Switch Theme:

What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
oh wait, CWE, Tau, and Tyranid minis don't get to mean something, or be different based on what they choose? Oh, okay.
Paint scheme.

Duh.

Is this just another weak attempt to whine about Marines?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?

There's a limit to what something must mean.
Can I have a limit to your exhausting hyperbole?



BTW don;t craftworld Ulthwe have their own special varients of some aspects, Black Guardians and the like? they breifly got rules again in 7th, perhaps they'll reapper in 9th?

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in au
Calm Celestian




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
The only value is emotional for the people who really like to have their own unique datasheet. Mechanically and practically there is none.

Further this can get applied to war gear as well. It has been argued that having power axe, power sword, power spear, etc etc... is a waste. Just have a singular stat line for power weapon and then the player is free to model whatever weapon they want onto the model to flavor it however they see fit.

The extra granularity isn't actually helping anything and doesn't actually make that big of a difference while the modeling options would become vastly better.

Honestly with the Strength bonus on power weapons coming up, you really don't need anything besides the Power Sword and Power Axe in terms of profiles. Nobody is going to take a S+3 Power Maul when the Power Fist exists.
Not sure rhis has been said, but you might take a +3 maul when powerfists aren't an option.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Lammia wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
The only value is emotional for the people who really like to have their own unique datasheet. Mechanically and practically there is none.

Further this can get applied to war gear as well. It has been argued that having power axe, power sword, power spear, etc etc... is a waste. Just have a singular stat line for power weapon and then the player is free to model whatever weapon they want onto the model to flavor it however they see fit.

The extra granularity isn't actually helping anything and doesn't actually make that big of a difference while the modeling options would become vastly better.

Honestly with the Strength bonus on power weapons coming up, you really don't need anything besides the Power Sword and Power Axe in terms of profiles. Nobody is going to take a S+3 Power Maul when the Power Fist exists.
Not sure rhis has been said, but you might take a +3 maul when powerfists aren't an option.

Yeah except most models that are given an option to take a Power Weapon are also offered the Fist. Plus the extreme few times a Power Maul might even come close to ahead are soooooo niche they might as well not exist. At all.

If anything the S+1 made Mauls a worse choice.

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.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Indiana

Quit playing war machine because I hated the lack of ability to customize, it was boring,

I like modeling things and kiting them out however I like and being able to play that on the table.

I like the split of power weapons and how they have different uses for different factions based on their base stat lines.

I think some data sheets could easily be consolidated in the marine book without much of a loss, but a majority would just be super confusing if you did that and having a few extra pages in the book for ease of use is fine by me. I get why they have spread out certain things, it makes the legalese easier for weapon options as well as allow people to take more copies Of a unit if they want to.

I hope xenos get more options and things recategorized but I don’t think most options should be scrubbed just because they are similar.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 04:41:55


People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer

My Deathwatch army project thread  
   
Made in de
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator





I think what the OP describing is something I'd rather like to see in Apokalypse, where you don't need all the nitty gritty Details of a unit but want to put loads of minis on the table.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut







BrianDavion wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
oh wait, CWE, Tau, and Tyranid minis don't get to mean something, or be different based on what they choose? Oh, okay.
Paint scheme.

Duh.

Is this just another weak attempt to whine about Marines?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?

There's a limit to what something must mean.
Can I have a limit to your exhausting hyperbole?


BTW don;t craftworld Ulthwe have their own special varients of some aspects, Black Guardians and the like? they breifly got rules again in 7th, perhaps they'll reapper in 9th?


Ah, Codex: Craftworlds from... late 3rd or early 4th edition.

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Lammia 793401 10969726 wrote:
Not sure rhis has been said, but you might take a +3 maul when powerfists aren't an option.


Or GW decides that powerfists should be -1 to hit, and you are playing a melee heavy army or an army where melee is a crucial part to counter specific units, and the maul ain't a fist or a thunder hammer and doesn't get a -1 to hit. Or your army has +1 to wound buffs meaning a str less then 8-9 weapon can still wound as hard as a thunder hammer or fist, but for fewer points.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Somewhere in Canada

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:Because people like their minis to mean something. They want there to be differences with the things they choose.
Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?



Yes we can and do; it's called Crusade, and some of us love it. Between Crusade Relics, making upgrade strats permanent with RP, and the various types of Battle Honours, you could field a Brigade where none of the six troop units (all made from the same kit) play the same way.

Some people wouldn't like that, because they'd say it's too confusing. But that's fine, because those people can choose to play matched.

I'll take as many options and as much customization as I can get thanks.

And to the TWC/ Bikes debate: if you were playing against me, and you wanted to use your TWC as Counts as Bikes because of a principle about game design and simplicity, or because you couldn't handle two data sheets instead of one, or whatever excuse you want to come up with, I'd be fine with that. Because I'm a peacemaker and I like it when everyone at the table has fun, even if they choose not to play "My Way"

As for a new box with Old Marines in it, do you mean the new DW Combat Patrol Box? Or do you require that it be a new sculpt/ unit that is an old marine? If it's the latter, you may be right, but not because they're squatting Old Marines, but just because they can't really improve on what already exists.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Galas wrote:
The truth is , if GW is selling two extremely different kits like are space marines in giant wolfs and space marines in bikes, people expect for those two things to not be the same thing.

They unified power weapons in 3rd and most people hated it. I'm all for removing redundancy like half the new primaris bolters variants but theres a point were one has to accept that one of the reasons people play warhammer games and not kings of wars is for that minutiae that they like to represent both in model and in rules.

So, 3 kinds of bolters that open 3 very different playstyles are rEdUnDaNcY but 3 different power weapons that are essentially identical, do the same thing, and only differ in point of S or AP here or there are justified, perfectly fine addition to the game. Bravo *slow clap*

I love how when I think GW is doing terrible job with rules, Dakka is always there to remind me it's just mediocre, really, and things could have been so much worse

 Lance845 wrote:
Let me know when they release a new box with old marines in it. ::thumbs up::

They literally released one THIS MONTH. I like how this inane goalpost shifting and ignoring only what, 7 or 8 releases of squatmarines since the start of 8th still continues, at this point no amount of facts or releases is going to budge the position of squatted crowd, eh?

 Lance845 wrote:
It's not a troll. 100% I think GW will do just as I said. How many different kits are there that are just some kind of primaris with a different weapon sprue already?

Big fat ZERO unless you can point at any. Being ignorant about primaris to a degree to not know not only these "weapon sprues" are fictional, but inept GW writers refuse to give them options to take any melee weapons at all?
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




 Type40 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Oh no. I ABSOLUTELY think they will release a set of outriders that are covered in wolfy incons and a bunch of furs. 100% they will sell you a new kit by a new name.

And as per the subject of the thread they should be consolidating that into a single datasheet but they won't.


Depends on whether or not they want the SW version to be a different unique unit or if they want them to be vanilla primaris.

I might be wrong but I don't think they ever did a "chapterised" version of a standard SM unit that didn't get its own stat line. That's why conversion kits exists.
They have no interest in making a new unit the same as the old one but looking different as it's a bigger risk than the "brand new unit that you absolutely must have since you must have everything for your faction !".
The new Reivers being the last example of this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Irbis wrote:

They literally released one THIS MONTH.

Not trying to argue here but I can't remember what box of old marines they just released ?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 13:04:18


 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





dhallnet wrote:
 Type40 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Oh no. I ABSOLUTELY think they will release a set of outriders that are covered in wolfy incons and a bunch of furs. 100% they will sell you a new kit by a new name.

And as per the subject of the thread they should be consolidating that into a single datasheet but they won't.


Depends on whether or not they want the SW version to be a different unique unit or if they want them to be vanilla primaris.

I might be wrong but I don't think they ever did a "chapterised" version of a standard SM unit that didn't get its own stat line. That's why conversion kits exists.
They have no interest in making a new unit the same as the old one but looking different as it's a bigger risk than the "brand new unit that you absolutely must have since you must have everything for your faction !".
The new Reivers being the last example of this.



There are several examples, Blood Angels chaplain, Blood Angels Tactical marines, Dark Angels tactical squad and simply any of the normal upgrade sprues...
Sure, sometimes they can be made into a unique unit AND a not so unique one, but there are definitely examples of "chapterised" versions that are nothing but aesthetic differences...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Irbis wrote:

They literally released one THIS MONTH.

Not trying to argue here but I can't remember what box of old marines they just released ?


DW combat patrol box, no ?

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 13:15:07


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen








This one? Where is there a NEW old marine in that line up?


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Lance845 wrote:
Spoiler:


This one? Where is there a NEW old marine in that line up?


LOL ya, I was just going off of what @PenitentJake said earlier.
As for a new box with Old Marines in it, do you mean the new DW Combat Patrol Box?


my bad XD...

LOL but I am so unsurprised how fast you jumped on this one.

"DOOM DOOM THE FB ARE DOOMED" lol... ya we get it XD.

As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Type40 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Then have TWC use the "Veterans on Bikes" datasheet. Or a "Veteran Outriders" unit.
So generic SMs should get more options ?
Yes. Or rather, "generic Space Marines" shouldn't exist. Any Astartes with a predominant power armoured base (so, not Grey Knights) should be rolled into one book - "Space Marines".

Don't worry, you'd still have TWC - or, a rules approximation, that would have the same mechanical effect. After all, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

At the end of the day, does it matter if the "Mounted Space Marines" entry specifically called out for being Thunderwolf Cav or not? Give EVERYONE access to it, and let the players decide how they want to fluff it. Jetbikes? Awesome. Bikes? Awesome. Raptors? Awesome. Wolves? Awesome.

There's flavour for you.
Why not just leave the SW datasheet TWC instead of making a new one for SMs that doesn't even represent the kit you are trying to represent with that datasheet ?
It seems like a lot of extra work for the designers
Instead of a single catch all datasheet? No way.
and extra stuff to give the generic SMs (general marine bloat is the problem right ?) just to squat rules from an existing sub faction ?
Marine bloat is a problem when there's all these little subtypes, yes. And I'm also in favour of reducing Marine bloat. Roll Infiltrators and Incursors together, fold all Terminators into one entry, Ironclads, Venerables, and Contemptors could all be "Dreadnought" with wargear upgrades to reflect differences. Land Raider variants can be merged, with different wargear options and transport rules accordingly. Fold all power weapons into the same profile.

Tyrannic War Vets for my own Ultramarines? Make them just Sternguard. Have the Terminus Ultra available to everyone. Honour Guard, make them a subtype of Command Squad available to everyone. Victrix Guard, just play them as Bladeguard Vets.


the differances are about as major as that between a SM bike and a fething ELDAR Bike.
Eldar aren't a subfaction of Space Marines which share the majority of the Codex in common.
Eldar CAN be a subfaction of Space Marines in terms of rules ? Look at an Eldar datasheet. What do you see? I don't see many keywords in common, or broad regions of the statblocks being the same.
Now look at a Space Wolf. Oh, there's a lot of keywords in common there - Adeptus Astartes, most notably. And the aesthetics? Well, beneath the furs, it's the same core template. And the weapons? Largely the same.

There's a world of difference between Eldar and Space Marine, but not so much between Wolves and other Astartes.
What's stopping us from using marine rules ? the argument people have told me in terms of my SWs is that the fluff and representation is about how I paint, imagine and play them, not about what they can actually do ?
Yes.
if not these few kits, units and models, why not more, honestly ?
What?
You are sugesting we represent a WOLF as a BIKE so why not an ELF as a MARINE.
I am suggesting the former, yes. Mechanically, what is the difference?
They can totally share the majority of the codex in common. Right after you change all there unique datasheets into clones of the marine codex datasheets. Just like you are proposing to do to the unique datasheets from the SWs ...
You need big quotes around """unique""". Most of these "unique" things are a keyword away from being like everything else. Wolf Guard? Veterans or Terminators. Wolf Priests? A stratagem away from being Chaplains. Wolf Lords? Is there even a difference between them and a Captain?

And before you start thinking this is just an SW thing, it's not. I've said above how I'd do exactly the same to my own Ultramarines, because there's no reason Honour Guard should be Ultramarine exclusive.

I know you think I am being absurd in saying this but you are asking me to represent WOLVES as BIKES and Warewolves as Sword Knights.
I don't see for a second what's absurd about that. I'm asking you to represent a furry mount as a mechanical one. And I never argued on Wulfen, they're actually one of the few things that don't need to be folded. Instead, I'd have Wulfen name changed into "Astartes Monstrosities", and made generic. Then, they can be opened up to other Chapters who also have similar kinds of units - Raven Guard, Blood Angels, Black Dragons, etc etc. Mechanically, they'd be identical, but you can throw on the trappings of whatever Chapter you feel fits.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?

There's a limit to what something must mean.
Can I have a limit to your exhausting hyperbole?
Don't make sweeping statements, and I won't have to.

PenitentJake wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:Because people like their minis to mean something. They want there to be differences with the things they choose.
Awesome, can I have unique profiles for all my Marines because one has two purity seals, and one has a different helmet, and one has a scope on his bolter?



Yes we can and do; it's called Crusade, and some of us love it.
As do I. Funnily enough, I think Crusade does it BEST, because you don't need myriads of unique datasheets, you MODIFY existing ones. Which is exactly what I'm calling for.

I'm all for options and customization from a generic baseline. The way Crusade does it, the way 30k does it - not the way 40k Astartes do.

Want to represent Deathwing? Add a single rule to the GENERIC Terminators. Want to define TWC from other cavalry. A single rule. Want to show how your Captain is different? You don't need a new datasheet for that.

As I said - I'm on board for customisation: I'm NOT in favour of segmenting that from different datasheets.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 14:33:56



They/them

 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 Irbis wrote:
 Galas wrote:
The truth is , if GW is selling two extremely different kits like are space marines in giant wolfs and space marines in bikes, people expect for those two things to not be the same thing.

They unified power weapons in 3rd and most people hated it. I'm all for removing redundancy like half the new primaris bolters variants but theres a point were one has to accept that one of the reasons people play warhammer games and not kings of wars is for that minutiae that they like to represent both in model and in rules.

So, 3 kinds of bolters that open 3 very different playstyles are rEdUnDaNcY but 3 different power weapons that are essentially identical, do the same thing, and only differ in point of S or AP here or there are justified, perfectly fine addition to the game. Bravo *slow clap*

I love how when I think GW is doing terrible job with rules, Dakka is always there to remind me it's just mediocre, really, and things could have been so much worse



Actually after codex 2.0 changes I believe the three variant of bolter Intercessors have are actual options, each one better for different ways of playing them and the chapters that are using them. So I like those (Before codex 2.0 the assault and heavy options were just useless). I was thinking more in the Reivers bolter carbine (thats literally a normal bolter by another name), the Incursor bolter and the Infiltrator Bolter. Those three should just be unified and probably allow the three of them to just ignore bonus saves for cover.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

What "old marine" box was released this month?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes. Or rather, "generic Space Marines" shouldn't exist. Any Astartes with a predominant power armoured base (so, not Grey Knights) should be rolled into one book - "Space Marines".
Why?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 14:44:10


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






@Smudge

Thats pretty much how i see it, the TWC flavor doesnt come from the wolf getting extra attacks since the outrider basically does the exact same thing already (just with a different profile). If someone feels that the fluffy part of their wolf is that he has 5 -2 1 instead of 4 0 0 then i feel like theyre really missing the point.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What "old marine" box was released this month?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes. Or rather, "generic Space Marines" shouldn't exist. Any Astartes with a predominant power armoured base (so, not Grey Knights) should be rolled into one book - "Space Marines".
Why?


To cut down on probably a hundred unnecessary datasheets? And so that other armies don't feel so left behind in term of fluff.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 14:46:14


 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Wait so now you also don't want any difference between jetbikes and bikes?

Man. I don't know how can you guys enjoy playing warhammer? Probably the most bloated system, where the array of options has always been part of their identity, game I have ever played?

Just look at how the web burns whenever GW takes aways options. You are in the very tiny, tiny minority asking for those levels of consolidation, I'm sorry to say.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Galas wrote:
Wait so now you also don't want any difference between jetbikes and bikes?

Man. I don't know how can you guys enjoy playing warhammer? Probably the most bloated system, where the array of options has always been part of their identity, game I have ever played?

Just look at how the web burns whenever GW takes aways options. You are in the very tiny, tiny minority asking for those levels of consolidation, I'm sorry to say.


I mean, jetbikes can just be bikes that get the fly keyword, no?
Pay x points to upgrade a basic cavalry squad to be jetbikes instead
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Leth wrote:
Quit playing war machine because I hated the lack of ability to customize, it was boring,

I like modeling things and kiting them out however I like and being able to play that on the table.

I like the split of power weapons and how they have different uses for different factions based on their base stat lines.

I think some data sheets could easily be consolidated in the marine book without much of a loss, but a majority would just be super confusing if you did that and having a few extra pages in the book for ease of use is fine by me. I get why they have spread out certain things, it makes the legalese easier for weapon options as well as allow people to take more copies Of a unit if they want to.

I hope xenos get more options and things recategorized but I don’t think most options should be scrubbed just because they are similar.

Literally nothing is stopping you from customizing anything outside the unnecessary need for every single weapon to act different, or do you model all your Relic Blades as Relic Blades and nothing else?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 14:50:07


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.
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
To cut down on probably a hundred unnecessary datasheets? And so that other armies don't feel so left behind in term of fluff.
What makes them unnecessary?

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut







Lol go back to previous parts of this thread. I don't want to participate in circular arguments. Every single one of your points has been disputed previously.

TWC currently have a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules, and unit size option then outriders. Just like an eldar bike unit has a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules and unit zie option then outriders. In fact the TWC is even more different by being "CAVALRY" and not a "BIKER." From a datasheet perspective there is more in common between an eldar bike unit and an outrider unit then there is between a TWC and an outrider unit.
So again, if your proposing that what the kit represents has no bearing on whether or not we should roll the datasheet together why not just have one generic datasheet for all mounts in the game ?

If a big furry wolf can use the datasheet of a bike, why can't an elf use the datasheet of a marine ? What is the difference between doing this and doing what you are proposing other then "POWER ARMOR AND MAHRINES." Your power armor vendetta isn't a good enough reason to justify "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" applying to TWC because "its just a guy mounted on something" and not to an eldar biker who is also "just a guy mounted on something"

Different stats, different wargear, different unit composition, different unit size, different special rules, different stratagems and different model representation equal a different unit and a need for a different datasheet .Unless you come up with some easy to read datasheet rife with variable statline options, wargear options, unit size options, special rule options, stratagem accesess, and keyword access , with exceptions, affordances and bans on different customizations based on what model this vague datasheet is supposed to repesent and if that's the case go ahead and roll in aldari and ork mounted units to it as well. Hell, why not roll in walker vehicles to that. Why not dilute all unique models into a single datasheet while we are at it ?

If the unit is different enough that you need to remove unique functions, options or rules in order to consolidate it to a single datasheet, then the unit is different enough that it belongs on its own datasheet. Otherwise you are squating unique rules flavour arbitrarily. If consolidating it without losing unique function, flavour or options means the datasheet is near unreadable, confusing or convoluted, then you are just making poor User Interfacing decisions whilst spending extra time in the design phase just to 'save space.' Finally if you are consolidating datasheets in a way that creates total customizability of statline/wargear/rules, what you are doing is creating min/max potential for units that had previously been restricted from those options without needing to give some rule, to pick a specific chapter, to pick a specific faction or choose a specific set of stats to gain access to that level of customizability.

For anything else you brought up in your ponit that these exact points do not address, points have been made previously in this thread that adequately dispute your exact arguments.

I suggest comparing the current TWC datasheet with the Outriders datasheet directly. If you think they have "the exact same mechanical effect" then I can not believe you have actually compared the two datasheets.

EDIT: The problem was with Sgt,Smudges use of quotes. he missed closing his quotes in several positions. So I am just removing his post, please refer back to his previous post to get the context my post.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 15:26:14


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

You need to fix your quote tags.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@Smudge

Thats pretty much how i see it, the TWC flavor doesnt come from the wolf getting extra attacks since the outrider basically does the exact same thing already (just with a different profile). If someone feels that the fluffy part of their wolf is that he has 5 -2 1 instead of 4 0 0 then i feel like theyre really missing the point.


If people can't see how getting extra regular attacks on the charge isn't the same as getting an entirely different set of attacks with a different statline all the time then they really do not understand how this game works.

"This rule that makes attacks is exactly the same as this entirely different rule that makes attacks."

This is like saying

"Bolter shots are exactly the same as lasgun shots because they just different ways of making attacks"

or

"movement 16 with fly on a biker unit is the same thing as movement 14 on a biker unit without because they are just different rules for guys riding a bike"

or

"this unit with access to SS and a power axe is the same as this unit without access to that wargear because they are both space marines"

or

"this unit with access to a bolt gun and this unit with access to a shurriken rifle are pretty much the same thing because they both have a strength 4 weapon"

Your comparisons are arbitrary.
You can't just decide everything is "exactly the same" because you feel like it should be. The game represents different flavour, weapons, abilties and models using different stats, rules, wargear , unit size and unit composition.
Saying that a unit would be exactly the same if it "only had the same stats, rules, wargear, unit size and unit composition" is arbitrary and makes no sense. Ya of course they would be the same, the point is, they arn't and the constant obsession with arbitrarily vanillafying and rolling things into together is just not going to happen by GW. They arn't going to be like "hey, those guys on the internet think that we should represnt wolves exactly the same way we repesent bikes, we should do this arbitrary thing because they don't like that these two units BOTH have power armor"

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 15:30:41


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes. Or rather, "generic Space Marines" shouldn't exist. Any Astartes with a predominant power armoured base (so, not Grey Knights) should be rolled into one book - "Space Marines".
Why?
Because they're nearly all working from the same core units. The only near exception is Deathwatch. Deathwatch, I could see an argument for making unique, but my opinion on that flipflops.

Galas wrote:Wait so now you also don't want any difference between jetbikes and bikes?
When the only difference is one has Fly and one doesn't, yes. I'd be on board for a "for 1PL, you may count your Mount as having the <Fly> keyword" ability - that would also allow for things like Astartes riding small dragons, eagles, and other flying animals, if you fancied a more organic approach.

Man. I don't know how can you guys enjoy playing warhammer?
Because I play it how I like it - without all the bloat. I don't play points, I play PL. I don't use doctrines or really care about subfaction traits. I usually ignore or forget about warlord traits. I play with what's on the datasheet, and that's about it. If I want my Bladeguard for my homebrew to have this super special backstory and lore around their role within the chapter... then I write that in the background. But functionally on the table - they're like every other Bladeguard.
Probably the most bloated system, where the array of options has always been part of their identity, game I have ever played?
There's a difference between option of UNITS and options AVAILABLE to those units.
30k gets this right, IMO. Nearly all the units available to everyone are generic, with a scant few unique ones. But do the Legions play the same way? No, because of more meaningful options than "you can take the unit with this kind of pew pew, or that kind of pew pew".

Just look at how the web burns whenever GW takes aways options. You are in the very tiny, tiny minority asking for those levels of consolidation, I'm sorry to say.
Maybe. Since when has being in the minority changed my opinion?

Type40 wrote:Every single one of your points has been disputed previously.
As have yours.

TWC currently have a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules, and unit size option then outriders.
Yes. Sorry, did that burst your bubble?

When I call for TWC to be folded in to a generic Veteran Cavalry datasheet (so, not Outriders), I'm asking to replicate EVERY mechanical asset that TWC have that's meaningful. So, representing their melee focus, the availability of unit composition, their wargear, their core rules, so on.

I'm not asking "LET'S STRIP OUT TWC!!!", I'm saying "let's make this generic unit capable of reflecting what TWC are, and make it available to everyone".
Just like an eldar bike unit has a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules and unit zie option then outriders.
As I just said, I'm not advocating moving them into Outriders.

I AM in favour of combining them into a generic Veteran Cavalry unit.

The reason why Eldar aren't is because Eldar are not a subtype of Space Marine.
In fact the TWC is even more different by being "CAVALRY" and not a "BIKER."
What's the difference?
From a datasheet perspective there is more in common between an eldar bike unit and an outrider unit then there is between a TWC and an outrider unit.
But I'm not advocating TWC become Outriders.
So again, if your proposing that what the kit represents has no bearing on whether or not we should roll the datasheet together why not just have one generic datasheet for all mounts in the game ?
Because that's not what I'm proposing.

If a big furry wolf can use the datasheet of a bike, why can't an elf use the datasheet of a marine ?
What's the mechanical difference between a wolf and a bike? Simple question, I've asked it many times.
What is the difference between doing this and doing what you are proposing other then "POWER ARMOR AND MAHRINES."
Because I'm not the one moving the goalposts.
Your power armor vendetta isn't a good enough reason to justify "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" applying to TWC because "its just a guy mounted on something" and not to an eldar biker who is also "just a guy mounted on something"
But that's not what I said.

I'm talking about a SPACE MARINE VETERAN mounted on something. Address my argument, without applying lube on it to make your slippery slope.

Different stats, different wargear, different unit composition, different unit size, different special rules, different stratagems and different model representation equal a different unit and a need for a different datasheet .
Not exactly. This is why I'm advocating for a NEW GENERIC datasheet that would encompass ALL Veteran Cavalry. Veteran Bikers, TWC, Ravenwing Vets, Space Marines riding on Raptors, whatever else.

Yes, TWC don't fit with Outriders. But they WOULD with what I'm proposing.

What's wrong with my propsal?

Let's say my datasheet allows for:
A Move 10" standard Veteran Marine statline, with T5, W3, in a unit of 3, with access to the melee, pistol, and special weapons charts and storm shields. I call it Veteran Cavalry, and make it generic. It now covers all mounts. Want your Mount to attack? Pay X points/PL, and every model gets extra attacks. Want your Mount to fly? Pay X points/PL, and you get the <Fly> keyword. Does your subfaction have some kind of sweeping universal rule that might affect this unit, like White Scars, Ravenwing, or Space Wolves? Throw on a little blurb saying "If this is taken in a XYZ faction, you have ABC rule" - like what's been done with Deathwing and Wolf Guard units in the new Codex.

What's wrong with that?
Unless you come up with some easy to read datasheet rife with variable statline options, wargear options, unit size options, special rule options, stratagem accesess, and keyword access , with exceptions, affordances and bans on different customizations based on what model this vague datasheet is supposed to repesent
Just did.
and if that's the case go ahead and roll in aldari and ork mounted units to it as well. Hell, why not roll in walker vehicles to that. Why not dilute all unique models into a single datasheet while we are at it ?
Put away the lube, you're just making a mess of yourself.

If the unit is different enough that you need to remove unique functions, options or rules in order to consolidate it to a single datasheet,
Again, """unique"""" really needs to be put in quotation marks.
Finally if you are consolidating datasheets in a way that creates total customizability of statline/wargear/rules, what you are doing is creating min/max potential for units that had previously been restricted from those options without needing to give some rule, to pick a specific chapter, to pick a specific faction or choose a specific set of stats to gain access to that level of customizability.
If people want to powergame, people will powergame. Points exist to try and curtail that (unsuccessfully, in many cases), but if you only care about getting that Sweet Sweet Flavour, you shouldn't care about that.

I suggest comparing the current TWC datasheet with the Outriders datasheet directly. If you think they have "the exact same mechanical effect" then I can not believe you have actually compared the two datasheets.
I haven't called for TWC to be mixed with Outriders though. I've called for TWC to be mixed with a GENERIC NEW UNIT, like my Veteran Cavalry suggestion.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 16:05:50



They/them

 
   
Made in us
Steadfast Grey Hunter






Spoiler:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes. Or rather, "generic Space Marines" shouldn't exist. Any Astartes with a predominant power armoured base (so, not Grey Knights) should be rolled into one book - "Space Marines".
Why?
Because they're nearly all working from the same core units. The only near exception is Deathwatch. Deathwatch, I could see an argument for making unique, but my opinion on that flipflops.

Galas wrote:Wait so now you also don't want any difference between jetbikes and bikes?
When the only difference is one has Fly and one doesn't, yes. I'd be on board for a "for 1PL, you may count your Mount as having the <Fly> keyword" ability - that would also allow for things like Astartes riding small dragons, eagles, and other flying animals, if you fancied a more organic approach.

Man. I don't know how can you guys enjoy playing warhammer?
Because I play it how I like it - without all the bloat. I don't play points, I play PL. I don't use doctrines or really care about subfaction traits. I usually ignore or forget about warlord traits. I play with what's on the datasheet, and that's about it. If I want my Bladeguard for my homebrew to have this super special backstory and lore around their role within the chapter... then I write that in the background. But functionally on the table - they're like every other Bladeguard.
Probably the most bloated system, where the array of options has always been part of their identity, game I have ever played?
There's a difference between option of UNITS and options AVAILABLE to those units.
30k gets this right, IMO. Nearly all the units available to everyone are generic, with a scant few unique ones. But do the Legions play the same way? No, because of more meaningful options than "you can take the unit with this kind of pew pew, or that kind of pew pew".

Just look at how the web burns whenever GW takes aways options. You are in the very tiny, tiny minority asking for those levels of consolidation, I'm sorry to say.
Maybe. Since when has being in the minority changed my opinion?

Type40 wrote:Every single one of your points has been disputed previously.
As have yours.

TWC currently have a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules, and unit size option then outriders.
Yes. Sorry, did that burst your bubble?

When I call for TWC to be folded in to a generic Veteran Cavalry datasheet (so, not Outriders), I'm asking to replicate EVERY mechanical asset that TWC have that's meaningful. So, representing their melee focus, the availability of unit composition, their wargear, their core rules, so on.

I'm not asking "LET'S STRIP OUT TWC!!!", I'm saying "let's make this generic unit capable of reflecting what TWC are, and make it available to everyone".
Just like an eldar bike unit has a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules and unit zie option then outriders.
As I just said, I'm not advocating moving them into Outriders.

I AM in favour of combining them into a generic Veteran Cavalry unit.

The reason why Eldar aren't is because Eldar are not a subtype of Space Marine.
In fact the TWC is even more different by being "CAVALRY" and not a "BIKER."
What's the difference?
From a datasheet perspective there is more in common between an eldar bike unit and an outrider unit then there is between a TWC and an outrider unit.
But I'm not advocating TWC become Outriders.
So again, if your proposing that what the kit represents has no bearing on whether or not we should roll the datasheet together why not just have one generic datasheet for all mounts in the game ?
Because that's not what I'm proposing.

If a big furry wolf can use the datasheet of a bike, why can't an elf use the datasheet of a marine ?
What's the mechanical difference between a wolf and a bike? Simple question, I've asked it many times.
What is the difference between doing this and doing what you are proposing other then "POWER ARMOR AND MAHRINES."
Because I'm not the one moving the goalposts.
Your power armor vendetta isn't a good enough reason to justify "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" applying to TWC because "its just a guy mounted on something" and not to an eldar biker who is also "just a guy mounted on something"
But that's not what I said.

I'm talking about a SPACE MARINE VETERAN mounted on something. Address my argument, without applying lube on it to make your slippery slope.

Different stats, different wargear, different unit composition, different unit size, different special rules, different stratagems and different model representation equal a different unit and a need for a different datasheet .
Not exactly. This is why I'm advocating for a NEW GENERIC datasheet that would encompass ALL Veteran Cavalry. Veteran Bikers, TWC, Ravenwing Vets, Space Marines riding on Raptors, whatever else.

Yes, TWC don't fit with Outriders. But they WOULD with what I'm proposing.

What's wrong with my propsal?

Let's say my datasheet allows for:
A Move 10" standard Veteran Marine statline, with T5, W3, in a unit of 3, with access to the melee, pistol, and special weapons charts and storm shields. I call it Veteran Cavalry, and make it generic. It now covers all mounts. Want your Mount to attack? Pay X points/PL, and every model gets extra attacks. Want your Mount to fly? Pay X points/PL, and you get the <Fly> keyword. Does your subfaction have some kind of sweeping universal rule that might affect this unit, like White Scars, Ravenwing, or Space Wolves? Throw on a little blurb saying "If this is taken in a XYZ faction, you have ABC rule" - like what's been done with Deathwing and Wolf Guard units in the new Codex.

What's wrong with that?
Unless you come up with some easy to read datasheet rife with variable statline options, wargear options, unit size options, special rule options, stratagem accesess, and keyword access , with exceptions, affordances and bans on different customizations based on what model this vague datasheet is supposed to repesent
Just did.
and if that's the case go ahead and roll in aldari and ork mounted units to it as well. Hell, why not roll in walker vehicles to that. Why not dilute all unique models into a single datasheet while we are at it ?
Put away the lube, you're just making a mess of yourself.

If the unit is different enough that you need to remove unique functions, options or rules in order to consolidate it to a single datasheet,
Again, """unique"""" really needs to be put in quotation marks.
Finally if you are consolidating datasheets in a way that creates total customizability of statline/wargear/rules, what you are doing is creating min/max potential for units that had previously been restricted from those options without needing to give some rule, to pick a specific chapter, to pick a specific faction or choose a specific set of stats to gain access to that level of customizability.
If people want to powergame, people will powergame. Points exist to try and curtail that (unsuccessfully, in many cases), but if you only care about getting that Sweet Sweet Flavour, you shouldn't care about that.

I suggest comparing the current TWC datasheet with the Outriders datasheet directly. If you think they have "the exact same mechanical effect" then I can not believe you have actually compared the two datasheets.
I haven't called for TWC to be mixed with Outriders though. I've called for TWC to be mixed with a GENERIC NEW UNIT, like my Veteran Cavalry suggestion.


Sounds like someone is envious of SW and their calvary...

Primaris fanboy: "NO, you can't just give old marines 2W, they're supposed to be squatted!" GW: "Heavy Bolters go brrrrrrrr"
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If the argument for their uniqueness is spamming Wulfen and Thunderwolves, then it wasn't really a unique army to begin with whether you like it or not.
nervous sweating
Regal Hunt, A custom space wolf army: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/774993.page#10435681 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Jimbobbyish wrote:
Sounds like someone is envious of SW and their calvary...

Sounds like someone wasn't interested in contributing and instead just wants to be mean for no reason with an ad-hominem!
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Type40 wrote:Every single one of your points has been disputed previously.
As have yours.

No they havn't, people keep bringing up circular arguments, and ignoring the disputes by saying the same thing over and over.


TWC currently have a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules, and unit size option then outriders.
Yes. Sorry, did that burst your bubble?

When I call for TWC to be folded in to a generic Veteran Cavalry datasheet (so, not Outriders), I'm asking to replicate EVERY mechanical asset that TWC have that's meaningful. So, representing their melee focus, the availability of unit composition, their wargear, their core rules, so on.

and how do you propose to do that ? have you read my points on how that brings up a slew of problems ?


I'm not asking "LET'S STRIP OUT TWC!!!", I'm saying "let's make this generic unit capable of reflecting what TWC are, and make it available to everyone".
Just like an eldar bike unit has a different statline, unit composition, set of wargear, unit rules and unit zie option then outriders.
As I just said, I'm not advocating moving them into Outriders.

I AM in favour of combining them into a generic Veteran Cavalry unit.

again, I know that is what you are proposing, hence me calling out the circular argumentation, you keep saying the same thing over and over like its some "trump card" of a point. have you read the points I make about how why that doesnt work ?


The reason why Eldar aren't is because Eldar are not a subtype of Space Marine.
In fact the TWC is even more different by being "CAVALRY" and not a "BIKER."
What's the difference?
they interact with terrain differently and have the potential for different synergies (for example with existing stratagems)
From a datasheet perspective there is more in common between an eldar bike unit and an outrider unit then there is between a TWC and an outrider unit.
But I'm not advocating TWC become Outriders.
sure, so why don't we roll in the eldar bike unit to this generic "cavalry" unit either ? you arn't actually addressing the crux of my point here.


So again, if your proposing that what the kit represents has no bearing on whether or not we should roll the datasheet together why not just have one generic datasheet for all mounts in the game ?
Because that's not what I'm proposing.
then what are you proposing ? are you saying that what the units kit represents should be represented in a unique and significant way? or are you saying that a vague general datasheet should represent multiple kits ?


If a big furry wolf can use the datasheet of a bike, why can't an elf use the datasheet of a marine ?
What's the mechanical difference between a wolf and a bike? Simple question, I've asked it many times.
speed 10, the swift hunters rule, the weapon profile 'Crushing teeth and claws', access to several different stratagems specifically related to the being on a thunderwolf. carries a wolfgaurd (aka Vet) which a bike does not and thus allows for a set of wargear not accessible by normal bike squads
What is the difference between doing this and doing what you are proposing other then "POWER ARMOR AND MAHRINES."
Because I'm not the one moving the goalposts.
no your just repeating the same arguments over and over whilst ignoring any disputes. No one has moved any goal posts, you havn't actually tried to dispute the arguments against your proposal, you have just repeated your proposal like it somehow 'makes all the sense in the world'
Your power armor vendetta isn't a good enough reason to justify "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" applying to TWC because "its just a guy mounted on something" and not to an eldar biker who is also "just a guy mounted on something"
But that's not what I said.

I'm talking about a SPACE MARINE VETERAN mounted on something. Address my argument, without applying lube on it to make your slippery slope.

Ok, so this was addressed several times, your ignoring the disputes provided to that were related to the problems with implementing a single datasheet model for representing so many customizations. Just address the disputes lol XD


Different stats, different wargear, different unit composition, different unit size, different special rules, different stratagems and different model representation equal a different unit and a need for a different datasheet .
Not exactly. This is why I'm advocating for a NEW GENERIC datasheet that would encompass ALL Veteran Cavalry. Veteran Bikers, TWC, Ravenwing Vets, Space Marines riding on Raptors, whatever else.

Yes, TWC don't fit with Outriders. But they WOULD with what I'm proposing.

What's wrong with my propsal?

Let's say my datasheet allows for:
A Move 10" standard Veteran Marine statline, with T5, W3, in a unit of 3, with access to the melee, pistol, and special weapons charts and storm shields. I call it Veteran Cavalry, and make it generic. It now covers all mounts. Want your Mount to attack? Pay X points/PL, and every model gets extra attacks. Want your Mount to fly? Pay X points/PL, and you get the <Fly> keyword. Does your subfaction have some kind of sweeping universal rule that might affect this unit, like White Scars, Ravenwing, or Space Wolves? Throw on a little blurb saying "If this is taken in a XYZ faction, you have ABC rule" - like what's been done with Deathwing and Wolf Guard units in the new Codex.

so you want regular marines to gain even more options and access to even more things ? on a confusing datasheet ?


What's wrong with that?
Unless you come up with some easy to read datasheet rife with variable statline options, wargear options, unit size options, special rule options, stratagem accesess, and keyword access , with exceptions, affordances and bans on different customizations based on what model this vague datasheet is supposed to repesent
Just did.
um,,, no you really didn't, you just pointed out a list of just SOME of the variables you'd have to address in order to some how represent multiple 'similar' units in a coinvent way on a single datasheet... I never said you COULDN'T represent all the customization options with restriction, affordances and exceptions on a single datasheet, I am saying that you can't do it in a good way. Basic User Interfacing logic dictates that a static representation of data is preferable to complex variable representation unless their is heavy automation or an extreme need for space (neither are true). On top of that the ammount of effort needed to synergize and consolidate these datasheets arbitrarily will take MORE effort then just keeping these datasheets separate. Again, these disputes have already been brought up but you havn't addressed it. Instead you keep bringing up the same argumentation whilst ignoring the disputes.
and if that's the case go ahead and roll in aldari and ork mounted units to it as well. Hell, why not roll in walker vehicles to that. Why not dilute all unique models into a single datasheet while we are at it ?
Put away the lube, you're just making a mess of yourself.
Why are you resorting to bullying and attempted humiliations. You are proposing something ridiculous, so why not entertain an equally ridiculous proposal using the exact same logic you are proposing. No reason to try to bully someone or humiliate someone when you'd rather not actually address the dispute XD.


If the unit is different enough that you need to remove unique functions, options or rules in order to consolidate it to a single datasheet,
Again, """unique"""" really needs to be put in quotation marks.
Finally if you are consolidating datasheets in a way that creates total customizability of statline/wargear/rules, what you are doing is creating min/max potential for units that had previously been restricted from those options without needing to give some rule, to pick a specific chapter, to pick a specific faction or choose a specific set of stats to gain access to that level of customizability.
If people want to powergame, people will powergame. Points exist to try and curtail that (unsuccessfully, in many cases), but if you only care about getting that Sweet Sweet Flavour, you shouldn't care about that.
lol , so your argument against giving people new ways to min/max is, that's not your problem and if we care about fluff then we shouldnt care about people abusing the game XD ?
But seriously, how do you address this clear and obvious design problem you'd be introducing to the game with this solution ? especially considering this is your proposal to 'balance' and 'fix' the current problems in the game design ?
There is a clear problem with how much better marines are because of having more access to customization, abilities, and loadout options which result in greater tactical affordances. and the way you counter that argument is "don't look behind the curtain, this isn't your problem" lol ... do you really not care that your 'solution' would create more problems lol XD


I suggest comparing the current TWC datasheet with the Outriders datasheet directly. If you think they have "the exact same mechanical effect" then I can not believe you have actually compared the two datasheets.
I haven't called for TWC to be mixed with Outriders though. I've called for TWC to be mixed with a GENERIC NEW UNIT, like my Veteran Cavalry suggestion.
Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions they have. Why is your response to the introduction of such an absurd amount of min/max potential that "its none of my concern if their are power gamers."

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 16:53:27


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Type40 wrote:
Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.


He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.

But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Type40 wrote:
Sure, so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ? what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ? why do you want to give even more customizability and options to SM when that is one of there very few limitations and restrictions.


He mentionned ravenwing as being one that could use it.

But thats the point of a singular datasheet, it opens up the option to make more "fluffy" units. Currently if you want to run lizard riding salamanders, you have to run them as outriders/bikers anyway. This single datasheet would let GW produce an actual kit for it with no more risk of something breaking in the balance because there are less variables (datasheets).


Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ? how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have. You are allowing access and affordances to something without forcing them to take the restrictions that come along with making that choice. This proposal can do nothing BUT break the balance of the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 16:59:09


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: