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.

Karol wrote:

I'm more offended that there are still people to this day that think Terminators were good to begin with.

You had to shoot the closest target. The assault cannon only shot chaff before the terminators were wiped out. It also jammed... a lot.

 Fluid_Fox wrote:

Karol wrote:

I'm more offended that there are still people to this day that think Terminators were good to begin with.

I can see why people would think they were good in 2nd, but that was the trap. After just a few games, no one I ever played with bothered to point anything at them smaller then a krak missile. They were good in that they could carry an assault cannon to delete avatars and monstrous creatures VERY reliably, but 300+ points in a low model count army meant they were getting a lot of the heavy weapons pointed at them.

I used mine in conjunction with a Dreadnought with auto launchers and an Assault Squad with Blind grenades. They were barely visible to the opponent a lot of the time, and used their BS5 and Targeters to good use, often on Overwatch. The Dreadnought also had an Assault Cannon, so even if one jammed there was backup.

Also Heavy Weapons could fire at monsters and vehicles instead of just the chaff iirc, so they still got good work done even if the opponent was screening. Because Terminators could move and fire, you could also use the available firing corridors between blind grenades to have some choice in targets.

 Type40 wrote:
Not to mention, why are we advocating for general SMs to have access to even more min/max potential without any need for any of the current drawbacks for getting those customization options... I would think that giving SM yet another specialty of CSM would be frowned upon.

Oh noes, woe be upon GW which would then be forced to actually balance the rules bloat every SM free update brings to a datasheet instead of just spamming out more datasheets.

On another side note, you could also hide upgrades and equipment behind subfaction choice AND STILL have one datasheet, which would lead to hopefully more correctly priced overall terminators as a whole and not autoincludes for some and others can twiddle their thumbs..
It would also remove skew, because frankly RO3 applying equally to ALL factions is about high fething time, especially for SM.

Not Online!!! wrote:

On another side note, you could also hide upgrades and equipment behind subfaction choice AND STILL have one datasheet

Totally agree, you totally could.
The problem with that is increased design time effort and a problem with User Interfacing.
It takes more work to make sure everything synergizes then to just make two datasheets (this actually might not be a bad thing though, but it does increase time not reduce it)
And in terms of User Interfacing, a single datasheet with a slew of exceptions, affordances, bans, unit size and unit composition differences is not good for user readability and comprehension... (though people are smart and would be able to decipher it if motivated, its just not ideal and would be prone to confusions [lots if YMDC questions I assume XD]). If you are just printing the exceptions in alternative supplements and codexes anyways... why not just print an easy to read datasheet ?

So in my opinion, the cons outweigh any benefits.

It would also remove skew, because frankly RO3 applying equally to ALL factions is about high fething time, especially for SM.

The problem isn't multiple datasheets, its that GW refuses to write a few lines in the FAQ to uniformly do their power creep... This isn't solved by consolidated datasheets, it is solved by GW making an effort to uniformly give all players the same benefits. In fact, most of the problems people complain about are a problem with GW not putting effort... None of this will actually be solved by consolidating data-sheets,,, it will just remove flavour from the game or make things more confusing... what we need is GW to start paying attention to what they are doing and catering to their entire audience and not just to power armor.

 Type40 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

On another side note, you could also hide upgrades and equipment behind subfaction choice AND STILL have one datasheet

Totally agree, you totally could.
The problem with that is increased design time effort and a problem with User Interfacing.
It takes more work to make sure everything synergizes then to just make two datasheets (this actually might not be a bad thing though, but it does increase time not reduce it)
And in terms of User Interfacing, a single datasheet with a slew of exceptions, affordances, bans, unit size and unit composition differences is not good for user readability and comprehension... (though people are smart and would be able to decipher it if motivated, its just not ideal and would be prone to confusions [lots if YMDC questions I assume XD]). If you are just printing the exceptions in alternative supplements and codexes anyways... why not just print an easy to read datasheet ?

So in my opinion, the cons outweigh any benefits.

It would also remove skew, because frankly RO3 applying equally to ALL factions is about high fething time, especially for SM.

The problem isn't multiple datasheets, its that GW refuses to write a few lines in the FAQ to uniformly do their power creep... This isn't solved by consolidated datasheets, it is solved by GW making an effort to uniformly give all players the same benefits.

For what GW demands and supposedly puts in time for in regards to rules they im could've easily done better, regardless how they go about it.

And no, RO3 not applying to terminator types for loyalists is a decidedly GW issue with Datasheet spam. Just as it was for Daemonprinces, etc.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

On another side note, you could also hide upgrades and equipment behind subfaction choice AND STILL have one datasheet

Totally agree, you totally could.
The problem with that is increased design time effort and a problem with User Interfacing.
It takes more work to make sure everything synergizes then to just make two datasheets (this actually might not be a bad thing though, but it does increase time not reduce it)
And in terms of User Interfacing, a single datasheet with a slew of exceptions, affordances, bans, unit size and unit composition differences is not good for user readability and comprehension... (though people are smart and would be able to decipher it if motivated, its just not ideal and would be prone to confusions [lots if YMDC questions I assume XD]). If you are just printing the exceptions in alternative supplements and codexes anyways... why not just print an easy to read datasheet ?

So in my opinion, the cons outweigh any benefits.

It would also remove skew, because frankly RO3 applying equally to ALL factions is about high fething time, especially for SM.

The problem isn't multiple datasheets, its that GW refuses to write a few lines in the FAQ to uniformly do their power creep... This isn't solved by consolidated datasheets, it is solved by GW making an effort to uniformly give all players the same benefits.

For what GW demands and supposedly puts in time for in regards to rules they im could've easily done better, regardless how they go about it.

And no, RO3 not applying to terminator types for loyalists is a decidedly GW issue with Datasheet spam. Just as it was for Daemonprinces, etc.

Ah, ya I see the problem,
Sure, again easy fix is a single line of rules text instead of all the hoops and confusion of consolidating datasheets... I can think of a few ways to elegantly implement a fix... how about RO3 applies to <special unifying keywords> ... Either way, consolidating the datasheets brings too many problems...

Also RO3 was put into place for a few specific types of spam... honestly ... back in 8th no one had a problem when I showed up with 6 death jesters... but when If I showed up with 6 deamon princes. different story. TBH I thought rule of 3 was a knee jerk reaction to a problem in competitive play... and its fine,,, it just could have been implemented in a more specific and elegant way to solve the specific problem. But GW has never been one for elegance in their rules design and presentation (though this edition seems to be a bit better then previous ones,,, I actually have a suspicion that they hired FF as consultants due to what seems to be an adoption of some of the FF style conviences they added to their new rulebooks AND the fact that they have worked with FF on spinoff games in the past,,, but this is a conspiracy theory and it's place is in a thread of its own lol)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Either way, on the topic of this thread. We both agree marines take up too much design space currently. We disagree on the solution...

I am under the impression that the options for consolidating the datasheets only removes flavour (which a lot of players join the game for), keeps flavour but creats datasheets with poor design and user interfacing, or gives factions way to many affordances with no room for restrictions, depending on the implementation choice.

Not to mentioned any of these solutions would require increased attention on power armor armies not decreased to figure out the details.

So no, I do not think this a good method for shifting design space to other factions, in fact I think it would be worse.

My idea for giving other factions attention ,,, is to do just that,,, have the GW team start actually caring about and focusing on other factions ... It really shouldn't be that hard to make universal changes, tweaks to all factions when necessary and equal attention to army rules... other games do it, even other games that have an overwhelmingly popular faction...

Ice_can wrote:
As I dont own custodes mt SoS go to battle on their own so I've been using them the same old way but as they're more a for fun fluff addition they kind of got removed from playability by the rampit increase of marine cheese after codex 2.0 in 8th as even in "frendly games" you had to take a tournament level list.

I too like to field SoS without Custodes. My trick is attaching Inquisitors to Null Maiden Vanguards. SoS get their own strats, but the Inquisitor can use their own strats to augment the SoS and their other abilities to stack debuffs; they can also hitch a ride in a Null Maiden Rhino. Love it when the Hereticus uses No Escape to prevent units from running away from Vigilators.

Planetary Bombard is expensive, but fun. You can also use a strat to buff the SoS vs. the Inquisitor's Quarry.

Thats why half the factions in the game are marines - its the iconic faction. They're not taking up design space

Marines seem to be in a great place right now. No issue with them at all

I miss the old Armory system from 3rd and 4th, where all the options available to an army were listed on one page with points costs (that varied based on character/sergeant/regular model in some cases) and then could be doled out to customize your units.

I remember Techmarines with Storm Shields in a Sons of Medusa army, anti-tank shells (in addition to the normal battlecannon blast) for Leman Russ tanks in an armored company, a regular Imperial Guardsman with the one Imperial medal that gave him the profile of a Heroic Senior Officer, Autarchs with all sorts of wargear...

The armory days were awesome. If you wanted to make your dudes into Your Dudes, those were the days.

 Stevefamine wrote:
Thats why half the factions in the game are marines - its the iconic faction. They're not taking up design space

Marines seem to be in a great place right now. No issue with them at all

I agree that marines are in a great place right now, you can build strong fluffy armies and still compete. The problem is that theyre the only ones that have that luxury. i'd love for my other armies to also be able to do that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I miss the old Armory system from 3rd and 4th, where all the options available to an army were listed on one page with points costs (that varied based on character/sergeant/regular model in some cases) and then could be doled out to customize your units.

I remember Techmarines with Storm Shields in a Sons of Medusa army, anti-tank shells (in addition to the normal battlecannon blast) for Leman Russ tanks in an armored company, a regular Imperial Guardsman with the one Imperial medal that gave him the profile of a Heroic Senior Officer, Autarchs with all sorts of wargear...

The armory days were awesome. If you wanted to make your dudes into Your Dudes, those were the days.

Agreed.

I also preferred that layout to the current one where a model's dataslate will tell you what wargear lists it can choose from, and then you have to go to another page to find out what is actually on those lists, and then a third completely different page to find out what the named weapons actually do. And if you want to find out what relics a model can take, you'll need to go to a forth page, nowhere near any of the previous ones.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I miss the old Armory system from 3rd and 4th, where all the options available to an army were listed on one page with points costs (that varied based on character/sergeant/regular model in some cases) and then could be doled out to customize your units.

I remember Techmarines with Storm Shields in a Sons of Medusa army, anti-tank shells (in addition to the normal battlecannon blast) for Leman Russ tanks in an armored company, a regular Imperial Guardsman with the one Imperial medal that gave him the profile of a Heroic Senior Officer, Autarchs with all sorts of wargear...

The armory days were awesome. If you wanted to make your dudes into Your Dudes, those were the days.

Agreed.

I also preferred that layout to the current one where a model's dataslate will tell you what wargear lists it can choose from, and then you have to go to another page to find out what is actually on those lists, and then a third completely different page to find out what the named weapons actually do. And if you want to find out what relics a model can take, you'll need to go to a forth page, nowhere near any of the previous ones.

Both systems could work, it's just GW cheaping out, because the community holds them really rarely accountable, on an editor...

Not Online!!! wrote:
And no, RO3 not applying to terminator types for loyalists is a decidedly GW issue with Datasheet spam. Just as it was for Daemonprinces, etc.

Getting to the real issues of 40k here, right? GW really needs to limit the Terminator spam down to 30 Terminators in a 2k points list, it's gotten totally out of hand.

edit: I still don't see any point in making a single unified hyper-complex "Terminator Squad" datasheet. There's no real benefit, and you're still arguing that GW should waste time on trying to do that anyway? Instead you claim that ... idk, it's the communities fault that we have too many Terminator Squad datasheets, when GW just consolidated some ?

The problem is how the Rule Of Three is applied. For the common 2000 point game it's silly, but there's merit to it for smaller games. Turn it into something stupid simple like "Each unit that is not a TROOP choice can only be selected once per 500 point in game size. So Rule of 2 at 1000-1499, Rule of 3 at 1500-1999, and Rule of 4 at 2000-2499, etc.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The problem is how the Rule Of Three is applied. For the common 2000 point game it's silly, but there's merit to it for smaller games. Turn it into something stupid simple like "Each unit that is not a TROOP choice can only be selected once per 500 point in game size. So Rule of 2 at 1000-1499, Rule of 3 at 1500-1999, and Rule of 4 at 2000-2499, etc.

That would be a good idea but still does not address the disparity in datasheets available between factions. As it stand adding more than 3 Hellbrutes is a big no-no for me, but from the looks of it SM can easily fit 9 Dreadnoughts into their list. Same for Terminators, Guard with their absurd amount of Tanks + combat squad equivalent. Now this is not even a balance complaint, but rather about the skewed way in which RO3 was implemented.

 Castozor wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The problem is how the Rule Of Three is applied. For the common 2000 point game it's silly, but there's merit to it for smaller games. Turn it into something stupid simple like "Each unit that is not a TROOP choice can only be selected once per 500 point in game size. So Rule of 2 at 1000-1499, Rule of 3 at 1500-1999, and Rule of 4 at 2000-2499, etc.

That would be a good idea but still does not address the disparity in datasheets available between factions. As it stand adding more than 3 Hellbrutes is a big no-no for me, but from the looks of it SM can easily fit 9 Dreadnoughts into their list. Same for Terminators, Guard with their absurd amount of Tanks + combat squad equivalent. Now this is not even a balance complaint, but rather about the skewed way in which RO3 was implemented.

And quite frankly I want Dreads consolidated into regular and the Primaris one. GW's version of the Contemptor sucks so I won't even address it.

 Fluid_Fox wrote:

Karol wrote:

I'm more offended that there are still people to this day that think Terminators were good to begin with.

I can see why people would think they were good in 2nd, but that was the trap. After just a few games, no one I ever played with bothered to point anything at them smaller then a krak missile. They were good in that they could carry an assault cannon to delete avatars and monstrous creatures VERY reliably, but 300+ points in a low model count army meant they were getting a lot of the heavy weapons pointed at them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The problem is how the Rule Of Three is applied. For the common 2000 point game it's silly, but there's merit to it for smaller games. Turn it into something stupid simple like "Each unit that is not a TROOP choice can only be selected once per 500 point in game size. So Rule of 2 at 1000-1499, Rule of 3 at 1500-1999, and Rule of 4 at 2000-2499, etc.

Isn't the rule kinda like that anyway ? Just with 1-1000/1000-2000/2000+ for 2/3/4 ?

I can tell you that restricting this further feths over other armies too much, ars bellica is kinda like that (popular tournament system in Europe ), and the only real change with your approach is for 1000-1500pt games,isn't it ?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Thats why half the factions in the game are marines - its the iconic faction. They're not taking up design space

Marines seem to be in a great place right now. No issue with them at all

I agree that marines are in a great place right now, you can build strong fluffy armies and still compete. The problem is that theyre the only ones that have that luxury. i'd love for my other armies to also be able to do that.

I'm hoping when you get your 9th edition codex you will.

it's worth ntoing that both sisters of battle and codex necrons allow for a fairly fluff flexable force that performs quite well, so there's definate hope for future armies.