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.

The DA/BA/SW hate still going strong I see

WhiteDog wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
To the first, that's because Custodes only have about a dozen units. But you're being disingenuous-what did I say that was untrue? 80% or more of the Custodes Dex is unique. 80% or more of the DA Dex is shared.

As for the latter... What specific issues do you have with Smudge's consolidation plan?

You argued that "the difference between something like Custodes and DA is that Custodes have unique units" : it is untrue because they have the same exact number of unique units.

So do the Ultramarines.

The difference is that those unique units make up the entire Custodes Codex, whereas they only make up 15% of the Dark Angels one.

As a Dark Angels player, would you be happy if all the generic units (including things like reskinned units like Ravenwing Bikes and Masters and suchlike, which are functionally identical to standard Codex units) were cut out, and *all* you had were your unique units? Because that's the only situation I'd be comfortable with DA having a Codex and everyone else not.

You're right about the %, but you're taking this relative fact too far to push your own biased point of view. As for your question I've already aswered.

Ah, so pointing out that the Dark Angels are 85% made up of generic units, despite being a fact, is being biased?

What's to say you're not being biased? After all, I believe you did freely admit that you're a Dark Angel player. Might that not mean you're biased too?

But for the few units that have literally no lore reason not to exist in that faction?

There are serious lore reasons as to why DA don't have stormhawk interceptors and the likes, you just don't know those.

So you've said, but it's been quite a few posts since you last claimed that, with no explanation. Just a lot of condescension.

DA don't give much tactical role to techmarines because they are affiliated to Mars/the adeptus mechanicus (and since they want to protect their secrets, you know this essential plot point that define the DA identity ...).

Yet they still have Techmarines in game. If they can have solo Techmarines, why can't they have Thunderfire Cannon Techmarines?

You'd have a very strong argument if this were not the case, but because this point is undermined by the fact the Dark Angels actually DO have Techmarines, it's worthless.

DA flyers are pilotted by Ravenwing members (that's why they are painted in black) AND NOT techmarines like all other chapters, which is why DA have their own flyers (and not Stormtalon and Stormhawk who are built by the adeptus mechanicus exclusively), and also why they have more flyers than other chapters (techmarine are harder to form).

So who flies their Thunderhawks? They get Ravenwing members to fly the non-Ravenwing and Deathwing transports?

Also, the articles I can find on the Nephilim state that their pilots regularly push their Techmarines to enhance their vehicles, demonstrating that the Dark Angels do have Techmarines who are adept in the maintenance of said flyers.

But, I think I've hammered that point home enough - the Dark Angels *do* have Techmarines, even if they're not deployed alongside their Ravenwing and Deathwing brethren - and that's fine. It absolutely makes sense for the flyers used by the Ravenwing not to be flown by Techmarines. But what about flyers used by other companies? Who says that 3rd-10th Companies can't be supported by more "traditional" aircraft flown by normal Techmarines, or Techmarines with Thunderfire Cannons? After all, not everything in the Dark Angels Codex is part of the Inner Circle and is privy to the secret knowledge - otherwise you wouldn't have any Troops choices, would you?

Basically, because of the existence of Techmarines in the Dark Angels, there is no reason for Thunderfire Cannons and "normal" flyers to be used by the Dark Angels Chapter in their non-Ravenwing and Deathwing companies.

This has been the case since ... the release of flyers in 40K. And the relationship between techmarines, the adeptus mechanicus and the DA was already discussed in the 3rd ed. codex (the head techmarine of the rock do not have access to much of the rock and never get induced into the deathwing and the inner circle because they don't trust him ...).
And you know, I'm sure, that the dark talon has a prison within itself ? Since the pilot is a ravenwing, the Dark talon is used as transport for fallen that were captured... How could a techmarine do that ?

Keep the Dark Talons flown by Ravenwing, and have Stormtalons/Stormravens/Stormhawks flown by Techmarines in the Battle Companies?

Not everything about the Dark Angels is Deathwing or Ravenwing. They have 80% of their Chapter in the dark about that. What, should Dark Angels not have Tactical Marines because they aren't part of the Inner Circle?

There is a good chance that there are lore reasons for most of the things you disagree with : you just don't know about it.

There's an even higher chance there's no good lore reason, and you either don't know about it, or are being deliberately ignorant.
As said above - the Dark Angels HAVE Techmarines. They give their Techmarines relics. Not all Dark Angels need to know about the Fallen. Therefore, Dark Angels Techmarines have no reason not be given Thunderfire Cannons and their own flyers, as long as they're kept in the Battle and Reserve Companies.

Ultramarines have as many specific datatsheets as Custodes and Harlequins have. That still doesn't make them any more of an independent faction, because their whole Codex consists of far more units.

Custodes, despite sharing 16% of their units with other Space Marines, are unique because the units they do have are so fundamentally different. Compare to Dark Angels, after sharing 85% of the same units, whose unique units are variants of otherwise normal units, but withe extra special rules and equipment. Or, to put it another way, converting a Deathwing Knight from normal Terminators would be far easier than converting an Allarus Custodian from the same Terminator.

We've already done that already : the datasheets that ultramarines have are only unique characters aside from the tyrannic war vet.

Honour Guard, Chapter Ancient, Chapter Champion and Victrix Guard disagree.
There's five datasheets already, plus characters. And again, when I'm counting unique datasheets, it doesn't matter a bit if they're characters or not. I'm counting *datasheets* not "datasheets of non-characters".

and you can't make an army out of that.

Demonstrably disproven.
An HQ and 3 Elites units is an army. Hell, an HQ and two Troops is an army. Even two model can be an army, if they're big enough.

You can't compare that to the spammable units DW/RW and custodes have. Only your own ridiculous bias makes you able to spout such nonsense

Whatever you tell yourself.

You're just "biased".

WhiteDog wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So TELL US the lore!

Don’t just say “it’s there, believe me”, educate us! We’re happy to learn.

Edit: because nothing there says why they can’t have a Ravenwing pilot in a normal marine vehicle.

In most marine vehicule, the pilot within has a pauldron with the adeptus mechanicus emblem signaling its affiliation to the adeptus mechanicus (it's the case in most marine kit, if not all). Ravenwing pilot pilot machine that have a role in the hunt for the fallen : the jetfighters are part of those (as I said, the Dark Talon is a moving prison) and so are bike, etc. But not troop transports or tanks such as the repulsor or the rhino, those are pilotted, like in any chapter, by marine affiliated to the adeptus mechanicus.

So why can't Stormtalons, Stormravens, and Stormhawks be piloted by "like in any Chapter, by marine affiliated to the adeptus mechanicus"??

You literally prove that some Dark Angels vehicles are piloted by non-Ravenwing personnel! So long as those flyers aren't deployed in Ravenwing or Deathwing armies, there is no reason not to have them!

If we were to be as obtuse as your restrictions suggest (that no generic flyers can exist because the idea of having different pilots for different companies is too far beyond you), then either Deathwing shouldn't be allowed Land Raiders, because they're not piloted by Deathwing members, or no-one else should have Land Raiders, because they're piloted by Deathwing members!

The dark angels are organized in a multitude of circle or trial, each circle giving to the initiate a bigger understanding of the treason that are the fallen. The RW and the DW are part of the few units that knows about the fallen, and even to them there are many secrets that are not accessible. Above the DW/RW there is the inner circle, and even amongst the inner circle only the grand master, Azrael, knew about the fact that Luther had a cell in the Rock. All this to say that you can be in the DA and don't know much about the true secret goal of the DA : this is why the DA can be both a codex compliant chapter (from the 3rd compagny up to the last) and a very distinct chapter with its own goal.

SO WHY DON'T THEY JUST HAVE NORMAL FLYERS IN THE 3RD TO LAST COMPANIES??

God, you get so close to the point, and then just miss it entirely.
Not all Dark Angels are part of the Inner Circle, including Techmarines. Clearly Techmarines are fielded by the Dark Angels, just not in the Deathwing or Ravenwing. Therefore, if those Techmarines exist, why should they not use Thunderfire Cannons and generic flyers in those companies!

No-one's saying "Techmarines should fly Dark Talons!" or that "Stormtalons should be part of the Ravenwing!" Keep Ravenwing members flying Ravenwing flyers in the Ravenwing, and have generic Techmarines flying generic flyers in generic companies.

WhiteDog wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So why can’t they have regular fliers?

They won’t be special, but they’ll be there.

They use jetfighters for recon and to transport prisonners - i.e. they use those flyers to hunt fallen. As I said, the Dark Talon is litterally a mobile prison.
To transport basic troops the DA use the same stormraven and thunwerhawk like all the other chapters, it is just their small flyers that are different (unlike the SW).

bbBbUt tHe sTorMrAVeN Is PiLOTeD bY TeChmaRiNEs aNd THaT's iLLEGAL!!

You literally prove the point - not all flyers are piloted by Ravenwing!

Also the Dark Talon is mounted with some kind of archeo tech gun that no other chapter has aside from the 1rst legion because they are the first and thus were equipped and started crusading before the alliance between mars and terra.

So. Keep. It. Flown. By. The. Ravenwing.

No-one's saying "all flyers should be flown by Techmarines."
No-one's saying "generic flyers should be allowed into the Ravenwing and Deathwing."
What people *are* saying is "in the generic Dark Angels companies, they should have access to Thunderfire Cannons and generic flyers, because the Dark Angels have already demonstrated that they are okay with having Techmarine pilots and personnel, so long as they are not involved with the Fallen and Inner Circle."
Do you understand?


And in all of this, you still don't address why Dark Angels can't have Centurions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
The DA/BA/SW hate still going strong I see

If you'd like to contribute, would you like to provide a lore reason why the Dark Angels shouldn't have stormtalons and stormhawks? I think it's been made very clear that the Dark Angels are just as capable of having generic flyers, proven by Stormravens and Thunderhawks.

Similarly, what about Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons? Are there any reasons you can show us?

After all, if we're just "haters", it should be easy enough to disprove that with simple logic, no?

 BroodSpawn wrote:
The DA/BA/SW hate still going strong I see

Amusingly enough, more than a few folks saying "they should be supplements" play (and main) those Chapters. Must be those self-hating Marine players, am I right?

Supplement for BA would have made sense now we get most of a PA book that costs more than a supplement and is almost the same thing but yet not.

We get some unique datasheets reprinted and all the phobo stuff but from what I know we dont get some stuff fixed because not everything got reprinted. So we have main codex Blood Angels and supplement psychic awakening. It isnt even cheaper being its own codex than a marine supplement. In a true supplement they would have had to reprint all our unique datasheets instead of Primaris datasheets and thus had a chance to fix Dante and Sanguinary guards wording. Would also have given us access to some useful warlord traits. BA have so bad traits that I actually use one of the 3 from the main rule book from time to time if I dont need a damage 4 hammer.

Would have been nice to have more psychic powers as well since I love them but only having 4(2 self buff and 2 unit buffs) powers to choose from make multiple Librarians a bit awkward while the other first founding get 2 tables to choose from.

Smudge, I've given you plenty of reasons in this thread alone. You ignore or dismiss them all, because they dont fit the narrative you want them to have.
If this was just a discussion about your proposals we'd be fine by now: supplement the chapters is fine, reworking the core codex and consolidating multiple unit and lots options to change these factions to how you say they should be is where the line is drawn.

Its pretty clear at this point that no one can answer your question because you've already decided every answer that does not agree with your sentiment is wrong. DA (and the rest) must be consolidated and any unique entries they have must be either remiced or give to every other marine army, a stance that if you dont have you've argued for over 30 pages of demands that we accept your proposals.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Smudge, I've given you plenty of reasons in this thread alone.

And I've had a response for all of them.

Shouldn't have flyers? Disproven.
Shouldn't have TFC? Disproven.
Shouldn't have Centurions? Disproven.
Not enough room to print every unique datasheet? Disproven.
Not "unique" enough? Disproven.

You ignore or dismiss them all, because they dont fit the narrative you want them to have.

I've shown that, in the face of good logic and detailed debate, I'm happy to concede points (Sternguard and Vanguard being inaccessible). However, you can't call say what I'm doing is just "dismissing" arguments because "they don't fit my narrative", I'm dismissing them because they're not strong arguments.

If this was just a discussion about your proposals we'd be fine by now: supplement the chapters is fine, reworking the core codex and consolidating multiple unit and lots options to change these factions to how you say they should be is where the line is drawn.

Its pretty clear at this point that no one can answer your question because you've already decided every answer that does not agree with your sentiment is wrong. DA (and the rest) must be consolidated and any unique entries they have must be either remiced or give to every other marine army, a stance that if you dont have you've argued for over 30 pages of demands that we accept your proposals.

Or, alternarively, it's because you've not been able to provide me with a good enough reason why they should remain separate beyond "they've always been separate" - which is an appeal to the status quo, which, when we're discussing the validity of that, is counterproductive.

If you had a proposal of your own like "Dark Angels should be separate, and I'd be willing for them to lose even more of their generic units to reinforce that (such as Primaris Marines, or large elements of their vehicle pool)", then that would act as a very good counter-proposal.

Basically, either DA need to be made MORE unique (ie, they lose a good proportion of the 85% generic units) to justify a Codex, or they should be rolled into the supplements/other supplements given Codexes (because they share so many generic units, and their unique aspects can easily be covered via mechanics introduced in other books). And so far, with all due respect, none of your arguments have swayed me. That's not because I'm "biased" or because I'm just trying to make everything fit "my narrative" any more that you are, but simply because none of your arguments are convincing me. That's not meant with any kind of malice, and I respect that you hold those beliefs - but don't try and insinuate that I'm just being deliberately aggravating.

Here's two units:
×5 Marines, with 4 Bolt Pistols, 1 Storm Shield, 5 Chainswords
X5 Marines, with 3 Storm Bolters, 2 Plasma Guns

Which one is Vanguard, which one is Sternguard, and which one is Dark Angels Vets?

So why don't Dark Angels just have Sternguard and Vanguard? They CLEARLY have Veterans not in Terminator armor.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So why don't Dark Angels just have Sternguard and Vanguard? They CLEARLY have Veterans not in Terminator armor.

The only way it would work on a lore front (which I'm pretty big on) is if they introduce some kind of fluff blurb saying "while the Dark Angels do not deploy their Sternguard and Vanguard Veteran Squads as part of their 1st Company, like other Chapters, they do make use of them as standing Veterans within their Battle Companies, seeing the tactical merit in specialised skilled warriors to support the backbone of the Chapter."

I'm largely indifferent, but regardless, Sternguard/Vanguard shouldn't have access to the <Deathwing> keyword any more so than Tactical Marines. But, if it means that much that Dark Angels players not get those particular units, who am I to judge?

I don't think people should be thinking too hard on DA veterans. Treat them as Sternguard/Vanguard vets. If stratagems/abilities for Deathwing are intended to apply to Terminator units only, and not other power armored veterans, then just designate them to require the Terminator keyword.

The fact that DA dont have Sternguard/vanguard vets largely appears to be an artefact of paradigm shifts that just never got rolled over. DA's were the last marine book before they split veterans into Sternguard/Vanguard with the 5E SM book, and retained some other 4E artefacts that the 5E book dropped shortly after, the Vets thing is just one that GW never appeared to catch, despite doing so for Blood Angels.

Smudge you have a problem of understanding.

WhiteDog wrote:
Smudge you have a problem of understanding.

Enlighten me then.

Instead of just saying I'm not understanding it (which I think we're all doing a fine job of doing), perhaps make your argument more clear. Right now, you're arguing against things that no-one has claimed, and ignoring the things that people have.

Why can't non-Deathwing/Ravenwing Techmarines operate flyers in Battle Compaies? Why can't they have Thunderfire Cannons? Why can't they have Centurions?

Simple questions.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
The DA/BA/SW hate still going strong I see

I clearly hate them less than you as I care about the actual health of the armies.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So why don't Dark Angels just have Sternguard and Vanguard? They CLEARLY have Veterans not in Terminator armor.

The only way it would work on a lore front (which I'm pretty big on) is if they introduce some kind of fluff blurb saying "while the Dark Angels do not deploy their Sternguard and Vanguard Veteran Squads as part of their 1st Company, like other Chapters, they do make use of them as standing Veterans within their Battle Companies, seeing the tactical merit in specialised skilled warriors to support the backbone of the Chapter."

I'm largely indifferent, but regardless, Sternguard/Vanguard shouldn't have access to the <Deathwing> keyword any more so than Tactical Marines. But, if it means that much that Dark Angels players not get those particular units, who am I to judge?

Wait, wasn't that already in the 4th Edition Codex? Or was it the 6th? They were Veterans of the Battle Companies, but simply could not be introduced to The Secret, even on a Ravenwing level. Keeping them Sternguard or Vanguard, in terms of gear, just makes sense as even Marines can't do a mixed unit very well.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So why don't Dark Angels just have Sternguard and Vanguard? They CLEARLY have Veterans not in Terminator armor.

The only way it would work on a lore front (which I'm pretty big on) is if they introduce some kind of fluff blurb saying "while the Dark Angels do not deploy their Sternguard and Vanguard Veteran Squads as part of their 1st Company, like other Chapters, they do make use of them as standing Veterans within their Battle Companies, seeing the tactical merit in specialised skilled warriors to support the backbone of the Chapter."

I'm largely indifferent, but regardless, Sternguard/Vanguard shouldn't have access to the <Deathwing> keyword any more so than Tactical Marines. But, if it means that much that Dark Angels players not get those particular units, who am I to judge?

Wait, wasn't that already in the 4th Edition Codex? Or was it the 6th? They were Veterans of the Battle Companies, but simply could not be introduced to The Secret, even on a Ravenwing level. Keeping them Sternguard or Vanguard, in terms of gear, just makes sense as even Marines can't do a mixed unit very well.

I don't remember that in 6th edition, and I don't think Sternguard and Vanguard existed in 4th.

However, your general point is right - power armoured Veterans in the Dark Angels aren't fielded in the same way as power armoured Veterans are in other Chapters, and it should be possible for Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans to be taken in Greenwing lists.

DaRk AnGeLs Do NoT tRuSt VaNgUaRd VeTs

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Wait, wasn't that already in the 4th Edition Codex? Or was it the 6th? They were Veterans of the Battle Companies, but simply could not be introduced to The Secret, even on a Ravenwing level. Keeping them Sternguard or Vanguard, in terms of gear, just makes sense as even Marines can't do a mixed unit very well.

I don't remember that in 6th edition, and I don't think Sternguard and Vanguard existed in 4th.

However, your general point is right - power armoured Veterans in the Dark Angels aren't fielded in the same way as power armoured Veterans are in other Chapters, and it should be possible for Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans to be taken in Greenwing lists.

I have a digital version of the 6th Ed codex and the Company Veterans were there. I think they had an equivalent in the 4th Edition, mostly because Veteran Squads existed. In 6th Edition, they were much like Deathwing being able to mix and match between being close combat or ranged specialists, though lacking the Jump Pack option. Basically, just continuing the standards from the previous Codex: Space Marine Codices before the Guard split.

I haven't kept up with the codices since the end of 7th Edition, though, so no idea how they have changed since.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
DaRk AnGeLs Do NoT tRuSt VaNgUaRd VeTs

Seriously can people stop doing this alternating caps thing? It's ugly as hell and never reads as anything but 100% immaturity.

Dai wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
DaRk AnGeLs Do NoT tRuSt VaNgUaRd VeTs

Seriously can people stop doing this alternating caps thing? It's ugly as hell and never reads as anything but 100% immaturity.

Seems apt, then.

 Dysartes wrote:

Dai wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
DaRk AnGeLs Do NoT tRuSt VaNgUaRd VeTs

Seriously can people stop doing this alternating caps thing? It's ugly as hell and never reads as anything but 100% immaturity.

Seems apt, then.

That kind of toxic dismissal should never be apt.

Bharring wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Dai wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
DaRk AnGeLs Do NoT tRuSt VaNgUaRd VeTs

Seriously can people stop doing this alternating caps thing? It's ugly as hell and never reads as anything but 100% immaturity.

Seems apt, then.

That kind of toxic dismissal should never be apt.

For the sake of clarity, which one are you referring to?

ThE cAsInG mocking meme.

It's always been a terrible meme. It's intended to read as quoting the original speaker but in "stupid speak". Which is just as toxic and unproductive online as it is in person.

I may have misread which comment you considered apt.

Bharring wrote:
ThE cAsInG mocking meme.

It's always been a terrible meme. It's intended to read as quoting the original speaker but in "stupid speak". Which is just as toxic and unproductive online as it is in person.

I may have misread which comment you considered apt.

At a certain point you have to dismiss people, especially with the pro-separation people in this thread making mental gymnastics to pretend the Angels are SO unique they need to be different codices. The reality is they aren't special and are a cause for imbalances to happen. Ergo at a certain point why does anyone care what a fluff bunny has to say?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
ThE cAsInG mocking meme.

It's always been a terrible meme. It's intended to read as quoting the original speaker but in "stupid speak". Which is just as toxic and unproductive online as it is in person.

I may have misread which comment you considered apt.

At a certain point you have to dismiss people, especially with the pro-separation people in this thread making mental gymnastics to pretend the Angels are SO unique they need to be different codices.

There can be times when the best response is to ignore. There can even be times where the best response is to show that some argument *should be ignored by others*. But there's never a time when direct baseless mockery is the approprate next step. To discuss further is to re-litigate Rule # 1 on these boards - so I should leave this part here, and go no further. I'd suggest you reread that rule, reconsider what it means, and adjust accordingly, though.

Onto substance then.

The reality is they aren't special and are a cause for imbalances to happen.

If mockery is your primary proof of this assertion, it's not exactly on solid ground. There's been good, reasonable arguments in both direction in this thread, but this post references none of them (nor does it introduce another).

Ergo at a certain point why does anyone care what a fluff bunny has to say?

Because most of us think "fluff bunny" is a pejorative used to dismiss anyone who cares for more than the pure crunch. And since most people care about more than pure crunch, it applies to most people. Those of us who care about more than pure crunch clearly should, therefore, care what a "fluff bunny" has to say.

Since those wielding "fluff bunny" as pejoratives have a track record of weaker arguments and worse "solutions" than others, isn't it *that* group that should be given less credence?

(Note that I'd say the same about those wielding "WAAC" or "competitive" as a pejorative as well, but not those who use casual/competitive/etc as a non-pejorative descriptor.)

The reality is they aren't special and are a cause for imbalances to happen.

What's really unique is your own point of view on life. You're arguing that DA are the cause of imbalances ... lol you're unique man, truly unique.

Dai wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
DaRk AnGeLs Do NoT tRuSt VaNgUaRd VeTs

Seriously can people stop doing this alternating caps thing? It's ugly as hell and never reads as anything but 100% immaturity.

Agreed, please don't do it.

WhiteDog wrote:

The reality is they aren't special and are a cause for imbalances to happen.

What's really unique is your own point of view on life. You're arguing that DA are the cause of imbalances ... lol you're unique man, truly unique.

Wanna pull up their win rate then and prove me wrong? Even BEFORE Space Marine Codex 2.0 both the Angels were doing fantastically worse, though at least Blood Angels provided Slamguinus (and that's literally it).

It IS a cause of imbalance as anyone playing Green or Red Marines is automatically at a disadvantage because of lack of access to Doctrines, Stratagems, and paying a premium for these "exclusive units" that are either no good or don't fulfill a role or are the basically whatever the Vanilla entry is but worse. Writing them as a separate army DOES cause imbalances and that's a fact that has been proven at tournaments.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ergo at a certain point why does anyone care what a fluff bunny has to say?

C'mon, this again?

I fully agree that the DA/BA/SW aren't unique enough to warrant different treatment from other Space Marine Chapters (because they've also been made unique from eachother with their own rules and abilities), but you also know very well that I'm a "fluffbunny".

Also, my apologies generally for my use of the alternating caps format - I was frustrated by the answers I was getting not actually answering anything at all, but that doesn't excuse my use of that format, and I do not stand by it. However, I would also politely ask that certain users (on both 'sides') stop using direct jabs based on mistruths or just offensiveness - things like "fluffbunny" and dismissing otherwise valid points by calling them "ridiculous bias".

But yeah - there's no need to call people "fluffbunnies" just because they're opposing you. I'm proof that a "fluffbunny" can support your own argument, after all.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
ThE cAsInG mocking meme.

It's always been a terrible meme. It's intended to read as quoting the original speaker but in "stupid speak". Which is just as toxic and unproductive online as it is in person.

I may have misread which comment you considered apt.

At a certain point you have to dismiss people, especially with the pro-separation people in this thread making mental gymnastics to pretend the Angels are SO unique they need to be different codices.

There can be times when the best response is to ignore. There can even be times where the best response is to show that some argument *should be ignored by others*. But there's never a time when direct baseless mockery is the approprate next step. To discuss further is to re-litigate Rule # 1 on these boards - so I should leave this part here, and go no further. I'd suggest you reread that rule, reconsider what it means, and adjust accordingly, though.

Onto substance then.

The reality is they aren't special and are a cause for imbalances to happen.

If mockery is your primary proof of this assertion, it's not exactly on solid ground. There's been good, reasonable arguments in both direction in this thread, but this post references none of them (nor does it introduce another).

Ergo at a certain point why does anyone care what a fluff bunny has to say?

Because most of us think "fluff bunny" is a pejorative used to dismiss anyone who cares for more than the pure crunch. And since most people care about more than pure crunch, it applies to most people. Those of us who care about more than pure crunch clearly should, therefore, care what a "fluff bunny" has to say.

Since those wielding "fluff bunny" as pejoratives have a track record of weaker arguments and worse "solutions" than others, isn't it *that* group that should be given less credence?

(Note that I'd say the same about those wielding "WAAC" or "competitive" as a pejorative as well, but not those who use casual/competitive/etc as a non-pejorative descriptor.)

1. Well if the arguments actually had any substance they'd be worth listening to. However, that's not the case. Apparently Techmarines aren't trusted, except they are. For some reason Ravenwing can't pilot the regular Fliers. They're just really bad inconsistencies and they have got to go, simple as that. It's better for the health of the armies, ergo healthier for the game itself. Clearly GW cannot balance the Angels as separate armies, and clearly people here don't have good suggestions on keeping them separate. It's time to admit we need a change and a good one at that.
2. Tournament results are pretty readily available and that's a pretty quick proof of imbalance being caused. This was literally just dismissed a post below yours and called "a unique view of life". So clearly there are denial issues for ONE party and not the other. I'm simply being blunt about it.
3. Yes it is dismissive because that's the party of people that want no consolidation yet have to put up anything reasonable, and are the ones not looking at the overall health of the game + the armies involved. Spoiler Alert: you don't need 10+ special rules to represent fluff. Sometimes streamlining is better. Hell, look at the new Marine supplements that have been released if you don't believe me. This is what happens when a certain party wants rules just because.
So really, you can think of "fluff bunny" as an equivalent of "okay boomer" in that at some point the other party is in such denial they cannot be helped. I've laid out how to consolidate and even have rough drafts on how I'd have laid out the codex. Guess what? Nothing of importance was lost and you still got your fluff. As it turns out, you can still paint your Terminators white and hunt Fallen, or use your Priests to pick up dudes that died (which really was the only reason to use them, if at all).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Well if the arguments actually had any substance they'd be worth listening to. However, that's not the case. Apparently Techmarines aren't trusted, except they are. For some reason Ravenwing can't pilot the regular Fliers. They're just really bad inconsistencies and they have got to go, simple as that. It's better for the health of the armies, ergo healthier for the game itself. Clearly GW cannot balance the Angels as separate armies, and clearly people here don't have good suggestions on keeping them separate. It's time to admit we need a change and a good one at that.

I fully agree that those arguments lack substance, but that's no excuse to be just dismissing people as "fluffbunnies".

Criticise the argument, not the person. I'm happy to admit that I may have overstepped that, but just calling anyone you disagree with a "fluffbunny" ain't on.

So really, you can think of "fluff bunny" as an equivalent of "okay boomer" in that at some point the other party is in such denial they cannot be helped.

No, not really, because just calling people a "fluffbunny" isn't accurate at all. By your standards, I *should* be a "fluffbunny", but I'm not. Stop just labelling people - it's not productive at all. Call other out if they're being unproductive, but don't do it yourself.

Again, I fully own up to my own failure to do so.

Yeah I'm a fluffbunny too and I want marine consolidation too!