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.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'd like to make the argument that the consolidation that this thread is advocating for runs a very real risk of turning out as D&D 4e did. 4e was objectively more balanced and better suited to being played on a grid than 3.x was while also requiring less work on the part of the DM; yet it was rejected by the community. Better, in some specific way, isn't always what the community wants.

To this day I'd rather play 3.x or 2e than either 4e or 5e. I like their flawed ambition and feel that too many games since value balance and ease of play over given players options and trusting them to find what works for their table.

I honestly find 5E is a nice balance between 3.5 and the need for simplification, I quite like it. (but I LIKE bounded accuracy as it means from a DM's POV I can use enemies longer without "gee those orks are now all level 15 barbarians.. odd that!")

The loss of templating crushed 5th ed for me. Nothing like a good template to keep players on their toes.

Dandelion wrote:
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.

Your imput is valued and I appreciate your perspective.

Yes, especially when it comes to characters a generic template from which to build all the current in fluff characters and make your own would be really fantastic.

 Lance845 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
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.

Your imput is valued and I appreciate your perspective.

Yes, especially when it comes to characters a generic template from which to build all the current in fluff characters and make your own would be really fantastic.

So much this. IMO this would have several advantages:

- More options and customisation for generic characters.

- Special characters don't get all the best weapons, rules, and wargear.

- Hopefully no more one-upmanship of special characters.

- No more diorama characters.

Well Marines sorta got their wish for a generic Scout Captain outside Ultramarines in the form of the Phobos Captain. However a generic Tank Commander needs to be made since Cronus doesn't exactly have anything unique to him.

Weird...

The problem for balance with DnD 3.x WAS templating.... DnD 4th and 5e solved the balance issue by removing the extreme templating...

I am so confused at why people think reducing static datasheets in favour of less datasheets that use templating is in anyway going to help... it is in fact so much worse for balancing lol... sure 3.x had way way way more rules,,, but the balancing problem was BECAUSE of the loose, nonrestictive templating people keep advocating for here.

So what is it, do people want 3.x style templating or do they want 5e restricted differences...

also, many factions have subfaction specific units... usually named characters.

Ynari is more of subfaction then SWs is of Marines by all arguments presented in this thread... and there are tons of restricted units for that sub faction...

Necrons have quite a few characters used only be specific sub factions ...

I know people say "space wolves have Chapter tactics and that's what makes things space wolves not their unique units"
But WHY ?

Ynari have their unique Chapter tactics,,, but their unique units are also what makes them Ynari..

Aldari specific units make their identity what it is as much as the army specific units make them what they are...

I think a lot of people here seem to forget SWs were a unique codex up until very very recently... sure, there is a bunch of overlap,,, but their was also unique units that made this faction have an identity.

SWs being a subfaction now doesn't change that those specific units exist and give them identity.

TWC and wulfen make SW identity what it is as much as chapter tactics do...

I am not asking GW to put MORE time into making new SW specific units... in fact, I want and encourage GW to put into make other, non power armor, factions and sub factions specific units. That is way way more pertinent right now.

But removing the units that exist already are 1: dulling the identity of a faction that already exists (and yes I called it a faction to whom ever goes "THEY ARE JUST MARINES" ... unfortunately, until you get rid of the unique units,,, they are not JUST marines,,, they are something different and you wont be right until you erase what makes them different).

2. no design space will be made available. that design space was already spent making these unique units,,, your not getting that back, its gone.

3. the propsed consolidation rules can do nothing introduce tons of pottential balancing issues... removing restrictions and adding variable options that can now be used with other variables (i.e. TWC equivilant options with other CTs or any othe XYZ instead of Specific datasheets) is so 3.x dnd its not even funny. how can you possibly keep up with balancing.. When any variable changes you cause a trickle down effect of non balance that is way way harder to get right in the first place and maintain over time...

5e is more open and available for change and customization within the classes then dnd has ever been.

SW share over 80% of their datasheets with normal marines. On top of that most of the non character datasheets they don't share have superficial changes at best. Not fluff wise. Mechanically.

Ynnari is closer to inquisitors or assassins then anything else. They are a couple of characters that allow you to use datasheets from across the eldar line in the same way that you can find an inquisitor as part of any of the imperium codexes. Your analogy is bad.

You seem to forget that SW were not always a unique codex. In fact for the first 6 years of the game SW were just space marines.

And in second edition the only actually unique units were named characters. Sure there were units CALLED rune priest and long fangs but as we all know those are just librarians and so forth.

And in 3rd they lost 5 of those characters while gaining no truly unique units again.

And in 4th they didn't even get a codex.

Sooo... Tell me again about how SW are a totally unique faction?

Wulfen have existed for less then a 10th of the games entire existence. TWC were not introduced until 5th edition and they arrived very not to the acclaim of all SW players but were in fact very divisive. People didn't like the ham fisted wolves riding on actual wolves.

So please.... tell me more about how these things are tied directly into the inherent identity of the "faction"?

But even if you could, which you can't, nobody is saying you shouldn't keep the kit and be able to represent them on the table. What is being said is that they do not need their own datasheet to do it. Further, SW being their own codex has routinely created imbalance between them and the rest of the SM line. Not getting updates to shared units while the other did.

Right now there is nothing but balancing issues. And the sheer volume of datasheets is a problem that introduces balancing issues. At worst it's just as bad. At best it's less pieces to juggle and easier to balance with more meaningful choices.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
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?

My argument is against the idea of further consolidation which is what this thread is asking for, that means I don't need to do any work because I'm fine with things as they are. If GW keeps on as they have been I'll be fine with it, if they change things to create even more options I'll be even happier, if they consolidate things and further simplify the game I'll probably leave the hobby again like I did the last time I wasn't having fun with 40k.

But even if you could, which you can't, nobody is saying you shouldn't keep the kit and be able to represent them on the table. What is being said is that they do not need their own datasheet to do it. Further, SW being their own codex has routinely created imbalance between them and the rest of the SM line. Not getting updates to shared units while the other did.

then all you would be doing is playing a different coloured version of one army. And that ends very bad. Because without different set of rules, you don't get things like centurions being valid in one army or flamer aggresors being good in another.

And having this one good build is the best situation, because what can very much happen is that if all the sm factions have this one build, and GW changes the core rules or the rules for other factions in a such a way that this one build is bad, then every marine player is going to have a bad time. No more green marines are bed, but at least the black bikers are good.

It also makes it easier for xeno player to meta play, because they no longer have to deal with shoty marines, melee marines or combo marines. they just have to deal with one marine list, and if they can skew hard enough against them then they are having good match ups with over 50% of all players. Now for xeno players this maybe a good thing, the way it was good for them in 2ed, but it ain't very fun if you play marines. And expecting the marine players to accept losing units, rules etc just so xeno players have more fun is a bit much.

And also, I don't think that modeling or playing the models the way you want is a good entice for such a situation, because if it was the xeno players would just use their armies as count as marines, if they are so broken or just concetrated on painting and converting, if they are really so unfocused on gaming and only care about the hobby.

Honestly the whole "your army is just a different color" has worked for years. Also nobody has explained the problem of availability to Calvary using the same stats for Salamanders successors.

Probably because there isn't a problem and "wE hAvE tO mAkE eVeRyThInG uNiQuE bEcAuSe"

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly the whole "your army is just a different color" has worked for years. Also nobody has explained the problem of availability to Calvary using the same stats for Salamanders successors.

Probably because there isn't a problem and "wE hAvE tO mAkE eVeRyThInG uNiQuE bEcAuSe"

Except SWs has never been "just a different colour"
SWs have had access to unique units, wargear, rules, wargear options , unit sizes, unit compositions, and army compositions since 2nd edition...they also had unique model kits since 3rd.

Salamanaders do not have access to Calvary ? are you proposing another power armor faction get yet another unit ?and have time spent balancing that out ? if you give it to just salamanders or all marines you need to fix balance , rules designs, stats and point costs to work for all additional factions. Also exponentially increasing design time if it is intended to fit all options.

I have explained why you shouldnt give general SMs more options, more accesss, more variables and other factions/subfactions unique units repeatedly, go back and look at my previous posts, especially, from a few pages ago.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Further, SW being their own codex has routinely created imbalance between them and the rest of the SM line. Not getting updates to shared units while the other did.

You mean like the "imbalance" between any two codex XD lol ,,, ya because they are different.

 Type40 wrote:

Salamanaders do not have Calvary ?

they do in the fluff, but on the tabletop its bikes or jetbikes only.

And again, your frost weapons arent different enough from power weapons to warrant a whole separate codex

Karol wrote:

But even if you could, which you can't, nobody is saying you shouldn't keep the kit and be able to represent them on the table. What is being said is that they do not need their own datasheet to do it. Further, SW being their own codex has routinely created imbalance between them and the rest of the SM line. Not getting updates to shared units while the other did.

then all you would be doing is playing a different coloured version of one army. And that ends very bad. Because without different set of rules, you don't get things like centurions being valid in one army or flamer aggresors being good in another.

Right. With different chapter tactics. Thats correct. Thats what the entire game is like outside of your bubble. It works fine for everyone else.

And having this one good build is the best situation, because what can very much happen is that if all the sm factions have this one build, and GW changes the core rules or the rules for other factions in a such a way that this one build is bad, then every marine player is going to have a bad time. No more green marines are bed, but at least the black bikers are good.

Right. The illusion of choice. I already went over this. The illusion of choice exists NOW. You already have it with your tons of wargear options and your tons of units. Actual meaningful choices that don't create the illusion of choice will only happen with consolidation.

It also makes it easier for xeno player to meta play, because they no longer have to deal with shoty marines, melee marines or combo marines. they just have to deal with one marine list, and if they can skew hard enough against them then they are having good match ups with over 50% of all players. Now for xeno players this maybe a good thing, the way it was good for them in 2ed, but it ain't very fun if you play marines. And expecting the marine players to accept losing units, rules etc just so xeno players have more fun is a bit much.

Do you mean what happens now and has always happened? This isn't a result of consolidation. This is a result of bad balance. Or do you not remember the last few years leviathan dreads?

And also, I don't think that modeling or playing the models the way you want is a good entice for such a situation, because if it was the xeno players would just use their armies as count as marines, if they are so broken or just concetrated on painting and converting, if they are really so unfocused on gaming and only care about the hobby.

What is the point of even saying this? Is this not what happens now when players want to paint their dudes how they want but want access to the character/rules in another SM faction? Hey guys I modeled x chapter but they suck so I am playing them as Y chapter.

I think it's worth noting that D&D and 40k are differant in that D&D has a DM and the DM's job is basicly to run things, every DM has run into a situation where an encounter for whatever reason isn't as balanced as it was supposed to be and fudged the gak out of it I suspect

 Type40 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly the whole "your army is just a different color" has worked for years. Also nobody has explained the problem of availability to Calvary using the same stats for Salamanders successors.

Probably because there isn't a problem and "wE hAvE tO mAkE eVeRyThInG uNiQuE bEcAuSe"

Except SWs has never been "just a different colour"
SWs have had access to unique units, wargear, rules, wargear options , unit sizes, unit compositions, and army compositions since 2nd edition...they also had unique model kits since 3rd.

Again, in fact the first 6 years of the game they were "just a different color" and for 4 editions after they were basically "just another color".

Further, SW being their own codex has routinely created imbalance between them and the rest of the SM line. Not getting updates to shared units while the other did.

You mean like the "imbalance" between any two codex XD lol ,,, ya because they are different.

Except in all the ways that they were not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
I think it's worth noting that D&D and 40k are differant in that D&D has a DM and the DM's job is basicly to run things, every DM has run into a situation where an encounter for whatever reason isn't as balanced as it was supposed to be and fudged the gak out of it I suspect

Then stop trying to use it as an analogy.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Salamanaders do not have Calvary ?

they do in the fluff, but on the tabletop its bikes or jetbikes only.

ok,,, so you DO want to give a new unit to a power armor faction ?

And again, your frost weapons arent different enough from power weapons to warrant a whole separate codex

Again, not different enough until you erase the things that make them different XD.
I could say "your aldari arn't different enough from marines to warrannt a whole seperate codex"

Just because you, some guy on the internet, doesn't think they are different enough doesn't me jack gak to anyone.
You don't get to decide whats different enough... and if you do,, then fine,,, I will decide aldari and marines are the same XD I have just as much logic XD ...

but you'll say

"YOU CANT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ELF AND A MARINE"

and i'll say

"YOU CANT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAGIC ICE AND POWER WEAOPONS"

and the circular arguments continue.

 Lance845 wrote:
1) Nothing I have said was arbitrary.

Where you place the division between which factions should be folded together and which ones shouldn't be folded together is entirely arbitrary. In all cases, you're drawing a line between made-up sci-fi/fantasy factions based on your own personal feelings about how much difference between factions is acceptable.

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.

Yet cutting weapons options was also good?

3) You ignored every statement about limited design space and answered with the strawman argument of "well then lets just merge elder into marines".

There aren't really limits on design space. GW has shown that they're willing to continue inflating design space whenever they feel like doing so as has been demonstrated with Flyers, Imperial Knights, weapon damage, 2W marines. They have plenty of room left to make factions feel unique without needing to up the lethality of the game to rediculous degrees.

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.

I started playing 40k out of high school back in 2006 playing floor wars with proxied models where I played literally every faction that existed. I lost a lot because while I'd jump to a new codex every game my friends found factions they enjoyed and started building collections. I joined this forum back in 2009 on an account by the name of Norade. I posted in YDMC alongside a poster named Gwar! and enjoyed BatReps by posters like DashofPepper and Recius. That account was banned because I'm an incredibly abrasive person who's 100% happy to just roll up a new account and leap back into the fray.

Go read those old posts and my current posts and you should see the same poster.

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.

If 40k was point-based it wouldn't have classes (read: factions) and you'd just have a list of generic options that you could match certain models to. That's the point I've been making.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly the whole "your army is just a different color" has worked for years. Also nobody has explained the problem of availability to Calvary using the same stats for Salamanders successors.

Probably because there isn't a problem and "wE hAvE tO mAkE eVeRyThInG uNiQuE bEcAuSe"

Except SWs has never been "just a different colour"
SWs have had access to unique units, wargear, rules, wargear options , unit sizes, unit compositions, and army compositions since 2nd edition...they also had unique model kits since 3rd.

Again, in fact the first 6 years of the game they were "just a different color" and for 4 editions after they were basically "just another color".

just because you didn't play them so where unwilling to understand the differance between space wolves and normal marines doesn't mean they wheren't there. the differanced started off more sublte yes but they where definatly there

 Type40 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Salamanaders do not have Calvary ?

they do in the fluff, but on the tabletop its bikes or jetbikes only.

ok,,, so you DO want to give a new unit to a power armor faction ?

And again, your frost weapons arent different enough from power weapons to warrant a whole separate codex

Again, not different enough until you erase the things that make them different XD.
I could say "your aldari arn't different enough from marines to warrannt a whole seperate codex"

Just because you, some guy on the internet, doesn't think they are different enough doesn't me jack gak to anyone.
You don't get to decide whats different enough... and if you do,, then fine,,, I will decide aldari and marines are the same XD I have just as much logic XD ...

but you'll say

"YOU CANT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ELF AND A MARINE"

and i'll say

"YOU CANT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAGIC ICE AND POWER WEAOPONS"

and the circular arguments continue.

It's only circular because you keep using bad faith strawman arguments. Start having a big boy conversation and it will stop being circular.

Just a different colour is such a disingenuous argument.
So were CSM in the beginning ...
Even orks and marines shared a lot of rules, wargear, and units in RT/2nd ed days...
Ya... most armies actually just started as a different colour of the same models or units... whats your point, that was a fething long time ago and a lot of design and development has happened since.

Again if you just arbitrarily remove what makes things different,,, ya they are the same ,,, but the very fact that in order to remove it/share it between factions means they would have to be different from the start lol XD .

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly the whole "your army is just a different color" has worked for years. Also nobody has explained the problem of availability to Calvary using the same stats for Salamanders successors.

Probably because there isn't a problem and "wE hAvE tO mAkE eVeRyThInG uNiQuE bEcAuSe"

Except SWs has never been "just a different colour"
SWs have had access to unique units, wargear, rules, wargear options , unit sizes, unit compositions, and army compositions since 2nd edition...they also had unique model kits since 3rd.

Again, in fact the first 6 years of the game they were "just a different color" and for 4 editions after they were basically "just another color".

just because you didn't play them so where unwilling to understand the differance between space wolves and normal marines doesn't mean they wheren't there. the differanced started off more sublte yes but they where definatly there

In exactly the same way that there are differences between ultramarines, salamanders, and iron hands? Yes. I believe that is true. There were definitely difference between the "sub factions" even back at the beginning. That doesn't make them anything but a sub faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:
Just a different colour is such a disingenuous argument.
So were CSM in the beginning ...
Even orks and marines shared a lot of rules, wargear, and units in RT/2nd ed days...
Ya... most armies actually just started as a different colour of the same models or units... whats your point, that was a fething long time ago and a lot of design and development has happened since.

The point is that if YOU argue that SW have always been a unique faction then you are wrong and there is the evidence. It's simple proof to refute the incorrect argument you were making.

So,

I have codex SWs 2nd, 3rd and SMs 3rd here with me right now.

Strange,,, there are absolutely no differences between ultramarines, salamanders, iron hands and etc.... but there is a full seperate book for SWs...

Some people really like to imagine things, if they can't see SWs had differences from the beginning... Some people are objectively incorrect... You can't really argue with the actual documents.

Oh look and it's a bunch of the same entries as regular Marines. fething unique army right there.

Right. 2nd. Which came out in 1993. The game started in 1987.

I am also looking at the 2nd ed book right now. It appears that you share 100% of your wargear with SM along with... 10? of your 26 datasheets. Ignoring of course that "rune priest" is just librarian with a different name and paint job so the shared data sheets is actually more.

On top of this... oh look! SWs on bikes! But no space wolves on wolves. That wouldn't happen until 2009, 22 god damn years into the games existence and only 11 years ago. Thats right. TWC have existed for only about 1/3rd of the time SW have. They are not a unique faction.

And any argument that they were for that less than half the time they existed ends at the end of last edition when they became a supplement to the main SM codex. Just like Ultramarines.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh look and it's a bunch of the same entries as regular Marines. fething unique army right there.

Clearly, GW thought SW were unique enough to have their own codex and supported that via special rules which and wholly unique datasheets over the years. Now I see it argued that the never reached some mythical threshold of unique enough because they still used the MEQ profile and that their unique rules should be removed to make them more generic for... reasons.

Even if you dislike the rules, Frost Weapons are currently distinct from both power weapons and master-crafted power weapons and we objectively lose flavour and uniqueness if we remove that rule. Likewise, Thuderwolves are still unique getting their own attack profiles for their mounts and unique rules that apply specifically to them.Just because SM get more than other factions doesn't mean that you're right to remove units that have existed for decades so you can try to Harrison Bergeron the game into balance.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh look and it's a bunch of the same entries as regular Marines. fething unique army right there.

Sure, as much as the ork codex was also just a bunch of same enteries in 2nd.

Also, very much not true in 3rd...
SWs can even take a Lemun russ in 3rd XD ?
By 3rd SWs had most of their own unique units, by 5th they had even their own kits... your wrong XD lol...
I dunno, I am looking at these books, in physical copy, right in front of me.
Wolf Guard, Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, Long Fangs, Wolf Scouts , lemun russ, wolves as wargear (interesting)
wolf gaurd unit members.

@slayer-fan ,,,, your wrong here.

 Lance845 wrote:
Right. 2nd. Which came out in 1993. The game started in 1987.

I am also looking at the 2nd ed book right now. It appears that you share 100% of your wargear with SM along with... 10? of your 26 datasheets. Ignoring of course that "rune priest" is just librarian with a different name and paint job so the shared data sheets is actually more.

On top of this... oh look! SWs on bikes! But no space wolves on wolves. That wouldn't happen until 2009, 22 god damn years into the games existence and only 11 years ago. Thats right. TWC have existed for only about 1/3rd of the time SW have. They are not a unique faction.

And any argument that they were for that less than half the time they existed ends at the end of last edition when they became a supplement to the main SM codex. Just like Ultramarines.

Look, Custodes and Ad Mech haven't existed since the start of the game so we should cull them and only play with units that existed in 2e!

EDIT: More seriously, Space Wolves started out as an offshoot of regular Marines and have grown in distinctiveness over time. They created a new design space for the SM faction to explore. We can argue if that space was explored well or if SM needed that extra space, but we shouldn't argue that they did explore new space as editions came and went.

 Lance845 wrote:

I am also looking at the 2nd ed book right now. It appears that you share 100% of your wargear with SM.

What's your point,,, so did Orks lol ...

Stop pretending... mr. "game designer" lol.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Right. 2nd. Which came out in 1993. The game started in 1987.

I am also looking at the 2nd ed book right now. It appears that you share 100% of your wargear with SM along with... 10? of your 26 datasheets. Ignoring of course that "rune priest" is just librarian with a different name and paint job so the shared data sheets is actually more.

On top of this... oh look! SWs on bikes! But no space wolves on wolves. That wouldn't happen until 2009, 22 god damn years into the games existence and only 11 years ago. Thats right. TWC have existed for only about 1/3rd of the time SW have. They are not a unique faction.

And any argument that they were for that less than half the time they existed ends at the end of last edition when they became a supplement to the main SM codex. Just like Ultramarines.

Look, Custodes and Ad Mech haven't existed since the start of the game so we should cull them and only play with units that existed in 2e!

Another bad faith strawman from the usual suspects.

Here man, read up on what you are doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

I am also looking at the 2nd ed book right now. It appears that you share 100% of your wargear with SM along with.

What's your point,,, so did Orks lol ...

Stop pretending... mr. "game designer" lol.

Pretending what Mr. "Has no argument"?

Reductio ad absurdum is not the same thing as a straw_man

for who it may be of concern ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

 Lance845 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Right. 2nd. Which came out in 1993. The game started in 1987.

I am also looking at the 2nd ed book right now. It appears that you share 100% of your wargear with SM along with... 10? of your 26 datasheets. Ignoring of course that "rune priest" is just librarian with a different name and paint job so the shared data sheets is actually more.

On top of this... oh look! SWs on bikes! But no space wolves on wolves. That wouldn't happen until 2009, 22 god damn years into the games existence and only 11 years ago. Thats right. TWC have existed for only about 1/3rd of the time SW have. They are not a unique faction.

And any argument that they were for that less than half the time they existed ends at the end of last edition when they became a supplement to the main SM codex. Just like Ultramarines.

Look, Custodes and Ad Mech haven't existed since the start of the game so we should cull them and only play with units that existed in 2e!

Another bad faith strawman from the usual suspects.

Here man, read up on what you are doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Read the edit... I was poking fun.