bash into a ruleset.

You would not think "throw a dice, on a 3+ enemy takes a point of damage if they are adjacent to me and they get shoved" first and THEN put that ability to a knight in a fantasy setting.

If you have something existing in front of you and you want to rebalance it. Let's say you have a sci-fi faction who needs some anti-air, then you would maybe think first what kind of weapon profile would be okay within the given game and later come up with a suitable weapon platform for it.


On an unrelated note... isn't GW even model first, then fluff/rules? Thought I read something like that once.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

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.

Why should `Fluff` be purely a coat of paint atop the rulesset?

That's certainly a technically possible form of design. But what makes that superior to:
-Rules being what you drape over fluff to provide consistency and balance, not the other way around.
or
-Fluff is what you drape over a model to give it justification to be played. And rules are what you drape over fluff to make it work.

Or, more likely, the game design is an evolutionary process of rule, fluff, and model concerns. Each facet impacting the other two over time as the game continues to evolve/be updated. After all, the rules with no fluff is just a clunky form of chess/flip-a-coin. And the fluff with no rules is just a clunky form of collaberative storytelling. And models without fluff or rules are just clunky lumps of meaningless plastic.

No one of those three (fluff, rules, models) means much without the other two to anchor it.

Model first, but that models design has to fit the faction it's for. So historic models, artwork and fluff will be referenced for this.

They dont design models without looking at what's around it

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

They're the ones in complete denial of the state of certain aspects of the game. Someone more casual might see them, but those in denial fit the term perfectly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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!

Ding ding ding we have a winner


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if y'all really think the Angels should be their own codex, they also should not have any Doctrines or Super Doctrines.

Bharring wrote:
Why should `Fluff` be purely a coat of paint atop the rulesset?

Because it is fiction, spurious, made-up, not grounded in math, in other words, a lie.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Why should `Fluff` be purely a coat of paint atop the rulesset?

Because it is fiction, spurious, made-up, not grounded in math, in other words, a lie.

Doesn't sound dissimilar to 40k's guidelines - sorry, "rules".

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Why should `Fluff` be purely a coat of paint atop the rulesset?

Because it is fiction, spurious, made-up, not grounded in math, in other words, a lie.

Rules are fiction, spurious, made-up as well - just as much a "lie" as the fluff.

As for being "grounded in math", some fluff is just as grounded in math.

I think your "grounded in math" point was actually a reference to rules being a technical implementation independent of meaning. Which is an important point.

I *think* where we differ is that you want a technical implementation independent of meaning - because you enjoy the technical implementation regardless of meaning. I want a technical implementation *of* the meaning because I enjoy the meaning evoked by the technical implementation.

To that end, "Rules to implement Fluff" and "Fluff only to excuse Rules" are two entirely different (and rational) *goals*. We want different things.

I'd argue that 40k has always been a far superior implementation of "Rules to implement Fluff" than "Fluff only to excuse Rules". I'd go much further, and say that there's much better hobbies for those who want "Fluff only to excuse Rules". But I'd also hope the game aims to scratch the itch of as many players as possible - so hopefully 40k can make us both happy.

So I return to my original question, presented differently, under the light of the above:
"Why should we discard any rationale based on 'Rules to implement Fluff' as stupid, in deference to 'Fluff only to excuse Rules'"?

Bharring wrote:
Rules are fiction, spurious, made-up as well - just as much a "lie" as the fluff.

Only if math is a lie. Last I checked, math isn't a lie, it can be proven, it does in fact, rely on these things called 'proofs'. These 'proofs' can be reliably demonstrated repeatedly under different circumstances. This is one of the aspects that separates them from fiction.

Let me know when you find proofs for your fiction.

Game design relies heavily on math, demonstrable math, probability curves, in fact, entire advanced degrees are based on this. Some variations of these advanced degrees are used in such heady environments as national defense and foreign policy, where they often fall under the heading of game theory.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Because GW released some unique models for them. A "supplement" is a Codex that has only unique character models, a "Codex" has unique units as well.

Disproved by the very first supplement, Ultramarines. Several unique units in there.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Rules are fiction, spurious, made-up as well - just as much a "lie" as the fluff.

Only if math is a lie. Last I checked, math isn't a lie, it can be proven, it does in fact, rely on these things called 'proofs'. These 'proofs' can be reliably demonstrated repeatedly under different circumstances. This is one of the aspects that separates them from fiction.

Funny asdie that doesn't shift the argument:
All mathematical proofs are based on postulates. Things not proven. Therefore, no (math) proofs are necessarily any more true than any other fiction. The only thing truly proven is "I think therefore I am" - everything else is a "lie".

More serious response:
Rules are fictions, by definition. They're no less made-up or spurious than any other fiction. If those descriptors mean something is a "lie", then rules, too, are a "lie". They're "just" made-up constructs.

The only real difference is that "fluff" is descriptive and "rules" are proscriptive. That is a real difference, but it doesn't make one better than the other.

Let me know when you find proofs for your fiction.

Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Jungle provided more "proofs" than 40ks Battle Primer. Not "formal" or "mathematical" proofs, but neither did the 40k Battle Primer.

Game design relies heavily on math, demonstrable math, probability curves, in fact, entire advanced degrees are based on this. Some variations of these advanced degrees are used in such heady environments as national defense and foreign policy, where they often fall under the heading of game theory.

Which is all used to assign rules to meaning. Not the other way around.

Bharring wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Rules are fiction, spurious, made-up as well - just as much a "lie" as the fluff.

Only if math is a lie. Last I checked, math isn't a lie, it can be proven, it does in fact, rely on these things called 'proofs'. These 'proofs' can be reliably demonstrated repeatedly under different circumstances. This is one of the aspects that separates them from fiction.

Funny asdie that doesn't shift the argument:
All mathematical proofs are based on postulates. Things not proven. Therefore, no (math) proofs are necessarily any more true than any other fiction. The only thing truly proven is "I think therefore I am" - everything else is a "lie".

More serious response:
Rules are fictions, by definition. They're no less made-up or spurious than any other fiction. If those descriptors mean something is a "lie", then rules, too, are a "lie". They're "just" made-up constructs.

The only real difference is that "fluff" is descriptive and "rules" are proscriptive. That is a real difference, but it doesn't make one better than the other.

Let me know when you find proofs for your fiction.

Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Jungle provided more "proofs" than 40ks Battle Primer. Not "formal" or "mathematical" proofs, but neither did the 40k Battle Primer.

Game design relies heavily on math, demonstrable math, probability curves, in fact, entire advanced degrees are based on this. Some variations of these advanced degrees are used in such heady environments as national defense and foreign policy, where they often fall under the heading of game theory.

Which is all used to assign rules to meaning. Not the other way around.

Exalted for the content and consistently taking the high road!

Bharring wrote:
All mathematical proofs are based on postulates. Things not proven. Therefore, no (math) proofs are necessarily any more true than any other fiction. The only thing truly proven is "I think therefore I am" - everything else is a "lie".

Kant disagrees with you.

Bharring wrote:
Rules are fictions, by definition. They're no less made-up or spurious than any other fiction. If those descriptors mean something is a "lie", then rules, too, are a "lie". They're "just" made-up constructs.

The difference being that rules and math are systemic and fiction is arbitrary. So by definition, you're looking for an arbitrary game, at which point you might as well just scribble in crayon on a piece paper and claim victory.

Bharring wrote:
Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Jungle provided more "proofs" than 40ks Battle Primer. Not "formal" or "mathematical" proofs, but neither did the 40k Battle Primer.

Again, a matter of opinion, and we're back to arbitrary conditions which adhere to no discernible system.

Bharring wrote:
Which is all used to assign rules to meaning. Not the other way around.

We should let all those game designers that they don't need to do math anymore, I'm sure they'll appreciate the easier path to getting their degrees. We can just agree that the game is entirely arbitrary, I feel my win percentages rising already.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Bharring wrote:
All mathematical proofs are based on postulates. Things not proven. Therefore, no (math) proofs are necessarily any more true than any other fiction. The only thing truly proven is "I think therefore I am" - everything else is a "lie".

Kant disagrees with you.

First time I've seen Kant as rejecting his "Things, themselves, are unknowable" concept. But this gets really deep, and won't get us anywhere productive (unless we have a *really* long time to discuss).

Bharring wrote:
Rules are fictions, by definition. They're no less made-up or spurious than any other fiction. If those descriptors mean something is a "lie", then rules, too, are a "lie". They're "just" made-up constructs.

The difference being that rules and math are systemic and fiction is arbitrary. So by definition, you're looking for an arbitrary game, at which point you might as well just scribble in crayon on a piece paper and claim victory.

There's a lot to unpack here.

First, rules are arbitrary, just like all other fictions. The rule could just as logically be "$model hits on a 3+" as "$model hits on a 4+".

It seems less arbitrary, because you assume certain consistencies in rules. For example, the more expensive model should be "more powerful". Likewise, we assume certain consistencies in fluff. The guy with his arms tied behind his back isn't swinging his fists in front of him.

Second, fluff is systemic. If $superPower is against all foreign powers, and $otherPower is added to the fluff, the system says $superPower is against $otherPower. Now, when writing the fluff of $otherPower, you could write an exception to this part of the system. Which, again, is no different from rules writing.

Third, I think you're conflating "Construct from the mind of Man" with "Arbitrary". I've named one of my RPG characters "Tonivan". It's a fiction. But not completely arbitrary. He's not an Elf, so it's not some flowery over-vowelled poetic moniker. He's not an Ork, so it's not a moderately-modulated grunt. He's a guy, so it's not a female name. A fiction, to be sure. Somewhat arbitrary, sure. But not completely-random no-meaning "arbitrary".

Bharring wrote:
Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Jungle provided more "proofs" than 40ks Battle Primer. Not "formal" or "mathematical" proofs, but neither did the 40k Battle Primer.

Again, a matter of opinion, and we're back to arbitrary conditions which adhere to no discernible system.

Uncle Tom's Cabin and The Jungle, each, were far less arbitrary and adhered to far more demanding, expansive, and discernable systems than the 40k Battle Primer.

Bharring wrote:
Which is all used to assign rules to meaning. Not the other way around.

We should let all those game designers that they don't need to do math anymore, I'm sure they'll appreciate the easier path to getting their degrees.

Any hack can build a model then assign arbitrary meaning to it (such as "Fluff as an excuse for rules"). It's taking meaning and assigning a useful model that takes the math.

We can just agree that the game is entirely arbitrary, I feel my win percentages rising already.

We certainly can't agree to that. My Tactical Marines are much more likely to survive lasgun fire than my Guardians. That's not arbitrary. It's because Marines are heavily armored and super-tough. Which is modeled by a 3+ save and T4 (compared to a 5+ save and T3).

The game might be too arbitrary for some tastes (and I, too, wish it were a tighter/better rulesset). But it clearly is not entirely arbitrary.

Bharring wrote:
First time I've seen Kant as rejecting his "Things, themselves, are unknowable" concept. But this gets really deep, and won't get us anywhere productive (unless we have a *really* long time to discuss).

Kantian empiricism defines the God, the self, and the cosmos as concepts with which it is impossible to have direct experience, and consequently, we must remain agnostic about their existence.

Bharring wrote:
Second, fluff is systemic. If $superPower is against all foreign powers, and $otherPower is added to the fluff, the system says $superPower is against $otherPower. Now, when writing the fluff of $otherPower, you could write an exception to this part of the system. Which, again, is no different from rules writing.

That is some fascinating rationalization...that makes absolutely no sense. I can call an apple an orange also, it only makes me right in my own head.

Bharring wrote:
The game might be too arbitrary for some tastes (and I, too, wish it were a tighter/better rulesset). But it clearly is not entirely arbitrary.

No, but the fiction surrounding it is by definition arbitrary. But you seem to think they're inextricably tied together, like I can't possibly have a Strength versus Toughness mechanic without a Space Marine to enact it.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Bharring wrote:
First time I've seen Kant as rejecting his "Things, themselves, are unknowable" concept. But this gets really deep, and won't get us anywhere productive (unless we have a *really* long time to discuss).

Kantian empiricism defines the God, the self, and the cosmos as concepts with which it is impossible to have direct experience, and consequently, we must remain agnostic about their existence.

Which is an extension of, not a refutation of, "I think, therefore I am" (and other such tautologicals) being the only knowable thing(s).

Bharring wrote:
Second, fluff is systemic. If $superPower is against all foreign powers, and $otherPower is added to the fluff, the system says $superPower is against $otherPower. Now, when writing the fluff of $otherPower, you could write an exception to this part of the system. Which, again, is no different from rules writing.

That is some fascinating rationalization...that makes absolutely no sense. I can call an apple an orange also, it only makes me right in my own head.

What part of that made no sense? And you can call an apple an orange, or you can decide Marines hit on a 4+. They're both fictions in your head that other people typically don't hold.

Bharring wrote:
The game might be too arbitrary for some tastes (and I, too, wish it were a tighter/better rulesset). But it clearly is not entirely arbitrary.

No, but the fiction surrounding it is by definition arbitrary.

I can't express how wrong that is.

Are you familiar with "Internally Consistent"?

Someone can write a story about a world where mages throw "Cold Fire" around. Where that magical fire burns cold instead of hot. Fire being cold might be arbitrary. But ice forming where that "Cold Fire" hits a river is not. It's not consistent with our reality, but it is consistent with the story's reality. That's not arbitrary, despite being a fiction.

Similarly, the more-expensive model hitting on a 3+ and the cheaper one hitting on a 4+ is not arbitrary. It's internally consistent, in a system where more expensive models are more powerful. Just like the "Cold fire freezes rivers" rule, it's a fiction someone made up. But it's not arbitrary.

Fictions are typically not arbitrary. Nobody cares about "random name" who did "random thing" which resulted in "random result". Sometimes, those stories are painted really well (very descriptive, or great cinematography) - but beyond that they're rubbish, and generally universally reviled.

But you seem to think they're inextricably tied together, like I can't possibly have a Strength versus Toughness mechanic without a Space Marine to enact it.

You can have a mechanic without Strength/Toughness/Marine/etc behind it. I'm not saying that's impossible. I've played many games without any sort of fluff underpinning it (Poker? Quoridor? Blackjack?). What I'm saying is that they're not inherently superior to games where rules are built to model the fluff, instead (D&D, 40k, Starcraft, etc).

I'm further saying many of your assumed differences between fluff and rules are misunderstandings - both are fictions, both are systemic.

Bharring wrote:
Which is an extension of, not a refutation of, "I think, therefore I am" (and other such tautologicals) being the only knowable thing(s).

Yes, except when you call it a proof. It's proof of nothing other than you might be one of the prisoners in Plato's cave.

Bharring wrote:
What part of that made no sense? And you can call an apple an orange, or you can decide Marines hit on a 4+. They're both fictions in your head that other people typically don't hold.

Yes, but tomorrow I can call the orange a peach and it's still a fiction.

Bharring wrote:
I can't express how wrong that is.

Are you familiar with "Internally Consistent"?

Sure, but that's not a rule, that's something critics complain about, it's not a codified system. Chicago and Turabian citation styles are systems agreed upon for the sake of consistently communicating the origin of information within academic papers.

Fiction is what your 3 your old tells you when you ask why chocolate is smeared on their face.

Bharring wrote:
Someone can write a story about a world where mages throw "Cold Fire" around. Where that magical fire burns cold instead of hot. Fire being cold might be arbitrary. But ice forming where that "Cold Fire" hits a river is not. It's not consistent with our reality, but it is consistent with the story's reality. That's not arbitrary, despite being a fiction.

Until that one mage shows up and breaks all the rules, throwing the world into chaos! Arbitrary! What will the protagonists do?!

At this point I'm pretty sure we're speaking different languages. But keep calling fiction fact and we'll agree to disagree.

Yeah and when you say Starcraft, the various factions of Terran, Zerg, and Protoss aren't considered whole separate armies.

Bharring wrote:
What part of that made no sense? And you can call an apple an orange, or you can decide Marines hit on a 4+. They're both fictions in your head that other people typically don't hold.

Yes, but tomorrow I can call the orange a peach and it's still a fiction.

Likewise, tomorrow you could decide Marines hit on a 2+, and it's still a fiction.

Bharring wrote:
I can't express how wrong that is.

Are you familiar with "Internally Consistent"?

Sure, but that's not a rule, that's something critics complain about, it's not a codified system. Chicago and Turabian citation styles are systems agreed upon for the sake of consistently communicating the origin of information within academic papers.

Fiction is what your 3 your old tells you when you ask why chocolate is smeared on their face.

It's also what Tolkein committed to paper in `Lord of the Rings`. It's also the rules to Chess. It's also the US Constitution.

A lot of things are fiction. Including the rules to 40k (or any other game). Any codification is, by definition, a fiction.

As for "Internally Consistent"; anything that's intentionally consistent - internally or otherwise - is by definition not arbitrary.

Bharring wrote:
Someone can write a story about a world where mages throw "Cold Fire" around. Where that magical fire burns cold instead of hot. Fire being cold might be arbitrary. But ice forming where that "Cold Fire" hits a river is not. It's not consistent with our reality, but it is consistent with the story's reality. That's not arbitrary, despite being a fiction.

Until that one mage shows up and breaks all the rules, throwing the world into chaos! Arbitrary! What will the protagonists do?!

How is that different from "Until Marines 2.0 shows up and breaks all the rules, throwing the meta into chaos! Arbitrary! What will the protagonist do?!"?
(Which, of course, is not arbitrary - just like the one mage who showed up wasn't arbitrary. The author had it break the rules he broke for a reason.)

At this point I'm pretty sure we're speaking different languages. But keep calling fiction fact and we'll agree to disagree.

Deciding that Marines hit on a 3+ is a fiction. That the writers of 40k decided that Marines hit on a 3+ is a fact.

Just like Elves being humanoids is a fiction Tolkein wrote. But Tolkein having written Elves as humanoids is a fact.

Rules are fictions produced by rules-writers. What the rules are that the rules-writers made are facts. Replace 'rules' with 'fluff', and the statement is no less true. There's nothing magical about 'rules' that makes them inherently 'true'.

How do we flag a thread for moderator closing? This thread has been killed.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
How do we flag a thread for moderator closing? This thread has been killed.

Meta:
I would disagree.

TwinPoles and I are having a heated but civil discussion about whether "fluff" has any value at all. Implication being, if "fluff" means nothing compared to "rules" (beyond being a coat of paint), what "should" happen should only be derived from rules. What those rules are supposed to represent - any fluff or narrative or engaged argument is of zero value.

That is a very valid, on-topic subthread.

Bharring wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
How do we flag a thread for moderator closing? This thread has been killed.

Meta:
I would disagree.

TwinPoles and I are having a heated but civil discussion about whether "fluff" has any value at all. Implication being, if "fluff" means nothing compared to "rules" (beyond being a coat of paint), what "should" happen should only be derived from rules. What those rules are supposed to represent - any fluff or narrative or engaged argument is of zero value.

That is a very valid, on-topic subthread.

An argument which I feel has devolved into semantics and is therefore no longer worth pursuing.

While I agree with everything Bharring has said regarding the equal relevance and validity of fluff to rules, being determined by one's personal values and preferences, and the internal consistency of fluff being just as relevant and "real" as the internal consistency of game rules, I too think the current discussion should be it's own thread, or just not in this one.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

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

This is absolutely not how GW operates. They very much have a fluff first approach.

 Crimson wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

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

This is absolutely not how GW operates. They very much have a fluff first approach.

And look how well that has worked out! D Weapons for your Eldar that could almost be spammed! Decurion being a hot mess before other Super Formations and then Eldar made it lame! Skimmers being impossible to kill in 4th! Grav Weapons not making any sense for pricing!

That's literally just off the top of my head. It doesn't matter how they operate, they need to operate differently.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

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

This is absolutely not how GW operates. They very much have a fluff first approach.

And look how well that has worked out! D Weapons for your Eldar that could almost be spammed! Decurion being a hot mess before other Super Formations and then Eldar made it lame! Skimmers being impossible to kill in 4th! Grav Weapons not making any sense for pricing!

That's literally just off the top of my head. It doesn't matter how they operate, they need to operate differently.

That might be a damning retort against "fluff only", but not a problem of "fluff first". "First" doesn't mean "only".

Conversely, "rules only" gave us... nothing any of us would want to replace 40k with.

 flandarz wrote:
Again, this isn't a question of whether or not they can be fine as their own thing. It's whether or not it's necessary. Ie: are there practical reasons for them to be their own Codex, when it's been proven that a Chapter or sub-Faction can have all the things these ones do without needing a separate Codex?

How's this for practical?
Given that Dark Angels have a number of units that cannot be taken from the Space Marine Codex, turning Dark Angels into a supplement faction means that every time you release a new Space Marine codex, you must also either;
a) Release the Dark Angels supplement immediately
b) Include text in the main codex specifying which units cannot be used by Dark Angels.
Not doing one the above means that Dark Angels players might accidentally buy units that they cannot use in between release of the Codex and release of the Supplement.
By having the Dark Angels in their own separate codex, the above is unnecessary.

The same is true for Space Wolves and Black Templars. I can't speak for Blood Angels, I can't think of any Space Marine units that Blood Angels can't have (but that's just my lack of knowledge).


With that said, given how supplements have been handled this time around, I'd prefer if Dark Angels HAD been a supplement, albeit a thicker one than the others to accommodate for the number of unique units. One extra sheaf* of 16 pages aught to do it. We have 21 unique datasheets by my counting, compared to Ultramarines who have the next highest number at... 7? Extra pages are easy to justify given that difference. Regardless, we'd be in a far more powerful state right now by being a supplement army rather than a bespoke codex army. I've essentially locked my Dark Angels away in a cupboard and taken up playing Crimson Fists instead because I'm so sick of being behind the curve compared to standard marines. The year long wait at the start of 8th to get a codex which was already behind the curve really killed my enthusiasm for the faction. It looks like we're in for another long wait for disappointment now.

* I think that's the right book making term.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:I want to specifically tackle "are restricted from choosing certain SM units" from a lore front - why?

I can't speak for thunderfire cannons, but Sternguard, and Vanguard have a sound reason for being excluded from Dark Angels. Those are 1st company squads in power armour. Something which Dark Angels patently do not do, because they have enough terminator armour to cover the whole company.
I don't see reference to it in the current book, but I swear when centurions were introduced it was to 'make up for a lack of terminator armour availability in some chapters'. That was why Dark Angels were excluded. At least in my memory of events.
From a uniqueness perspective, we get the unique Deathwing Terminators datasheet with its plasma cannon, weapon variability and watcher in exchange for the loss of vanguard and sternguard. And yes, being able to put cyclone missile launchers on a model with a storm shield is a distinct advantage. It's not all about taking a random assortment of equipment in a 5 man unit. Equally, thanks to combat squads, Deathwing can essentially create 2 different units in one elite slot, one of tactical terminators with 2 heavy weapons, and one of assault terminators out of a single datasheet. Regular marines cannot do that. Is there a fluff reason? No, not really. As pointed out up thread, Space Hulk shows that mixed weaponry is fine in other chapters, but as a trade off for sternguard and vanguard? It seems only fair we should get something that regular marines don't. What we get is a more flexible terminator unit.

Zustiur wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
Again, this isn't a question of whether or not they can be fine as their own thing. It's whether or not it's necessary. Ie: are there practical reasons for them to be their own Codex, when it's been proven that a Chapter or sub-Faction can have all the things these ones do without needing a separate Codex?

How's this for practical?
Given that Dark Angels have a number of units that cannot be taken from the Space Marine Codex, turning Dark Angels into a supplement faction means that every time you release a new Space Marine codex, you must also either;
a) Release the Dark Angels supplement immediately
b) Include text in the main codex specifying which units cannot be used by Dark Angels.
Not doing one the above means that Dark Angels players might accidentally buy units that they cannot use in between release of the Codex and release of the Supplement.
By having the Dark Angels in their own separate codex, the above is unnecessary.

If Dark Angels are in the codex/codex supplement then their rules for what units they can/cannot take will also be in the codex or their supplement. Furthermore, if the rule is in their supplement, then they would still not have to immediately reprint the supplement as a rule along the lines of "Units X, Y and Z from Codex: Space Marines cannot be taken in a Dark Angels detachment" would still be perfectly functional.

Zustiur wrote:
Given that Dark Angels have a number of units that cannot be taken from the Space Marine Codex, turning Dark Angels into a supplement faction means that every time you release a new Space Marine codex, you must also either;
a) Release the Dark Angels supplement immediately
b) Include text in the main codex specifying which units cannot be used by Dark Angels.
Not doing one the above means that Dark Angels players might accidentally buy units that they cannot use in between release of the Codex and release of the Supplement.

c) release a small, minimal update to "Supplement Dark Angel" to make it functional with the new marine codex, until the supplement gets updated proper.
It's only a few month long anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zustiur wrote:
It seems only fair we should get something that regular marines don't.

what???

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

c) release a small, minimal update to "Supplement Dark Angel" to make it functional with the new marine codex, until the supplement gets updated proper.
It's only a few month long anyway.

Yes... But that doesn't change the point. Does this count as a practical consideration? I hold that it does. It's extra steps that must be taken because you're not treating Dark Angels as a separate codex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zustiur wrote:
It seems only fair we should get something that regular marines don't.

what???

You do realise you've cut that sentence away from its context, right? Dark Angels give up units that regular marines have and get their unique units instead. Fair's fair.

Zustiur wrote:
Yes... But that doesn't change the point. Does this count as a practical consideration? I hold that it does. It's extra steps that must be taken because you're not treating Dark Angels as a separate codex.

We also have some extra steps with them being a separate codex, with all the adding new Space Marines units in the DA codex before the new DA codex is out.

Zustiur wrote:
Dark Angels give up units that regular marines have and get their unique units instead.

First, I don't think it's good that only a very few chapters out of a thousand can do this kind of tradeoff, and bugger all for the rest.
Second, yeah, you get Deathwing Knights, no need for extra options for your normal terminators on top of it.

I mean, in my opinion, playing a subfaction in a fluffy way is all about restricting yourself to listbuilding rules that fit the subfaction/theme, not getting extra stuff that noone else has. For instance, it's not about having more plasma option than other, it's about using most of the plasma options you have!