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.

So, space wolves are getting a new unit that's basicly a redressed riever, it would seem that between this and death company, primaris unique units are indeed coming, but what I'm curious about is if we know what their rules are going to be? and barring that speculation and hopes.

I'm kinda hoping they'll end up being something similer to SOS in that they provide an anti-psyker aura (not as good a one obviously). that could be a niche but benifical unit for space wolves

I speculate that based on the image I've seen the models look like gak.

Probably a 5+++ versus mortal wounds.
Maybe a negative to cast in 6-12".
Possibly "+1 to wound" in close combat or something. Or 6s do 2 damage.

I am predicting SOS style psych out grenades,,, but better ^

 Void__Dragon wrote:
I speculate that based on the image I've seen the models look like gak.

Like any other primaris models.

Why didn't they just make the Reiver rules not-crap?

I hope their rule sucks so no-one misses them when they get dropped in the next codex/supplement, so we can stop the chapter specific units.

I predict the longevity and commitment to rules support that has been the hallmark of modern GW's space marine range of model game token products.

Players can purchase, convert, painstakingly paint and prepare these models with the level of confidence that they'll have rules support for years to come that we've come to expect from good old games workshop.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I hope their rule sucks so no-one misses them when they get dropped in the next codex/supplement, so we can stop the chapter specific units.

"I don't play this army so I hope those who do get screwed over"

BrianDavion wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I hope their rule sucks so no-one misses them when they get dropped in the next codex/supplement, so we can stop the chapter specific units.

"I don't play this army so I hope those who do get screwed over"

lol so true.

I know we disagreed on the other thread @BrianDavion,,, but everywhere else on this forum we seem to be on the same page.

Why do so many people want this game to be less unique and less interesting.

"ohhhh, ha ha ha, you think SWs are unique, HA HA HA"
(ill just write it before you do)

Yes, I do, and many others do.
We can talk about their plethora of unique rules, playstyles, units, wargear, unit compositions, and models. The fact that they were a unique faction since 2nd edition,,,, even before many armies even existed in the game.

Why do people want this game to be as little datasheets as possible ?
Honestly,
If we wanted to, we could play this entire game on 5-6 datasheets and just call it a day. Why not ? it would fix balance.
I would probably stop playing and go play a game with asymmetrical armies,,, you know,,, like the way this game currently exists by having different factions,,, dare I say, even factions with slight differences AND major differences !!! omg !!!

 Type40 wrote:
Why do so many people want this game to be less unique and less interesting.

Because you don't need every unit to have a unique datasheet for the smallest difference for the game to be unique and interesting?

The main reason people want it to go away is it isn't actually unique, as far as rules go.

Unique aesthetic? Sure, go wild. Wulfen as VVs are a unique aesthetic.

Unique rules/playstyle? Hold on now. What playstyle do wolves have that isn't just duplicated/copied from another army? Even another SM army? SM bloat is so real that not only do they do everything the other NPC factions do, but now they are stepping on each other's toes as well!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Why do so many people want this game to be less unique and less interesting.

Because you don't need every unit to have a unique datasheet for the smallest difference for the game to be unique and interesting?

Right, so why not play eldar guardians using the tactical marine datasheet ?
You know, when a datasheet has unique rules, unique wargear, unique unit composition, unique unit size and the only thing that is the same is most of the stateline... are we really talking about "the smallest difference for the game" lol

BrianDavion wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I hope their rule sucks so no-one misses them when they get dropped in the next codex/supplement, so we can stop the chapter specific units.

"I don't play this army so I hope those who do get screwed over"

yeah, that is what 8th tought me. A anti psyker specific unit that is optimal to just take in a regular army, is not something I would like to see. I wish the hounds to be +4pts comparing to reavers with infiltration and a +6sv vs psychic power caused mortal wounds.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Why do so many people want this game to be less unique and less interesting.

Because you don't need every unit to have a unique datasheet for the smallest difference for the game to be unique and interesting?

Exactly. I think there are some situations where unique rules help differentiate units and armies but I think wherever the line of demarcation is, GW stepped way over it a long time ago. SW are a good example, I think. There are some things that I think the legitimately do need in order to show their unique traits and organisation. Blood Claws, for example. Or Thunderwolf Cavalry (though given how stupid they look I wouldn't be too bothered if they ceased to exist). But do they need to get their own super-special versions of weapons only they can use? Probably not. Frost Claws could just as easily be represented by Lightning Claws and the Frost Axe could just be a Power Axe. Yes, I know they have slightly different rules, but they don't need them.

The same goes for a lot of sub-factions nowadays IMO. We never used to have unique rules for Saim Hann, for example, but players could create characterful armies through which units they selected and what tactics they employed. That requires good internal balance, though, and GW seems to find it easier to just tack a bunch of special rules onto every unit and sub-faction in the game instead.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Why do so many people want this game to be less unique and less interesting.

Because you don't need every unit to have a unique datasheet for the smallest difference for the game to be unique and interesting?

Who cares about other armies in the first place. If SW were my army I would be very much in favour of them having as unique and many options as possible. the more options, the higher chance that some of them are actualy worth taking . If all options are more or less, or even just the same, and you get unlucky then suddenly you may end up with multiple factions being unfun or inferior to other factions, just because someone decided to make everthing uniform and kind of a the same. It is stupid to want something like that for ones own army or faction.

Slipspace wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Why do so many people want this game to be less unique and less interesting.

Because you don't need every unit to have a unique datasheet for the smallest difference for the game to be unique and interesting?

Exactly. I think there are some situations where unique rules help differentiate units and armies but I think wherever the line of demarcation is, GW stepped way over it a long time ago. SW are a good example, I think. There are some things that I think the legitimately do need in order to show their unique traits and organisation. Blood Claws, for example. Or Thunderwolf Cavalry (though given how stupid they look I wouldn't be too bothered if they ceased to exist). But do they need to get their own super-special versions of weapons only they can use? Probably not. Frost Claws could just as easily be represented by Lightning Claws and the Frost Axe could just be a Power Axe. Yes, I know they have slightly different rules, but they don't need them.

The same goes for a lot of sub-factions nowadays IMO. We never used to have unique rules for Saim Hann, for example, but players could create characterful armies through which units they selected and what tactics they employed. That requires good internal balance, though, and GW seems to find it easier to just tack a bunch of special rules onto every unit and sub-faction in the game instead.

Again, vanillafying the game seems a little counterintuitive.
Again, we do not NEED more then 5-6 datasheets all together, we can represent everything in the game with 5 or 6 datasheets and leave "painting and imagination" to fill in the fluff. But that is only if we are talking about what we NEED to make the game work.

What we NEED to make a working game is not what makes an interesting, customizable and unique feeling game. variance, options and unique access make the game interesting and is exactly what appeals to so many different players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some people want to play SWs not SMs and some people want that choice to make a difference on the tabletop.

If they wanted to take lightning claws over frost claws,,, they would have taken the lightning claws. But some players want their choices to mean something.

What we NEED is a rewritten game from the ground up that can properly model the difference between factions (the difference between a Marine and an Ork goes beyond power armor and an extra AP on certain turns).

But failing that I would probably have more fun riffing narrative off of 5-6 datasheets that are balanced rather than 1e10 or whatever it is, out of which like 5 or 6 are the only useful ones anyways.

If this was any of the 997 non pandered to Chapters it would be a lore footnote in the supplement.

But of course they need to bloat the Wolves even more. Except similar for the other 2 super special children.

I don't understand the pandared thing. SW are an IP GW created, there is a market for the models of the faction. So of course GW is making stuff for an army they know they will sell.

Ork or eldar pirates seem to be a thing in w40k lore too, but GW is not going to make whole armies of them, because they don't know if the new factions would sell well enough.

It is like being angry that BA gets all the specific units or ultramarines have a bucket of special characters.

The problem with the SM pandering is it is only escapable if GW cares.

Making more kits for SM and giving more stuff to SM will inevitably make SM sell better, which gives more kits and stuff to SM because they are sure they sell, so it makes them sell better...

Type40 wrote:Right, so why not play eldar guardians using the tactical marine datasheet ?

Reductio ad absurdum, again.

Space Wolves are Space Marines with a few flavour touches. They're not a whole bloody different race.

Otherwise, explain 30k.

You know, when a datasheet has unique rules, unique wargear, unique unit composition, unique unit size and the only thing that is the same is most of the stateline... are we really talking about "the smallest difference for the game" lol

Oh, how could I forget! Wolf Lords are totally different to Captains! Let's see... oh, they don't have an Iron Halo, they have... something that does exactly the same thing.

I'd be more receptive to your point if you weren't so blatantly grasping at straws and excusing things like I've just mentioned.

Karol wrote:Who cares about other armies in the first place. If SW were my army I would be very much in favour of them having as unique and many options as possible.

There's a word for that - seflishness.

If everyone wants "their" army getting all the good stuff without looking at the bigger picture, then the army with the most fans/players would be the strongest.

Options are useless without a reason for WHY they exist, beyond "I want OPTIONS". If people want uniqueness and flavour, what's stopping you saying "well, in the lore, the Bladeguard Vets of my Chapter actually function as part of the Chaplaincy and, in the case of the death of the commander, can take over as battlefield commanders in their own right!" - without needing to make rules for it?

It's why for the Hounds of Morkai, I think they should be have been a lore addition, such as "Space Wolves, when faced with psychic threats, often field specialised Reiver Squads known as Hounds of Morkai in order to deal with these foul sorcerers." and just left at that.

 Type40 wrote:


If they wanted to take lightning claws over frost claws,,, they would have taken the lightning claws. But some players want their choices to mean something.

Plus for all the people that do not paint their models at all, telling them that the army difference can come from different ways of painting the models is not a very enticing thing.

Different rules sets on the other hand, or even different ways of game play can entice people to play, and what is important to GW, buy new models.

No one was buying 15 centurions for their sm army up until the 2.0 sm codex droped with its supplements.

Karol wrote:
I don't understand the pandared thing. SW are an IP GW created, there is a market for the models of the faction. So of course GW is making stuff for an army they know they will sell.

Ork or eldar pirates seem to be a thing in w40k lore too, but GW is not going to make whole armies of them, because they don't know if the new factions would sell well enough. .

They don't know how they will sell because they are too busy making new.....Wolves - thanks for the confirmation

They said they would not sell Sisters and wierdly when they managed to squeeze in a realse between endless Marines - they sold...

Wierd that if you don't make stuff it does not sell.

Same with the Other Chapters -would it be nice to have a unit or two for at least the vastly important First Founding Chapters and their successors (again something the Wolves did not have) bt no - lets have more Wolves - cos Wolves.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Type40 wrote:Right, so why not play eldar guardians using the tactical marine datasheet ?

Reductio ad absurdum, again.

Space Wolves are Space Marines with a few flavour touches. They're not a whole bloody different race.

Otherwise, explain 30k.

You know, when a datasheet has unique rules, unique wargear, unique unit composition, unique unit size and the only thing that is the same is most of the stateline... are we really talking about "the smallest difference for the game" lol

Oh, how could I forget! Wolf Lords are totally different to Captains! Let's see... oh, they don't have an Iron Halo, they have... something that does exactly the same thing.

I'd be more receptive to your point if you weren't so blatantly grasping at straws and excusing things like I've just mentioned.

Karol wrote:Who cares about other armies in the first place. If SW were my army I would be very much in favour of them having as unique and many options as possible.

There's a word for that - seflishness.

If everyone wants "their" army getting all the good stuff without looking at the bigger picture, then the army with the most fans/players would be the strongest.

Options are useless without a reason for WHY they exist, beyond "I want OPTIONS". If people want uniqueness and flavour, what's stopping you saying "well, in the lore, the Bladeguard Vets of my Chapter actually function as part of the Chaplaincy and, in the case of the death of the commander, can take over as battlefield commanders in their own right!" - without needing to make rules for it?

It's why for the Hounds of Morkai, I think they should be have been a lore addition, such as "Space Wolves, when faced with psychic threats, often field specialised Reiver Squads known as Hounds of Morkai in order to deal with these foul sorcerers." and just left at that.

Exalted for excellence and accuracy

 Mr Morden wrote:

Karol wrote:
I don't understand the pandared thing. SW are an IP GW created, there is a market for the models of the faction. So of course GW is making stuff for an army they know they will sell.

Ork or eldar pirates seem to be a thing in w40k lore too, but GW is not going to make whole armies of them, because they don't know if the new factions would sell well enough. .

They don't know how they will sell because they are too busy making new.....Wolves - thanks for the confirmation

They said they would not sell Sisters and wierdly when they managed to squeeze in a realse between endless Marines - they sold...

Wierd that if you don't make stuff it does not sell.

Same with the Other Chapters -would it be nice to have a unit or two for at least the vastly important First Founding Chapters and their successors (again something the Wolves did not have) bt no - lets have more Wolves - cos Wolves.

I dunno, wolves have existed since 2nd edition as a unique army ,,,, they have been developing this unique army for a long time lol. different colours of regular SM are just that. some one sounds a bit jelous here XD.

Who cares if they have been developed since 2nd? That doesn't actually mean anything.

The real question is what they offer to Imperial players that is a fundamental playstyle difference from any other Imperial faction.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Type40 wrote:Right, so why not play eldar guardians using the tactical marine datasheet ?

Reductio ad absurdum, again.

Space Wolves are Space Marines with a few flavour touches. They're not a whole bloody different race.

Otherwise, explain 30k.

You know, when a datasheet has unique rules, unique wargear, unique unit composition, unique unit size and the only thing that is the same is most of the stateline... are we really talking about "the smallest difference for the game" lol

Oh, how could I forget! Wolf Lords are totally different to Captains! Let's see... oh, they don't have an Iron Halo, they have... something that does exactly the same thing.

I'd be more receptive to your point if you weren't so blatantly grasping at straws and excusing things like I've just mentioned.

Karol wrote:Who cares about other armies in the first place. If SW were my army I would be very much in favour of them having as unique and many options as possible.

There's a word for that - seflishness.

If everyone wants "their" army getting all the good stuff without looking at the bigger picture, then the army with the most fans/players would be the strongest.

Options are useless without a reason for WHY they exist, beyond "I want OPTIONS". If people want uniqueness and flavour, what's stopping you saying "well, in the lore, the Bladeguard Vets of my Chapter actually function as part of the Chaplaincy and, in the case of the death of the commander, can take over as battlefield commanders in their own right!" - without needing to make rules for it?

It's why for the Hounds of Morkai, I think they should be have been a lore addition, such as "Space Wolves, when faced with psychic threats, often field specialised Reiver Squads known as Hounds of Morkai in order to deal with these foul sorcerers." and just left at that.

LOL

You deliberately only refrence the captain... which BTW didnt even have a keyword addition in the new main marine dex lol... Yes if you focus on the one datasheet that was functionally the same, sure it sounds like you are right.

p.s. spacewolves have different genetics then normal marines in the lore,,, doesnt that make them a kind of WHOLE DIFFERENT BLOODY RACE .... and if you dont think different genetics is enough to make them a WHOLE DIFFERENT BLOODY RACE... then lets make gaurdsman use the tactical marine datasheets ? they are the same race after all ?
or where do you like the draw that line ?

There are no grasping at straws here. You have picked one example "the space marine captain" and are somehow convinced the fact that this one datasheet is exactly the same functionally that every other example of exceptions, unit composition differences, rules differences, wargear differences, and set of unique models do not count. quite frankly its getting ridiculous... how about you talk about something other then the space marine captain like we are XD >?

 Type40 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Type40 wrote:Right, so why not play eldar guardians using the tactical marine datasheet ?

Reductio ad absurdum, again.

Space Wolves are Space Marines with a few flavour touches. They're not a whole bloody different race.

Otherwise, explain 30k.

You know, when a datasheet has unique rules, unique wargear, unique unit composition, unique unit size and the only thing that is the same is most of the stateline... are we really talking about "the smallest difference for the game" lol

Oh, how could I forget! Wolf Lords are totally different to Captains! Let's see... oh, they don't have an Iron Halo, they have... something that does exactly the same thing.

I'd be more receptive to your point if you weren't so blatantly grasping at straws and excusing things like I've just mentioned.

Karol wrote:Who cares about other armies in the first place. If SW were my army I would be very much in favour of them having as unique and many options as possible.

There's a word for that - seflishness.

If everyone wants "their" army getting all the good stuff without looking at the bigger picture, then the army with the most fans/players would be the strongest.

Options are useless without a reason for WHY they exist, beyond "I want OPTIONS". If people want uniqueness and flavour, what's stopping you saying "well, in the lore, the Bladeguard Vets of my Chapter actually function as part of the Chaplaincy and, in the case of the death of the commander, can take over as battlefield commanders in their own right!" - without needing to make rules for it?

It's why for the Hounds of Morkai, I think they should be have been a lore addition, such as "Space Wolves, when faced with psychic threats, often field specialised Reiver Squads known as Hounds of Morkai in order to deal with these foul sorcerers." and just left at that.

LOL

You deliberately only refrence the captain... which BTW didnt even have a keyword addition in the new main marine dex lol... Yes if you focus on the one datasheet that was functionally the same, sure it sounds like you are right.

p.s. spacewolves have different genetics then normal marines in the lore,,, doesnt that make them a kind of WHOLE DIFFERENT BLOODY RACE .... and if you dont think different genetics is enough to make them a WHOLE DIFFERENT BLOODY RACE... then lets make gaurdsman use the tactical marine datasheets ? they are the same race after all ?
or where do you like the draw that line ?

There are no grasping at straws here. You have picked one example "the space marine captain" and are somehow convinced the fact that this one datasheet is exactly the same functionally that every other example of exceptions, unit composition differences, rules differences, wargear differences, and set of unique models do not count. quite frankly its getting ridiculous... how about you talk about something other then the space marine captain like we are XD >?

What do those differences actually change about the faction? What playstyle difference is there between, say, SW and BA/BT/fightyMarine?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Who cares if they have been developed since 2nd? That doesn't actually mean anything.

The real question is what they offer to Imperial players that is a fundamental playstyle difference from any other Imperial faction.

Different set of rules, unique models, wargear, unique unit compositions, unique unit sizes, some unique unit stats, and unique unit rules. With some overlap.
Soooo... the same differences that CSM has with SMs.

 Type40 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Who cares if they have been developed since 2nd? That doesn't actually mean anything.

The real question is what they offer to Imperial players that is a fundamental playstyle difference from any other Imperial faction.

Different set of rules, unique models, wargear, unique unit compositions, unique unit sizes, some unique unit stats, and unique unit rules. With some overlap.
Soooo... the same differences that CSM has with SMs.

Well the difference between CSM and SM is the difference between a villain and a hero.

What actual playstyle differences are there? Those are just rule differences. What impact do they have?