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:
Really? Because the super specific stuff from 3.x were the worst selling things they ever produced. Sandstorm and other related products that offered super specific equipment, feats, and prestige classes that dealt specifically with niche things. These are the books that basically killed 3rd. The generalist things that have applications in lots of situations are the ones that keep on selling.

This is true but by the same token you can't sell what isn't produced. Given modern methods, I'd like to see a return to 3.x supplement spam in the form of cheaper PDFs that don't take up space and piss off retailers.

So to bring this analogy back around to roost. 5th ed... most popular. Super simple. Core books have sold more then they ever have. Instead of releasing splats with more and more individual classes they keep releasing splats with options for the classes that already exist. And those options are actually meaningful and usable in more than niche situations.

And in 40k instead of having more and more datasheets and wargear to represent more and more niche and specfic things they could do with a consolidation and simplification so that the options available are actually meaningful and accessible while giving players options that matter.

That look like it lines up properly to you?

 Lance845 wrote:
So to bring this analogy back around to roost. 5th ed... most popular. Super simple. Core books have sold more then they ever have. Instead of releasing splats with more and more individual classes they keep releasing splats with options for the classes that already exist. And those options are actually meaningful and usable in more than niche situations.

And in 40k instead of having more and more datasheets and wargear to represent more and more niche and specfic things they could do with a consolidation and simplification so that the options available are actually meaningful and accessible while giving players options that matter.

That look like it lines up properly to you?

What do they do if they alienate people whos formerly unique army now ends up as a generic and flavourless mass of generic rules? Wouldn't that create a 4e situation?

You've also failed to rebuff the role that pop culture has played in the rise of 5e compared to earlier editions.

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual).

The balance, while objectively better, was still just as broken as previous editions. Need I remind you of the errata needed to end a plethora of infinite combos and changes so that forced movement didn't trigger movement-based effects. Its rules were all kinds of flawed even if they did fix the problem of linear fighters and quadratic wizards.

5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palatable.

Which is why I dislike 5e. I can't build the same depth and breadth of characters in 5e that I could build in 3.x and given that WotC seems hellbent on printing only adventure modules and setting books I don't think we'll ever get there.

Just as an example can I build a 5e necromancer that controls a horde of undead? How about a creature that steals knowledge and skills from the enemies they've killed? Playing as a monster with a full level progression system and rules that allow me to use any monster in the game as a player character? I want all of that and more from 5e before I'll consider playing it. Why should I lose features I enjoyed just so plebs don't have to learn the mechanics of a more complex game?

And yet YOUR dislike of 5e doesn't stop it from being the most popular version of the game that has ever existed. This is your analogy man. The simplification that you were saying could be a bad thing is exactly what has made it such a popular and profitable product.

yeah except one thing that always sells with D&D has been new supplements and sphlat books. you know.. the "bloat" that so many people here cry about. If I play d&d it's entirely possiable that I need 3 or more books to make my char.

Really? Because the super specific stuff from 3.x were the worst selling things they ever produced. Sandstorm and other related products that offered super specific equipment, feats, and prestige classes that dealt specifically with niche things. These are the books that basically killed 3rd. The generalist things that have applications in lots of situations are the ones that keep on selling.

well yes there's something of a happy medium between "absolutely zero" and two fething hyperspecific books a month.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
So to bring this analogy back around to roost. 5th ed... most popular. Super simple. Core books have sold more then they ever have. Instead of releasing splats with more and more individual classes they keep releasing splats with options for the classes that already exist. And those options are actually meaningful and usable in more than niche situations.

And in 40k instead of having more and more datasheets and wargear to represent more and more niche and specfic things they could do with a consolidation and simplification so that the options available are actually meaningful and accessible while giving players options that matter.

That look like it lines up properly to you?

What do they do if they alienate people whos formerly unique army now ends up as a generic and flavourless mass of generic rules? Wouldn't that create a 4e situation?

You've also failed to rebuff the role that pop culture has played in the rise of 5e compared to earlier editions.

No. Because I didn't say scrap chapter tactics. I didn't say to scrap the super unique things. 4th eds problem wasn't the rules. It was the presentation. Again, I WANT your book to have all the fluff. And I want a pic of some primaris marines on top of wolves with axes painted like ice on them. I want that picture to be connected to a fluff blurb about how the Space Wolves train Thunder Wolves as cavalry and how they make power weapons out of ice and how they favor axes within the chapter. Then I want them to show you which options they picked off the "cavalry" datasheet to represent that unit. I want ALL your flavor to be there with the options available for people to build their flavor to taste. You might notice that the more books they release for 5th the more they are about giving classes options that break them out of their singular molds and allowing the player to swap class features for other features and racial features for other features and in Tashas Caldron of Everything they will even let you customize spells. Because it's about meaningful options on a single datasheet that lets you represent whatever it is you want it to be instead of giving you an entirely different class to do this niche thing and another class over here to do this niche thing.

As for pop culture. Chicken or egg? Do you think pop culture made it popular or do you think it's ease and accessibility made it more pop culture? Since nothing else really changed I am inclined to say it's the latter.

 Lance845 wrote:
No. Because I didn't say scrap chapter tactics. I didn't say to scrap the super unique things. 4th eds problem wasn't the rules. It was the presentation. Again, I WANT your book to have all the fluff. And I want a pic of some primaris marines on top of wolves with axes painted like ice on them. I want that picture to be connected to a fluff blurb about how the Space Wolves train Thunder Wolves as cavalry and how they make power weapons out of ice and how they favor axes within the chapter. Then I want them to show you which options they picked off the "cavalry" datasheet to represent that unit. I want ALL your flavor to be there with the options available for people to build their flavor to taste. You might notice that the more books they release for 5th the more they are about giving classes options that break them out of their singular molds and allowing the player to swap class features for other features and racial features for other features and in Tashas Caldron of Everything they will even let you customize spells. Because it's about meaningful options on a single datasheet that lets you represent whatever it is you want it to be instead of giving you an entirely different class to do this niche thing and another class over here to do this niche thing.

As for pop culture. Chicken or egg? Do you think pop culture made it popular or do you think it's ease and accessibility made it more pop culture? Since nothing else really changed I am inclined to say it's the latter.

5e classes still fail to replicate options that existed in 3.x. There are many, many things that are mechanically unique that simply can't be done in 5e or that 5e has removed rules for and left up to the DM to fudge.

In 40k terms, they've taken away the weapons that make DWKs unique and left them as rebadged TH/SS terminators with access to special rules. If you go the other way and just give them to everybody then why have different chapters at all? At that point, you may as well role the Fighter and Barbarian together because they're both martial classes designed to take on a frontline role and really why should it matter that one wears full plate and the other goes unarmored if they have the same AC.

BrianDavion wrote:


well yes there's something of a happy medium between "absolutely zero" and two fething hyperspecific books a month.

Jeeze. It looks like the next 2 books to be released by GW are "two fething hyperspecific books".

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:


well yes there's something of a happy medium between "absolutely zero" and two fething hyperspecific books a month.

Jeeze. It looks like the next 2 books to be released by GW are "two fething hyperspecific books".

Great, I look forward to 40k becoming more like D&Ds excellent 3rd edition. More hyperspecific rules for everyone!

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
No. Because I didn't say scrap chapter tactics. I didn't say to scrap the super unique things. 4th eds problem wasn't the rules. It was the presentation. Again, I WANT your book to have all the fluff. And I want a pic of some primaris marines on top of wolves with axes painted like ice on them. I want that picture to be connected to a fluff blurb about how the Space Wolves train Thunder Wolves as cavalry and how they make power weapons out of ice and how they favor axes within the chapter. Then I want them to show you which options they picked off the "cavalry" datasheet to represent that unit. I want ALL your flavor to be there with the options available for people to build their flavor to taste. You might notice that the more books they release for 5th the more they are about giving classes options that break them out of their singular molds and allowing the player to swap class features for other features and racial features for other features and in Tashas Caldron of Everything they will even let you customize spells. Because it's about meaningful options on a single datasheet that lets you represent whatever it is you want it to be instead of giving you an entirely different class to do this niche thing and another class over here to do this niche thing.

As for pop culture. Chicken or egg? Do you think pop culture made it popular or do you think it's ease and accessibility made it more pop culture? Since nothing else really changed I am inclined to say it's the latter.

5e classes still fail to replicate options that existed in 3.x. There are many, many things that are mechanically unique that simply can't be done in 5e or that 5e has removed rules for and left up to the DM to fudge.

In 40k terms, they've taken away the weapons that make DWKs unique and left them as rebadged TH/SS terminators with access to special rules. If you go the other way and just give them to everybody then why have different chapters at all? At that point, you may as well role the Fighter and Barbarian together because they're both martial classes designed to take on a frontline role and really why should it matter that one wears full plate and the other goes unarmored if they have the same AC.

Why have different hive fleets? There are literally 0 fleet specific units. Tau septs? Necron Dynasties? You keep acting like it would collapse SM into some kind of bland singularity but every other army gets plenty of millage out of that exact situation right now. So stop catastrophizing.

 Lance845 wrote:
Why have different hive fleets? There are literally 0 fleet specific units. Tau septs? Necron Dynasties? You keep acting like it would collapse SM into some kind of bland singularity but every other army gets plenty of millage out of that exact situation right now. So stop catastrophizing.

Why take a step backwards rather than give those factions different units? Is it inconceivable that a hive fleet creates unique bioorganisms in response to threats or that a sept might customize their crisis suits in a unique way? I'd rather see more stuff added to other factions rather than see anything taken away from anybody be it via outright removal or homogenization of formerly unique factions.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Why have different hive fleets? There are literally 0 fleet specific units. Tau septs? Necron Dynasties? You keep acting like it would collapse SM into some kind of bland singularity but every other army gets plenty of millage out of that exact situation right now. So stop catastrophizing.

Why take a step backwards rather than give those factions different units?

Because locking specific options and units behind a keyword prevents everyone from making "their dudes" and while it LOOKS like more options to people like you it is in fact more restrictive by locking things behind keywords.

Is it inconceivable that a hive fleet creates unique bioorganisms in response to threats

No. Hive fleets create new organisms in response to threats all the time. What is inconceivable is that only one hive fleet would ever have access to that organism forever after.

or that a sept might customize their crisis suits in a unique way?

Not at all. But once those options are being mass produced to not provide them to the empire so that all septs had access to the collective tactics and resources of the empire would be pretty crazy. More specifically when I make my sept I might want to decide how my sept customizes it's crisis suits and having a meaningful list of options from which to choose to flavor my sept with is good not just for me but everyone who plays tau.

I'd rather see more stuff added to other factions rather than see anything taken away from anybody be it via outright removal or homogenization of formerly unique factions.

You are not loosing any flavor. The wargear and data sheets that remain are capable of representing everything. Nobody is asking for TWC or stonecrsuher carnifexes to be thrown into a fire and never be used again. In fact, you gain options you didn't have before!

 Canadian 5th wrote:
...Why take a step backwards rather than give those factions different units?...

Because with GW's insistence on releasing everything for one army all at once and then not touching them again except for band-aid patches for years at a time that'd stretch out the release cycle and make it take longer for GW to ineptly attempt to fix their endless parade of errors.

 Lance845 wrote:
Because locking specific options and units behind a keyword prevents everyone from making "their dudes" and while it LOOKS like more options to people like you it is in fact more restrictive by locking things behind keywords.

So why have factions at all then? What is the distinction between some restrictions being good and others being bad?

No. Hive fleets create new organisms in response to threats all the time. What is inconceivable is that only one hive fleet would ever have access to that organism forever after.

They aren't in contact all the time, nor are they always friendly with one another. Also, 40k doesn't span an infinite amount of time so that organism might become widespread but not do so throughout the span covered by the game.

Not at all. But once those options are being mass produced to not provide them to the empire so that all septs had access to the collective tactics and resources of the empire would be pretty crazy.

Which is why every field modification used in WWII was immediately mass-produced and why no unique prototype units ever saw the battlefield.

You are not loosing any flavor. The wargear and data sheets that remain are capable of representing everything. Nobody is asking for TWC or stonecrsuher carnifexes to be thrown into a fire and never be used again.

I guess the Barbarian doesn't lose any flavor by using plate armor by that logic. Nor would they lose anything if the Fighter gained access to rage.

EDIT: Also there were editions without these 'flaws'. So why are you complaining about this edition when you could just play 5th edition and be happy?

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:


well yes there's something of a happy medium between "absolutely zero" and two fething hyperspecific books a month.

Jeeze. It looks like the next 2 books to be released by GW are "two fething hyperspecific books".

THEN DON'T fething BUY THEM!

when 3.5 put out sandstorm or whatever it was called I didn't spend 6 months bitching about it on the WOTC forums.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Because with GW's insistence on releasing everything for one army all at once and then not touching them again except for band-aid patches for years at a time that'd stretch out the release cycle and make it take longer for GW to ineptly attempt to fix their endless parade of errors.

Okay, so if they were to magically do what you want with regards to datasheets why couldn't they also magically fix their release schedule? Why assume one specific change that will 'fix' things and not another equally unlikely change?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Because locking specific options and units behind a keyword prevents everyone from making "their dudes" and while it LOOKS like more options to people like you it is in fact more restrictive by locking things behind keywords.

So why have factions at all then? What is the distinction between some restrictions being good and others being bad?

Are you suggesting that there should be only one army? I am just asking to make sure wether this is more catastrophizing or not.

No. Hive fleets create new organisms in response to threats all the time. What is inconceivable is that only one hive fleet would ever have access to that organism forever after.

They aren't in contact all the time, nor are they always friendly with one another. Also, 40k doesn't span an infinite amount of time so that organism might become widespread but not do so throughout the span covered by the game.

They are in fact in contact all of the time. There are not actually separate hive fleets. There is only one hive mind. The designation "hive fleet" is a term used by the imperium to classify different groups of tyranids in the galaxy or waves of invasion. The hive mind does in fact collect that data instantly and distribute it across it's collective gestalt intelligence. Different hive fleets adapt different adaptations to deal with different threats and experiment with different tactics in different situations. But they can in fact adapt to any situation at any time.

Not at all. But once those options are being mass produced to not provide them to the empire so that all septs had access to the collective tactics and resources of the empire would be pretty crazy.

Which is why every field modification used in WWII was immediately mass-produced and why no unique prototype units ever saw the battlefield.

Sure. Shadowsun is weareing an experimental suit. XV-9 hazard suits are experimental. Longshots suit is a new prototype used to interface in his tank in a way no other pilot does. Named character, unit available to everyone, named character.

You are not loosing any flavor. The wargear and data sheets that remain are capable of representing everything. Nobody is asking for TWC or stonecrsuher carnifexes to be thrown into a fire and never be used again.

I guess the Barbarian doesn't lose any flavor by using plate armor by that logic. Nor would they lose anything if the Fighter gained access to rage.

If they trade x for y.... yup.

In 3rd rogue and barbs could detect traps and nobody else. They also both got uncanny dodge. They were totally carbon copy classes right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:


well yes there's something of a happy medium between "absolutely zero" and two fething hyperspecific books a month.

Jeeze. It looks like the next 2 books to be released by GW are "two fething hyperspecific books".

THEN DON'T fething BUY THEM!

when 3.5 put out sandstorm or whatever it was called I didn't spend 6 months bitching about it on the WOTC forums.

I am sorry your analogy back fired on you.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Because with GW's insistence on releasing everything for one army all at once and then not touching them again except for band-aid patches for years at a time that'd stretch out the release cycle and make it take longer for GW to ineptly attempt to fix their endless parade of errors.

Okay, so if they were to magically do what you want with regards to datasheets why couldn't they also magically fix their release schedule? Why assume one specific change that will 'fix' things and not another equally unlikely change?

If GW were to magically get their heads out of their a**es on endless rules bloat, cannibalizing casual play to support tournament play, ignoring their playtesters, updating one army all at once and then not touching them for years instead of doing small updates to more armies more frequently, nerfing or deleting older models, deleting options because they'd require you to swap parts between kits, alternately s***ing on and buffing to the stratosphere whole broad categories of units between editions, trying to use the card game to patch the minis game instead of fixing the minis game, pushing spam lists to make sure you have to buy more new minis to switch list builds, and assigning Codexes to small competing design teams that don't talk to each other instead of having some kind of unified vision for the game, then sure, it'd be fine to make unique units for more sub-factions. Without fixing all that, however, giving more unique units to more sub-factions is just going to make everything else that's wrong with 40k worse.

 Lance845 wrote:
Are you suggesting that there should be only one army? I am just asking to make sure wether this is more catastrophizing or not.

I'm asking why you want some things merged but not others? Why draw a line at one place and not another?

They are in fact in contact all of the time. There are not actually separate hive fleets. There is only one hive mind. The designation "hive fleet" is a term used by the imperium to classify different groups of tyranids in the galaxy or waves of invasion. The hive mind does in fact collect that data instantly and distribute it across it's collective gestalt intelligence. Different hive fleets adapt different adaptations to deal with different threats and experiment with different tactics in different situations. But they can in fact adapt to any situation at any time.

Ignore that they've fought each other in the past and that information can't be transmitted instantly much less analyzed and put into practice as quickly. Even if you ignore those issues, a fleet that's fighting over on one side of the galaxy is likely to be facing different threats than one elsewhere. Thus while any fleet might make that same biomorph they don't need to thus creating a 'unique' datasheet for a certain hive fleet.

Sure. Shadowsun is weareing an experimental suit. XV-9 hazard suits are experimental. Longshots suit is a new prototype used to interface in his tank in a way no other pilot does. Named character, unit available to everyone, named character.

Why is Shadowsun available to everybody? There's only one of them and they should be tied to a unique region of space where they've actually fought. Otherwise, you may as well deploy Rommel in Barbarossa in a WWII game and claim that there was nothing stopping Hitler from doing so and thus you can too. 40k needs to be ground somewhere and hence it should have unique datasheets that were only used in certain campaigns by certain groups.

If they trade x for y.... yup.

In 3rd rogue and barbs could detect traps and nobody else. They also both got uncanny dodge. They were totally carbon copy classes right?

Most full casters could also detect traps either via specific spells or summoned allies, so you're wrong right off the hop that only some classes could do this specific thing. Secondly, they filled different roles.

Your comparison is like claiming that all sniper themed units in 40k should use the same data sheet with each factions special rules bolted on because they're the only units that fill that niche.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If GW were to magically get their heads out of their a**es on endless rules bloat, cannibalizing casual play to support tournament play, ignoring their playtesters, updating one army all at once and then not touching them for years instead of doing small updates to more armies more frequently, nerfing or deleting older models, deleting options because they'd require you to swap parts between kits, alternately s***ing on and buffing to the stratosphere whole broad categories of units between editions, trying to use the card game to patch the minis game instead of fixing the minis game, pushing spam lists to make sure you have to buy more new minis to switch list builds, and assigning Codexes to small competing design teams that don't talk to each other instead of having some kind of unified vision for the game, then sure, it'd be fine to make unique units for more sub-factions. Without fixing all that, however, giving more unique units to more sub-factions is just going to make everything else that's wrong with 40k worse.

If you hate the rules so badly why are you here discussing them rather than making your own rules and convincing your playgroup to use them? We both expect that GW will continue on its current course making errors along the way because that's all they've ever done. 40k has always had meh at best rules attached to great models and a cool setting. I'm fine with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance, rather than quote debate endlessly I'll end this here by saying that my fix to 3.5 wouldn't have been to cut spellcasters off at the knees. It would have been to make martial classes feel cool by letting them do superhuman stuff too. The Fighter doesn't need spells when he can pick up a bow and fire arrow after arrow through a line of goblins felling many with each shot.

That's what I want for 40k. Don't cut the powerful factions off at the knees, give other factions really cool unique stuff too. Hordes should have bonuses while above a certain model count, poison weapons should deal mortal wounds, shurikens should ignore saves on 6s to hit as they slide through gaps in armor. If other stuff felt cool on the table the game would be more fun than if decided every codex should get the DE treatment.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Are you suggesting that there should be only one army? I am just asking to make sure wether this is more catastrophizing or not.

I'm asking why you want some things merged but not others? Why draw a line at one place and not another?

Because I like meaningful options. I don't like bloated wasted options. Spinefists and stranglewebs are wasted options. I gain nothing by having them on the datasheet and neither does anyone else. I do gain something by having the bits though. The bits mean I can build interesting looking models that can be represented by "ranged bioweapon" or whatever.

They are in fact in contact all of the time. There are not actually separate hive fleets. There is only one hive mind. The designation "hive fleet" is a term used by the imperium to classify different groups of tyranids in the galaxy or waves of invasion. The hive mind does in fact collect that data instantly and distribute it across it's collective gestalt intelligence. Different hive fleets adapt different adaptations to deal with different threats and experiment with different tactics in different situations. But they can in fact adapt to any situation at any time.

Ignore that they've fought each other in the past and that information can't be transmitted instantly much less analyzed and put into practice as quickly. Even if you ignore those issues, a fleet that's fighting over on one side of the galaxy is likely to be facing different threats than one elsewhere.

You don't need to ignore that they have fought each other in the past. Nobody knows why this extragalactic intelligence that drives psykers mad and kills them when they make contact with it does what it does. It could be testing it's tactics against itself or eliminating an infection, or cannibalizing biomass to produce a new strain of something. Or any other unfathomable reason because of all the things in 40k the nids are the only thing that are truely alien.

Thus while any fleet might make that same biomorph they don't need to thus creating a 'unique' datasheet for a certain hive fleet.

This is not adding options to me. It is locking options behind a keyword and taking them away from everyone else. Why is that a good thing?

Sure. Shadowsun is weareing an experimental suit. XV-9 hazard suits are experimental. Longshots suit is a new prototype used to interface in his tank in a way no other pilot does. Named character, unit available to everyone, named character.

Why is Shadowsun available to everybody? There's only one of them and they should be tied to a unique region of space where they've actually fought. Otherwise, you may as well deploy Rommel in Barbarossa in a WWII game and claim that there was nothing stopping Hitler from doing so and thus you can too. 40k needs to be ground somewhere and hence it should have unique datasheets that were only used in certain campaigns by certain groups.

Shadowsun ISN'T available to everyone. She has the T'au Sept Keyword. As do all the other named characters besides Farsight who has the Farsight Keyword. The other Septs get nothing. I would much prefer a generic HQ with a ton of options including experimental suits so that I could build my own sept with a fluffy character that fit instead of just playing T'au because unit. Her datasheet should be released made out of the rules that the generic customizable HQ has. That way everyone wins and we all have more fluffy flavorful options.

If they trade x for y.... yup.

In 3rd rogue and barbs could detect traps and nobody else. They also both got uncanny dodge. They were totally carbon copy classes right?

Most full casters could also detect traps either via specific spells or summoned allies, so you're wrong right off the hop that only some classes could do this specific thing. Secondly, they filled different roles.

Your comparison is like claiming that all sniper themed units in 40k should use the same data sheet with each factions special rules bolted on because they're the only units that fill that niche.

It's not. Because I don't actually think Barbs and Rogues are copy classes. It's what you are claiming with your catastrophizing and I am refuting with my sarcasm. They both managed to be unique things and fill different roles because despite having similar options (martial and simple weapons, light armor, detecting traps, uncanny dodge) they don't get everything from both classes all at once.

Nobody told you that a single cavalry datasheet for marines means that that unit would have every chapters chapter tactics at the same time along with every potential piece of wargear. You still have to take the options you take which gear them towards a certain role and coupled with your chapter tactics make them into your dudes and not somebody elses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Lance, rather than quote debate endlessly I'll end this here by saying that my fix to 3.5 wouldn't have been to cut spellcasters off at the knees. It would have been to make martial classes feel cool by letting them do superhuman stuff too. The Fighter doesn't need spells when he can pick up a bow and fire arrow after arrow through a line of goblins felling many with each shot.

That's what I want for 40k. Don't cut the powerful factions off at the knees, give other factions really cool unique stuff too. Hordes should have bonuses while above a certain model count, poison weapons should deal mortal wounds, shurikens should ignore saves on 6s to hit as they slide through gaps in armor. If other stuff felt cool on the table the game would be more fun than if decided every codex should get the DE treatment.

See. I prefer classless/levelless point buy systems where everyone can build their own characters from long lists of options, variable attributes and skills, and taking the weapons and equipment they think their character should have. Somehow in these classless game system people still manage to make unique characters that have their own interesting elements. In fact, once you break away from a class system you find that players manage to make a far larger variety of characters then when you stick everyone inside of a predetermined couple of boxes.


I really think you guys should drop the DnD/roleplay analogies. These things are not supporting your position at all.

 Lance845 wrote:
Because I like meaningful options. I don't like bloated wasted options. Spinefists and stranglewebs are wasted options. I gain nothing by having them on the datasheet and neither does anyone else. I do gain something by having the bits though. The bits mean I can build interesting looking models that can be represented by "ranged bioweapon" or whatever.

Or, radical idea, give those weapons a use.

This is not adding options to me. It is locking options behind a keyword and taking them away from everyone else. Why is that a good thing?

You're objectively adding something if you give factions unique datasheets even if they're sub-faction locked.

Shadowsun ISN'T available to everyone. She has the T'au Sept Keyword. As do all the other named characters besides Farsight who has the Farsight Keyword. The other Septs get nothing. I would much prefer a generic HQ with a ton of options including experimental suits so that I could build my own sept with a fluffy character that fit instead of just playing T'au because unit. Her datasheet should be released made out of the rules that the generic customizable HQ has. That way everyone wins and we all have more fluffy flavorful options.

I disagree. Having some things you don't get to have unless you play a certain subfaction gives you a reason to use that subfaction rather than just take the best bits of everything in a bland generic blob of taking the best options and filling in the fluff later.

It's not. Because I don't actually think Barbs and Rogues are copy classes. It's what you are claiming with your catastrophizing and I am refuting with my sarcasm. They both managed to be unique things and fill different roles because despite having similar options (martial and simple weapons, light armor, detecting traps, uncanny dodge) they don't get everything from both classes all at once.

So they have UNIQUE stats that aren't shared between them and which give them a flavorful reason to exist as separate entities. Kind of like let SW keep TW as unique to them gives them continued reason to exist. Why draw the line in one place and not in another?

See. I prefer classless/levelless point buy systems where everyone can build their own characters from long lists of options, variable attributes and skills, and taking the weapons and equipment they think their character should have. Somehow in these classless game system people still manage to make unique characters that have their own interesting elements. In fact, once you break away from a class system you find that players manage to make a far larger variety of characters then when you stick everyone inside of a predetermined couple of boxes.

40k isn't that though and never has been. It's very much the World of Warcraft or D&D of tabletop games, big gaudy, not terribly well balanced, and weighed down by legacy systems that they'll never drop. If you don't want that nothing is stopping you from using your models, your dudes, with whatever rules you like.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Because I like meaningful options. I don't like bloated wasted options. Spinefists and stranglewebs are wasted options. I gain nothing by having them on the datasheet and neither does anyone else. I do gain something by having the bits though. The bits mean I can build interesting looking models that can be represented by "ranged bioweapon" or whatever.

Or, radical idea, give those weapons a use.

There is only so much design space. As someone explained earlier having 3 power weapon profiles was in reality 1 power weapon profile especially when a particular datasheet only allows for 1 type of power weapon. By only having 1 power weapon profile you actually give everyone tons of modeling options while not actually taking anything away. See how that works?

This is not adding options to me. It is locking options behind a keyword and taking them away from everyone else. Why is that a good thing?

You're objectively adding something if you give factions unique datasheets even if they're sub-faction locked.

You objectively are not if the alternative is giving the options to everyone.

Shadowsun ISN'T available to everyone. She has the T'au Sept Keyword. As do all the other named characters besides Farsight who has the Farsight Keyword. The other Septs get nothing. I would much prefer a generic HQ with a ton of options including experimental suits so that I could build my own sept with a fluffy character that fit instead of just playing T'au because unit. Her datasheet should be released made out of the rules that the generic customizable HQ has. That way everyone wins and we all have more fluffy flavorful options.

I disagree. Having some things you don't get to have unless you play a certain subfaction gives you a reason to use that subfaction rather than just take the best bits of everything in a bland generic blob of taking the best options and filling in the fluff later.

If there are "best bits" as you say then all those other options are not actually options. They are the illusion of choice.

Just in case you are unfamiliar with the term I will explain it. In many games they give you "options" but only a couple of them are viable. In these cases it is whats called the illusion of choice. If you remember the really old choose your own adventure games where you can eat the white berries or the red berries. Well, one of them kills you and ends the game and the other doesn't. So it's not ACTUALLY a meaningful choice. It's the illusion of choice. Because you only really have 1 choice. See how this is working? If the options on your data sheet are actually the illusion of choice you in fact gain by consolidating them so that you gain modeling freedom while still having the same number of actual choices.

On the other hand if the choices you have ARE meaningful then they shouldn't be consolidated and then you don't get homogeneous blobs of everyone being the same. Because there isn't actually a best choice you end up with a variety of things on the field. Ta Da! Actual options without the bloat?! Just sticking extra options on the datasheet doesn't actually give you variety. It only gives you the illusion of it.

It's not. Because I don't actually think Barbs and Rogues are copy classes. It's what you are claiming with your catastrophizing and I am refuting with my sarcasm. They both managed to be unique things and fill different roles because despite having similar options (martial and simple weapons, light armor, detecting traps, uncanny dodge) they don't get everything from both classes all at once.

So they have UNIQUE stats that aren't shared between them and which give them a flavorful reason to exist as separate entities. Kind of like let SW keep TW as unique to them gives them continued reason to exist. Why draw the line in one place and not in another?

See above.

See. I prefer classless/levelless point buy systems where everyone can build their own characters from long lists of options, variable attributes and skills, and taking the weapons and equipment they think their character should have. Somehow in these classless game system people still manage to make unique characters that have their own interesting elements. In fact, once you break away from a class system you find that players manage to make a far larger variety of characters then when you stick everyone inside of a predetermined couple of boxes.

40k isn't that though and never has been. It's very much the World of Warcraft or D&D of tabletop games, big gaudy, not terribly well balanced, and weighed down by legacy systems that they'll never drop. If you don't want that nothing is stopping you from using your models, your dudes, with whatever rules you like.

I would argue that 40k has ALWAYS been that. Right from the rogue trader days 40k has been about kitbashing, custom paint jobs, turning a deoderant stick into a tank, and making your army into your guys. Right now we have build your own chapter tactics. And older codexes had long lists of custom options to go onto people to make your own characters and units. An older nid dex let you customize each unit with a list of biomorphs that could enhance their armor or add strength and so on and so forth. 40k has ALWAYS been the point buy of table top games where players can make their army into THEIR army (by litterally spending points even!). This thing with bespoke units. Thats the aberrant thing that was introduced in the middle and grown.

So.... you are just wrong about this.

 Lance845 wrote:
There is only so much design space. As someone explained earlier having 3 power weapon profiles was in reality 1 power weapon profile especially when a particular datasheet only allows for 1 type of power weapon. By only having 1 power weapon profile you actually give everyone tons of modeling options while not actually taking anything away. See how that works?

Yet we went from this exact situation where we just had power weapons and GW decided that they wanted to model them as unique profiles. Many players like these unique profiles that do unique things and thankfully for players like you WYSIWYG is dead so you can have axes modelled and use whatever rules you like for them. You lose nothing but people who think axes and swords should be different get that too.

You objectively are not if the alternative is giving the options to everyone.

So let's give Dark Lances to Space Marines then, after all there's no reason to only give profiles to one group.

If there are "best bits" as you say then all those other options are not actually options. They are the illusion of choice.

So? Balance simply for the sake of balance leads to bland gameplay where there's no skill in setting up your army or building your character. Your argument is the same as the player who asks why TCGs print bad cards and rage about how all cards should be good.

Just in case you are unfamiliar with the term I will explain it. In many games they give you "options" but only a couple of them are viable. In these cases it is whats called the illusion of choice. If you remember the really old choose your own adventure games where you can eat the white berries or the red berries. Well, one of them kills you and ends the game and the other doesn't. So it's not ACTUALLY a meaningful choice. It's the illusion of choice. Because you only really have 1 choice. See how this is working? If the options on your data sheet are actually the illusion of choice you in fact gain by consolidating them so that you gain modeling freedom while still having the same number of actual choices.

That choice is a choice though even if the result of that choice is as minor as your reading the paragraph of text that details your death and flip back to the last page/reload a save. Trap options also give players room to play around with the concept of being the underdog and doing the best that they can with a suboptimal setup. That too is a choice and one that some players really enjoy.

On the other hand if the choices you have ARE meaningful then they shouldn't be consolidated and then you don't get homogeneous blobs of everyone being the same. Because there isn't actually a best choice you end up with a variety of things on the field. Ta Da! Actual options without the bloat?! Just sticking extra options on the datasheet doesn't actually give you variety. It only gives you the illusion of it.

This is also false. If all choices are equally good then all choices may as well be the same and we may as well take prewritten lists and simply proxy in the models we like to represent the archetype we've chosen to play.

It would be like opening an MtG pack and getting nothing but vanilla creatures that fit to various mana curves. You'd have an excellent balance but a terrible game.

See above.

Your above just tells me that you'd rather we all play FUDGE instead of D&D.

An older nid dex let you customize each unit with a list of biomorphs that could enhance their armor or add strength and so on and so forth.

Weren't you just saying that it was fine that Nids lost weapon options because they weren't used? So should they get a large custom list and open up the possibility of trap options or have one option so you can model them however you like? You can't have both at once.

I don't even know where to start with how wrong you are in all of that. Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but god damn is it wrong.

From more catastrophizing of merging completely different armies to thinking the illusion of choice has value to the catastrophizing of making all choices one choice.

If you can't have an argument with the bare minimum of good faith to not use strawman extremes then I don't even know what to do with you.

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't even know where to start with how wrong you are in all of that. Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but god damn is it wrong.

From more catastrophizing of merging completely different armies to thinking the illusion of choice has value to the catastrophizing of making all choices one choice.

If you can't have an argument with the bare minimum of good faith to not use strawman extremes then I don't even know what to do with you.

You're the one who has argued for removing options, adding (or restoring) options, and drawing arbitrary lines for when and where to use both of these tools. You want to bring back the old Tyranid codex where they had tons of options while also cheering for removing weapons options from gants because you wouldn't have used them; you also ignored my call to instead try to find them a niche by changing their rules. As an example, you could in past editions upgrade Tyranid models with +1 str (I played that army back then) which is good++ fun, but wanting to give a Space Marine +1 strength by giving them an axe instead of a sword is bad-- fun because reasons... So which is it, should we have a lot of options, some of which will end up being worse options than others, or should we streamline everything so that every choice that isn't used gets removed?

If you're willing to say that some long-standing unique armies should be merged to avoid bloat then why not ask for all armies to be merged into a generic set of profiles that allow us to use whichever models we want to represent various archetypal armies. You claim that this is a ridiculous argument but offer no explanation for why one merging is good++ fun and the other is bad-- fun.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't even know where to start with how wrong you are in all of that. Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but god damn is it wrong.

From more catastrophizing of merging completely different armies to thinking the illusion of choice has value to the catastrophizing of making all choices one choice.

If you can't have an argument with the bare minimum of good faith to not use strawman extremes then I don't even know what to do with you.

You're the one who has argued for removing options, adding (or restoring) options, and drawing arbitrary lines for when and where to use both of these tools. You want to bring back the old Tyranid codex where they had tons of options while also cheering for removing weapons options from gants because you wouldn't have used them; you also ignored my call to instead try to find them a niche by changing their rules. As an example, you could in past editions upgrade Tyranid models with +1 str (I played that army back then) which is good++ fun, but wanting to give a Space Marine +1 strength by giving them an axe instead of a sword is bad-- fun because reasons... So which is it, should we have a lot of options, some of which will end up being worse options than others, or should we streamline everything so that every choice that isn't used gets removed?

If you're willing to say that some long-standing unique armies should be merged to avoid bloat then why not ask for all armies to be merged into a generic set of profiles that allow us to
use whichever models we want to represent various archetypal armies. You claim that this is a ridiculous argument but offer no explanation for why one merging is good++ fun and the other is bad-- fun.

it's basicly a case of "I don't have it right now so I don't want ANYONE to have it" as far as I can tell. you'll notice his arguements ALWAYS circle back to ".. well Tyranids don't have.."

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Because with GW's insistence on releasing everything for one army all at once and then not touching them again except for band-aid patches for years at a time that'd stretch out the release cycle and make it take longer for GW to ineptly attempt to fix their endless parade of errors.

Okay, so if they were to magically do what you want with regards to datasheets why couldn't they also magically fix their release schedule? Why assume one specific change that will 'fix' things and not another equally unlikely change?

If GW were to magically get their heads out of their a**es on endless rules bloat, cannibalizing casual play to support tournament play, ignoring their playtesters, updating one army all at once and then not touching them for years instead of doing small updates to more armies more frequently, nerfing or deleting older models, deleting options because they'd require you to swap parts between kits, alternately s***ing on and buffing to the stratosphere whole broad categories of units between editions, trying to use the card game to patch the minis game instead of fixing the minis game, pushing spam lists to make sure you have to buy more new minis to switch list builds, and assigning Codexes to small competing design teams that don't talk to each other instead of having some kind of unified vision for the game, then sure, it'd be fine to make unique units for more sub-factions. Without fixing all that, however, giving more unique units to more sub-factions is just going to make everything else that's wrong with 40k worse.

I wish I could exalt posts more than once.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If GW were to magically get their heads out of their a**es on endless rules bloat, cannibalizing casual play to support tournament play, ignoring their playtesters, updating one army all at once and then not touching them for years instead of doing small updates to more armies more frequently, nerfing or deleting older models, deleting options because they'd require you to swap parts between kits, alternately s***ing on and buffing to the stratosphere whole broad categories of units between editions, trying to use the card game to patch the minis game instead of fixing the minis game, pushing spam lists to make sure you have to buy more new minis to switch list builds, and assigning Codexes to small competing design teams that don't talk to each other instead of having some kind of unified vision for the game, then sure, it'd be fine to make unique units for more sub-factions. Without fixing all that, however, giving more unique units to more sub-factions is just going to make everything else that's wrong with 40k worse.

If you hate the rules so badly why are you here discussing them rather than making your own rules and convincing your playgroup to use them? We both expect that GW will continue on its current course making errors along the way because that's all they've ever done. 40k has always had meh at best rules attached to great models and a cool setting. I'm fine with that...

Why aren't you writing your own 9e-compatible unique unit datasheets for sub-factions that don't have them instead of complaining about why GW won't write them for you?

Price quality relation becomes ever more glaring the more GW hikes prices.

Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't even know where to start with how wrong you are in all of that. Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but god damn is it wrong.

From more catastrophizing of merging completely different armies to thinking the illusion of choice has value to the catastrophizing of making all choices one choice.

If you can't have an argument with the bare minimum of good faith to not use strawman extremes then I don't even know what to do with you.

You're the one who has argued for removing options, adding (or restoring) options, and drawing arbitrary lines for when and where to use both of these tools. You want to bring back the old Tyranid codex where they had tons of options while also cheering for removing weapons options from gants because you wouldn't have used them; you also ignored my call to instead try to find them a niche by changing their rules. As an example, you could in past editions upgrade Tyranid models with +1 str (I played that army back then) which is good++ fun, but wanting to give a Space Marine +1 strength by giving them an axe instead of a sword is bad-- fun because reasons... So which is it, should we have a lot of options, some of which will end up being worse options than others, or should we streamline everything so that every choice that isn't used gets removed?

If you're willing to say that some long-standing unique armies should be merged to avoid bloat then why not ask for all armies to be merged into a generic set of profiles that allow us to use whichever models we want to represent various archetypal armies. You claim that this is a ridiculous argument but offer no explanation for why one merging is good++ fun and the other is bad-- fun.

1) Nothing I have said was arbitrary.
2) Right now PA did bring that back for tyranids in a very limited fashion. It's generally considered the best thing we got out of PA.
3) You ignored every statement about limited design space and answered with the strawman argument of "well then lets just merge elder into marines".
4) I find it incredibly hard to believe you are old enough to have played back then. You don't make arguments here like you are that old. Not an insult, just noting my disbelief based on your behavior.
5) I didnt say to bring back everything from the past. I used it as an example to prove that 40k has always been more point buy rpg than class based. Are you capable of following the flow of conversation? It seems like you are getting the arguments conflated.

BrianDavion wrote:
it's basicly a case of "I don't have it right now so I don't want ANYONE to have it" as far as I can tell. you'll notice his arguements ALWAYS circle back to ".. well Tyranids don't have.."

Not only did I say it was a good thing that those 2 guns went to legends I also suggested multiple ways in which nid units today could be consolidated and said I don't want the crap bloat that SM have (or the crap bloat that Nids have). If you are going to attempt a juvenile ad hominem you might want to AT LEAST base it on some form of reality instead of fabricating it entirely out of thin air.

Here’s my take if anyone is interested:

I play Tau and admech and there are a few things I’d like consolidated and made generic.
- strike teams and bleachers should be one datasheet
- crisis teams and crisis bodyguards should just be merged imo
- I want a generic stealth suit commander because I can’t justify shadowsun as part of my narrative
- I want a generic “Etheral Supreme” datasheet to replace aunva who should be dead
- Longstrike should be a generic tank ace now, since the OG should be dead
- aunshi should also be dead, and we could get a blade master ethereal datasheet instead
- darkstrider should become a new generic pathfinder hq

- for admech, I’d rather have Cawl become an archmagos datasheet. I don’t play mars so I can’t justify that character either.

Long story short, I dislike named characters because they’re too narratively and gameplay restricted. I’d much prefer shadowsun to become a mantle that is passed down instead of cryo sleeping the same one over and over. I.e. the supreme commander of the tau is always called Shadowsun in honor of the OG (who is dead).

Now, since marines are the topic of the day, I will say that I don’t think Wulfen and TWC should be consolidated. They are distinct enough to be their own thing, however, reducing the sheer number of marine named characters would leave plenty of room for them. Plus, having multiple datasheets for the gladiator is wasted space and could be used for actually different things.