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.

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-heresy-legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Army-List

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-Heresy-Legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Legions

I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)

Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.

Nope, you have unique units available

I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.

What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?

The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?

Christ alive, you're being intentionally obtuse aren't you? Do you not understand how to take a framework and apply it in this context? Ideally you'd have the general list in one book, then every unique thing in a second book. So you have Space Marine Bikers in your general and TWC/White Scars Hypothetical/Ravenwing in the second if you guys need your Unique datasheets so badly. 2 books, one week release, move on

Jesus christ you guys are bad at understanding examples. Or maybe it is my fault. I can accept that. Here let me explain.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well, for one thing, you'd confuse your opponent quite a bit.

But more seriously, I just said what the difference is: Blood Angels are unique. Dark Angels are unique. They are not just a paint job.

Once upon a time they were all the same - back in 2nd Ed when all we had was the Codex Army Lists book and Marines were just Marines, but with different coloured paint. When I chose my army back then I chose it not based on differing aesthetic quirks (robes, wings, wolfy bits, etc.) or the strength of their unique units over one another. I chose them because I liked blue more than red.

Nower days, the choice isn't so black and white (or red and blue, as it were! ). There's a difference between Ultramarines and Blood Angels. There's a difference between Dark Angels and Imperial Fists. Sure, I can paint my Imperial Fists green and my Dark Angels yellow, but there is a mechanical difference to the way the two armies perform, even if they share a core of units. Stripping it down to just generic entries and making Marine Chapters just a paint job again robs the game of what makes it unique.

And, again, we have done this in the past. The various Chaos Legions stopped having their own rules and became just another paint job. Even Daemons lost their flavour. It was awful. How could anyone wish that upon any other type of army?

See that bit in red. It's called chapter tactics, stratagems, warlord traits, unique characters and relics. If you have some ACTUALLY unique units then you get those too. Not superficially unique. Not unique because they get a special wargear option that is in the other guys army but not on that unit for some reason "unique". But actually something different unique.

Do you really think anyone here has suggested to get rid of chapter tactics, warlord traits, strats, and relics?

Nobody is saying get rid of the things that make a space wolf intercessor different from a DA intercessor. They are saying that you only need one intercessor data sheet to represent them both.

Because of the above a intercessor isn't just a intercessor in 2 different chapters armies. And a consolidated datasheet for landraider variants would work for everyone. And combining thunderwolf calvary in with outriders would work and the SW kit would still play as a SW unit in a SW army.

It's otherwise just paint.

 insaniak wrote:


Imagine if instead of your Blood Angel successor being identical in every way to a Blood Angel despite the fluff in many cases telling us that they are different, you could build Build a Blood Angels army, or you could build a Blood Angel Successor Chapter who has cavalry instead of Sanguinary Guard, but otherwise follows Blood Angel rules?

Your Blood Angels are still different to Dark Angels... but every other Chapter doesn't have to just be a cookie cutter copy of the parent codex.

This would be terrible.

1. I would be robbing the SW player from having access to their unique flavour rule while not having the restriction of playing SWs myself.
2. I would be introducing a new set of variables for the designers to consider and adjust when focusing on these new customization options we introduced.
3. Ballance consideration for the unit would have to not only go against the SW CT but the all legions CT now.
4. less time goes toward other factions to address the above mentioned points.
5. My decisions to play BA mean less because I have access to everything else everyone has and they have access to everything I have.

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-heresy-legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Army-List

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-Heresy-Legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Legions

I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)

Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.

Nope, you have unique units available

I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.

What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?

The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?

Christ alive, you're being intentionally obtuse aren't you? Do you not understand how to take a framework and apply it in this context? Ideally you'd have the general list in one book, then every unique thing in a second book. So you have Space Marine Bikers in your general and TWC/White Scars Hypothetical/Ravenwing in the second if you guys need your Unique datasheets so badly. 2 books, one week release, move on

which I might not is exactly the situation we have right now, and it works pretty well (beyond GW's bizzare need to stretch this out for 3 months)

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-heresy-legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Army-List

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-Heresy-Legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Legions

I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)

Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.

Nope, you have unique units available

I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.

What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?

The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?

Christ alive, you're being intentionally obtuse aren't you? Do you not understand how to take a framework and apply it in this context? Ideally you'd have the general list in one book, then every unique thing in a second book. So you have Space Marine Bikers in your general and TWC/White Scars Hypothetical/Ravenwing in the second if you guys need your Unique datasheets so badly. 2 books, one week release, move on

OH !!! it was an honest question XD. sorry I honestly didn't know how 30k worked... Yes,,, this is what GW is currently doing in 40k ... just a little less confusing, I didn't need to find a supplement called "book 7 - inferno" instead supplement will be called "space wolves." but otherwise similar yes.

 Type40 wrote:

This would be terrible.

1. I would be robbing the SW player from having access to their unique flavour rule while not having the restriction of playing SWs myself.
2. I would be introducing a new set of variables for the designers to consider and adjust when focusing on these new customization options we introduced.
3. Ballance consideration for the unit would have to not only go against the SW CT but the all legions CT now.
4. less time goes toward other factions to address the above mentioned points.
5. My decisions to play BA mean less because I have access to everything else everyone has and they have access to everything I have.

I can't help thinking that you vastly overestimate how much effort GW put into game balance.



On reflection, I think the disconnect here is coming from the fact that some people see the different flavours of marines as different factions, while others (like myself) just see them as Marines with different rules. To the first group, consolidating them would mean removing their chosen faction, whereas to the second group, it's just putting all of the rules in one place.

There's unlikely to be a middle ground, here.

BrianDavion wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-heresy-legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Army-List

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-Heresy-Legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Legions

I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)

Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.

Nope, you have unique units available

I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.

What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?

The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?

Christ alive, you're being intentionally obtuse aren't you? Do you not understand how to take a framework and apply it in this context? Ideally you'd have the general list in one book, then every unique thing in a second book. So you have Space Marine Bikers in your general and TWC/White Scars Hypothetical/Ravenwing in the second if you guys need your Unique datasheets so badly. 2 books, one week release, move on

which I might not is exactly the situation we have right now, and it works pretty well (beyond GW's bizzare need to stretch this out for 3 months)

And for me, the 3 month stretch is the objectionable part. Keeping it to 2 books cuts this down to a week

FlubDugger wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-heresy-legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Army-List

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-Heresy-Legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Legions

I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)

Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.

Nope, you have unique units available

I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.

What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?

The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?

Christ alive, you're being intentionally obtuse aren't you? Do you not understand how to take a framework and apply it in this context? Ideally you'd have the general list in one book, then every unique thing in a second book. So you have Space Marine Bikers in your general and TWC/White Scars Hypothetical/Ravenwing in the second if you guys need your Unique datasheets so badly. 2 books, one week release, move on

which I might not is exactly the situation we have right now, and it works pretty well (beyond GW's bizzare need to stretch this out for 3 months)

And for me, the 3 month stretch is the objectionable part. Keeping it to 2 books cuts this down to a week

I would have preferred one book,,, just "codex Space Wolves"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

This would be terrible.

1. I would be robbing the SW player from having access to their unique flavour rule while not having the restriction of playing SWs myself.
2. I would be introducing a new set of variables for the designers to consider and adjust when focusing on these new customization options we introduced.
3. Ballance consideration for the unit would have to not only go against the SW CT but the all legions CT now.
4. less time goes toward other factions to address the above mentioned points.
5. My decisions to play BA mean less because I have access to everything else everyone has and they have access to everything I have.

I can't help thinking that you vastly overestimate how much effort GW put into game balance.

well they certainly should be putting more effort into it and increasing the difficulty and time to do so wont help ...

On reflection, I think the disconnect here is coming from the fact that some people see the different flavours of marines as different factions, while others (like myself) just see them as Marines with different rules. To the first group, consolidating them would mean removing their chosen faction, whereas to the second group, it's just putting all of the rules in one place.

There's unlikely to be a middle ground, here.

I think you hit the nail on the head here.
I didn't choose SW to play general marines. I chose a faction. I don't care about the vanilla. I honestly felt dirty buying the core book XD.
I bought the SW codex in 5th not the Marine codex. I bought SW packs, not grey hunters. I play a faction with overlap yet its own unique flavour and twist garnered from unique rules and units. I will never play them AS anything but SWs ... The SWs becoming a supplement changes very little in that regard... at least for now unless the FB apocalypse happens and everything gets vanilified.

FlubDugger wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-heresy-legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Army-List

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-Heresy-Legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Legions

I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)

Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.

Nope, you have unique units available

I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.

What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?

The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?

Christ alive, you're being intentionally obtuse aren't you? Do you not understand how to take a framework and apply it in this context? Ideally you'd have the general list in one book, then every unique thing in a second book. So you have Space Marine Bikers in your general and TWC/White Scars Hypothetical/Ravenwing in the second if you guys need your Unique datasheets so badly. 2 books, one week release, move on

which I might not is exactly the situation we have right now, and it works pretty well (beyond GW's bizzare need to stretch this out for 3 months)

And for me, the 3 month stretch is the objectionable part. Keeping it to 2 books cuts this down to a week

sure, except that the 2nd "advanced chapter tactics" book would likely be large, clunky and not have the info. TBH, if GW could stop dragging out the mini releases over months as they slowly dribble out these supplements and instead just publish the fething things together a month after the codex, it'd be fine and dandy. or even keep the supplement release pattern as is and just put out the MINIS in one or two batches

sure, except that the 2nd "advanced chapter tactics" book would likely be large, clunky and not have the info. TBH, if GW could stop dragging out the mini releases over months as they slowly dribble out these supplements and instead just publish the fething things together a month after the codex, it'd be fine and dandy. or even keep the supplement release pattern as is and just put out the MINIS in one or two batches

100% agree with this, that would be nice.


@insaniak thanks for the moderation and discussion btw... I think you really hit the nail on the head and figured out what's been bothering the different sides of this debate... that's good moderation.

 Lance845 wrote:
See that bit in red. It's called chapter tactics, stratagems, warlord traits, unique characters and relics.

So the core of this is that you're arguing that these rules should all be in one book?

Ok. That's fine. But it's going to be a biiiiiiiiiiiiiig book if it has Sanguinary Guard and Deathwing Knights and Thunderwolf Cavalry and all the various Kill Teams and so on and so forth. And then 8 pages of psychic disciplines, 8 pages of Warlord traits, a Relic section that goes on for months. I'm fine with all of that - more than happy for there to be a single ginormous Marine 'Dex, except...

 Lance845 wrote:
If you have some ACTUALLY unique units then you get those too. Not superficially unique. Not unique because they get a special wargear option that is in the other guys army but not on that unit for some reason "unique". But actually something different unique.

And who determines what is "actually" unique, hey?

You could say that you don't think Deathwing Knights are sufficiently unique from Codex-adherant Terminators to warrant a separate entry. Ok. Say I disagree with that. I think they represent a different kind of Terminator and as they are something unique to the Dark Angels they should be represented by their own entry. How do we resolve this? Who is "right"?

Or to take a recent example, I think that Tartaros and Cataphractii Terminators should have rules that represent the different patterns of armour, in much the same way as Mk.X Power Armour has 3 different variants that have their own rules (Phobos, Gravis and whatever the normal type is called... probably Indomitus). You think that they belong in a single "Relic Terminator" entry. Who is more right here?

 Lance845 wrote:
And a consolidated datasheet for landraider variants would work for everyone.

Don't we lose something by doing that. I mean, I'm pretty sure they used to do that with Predators. A single entry, starts with an AC, upgrade to a TL-LC, and then add your chosen flavour of sponson. Then they separated them back out to Predator Destructor and Predator Annihilator. They chose flavour and fluff over expediency and the efficient use of the page. I don't see what's so wrong with that...

And that's before we even get into how consolidation interacts with the choice limitations (the incorrectly titled "Rule of 3").

 Lance845 wrote:
It's otherwise just paint.

It's not just paint. Hasn't been for over a decade now.

Hmmm.

Seems to me, if you consolidate, you end up with fewer cards, but the cards you have are complex rather than simple.

The tyranid Carnifexes are a perfect example because they've had it both ways: once upon a time, you had a single Carnifex entry, and you built it up from that.

Now, all of the things that you used to have to build, you can just take, because they're separate cards.

I seem to remember enjoying building carnifexes, but it does seem faster and more convenient to just pick a card rather than build every single unit you wish to use.

Same with Aspect Warriors- a base Aspect Warrior with options to build to any of the existing Shrines could work. But lets say you compose your army in such a way that you leave room for including 3 different Aspects, which you customize based on who you're facing.

The question is, do you prefer to build each of these three Aspects from scratch, or would you rather pick those three from the list of 8 that exist and then just make a few minor decisions within those three pre-made units?

Either way, you end up with the same result, but which process do you prefer? I'm not sure I have a preference for either process.

I think that the build your own does probably end up giving you more options rules wise, but I feel like it takes longer and is more effort. I also think it is prone to people including options that don't seem appropriate to the model that's used to represent the unit, because the actual number of models available doesn't change even if the number of possible builds does.

So for example, if the build your own Aspect rules are detailed enough to build a unit that is distinct from any of the existing options, then you're obligated to convert to represent it on the table. And I know that some people LOVE doing conversions, and wouldn't mind that one bit.

But not all players want to, and even if they did not all of them could: conversions are expensive because you're buying many models to create one, and the game is expensive enough. Some people can't afford to convert. Others have lives that are so busy they just don't have the time to invest in developing the skills to convert, and others may have cognitive or physical disabilities that prevent their skills from developing to the threshold where conversions are possible.

So the added flexibility of Build Your Own isn't really beneficial to many players without the modeling options to support it.

I think that where people get worried is that they feel like they may not be able to exactly duplicate their favourite bespoke units using whatever Build-Your - Own system that rises to take their place. I think that's a legitimate concern. It could be done, but it wouldn't be easy.

The other concern that is unique to some Marine players is that they are concerned that some things that are currently available only to their subfaction would become available to all subfactions. These players are accused of being selfish or jealous, but I don't think that gives them enough credit. Because it is true that if every option is available to every subfaction, then there really isn't any difference between subfactions. Sure, most people will choose to assign the traits from the build your own to the most appropriate models, but that's not a guarantee. And doesn't a DA player have a right to feel cheated when a Blood Angels player chooses to use the Build Your Own rules to create a Deathwing equivalent?

Now some of the people accusing these folks of being selfish or jealous seem to have a point because they are Xeno players who don't have a whole lot of bespoke units unique to the subfactions of their armies. It seems reasonable for them to feel this way, because their army doesn't even have the luxury to think about such things...

But then as some SM players have pointed out out, they actually want Tyranids to get bespoke units for the Jormungandr or Behemoth, or Leviathon. In other words, they too see the disparity, they would just prefer to address it by giving every other faction the same variety than by giving up the variety they have.

People argue- yeah, but that's never gonna happen, so removing SM options is the only way to achieve parity. And they're right of course. But it's also true that inching everyone as close to that as is possible is a solution that will result in far more people being happy than if you try to solve the problem by taking stuff away from marines. Because if you play DE, and you're angry about losing HQ's (and yeah, all of us are), finding out that GW is going with a build your own system for Marines that reduces their footprint either by removing bespoke options, or by removing unique datacards without actually limiting options or whatever, well guess what? It still didn't give us back our HQ's so we're still going to be just as angry, even if we don't have to see or hear as much about Marines. And in addition to the fact that we feel no better, many marine players will feel worse.

Whereas, if GW instead created a bespoke unit for two kabals, two cults and two covens, plus a character for the two mercenary units that don't already have one, DE players would be ecstatic (even if it didn't mean we got ALL the old HQ back, and even if that's still nowhere near the sheer variety of Marine Units). Furthermore, this solution wouldn't make any Space Marine players less happy.

Solving iniquity by adding always pleases more people than solving it by taking away. The former disappoints the privileged without improving the state of the marginalized while the latter improves the state of the marginalized while also allowing the privileged to be to be content with their already comfortable status quo.

WYSIWYG isn't a rule and hasn't been for a very long time. The options are already not in the boxes even when they are on the datasheets today. Build your own offers actual abitity to customize your fluff and flavor on the table in a much more compact in terms of page count and number of data sheets form while expanding options for everybody.

You literally loose nothing and gain everything.

Yes, Deathwing Knights are just terminators in robes with melee weapons. Again, that mace is just a power weapon and those are just storm shields.

It would be vastly superior to have a chapter master HQ unit with a ton of customization options and then have the chapters in the book have their Chapter Masters built from those rules to show you examples of what can be done. Likewise I would Love a very customizable Tyranid Prime with some examples of how Leviathan leverages those biomorphs vs Jormungandr.

The game needs more build your own then bespoke custom units. Everyone wins in a build your own system. They did a half ass job of build your own with the test character builder rules. They should do those better.

PenitentJake wrote:
Solving iniquity by adding always pleases more people than solving it by taking away. The former disappoints the privileged without improving the state of the marginalized while the latter improves the state of the marginalized while also allowing the privileged to be to be content with their already comfortable status quo.

Thank you Jake for summing that up nicely.

PenitentJake wrote:
And doesn't a DA player have a right to feel cheated when a Blood Angels player chooses to use the Build Your Own rules to create a Deathwing equivalent?

Why?

Whether the army across the table from you is Dark Angels with Deathwing, or a Dark Angels Successor with Deathwing, or a Blood Angels with a Deathwing equivalent, your army is the same.


The problem for me is that most of the chapter-specific units don't actually make any sense being confined to only that Chapter. Yes, Deathwing are famously Dark Angels. But then by extension, they're also available to any other Chapter using Dark Angels rules... but is it really that inconceivable that other chapters would have similarly storied Terminator units? Should we really believe that only Space Wolves use any sort of cavalry?

Anyone remember when Blood Angels were the only Chapter that had Storm Ravens? Or when Black Templars were the only ones who used Land Raider Crusaders? Except that both of those restrictions mean nothing, because Timmy's homebrew Imperial Muggles could also use Land Raider Crusaders, because they used Black Templar rules!

It's weird, looking back at how much people riled against those restrictions then.

I get that people want their armies to be distinctive, I totally do. There just seems to be this weird hang-up on the idea that in order to be distinctive, it needs to be in its own book.

PenitentJake wrote:
Solving iniquity by adding always pleases more people than solving it by taking away. The former disappoints the privileged without improving the state of the marginalized while the latter improves the state of the marginalized while also allowing the privileged to be to be content with their already comfortable status quo.

But that doesn't actually make for a better game and EVERYONE complains about the resulting complexity and bloat. There is a very real cap where building up reaches a breaking point.

40k at this point kind of needs a complete rewrite from the ground up. That includes army lists.

I don't think people are complaining that Space Wolves have unique units. They're complaining that baseline Marines have nearly 100 different units.

When the First Born get sent to Legends this complaint will go away... and will be replaced with a new complaint from all the people who want their First Born back.

@insaniak - GW has made statements that they don't want to homogenise Marines, which is why some things are separate to others. Then they remember they can sell more minis to people when they remove restrictions.

You raise a very good point about why Dark Angels would be the only guys with super Terminators, and why not other Chapters?

To that I say, I agree. There should be others. But my choice would be to include them, not to disassemble the existing ones and consolidate them into a single entry. I'd put some real meat into the Sallie/Imp Fist/Iron Hands/Raven Guard lines - make them equal of BAs, DAs and Wolves. Make their supplements more than just fluff books with a few scattered rules at the back.

40k has always been about making Your Dudes. You paint them how you like, make your own fluff, and set them up how you see fit within the confines of the rules. Every book talks about successor chapters or army equivalents. The build your own chapter tactics is an expansion of that. The bespoke characters and rules work in direct opposition to that. Don't give every chapter a new bespoke elite terminator unit. Now you have to have that keyword to use that terminator. Make the single sheet with options so Your Dudes can stand on equal footing.

If every named character was built from the same system of build your own character options then you would loose nothing by calling your guys Scythes of the Emperor instead of which ever chapter had the dudes you want.

Same goes for all the other bespoke units. The game is worse off for all their existence.

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-heresy-legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Army-List

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/The-Horus-Heresy-Legiones-Astartes-Age-of-Darkness-Legions

I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)

Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.

Nope, you have unique units available

I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks. Also, my faction is also in 2 books, it used to only be 1 book... but now it's in two because GW decided that's how SWs work now.

Honestly why do you care if a Salamanders successor has access to Calvary?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think people are complaining that Space Wolves have unique units. They're complaining that baseline Marines have nearly 100 different units.

When the First Born get sent to Legends this complaint will go away... and will be replaced with a new complaint from all the people who want their First Born back.

@insaniak - GW has made statements that they don't want to homogenise Marines, which is why some things are separate to others. Then they remember they can sell more minis to people when they remove restrictions.

You raise a very good point about why Dark Angels would be the only guys with super Terminators, and why not other Chapters?

To that I say, I agree. There should be others. But my choice would be to include them, not to disassemble the existing ones and consolidate them into a single entry. I'd put some real meat into the Sallie/Imp Fist/Iron Hands/Raven Guard lines - make them equal of BAs, DAs and Wolves. Make their supplements more than just fluff books with a few scattered rules at the back.

At what point though do you stop and think 'You know what? Maybe the product range is just getting a wee bit big, here...'?

I mean, it's one thing for those of us who have been around since the early days and have watched things slowly grow over time, but how is a new player supposed to have any chance of learning their way around when there are so many different variations of Marine that all do slightly different things? How long do you keep adding, and adding, and adding before you have to just stop?

For what it's worth, this is why I don't play Warmachine. I've been intending to get back into the game for about a decade now, but in the time since I last played there has been so much added to the game that I just have no idea where to even begin. So I just... don't.

 Lance845 wrote:


You literally loose nothing

Yes, Deathwing Knights are just terminators in robes with melee weapons. Again, that mace is just a power weapon and those are just storm shields.

Okay, full disclosure- I don't own the Deathwing dex, so I can't check. But I'm pretty sure DW Knights as they exist now do have profile differences and special rule differences from terminators; they probably also have some strats just for them. And if that's the case, I just don't see how you can believe both of the statements in the quote at the same time.

Because the words "Deathwing Knights are just Terminators" does mean that they no longer have the special rules.

Now maybe it's late and you are tired and you are trying to conserve words, or maybe English isn't your first language, and what you mean is "Deathwing Knights will just be called terminators even though my build your own system allows you to duplicate the exact rules and load out options as Deathwing Knights" but that's not what you are saying and dude, words have meanings. But even if that is what you meant, your very next sentence about a mace being just a power weapon indicates that there will be only one power weapon profile in your new system. If that's the case at the very least 2, and more likely 3 unique weapon profiles are lost.

You can't say "You literally lose nothing" and two sentences later say that your system will reduce the number of unique power weapon profiles available. That's just not what the word "Literally" means.

+2 str, - 1 AP is meaningfully different from +1 str, -2 AP. One is better at hurting high toughness low save; the other is better at hurting low toughness high save. The difference may be negligible, but it is there, and if I field 15 of these things, and each one gets 3 attacks, that negligible difference comes into play 100's of times over the course of the game, meaning that it will have an impact.

 insaniak wrote:
At what point though do you stop and think 'You know what? Maybe the product range is just getting a wee bit big, here...'?

When you introduce an entirely new type of Marine overnight but have to keep the old one in place for an edition or two because removing them overnight would create far more problems than it would solve.

Just a thought!

 insaniak wrote:
I mean, it's one thing for those of us who have been around since the early days and have watched things slowly grow over time, but how is a new player supposed to have any chance of learning their way around when there are so many different variations of Marine that all do slightly different things? How long do you keep adding, and adding, and adding before you have to just stop?

I actually can't answer that question, and no one else here can either. That's why this consolidation nonsense is just that - nonsense. It's someone deciding "enough is enough" when really it's a case of "this is enough for me". As Jake mentioned in his extensive post, we'd just be swapping lots of short simple entries for a a small amount of large complex entries. I mean, who wins there? Really?

I said "enough is enough" when the Primaris Marines came out. Had 0% interest in picking them up. As far as I was concerned, and as cool as I thought the Redemptor Dread was (I love Dreads of all shapes and sizes!), I wasn't going to get them. Happy to continue as though Primaris Marines didn't exist.

Then GW made Bladeguard Vets, Assault Intercessors, Outriders, that awesome Captain/Lt. combo with the Storm Shields and the Judiciar. I know everyone else hates* the Judiciar model, but I love it, and the false rumours about it getting bonuses agaisnt First Born actually inspired the fluff behind my custom chapter. Now I have a fledgling Primaris army, but I'm avoiding the units that I just don't like (the eyesore tanks, for instance). I have a new line of where "enough is enough", and I wouldn't dare impose that upon anyone else.

If enough is enough, then you can avoid it. I haven't looked at any 'Mechs in BattleTech past TRO: 3085. It's just too much to go through at the moment, and my head space is filled with all the existing 'Mechs. That doesn't mean I wish TRO:3145 and anything coming out in the next era expansion should be eliminated. I'll just avoid them, like I used to with Primaris Marines, until I'm ready to expand.

I use BTech as an example as someone posted this article in the N&R forum recently. It deals with a similar-yet-not-identical problem: Is there just too much stuff in BTech. For this issue I see it as there being two answers:

1. Yes. Of course there's too much stuff in BTech. It's overwhelming. Combined there are thousands of variant units in the game.
2. But also no, because you're not meant to use everything in BTech at the same time, because they people who make the game have very clearly divided it into "eras", so you end up with specific things that only really show up in certain parts of the timeline.

There are people in the BTech community who are very angry that everything from 3050 on was introduced. Still angry. Over 20 years later. They're the type of people who want to remove options from the game because they personally don't see a reason for them to exist. They are justly ridiculed for this notion, and it's why we call them Grognards.

Should we find an equal name for 40K fans who want to take away everyone's toys?

*Another example of consolidation nonsense. I've seen enough people bashing the Judiciar, including people saying it shouldn't exist or that it's redundant. They don't like it, that's fine. But why should they get to take away something that they don't like? If it exists, they can ignore it, but if it goes away, then I lose something. I don't want people to lose things, which is why I support an expansion of options and unit types. The only consolidation I support is ensuring that if armies have access to the same unit that that unit have one entry in one book, and not the same entry repeated over multiple books**.

**There are some necessary exceptions here, such as things like Rhinos. You couldn't have Chaos or Sisters players looking in the Marine book for those rules, for instance. Plus it allows further expansion of what makes those units unique within their respective codices.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


You literally loose nothing

Yes, Deathwing Knights are just terminators in robes with melee weapons. Again, that mace is just a power weapon and those are just storm shields.

Okay, full disclosure- I don't own the Deathwing dex, so I can't check. But I'm pretty sure DW Knights as the exist now do have profile differences and special rule differences; they probably also have some strats just for them. And if that's the case, I just don't see how you can believe both of the statements in the quote at the same time.

Because the words "Deathwing Knights are just Terminators" does mean that they no longer have the special rules. Saying that a mace is just a power weapon would mean that the different profiles for various weapons would be lost. And yes, it does make a difference whether the AP is 1 point higher on one than the other.

So you have an upgrade called "Death Wing" (or whatever generic name you want to call it) that costs x amount of points and gives the death wing keyword and associated special rules. I disagree in the various power weapons. I think it would be fine if there was just a singular power weapon profile and you modeled whatever weapon you wanted on your dudes.

Now maybe it's late and you are tired and you are trying to conserve words, or maybe English isn't your first language, and what you mean is "Deathwing Knights will just be called terminators even though my build your own system allows you to duplicate the exact rules and load out options as Deathwing Knights" but that's not what you are saying and dude, words have meanings. But even if that is what you meant, your very next sentence about a mace being just a power weapon indicates that there will be only one power weapon profile. If that's the case at the very least two, and more likely 3 profiles are lost.

Yup. Again, I agree with the consolidation of profiles that don't fill niches. Awhile back I linked to Apocalypse datasheets for how much better the vast majority of them are. They do a lot of consolidation.

You can't say "You literally lose nothing" and two sentences later say that your system will reduce the number of unique power weapon profiles available. That's just not what the word "Literally" means.

+2 str, - 1 AP is meaningfully different from +1 str, -2 AP. One is better at hurting high toughness low save; the other is better at hurting low toughness high save. The difference may be negligible, but it is there, and if I field 15 of these things, and each one gets 3 attacks, that negligible difference comes into play 100's of times over the course of the game, meaning that it will have an impact.

There are other weapon options in the marine dex that allow for hitting harder on higher toughness. You don't need 4 different weapons to do the same thing you just need to give every unit the one option.

The issue I have is that Marines continue to get more options while other factions seem to keep losing theirs.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The issue I have is that Marines continue to get more options while other factions seem to keep losing theirs.

That's... simply not true.

GW crams new things into Codices all the time. Since they came out the AdMech have only grown. GSC got a big expansion that added tons to their army. And less than a month ago, Necrons got tons of new stuff and don't appear to have lost a thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The issue I have is that Marines continue to get more options while other factions seem to keep losing theirs.

That's... simply not true.

GW crams new things into Codices all the time. Since they came out the AdMech have only grown. GSC got a big expansion that added tons to their army. And less than a month ago, Necrons got tons of new stuff and don't appear to have lost a thing.

While yes, the necrons gained many new units, most of what they got on their old ones was just recouping only some of the many wargear options they lost in 8th. Overlords use to have like 5 different weapon options (hyper phase sword, gauntlet of fire, tachyon arrow) and they got cut down to 2 (staff of light or warscythe). Crypteks had a long list of techno arkana that was all lost.

Now I am not saying that necrons didn't come out on top with a bunch of new stuff for 9th. But I am saying it's not QUITE as much as it looks at first glance and marines just haven't been shedding wargear options at ANY point like happened to them and tau.

 insaniak wrote:
At what point though do you stop and think 'You know what? Maybe the product range is just getting a wee bit big, here...'?

Well since I'm only ever going to buy the models I want, and I only ever need to know the rules for the base game and the models I own, it's not possible for the range to be too big. I would absolutely love it if they had 50 factions with 100 kits in each. I would not have to buy anything more than I already do, nor would I have to know anymore rules than I already do- but with so many more choices, my level of satisfaction with what I did choose to buy would be way higher.

 insaniak wrote:
I mean, it's one thing for those of us who have been around since the early days and have watched things slowly grow over time, but how is a new player supposed to have any chance of learning their way around when there are so many different variations of Marine that all do slightly different things? How long do you keep adding, and adding, and adding before you have to just stop?

Nope. A consolidated system where there are fewer cards but each card includes enough options that you could duplicate many units is way harder for a newbie. It is way harder to build my own Aspect Warrior to face a given opponent than it is for me to choose the most suitable from a list of 8 premade possibilities. And yeah, that means seven extra datacards, but it is still easier.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The issue I have is that Marines continue to get more options while other factions seem to keep losing theirs.

That's... simply not true.

GW crams new things into Codices all the time. Since they came out the AdMech have only grown. GSC got a big expansion that added tons to their army. And less than a month ago, Necrons got tons of new stuff and don't appear to have lost a thing.

I don't think it would be unfair at all to state that not only have Marines been given the most attention by far of any other, but that they've gained more and lost less as a proportion than all the other armies have collectively combined. Sure, some armies have gotten new stuff. Others have not. Dark Eldar however have been cut to the bone, any subfaction that FW ever did is basically kaput at this point (all 3 different DKoK regiment types, Elysians, Renegades & Heretics, Eldar Corsairs, etc). I cannot think of any Space Marine faction that has been similarly treated, even Black Templars got their own unique chapter tactic and still get a couple unique units of their own.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:



I use BTech as an example as someone posted this article in the N&R forum recently. It deals with a similar-yet-not-identical problem: Is there just too much stuff in BTech. For this issue I see it as there being two answers:

1. Yes. Of course there's too much stuff in BTech. It's overwhelming. Combined there are thousands of variant units in the game.
2. But also no, because you're not meant to use everything in BTech at the same time, because they people who make the game have very clearly divided it into "eras", so you end up with specific things that only really show up in certain parts of the timeline.

There are people in the BTech community who are very angry that everything from 3050 on was introduced. Still angry. Over 20 years later. They're the type of people who want to remove options from the game because they personally don't see a reason for them to exist. They are justly ridiculed for this notion, and it's why we call them Grognards.

The 3050 thing is an entirely different issue, that's far more akin to something like the End Times than anything Marine related, the Clan invasion heralded a massive lore change while also introducing a ton of power bloat. While it's fair to point out that a quarter century later it's probably not worth still being mad about, but I don't think that's the same thing as making the point that if some units can share a unit entry, they should, and that having special extra unit entries just for the sake of having additional pagespace isn't actually contributing much to flavor in and of itself.

Another place where this doesn't work is that 40k does mean for everything to be used at the same time, nothing is broken up into eras or locales, and the game tries to incorporate and portray things so small that Battletech really doesn't concern itself with (like an individual Grot and the grot's sidearm) as well as units much larger than what Battletech typically concerns itself with (such as a Warlord Titan standing more than twice the height of an Atlas).

I'll also note that while Battletech has gobs of mechs, those mechs are all basically built according to a set of universal rules by which anyone can make any mech they want within the given guidelines, you've got X number of critical locations you can mount hardware in over (IIRC) 8 locations with up to 100 tons of mass to work with (from what I recall at least). Nobody is rolling around with a 200 ton mech sporting a Naval PPC for instance, and every mech has basically the same number of critical slots to play with. Even if you're not familiar with a specific mech, figuring it out isn't hard, and everyone can get or make a mech with whatever loadout they want constrained only by mass and critical space. What Battletech doesn't do (or at least didn't from what I recall playing a gazillion years ago) is have gobs of special rules for different factions, mostly this is done through differences in technical bases (Clans vs Inner Sphere) or access to specific mech designs and preferences for certain kinds of weapons. It's also not impossible for OpFor units to show up in many armies as salvage or trophies. Despite also playing at a granularity level where individual vehicle torso twisting is a relevant rules detail, Battletech isn't trying to use special unit rules to portray sub-units of micro factions. They'll give you background, unit compositions, history, character info, etc, but something like the 1st Marik Protectors release isn't dumping huge amounts of special rules or unique units into the game either.

Battletech is fun...

Battletech also introduces restriction by not only faction but also "year" and "region."

Battletech is also is famously non-symmetrical in terms of balance and has WAY swingier rules then 40k to make up for it.

There is NO way to fully balance Battletechs pelthora of customization options,,, and the players do not want that. but in battletech, even the smallest lowest point unit can swing the bigest punch taking down one of the bigest meanest highest point cost thing in the game, with the right set of dice roles. And honestly that is quite fun... but its not 40k.

To have 40k work anywhere close to battletech, you would have to redesign the entire 40k ruleset AND the entire ruleset of each faction in 40k... and even then you have introduced a game with no semblance of balance.

Battletech was definitly the wrong example. It is actually the perfect example of what we shouldn't want in 40k and the prefect example to show the types of problems I have been warning against... and if you still do want that... thats cool.... have it,,, there is a game for that, it is called Battletech, I like it, but I also like 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
p.s. Battletech 100% does have rules for special equipment that different factions/subfaction and even micro factions have... I have seen "this weapon is only usable by this small team from this particular year in this particular region and the pilot has to be this particular guy using this particular mech" rules ...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
At what point though do you stop and think 'You know what? Maybe the product range is just getting a wee bit big, here...'?

When you introduce an entirely new type of Marine overnight but have to keep the old one in place for an edition or two because removing them overnight would create far more problems than it would solve.

Just a thought!

 insaniak wrote:
I mean, it's one thing for those of us who have been around since the early days and have watched things slowly grow over time, but how is a new player supposed to have any chance of learning their way around when there are so many different variations of Marine that all do slightly different things? How long do you keep adding, and adding, and adding before you have to just stop?

I actually can't answer that question, and no one else here can either. That's why this consolidation nonsense is just that - nonsense. It's someone deciding "enough is enough" when really it's a case of "this is enough for me". As Jake mentioned in his extensive post, we'd just be swapping lots of short simple entries for a a small amount of large complex entries. I mean, who wins there? Really?

I said "enough is enough" when the Primaris Marines came out. Had 0% interest in picking them up. As far as I was concerned, and as cool as I thought the Redemptor Dread was (I love Dreads of all shapes and sizes!), I wasn't going to get them. Happy to continue as though Primaris Marines didn't exist.

Then GW made Bladeguard Vets, Assault Intercessors, Outriders, that awesome Captain/Lt. combo with the Storm Shields and the Judiciar. I know everyone else hates* the Judiciar model, but I love it, and the false rumours about it getting bonuses agaisnt First Born actually inspired the fluff behind my custom chapter. Now I have a fledgling Primaris army, but I'm avoiding the units that I just don't like (the eyesore tanks, for instance). I have a new line of where "enough is enough", and I wouldn't dare impose that upon anyone else.

If enough is enough, then you can avoid it. I haven't looked at any 'Mechs in BattleTech past TRO: 3085. It's just too much to go through at the moment, and my head space is filled with all the existing 'Mechs. That doesn't mean I wish TRO:3145 and anything coming out in the next era expansion should be eliminated. I'll just avoid them, like I used to with Primaris Marines, until I'm ready to expand.

I use BTech as an example as someone posted this article in the N&R forum recently. It deals with a similar-yet-not-identical problem: Is there just too much stuff in BTech. For this issue I see it as there being two answers:

1. Yes. Of course there's too much stuff in BTech. It's overwhelming. Combined there are thousands of variant units in the game.
2. But also no, because you're not meant to use everything in BTech at the same time, because they people who make the game have very clearly divided it into "eras", so you end up with specific things that only really show up in certain parts of the timeline.

There are people in the BTech community who are very angry that everything from 3050 on was introduced. Still angry. Over 20 years later. They're the type of people who want to remove options from the game because they personally don't see a reason for them to exist. They are justly ridiculed for this notion, and it's why we call them Grognards.

Should we find an equal name for 40K fans who want to take away everyone's toys?

*Another example of consolidation nonsense. I've seen enough people bashing the Judiciar, including people saying it shouldn't exist or that it's redundant. They don't like it, that's fine. But why should they get to take away something that they don't like? If it exists, they can ignore it, but if it goes away, then I lose something. I don't want people to lose things, which is why I support an expansion of options and unit types. The only consolidation I support is ensuring that if armies have access to the same unit that that unit have one entry in one book, and not the same entry repeated over multiple books**.

**There are some necessary exceptions here, such as things like Rhinos. You couldn't have Chaos or Sisters players looking in the Marine book for those rules, for instance. Plus it allows further expansion of what makes those units unique within their respective codices.

it's actually worth noting that battletech tried to address the whole "ohh there's so much stuff people are prevented from getting involved" it was called Mechwarrior dark age. remember that game?
If you don't I don't blame you

even among the grognards you do NOT see this kind of bile in the battletech community...
well aside from among taurian fans insisting it's totally logical a second rate periphary state could conquer the federated suns
granted battletech doesn't have the "individual army issue" if House Liao or clan wolf gets a mech I really like (guess what my favorite faction is!? ) I can just use it anyway and say "something something salvage!" the community is less divided among army type, beyond taking sides in a story. among 40k, well people are MUCH more invested in the differant armies.

I dunno.. as it is I've said it before and I'll say it again, GW wishes the fanbase for 40k was more like the fan base of battletech