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.

 Lance845 wrote:
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.

I am not shouting I want at all.

You guys are attempting theft. I am shouting STOP.

I don't need to "want" it... I currently HAVE it. You are proposing to take it away.

You can agree with Vaktathi all you want... it just means you are both wrong.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 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.

How many of those frost weapons can easily be represented as power weapons? Crushing teeth and claws can just be the bike attacks. Blizzard shield is just a storm shield.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 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.

so wargear is one of several elements that make up a unique unit. you are ignoring ,

unique statelines, unique unit compositions, unique special rules, unique unite sizes, unique keywords, unique wargear OPTIONS, and unique access to stratagems.

So,,, sure,,, 12 unique sets of wargear stats... that makes up a very small part of what makes SW units unique.

True. This is all generaly is a strange thing. Balanced is supposed to be achived by removing marine options and nerfing their rules, before even people getting their own books. At the same time the great balancers are asking for bringing back sub faction FW armies, more rules for their factions and if they get powerful books themselfs they ain't going to be asking for nerfs, because I remember them not asking for those when they had a powerful rules in 8th.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 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.

How many of those frost weapons can easily be represented as power weapons? Crushing teeth and claws can just be the bike attacks. Blizzard shield is just a storm shield.

You got your wish, thats exactly how it works this edition ? you really should get on top of what your arguing for ...

and damn,,, if a dreadnaught got a SS that would be so broken... do you know what any of this even is ?

What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?

Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?

 Type40 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 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.

How many of those frost weapons can easily be represented as power weapons? Crushing teeth and claws can just be the bike attacks. Blizzard shield is just a storm shield.

You got your wish, thats exactly how it works this edition ? you really should get on top of what your arguing for ...

Well then it's not unique wargear is it?

 Type40 wrote:

so wargear is one of several elements that make up a unique unit. you are ignoring ,

unique statelines, unique unit compositions, unique special rules, unique unite sizes, unique keywords, unique wargear OPTIONS, and unique access to stratagems.

So,,, sure,,, 12 unique sets of wargear stats... that makes up a very small part of what makes SW units unique.

But mr Type, if all those options were removed, then the next argument would be to remove all the marines as separate factions, I mean if they have the same rule set, why would there be need for a BA or SW book. Have just one sm codex for all marines.
Good chance that marines will get less popular and less played, and with lower sales there is a bigger chance non marine player would get more rules and models for themselfs. A win/win situation, if you don't happen to play marines.

 Type40 wrote:


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 ?

Because an Eldar unit isn't sharing the bulk of its wargear, lore, statline, or role of the Marine. However, a marine on a bike that's fundamentally really portraying cavalry (and not actually bikes, because bikes are garbage fighting platforms and have never actually been used as such and the Bike profiles and rules are basically evolutions of the Fantasy cav rules) probably should just have the same unit entry as actual marine cavalry.

You are calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique.

I very clearly stated, "If people still get to play with their toys, and they'll function in pretty much the same way as before, and they're going to get mad about that, I have zero issues calling that out as entitlement". This is not the same thing as "calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique", because fundamentally the things in question aren't actually all that unique, they just have different visual portrayal.

There is a qualifier in there. One you are actively avoiding addressing and are purposefully cutting out when replying to me. I don't think it's a particularly subtle qualifier, but I will restate it. If the unit can still be played and fill its tabletop role and represent the appropriate wargear options in some meaningful way, and the only issue is that the unit doesn't get a unique page spread and has to share a unit entry, then it's not actually all that unique, and I consider getting mad about that to be entitlement.

Given that GW just told my DKoK Assault Brigade that it's now a Legends force and I don't even have a reasonable way to counts-as the army because the Tempestus Scions keywords don't allow it to take all the Chimera transports the force was built around, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the idea that having to combine TWC and Bikes or Assault Terminators/Relic Terminators/Stormbolter Terminators into one unit entry is somehow a bad thing as long as their unit options remain intact.

And that's not even getting into the total garbage Doctrine they slapped onto the DKoK in place of the old Cult of Sacrifice and enhanced WS rules. That I can live and deal with or at least Counts-As around

 JNAProductions wrote:
What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?

Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?

What does proportion have to do with keeping unique units unique ? XD proportion doesn't change that a TWC is not a Outrider.
in the same way that it does not change a harlequin skyweaver isn't an outrider.

Well then it's not unique wargear is it?

I an tired of the circular arguments lol .

See where I have repeated that
unique statelines, unique unit compositions, unique special rules, unique unite sizes, unique keywords, unique wargear OPTIONS, and unique access to stratagems.
are what make up a unique unit,,, not simply "wargear" XD.
Lets really focus on this because I have said this so many times.

 Type40 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?

Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?

What does proportion have to do with keeping unique units unique ? XD proportion doesn't change that a TWC is not a Outrider.
in the same way that it does not change a harlequin skyweaver isn't an outrider.

Consolidating something that's already 85% or more the same is different from consolidating two things that have maybe 1% overlap.

Will you at least promise to not bring up the "Might as well merge Eldar and Marines" malarky again?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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

To the first point, the part that you didn't quote was the part where I pointed out that I intentionally used hyperbole to illustrate the point using fewer words. I have seen people complain that the DW vet unit entry is too complex. But Terminators WOULD take more than vets because of the fact that squads don't mix weapon options the way vets do. If you take Assault Terminators, ALL of them are equipped with Assault wepons (or at the very least, they can't ALSO include Assault Cannons, Cyclone Launchers, Heavy Flamers, etc). With DW vets, taking a model on a bike doesn't affect what the rest of the unit is able to take, but with Termies, it absolutely does. Maybe I should have said two pages instead of five.

And if all power weapons were treated the same, that IS mechanical removal. It removes two of the three existing mechanics.Saying that you haven't removed anything because a single rule exists where once three did is kinda... Well, quite frankly it's not how words work.

And finally, think about detachment composition in matched play: let's say I want to field a First Company army. Using a single data sheet, I can take 3 units of termies in a matched play game. As is, I could take 3 Assault Termies, 3 tactical Termies, and 3 relic termies. Which option feels more like a first company to you?

As to the second point, HQ units are far less ubiquitous than other types of units so there's less need for language to differentiate between them; you'd never want nine of them in an army the way you might want nine units of termies either. I'm not familiar enough with Intercessors to speak intelligently about them, so I won't try to fake it.

For the record Outriders and Bikers need to be consolidated into one profile anyway.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?

Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?

going by the xeno players metrics? eldar shoty unit, eldar stabby unit, eldar small transport , eldar big transport, eldar leader. eldar support unit melee, eldar support shoty. Could cover all types of eldar with those, if you used the metric that are supposed to be used for marines.

And if you need a list, then it is WG, Long Fangs, BC, GH, the new reavers, all the characters, TWC, wulfen , the mounted khan, apothecaries, chaplains, dreadoughts, SW flyers. And all the differences that come from having different chapter tactics and stratagems. Meaning the same stuff is limited to stuff like predators, primaris tanks and generaly vehicles, but not the fast moving ones, because WS speeders work different from SW ones.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


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 ?

Because an Eldar unit isn't sharing the bulk of its wargear, lore, statline, or role of the Marine. However, a marine on a bike that's fundamentally really portraying cavalry (and not actually bikes, because bikes are garbage fighting platforms and have never actually been used as such and the Bike profiles and rules are basically evolutions of the Fantasy cav rules) probably should just have the same unit entry as actual marine cavalry.

You are calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique.

I very clearly stated, "If people still get to play with their toys, and they'll function in pretty much the same way as before, and they're going to get mad about that, I have zero issues calling that out as entitlement". This is not the same thing as "calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique", because fundamentally the things in question aren't actually all that unique, they just have different visual portrayal.

There is a qualifier in there. One you are actively avoiding addressing and are purposefully cutting out when replying to me. I don't think it's a particularly subtle qualifier, but I will restate it. If the unit can still be played and fill its tabletop role and represent the appropriate wargear options in some meaningful way, and the only issue is that the unit doesn't get a unique page spread and has to share a unit entry, then it's not actually all that unique, and I consider getting mad about that to be entitlement.

Given that GW just told my DKoK Assault Brigade that it's now a Legends force and I don't even have a reasonable way to counts-as the army because the Tempestus Scions keywords don't allow it to take all the Chimera transports the force was built around, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the idea that having to combine TWC and Bikes or Assault Terminators/Relic Terminators/Stormbolter Terminators into one unit entry is somehow a bad thing as long as their unit options remain intact.

And that's not even getting into the total garbage Doctrine they slapped onto the DKoK in place of the old Cult of Sacrifice and enhanced WS rules. That I can live and deal with or at least Counts-As around

Ah,,, I see, so because you lost YOUR unique stuff it means SWs should arbitrarily lose their unique datasheets as well ?

It doesn't mater that if eldar is sharing the bulk of its wargear, lore, statline or role with marines... The TWC is also sharing none of those things with the normal marines. and if you argue outriders and TWC have the same role, I argue that skyweavers and outriders have the same role.

we are talking about a unique unit, whether it is a unique eldar unit or a unique SW unit doesnt change the fact that it is a unique unit.

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?

Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?

going by the xeno players metrics? eldar shoty unit, eldar stabby unit, eldar small transport , eldar big transport, eldar leader. eldar support unit melee, eldar support shoty. Could cover all types of eldar with those, if you used the metric that are supposed to be used for marines.

And if you need a list, then it is WG, Long Fangs, BC, GH, the new reavers, all the characters, TWC, wulfen , the mounted khan, apothecaries, chaplains, dreadoughts, SW flyers. And all the differences that come from having different chapter tactics and stratagems. Meaning the same stuff is limited to stuff like predators, primaris tanks and generaly vehicles, but not the fast moving ones, because WS speeders work different from SW ones.

WS Speeders work differently from SW ones? That's news to me.

I was unaware the datasheet actually changed-because no one here has advocated getting rid of Chapter Tactics. Just that when the Core Marine Dex has 100+ datasheets in it, you don't ALSO need another dozen for each individual chapter.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?

Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?

going by the xeno players metrics? eldar shoty unit, eldar stabby unit, eldar small transport , eldar big transport, eldar leader. eldar support unit melee, eldar support shoty. Could cover all types of eldar with those, if you used the metric that are supposed to be used for marines.

And if you need a list, then it is WG, Long Fangs, BC, GH, the new reavers, all the characters, TWC, wulfen , the mounted khan, apothecaries, chaplains, dreadoughts, SW flyers. And all the differences that come from having different chapter tactics and stratagems. Meaning the same stuff is limited to stuff like predators, primaris tanks and generaly vehicles, but not the fast moving ones, because WS speeders work different from SW ones.

WS Speeders work differently from SW ones? That's news to me.

I was unaware the datasheet actually changed-because no one here has advocated getting rid of Chapter Tactics. Just that when the Core Marine Dex has 100+ datasheets in it, you don't ALSO need another dozen for each individual chapter.

I dont care about the vanilla sheets, they can keep those... I'lll keep our unique stuff thank you.

The unique sheets have divergent, statlines, wargear options, unit sizes, unit compositions, special rules, access to datasheets, keywords, and mechanics then anything in the marine dex... just like every unique datasheet in the aldari codex has divergent , statlines, wargear options,unit sizes, unit compositions, special rules, access to datasheets, keywords and mechanics then anthing in the marine dex... (they do have powerswords though (but i am being factitious with this statement and don't mean for you to take it seriously before someone goes "HA HA LOOK WHAT YOU SAID") )

 JNAProductions wrote:
WS Speeders work differently from SW ones? That's news to me.

I was unaware the datasheet actually changed-because no one here has advocated getting rid of Chapter Tactics. Just that when the Core Marine Dex has 100+ datasheets in it, you don't ALSO need another dozen for each individual chapter.

Yes the stats can be the same, but if you have centurions in one army walk the table and the other lets you teleport or deploy them 9" away from the enemy, then those are two very different units, doesn't matter if they cost the same and technicaly have the same stats, or even names.

 Type40 wrote:


Ah,,, I see, so because you lost YOUR unique stuff it means SWs should arbitrarily lose their unique datasheets as well ?

No, my point was that if a consolidated entry allows a unit to retain its functionality and portrayal, being mad about it not having its own unique entry is silly because there's nothing being lost but page count, while other factions have to deal with substantially harsher treatment.

What I'm mad about is that I have a force that's no longer legal for event play and I don't even have a way to counts-as it. I'd have zero problem running that force as basic Tempestus Scions if the options for their transports and running them alongside the other DKoK units were there, but they are not. These are very different things to be mad about.

I'm perfectly happy to use to consolidate unit entry if that entry is constructed in such a way as to allow those options. If people have a consolidated entry that does those things and are just mad that it's not broken out into separate entries, that's what I consider entitled. Same way I don't need distinct unit entries for Armageddon Ork Hunters or Schaeffers Last Chancers and just have the Veterans unit option, and am perfectly happy to use my DKoK Combat Engineers as such.

It doesn't mater that if eldar is sharing the bulk of its wargear, lore, statline or role with marines... The TWC is also sharing none of those things with the normal marines.

If someone is going to insist that comparing a Space Marine riding a warbeast is so different from another Space Marine riding a Bike with rules that are fundamentally intended to reflect the riding of a warbeast, that it's the same thing as comparing an Eldar to a Marine, I'm going to feel comfortable calling that both disingenuous and entitled.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


Ah,,, I see, so because you lost YOUR unique stuff it means SWs should arbitrarily lose their unique datasheets as well ?

No, my point was that if a consolidated entry allows a unit to retain its functionality and portrayal, being made about it not having its own unique entry is silly because there's nothing being lost but page count, while other factions have to deal with substantially harsher treatment.

What I'm mad about is that I have a force that's no longer legal for event play and I don't even have a way to counts-as it. I'd have zero problem running that force as basic Tempestus Scions if the options for their transports and running them alongside the other DKoK units were there, but they are not. These are very different things to be mad about.

I'm perfectly happy to use to consolidate unit entry if that entry is constructed in such a way as to allow those options. If people have a consolidated entry that does those things and are just mad that it's not broken out into separate entries, that's what I consider entitled.

Ok,.,,,, so remind me what that has to do with you wanting me to lose my rules ?

It doesn't mater that if eldar is sharing the bulk of its wargear, lore, statline or role with marines... The TWC is also sharing none of those things with the normal marines.

If someone is going to insist that comparing a Space Marine riding a warbeast is so different from another Space Marine riding a Bike with rules that are fundamentally intended to reflect the riding of a warbeast, that it's the same thing as comparing an Eldar to a Marine, I'm going to feel comfortable calling that both disingenuous and entitled.

Except they arn't,,, if they were GW would have made the datasheets more similar... but the datasheets have different, statlines, abilities, wargear options, unit sizes, unit compositions, keywords and access to stratagems... Why are you convinced that they are the same ? nothing about their model or datasheet is the same unless you change everything that makes them different... Why should GW listen to you, some guy on the internet, about whether or not they "should" be representing their models differently. Why are you so hellbent on my model not being unique in the way that it is now but instead being a clone of a different model that doesn't have the same , statlines, abilities, wargear options, unit sizes, unit compositions, keywords and access to stratagems... ? They are mechanically different. If GW want them to be the same they WOULD have the same , statlines, abilities, wargear options, unit sizes, unit compositions, keywords and access to stratagems

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
WS Speeders work differently from SW ones? That's news to me.

I was unaware the datasheet actually changed-because no one here has advocated getting rid of Chapter Tactics. Just that when the Core Marine Dex has 100+ datasheets in it, you don't ALSO need another dozen for each individual chapter.

Yes the stats can be the same, but if you have centurions in one army walk the table and the other lets you teleport or deploy them 9" away from the enemy, then those are two very different units, doesn't matter if they cost the same and technicaly have the same stats, or even names.

It's one data sheet and then you pay for a teleporter upgrade. And if one can deepstrike and the other can't but they cost the same then there is a balance issue and the deepstriking one should cost more.

 Type40 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


Ah,,, I see, so because you lost YOUR unique stuff it means SWs should arbitrarily lose their unique datasheets as well ?

No, my point was that if a consolidated entry allows a unit to retain its functionality and portrayal, being made about it not having its own unique entry is silly because there's nothing being lost but page count, while other factions have to deal with substantially harsher treatment.

What I'm mad about is that I have a force that's no longer legal for event play and I don't even have a way to counts-as it. I'd have zero problem running that force as basic Tempestus Scions if the options for their transports and running them alongside the other DKoK units were there, but they are not. These are very different things to be mad about.

I'm perfectly happy to use to consolidate unit entry if that entry is constructed in such a way as to allow those options. If people have a consolidated entry that does those things and are just mad that it's not broken out into separate entries, that's what I consider entitled.

Ok,.,,,, so remind me what that has to do with you wanting me to lose my rules ?

Reply to an specific point I made please, don't just quote a block of text and ask a rhetorical question.

It doesn't mater that if eldar is sharing the bulk of its wargear, lore, statline or role with marines... The TWC is also sharing none of those things with the normal marines.

If someone is going to insist that comparing a Space Marine riding a warbeast is so different from another Space Marine riding a Bike with rules that are fundamentally intended to reflect the riding of a warbeast, that it's the same thing as comparing an Eldar to a Marine, I'm going to feel comfortable calling that both disingenuous and entitled.

Except they arn't,,, if they were GW would have made the datasheets more similar... but the datasheets have different, statlines, abilities, wargear options, unit sizes, unit compositions, keywords and access to stratagems... Why are you convinced that they are the same ? nothing about their model or datasheet is the same unless you change everything that makes them different... Why should GW listen to you, some guy on the internet, about whether or not they "should" be representing their models differently. Why are you so hellbent on my model not being unique in the way that it is now but instead being a clone of a different model that doesn't have the same , statlines, abilities, wargear options, unit sizes, unit compositions, keywords and access to stratagems... ?

You are projecting a...whole lot of issues and misconceptions onto me here, and I'm going to ask you take them somewhere else.

I am just a random dude on an internet message board about plastic toy soldiers talking about game design. I never made any claim otherwise. I'm not hellbent on anything. You are inserting a lot of emotion into this.

I have repeatedly explained my stance on why I believe many of these units are similar. Feel free to reread my previous posts. A hint is that a lot of the detail you're obsessing over frequently changes anyway. I will note that many units have emerged and been reabsorbed into generic entries over the years without meaningful harm. Kasrkin for example.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nope. We now have three separate entries now.

Four if you include the wolfgaurd terminators.

We are now to Assault Terminators, Tactical Terminators, and Relic Terminators. That's two too many.

I agree regarding terminators. You're looking for some kind of answers but there aren't any because:

it's arbitrary.

Let's all say it together: "It's arbitrary."

Or, let's not say that, and all get REAL MAD and post about it!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

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.

What is the mechanical difference? I've asked you repeatedly, and you STILL can't answer!

You're right though at the end. It IS arbitrary, the difference between a wolf and bike.

Well I'm not sure if he's the one who answered, but the the answer that extra attacks are only on the charge for bikes and they're always on for cavalry has been given more than once. And you can say that's arbitrary, but I say it's based on physics, because inertia affects heavy metal objects on wheels more than it does living creatures and quadrupedal creatures in particular. Creatures also have a better turning radius, so more physics.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

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?

Your interpretation of the metaphor would be accurate if you were advocating for a generic cavalry unit that continued to co-exist with TWC unit. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but that's not what I thought you were advocating. I thought you meant that the TWC (meat steak) would cease to exist because your generic cavalry unit (vegan steak) could aproximate the meat steak closely enough that YOU think the meat eater should tolerate it.

Now to be fair to you, you might design the Generic Cavalry unit so well that it could, rule for rule, strat for strat, stat for stat and wargear for wargear exactly match the TWC. And if you can, then yes, you are right- your vegan steak, in that case (and only in that case) could in fact perfectly mimic the meat steak, in which case I would owe you both respect for being such an awesome designer and an apology. But again, I don't think that's what you're actually advocating, because you mentioned that your generic cavalry unit could also represent flying or reptilian mounts. And a bespoke approach allows us to do that better.

Consider: In addition to the obvious fact that birds fly and wolves don't, there are other differences that could (and should, IMHO) be explained by rules just like the differences between wolves and bikes. For example: wolves are bite attackers only; birds are claw/claw/bite; land based animals have higher bone density and bone mass; the silhouette of a flying bird is almost all wing, so a non-lethal hit is more likely to compromise its movement than a non-lethal shot vs a wolf. All of these things could be represented by bespoke rules that actually make wolves feel like wolves and birds feel like birds if you ditch this idea that a birdwolf will somehow please both bird lovers and wolf lovers.

Granted, Generic Cavalry is a far more elegant solution than wolf = bike, and I do think the idea has serious merit.

But even assuming your vegan steak can do all that when you're talking about your generic cavalry, it certainly can't when we use the food metaphor for power weapons, because if my meat steak is one of the 3 currently available power weapons and your vegan steak is another, you HAVE destroyed my meat steak, unless you're talking about creating a generic PW profile IN ADDITION to the 3 we have which would be pointless because it would lead to more weapon profiles, not fewer.

BTW the same posts that described the differences between TWC and Outriders ALSO described many differences beside the one that I carried over in this post. I think one of said posts is on PG 1 or 2 and another appears on page 3 or 4. If you're really interested in knowing the differences, you might consider scrolling back, because there are quite a few. And again, thank you for being lucid enough to suggest wolves = generic cavalry than wolves = bikes. It's way better. I just happen to think it's a solution without a problem.

Reply to an specific point I made please, don't just quote a block of text and ask a rhetorical question.

I don't know how to reply to that. You losing your armies unique stuff isn't a justification for my army to lose its unique stuff ?

Also, if your wondering why I don't advocate for all marine units to get access to TWC clones or a datasheet that CAN function as a TWC clone... see my points above. I'd rather have my unique flavour and I'd rather SMs didn't get options they have been previously restricted from arbitrarily because people do not want me to have unique things. The game is now fundamentally different because A: I am not being rewarded for choosing to restrict my self by playing my faction v.s. another and now SM players have access to a slew of new options that may synergize in unintended and unbalanced ways. This increases potential for imbalance and time working out correct balancing and does not decrease it.

I really can not understand why the argument for they are giving too much time to marine design seems to be "spend time overhauling the marines, give the general marines access to even more, and create new min/max balancing issues whilst simultaneously removing the occasional variety and variance that comes with a players choice to restrict themselves to a specific faction/subfaction.

I want other factions to have attention... giving marines a rule overhaul is not what is going to accomplish that. Removing my unique units from the game by allowing a generic SM unit to do all the stuff mine does will free up as much design space as doing that with any datasheet from any faction (aka, none, they will still focus on the marine stuff, you just lose your unique stuff in the process and a ton of marine players gain even more customization) ...

Getting rid of what exists doesnt magically make the space that it took to make that thing in the past appear as if it was never used, that space has already been spent,,, i am not saying it has always deserved to be spent there, i am saying it is ilogical think you can unspend it by puting in way more effort, time, and resources into removing it , rebalancing it and doing an overall rules infastructure re-work for all the power armor factions as a whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does losing some of the DKOK unique datasheets or losing the Elysium unique datasheets somehow free up extra design space ? no, and it is really gakky for the people who lost their unique datasheets. Sure they can just use generic gaurd datasheets and imagine their models behave the same way, and look fondly at their nice paint job... but thats not the same as having unique rules. Imagination and paint isn't the same as having a flavourful ruleset that represents your unit. Removing one that already exists does not free up space... the space is spent.

You are projecting a...whole lot of issues and misconceptions onto me here, and I'm going to ask you take them somewhere else.

I am just a random dude on an internet message board about plastic toy soldiers talking about game design. I never made any claim otherwise. I'm not hellbent on anything. You are inserting a lot of emotion into this.

You are claiming that the being defensive about the theft of the units that make a faction unique makes people entitled and you expect people who have invested time, money and a massive amount of energy into that faction shouldn't take this as some sort of insult?
Your the one calling us entitled for thinking it wouldn't be fair to lose our unique units XD. what gives you and everyone else the entitlement to suggest that they should be taken from us ? Don't placate your charged statement with "why are you getting emotional" after insulting us and unjustifiably calling us entitled XD... lol entitled for wanting to keep what we have whilst random guys on the internet say we shouldnt have it ,,, come on.

It's what makes our faction unique and for what ever reason the circular logic is "your not unique because if we remove everything that makes your stuff unique it will be just like everything else" ... Ya... if pointing out that this is flawed logic is entitlement,,, I think you have misconstrued idea of what entitlement is.

p.s.

As a Vegan, I would prefer a separate entry for my vegan option... this why I don't have to be confused about what additions, restrictions and side options to the meal are correct for my diet and what options are not correct for my diet... Just saying.

Consolidating something that's already 85% or more the same is different from consolidating two things that have maybe 1% overlap.

Will you at least promise to not bring up the "Might as well merge Eldar and Marines" malarky again?

Again, this means nothing... a unique datasheet is a unique datasheet... You either want unique datasheets to be consolidated or not ?
A wolf is less of a bike then an elf jet bike isnt a space marine bike...

TWC is not 85% the same its a completely different datasheet. do you really not get this... So, no I will not stop bringing up this 'malarky' due to the fact that I am using EXACTLY the logic you guys are proposing to propose the same kind of merge...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Because they're nearly all working from the same core units.

So you want to remove all variety from an army because their core units are the same?

Karol wrote:True. This is all generaly is a strange thing. Balanced is supposed to be achived by removing marine options and nerfing their rules, before even people getting their own books. At the same time the great balancers are asking for bringing back sub faction FW armies, more rules for their factions and if they get powerful books themselfs they ain't going to be asking for nerfs, because I remember them not asking for those when they had a powerful rules in 8th.

The point of this thread isnt about balance, its about reducing bloat.

Type40 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
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.

I am not shouting I want at all.

You guys are attempting theft. I am shouting STOP.

I don't need to "want" it... I currently HAVE it. You are proposing to take it away.

You can agree with Vaktathi all you want... it just means you are both wrong.

Its not theft, ive shown you a way to implement it that lets you keep 100% of your fluff and even opens up space for more armies to have fluffy units too. You keep bringing up the "you want to remove TWC'' argument when its not at all what were saying.

Type40 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What is the mechanical difference? I've asked you repeatedly, and you STILL can't answer!

You're right though at the end. It IS arbitrary, the difference between a wolf and bike.

I have answered this question so many times.

You have replied. You've not ANSWERED.

Statline, special rules, wargear, access to stratagems, unit composition, unit size, keywords, type of unit and restrictions to whom can take it.

Great. But WHY are they different?
Statline? They're... pretty much identical to Veteran Bikers.
Special rules? Like... Swift Attack? A sweeping rule that could just be tied to ALL Space Wolf Cavalry as a keyword, or even to this unit in particular as a generic rule? I mean, Bikes are Swift and Attacky. Why don't they have it too? Arbitrary differences.
Wargear - nope, again, same general options as Veteran Bikers, except the Bikers get more. Why don't the TWC get more? No good reason, so lets give the TWC more options. Oh, and the Biting attack from the wolves? What about attacks representing the mass of the bike or running over enemies? So, no difference there.
Stratagems - again, stratagems can be reworded. The three stratagems that directly affect TWC can become Space Wolf unique ones that affect <Veteran Cavalry> units. There. No need for a datasheet.
Unit composition - um... bikes have three models too?
Unit size - again, why can't Bikes have 6 models overall? Again - arbitrary rules with no reason to be WHY they are.
Keywords - so, totally arbitrary.
Type of unit - the difference between cavalry and bikes is arbitrary, next.
Restrictions - WHY is there a restriction?

So, yeah - there's no REASON why they can't be linked beyond your own appeals to status quo.

You are calling people entitled for wanting to keep what they have and to keep it unique.

Yes. Exactly. Emphasis on that last part. "Keep it unique" - aka, in your own words, "exclusive to me".

I've demonstrated repeatedly how I could recreate TWC in a generic format and keep all the same mechanical systems. They wouldn't play any differently. The only change is that other people get to use it. And you seem to kick up such a fuss about other people getting to touch your special toys.

Yeah. That's entitlement.

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 ?

I'm saying how does me putting my non-Space Wolf TWC take away from your own.

I'm not stopping you from playing with you stuff. I'm just making it available to other Chapters. Why is that a problem for you?

You have fundamentally changed how we are going to play the game together.

... because I can take a unit with the same stats as TWC? My god, you are fragile.

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?

Being one of it's kind doesn't mean "only available to Space Wolves". It would still be a unique unit - a unique unit to Space Marines. The fluff of them being giant wolves could still be unique, but their mechanics don't need to be.

And again - if something were to have the same mechanical properties as TWC, but without the name - are they unique then?

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...

You can't turn around and expect me to take you seriously on "I wouldn't say... except I am saying that", right?

people play certain factions to feel unique...

Unique fluff, lore, and maybe tabletop behaviour - but if I play against someone else with the same army as me, or some units in common, you wouldn't hear me crying about it. What, do you hate that SW have Primaris too, or that you share Rhinos with Chaos Marines?

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 ?

But Harlequins have totally different lore, aesthetics, and faction design. So, no, I wouldn't care at all. Sorry if that burst you bubble.

I play most of my armies because I like how they look or behave. And if another faction comes along that behaves similarly on tabletop, good for them? I still have what *I* want.

Type40 wrote:You guys are attempting theft.

Please, my sides can only take so much more!

PenitentJake wrote:To the first point, the part that you didn't quote was the part where I pointed out that I intentionally used hyperbole to illustrate the point using fewer words. I have seen people complain that the DW vet unit entry is too complex. But Terminators WOULD take more than vets because of the fact that squads don't mix weapon options the way vets do. If you take Assault Terminators, ALL of them are equipped with Assault wepons (or at the very least, they can't ALSO include Assault Cannons, Cyclone Launchers, Heavy Flamers, etc). With DW vets, taking a model on a bike doesn't affect what the rest of the unit is able to take, but with Termies, it absolutely does. Maybe I should have said two pages instead of five.

Terminators should be mixed anyway. There shouldn't BE an Assault Terminators entry, just Terminators. Want your Terminators all with lightning claws? Sure, go for it! You don't need a dedicated entry for what should be a mixed unit anyway.

It'd be as simple as: Unit of 5 Terminators armed with storm bolters and power fists. The Sergeant has a power weapon and storm bolter. Any model may replace their power fist/power weapon and storm bolter with either 2x lightning claws, or a thunder hammer and storm shield. In addition, one model armed with a storm bolter and power fist may replace the storm bolter for an assault cannon, plasma cannon, heavy flamer, or reaper autocannon; alternatively, they may take a cyclone missile launcher in addition to their storm bolter and power fist. Any model armed with a power fist may replace their power fist with a chainfist.
Insert rules about sergeant weapons etc etc, but you get the gist.

The DW entry is mostly complex because it adds single unique models. All of my proposals are about whole units.

And if all power weapons were treated the same, that IS mechanical removal. It removes two of the three existing mechanics.Saying that you haven't removed anything because a single rule exists where once three did is kinda... Well, quite frankly it's not how words work.

But what is LOST? Like, meaningfully?

And finally, think about detachment composition in matched play: let's say I want to field a First Company army. Using a single data sheet, I can take 3 units of termies in a matched play game. As is, I could take 3 Assault Termies, 3 tactical Termies, and 3 relic termies. Which option feels more like a first company to you?

That's an issue with the Rule of 3, which I'd abolish too, and have always been in favour of abolishing. There'd be no such issue in my proposal.

As to the second point, HQ units are far less ubiquitous than other types of units so there's less need for language to differentiate between them; you'd never want nine of them in an army the way you might want nine units of termies either. I'm not familiar enough with Intercessors to speak intelligently about them, so I won't try to fake it.

But regardless, that's still advocating for HQ datasheets even for small wargear changes.
And on the Intercessor front, they have access to three different types of main gun that the whole squad takes. It can take them from mobile short ranged gunners to long ranged snipers, and anywhere in between, just from a gun swap. But they're all the same datasheet. I, personally, am in favour of merging that with Assault Intercessors, instead of breaking them apart.

Vaktathi wrote:I'm perfectly happy to use to consolidate unit entry if that entry is constructed in such a way as to allow those options. If people have a consolidated entry that does those things and are just mad that it's not broken out into separate entries, that's what I consider entitled.

Exactly.

If someone is going to insist that comparing a Space Marine riding a warbeast is so different from another Space Marine riding a Bike with rules that are fundamentally intended to reflect the riding of a warbeast, that it's the same thing as comparing an Eldar to a Marine, I'm going to feel comfortable calling that both disingenuous and entitled.

Agreed.

PenitentJake wrote:Well I'm not sure if he's the one who answered, but the the answer that extra attacks are only on the charge for bikes and they're always on for cavalry has been given more than once. And you can say that's arbitrary, but I say it's based on physics, because inertia affects heavy metal objects on wheels more than it does living creatures and quadrupedal creatures in particular. Creatures also have a better turning radius, so more physics.

Right - so by that logic, the BIKES should have more attacking power than the living creatures, what with all that inertia slamming into them. Represented by, I don't know, 3 S5 AP-1 attacks?

I'm asking why Bikes *can't* give extra attacks. Because mounts being able to attack, but a massive hunk of metal driving into you not feels off.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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?

Your interpretation of the metaphor would be accurate if you were advocating for a generic cavalry unit that continued to co-exist with TWC unit. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but that's not what I thought you were advocating. I thought you meant that the TWC (meat steak) would cease to exist because your generic cavalry unit (vegan steak) could aproximate the meat steak closely enough that YOU think the meat eater should tolerate it.

No, because the real steak still exists *mechanically*. That's the point I'm making. The meat steak still exists, but it's part of a larger menu, which contains imposter steaks - nothing has changed, the steak is still there, but there's other things that share that menu space now.

Now to be fair to you, you might design the Generic Cavalry unit so well that it could, rule for rule, strat for strat, stat for stat and wargear for wargear exactly match the TWC. And if you can, then yes, you are right- your vegan steak, in that case (and only in that case) could in fact perfectly mimic the meat steak, in which case I would owe you both respect for being such an awesome designer and an apology. But again, I don't think that's what you're actually advocating, because you mentioned that your generic cavalry unit could also represent flying or reptilian mounts. And a bespoke approach allows us to do that better.

No, that's exactly what I'm advocating. If the SW player doesn't want to add on those extra flavour things, because they don't fit their flavour, they just don't take those options. Simple.

My Chapter might have no Apothecaries, for example. I don't need a unique Codex to represent that. I just don't take Apothecaries. Same as this - the option EXISTS to upgrade the mount to be flying (either as a jetbike or a creature), but a self-respecting SW player wouldn't take that option, because it doesn't fit their fluff. There is no fault there.

Consider: In addition to the obvious fact that birds fly and wolves don't, there are other differences that could (and should, IMHO) be explained by rules just like the differences between wolves and bikes. For example: wolves are bite attackers only; birds are claw/claw/bite; land based animals have higher bone density and bone mass; the silhouette of a flying bird is almost all wing, so a non-lethal hit is more likely to compromise its movement than a non-lethal shot vs a wolf. All of these things could be represented by bespoke rules that actually make wolves feel like wolves and birds feel like birds if you ditch this idea that a birdwolf will somehow please both bird lovers and wolf lovers.

Firstly, if we're going to quibble over "higher bone density", may I remind you these are magical space wolves (not the Chapter), and presumably also magic space birds? So, I think we can ignore that appeal to realism.
Secondly, the TWC's own statblock calls the wolves out as "crushing teeth AND CLAWS" - so, yeah, I think birds getting to claw is fine.
Thirdly, about critical hits - why is riding a big wolf suddenly giving protection like Terminator armour? T5 and an extra wound? For riding a big space dog? (I have the same quibble about bikes too.)

No. It's not abstract to imagine "Beast-riding Space Marine" as only applying to wolves. Drakes, lions, tigers, giant space otters, hedgehogs - all fine in my book.

But even assuming your vegan steak can do all that when you're talking about your generic cavalry, it certainly can't when we use the food metaphor for power weapons, because if my meat steak is one of the 3 currently available power weapons and your vegan steak is another, you HAVE destroyed my meat steak, unless you're talking about creating a generic PW profile IN ADDITION to the 3 we have which would be pointless because it would lead to more weapon profiles, not fewer.

Sure, power swords, axes, lances and mauls are gone, replaced with a generic power weapon that covers all manner of stuff. What was lost?

BTW the same posts that described the differences between TWC and Outriders ALSO described many differences beside the one that I carried over in this post. I think one of said posts is on PG 1 or 2 and another appears on page 3 or 4. If you're really interested in knowing the differences, you might consider scrolling back, because there are quite a few. And again, thank you for being lucid enough to suggest wolves = generic cavalry than wolves = bikes. It's way better. I just happen to think it's a solution without a problem.

I addressed every one of those points raised about "how" they're different. I received none explaining "why" - which is what I'm trying to get to. There is no REASON that bikes and wolves can't use the same statblock, no innate thing a wolf can do that a bike can't replicate. The only thing holding over is inertia.

I'm not necessarily suggesting Wolves=Generic Cavalry INSTEAD of Wolves=Bikes. I'm saying Wolves=Generic Cavalry=Bikes, with options to buy features like "flying" or "armoured" and so on.

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What PROPORTION of Space Wolf units are unique between them and, say, White Scars?

Now, what proportion of Space Marine units are unique between them and Eldar?

going by the xeno players metrics? eldar shoty unit, eldar stabby unit, eldar small transport , eldar big transport, eldar leader. eldar support unit melee, eldar support shoty. Could cover all types of eldar with those, if you used the metric that are supposed to be used for marines.
.

Stop injecting your eldar hate fetish in every single thread for gods sake.

Eldars don't have 8 datasheet for their Autarch unlike the space marine captains.
Eldars don't have multiple units that do exactly the same thing
Eldars don't have hundreads of datasheets.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
WS Speeders work differently from SW ones? That's news to me.

I was unaware the datasheet actually changed-because no one here has advocated getting rid of Chapter Tactics. Just that when the Core Marine Dex has 100+ datasheets in it, you don't ALSO need another dozen for each individual chapter.

Yes the stats can be the same, but if you have centurions in one army walk the table and the other lets you teleport or deploy them 9" away from the enemy, then those are two very different units, doesn't matter if they cost the same and technicaly have the same stats, or even names.

This has nothing to do with the current thread which proposes/discusses a change that wouldnt remove magically remove chapter tactics/stratagems from the game. And its still the same unit with the same datasheet


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

Ok,.,,,, so remind me what that has to do with you wanting me to lose my rules ?

nothing

because youre not losing any fething rule

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:True. This is all generaly is a strange thing. Balanced is supposed to be achived by removing marine options and nerfing their rules, before even people getting their own books. At the same time the great balancers are asking for bringing back sub faction FW armies, more rules for their factions and if they get powerful books themselfs they ain't going to be asking for nerfs, because I remember them not asking for those when they had a powerful rules in 8th.

The point of this thread isnt about balance, its about reducing bloat.

Type40 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
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.

I am not shouting I want at all.

You guys are attempting theft. I am shouting STOP.

I don't need to "want" it... I currently HAVE it. You are proposing to take it away.

You can agree with Vaktathi all you want... it just means you are both wrong.

Its not theft, ive shown you a way to implement it that lets you keep 100% of your fluff and even opens up space for more armies to have fluffy units too. You keep bringing up the "you want to remove TWC'' argument when its not at all what were saying.

Because what you arn't noticing ,,, is some of your comrades ARE proposing replacing the TWC with the outrider datasheet.

You still havn't responded to the fact that your proposal does remove it from being a unique option (and thus it is stolen as a unique option) and brings along a series of balancing issues by increasing the general marine options whilst not restricting them to the same restrictions emplaced by forcing them to play SWs to gain accesses to it... Also, you havn't addressed the issues this would bring in terms of forcing more time to be put into balancing. Now instead of balancing seperate datasheets, the designers must balance each individual upgrade, and not just those upgrades under the SW chapter rules but under the othe chapter rules too... this now means even more time will be dedicated to power armor factions... Now we also have the issue of how much time it will take to rehaul the marine datasheets... this will take yet again EVEN more design time away from other factions...

Are you really not seeing the slew of problems this would bring for everyone ? your solution means even less design time for everyone else, new min/maxing potential, new synergy problems, balancing issues due to increased customization, a removal of unique options given to players for chosing to restrict themselves to particular factions, and a less user friendly set of massive variable use datasheets...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Ok,.,,,, so remind me what that has to do with you wanting me to lose my rules ?

nothing

because youre not losing any fething rule

Except unique access to my faction unit rules...XD ?

"don't wory, we arn't taking anything from you, except your identity" lol
"they are exactly the same anyways, except for all the things that make them different, so we ll make sure they arn't different anymore" lol .
"oh but this other datasheet, from this other faction, even though its as different as your datasheet is, I say its the same because, these bikes fly" lol.
"no non, wolves and bikes are too similar,,, not like flying bikes and driving bikes" lol.