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.
2020/06/15 17:55:09
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
I still think false choices are a waste of time, and insulting to boot. Look no further than assault marines. Or whirlwind vs scorpius whirlwind. Any dread vs leviathan dread.
2020/06/15 17:56:33
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
I'm starting to think that maybe all the old Marine units will be left in the SM 8.5 book, and anything new Units will be put into the (Primaris) SM 9th book, thus fulfilling their "old codexes can still be used" promise for the time being.
Old Marines can still use the 8.5 book, and we dont have to waste pages on Terminators and Land Raiders and Old School "First Born" SM units.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/15 17:58:19
2020/06/15 18:00:05
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Consolidation of unit entries would solve this problem really easy. Centurions do not need to be in two separate profiles. Terminators don't need 4. We don't need 9+ different Captains.
I actually kind of disagree on the general sentiment. You consolidate all seven Captain profiles then instead of the bloat of seven different cards you have one enourmously bloated card with seven different stat lines and seven different sets of wargear options on it, a lot of which are mutually exclusive.
The same applies to Terminators and Centurions. Tartaros and Cataphracii have different stats. Ranged and assault terminators have mutuallu exclusive wargear. The same is true of Centurions, and that's not even mentioning that Dev and Assault Cents are in different parts of the org chart.
It's just cleaner to have them on separate cards.
We don't need different rules for the different Mks of Terminators though! It's LITERALLY unnecessary, especially when we don't have different rules for the different Mks of Power Armor. Basically all the wargear is already shared! Centurions is easy: the consolidated profile goes into the Heavy Support slot.
It really isn't cleaner to do it GWs way. It basically never is.
That's a nice slippery slope, there is literally no reason for anything to have different rules besides lore and appearance. Why does a Scout have a different profile than a Scion? Why does a Russ have a different profile than a Predator? Why does a Conscript have a different profile than a Guardsman when they're literally the same model? Lore and apperance. "Mk III armor has exactly the same rules as Mk VI armor so Cataphracii Terminators should have the same rules as modern Terminators" is actually a less valid argument than "Cataphracii Terminators have different rules than modern Terminators, so Mk III armor should have different rules than Mk VI armor".
Terminators do not share all the wargear. Tartarus are faster and they're the only ones that can carry the Reaper AC, Plasma Blaster, and Volkite Charger. Cataphracii have a penalty to Advance rolls and a better base invuln save. Modern Terminators can't carry the Grenade Harness. Of the two modern units only the Assault Terminators can take weapons besides the Power Sword on the sergeant. Heresy-era Terminators can mix all their melee and ranged options, modern termies cannot. Put it all on one sheet and you either have to add a lot of weird "only these options are legal together" text or you significantly increase the flexibility of the base unit. GW doesn't seem to want to do the latter, and so long as they want those units to have slightly different base capabilities then the way they've divided the cards makes sense.
Love the hysterical jump in non logic.
We should consolodate the same models which have slightly different weapon options. So maybe we don;t need how many different weapon Primaris Lt dataslates....
MY GOD MAN you want all my models to ALL have the same profile - its exactly the same as a Stomper and a Gretchin havign different profiles. Nothing must puncture the every growing Marine Bloat NOTHING!
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Martel732 wrote: Congrats you have a bunch of false choices. At its peak, pathfinder had like 1000 feats, but the same ones were used over and over. 5 meaningful choices is better than one optimal choice and 19 false choices
Pathfinder isn't about building an optimal character. Your group could agree to play all Tier 4 classes, or Tier 3 with sufficiently unoptimized spell and feat choices, and likely end up having a better time playing as the monsters and campaigns weren't balanced against only ever seeing optimized tier 1 and 2 builds. Those bad feats also open builds that allow for emulation of characters from other properties even if the implementation of the rules means that character is less then optimal. Give choices to those that wish to use them.
Also, cutting rules that are 'dead weight' means that GW may as well hand each faction 3 prebuilt lists, move building your own army into casual play, and boil any sort of balanced play down to getting the first turn and having the paper to your opponent's rock.
Pathfinder is also a cooperative game. 40k is not.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/06/15 18:24:33
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
nekooni wrote: Why wouldn't I want different rules for different styles of Terminator armor? I'd say there aren't enough yet since I don't have rules for my Fire Drakes for 40k.
Unique rules are one of those things a lot of players seem to like, but which don't really do anything to improve gameplay and actively work against any attempts at balance and accessibility.
The incredible amount of options in factions, units, wargear, subfactions and so on is what drives 40k for me. If I wanted to trade that in for better balance, I'd play a different game. I'm not saying that I dislike balance, but I'm not willing to sacrifice these options on the altar of balance. Especially when the balance issues don't stem from having 3 types of Ancients, but from GW being unable to manage their own rules. Who exactly thought that -3 modifiers tohit or the rules Iron Hands got initially in their supplement were remotely balanced? That's just incompetency, nothing else.
That incredible amount of options isn't available to all factions though. Loyalist marines have more HQ options than many factions have units in their entire codex. Having one data sheet for terminators works just fine for csm, it would work just fine for loyalists as well. Same goes for box dreads, contemptors, etc, etc.
2020/06/15 18:35:40
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
nekooni wrote: Why wouldn't I want different rules for different styles of Terminator armor? I'd say there aren't enough yet since I don't have rules for my Fire Drakes for 40k.
Unique rules are one of those things a lot of players seem to like, but which don't really do anything to improve gameplay and actively work against any attempts at balance and accessibility.
The incredible amount of options in factions, units, wargear, subfactions and so on is what drives 40k for me. If I wanted to trade that in for better balance, I'd play a different game. I'm not saying that I dislike balance, but I'm not willing to sacrifice these options on the altar of balance. Especially when the balance issues don't stem from having 3 types of Ancients, but from GW being unable to manage their own rules. Who exactly thought that -3 modifiers tohit or the rules Iron Hands got initially in their supplement were remotely balanced? That's just incompetency, nothing else.
That incredible amount of options isn't available to all factions though. Loyalist marines have more HQ options than many factions have units in their entire codex. Having one data sheet for terminators works just fine for csm, it would work just fine for loyalists as well. Same goes for box dreads, contemptors, etc, etc.
Yea, there's the equity problem on top of the absurdity problem.
2020/06/15 18:44:24
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
nekooni wrote: Why wouldn't I want different rules for different styles of Terminator armor? I'd say there aren't enough yet since I don't have rules for my Fire Drakes for 40k.
Unique rules are one of those things a lot of players seem to like, but which don't really do anything to improve gameplay and actively work against any attempts at balance and accessibility.
The incredible amount of options in factions, units, wargear, subfactions and so on is what drives 40k for me. If I wanted to trade that in for better balance, I'd play a different game. I'm not saying that I dislike balance, but I'm not willing to sacrifice these options on the altar of balance. Especially when the balance issues don't stem from having 3 types of Ancients, but from GW being unable to manage their own rules. Who exactly thought that -3 modifiers tohit or the rules Iron Hands got initially in their supplement were remotely balanced? That's just incompetency, nothing else.
That incredible amount of options isn't available to all factions though. Loyalist marines have more HQ options than many factions have units in their entire codex. Having one data sheet for terminators works just fine for csm, it would work just fine for loyalists as well. Same goes for box dreads, contemptors, etc, etc.
Sure - but I'm not saying Marines should be the only faction with that many options, so I'm not sure what your point is? I'm basically just saying that you shouldn't take away the options people enjoy just because you think they're pointless if they're not pointless to these other people.
Same for RPGs - I never build minmax characters for D&D, so Martel would probably call most of the feats and choices I pick "false choices" because they're not the optimal choice for that archetype.
And equality is best reached by giving everyone the same, not by taking away from those that already have something, throwing it on a pile and burning it down. So just give CSM more terminator squad options, for example
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/15 18:47:09
2020/06/15 18:50:12
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
nekooni wrote: Why wouldn't I want different rules for different styles of Terminator armor? I'd say there aren't enough yet since I don't have rules for my Fire Drakes for 40k.
Unique rules are one of those things a lot of players seem to like, but which don't really do anything to improve gameplay and actively work against any attempts at balance and accessibility.
The incredible amount of options in factions, units, wargear, subfactions and so on is what drives 40k for me. If I wanted to trade that in for better balance, I'd play a different game. I'm not saying that I dislike balance, but I'm not willing to sacrifice these options on the altar of balance. Especially when the balance issues don't stem from having 3 types of Ancients, but from GW being unable to manage their own rules. Who exactly thought that -3 modifiers tohit or the rules Iron Hands got initially in their supplement were remotely balanced? That's just incompetency, nothing else.
That incredible amount of options isn't available to all factions though. Loyalist marines have more HQ options than many factions have units in their entire codex. Having one data sheet for terminators works just fine for csm, it would work just fine for loyalists as well. Same goes for box dreads, contemptors, etc, etc.
Sure - but I'm not saying Marines should be the only faction with that many options, so I'm not sure what your point is? I'm basically just saying that you shouldn't take away the options people enjoy just because you think they're pointless if they're not pointless to these other people.
Same for RPGs - I never build minmax characters for D&D, so Martel would probably call most of the feats and choices I pick "false choices" because they're not the optimal choice for that archetype.
And equality is best reached by giving everyone the same, not by taking away from those that already have something, throwing it on a pile and burning it down. So just give CSM more terminator squad options, for example
Except nothing is lost consolidating Centurions into a single entry for the Heavy Support slot. Nothing is lost with Terminators just having the one entry as Chaos Marines have done for YEARS. Arbitrary units and options are bad design.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/06/15 18:53:19
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
I’d like to see some armies, like DA, reject primaris and Keep the line of old marines with them. Possibly they become more of fiefdom. But GW aren’t going to keep producing 2 sets of marines I expect by then end of 9th old marines will have their rules in Index old stuff
2020/06/15 18:53:38
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Except nothing is lost consolidating Centurions into a single entry for the Heavy Support slot. Nothing is lost with Terminators just having the one entry as Chaos Marines have done for YEARS. Arbitrary units and options are bad design.
I totally agree, even said so earlier already. I'm just saying that I want to retain the options, unlike what Martel (as far as I understand it) argues.
Terminators with 3 different suit options (speed, defense, allrounder) and all of the weapon options from the current datasheets? totally fine with me.
All terminators being the same datasheet with minimal options (eg merging the Autocannon and the Assault Cannon) is a different beast, though.
2020/06/15 18:53:55
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Do you realize how many releases it would take to bring everyone up to marines? Cutting marines choices by half or even 2/3 is necessary to even have a hope.
2020/06/15 18:55:16
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
The Mini Marine line is one of their most modern plastic lines. It seems incredibly wasteful to essentially squat it by moving it to Legends (cue the contrarians acting like that isn't a death knell)
It would make more sense to write a Badab type coalition of Firstborn who rebel/are driven out to form their own book
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
2020/06/15 18:59:07
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Martel732 wrote: Do you realize how many releases it would take to bring everyone up to marines? Cutting marines choices by half or even 2/3 is necessary to even have a hope.
You've yet to explain why it is necessary to reduce the options outside of you thinking that they're "false choices". I want my terminator suits to behave differently from each other, and so far it's not a balance issue - neither are the different variants of Ancients, and so on. Usually the balance problems come from individual special units that are unique in what they can do (eg Hemlock, Reapers).
2020/06/15 19:03:58
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
It's necessary because other factions deserve to have at least half the options of marines. I would say equal, but that seems ambitious. Chopping down the marines makes it much easier to meet that benchmark.
There should not be so many varieties of terminators. Especially the really ancient models. They should have fallen into disrepair.
Again, equity and absurdity issues.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/15 19:04:44
2020/06/15 19:09:49
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Martel732 wrote: It's necessary because other factions deserve to have at least half the options of marines. I would say equal, but that seems ambitious. Chopping down the marines makes it much easier to meet that benchmark.
There should not be so many varieties of terminators. Especially the really ancient models. They should have fallen into disrepair.
Again, equity and absurdity issues.
So, just to make sure I get that right - you want to burn 2/3 of the marine codex simply because you don't like Marine players having more choices than other factions? That's it?
If you see a nice house and think that you'd like to have the same thing, too - would you feel like you've improved your situation by burning down that house since now the owner and you both have no house? (insert something appropriate if you already own a nice house, obviously)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/15 19:12:10
2020/06/15 19:13:15
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
If there were a realistic way to bring everyone up to the same number of choices, that would be fine too. Do you think they will make all those molds?
Marines are organized at a battalion level. Their level of diversity is insane for such a small force. All the marine bits and blurbs are really silly. It would consume the entire chapter to field meaningful amounts of the marine vehicles they have created.
Now, if we increase chapter size to say a billion marines, then the absurdity issue at least goes away.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/06/15 19:16:21
2020/06/15 19:18:42
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Martel732 wrote: If there were a realistic way to bring everyone up to the same number of choices, that would be fine too. Do you think they are make all those molds?
Marines are organized at a battalion level. Their level of diversity is insane for such a small force. All the marine bits and blurbs are really silly.
Again - why is it necessary to bring everyone to the same level of options? Why is it so important to reach that goal that it is fine to burn 2/3 of the Codex options? Just so eg a Necron player doesn't feel as bad about the lack of options in his Codex? It's not going to change anything for them, as you're only arguing to slash the "false choices", right? It's probably going to make the experience of sub-standard codex armies worse since I won't be able to tune my marines down by going with some wonky choices, since you just removed those.
re: absurdity - as far as I am aware more elite units usually have more diverse equipment in real armies, but I'm no expert so not sure about that. Not that I really care about that level of realism in a setting like 40k, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/15 19:21:09
2020/06/15 19:21:36
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
No one should have to "tune down". All choices should be meaningful.
To be honest here, I'd eliminate some of snowflake marines entirely, my own chapter included. Too much power armor in the game. Too many near-mirror matches. So 2/3 sounds like a compromise to me.
"
Again - why is it necessary to bring everyone to the same level of options?"
Because Orks and Tau are just as valid conceptually. Probably more so.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/15 19:26:18
2020/06/15 19:26:18
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
I'd say there's a pretty easy way to consolidate all the Terminators.
Single datasheet, all weapons available to everyone (because why can only Tartaros have the plasma blaster, when they're from the same chronological period as Cataphractii? Why can Cataphractii not have storm shields, despite that being an option they had in 30k? Why can some Chapters of loyalist Marines have mixed Terminator squads, but others can only have mixed Tartaros and Cataphractii squads, and others can't take mixed Indomitus squads on tabletop, but can in lore?)
However, you still get to have the difference between marks - have a rule in place where you *must* choose your Terminator Squad to be Indomitus, Cataphractii, or Tartaros - Indomitus gets 5++, Cataphractii gets 4++ but -1 Move, and Tartaros gets 6++ and +1 Move (yes, it makes them weaker than current, but that gives Indomitus a niche).
They/them
2020/06/15 19:27:57
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Martel732 wrote: No one should have to "tune down". All choices should be meaningful.
To be honest here, I'd eliminate some of snowflake marines entirely, my own chapter included. Too much power armor in the game. Too many near-mirror matches. So 2/3 sounds like a compromise to me.
You'd end up playing even more mirror matches since you'd no longer have any distinction between eg BA and DA, and you'd face even more "standardized" PA lists as a result. If everyone is stuck with "Terminator, Tactical, Devastator and a Captain" as options, that's all you're going to see. And if there're no longer any chapter specific rules, that just removes even more distinction. Well played.
Because Orks and Tau are just as valid conceptually. Probably more so.
And in no way are my Tau invalidated by me having a ton of choices for my Salamanders.
And honestly, you're claiming that there arent enough marines to explain diverse wargear, and they you're going to bring up the tiniest faction in the entire game, that has like a handful of worlds?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/15 19:30:28
2020/06/15 19:31:32
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
There are still orders of magnitude more Tau than marines. I know it's hard to grasp the actual setting insignificance of marines the way GW treats them.
I wouldn't get as many mirror matches because hopefully some people would dump marines. So yes, marine vs marine is MORE similar, but marine vs the field gets a lot better.
And yes, Tau and Orks are partially invalidated by all the attention GW gives marines. Marines are eating their lunch.
I know GW will not change, and continue gaking on all non-marine factions. So your million versions of terminators are safe, even if they are stupid and useless.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/06/15 19:39:51
2020/06/15 19:35:25
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Martel732 wrote: There are still orders of magnitude more Tau than marines.
I wouldn't get as many mirror matches because hopefully some people would dump marines. So yes, marine vs marine is MORE similar, but marine vs the field gets a lot better.
And yes, Tau and Orks are partially invalidated by all the attention GW gives marines. Marines are eating their lunch.
That's a great attitude, making players lose interest in their armies on purpose. I'm done here, no point in continuing.
2020/06/15 19:38:41
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'd say there's a pretty easy way to consolidate all the Terminators.
Single datasheet, all weapons available to everyone (because why can only Tartaros have the plasma blaster, when they're from the same chronological period as Cataphractii? Why can Cataphractii not have storm shields, despite that being an option they had in 30k? Why can some Chapters of loyalist Marines have mixed Terminator squads, but others can only have mixed Tartaros and Cataphractii squads, and others can't take mixed Indomitus squads on tabletop, but can in lore?)
However, you still get to have the difference between marks - have a rule in place where you *must* choose your Terminator Squad to be Indomitus, Cataphractii, or Tartaros - Indomitus gets 5++, Cataphractii gets 4++ but -1 Move, and Tartaros gets 6++ and +1 Move (yes, it makes them weaker than current, but that gives Indomitus a niche).
I like this idea. As long as we're talking legions as well as chapters.
2020/06/15 19:39:52
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'd say there's a pretty easy way to consolidate all the Terminators.
Single datasheet, all weapons available to everyone (because why can only Tartaros have the plasma blaster, when they're from the same chronological period as Cataphractii? Why can Cataphractii not have storm shields, despite that being an option they had in 30k? Why can some Chapters of loyalist Marines have mixed Terminator squads, but others can only have mixed Tartaros and Cataphractii squads, and others can't take mixed Indomitus squads on tabletop, but can in lore?)
However, you still get to have the difference between marks - have a rule in place where you *must* choose your Terminator Squad to be Indomitus, Cataphractii, or Tartaros - Indomitus gets 5++, Cataphractii gets 4++ but -1 Move, and Tartaros gets 6++ and +1 Move (yes, it makes them weaker than current, but that gives Indomitus a niche).
I like this idea. As long as we're talking legions as well as chapters.
You want it for CSM too? Hell yeah! If anyone should have Tartaros/Cataphractii, it's them!
They/them
2020/06/15 19:43:51
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Primaris are GW's biggest mistake, but unfortunately, they are here to stay. Old marines are going the way of the dodo sooner or later. 10,000 years of tradition and lore upended to force SM players to buy new armies.
2020/06/15 19:46:29
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'd say there's a pretty easy way to consolidate all the Terminators.
Single datasheet, all weapons available to everyone (because why can only Tartaros have the plasma blaster, when they're from the same chronological period as Cataphractii? Why can Cataphractii not have storm shields, despite that being an option they had in 30k? Why can some Chapters of loyalist Marines have mixed Terminator squads, but others can only have mixed Tartaros and Cataphractii squads, and others can't take mixed Indomitus squads on tabletop, but can in lore?)
However, you still get to have the difference between marks - have a rule in place where you *must* choose your Terminator Squad to be Indomitus, Cataphractii, or Tartaros - Indomitus gets 5++, Cataphractii gets 4++ but -1 Move, and Tartaros gets 6++ and +1 Move (yes, it makes them weaker than current, but that gives Indomitus a niche).
I like this idea. As long as we're talking legions as well as chapters.
You want it for CSM too? Hell yeah! If anyone should have Tartaros/Cataphractii, it's them!
Of course they should. Why gw decided that a kit designed to be used for any of the 18 legions in 30k could only be used for loyalists in 40k escapes me. Especially considering that the legions actually fought in the Heresy.
2020/06/15 20:05:13
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
chaos0xomega wrote: Pretty sure GW confirmed over the weekend that legacy/firstborn marines would NOT be getting Legendsed and would still be in the codex.
I expect GW is going to keep the firstborn marines around as long as they still see a certain level of community support behind those minis (i.e. people still showing up to tournaments with them, social media posts featuring them, etc.), but I expect they will begin scaling back production of those kits in time before finally quietly sidelining them and then officially Legendsing them. If 9th lasts a full edition cycle (~5 years) then I expect 10th will probably be the end of them.
If 9th last 3 years like 8th and then 10th last 3 more years, I won't be surprised for the Firstborn to shift to Legends int he 11th Edition Codex. I will be surprised if they are removed anytime before then. So a solid 6 year minimum in my opinion.
Of course, GW has it own plans that are inscrutable to the likes of us.
2020/06/15 23:27:47
Subject: When will GW finally separate the marine dex?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Consolidation of unit entries would solve this problem really easy. Centurions do not need to be in two separate profiles. Terminators don't need 4. We don't need 9+ different Captains.
I actually kind of disagree on the general sentiment. You consolidate all seven Captain profiles then instead of the bloat of seven different cards you have one enourmously bloated card with seven different stat lines and seven different sets of wargear options on it, a lot of which are mutually exclusive.
The same applies to Terminators and Centurions. Tartaros and Cataphracii have different stats. Ranged and assault terminators have mutuallu exclusive wargear. The same is true of Centurions, and that's not even mentioning that Dev and Assault Cents are in different parts of the org chart.
It's just cleaner to have them on separate cards.
We don't need different rules for the different Mks of Terminators though! It's LITERALLY unnecessary, especially when we don't have different rules for the different Mks of Power Armor. Basically all the wargear is already shared! Centurions is easy: the consolidated profile goes into the Heavy Support slot.
It really isn't cleaner to do it GWs way. It basically never is.
That's a nice slippery slope, there is literally no reason for anything to have different rules besides lore and appearance. Why does a Scout have a different profile than a Scion? Why does a Russ have a different profile than a Predator? Why does a Conscript have a different profile than a Guardsman when they're literally the same model? Lore and apperance. "Mk III armor has exactly the same rules as Mk VI armor so Cataphracii Terminators should have the same rules as modern Terminators" is actually a less valid argument than "Cataphracii Terminators have different rules than modern Terminators, so Mk III armor should have different rules than Mk VI armor".
Terminators do not share all the wargear. Tartarus are faster and they're the only ones that can carry the Reaper AC, Plasma Blaster, and Volkite Charger. Cataphracii have a penalty to Advance rolls and a better base invuln save. Modern Terminators can't carry the Grenade Harness. Of the two modern units only the Assault Terminators can take weapons besides the Power Sword on the sergeant. Heresy-era Terminators can mix all their melee and ranged options, modern termies cannot. Put it all on one sheet and you either have to add a lot of weird "only these options are legal together" text or you significantly increase the flexibility of the base unit. GW doesn't seem to want to do the latter, and so long as they want those units to have slightly different base capabilities then the way they've divided the cards makes sense.
Love the hysterical jump in non logic.
Absolutely nothing I said is a leap into non-logic. Different Terminator marks having slightly different rules makes more sense than different power armor marks all being under a single sheet. The lack of difference in power armor marks does not support the argument that the differences in terminator marks should be removed. If anything the opposite is true.
Look, I'd prefer to have one Terminator unit that I could upgrade to M6 or 4++, with Serg options for any combination of sword/claws/power fist/chainfist/thunder hammer/storm shield/Stormbolter/Volkite charger/plasma blaster plus the grenade harness and squad options for any combination of their gear and one Heavy Flamer/Assault Cannon/Reaper AC/Cyclone Launcher. I'd much prefer to be able to field my Centurions with one Heavy Bolter/Grav Cannon/Lascannon and one Siege Drill + Flamer/Meltagun and any one of the Centurion Missile Launcher/Hurricane Bolter/Assault Launcher instead of having to match the left and right arms so they could multi-task better. But if only certain combinations of that stuff is legal I want it on seperate cards for clarity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/15 23:28:40
