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.

 JNAProductions wrote:


A stopgap would be adjust the points of their weapons, so they're more in-line with other options, but the best way forward is to revamp the Commander entirely.

Points changes don't fix much, if the core of the problem are not the points, but lack of functional rules.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Easier=/=better.

We aren't GW-we can do better than the lazy man's route.

Oh absolutely. I'm tired of creating fan rules though since nobody will use them. You know I worked for a straight month to better handle the new Marine codex just working out scenarios myself and what I would plan to do for other armies I had already planned out? I had base Vanilla Marines (with consolidated Angels), CSM, Necrons, and Space Wolves basically done and was planning to tackle Eldar next (though I had planned to ask for help on the traits).

I scrapped everything because who cares?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Easier=/=better.

We aren't GW-we can do better than the lazy man's route.

Oh absolutely. I'm tired of creating fan rules though since nobody will use them. You know I worked for a straight month to better handle the new Marine codex just working out scenarios myself and what I would plan to do for other armies I had already planned out? I had base Vanilla Marines (with consolidated Angels), CSM, Necrons, and Space Wolves basically done and was planning to tackle Eldar next (though I had planned to ask for help on the traits).

I scrapped everything because who cares?

"Who cares" is secondary. You could easily find enough players who *care*. You could easily get agreement that *something* should be done.

The real problem is *what* should be done. If you put 3 40k players in a room to come up with a complete rebalance, no two of them are likely to agree to the same complete rework.

It's very easy to look at a complex system and come up with a "solution"/"fix" that you "know" will "solve everything". That doesn't mean your "fix" actually solves anything. And it certainly doesn't mean anyone else will think your fix will solve anything. Worse yet, considering just about any individual's lack of ability, odds are your "perfect fix" will actually make things worse.

40k is a nontrivial system. I'm sure we could improve it. But it's very easy to make things worse if you don't know what you're talking about. And it's very easy to not know what you're talking about with how bloated and arcane the rules have gotten.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?

Unless you discard most of the weapon options, you actually can't.

Long story:


Short version: Take a few math courses, if necessary. Constant values can't be variable...

This hurts T'au Commanders more than most for two reasons. The first is that the "cheaper" unit has BS4+, and the "stronger" unit is BS2+. Most other factions only vary by 1 point of BS, so the difference isn't felt as much. Second, T'au Commanders and Crisis share a very wide array of weapons options, both in terms of what to kit for and how powerful the weapons are.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Easier=/=better.

We aren't GW-we can do better than the lazy man's route.

Oh absolutely. I'm tired of creating fan rules though since nobody will use them. You know I worked for a straight month to better handle the new Marine codex just working out scenarios myself and what I would plan to do for other armies I had already planned out? I had base Vanilla Marines (with consolidated Angels), CSM, Necrons, and Space Wolves basically done and was planning to tackle Eldar next (though I had planned to ask for help on the traits).

I scrapped everything because who cares?

"Who cares" is secondary. You could easily find enough players who *care*. You could easily get agreement that *something* should be done.

The real problem is *what* should be done. If you put 3 40k players in a room to come up with a complete rebalance, no two of them are likely to agree to the same complete rework.

It's very easy to look at a complex system and come up with a "solution"/"fix" that you "know" will "solve everything". That doesn't mean your "fix" actually solves anything. And it certainly doesn't mean anyone else will think your fix will solve anything. Worse yet, considering just about any individual's lack of ability, odds are your "perfect fix" will actually make things worse.

40k is a nontrivial system. I'm sure we could improve it. But it's very easy to make things worse if you don't know what you're talking about. And it's very easy to not know what you're talking about with how bloated and arcane the rules have gotten.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?

Unless you discard most of the weapon options, you actually can't.

Long story:

Spoiler:

Consider two units with two upgrade options:
You have two unit costs.
Lets say 10ppm for the cheaper, 20ppm for the stronger.
Cheaper is worth 5 units value. Stronger is worth 10 units of value.

They have 2 upgrade options.
One upgrade increases the model's value by 100%.
The other upgrade increases the model's value by 400%.

When considering the cheaper unit, the first upgrade should clearly be 10ppm - as selecting it provides as much value as adding another 10 points of models. And the second upgrade is clearly worth 40ppm. Any cheaper than that, and the upgrades are clearly better than getting more of the cheap model. Any more than that, and the upgrade is clearly not worth passing up taking more of the cheap model instead.

However, with those upgrades at 10ppm/40ppm - the only possibly fair value per above - they're a nobrainer for the stronger model. For only +10ppm, your stronger model goes from being worth 2 of the cheaper model, to being worth 4 of the cheaper model. In other words, you're paying 30ppm for 40pts worth of value. Same with the better upgrade - you're paying 60pts for the same value you'd get out of 100pts of the "cheaper" model.

So, in order to point the upgrades properly for the cheaper model, they are necessarily OP for the stronger model.

Now, improvements aren't pure factor improvements atop their base unit (most of the time). However, the value you get out of it does depend on the model upgraded. As such, there's no way to have constant point such that you have a weaker unit, stronger unit, weaker upgrade, and stronger upgrade, and they're each worth a constant point value regardless of which combination you take. Basic math.

Short version: Take a few math courses, if necessary. Constant values can't be variable...

This hurts T'au Commanders more than most for two reasons. The first is that the "cheaper" unit has BS4+, and the "stronger" unit is BS2+. Most other factions only vary by 1 point of BS, so the difference isn't felt as much. Second, T'au Commanders and Crisis share a very wide array of weapons options, both in terms of what to kit for and how powerful the weapons are.

1. 3 players stuck in a room could still do a better job at this point as they will eventually agree on something. That's not a good argument and you know that. Also getting rid of a lot of that unnecessary bloat is a good start!
2. IOW, the Commander still ends up being more expensive. Therefore you just add to the base cost. I've taken many math courses and your argument makes little sense. What you're describing is the same justification that made old units like Devastators have to pay more for their weapons, which was a bad idea in general.
If you raise the base cost of the Commander, the only weapon that really suffers is the Heavy Flamer, which you're not taking on a Commander anyway. So either you can have a Commander that's +20 points more expensive, or you can have a separate section of weapons and have to list them each as 10 points each more expensive. Seems like a waste of ink, doesn't it?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

[...]
1. 3 players stuck in a room could still do a better job at this point as they will eventually agree on something. That's not a good argument and you know that. Also getting rid of a lot of that unnecessary bloat is a good start!

It's not an argument against discussing improvements. It's an argument against assuming whatever changes the speaker has come up with are unquestionably an improvement. We might all agree that Melta Guns need a buff. But that's not the same thing as deciding exactly what rules Melta Guns should have.

2. IOW, the Commander still ends up being more expensive. Therefore you just add to the base cost.

You've completely whiffed the example.

If you increase the Commander's points such that, with the biggest upgrade, he's now fair, if the cheaper unit (Crisis Suits) are fair with any upgrade, then the Commander is now, necessarily, overcosted either unupgraded or with the weaker upgrade.

You can balance any one unit/upgrade very easily enough against an existing scheme. But you can't balance the whole set of units/upgrades fairly, as shown above.

I've taken many math courses and your argument makes little sense.

Then you've forgotten a lot about degrees of freedom and rates of change.
Reminder:


Short version: it's easy to balance any one option, if you forget about all the other options available.

All that said, you can generally get "close enough" in a lot of places. A Vyper and a WarWalker paying the same for a heavy weapon, for instance, isn't perfectly fair. But it's close enough.

Agreed with Bharring on weapons costing differently for different units.

The units having different stats is covered in their basic cost, but because those different stats may or may not be relevant in relation to the weapon they take (ie, flamers), their weaponry needs to be individually costed too. GW know about this, in the way that Scions pay more for their special weaponry than regular Guardsmen do, despite also costing more naturally.

Considering the exponential power boost a Tau Commander gets with their ranged weaponry, I think it only fair that they pay more, and not have their base cost increased instead (because screw anyone who wants flamers, right!)

Technicly GW is doing that already. A TH for a captin cost different from that on a sgt.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Agreed with Bharring on weapons costing differently for different units.

The units having different stats is covered in their basic cost, but because those different stats may or may not be relevant in relation to the weapon they take (ie, flamers), their weaponry needs to be individually costed too. GW know about this, in the way that Scions pay more for their special weaponry than regular Guardsmen do, despite also costing more naturally.

Considering the exponential power boost a Tau Commander gets with their ranged weaponry, I think it only fair that they pay more, and not have their base cost increased instead (because screw anyone who wants flamers, right!)

The power boost the Commander gets is with the BS2+ he pays for. That's the thing that's costed low, not the weapons. Paying more for both at the same time doesn't make sense.

And Scions shouldn't need to pay that much more for their weapons. The easiest solution to that would be to make Hot Shots free, bump their base cost up, so that the Hot Shot Scions are the same but they pay a little more for their other weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

[...]
1. 3 players stuck in a room could still do a better job at this point as they will eventually agree on something. That's not a good argument and you know that. Also getting rid of a lot of that unnecessary bloat is a good start!

It's not an argument against discussing improvements. It's an argument against assuming whatever changes the speaker has come up with are unquestionably an improvement. We might all agree that Melta Guns need a buff. But that's not the same thing as deciding exactly what rules Melta Guns should have.

2. IOW, the Commander still ends up being more expensive. Therefore you just add to the base cost.

You've completely whiffed the example.

If you increase the Commander's points such that, with the biggest upgrade, he's now fair, if the cheaper unit (Crisis Suits) are fair with any upgrade, then the Commander is now, necessarily, overcosted either unupgraded or with the weaker upgrade.

You can balance any one unit/upgrade very easily enough against an existing scheme. But you can't balance the whole set of units/upgrades fairly, as shown above.

I've taken many math courses and your argument makes little sense.

Then you've forgotten a lot about degrees of freedom and rates of change.
Reminder:

Spoiler:

You can't use a linear function to map 3+ nonlinear points.

If you have three points {a, b, c} such that the rate of change between {a, b} is not equal to the rate of change between {b, c}, then there exists no constant rate of change between all members of {a, b, c}.
The rate of change on a line is constant. Thus, the rate of change between any two points on that line is the same.
Therefore, there exists no line that encompasses {a, b, c}. They are not "colinear".

For choices to be balanced, any given number of points must have the same value per point for each of the choices available. That is to say, none of the choices can be "overcosted" or "undercosted".

If you have units that cost {a, b}, and upgrades that cost {c, d}, then choices {a, b, a+c, a+d, b+c, b+d} all must have an equal point:value ratio. Meaning, if you plotted {point, value} on a graph, each of those 6 points must be colinear (and that line must also include the null set - {0, 0}).

This is where things become impossible, for a couple reasons. The one I'll go with is to break down each of these by parts.

The system requires that, for any fair option X, points(X) / value(X) be a constant value.

If points(c) are constant,
And points(a+c) / value(a+c) = points(b+c) / value(b+c)
Then value(a+c) - value(a) must equal value(b+c) - value(b).

To put that last line in plainer terms, the difference in value between the unupgraded and upgraded versions of unit A and unit B must be the exact same *constant* value - irrespective of the unit.

As long as the incremental value of c in (a+c) is different in any way than the incremental value of c in (b+c), {a, b, c} cannot have constant values.

Thus, there is no constant points value for each of {Crisis Suits, Commanders, Burst Cannons, and Flamers}, such that each possible option is balanced.

Short version: it's easy to balance any one option, if you forget about all the other options available.

All that said, you can generally get "close enough" in a lot of places. A Vyper and a WarWalker paying the same for a heavy weapon, for instance, isn't perfectly fair. But it's close enough.

Under that logic, Heavy Flamers should be almost zero points for the Commander compared to the other options. Even at a super lower cost you're not going to take it though. Upgrades are also mandatory for the Commander.

Only of you don't understand that logic, like at all.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The power boost the Commander gets is with the BS2+ he pays for. That's the thing that's costed low, not the weapons. Paying more for both at the same time doesn't make sense.

Do Commanders pay more for flamers? They shouldn't, if they do.

And Scions shouldn't need to pay that much more for their weapons. The easiest solution to that would be to make Hot Shots free, bump their base cost up, so that the Hot Shot Scions are the same but they pay a little more for their other weapons.

But what about certain weapons being more efficient on Scions specifically, and not to others? For example, meltaguns/plasma guns vs flamers - flamers don't work in conjunction with 9" Deep Strike, and the BS bonus the Scions have is irrelevant in how flamers operate. Meanwhile, plasma guns and meltaguns benefit strongly from Scions, having Deep Strike to get close (and in the plasma gun' case, into rapid fire range, which synergises with their Regimental Doctrine), and the increased BS. Increasing the Scion cost only makes sense if you assume Scions ONLY carry plasmas and meltas, but they don't. Pure Flamer Command Squads would see a sharp increase in cost, but aren't a particularly threatening meta choice.

Flamers there suffer an issue from the core rules. That's not something that is going to be saved by point drops and ultimately why some people are complaining about the rules for ONE part of a Successor Tactic, even though it isn't broken itself.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Flamers there suffer an issue from the core rules. That's not something that is going to be saved by point drops and ultimately why some people are complaining about the rules for ONE part of a Successor Tactic, even though it isn't broken itself.

Perhaps, but I also like the fact that they don't need any kind of modification or interaction with the user's BS. So, with that in mind, if there were two models with the same statlines and rules and equipment (being both armed with a flamer), with their only difference being their BS (one being 6+, the other being 2+), should they cost differently?

In my opinion, no.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

A whole slew of characters plus a unique Lt (Talonmaster)
Apothecary in terminator armour
Champion in terminator armour
Mixed Terminator squad (although this could be parceled out into assault and regular, but you do have to add the plasma cannon somehow, so an FAQ necessary)
Deathwing Knights
Bike apothecary
Bike ancient
Bike Champion
darkshroud
Vengeance speeder
Black Knights
Dark Talon
Nephilim Jetfighter

basically, more entries than either Custodes or Harlequins

You can't say that they don't get these unique kits anymore...because models exist.

Ultramarines have a similar size of unique units in their supplement. They have:

Spoiler:

Guilliman
Calgar
Tigurius
Sicarius
Cassius
Chronus
Telion
Chapter Ancient
Chapter Champion
Honour Guard
Victrix Honour Guard
Tyrannic War Veterans

By that count, they have 12 unique datasheets. By my count (so, not including the generic Deathwing datasheet, because the generic Terminator datasheet should also be mixed weaponry and have plasma cannons, and their Terminator Apothecary, who should likewise be generic - they already have a generic Terminator Ancient, why not the Apothecary?), the Dark Angels would have 19 unique datasheets (17, if you were to make the Interrogator-Chaplain options into stratagem upgrade for normal Chaplain units) - that's only 7 more than Ultramarines.

I'm absolutely fine with that. After all, the Ultramarines have more than Harlequins and just as many as Custodes.

You've counted all unique characters responding to a post that didn't count any ... For god sake can you have a little consistency and intellectual rigor when you respond to someone ?

Here is what the ultramarines actually have when you put unique characters aside (and they have the most out of all the supplement chapters) :
Chapter Ancient
Chapter Champion
Honour Guard
Victrix Honour Guard
Tyrannic War Veterans

And here is what DA have :
Interrogator-Chaplain
Talonmaster
Apothecary in terminator armour
Champion in terminator armour
Mixed Terminator squad (although this could be parceled out into assault and regular, but you do have to add the plasma cannon somehow, so an FAQ necessary)
Deathwing Knights
Bike apothecary
Bike ancient
Bike Champion
darkshroud
Vengeance speeder
Black Knights
Dark Talon
Nephilim Jetfighter

You just can't compare those two. Have some honesty please : it's not 3rd ed anymore, DA are very different from normal SM and any discussion on them should at least start with an agreement on that simple and objective fact.

WhiteDog wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

A whole slew of characters plus a unique Lt (Talonmaster)
Apothecary in terminator armour
Champion in terminator armour
Mixed Terminator squad (although this could be parceled out into assault and regular, but you do have to add the plasma cannon somehow, so an FAQ necessary)
Deathwing Knights
Bike apothecary
Bike ancient
Bike Champion
darkshroud
Vengeance speeder
Black Knights
Dark Talon
Nephilim Jetfighter

basically, more entries than either Custodes or Harlequins

You can't say that they don't get these unique kits anymore...because models exist.

Ultramarines have a similar size of unique units in their supplement. They have:

Spoiler:

Guilliman
Calgar
Tigurius
Sicarius
Cassius
Chronus
Telion
Chapter Ancient
Chapter Champion
Honour Guard
Victrix Honour Guard
Tyrannic War Veterans

By that count, they have 12 unique datasheets. By my count (so, not including the generic Deathwing datasheet, because the generic Terminator datasheet should also be mixed weaponry and have plasma cannons, and their Terminator Apothecary, who should likewise be generic - they already have a generic Terminator Ancient, why not the Apothecary?), the Dark Angels would have 19 unique datasheets (17, if you were to make the Interrogator-Chaplain options into stratagem upgrade for normal Chaplain units) - that's only 7 more than Ultramarines.

I'm absolutely fine with that. After all, the Ultramarines have more than Harlequins and just as many as Custodes.

You've counted all unique characters responding to a post that didn't count any ... For god sake can you have a little consistency and intellectual rigor when you respond to someone ?

Did you read the spoilered quote? "A whole slew of characters plus a unique Lt (Talonmaster)" - hence, "counting" DA characters, as I always have in my detailed breakdowns of just how many DA units are "unique".
Regarding consistency, I've been very consistent with my comparisons of how many unique units the DA have (always including unique characters as well as full units) compared to the Ultramarines. My point remains that the Ultramarines and Dark Angels have only just over half a dozen unique units difference. Just over half a dozen unique units doesn't make a full Codex - unless we're advocating that every single supplement should be a unique Codex (which, personally, I don't think should be the case, when they all share the vast majority of their units).

You just can't compare those two.

...yes I can, and yes, I did.

I've already shown my working out of what units are "unique" and what aren't in this thread (but if you want me to repeat, I'm happy to do so).



There are just over half a dozen unique DA entries than UM ones. Is that enough for a whole brand new Codex, or a larger supplement?

Have some honesty please : it's not 3rd ed anymore, DA are very different from normal SM and any discussion on them should at least start with an agreement on that simple and objective fact.

I haven't denied Dark Angels are *different* from other Chapters, even if they do share 85% of the same units. And you're right - we're not in 3rd edition - we're in 8th edition now, where Ultramarines are very different from Iron Hands, who are very different from White Scars, who are very different from Imperial Fists, who are very different from Raven Guard, who are very different from Salamanders. Why should it matter if Dark Angels happen to be different too? Are they different enough to not have a supplement? Why?

I'm starting from the "simple and objective fact" that ALL First Founding Space Marine Chapters now have unique rules, units, stratagems, warlord traits, psychic abilities, contained within a dedicated book. The real question is "if everything DA/BA/SW specific can be put in a supplement, as has been demonstrated to be possible by all the other now-unique Chapters, why shouldn't they?"

No he does not count them individually as you did, he wrote a "slew of characters" and you added all unique characters individually and argue that there as many ultramarine units as there are Custodes (like he did for DA) which is seriously a joke in itself. You can't build an army with the army specific units that the Ultramarine have, which is obviously not the case for DA or Custodes.
Most of the ultramarine entry you count are just characters. You cannot argue that individual and unique characters are similar to full fledge units. Those are two very different type of units that have a very different role both in the lore and in an army.

And no the terminator champion cannot be a simple stratagem upgrade because the whole point of the DW champion is that he has a unique weapon that does not exist outside of the DA termi kit (and that only he can wield). Something you'd know if you'd know what you were talking about.

**I didn't include the Terminator Apothecary, because there's no reason for it not to be a generic option. Just like how regular Chapters all have Terminator Ancients, I don't see why they shouldn't have Apothecaries - and it's not like the Dark Angels are particularly well known for their apothecaries.

Because you don't understand why, because you have very little knowledge on DA, that's why.
DA's first compagny, the DW, is entirely in terminator armor : that's why they have a champion, an ancient and an apothecary in terminator armor. You understand that you can paint a normal ancient unit as a first compagny ultramarine ancient right ? Same for the apothecary and the ancient on bike with the ravenwing. It's the same kind of arguments for the interrogator chaplain : what's the point of giving those to other chapter when their entire point is that they exist to INTERROGATE fallen ? lol

WhiteDog wrote:No he does not count them individually as you did, he wrote a "slew of characters" and you added all unique characters individually and argue that there as many ultramarine units as there are Custodes (like he did for DA) which is seriously a joke in itself.

Are characters not units? It says they are in the rulebook. I honestly don't care if they're single model units, or full 10 man squads - datasheets are datasheets.

Regardless if you like it or not, the difference between *datasheets* is very little - under a dozen.

You can't build an army with the army specific units that the Ultramarine have, which is obviously not the case for DA or Custodes.

Yes you can. Tyrannic War Veteran taskforce, led by Chaplain Cassius. Guilliman leading the Victrix Guard (both Primaris and Firstborn) into battle, with their commander, Captain Sicarius.

It's 8th edition - you can make an army of anything.

Most of the ultramarine entry you count are just characters. You cannot argue that individual and unique characters are similar to full fledge units. Those are two very different type of units that have a very different role both in the lore and in an army.

Why can't I? The whole point of me bringing up how DA and UM have similar amounts of *datasheets* is because people were claiming that "Dark Angels have so many datasheets, there's no way a supplement would have room" - but with just over half a dozen unique datasheets more than the UM, I could fit all the unique DA stuff on three extra pages, four if I was being generous with the spacing.

And again, regarding "different role in lore and army" - I don't see how. The Ultramarines and Dark Angels both have unique characters, alongside unique units that have distinctive aesthetic and gameplay properties. Just because the Dark Angels have a higher proportion of one and not the other tells us nothing.

And no the terminator champion cannot be a simple stratagem upgrade because the whole point of the DW champion is that he has a unique weapon that does not exist outside of the DA termi kit (and that only he can wield). Something you'd know if you'd know what you were talking about.

Something you'd know if you actually *read* my post was that I never claimed for a second that I wanted the Terminator CHAMPION to be a stratagem upgrade.

I said the Interrogator Chaplains should be a stratagem upgrade *unique to the Dark Angels*, but I was more than happy with the Terminator Champion being unique.
If you want to argue my suggestions, actually pick out my suggestions, not make up what I said.

**I didn't include the Terminator Apothecary, because there's no reason for it not to be a generic option. Just like how regular Chapters all have Terminator Ancients, I don't see why they shouldn't have Apothecaries - and it's not like the Dark Angels are particularly well known for their apothecaries.

Because you don't understand why, because you have very little knowledge on DA, that's why.
DA's first compagny, the DW, is entirely in terminator armor : that's why they have a champion, an ancient and an apothecary in terminator armor.

Funnily enough, I am aware of that. But I'm also aware that just because the Dark Angels deploy en masse in Terminator Armour doesn't mean that they have the monopoly on putting their Apothecaries in Terminator Armour, right? I mean, the Blood Angels aren't the only Chapter with assault marines, the White Scars aren't the only Chapter with bikes - so, while your Champion is actually unique (carrying a weapon that is flavoured to be unique to the Dark Angels for a reason), the Apothecary is just "yeah, we put our apothecary in Terminator armour but you can't, because reasons". After all, every First Founding Chapter has at least *some* Terminator armour, enough for all their Ancients!

You understand that you can paint a normal ancient unit as a first compagny ultramarine ancient right ?

You understand that Ultramarines have Terminator Ancients, right? Not just Dark Angels.

But hey, in the same way, you can paint a normal Terminator model bone-white, and it's "Deathwing"! /s

Same for the apothecary and the ancient on bike with the ravenwing.

The only reason I've allowed them as unique is because they have plasma talons. That's it. Without those plasma talons, I'd be wanting them made generic.

The Terminator Apothecary has no unique features - hell, they already exist in the Grey Knights book.

It's the same kind of arguments for the interrogator chaplain : what's the point of giving those to other chapter when their entire point is that they exist to INTERROGATE fallen ? lol

I didn't want Interrogator Chaplains being given out to every Chapter.

What I did say was that the entry should be removed, and made into a stratagem upgrade, like how Chief Librarian and Chief Apothecary are - but that that stratagem should be Dark Angels exclusive. I've claimed that position for some time now, in fact.
So no, I didn't want Interrogator Chaplains being made generic - I wanted them to stay DA specific, but as a stratagem.

But you want DA players to spend a resource on a pre game start, one that would likely not give an as good effect as other in game strats, while removing what is a defining character option from the army list because of what balance reason this time?

And you expect people to be thanking you for it?

It's clear this should be in proposed rules now. Because you clearly dont want any non Codex marine army to exist outside of startagems or paint schemes

Orkz have two unit upgrade Strats. Here you go.

Spend 1 CP and improve a single unit of Boyz from a 6+ Save to a 5+ Save.

Spend 1 CP and improve a single unit of Boyz from S4 to S5.

If the differences between Interrogator Chaplain and "normal" Chaplain are greater than that, then you win the upgrade Stratagem game!

The entire point of this thread is to debate whether or not those Factions should be separate or part of the larger Marine contingent. Providing examples of ways they could be part of the same Codex/Supplement system is a necessary part of that debate.

If you don't like what you're reading, you should construct a good counterargument. If you can't, at the very least you should accede that your opponent in the conversation has a valid point and attempt to argue your side from a different angle.

For the most part, this whole thing seems to have boiled down to:

"I think it's possible, and preferable, for them to be part of the larger Marine Faction and here's why."

And:

"I agree that it's possible, but it might be screwed up by GW, or would necessitate doing things I'd rather not do, so I'm against it in principle."

 BroodSpawn wrote:
But you want DA players to spend a resource on a pre game start, one that would likely not give an as good effect as other in game strats, while removing what is a defining character option from the army list because of what balance reason this time?

And you expect people to be thanking you for it?

It's clear this should be in proposed rules now. Because you clearly dont want any non Codex marine army to exist outside of startagems or paint schemes

Here's the thing though:
A lot of those "unique units and upgrades" used to straight be available to Vanilla Marines. They originally had Heavy Flamers available to everyone. They originally had Terminator Command Squads. They have, per index, Champions on Bikes.

Also if you're not Codex compliant you shouldn't have Doctrines. Agree or Disagree?

Two pages ago I argued that the DA as a distinct faction gave variety without causing harm to the game. I have yet to see an effective counter argument.

BroodSpawn wrote:But you want DA players to spend a resource on a pre game start, one that would likely not give an as good effect as other in game strats, while removing what is a defining character option from the army list because of what balance reason this time?

Not for balance - for consolidation. Balance-wise, I really don't care, I don't play for balance. But claiming something that is essentially just an extra title and special rule on an otherwise generic unit as unique? A stratagem would fill the role easily enough. Same as things like "Chapter Master" or the commissar tank stratagems. Actually, especially Commissar Tank! I run a Spearhead Leman Russ detachment with 10 tanks, one of them being the Tank Commander and 9 regular Leman Russes in my heavy support slots - I generate 1 Command Point with that detachment, and because the fluff of my list matters most for me (like you're claiming how the fluff matters most for the DA), I always spend it on the Commissar Tank stratagem for the one tank of mine which has a commissar on it. It's a completely useless stratagem, but I always take it, because the flavour means more to me than whatever else I'd use that command point on. But, that's just me.

You wouldn't *have* to spend resources on it, any more so than any other Marine player *has* to buy the Chapter Master upgrade. If you want to call your guy "Interrogator Chaplain" or "Chapter Master" without spending the Command Points, go ahead! But if you do want that extra effectiveness, how is it any different from things like the Chapter Master, Chief Librarian, Chapter Ancient, Chapter Champion, Chief Apothecary etc stratagems? Should there be a whole bunch of new datasheets just for those units? Because, personally, I don't think there should.

Because you clearly dont want any non Codex marine army to exist outside of startagems or paint schemes

That's a blatant misrepresentation of my argument, and you know it.
I want Dark Angels to have unique rules. I want Space Wolves to have unique rules. I want Blood Angels to have unique rules. But they don't need a unique Codex in order to have it, beyond vanity.

If it's having unique rules that's important to the identity of DA/BA/SW, I've accommodated for that, and provided realistic solutions.
If it's having a super duper special book all to themselves that's important to their identity, I have to question if that is an identity worth preserving.

flandarz wrote:For the most part, this whole thing seems to have boiled down to:

"I think it's possible, and preferable, for them to be part of the larger Marine Faction and here's why."

And:

"I agree that it's possible, but it might be screwed up by GW, or would necessitate doing things I'd rather not do, so I'm against it in principle."

I think that's about right, yeah.
And while I don't have a problem with people saying "I don't want GW to do it, because XYZ would happen", when I'm saying how *I* would do it, I would be interested to see what part of my possible solutions don't work, and why, beyond "they've always been different".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Two pages ago I argued that the DA as a distinct faction gave variety without causing harm to the game. I have yet to see an effective counter argument.

Mechanically, what distinct variety do the Dark Angels provide as a Codex that couldn't be provided via being a supplement?

Yes, they have lore variety (which could be reflected in their supplement).
Yes, they have unique units (which I've shown wouldn't take up an obscene amount of room in a supplement).
Yes, they have unique rules and stratagems (which could be reflected in a supplement, just like everyone else).
Yes, they have aesthetic variety (which could be reflected in a supplement, without confusing people as to why green Space Marines aren't in the Space Marine book).

But what intrinsically about being a Codex, standing alone, despite sharing features that every other Space Marine supplement also has, provides it with variety? Should all Space Marine supplements have been Codexes, to provide variety?*

I made a counter argument of "does it really?" Is DA being it's own Codex, rather than sharing the same Codex the other Marines do, really give it more variety or just the illusion of variety? If nothing changes between the current Codex and becoming a Supplement (which has been demonstrated as possible already) then can you really say that the former provides more variety than the latter? If GW released "Codex: Goff" tomorrow, would it actually add variety if it was 85% a copy-paste job from the Ork Codex?

As for harm, I mentioned before that it harms the new player. The person who loves the Space Marine aesthetic and lore, but doesn't know which Chapter they like best. If they were to say to me "I like Space Marines! They're cool as tits! But I don't know which one I'd enjoy playing most." Right now I'd have to reply with "Alright, let's try Codex: SM, then if those aren't to your liking (or if you just wanna try out one of the "non-Codex compliant Chapters), we'll buy another Codex which is pretty much the same, with slightly different rules and units. And if that doesn't work, we'll buy another one, etc. And once you gave them all a shot, you can finally figure out which one you like most, and can thank GW for the opportunity to buy all these Codexes."

Sgt Smudge,

As Post Malone says we're running in circles.

The Dark Angels have access to unique units and lose access to others - they are a different force. Why have a Supplement that tells you what you cannot have? Why have two books when one suffices? Your proposed design is the opposite of elegant.

Your argument seems to be "why the Dark Angels?" Well, they are a distinct Chapter with a distinguished history of being distinct. You may not like that they have some 25 years of being their own book/faction, but there it is. While they follow aspects of the Codex they are not a Codex Chapter. The latest WH Community updates goes along with that. You are allowed to dislike it, but what harm does it do to the game? Really?

Cheers,

T2B


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
I made a counter argument of "does it really?" Is DA being it's own Codex, rather than sharing the same Codex the other Marines do, really give it more variety or just the illusion of variety? If nothing changes between the current Codex and becoming a Supplement (which has been demonstrated as possible already) then can you really say that the former provides more variety than the latter? If GW released "Codex: Goff" tomorrow, would it actually add variety if it was 85% a copy-paste job from the Ork Codex?

As for harm, I mentioned before that it harms the new player. The person who loves the Space Marine aesthetic and lore, but doesn't know which Chapter they like best. If they were to say to me "I like Space Marines! They're cool as tits! But I don't know which one I'd enjoy playing most." Right now I'd have to reply with "Alright, let's try Codex: SM, then if those aren't to your liking (or if you just wanna try out one of the "non-Codex compliant Chapters), we'll buy another Codex which is pretty much the same, with slightly different rules and units. And if that doesn't work, we'll buy another one, etc. And once you gave them all a shot, you can finally figure out which one you like most, and can thank GW for the opportunity to buy all these Codexes."

I did read your post last week. You keep talking about 85%. The DA have unique units and miss out on others. That makes them distinct. I am guessing you think that's not enough. How much is enough for you?

How does the DA Codex harm a new player? Choice is a good thing.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The Dark Angels have access to unique units and lose access to others - they are a different force.

Are they, when they share 85% of the same stuff? And of the stuff they lose access to, I've only heard good reasoning IMO in the case of Sternguard and Venguard Veterans. Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons, Stormtalons and Stormhawks etc etc have no reason not to be present.

Why have a Supplement that tells you what you cannot have?

Don't the Black Templars have this? Are they not restricted from having Librarians? As they demonstrate, it's completely possible to have unique rules that prohibit certain units.

Why have two books when one suffices? Your proposed design is the opposite of elegant.

As opposed to reprinting 85% of the same units?

But, let's assume that you're right, and two book *is* inelegant. Do you support that ALL supplements should be fleshed out to full Codex size, and reprinted with the same generic units that they would normally have and stratagems? Because, as you say, why have two books when one suffices?

Your argument seems to be "why the Dark Angels?" Well, they are a distinct Chapter with a distinguished history of being distinct. You may not like that they have some 25 years of being their own book/faction, but there it is.

And that's all lovely, but why does that mean they need a Codex when a supplement will fulfil all the same MECHANICAL roles?

That's the point you're not addressing here. Yes, they're distinct - but so is EVERYONE ELSE. Yes, they have 25+ years of history of being a Codex - but this is 2019/2020. The old reasoning of "every other Chapter mechanically functions in exactly the same way, and we're the only faction that can have en mass Terminators" isn't relevant any more, and so the justification of why they still NEED a Codex needs to be revisited.

Look at the facts - supplements have demonstrated the simplicity of introducing unique and mechanically flavourful rules to factions operating from a single core book. This is something the Dark Angels were doing in all but name already. Now, everyone is doing it. Why should Dark Angels continue to do the same as everyone else functionally, but reprinting all the same units in a separate book?

While they follow aspects of the Codex they are not a Codex Chapter.

The Iron Hands aren't a Codex Chapter. The Black Templars aren't a Codex Chapter. They operate as supplements.

Just because you would draw units from """Codex"" Space Marines", it doesn't make you a Codex Chapter. I mean, they already do draw from those units anyway, just reprinted in the DA book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I did read your post last week. You keep talking about 85%. The DA have unique units and miss out on others. That makes them distinct. I am guessing you think that's not enough. How much is enough for you?

More than 15% of unique units. 15% is not distinct enough to be a whole unique Codex.

If DA were truly to have a unique Codex in my eyes, they'd need to get rid of nearly every unit that wasn't currently Ravenwing or Deathwing, and operate as a "Space Marine" list like how the Deathwatch and Grey Knights do - ie, by getting rid of literally every core infantry unit, and making the existing generic ones super different (ie, Deathwatch have no Tactical Marines, but even on their Primaris units, they can form intermixed units, and how Grey Knight Terminators don't have power fists and other mundane power weapons, they have force weaponry and psychic powers).

So, "Dark Angels" would literally just become Deathwing and Ravenwing, with Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts and HQ choices to back them up.

Then, they'd become distinct enough. And I know that's a terrible idea, because there's so much more the Dark Angels than their two Wings, but the problem is that the Dark Angels, for all their unique bells and whistles, are just a Space Marine Chapter. They're a unique one, they're flavoursome and special and important, but they are just another First Founding Chapter, and like all First Founders, they're special. But none of the First Founders are special enough to be their own Codex, because their core identity is based on the fact that they're Space Marines first and foremost. 85% Space Marine first and foremost, in fact.

How does the DA Codex harm a new player? Choice is a good thing.

It is, until this happens:

Technically, every sub-Faction has unique units and misses out on others. So, they should all have their own Codexes, because even if it's only 1 unit they can't take and 1 unit that is wholly their's, just the fact they have these "options" makes them totally unique and different from any other sub-Faction they currently share a book with.

Or, in other words, where do YOU draw the line on what should share a book and what should not? My personal line is: "if over 50% of your units are shared by someone else, why waste the extra paper?"

I thought I was pretty clear on how it harms new players. Ie: this new player, eager to figure out what he wants to paint and play, now has to spend more money than he should have to in order to try out all his options. And you haven't really refuted any claims that being separate actually provides more options. If it could be included in the same book, then the number of options remains exactly the same. Only the false feeling of "uniqueness" is lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also bears mentioning that this wasn't a debate of "what does it hurt if they're separate". It was a discussion of whether or not they SHOULD be part of the main Codex. So, if you think they should be separate, then your argument should include the reasons why you think so. "Well, what does it hurt for them to be separate?" is essentially saying that they should be a supplement, but you don't want them to be.

Sgt Smudge,

I won't make a wall of text by dissecting your post line by line. My argument is that the Dark Angels add variety at minimal design cost to the game. They have unique units and lose access to others that the other Space Marines have. Putting aside Named Characters, what unique units do the Iron Hands have and which ones do they lose from the baseline Codex? Let's just park your Supplement/Stratagem idea. If you don't want the Dark Angels Codex then don't buy it. It seems you want to impose your choices on others. I say let the market decide.

Flandarz,

The current method wastes less paper - I have one book (well, for my army). The Dark Angels have their RW and DW units while losing access to a number of units that Codex Compliant Chapters have. Its good enough for me, and those who play Dark Angels.

Having the Dark Angels as their own faction with their own units does indeed add variety. If they didn't, then how could your new player be overwhelmed? So which is it?

Warm regards from The Rock,

T2B

The "minimal design" creates imbalance issues as already pointed out. Also you have yet to say whether or not you agree they and Blood Angels shouldn't get access to Doctrines, since they're oh so different.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The "minimal design" creates imbalance issues as already pointed out. Also you have yet to say whether or not you agree they and Blood Angels shouldn't get access to Doctrines, since they're oh so different.

Which imbalance issues? How are the Dark Angels at fault for any imbalance? Iron Hands seem pretty powerful now - go play them. They are more powerful then other Codex Compliant Chapters. Are you saying that all Space Marines should be the same? I am arguing that there should be variety.

As for Doctrines, we'll see what they give the Dark Angels. A rising tide raises all boats as they say back home. I have not said that the Dark Angels or SW/BA need to be 100% different. Indeed, the point is that they offer variety at minimal design cost by having something in common.

Cheers,

You do understand how book printing works, right? I'll put it in simple terms: if you write the same thing on two pieces of paper, you have, essentially, wasted one sheet of paper. Or, in essence, if 85% of your units are a copy-paste job from another book, then GW has wasted that many more sheets of paper than they had to.

I don't believe I ever alluded to a player being "overwhelmed by variety"... but ok. Let's do this then: we're all homo sapiens. Human beings. But tomorrow scientists decide that all people with red hair and grey eyes are part of an entire difference species. You, understandably, ask why. And the answer is "well, they're obviously different from the rest of us, so we decided they need a different classification". Essentially the same thing is happening here. DA shares 85% similarities with the other Marines, but you're arguing that makes them something else entirely. You can still have variety without having a separate book. Practically every other Faction already does this.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The "minimal design" creates imbalance issues as already pointed out. Also you have yet to say whether or not you agree they and Blood Angels shouldn't get access to Doctrines, since they're oh so different.

Which imbalance issues? How are the Dark Angels at fault for any imbalance? Iron Hands seem pretty powerful now - go play them. They are more powerful then other Codex Compliant Chapters. Are you saying that all Space Marines should be the same? I am arguing that there should be variety.

As for Doctrines, we'll see what they give the Dark Angels. A rising tide raises all boats as they say back home. I have not said that the Dark Angels or SW/BA need to be 100% different. Indeed, the point is that they offer variety at minimal design cost by having something in common.

Cheers,

Being separate causes imbalance issues in the first place. I mean, surely you can understand how the win rates work. Dark Angels have a lower win rate because they're based on the Vanilla codex, but not, which was based around Roboute rerolls and/or Fliers.

So instead of trying to pretend these are distinct armies, a rolled in Angel's benefit from new balance changes and access to Stratagems, such as Doctrines and Chapter Masters to Successors. This is why I ask you all: should the Angels have access to Doctrines? It's an easy question that you're avoiding.