Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2020/10/29 18:22:55
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Your statement is subjective.
You can not be correct objectively by virtue of me not buying different models for that reason... I know many people who buy different models because of the flavour and fluffy ruleset the bring with them,,,, including me... but if that's how you enjoy the game, that is fine, but you don't get to have the right to say I am not allowed to enjoy the game in the way I do.
I like you completely ignored the point about purity seals. It doesn't even stop there though. Why don't we have different rules for Mk2-8 of Power Armor since three of the Terminators all have different rules?
im pretty sure terminators were all clumped in a single datasheet with the new codex, or am i mistaken?
This actually supports my proposal of consolidating datasheets. GW still sells tartaros/Cataphractii/indomitus terminator kits yet there is only one datasheet.
Nope. We now have three separate entries now.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/10/29 18:23:19
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 18:25:46
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.
2020/10/29 18:25:55
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
"We can safely ignore hyperbole"
"[some hyperbole about how folding TWC in with another unit suddenly means the entire game has to be 5-20 datasheets]"
2020/10/29 18:26:47
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
JNAProductions wrote: Which can be solved by giving similar attention to other factions too.
I would LOVE for Daemons to have a generic unit in every Force Org Slot, with tons of customization to represent my Daemonic forces how I please.
100% completely agree.
Which would mean that Marines would need less attention lavished on them.
GW is not infinite. They can only put so many manhours into designing new rules and models. And what seems like 60% or more of it is taken up entirely by Marines.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/29 18:27:19
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
perhaps if you want to keep making this comparison you can show us the "Space marine with purity seals" kit?
if not then maybe just maybe it's a gakky intellectually dishonest comparison?
We have separate kits for Mk3 and Mk4 Power Armor. Why don't they have different rules just like with the Terminator armors all being different?
The same reason some bolters look different yet have the same rules while others have different rules. It's an arbitrary line. I would argue that dudes riding wolves meets an arbitrary level of difference to justify bespoke rules.
Please understand that I'm also one of those that thinks some consolidation of units/rules regarding space marines would be nice (e.g. grey hunters and devastators, etc etc).
Once more for emphasis: it's arbitrary.
2020/10/29 18:27:57
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
"We can safely ignore hyperbole"
"[some hyperbole about how folding TWC in with another unit suddenly means the entire game has to be 5-20 datasheets]"
Because it follows the same amount of logic...
You want me to justify why we don't have the designers spend TIME AND RESOUCES to work on MORE rules in order represent every little detail.
v.s. me saying the designers do not spend TIME AND RESOURCES taking existing unique options away...
Either way I am advocating for not spending more time and resources.
JNAProductions wrote: Which can be solved by giving similar attention to other factions too.
I would LOVE for Daemons to have a generic unit in every Force Org Slot, with tons of customization to represent my Daemonic forces how I please.
100% completely agree.
Which would mean that Marines would need less attention lavished on them.
GW is not infinite. They can only put so many manhours into designing new rules and models. And what seems like 60% or more of it is taken up entirely by Marines.
Again I 100 % agree ...
I don't want them to put any more manhours into designing new rules,,, that's my point.
People are advocating for doing a complete rules overhaul on power armor factions, that would take out unique options from particular factions and give more customization min/max potential to the faction they have grievances, not addressing that the same amount of time, if not more, must be put into balancing 'upgrade' possibilities instead of static datasheets, with whilst simultaneously claiming they want more attention given to their own factions.
Removing what exists isn't going to free up time for any other faction, it will take more effort and result in a less variable game.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 18:33:55
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.
2020/10/29 18:30:36
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
"We can safely ignore hyperbole"
"[some hyperbole about how folding TWC in with another unit suddenly means the entire game has to be 5-20 datasheets]"
Because it follows the same amount of logic...
You want me to justify why we don't have the designers spend TIME AND RESOUCES to work on MORE rules in order represent every little detail.
v.s. me saying the designers do not spend TIME AND RESOURCES taking existing unique options away...
Either way I am advocating for not spending more time and resources.
JNAProductions wrote: Which can be solved by giving similar attention to other factions too.
I would LOVE for Daemons to have a generic unit in every Force Org Slot, with tons of customization to represent my Daemonic forces how I please.
100% completely agree.
Which would mean that Marines would need less attention lavished on them.
GW is not infinite. They can only put so many manhours into designing new rules and models. And what seems like 60% or more of it is taken up entirely by Marines.
Again I 100 % agree ...
I don't want them to put any more manhours into designing new rules,,, that's my point.
If you believe hyperbole is not helpful, you'd be best to not use it yourself. An eye for an eye and all that.
And you've been fighting pretty ardently for GW to keep pouring resources into Marines.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/29 18:34:44
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
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.
I think this is the crux of every discussion of this type. Since all of us are free to do this, why change the rules at all. You're happy, AND the people who like the proliferation of many data sheets can be happy too. If we change the sheets, maybe you'll be slightly happier because you'll feel like you were right, or because it will be slightly easier to play the game the way you already play it, but the people who like the many datasheet approach will be unhappy.
I get the point though about "Load out difference only" units not needing a separate sheet, and part of me does agree. But has anyone considered yet that for some units, that creates a multi-page data sheet? And would a single data sheet 5 pages long be any better than 5 one page data sheets?
(Note- I'm aware that there's a bit of hyperbole here, because the statline wouldn't have to be repeated- I did it to use fewer words and simplify the point- that being that combining datasheets will not make anyone happy- it'll just make them complain about how complicated each of the remaining datasheets are rather than complaining about how many simple sheets there are.).
Also, the number of data sheets does make it easier to write about/ talk about than the few sheet approach. Imagine trying to write up a battle report for an army where you could only differentiate units from one another by listing the equipment they carry, instead of using the Unit name shorthand that bespoke datasheets gives you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 18:41:49
2020/10/29 18:34:54
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
"We can safely ignore hyperbole"
"[some hyperbole about how folding TWC in with another unit suddenly means the entire game has to be 5-20 datasheets]"
Because it follows the same amount of logic...
You want me to justify why we don't have the designers spend TIME AND RESOUCES to work on MORE rules in order represent every little detail.
v.s. me saying the designers do not spend TIME AND RESOURCES taking existing unique options away...
Either way I am advocating for not spending more time and resources.
JNAProductions wrote: Which can be solved by giving similar attention to other factions too.
I would LOVE for Daemons to have a generic unit in every Force Org Slot, with tons of customization to represent my Daemonic forces how I please.
100% completely agree.
Which would mean that Marines would need less attention lavished on them.
GW is not infinite. They can only put so many manhours into designing new rules and models. And what seems like 60% or more of it is taken up entirely by Marines.
Again I 100 % agree ...
I don't want them to put any more manhours into designing new rules,,, that's my point.
If you believe hyperbole is not helpful, you'd be best to not use it yourself. An eye for an eye and all that.
And you've been fighting pretty ardently for GW to keep pouring resources into Marines.
no, not at all... what part of don't spend time overhalling the marine rules = spend more resources on marines ?
especially when that wont change the fact the minutia and upgrades will still have to be focused on instead of separate datasheets... it makes no difference except for losing unique identities.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 18:37:51
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.
2020/10/29 18:35:51
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
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.
I think this is the crux of every discussion of this type. Since all of us are free to do this, why change the rules at all. You're happy, AND the people who like the proliferation of many data sheets can be happy too.
I get the point though about "Load out difference only" units not needing a separate sheet. But has anyone considered yet that for some units, that creates a multi-page data sheet? And would a single data sheet 5 pages long be any better than 5 one page data sheets?
(Note- I'm aware that there's a bit of hyperbole here- I did it to use fewer words and simplify the point- that being that combining datasheets will not make anyone happy- it'll just make them complain about how complicated each of the remaining datasheets are rather than complaining about how many simple sheets there are.)
This .
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.
2020/10/29 18:36:49
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
JNAProductions wrote: The fact that you fought tooth and nail to justify Hounds of Morkai, an entirely new unit.
And if you really didn't want more time spent on Marines, units outside the main Dex would go to Legends. Done and done-no more updating needed.
If you could go back to that thread, which we know you can't.
I only fought for two things... people actively ignored my arguments constantly and claimed I was arguing something else. (you being one of those people)
1. I argued against people suggesting to squat SW unique rules.
2. I liked that the unit felt like it had unique and flavorful abilities.
I fought for nothing more and nothing less.
People kept accusing me of fighting for other other things and I saying no, I wasn't fighting for that, over and over and over again.
Which was just ridiculous... You can't keep telling me what my opinion is. I'll say it again.
I am allowed to think that the new units rules are fluffy and flavorful whislt simultaneously thinking that , space marines take up to much of the current design focus, the SWs didnt need a new unit, the fact that they have all of the SOS abilties is too much and that other factions should have got something similar first.
Again, stop telling me what I am arguing for and read what I am actually arguing for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 18:42:35
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.
2020/10/29 18:43:42
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
I'm not the only one who noticed, Type40. Though I am the only one who apologized.
Communication is a two-way street. If your words are consistently not getting the point you're trying to get across actually across, you can't (or at least shouldn't) just blame the reader.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/29 18:45:56
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
JNAProductions wrote: I'm not the only one who noticed, Type40. Though I am the only one who apologized.
Communication is a two-way street. If your words are consistently not getting the point you're trying to get across actually across, you can't (or at least shouldn't) just blame the reader.
I really tried to communicate what I was saying.
You even interrogated me and I responded with "no that's not what I am saying, I am saying this"
to like 3 of your questions in 3 differnt posts... but it was totally ignored.
I did get very frustrated in that thread because I didn't know how to be anymore clear with what I was saying. Other then repeating myself over and over again...
I do thank you for apologizing though. I do really appreciate that. I will keep my own frustration in check in the future.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But to be clear, here and now and on the record.
My thoughts on the hounds is that the design time should have been given to other factions. Yet I do appreciate an attempt to make flavorful and fluffy rules (even though those same rules feel excessive).
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 18:48:21
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.
2020/10/29 19:09:20
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Jimbobbyish wrote:Sounds like someone is envious of SW and their calvary...
Not really? There's nothing stopping me playing Space Wolves if I was feeling jealous. I don't even want cavalry in my army - I don't take Bikes, won't be taking Outriders outside of adding to my 6th Company if I work on them, and which TWC are cool, I'm not starting Space Wolves just to play them.
But sure - attribute every issue people have to jealousy. I'm sure that doesn't reflect on your own priorities in the slightest.
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.
And you haven't been doing that?
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 literally just demonstrated how. And your points don't illustrate any problems that didn't already exist.
Your biggest one is "BUT MINMAXERS", to which I say - and? Is this a new thing? Did minmaxers just sit back and rest until this happened? No - minmaxers will always try to abuse the system. But this is why points exist, isn't it? To provide a "balanced" pricing for upgrades and abilities.
Besides, I thought you just wanted some customisation and unique abilities that are flavourful? Why do you care about minmaxers?
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
So why were you claiming that I wanted to make TWC into Outriders? You clearly weren't reading my comments.
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 ?
Again, considering your screeching about "BUT OUTRIDERS AREN'T THE SAME" tells me that you hadn't read my argument, and whatever you were telling me was based on your faulting understanding of my position.
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)
In what way? And, more importantly, WHY can't those rules be changed so that they interact in the same way? What stratagems are these that affect one and would be improper affecting the other?
Give me examples.
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 ?
Because Eldar aren't Space Marines. Space Wolves are. If you want proof of that, tell me what's on their datasheet.
you arn't actually addressing the crux of my point here.
No, it's you who isn't on mine. You can bring Eldar as much as you like into this, but you know that's a dishonest argument - as dishonest as you framing that I wanted TWC Outriders.
then what are you proposing ?
So, you haven't been reading my arguments.
I am proposing a generic datasheet that has multiple options within it to represent a variety of flavours and themes. It's as simple as that. The only "unique" datasheets that should exist are things like characters (and even then, many characters could/should be made generic - specifically Ultramarines, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Blood Angels ones - characters like Telion, Chronus, Asmodai, Lemartes, Arjac - provide wargear options to represent them, or generic unit profiles in the cases of characters like Telion and Chronus (Scout Lieutenant/Gunnery Sergeant respectively)) - but units should, by and large, be generic.
Tyrannic War Vets? Subsection of Sternguard.
Sanguinary Guard and Honour Guard - variants of the Command Squad.
Deathwing Terminators? Regular Terminators with Chapter specific rule.
TWC? Veteran Cavalry.
And so on, so forth.
or are you saying that a vague general datasheet should represent multiple kits?
Yes, in that the "vague general datasheet" would have some minor options for further customisation built in.
What's the mechanical difference between a wolf and a bike? Simple question, I've asked it many times.
speed 10
Okay, give TWC speed 12. 2 inches doesn't matter.
, the swift hunters rule
That's a blanket rule applied to several SW units - in much the same way White Scars get a buff to all their Bikes. Simply add this as part of the SW Chapter Tactic to all <Cavalry> SW models. Done.
, the weapon profile 'Crushing teeth and claws',
Give the combined "Cavalry" entry a "Mount Attack" profile. Simple.
access to several different stratagems specifically related to the being on a thunderwolf.
Like? Do they only affect TWC because of a mechanical difference, or an arbitrary one? Why can't the stratagem also affect Bikes?
Again, if you don't notice, I'm asking why things are why they are - something you're not doing.
carries a wolfgaurd (aka Vet) which a bike does not and thus allows for a set of wargear not accessible by normal bike squads
Heard of Veterans on Bikes? Presumably not, but it might shock you to know they exist. There's generic entries for Veteran Bikers already - there wouldn't be much of a shift.
So, with them out of the way... yeah nah. I could easily fold the two together, and keep the core mechanical features of both.
No one has moved any goal posts
Sorry? Just a moment ago, you were claiming I wanted TWC Outriders. I don't. You shifted my argument.
you havn't actually tried to dispute the arguments against your proposal
Because your arguments against it were based in a false premise.
you have just repeated your proposal like it somehow 'makes all the sense in the world'
Until you show me how it doesn't, I will continue to do so.
Ok, so this was addressed several times
No, it wasn't. You were claiming just now that I was arguing for Outrider TWC. I was not.
Own up to your error.
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 ?
Regular Marines? This is ALL Marines. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, everyone. And what's confusing? It's identical to the TWC datasheet, except for the option to make your mounts attack, fly, and two more weapon charts.
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
So what did I miss? Swift Hunters would be added like I described, as a subfaction blanket ability, stratagems would be rewritten to affect ALL Cavalry, etc etc.
... 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.
And my proposal refutes that.
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.
Arguments to inertia are weak without support. There is no great effort to consolidate, as I did it in a few minutes. Give me a few more, and I'd have every stratagem and aura matching.
Again, these disputes have already been brought up but you havn't addressed it.
No, they haven't - may I remind you that, until my previous comment, you thought I was arguing in favour of Outrider TWC?
Instead you keep bringing up the same argumentation whilst ignoring the disputes.
Because your disputes were against comments I never made.
Put away the lube, you're just making a mess of yourself.
Why are you resorting to bullying and attempted humiliations.
There's no bullying here. Make honest arguments with me, and I won't give you tools you're humiliting yourself with.
You're the one making slippery slope arguments. Stop doing it, and I won't call them out.
You are proposing something ridiculous
In what way is it? Address my ACTUAL proposal, not the one you think I'm making.
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 ?
My argument is that this won't change anything about how minmaxers see the game. If you want to do something about minmaxers, either tackle their ideology, or rebalance the points.
And if you're THAT bothered about people abusing the game, learn to say no to players who do. If I know the person on the other side of the table is minmaxing, I just won't play them. Simple.
But seriously, how do you address this clear and obvious design problem you'd be introducing to the game with this solution ?
Do you think 30k has a clear and obvious design issue? Because that's what 30k does with their Terminators.
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
You haven't stated any problems though. You're claiming that more options for this one unit would lead to minmaxing, but without me stating what any of the points costs would be, you can't make that point. If the options are priced accordingly, even harshly, then the only people taking the unit are those who REALLY want that fluff and flavour. You seem to think I'd want to make it a powerful, undercosted unit, when I'm more likely to lean towards making it OVERpriced.
Again, "greater tactical affordances" - like what?
so other then TWC what unit will be using this datasheet ?
I gave examples. Veteran Bikers. Ravenwing. Entirely new lore entries, like Salamanders riding great lizards, other Chapters with their own warbeasts, any kind of elite mounted cadre.
what's the point in making a new datasheet at all if its just representing the same unit ?
To delete all the others. Let's say we have 4 veteran cavalry datasheets, all spread out between a variety of Codexes - the core Space Marine Veteran Bikers, the Blood Angels copy of that, the Dark Angels Ravenwing Command Squad/Black Knights, and Thunderwolf Cavalry. That's four units that could be merged into ONE unit, one unit with the potential to represent unlimited unique customisable command cavalry squads.
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.
Because I want Space Wolves to be merged into Space Marines, but not to lose any of their abilities. Because customisation on a MEANINGFUL level is good. I'm not doing this because *I* want it, I don't even like bikes. I'm doing it because I want the playing field levelled, for any Space Marine player from any Chapter to pick up something they think is cool and play with it.
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."
Because powergamers will exist regardless of this. If you're so afraid of minmaxers, why don't TWC only have one weapon option? I thought it was YOU who was asking for the option for players to customise their forces?
I think you have my point entirely mistaken. I'm PRO-customisation. But I think it should be done from a generic baseline, not bespoke datasheets.
(Also, my god, that was hard to format.)
Type40 wrote:Again, how do you address the insane amount of min/max potential you just added to the game ?
Right, want to get rid of "insane amounts of minmax potential"? Fine - everyone plays with the same units, with the same loadout, with no customising. That's the kind of slippery slope you were doing on the rest of us, wasn't it?
After all, you're so afraid of minmaxers, right?
how do you address the fact that you are removing one of the few restriction and limitations that SMs have.
In the age of allies, do you REALLY think that SM were at all limited by this?
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.
Whew boy, I think you really ought to get a sense of perspective if you think letting all Space Marines share a generic Veteran Cavalry entry would break the game.
Jimbobbyish wrote:To be fair he went from combine with Outriders
No, I didn't. That was someone else's claim. If you're going to kick up a fuss, kick it up about what I actually said.
to make a new generic unit so that everyone can have thunderwolf Cavalry. Might as well let everyone have baal predator give everyone have librarian Dreadnought give everyone a generic primarch, give everyone black knights, give everyone kill teams!
To most of those, yes.
Let everyone have Baal Predators. Hell, just make it part of the Predator entry.
Yes, let everyone have Librarian Dreadnoughts. And Chaplain Dreadnoughts. And Techmarine Dreadnoughts. Put in a 1CP stratagem or similar ability to upgrade any Dreadnought into a X variant, with an equipment upgrade and special rule, like the Chapter Master one.
Yes, give everyone Black Knights, have them as part of the Veteran Bikers thing I mentioned above.
By Kill Teams, you mean Deathwatch Kill Teams? What part of them am I transferring?
Primarch? Actually, I'm totally on board with Guilliman being made generic. He's the Lord Commander of the Imperium. If anyone should be universally available, it should be him. Throw him a rule where he might benefit mostly Ultras, but can be taken in ANY Space Marine army without breaking detachment rules.
Yeah, I'm not seeing your complaint here.
Quasistellar wrote:It's flavor and head-canon.
Exactly. So "flavour" the speed and toughness of this generic cavalry entry to represent your wolf.
If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
"If there's no difference to represent this Mark 3 armour and this Mark 4 armour, why have different models!"
Because not EVERYTHING needs rules. Do Cadians and Catachans need unique datasheets?
There have been lots of generic rules sets over the years like this and they never catch on because people (including me) like their special little dudes to have special rules.
Your dudes HAVE special rules. But you don't need EVERY little detail to have rules. Unless you're arguing that the former need differentiation?
40k is a game built more on the fluff and models to be sure, but to sell those models they need rules to differentiate them.
No, they don't. Do White Scars bikes need unique datasheets compared to Ultramarines bikers to differentiate them? In 5th edition, when Iron Hands and Raven Guard were identical in rules, did they need rules to differentiate them?
BrianDavion wrote:except these threads are always driven by 99% jelousy.
What am I jealous of, exactly? I don't play bikes. There's nothing stopping me playing SW. There's nothing stopping me allying in TWC into my armies.
What am I jealous of?
we've now gone from "they should be treated as just cosmetic bikers" to "FOLD THEM INTO CODEX SPACE MARINES AS A NEW GENERIC UNIT"
at about this point it seems to me that the goal isn't simplification, the goal is to deny someone a toy..
What am I denying? Some precious sense of snowflakiness? That these wolves are too unique to be like any other *scoff* Generic Unit?
It reeks of entitlement. I'm the one positing for EVERYONE to get the same thing. There's no "denying a toy" here. If TWC got made generic, would it stop anyone from using their existing ones? No. So how am I denying your toy, unless your toy came with a side order of exclusivity?
Unit1126PLL wrote:Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
Ding ding ding!
They/them
2020/10/29 19:14:46
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
perhaps if you want to keep making this comparison you can show us the "Space marine with purity seals" kit?
if not then maybe just maybe it's a gakky intellectually dishonest comparison?
We have separate kits for Mk3 and Mk4 Power Armor. Why don't they have different rules just like with the Terminator armors all being different?
The same reason some bolters look different yet have the same rules while others have different rules. It's an arbitrary line. I would argue that dudes riding wolves meets an arbitrary level of difference to justify bespoke rules.
Please understand that I'm also one of those that thinks some consolidation of units/rules regarding space marines would be nice (e.g. grey hunters and devastators, etc etc).
Once more for emphasis: it's arbitrary.
But the question is why is it that arbitrary that the different Terminators have different rules (AND entries for Storm Bolter or straight melee)? It's completely silly.
Quasistellar wrote: If there's no rules to represent the difference between a dude riding a wolf and a dude riding a motorcycle, why even have the different models?
Same reason we have a miniatures game and not cardboard tokens - because it's cool looking and a nice spectacle. Why do SM models have purity seals if they don't have a rules effect?
perhaps if you want to keep making this comparison you can show us the "Space marine with purity seals" kit?
if not then maybe just maybe it's a gakky intellectually dishonest comparison?
Okay. Mark 3 and Mark 4 Space Marines.
Type40 wrote: because this is hyperbole.
Overexaggerating the point to a degree of ridiculousness is not worth answering.
Type40 wrote: But again, if our goal is to just dilute the game down into base datasheets... why not roll all the factions together and play the game with 5-20 datasheets all together ?
What is the real difference in playing different factions at that point... also,,, we are kind of now talking about a completely different game.
Heh.
PenitentJake wrote:I get the point though about "Load out difference only" units not needing a separate sheet, and part of me does agree. But has anyone considered yet that for some units, that creates a multi-page data sheet? And would a single data sheet 5 pages long be any better than 5 one page data sheets?
Why would it be a multipage sheet? If something like Intercessors or a Deathwatch Kill Team can fit on one page, I think any of the proposed combination datasheets will fit fine.
Combining datasheets might not make everyone happy. But if they're done right, they won't lose any of the Sweet Sweet Flavour that they wanted. I am in favour of consolidation AND in keeping those bespoke rules. In cases, those rules might become generic and widely available, but I don't want to invalidate anything.
There's this idea that Consolidation = Mechanical Removal. That is not the case. Might it be a case that power weapons are treated the same? Maybe. But will you still have rules for your weapon? Yes, you will. Will your Wolf Priests still have their healing balms? As a stratagem, yes. And so on, so forth.
Also, the number of data sheets does make it easier to write about/ talk about than the few sheet approach. Imagine trying to write up a battle report for an army where you could only differentiate units from one another by listing the equipment they carry, instead of using the Unit name shorthand that bespoke datasheets gives you.
By that metric, should we have three different Intercessor datasheets? Myriads of different ones for Captain with plasma pistol and chainsword, Captain with bolt pistol of chainsword, etc etc
Type40 wrote:I only fought for two things... people actively ignored my arguments constantly and claimed I was arguing something else.
Wow! Just like what you were doing with me! Remember - when you were claiming I was after Outrider TWC?
Again, stop telling me what I am arguing for and read what I am actually arguing for.
Maybe you should take those words and apply them to yourself too.
They/them
2020/10/29 19:26:26
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
Even though you want to give everyone the same thing. Even though what you want to give them is "better" (debatably) ... People arn't playing these factions just to be a clone of everyone else. There are a lot of players who have picked their faction because it feels unique to them... Again, imagine telling an Aldari player that they can have access to all the customization in the game with every option and load out possible,,, and every faction gets to have that too.
Do you really not understand how some people feel about this ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 19:27:24
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.
2020/10/29 19:28:00
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
Even though you want to give everyone the same thing. Even though what you want to give them is "better" (debatably) ... People arn't playing these factions just to be a clone of everyone else. There are a lot of players who have picked their faction because it feels unique to them... Again, imagine telling an Aldari player that they can have access to all the customization in the game with every option and load out possible,,, and every faction gets to have that too.
Do you really not understand how people feel about this ?
Is 100+ datasheets not enough?
To put another way, why do Space Wolves deserve more customization than Dark Eldar? Or Nurgle Daemons? Or SoB? Or Inquisition?
Edit: To quote myself...
Yeah. Space Marines getting a lot of stuff is fine-but other armies need support too.
Hell, the current Space Wolves Index has 28 datasheets. (12 are unique characters.) Nurgle Daemons have 15 datasheets. (3 are unique characters and 3 are generic Daemons capable of being taken as Nurgle.)
One would assume that the faction more in need of new datasheets would get them-but that's not the case, for GW.
It's frustrating. I hope you, Type40, can understand that and sympathize.
You've not really shown any sympathy beyond the token level.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 19:29:04
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/29 19:36:14
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
But is it a *problem*?
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
There's nothing wrong with wanting what you have. But I'm not taking that away. I'm just presenting at as part of a wider option available to everyone. The only thing being lost is exclusivity.
People arn't playing these factions just to be a clone of everyone else.
Right, so if having unique units and codexes is this benchmark of "not being a clone" - what about people who play Ultramarines, as opposed to White Scars? Or Raven Guard, as opposed to Imperial Fists? Or Homebrew Chapter instead of Iron Hands?
There are a lot of players who have picked their faction because it feels unique to them...
Not disputing that. But that "unique feel" doesn't come from "HA I HAVE THIS UNIT AND YOU DON'T AND IF YOU HAD THIS UNIT I WOULDN'T FEEL UNIQUE!", does it?
Again, imagine telling an Aldari player that they can have access to all the customization in the game with every option and load out possible,,, and every faction gets to have that too.
Can you seriously not tell the difference between an Eldar and a Space Marine wearing fur?
Do you really not understand how some people feel about this ?
Seemingly not, because the only thing I'm getting from this is "You're not allowed to have my special toy because only I can have that!"
Think of it this way: a restaurant that serves your favourite steak. They cook it just right for you. Then, they offer a vegan steak alternative on the menu. You don't have to change your order, but now other people can order an approximation. Has your dining experience been ruined? Does the steak taste different, despite no changes to how it's cooked or your consumption? Surely not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 19:37:09
They/them
2020/10/29 19:39:36
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
Even though you want to give everyone the same thing. Even though what you want to give them is "better" (debatably) ... People arn't playing these factions just to be a clone of everyone else. There are a lot of players who have picked their faction because it feels unique to them... Again, imagine telling an Aldari player that they can have access to all the customization in the game with every option and load out possible,,, and every faction gets to have that too.
Do you really not understand how people feel about this ?
Is 100+ datasheets not enough?
To put another way, why do Space Wolves deserve more customization than Dark Eldar? Or Nurgle Daemons? Or SoB? Or Inquisition?
Again, they don't. Me wanting to keep the SW unique units (and honestly not caring about the plethora of marine bloat) is not me saying that the other factions do not deserve way more attention then they are getting.
What will removing the unique units from SWs do to get other factions more attention ?
I agree, the marine bloat is egregious and out of control. What does removing the unique SW units (other then maybe the new hounds) do for giving more attention to the other factions ?
I 100% undertand, I 100% am frustrated as well (i am not only a SW player) and I 100% sympathize.
Again why is me not wanting you to take away the unique units, that have existed for YEARS, have to do with not giving design time towards other factions ? Again, I'll willingly go withouth the vanilla primaries wave.
But you keep accusing me of not wanting others to get attention whilst I am saying "maybe we don't put in a crap ton of effort to overhall the power-armor factions, get rid of variety in the process, and instead spend that time actually focusing on other factions"
I really don't understand how your making a connection between wanting to keep my unique units and that making design room ?
Not that this would happen, but do you think that if they rolled any other factions units into being a clone of marines that would free up design space ? that doesn't make sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can you seriously not tell the difference between an Eldar and a Space Marine wearing fur?
If you seriously can't tell the difference between a wolf and bike,,, ya then sure, I can't tell the difference. Its arbitrary at that point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Think of it this way: a restaurant that serves your favourite steak. They cook it just right for you. Then, they offer a vegan steak alternative on the menu. You don't have to change your order, but now other people can order an approximation. Has your dining experience been ruined? Does the steak taste different, despite no changes to how it's cooked or your consumption?
Surely not.
Eating dinner is a solitary experience... so no,
Now if everyone elses dinner and express impact on my dinner... then yes.
Not disputing that. But that "unique feel" doesn't come from "HA I HAVE THIS UNIT AND YOU DON'T AND IF YOU HAD THIS UNIT I WOULDN'T FEEL UNIQUE!", does it?
Yes, this is a crude way of describing the word unique.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 19:43:43
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.
2020/10/29 19:42:54
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Think of it this way: a restaurant that serves your favourite steak. They cook it just right for you. Then, they offer a vegan steak alternative on the menu. You don't have to change your order, but now other people can order an approximation. Has your dining experience been ruined? Does the steak taste different, despite no changes to how it's cooked or your consumption?
Surely not.
Eating dinner is a solitary experience... so no,
Now if everyone elses dinner and express impact on my dinner... then yes.
Sorry, what? How does it affect YOU if I come to table with my Generic Veteran Cavalry unit?
Now I am interested to hear this. In this restaurant example, I've come up and am sitting opposite you with my vegan steak. How am I taking away from your own meal?
Not disputing that. But that "unique feel" doesn't come from "HA I HAVE THIS UNIT AND YOU DON'T AND IF YOU HAD THIS UNIT I WOULDN'T FEEL UNIQUE!", does it?
Yes, this is a crude way of describing the word unique.
No, that's an incredibly selfish way of describing "unique".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 19:45:41
They/them
2020/10/29 19:46:09
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
If we're talking about the context of merging stuff like TWC/biker or the various terminator units into one entry, then that sounds pretty much like the definition of entitlement to me. If people still get to play with their toys, and they'll function in pretty much the same way as before (or at least within the variation one would expect of something like a normal edition or codex change), and the only change is that they just wouldn't have a whole special specific separate unit entry to take up an extra page on its own, I don't see where there's a problem. If they're going to get mad about that, I have zero issues calling that out as entitlement, particularly given the substantially rougher treatment given to other units and armies over the editions, from wholesale re-imaginings and re-definitions to simply dropping and abandoning them entirely.
In a case like this, the details being argued over for unit design in this case are small enough that anyone getting bent out of shape about them is going to get just as bent out of shape at *any* codex or edition change, so I wouldn't worry about it. The breadth of changes being discussed aren't any larger than one would expect to see in such cases.
TL;DR if someone is mad that their unit doesn't have a separate unique page entry, but can otherwise be played and kitted identically (or very nearly so) under a generic entry, I don't really see that as a valid game design concern.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 19:48:53
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2020/10/29 19:46:35
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
If we're talking about the context of merging stuff like TWC/biker or the various terminator units into one entry, then that sounds pretty much like the definition of entitlement to me. If people still get to play with their toys, and they'll function in pretty much the same way as before (or at least within the variation one would expect of something like a normal edition or codex change), and the only change is that they just wouldn't have a whole special specific separate unit entry to take up an extra page on its own, I don't see where there's a problem. If they're going to get mad about that, I have zero issues calling that out as entitlement, particularly given the substantially rougher treatment given to other units and armies over the editions, from wholesale re-imaginings and re-definitions to simply dropping and abandoning them entirely.
In a case like this, the details being argued over for unit design in this case are small enough that anyone getting bent out of shape about them is going to get just as bent out of shape at *any* codex or edition change, so I wouldn't worry about it. The breadth of changes being discussed aren't any larger than one would expect to see in such cases.
So why isn't an aldari player getting called entitled for asking for their rules not to become merged with the regular marine units as well ?
You are calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now I am interested to hear this. In this restaurant example, I've come up and am sitting opposite you with my vegan steak. How am I taking away from your own meal?
Your saying I don't have to play against you ?
And all your new options, that you can synergize with your old options ? which you were restricted from doing before ?
You have fundamentally changed how we are going to play the game together.
No, that's an incredibly selfish way of describing "unique".
How do you define unique ?
dictionary:
"being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else."
Its not really unique if you get to have the same thing with out taking the same choices and restrictions I took in order to gain access to that thing?
Like, I wouldnt be rude and say " HA I HAVE THIS UNIT AND YOU DON'T AND IF YOU HAD THIS UNIT I WOULDN'T FEEL UNIQUE! " but that does hit the nail on the head... people play certain factions to feel unique... you wouldn't feel unique as a harlequin player if some SM player came in with bikes that could do everything your bikes could do would you ?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 19:53:31
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.
2020/10/29 19:55:25
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Because Eldar share zero units and maybe two pieces of wargear with Space Marines. Merging them would completely wreck one or both of them.
Space Wolves share over 100 units with Space Marines, and I only count 8 pieces of unique wargear in their Index that don't belong to unique characters.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/29 19:55:57
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
If we're talking about the context of merging stuff like TWC/biker or the various terminator units into one entry, then that sounds pretty much like the definition of entitlement to me. If people still get to play with their toys, and they'll function in pretty much the same way as before (or at least within the variation one would expect of something like a normal edition or codex change), and the only change is that they just wouldn't have a whole special specific separate unit entry to take up an extra page on its own, I don't see where there's a problem. If they're going to get mad about that, I have zero issues calling that out as entitlement, particularly given the substantially rougher treatment given to other units and armies over the editions, from wholesale re-imaginings and re-definitions to simply dropping and abandoning them entirely.
In a case like this, the details being argued over for unit design in this case are small enough that anyone getting bent out of shape about them is going to get just as bent out of shape at *any* codex or edition change, so I wouldn't worry about it. The breadth of changes being discussed aren't any larger than one would expect to see in such cases.
So why isn't an aldari player getting called entitled for asking for their rules not to become merged with the regular marine units as well ?
You are calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique.
Can you honestly not tell the difference between 2 different armies having different datasheets versus marines?
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2020/10/29 19:57:19
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
JNAProductions wrote: Because Eldar share zero units and maybe two pieces of wargear with Space Marines. Merging them would completely wreck one or both of them.
Space Wolves share over 100 units with Space Marines, and I only count 8 pieces of unique wargear in their Index that don't belong to unique characters.
The SW dreads and Wulfen alone have more unique pieces of wargear.
and they may share almost 90 units with SMs but they don't share TWC with SMs ?
so what's your point ?
What does amount unique units have to do with not wanting to lose my unique units ?
Type40 wrote: Taking away everyone's unique toys so they can all have the same , but better, little red ball isn't really a solution.
There's is a difference between entitlement and not wanting someone to take what you have... even if they are going to give something back. Some people just want what they have.
If we're talking about the context of merging stuff like TWC/biker or the various terminator units into one entry, then that sounds pretty much like the definition of entitlement to me. If people still get to play with their toys, and they'll function in pretty much the same way as before (or at least within the variation one would expect of something like a normal edition or codex change), and the only change is that they just wouldn't have a whole special specific separate unit entry to take up an extra page on its own, I don't see where there's a problem. If they're going to get mad about that, I have zero issues calling that out as entitlement, particularly given the substantially rougher treatment given to other units and armies over the editions, from wholesale re-imaginings and re-definitions to simply dropping and abandoning them entirely.
In a case like this, the details being argued over for unit design in this case are small enough that anyone getting bent out of shape about them is going to get just as bent out of shape at *any* codex or edition change, so I wouldn't worry about it. The breadth of changes being discussed aren't any larger than one would expect to see in such cases.
So why isn't an aldari player getting called entitled for asking for their rules not to become merged with the regular marine units as well ?
You are calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique.
Can you honestly not tell the difference between 2 different armies having different datasheets versus marines?
I can.
TWC are one unit....
Outriders / bikers are completely different units .
Can you not tell the difference between two completely different datasheets ?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 20:01:11
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.
2020/10/29 20:01:09
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
I agree with Vaktathi. All this is is Type40 shouting entitlement and "I want". And he resorts to absurdity like saying the eldar codex should be merged into the SM codex when presented with arguments and evidence to counter him.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2020/10/29 20:01:46
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
JNAProductions wrote: Because Eldar share zero units and maybe two pieces of wargear with Space Marines. Merging them would completely wreck one or both of them.
Space Wolves share over 100 units with Space Marines, and I only count 8 pieces of unique wargear in their Index that don't belong to unique characters.
The SW dreads and Wulfen alone have more unique pieces of wargear.
but they don't share TWC with SMs ?
what's your point ?
What does amount unique units have to do with not wanting to lose my unique units ?
Wulfen Dread has two unique wargear options-the Fenrisian Great Axe and the Great Wolf Claw.
Ah, Blizzard Shield-missed that! Was only looking at weapons.
Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf has Crushing Teeth and Claws.
Grey Hunters have the Wolf Standard, another bit I missed.
Wulfen have the Stormfrag, the Wulfen Frost Claws, the Great Frost Axe, and the Wulfen Claws.
Cyberwolves and Fenrisian Wolves have Teeth and Claws.
Stormfang Gunship has the Helfrost Destructor and Melta Array.
Stormwolf has the Twin Helfrost Cannon.
That's a total of 12-my bad.
But the point is that you're needlessly bringing up Eldar and saying "You might as well merge THEM with Marines!" when they share almost nothing.
Whereas Space Wolves are Marines with a few extra units and wargear options.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
