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.

FlubDugger wrote:

I mean, if you gave me an "Aspect Warrior" ruleset and then gave me equipment/rule choices to reflect Striking Scorpions or Fire Dragons, I'd be for it

Hell, yeah... a base 'Aspect Warrior' selection with a tonne of different options to build either any of the existing shrines or a custom one of your own devising would be awesome.

Let me be the first in this thread to say that if GW ever decided to bloat any of my armies to such an extent that I had to buy a codex and a supplement to play I would be completely disgusted at the wreck my army had become.

 insaniak wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

So then my TWC should and could work like any "cavalry" then and it would be fine ? cool cool cool cool. I want my TWC to work exactly like an aldari jetbike then... If we are arbitrarily choosing,,, I pick aldari jetbike and not two wheels and bolters... Niether are a wolf, so I pcik the jetbike..

There are constructive ways to make a point.Deliberately missing the point in an attempt to make fun of it is not one of them.

Unless jetbikes are going to be restricted to the same rules as ground-going bikes, for example, then no, it wouldn't make much sense for them to be lumped in with other ground-based cavalry. On the other hand, a flying cavalry category, to encompass jetbikes and, say, eldar on flying dinosaurs and so on, would work.

I am not making fun.

The comparison is arbitary

currently bikes and wolves are represented differently.
also currently
Jetbikes and ground bikes are represented differently.
also curently
Jetbikes and wolves are represented differently.

Bike = 14" move, sometimes attacks extra attacks on the charge,
Wolf= 10" move, always extra attacks from the wolf itself, and advance and charge
aldari Jetbike= 16" mov, and fly.

Not even talking about the differences between the riders
If we are just going to consolidate two of the different types of bikes together because they are all "cavalry" then why can't we choose for them to get the jetbike representation... niether the jetbike representation or the Bike is a wolf.

and actually far more people have advocated for the TWC to use the Outrider datasheet... For the few who talk about generic cavalary and bikes are still a seperate thing.... what's the point,,, just so regular marines have less retrictions to access TWC ? ... why not leave it as is with the restrictions and the time spent on balancing efforts in place.

No no no.. People are advocating for consolidation.

I suspect when the old marines get squatted that all you will have are outriders. But thats a different thing.

Can you name three people who've advocated for combining Outriders and TWC?

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah. It does. You're describing exactly what other armies have.

That's a blatant and outrageous lie.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah. It does. You're describing exactly what other armies have.

That's a blatant and outrageous lie.

Yeah. I don't have that much variety.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah. It does. You're describing exactly what other armies have.

That's a blatant and outrageous lie.

You're right. Some armies have much less than that. My bad.

 insaniak wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

I mean, if you gave me an "Aspect Warrior" ruleset and then gave me equipment/rule choices to reflect Striking Scorpions or Fire Dragons, I'd be for it

Hell, yeah... a base 'Aspect Warrior' selection with a tonne of different options to build either any of the existing shrines or a custom one of your own devising would be awesome.

Awesome and a nightmare for balance, user interfacing, and implementations of restrictions... even worse if this was done for marines... also just play Bolter Action no ? that game already lets you develop your lists and units in a similar way ? it's a different game... why are we proposing 40k becomes this other game ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
No no no.. People are advocating for consolidation.

I suspect when the old marines get squatted that all you will have are outriders. But thats a different thing.

Here it is again FB DOOM DOOM DOOM.

 insaniak wrote:
Take that and combine it with a Chapter Traits system, and you get plenty of variety without needing a dozen different books.

The supplements are mainly fluff and additional special rules, not additional units, so I don't see how what you're saying has any bearing.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah. It does. You're describing exactly what other armies have.

That's a blatant and outrageous lie.

Yeah. I don't have that much variety.

Wait no one thinks that none SW SM should have access to TWC or that TWC should use the Outrider datasheet...

Then fine... leave the TWC as is . That's all I have been saying all along .

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Take that and combine it with a Chapter Traits system, and you get plenty of variety without needing a dozen different books.

The supplements are mainly fluff and additional special rules, not additional units, so I don't see how what you're saying has any bearing.

What I'm saying is that incorporating those special rules into a Chapter Trait system removes the need to buy (and refer to) a whole additional book to play that army.

Supplements should be used for supplemental material like campaigns, or alternate game modes, not for core army building.

 Type40 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah. It does. You're describing exactly what other armies have.

That's a blatant and outrageous lie.

Yeah. I don't have that much variety.

Wait no one thinks that SM should have access to TWC or that TWC should use the Outrider datasheet...

Then fine... leave the TWC as is . That's all I have been saying all along .

That's... That's not a response that's at all related to those posts. It's a complete non sequitor.

What was said is that, even when you strip Marines down to the bare-flipping minimum of concepts, they have far more than other Codecs have right now.

 Lance845 wrote:
Hive Tyrant - High Level Commander
Tervigon - High Level Commander

They do different things. They are not interchangeable.

 Lance845 wrote:
Tyranid Prime - Low Level Commander
Brood Lord - Low Level Commander

They do different things. They are not interchangeable.

 Lance845 wrote:
Elites: (less analogous with marines)
Hauraspex
Hivegaurd
Venomthropes
Lictor (terrible)
Maleceptor
Pyrovore
Tyrant Guard

If this is just an attempt to point out how many unit entries Tyranids have vs Marines, well, that's not really up for debate. Marines have over 100 (if we include DA/BA/SW/DW) unit types. Tyranids, which are one Codex, have what they have. I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove here.

 Lance845 wrote:
Termagants - Troops Unit
Tyranid Warriors - Heavy Troops Unit
Hormagaunts - Scout Troops Unit?
Ripper Swarm - Joke Troops Unit

All these units do different things and you cannot just put a generic box on them.

 Lance845 wrote:
Fast Attack:
Raveners - Fast Assault Unit
Gargoyles - Bike
Trygon? Heavy Bike
And some spore mines and sky slasher swarms which will never be taken as fast attack.

And the fact that you're putting question marks after some means that you either completely miss the point of my simplification of the Marine list, or are being wilfully ignorant.

 Lance845 wrote:
Honestly Mawloc should be a variation of or upgrade to the Trygon/prime

Why?

There's a lot of people throwing out "should"s in this thread, without ever explaining why.

 insaniak wrote:
What I'm saying is that incorporating those special rules into a Chapter Trait system removes the need to buy (and refer to) a whole additional book to play that army.

What's wrong with having additional books?

 insaniak wrote:
Supplements should be used for supplemental material like campaigns, or alternate game modes, not for core army building.

Why?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah. It does. You're describing exactly what other armies have.

That's a blatant and outrageous lie.

Yeah. I don't have that much variety.

Wait no one thinks that SM should have access to TWC or that TWC should use the Outrider datasheet...

Then fine... leave the TWC as is . That's all I have been saying all along .

That's... That's not a response that's at all related to those posts. It's a complete non sequitor.

What was said is that, even when you strip Marines down to the bare-flipping minimum of concepts, they have far more than other Codecs have right now.

Yes...
I never disagreed with this ...
but you don't want to remove SW access to the unique rules of TWC and give general marines access to TWC ? If that's the case,,, cool.
But ya, totally marines down to the bare flipping mniimum of concepts have far more than other codex, and that isn't fair.
Removing a unique and flavourful unit doesn't fix this. Consolidating the TWC into some generic SW datasheet gives general SMs more options with even less restrictions and will take up time for the designers to figure out and balance (continously, with every different Chapter Tactic change these new options will have to be looked at and rebalanced instead of just with every SW CT change)... so that can't be the answer
What fixes this is putting design attention into other factions. Removing flavourful unique units from a faction doesn't provide extra space for anyone else,,, the design time was already spent.

Considering spacewolves have been a subfaction for like a month. people are very quick to decide they "should" have nothing unique and be vanilla like the rest... the unique stuff is there, why do you want to get rid of it,,, it doesnt help any other faction out... thats not how design works, the time designing these units is already spent, its gone, you dont magically get it back by squating stuff arbitrarily.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


no one else needs to pretend a wolf and a bike work the same...

Multiple posts have explained in great detail multiple times how SM bikes are fundamentally portraying Cavalry units derived from Fantasy rules for Cavalry. You have thus far actively ignored and avoided this point, and are pretending it doesn't exist, but your reply has most definitely been answered.

Then why don't they use the same rules...

For the same reason I have 4 datasheets for the carnifex. GW sucks.

and if GW folded them all into one datasheet you'd be saying they sucked because of rule of 3 limiting you

So if we, say, removed all Cult-based troops from Chaos and instead changed them to "Cult Troops", with a list of options to that make them like the old Berzerker/Plague Marine/Noise Marines/1KSons, that would be ok?

I remember when GW decided to make something generic once, consolidating every single unit type into two unit types: Greater and Lesser Daemons from the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex.

You want to emulate the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex in 9th, but for all races?

Thank you, VladimirHerzog and Insaniak, for explaining the premise of this thread to me.

 Type40 wrote:
A wolf is STILL not a bike XD.

Mechanically, would it not be as simple as having an option on the biker profile that replaces 'Turbo Boost' with a 'Teeth and Claws' attack? Plus, presumably, any SW-unique wargear if that all stays the same. Maybe with a movement penalty as well, if I'm remembering TWC stats correctly compared to biker stats.

I'm not trying to be facetious here, it just seems that the profiles are actually pretty similar.

That being said, if I was going to merge SM units into single dataslates, TWC and bikers would probably be last on my list.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hive Tyrant - High Level Commander
Tervigon - High Level Commander

They do different things. They are not interchangeable.

Correct. That is why I listed them separately.

 Lance845 wrote:
Tyranid Prime - Low Level Commander
Brood Lord - Low Level Commander

They do different things. They are not interchangeable.

Correct. That is why I listed them separately.

 Lance845 wrote:
Elites: (less analogous with marines)
Hauraspex
Hivegaurd
Venomthropes
Lictor (terrible)
Maleceptor
Pyrovore
Tyrant Guard

If this is just an attempt to point out how many unit entries Tyranids have vs Marines, well, that's not really up for debate. Marines have over 100 (if we include DA/BA/SW/DW) unit types. Tyranids, which are one Codex, have what they have. I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove here.

It's a single piece of the whole argument. I was showing how Tyranids fit into the list someone else provided to show how yeah... the list provided is a pretty good analog to the way other armies run and you can create a fun and varied army list with that many units.

 Lance845 wrote:
Termagants - Troops Unit
Tyranid Warriors - Heavy Troops Unit
Hormagaunts - Scout Troops Unit?
Ripper Swarm - Joke Troops Unit

All these units do different things and you cannot just put a generic box on them.

The only box on them is "troops". I was showing how they fit within the list someone else provided.

 Lance845 wrote:
Fast Attack:
Raveners - Fast Assault Unit
Gargoyles - Bike
Trygon? Heavy Bike
And some spore mines and sky slasher swarms which will never be taken as fast attack.

And the fact that you're putting question marks after some means that you either completely miss the point of my simplification of the Marine list, or are being wilfully ignorant.

The question mark represents that I guess the trygon is an analog to the "heavy bike" concept? I mean, nids don't fit 1 for 1 with marines and they shouldn't. Sorry if that was unclear.

 Lance845 wrote:
Honestly Mawloc should be a variation of or upgrade to the Trygon/prime

Why?

There's a lot of people throwing out "should"s in this thread, without ever explaining why.

Because the Mawloc is a 1 trick pony who does his burst out of the ground and then reburrow thing and otherwise sucks in a fight. Making the Mawlock trick an upgrade to the trygon platform gives it some actual weapons to stick around and fight too. It also gives it the ability to bring other units with it in the burrow which is just great. The 2 units are so similar and the Mawlock is basically half a unit anyway. Just make it an upgrade. The Trygon Prime is literally just an upgrade to the Trygon Platform. Again, just make it an upgrade. I am fine with the mawlock and prime upgrade being mutually exclusive and in fact advocate for it.

The point of this whole thing was to show you that yes. That list makes for a good and varied list of datasheets that can make a good and varied list of armies especially when you factor in things like chapter/hive fleet specific enhancements.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Supplements should be used for supplemental material like campaigns, or alternate game modes, not for core army building.

Why?

Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.

Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.

 vipoid wrote:
Thank you, VladimirHerzog and Insaniak, for explaining the premise of this thread to me.

 Type40 wrote:
A wolf is STILL not a bike XD.

Mechanically, would it not be as simple as having an option on the biker profile that replaces 'Turbo Boost' with a 'Teeth and Claws' attack? Plus, presumably, any SW-unique wargear if that all stays the same. Maybe with a movement penalty as well, if I'm remembering TWC stats correctly compared to biker stats.

I'm not trying to be facetious here, it just seems that the profiles are actually pretty similar.

That being said, if I was going to merge SM units into single dataslates, TWC and bikers would probably be last on my list.

also, you would have to change keywords, stratagem access add the swift hunters rule , you would have to add ALL the wargear as the TWC has access to all the wargear a worlfgaurd has access too and finally restrict that to just SWs... after ALL that,,, yes, you could have it on a single datasheet... but why would you want that ? you didn't change anything in terms of design space (its still just as much variation) and you just changed 1 page with two datasheets into 1 page with 1 datasheet whilst simultaneously requiring extra balancing considerations if any changes would need to be made to either unit.

But ya,,, this proposal is doable... its just not ideal ... More work for the designers with worse results in the end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Supplements should be used for supplemental material like campaigns, or alternate game modes, not for core army building.

Why?

Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.

Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.

So a single codex for SWs with one set of convenient datasheets. That would be dope. But it looks niether of us are getting our way lol because unfortunately GW wants me to buy two books,,, so ugghh. Just as much variety in a more confusing format is what I have instead of a standalone codex.

 insaniak wrote:
Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.

People are being forced to refer to books?

 insaniak wrote:
Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.

8th Edition - All the Marines have different books, or supplements.

"There are too many Marine books!"

9th Edition - Consolidates Marines into a single book, with supplements for anything that's unique to various Chapters.

"There are too many Marine books!"

So which is it?

In any case, I think people are looking at this backwards. And upsidedown. And in a mirror.

The current Space Marine Codex exists so that all common units have a single point of reference, rather than being repeated over and over and over again. Remember how so much page space in Psychic Awakening was wasted on repeating the Primaris datasheets? That's what the 9th Ed Marine Codex is there to stop.

They then expanded the supplement idea that we already got with the second tier 1st Founding Chapters and applied them to BA/DA/SW/DW. However, as those four (or three, really, Deathwatch are an odd duck here) were already well established army lists of their own with a host of unique units, their supplement books tent to have far more in them than say, the Imperial Fist one, or the Salamander one.

Having a central book for all the common Marine units is a good thing. It decreases the amount of possible mistakes between identical datasheets in different books. It means that FAQs and Errata need not be duplicated (again, with the potential for mistakes) across multiple documents.

This is the reason the 9th Ed Marine Codex exists as it is. It's got nothing to do with needing "ultra precise datasheets" and everything to do with the fact that BA/DA/SW were stand-alone armies and GW didn't want them losing what they had even though they were consolidating all their basic units into a single book.

And saying that everyone should have their choices taken away and turned into a generic list just stinks of arrogance and some weird form of elitism or entitlement. I'm not quite sure what the word for it is. "I don't care about this, therefore it should not exist". No, screw you. Some people love their unique units. You do not have the right to just demand they go away because you don't like them.

Every option we lose, every unique quirk or interesting unit/weapon/upgrade that goes away, is a loss for the game as a whole. Just look at the "equipment" strats in the new books.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.

People are being forced to refer to books?

 insaniak wrote:
Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.

8th Edition - All the Marines have different books, or supplements.

"There are too many Marine books!"

9th Edition - Consolidates Marines into a single book, with supplements for anything that's unique to various Chapters.

"There are too many Marine books!"

So which is it?

It's squat old marines. Finish the primaris line. Put all the chapters in one book.

 Lance845 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.

People are being forced to refer to books?

 insaniak wrote:
Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.

8th Edition - All the Marines have different books, or supplements.

"There are too many Marine books!"

9th Edition - Consolidates Marines into a single book, with supplements for anything that's unique to various Chapters.

"There are too many Marine books!"

So which is it?

It's squat old marines. Finish the primaris line. Put all the chapters in one book.

Maybe we should squat YOUR army instead?

it's reallly easy to call for something to be swatted when you don't play it

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.

People are being forced to refer to books?

 insaniak wrote:
Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.

8th Edition - All the Marines have different books, or supplements.

"There are too many Marine books!"

9th Edition - Consolidates Marines into a single book, with supplements for anything that's unique to various Chapters.

"There are too many Marine books!"

So which is it?

It's squat old marines. Finish the primaris line. Put all the chapters in one book.

Maybe we should squat YOUR army instead?

it's reallly easy to call for something to be swatted when you don't play it

I didn't ask for your army to get squatted. I asked for your army wide upgrade to get finished so we can move forward into whats next.

 Lance845 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Because the more books you force people to refer to, the less accessible those rules become.

People are being forced to refer to books?

 insaniak wrote:
Having to buy multiple books to play an army sucks. Having to refer to multiple books for the rules for your army sucks. I'd much rather have slightly fewer unique rules, and have them consolidated into a single book.

8th Edition - All the Marines have different books, or supplements.

"There are too many Marine books!"

9th Edition - Consolidates Marines into a single book, with supplements for anything that's unique to various Chapters.

"There are too many Marine books!"

So which is it?

It's squat old marines. Finish the primaris line. Put all the chapters in one book.

"DOOM TO THE FBs !!! damn the players who have collected them for years ! DOOM I say ! replace the unique factions with the vanilla stuff already"
You realize this just isn't happening this eddition... right ,,, but I will totally be 100% on board with a single book of consolidated datasheets after the FB apocalypse in an edition or two when all my unique units go to legends. But right now, my unique faction is still full of variety and playable... so i'd like to keep playing them in their unique and flavourful way thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I didn't ask for your army to get squatted. I asked for your army wide upgrade to get finished so we can move forward into whats next.

But they arn't armywide "upgrades" they are new units that do completely different things. XD .

How about we release 20 new units into your army then squat everything you own LOL XD.

You kind of ARE asking some of us to squat our armies... I own a single primaris model... XD ragnar,,, XD

 Lance845 wrote:
I didn't ask for your army to get squatted. I asked for your army wide upgrade to get finished so we can move forward into whats next.

So this really is just "Dakka's Anti-Marine Whine Thread #443-A".

I mean, for feth's sake, 40K General has become a really boring place of late:

If they gave me better versions of everything I have with extra wounds, longer ranged guns with higher AP and more guns then ever on the bigger platforms...

sure. Yeah. Squat my old gak. Il take a 20w flyrant with 8 guns and more psychic powers a turn.

Absolutely would I use 2w hormagaunts with -1AP on their scytal and an extra attack. Please. Give me that kit and squat the old one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I didn't ask for your army to get squatted. I asked for your army wide upgrade to get finished so we can move forward into whats next.

So this really is just "Dakka's Anti-Marine Whine Thread #443-A".

I mean, for feth's sake, 40K General has become a really boring place of late:

It's just you and Type40 who are adamantly against consolidating marine datasheets. It wouldn't be about marines if the marines were not fighting about it. I have provided examples of nids and other eldar players have said they would enjoy some consolidation too.

 Lance845 wrote:
If they gave me better versions of everything I have with extra wounds, longer ranged guns with higher AP and more guns then ever on the bigger platforms...

sure. Yeah. Squat my old gak. Il take a 20w flyrant with 8 guns and more psychic powers a turn.

Absolutely would I use 2w hormagaunts with -1AP on their scytal and an extra attack. Please. Give me that kit and squat the old one.

Like I said,,, we are different kind of players... You paly for the stat, I play for unique rules fluff and flavour on the table... and that's ok... but stop forgetting their are tons of players like me... GW hasn't forgotten.

Why would I loose any fluff or flavor on the table? Nids are constantly evolving to face new threats. With the emergence of primaris the hive mind decided to bolster the strains. Once new strains of Nid are viable for mass production why would they produce weaker less effective forms?

Thats full of fluff and flavor