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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter, but mechanically being given a choice can feel important/fun even though it doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Esp. for characters.

My opinion as to how they should be balanced doesn't matter to the argument.

I really don't mean to harp on it, but what makes largely-inconsequential upgrades feel more important/fun than having a variety of substantial, meaningful upgrades that allow for greater creativity in modeling?

I mean, like with the list Lance posted and how it could be condensed into a handful of weapons, it's not like we're suggesting fixed loadouts a la Age of Sigmar, just rolling the redundant wargear together.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter, but mechanically being given a choice can feel important/fun even though it doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Esp. for characters.

My opinion as to how they should be balanced doesn't matter to the argument.

I really don't mean to harp on it, but what makes largely-inconsequential upgrades feel more important/fun than having a variety of substantial, meaningful upgrades that allow for greater creativity in modeling?

I mean, like with the list Lance posted and how it could be condensed into a handful of weapons, it's not like we're suggesting fixed loadouts a la Age of Sigmar, just rolling the redundant wargear together.

Most obviously, where the line is drawn for "Substantial/meaningful" is something that will be pretty subjective. Secondly, if your priority is making a cool conversion, you're not going to be stopped by differences that you find "insubstantial", and that is if you value your rules over your conversion idea in the first place (and a lot of people don't, in my experience).

Personally, I liked the reintroduction of the differentiation, and I enjoy the consideration of weapon type along with the idea of how it will change the models appearance. It's also a fun way to squeeze points out from time to time, depending on edition. As someone who like fiddling around with the list building aspect of the hobby, I appreciate it.

My question in return is this: If the differences between power weapons are "insubstantial" to you, how does it harm the game in having them?

 Insectum7 wrote:


My question in return is this: If the differences between power weapons are "insubstantial" to you, how does it harm the game in having them?

Because it interferes with the modelling aspect. If all power weapons are all the same you can model it however you want and whatever you think looks coolest.

If each weapon is different you’re restricted to a particular choice by the game outcome you want.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


My question in return is this: If the differences between power weapons are "insubstantial" to you, how does it harm the game in having them?

Because it interferes with the modelling aspect. If all power weapons are all the same you can model it however you want and whatever you think looks coolest.

If each weapon is different you’re restricted to a particular choice by the game outcome you want.

See the post above for the catch 22 about that. If you care about the model, "insubstantial" differences shouldnt bother you. If you find the differences are enough to care about. . . Well, then they have value.

That game already exists.

All generic datasheets that are easy to grasp, no wonky bespoke rules to reflect random gear or background quirks, basically perfect game balance for competitive play, miniature details completely left to aesthetic preference / hobby-whims.





Just go and play.

 Insectum7 wrote:
See the post above for the catch 22 about that. If you care about the model, "insubstantial" differences shouldnt bother you. If you find the differences are enough to care about. . . Well, then they have value.

Why is it good to have a profile that no one ever uses? Especially on the most commonly available type of power weapon.

Insectum7 wrote:If your priority is making a cool conversion, you're not going to be stopped by differences that you find "insubstantial", and that is if you value your rules over your conversion idea in the first place (and a lot of people don't, in my experience).

On the other hand, if someone's priority is a cool conversion, why do they need bespoke rules?

It's bad because it occupies developer time and space. GW literally sits there each time they put out a new data sheet and goes "well we made this lt. and he's got a sword so we will put down the sword stat line. But what if later we make one with an ax? Is that now a new data sheet or is it the same guy?

"Nope they are different. New data sheet"

Not only does the page count go up, but your time as a player goes up shifting through nonsense options. But what if that axe one was a SW Lt? Even thought your generic captain can take axes so your chapter has them THIS guy can't because GW decided to give THAT one a special keyword.

It's objective that consolidation is better in terms of design.

 Lance845 wrote:
It's bad because it occupies developer time and space. GW literally sits there each time they put out a new data sheet and goes "well we made this lt. and he's got a sword so we will put down the sword stat line. But what if later we make one with an ax? Is that now a new data sheet or is it the same guy?

"Nope they are different. New data sheet"

Not only does the page count go up, but your time as a player goes up shifting through nonsense options. But what if that axe one was a SW Lt? Even thought your generic captain can take axes so your chapter has them THIS guy can't because GW decided to give THAT one a special keyword.

It's objective that consolidation is better in terms of design.

dude, the space wolf leuitenant is a horriable example considering it's literally like a single sentence on the leuitenant datasheet

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It's bad because it occupies developer time and space. GW literally sits there each time they put out a new data sheet and goes "well we made this lt. and he's got a sword so we will put down the sword stat line. But what if later we make one with an ax? Is that now a new data sheet or is it the same guy?

"Nope they are different. New data sheet"

Not only does the page count go up, but your time as a player goes up shifting through nonsense options. But what if that axe one was a SW Lt? Even thought your generic captain can take axes so your chapter has them THIS guy can't because GW decided to give THAT one a special keyword.

It's objective that consolidation is better in terms of design.

dude, the space wolf leuitenant is a horriable example considering it's literally like a single sentence on the leuitenant datasheet

I ask that you focus instead on the actual point instead of a singular example.

Datasheets can be consolidated. Wargear can be consolidated. And it would be better for everyone if it was.

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It's bad because it occupies developer time and space. GW literally sits there each time they put out a new data sheet and goes "well we made this lt. and he's got a sword so we will put down the sword stat line. But what if later we make one with an ax? Is that now a new data sheet or is it the same guy?

"Nope they are different. New data sheet"

Not only does the page count go up, but your time as a player goes up shifting through nonsense options. But what if that axe one was a SW Lt? Even thought your generic captain can take axes so your chapter has them THIS guy can't because GW decided to give THAT one a special keyword.

It's objective that consolidation is better in terms of design.

dude, the space wolf leuitenant is a horriable example considering it's literally like a single sentence on the leuitenant datasheet

I ask that you focus instead on the actual point instead of a singular example.

Datasheets can be consolidated. Wargear can be consolidated. And it would be better for everyone if it was.

except then you use as an example something that isn't a seperate datahseet. which just makes you look like you dunno what you're talking about

frankly it's nonsesne, a lord with Terminator armour is still a CSM lord, no need to separete him out of the regular lord entry... (changes could easily be applicable with equipment option, or modifying the datasheet) it's also a serious issue that requires FAQ'ing regularly, cue DP spam f.e.

BrianDavion wrote:

except then you use as an example something that isn't a seperate datahseet. which just makes you look like you dunno what you're talking about

 Lance845 wrote:
I ask that you focus instead on the actual point instead of a singular example.

Datasheets can be consolidated. Wargear can be consolidated. And it would be better for everyone if it was.

No. What makes someone look like they don't know what they are talking about is when people in this thread are fighting for pages right up until I post actual examples of the datasheets and consolidations with the tyranid warrior and the SM captain and then you all stop talking because you have no argument. If you want to claim that the wargear can be balanced and those options have value then do the work and show us.

 vipoid wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
See the post above for the catch 22 about that. If you care about the model, "insubstantial" differences shouldnt bother you. If you find the differences are enough to care about. . . Well, then they have value.

Why is it good to have a profile that no one ever uses? Especially on the most commonly available type of power weapon.

ask the RG players if they were happy about the fact that their chapter had access to centurions, which before 2.0 no one used. Or if SW players right now are unhappy about those TWC models they had laying around their boxs. If their TWC got consolidated in in to lets say outriders, then they would not only have WYSIWYG problems because all those storm shields, hammer and claws on their models, but they would also get a much worse unit, which in general would make the whole SW codex much weaker. Worse GW may get some strange ideas and remove the TWC HQ unit options, because they don't exist as outridder bike ones, and leave them with just canis and air sled guy.

Karol wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
See the post above for the catch 22 about that. If you care about the model, "insubstantial" differences shouldnt bother you. If you find the differences are enough to care about. . . Well, then they have value.

Why is it good to have a profile that no one ever uses? Especially on the most commonly available type of power weapon.

ask the RG players if they were happy about the fact that their chapter had access to centurions, which before 2.0 no one used.

Lets not misconstrue the argument with absurdisms again. Nobody is suggesting the models go away or the meaningful options. Consolidating data sheets doesn't mean you wipe out entire entries willy nilly. It means you eliminate overlap by putting like things together.

Or if SW players right now are unhappy about those TWC models they had laying around their boxs. If their TWC got consolidated in in to lets say outriders, then they would not only have WYSIWYG problems because all those storm shields, hammer and claws on their models,

As I showed with the captain, he kept all his choices and there were no wysiwyg problems. Even if wysiwyg was a rule, which it isn't, everything would have been fine.

but they would also get a much worse unit, which in general would make the whole SW codex much weaker.

There is no SW dex. There is a SM dex.

Worse GW may get some strange ideas and remove the TWC HQ unit options, because they don't exist as outridder bike ones, and leave them with just canis and air sled guy.

And GW can decide to do that at any time anyway. Just look at the Dark Eldar and their booming cast of character support.

If a better example is needed than Lieutentants, why does a Space Marine Captain in Gravis Armor need a unique datasheet to run a heavy bolt rifle instead of a Bolstorm Gauntlet? Especially with literally zero options and a static wargear loadouts on both datasheets. That's already on top of having both Primaris/Non-Primaris options and datasheets for two different kinds of armor options for each (and not getting into Special Characters).

By comparison, any IG officer (that isn't an SC) above the platoon level junior lieutenant, across literally billions of Regiments, all use the same generic "Company Commander" unit entry regardless of weapons/role/equipment/rank/armor/etc (not that I have a problem with that, we don't need a gazillion different officer datasheets).

Karol wrote:
If their TWC got consolidated in in to lets say outriders, then they would not only have WYSIWYG problems because all those storm shields, hammer and claws on their models,

As noted by the OP post (emphasis mine below), the suggestion regarding consolidation would carry over those wargear options. It's not impossible to write that unit entry. It was very clear that such a concern was addressed at the outset.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
So i've been lurking in the various Houds of morkai threads and it made me think about what does having specific datasheet for so many models actually do for the game.

an example that was brought was the Thunderwolf cavalry vs Outrider and how they both could be on the same "Space marine cavalry" datasheet instead.
Theyre both fast units, that get extra attacks because of their mounts, why couldnt they be the same datasheet?

Let's assume that we had the power to redo all of the kits to include the bonus options (storm shield + thunderhammer as a valid option for all Space marine cavalry).
Would the flavor really be lost? You could still have the information that White scars use bike as cavalry and SW use McWolfes as cavalry.

but they would also get a much worse unit, which in general would make the whole SW codex much weaker. Worse GW may get some strange ideas and remove the TWC HQ unit options, because they don't exist as outridder bike ones, and leave them with just canis and air sled guy.

Given GW's current design paradigm, these are things that could (and can, and have) just happen anyway without any relation to consolidating datasheets. If it happens, it likely would have happened regardless. I don't think consolidating datasheets adds to that risk, rather whether GW produces a current kit appears to be the determination of availability.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If a better example is needed than Lieutentants, why does a Space Marine Captain in Gravis Armor need a unique datasheet to run a heavy bolt rifle instead of a Bolstorm Gauntlet? Especially with literally zero options and a static wargear loadouts on both datasheets. That's already on top of having both Primaris/Non-Primaris options and datasheets for two different kinds of armor options for each (and not getting into Special Characters).

in that case he doesn't I agree THAT is rediculas.

Lets not misconstrue the argument with absurdisms again. Nobody is suggesting the models go away or the meaningful options. Consolidating data sheets doesn't mean you wipe out entire entries willy nilly. It means you eliminate overlap by putting like things together.

People are saying that TWC should be marged with bikers, as should other sm faction specific units and weapons. How is that not removing meaningful options?

As I showed with the captain, he kept all his choices and there were no wysiwyg problems. Even if wysiwyg was a rule, which it isn't, everything would have been fine.

How is going from 2x5 squads with powerful melee options and synergies with the SW codex, to 3 models per unit with no melee weapon upgrades considered fine. That is like saying that if eradictors suddenly start running around with bolters, they would be fine too. And GW actualy did remove some SW options in a way that makes no sense. There is the special HQ TWC dude, and there is the Lt TWC dude in the codex, but the captin/lord option was removed.

And saying the wysiwyg aint' a rule is like saying the rule of 3 wasn't a rule in 8th.

There is no SW dex. There is a SM dex.

you know just because GW decided to make SW players buy two box and name the SW codex a supplement doesn't change the fact that it is a codex.

And GW can decide to do that at any time anyway. Just look at the Dark Eldar and their booming cast of character support.

Yes, and that is why having more options is better then having fewer options. Intercessor, and primaris in general, units have 3 types of weapons to pick for their squads, regular, assault and heavy. They work different with different chapters, but in general one option is generaly the best one. The problem with fewer option is, that the best, if all those units had 1 gun type, could still very well mean that unit is bad. Having more options lets people have a safer army, and not be forced in to rebuying their marine collection every 3-6 months, specialy if they magnetise stuff. I have seen and had to play in an edition where the best option was still not good, and there were no other options to replace it. Having fewer unit or gear types per unit is not better, it is worse every time. It is only a bad thing for people with armies that don't get the options regular armies get vide what happened to Tau or knights in 9th ed.

Karol wrote:

Lets not misconstrue the argument with absurdisms again. Nobody is suggesting the models go away or the meaningful options. Consolidating data sheets doesn't mean you wipe out entire entries willy nilly. It means you eliminate overlap by putting like things together.

People are saying that TWC should be marged with bikers, as should other sm faction specific units and weapons. How is that not removing meaningful options?

People are saying TWC are not different enough to actually be it's own entry. Nobody is saying "just use the outrider data sheet". They are saying outriders and TWC could use a combined consolidated datasheet that has the meaningful options to represent both.

As I showed with the captain, he kept all his choices and there were no wysiwyg problems. Even if wysiwyg was a rule, which it isn't, everything would have been fine.

How is going from 2x5 squads with powerful melee options and synergies with the SW codex, to 3 models per unit with no melee weapon upgrades considered fine. That is like saying that if eradictors suddenly start running around with bolters, they would be fine too. And GW actualy did remove some SW options in a way that makes no sense. There is the special HQ TWC dude, and there is the Lt TWC dude in the codex, but the captin/lord option was removed.

See above. You don't understand what is being suggested.

And saying the wysiwyg aint' a rule is like saying the rule of 3 wasn't a rule in 8th.

Incorrect. In fact rule of 3 was a rule in 8th and wysiwyg has not been a rule for quite a few years.

There is no SW dex. There is a SM dex.

you know just because GW decided to make SW players buy two box and name the SW codex a supplement doesn't change the fact that it is a codex.

Yes it does. Or do you think Ultramarines have their own codex now? Black Templar? Ironhands?

And GW can decide to do that at any time anyway. Just look at the Dark Eldar and their booming cast of character support.

Yes, and that is why having more options is better then having fewer options. Intercessor, and primaris in general, units have 3 types of weapons to pick for their squads, regular, assault and heavy. They work different with different chapters, but in general one option is generaly the best one. The problem with fewer option is, that the best, if all those units had 1 gun type, could still very well mean that unit is bad. Having more options lets people have a safer army, and not be forced in to rebuying their marine collection every 3-6 months, specialy if they magnetise stuff. I have seen and had to play in an edition where the best option was still not good, and there were no other options to replace it. Having fewer unit or gear types per unit is not better, it is worse every time. It is only a bad thing for people with armies that don't get the options regular armies get vide what happened to Tau or knights in 9th ed.

If your best option isn't good then having more worse options isn't better. This is just catastrophizing.

Karol wrote:

Lets not misconstrue the argument with absurdisms again. Nobody is suggesting the models go away or the meaningful options. Consolidating data sheets doesn't mean you wipe out entire entries willy nilly. It means you eliminate overlap by putting like things together.

People are saying that TWC should be marged with bikers, as should other sm faction specific units and weapons. How is that not removing meaningful options?

Nobody is saying just straight use the current Outrider rules in place of TWC. That wasn't the original suggestion at all.

The suggestions was to take the various marine rules representing units that all effectively function as Cavalry (which yes, SM bikes do, and their rules lineage comes directly from Fantasy cavalry rules) and have one unit entry that is able to offer all those options instead of a multitude of different datasheets. The suggestions put forward have repeatedly noted that consolidation would carry over the upgrade/weapons options, and that'd be relatively easy to denote by keyword. Model count availability could be adjusted just as easily (and is something that can also change regardless of datasheet consolidation, and has for many units over time).

 Vaktathi wrote:

Karol wrote:

Lets not misconstrue the argument with absurdisms again. Nobody is suggesting the models go away or the meaningful options. Consolidating data sheets doesn't mean you wipe out entire entries willy nilly. It means you eliminate overlap by putting like things together.

People are saying that TWC should be marged with bikers, as should other sm faction specific units and weapons. How is that not removing meaningful options?

Nobody is saying just straight use the current Outrider rules in place of TWC. That wasn't the original suggestion at all.

The suggestions was to take the various marine rules representing units that all effectively function as Cavalry (which yes, SM bikes do, and their rules lineage comes directly from Fantasy cavalry rules) and have one unit entry that is able to offer all those options instead of a multitude of different datasheets. The suggestions put forward have repeatedly noted that consolidation would carry over the upgrade/weapons options, and that'd be relatively easy to denote by keyword. Model count availability could be adjusted just as easily (and is something that can also change regardless of datasheet consolidation, and has for many units over time).

And as far as I can tell the only reason the outrider has been suggested is future proofing. There will come a day, as much as others don't like it, that the SM line will be all primaris. That means TWC will be primaris too. Either the wolves themselves will be retired and you will get wolfy outriders or somehow they will make bigger wolves to carry primaris on.

@karol
this is the kind of consolidation i have suggested earlier in the thread.



Notice how a datasheet like this actually gives you MORE options

 Lance845 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Karol wrote:

Lets not misconstrue the argument with absurdisms again. Nobody is suggesting the models go away or the meaningful options. Consolidating data sheets doesn't mean you wipe out entire entries willy nilly. It means you eliminate overlap by putting like things together.

People are saying that TWC should be marged with bikers, as should other sm faction specific units and weapons. How is that not removing meaningful options?

Nobody is saying just straight use the current Outrider rules in place of TWC. That wasn't the original suggestion at all.

The suggestions was to take the various marine rules representing units that all effectively function as Cavalry (which yes, SM bikes do, and their rules lineage comes directly from Fantasy cavalry rules) and have one unit entry that is able to offer all those options instead of a multitude of different datasheets. The suggestions put forward have repeatedly noted that consolidation would carry over the upgrade/weapons options, and that'd be relatively easy to denote by keyword. Model count availability could be adjusted just as easily (and is something that can also change regardless of datasheet consolidation, and has for many units over time).

And as far as I can tell the only reason the outrider has been suggested is future proofing. There will come a day, as much as others don't like it, that the SM line will be all primaris. That means TWC will be primaris too. Either the wolves themselves will be retired and you will get wolfy outriders or somehow they will make bigger wolves to carry primaris on.

Well if the later happens expect a hounds of morkai level unit, aka it's a reiver with an upgrade sprue, this case it would be a slightly upscaled TWC, but no option beyond barebones left...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@karol
this is the kind of consolidation i have suggested earlier in the thread.

Spoiler:

Space Marine Cavalry (3-6)

Cavalry 10" M, WS/BS 3+, S4, T5, W4, A2, Sv 3+
Cavalry Sergeant 10" M, WS/BS 3+, S4, T5, W4, A3, Sv 3+

Every model has Pistol/Grenades/Chainsword

The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.

(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options.
(Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit.
(Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability.
(Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1
(Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.

But why all those silly options? Just stick with the base profile, irrespective of whether it's modelled with a hammer or sword or spear or whatever. Why have two separate stats for BS and WS? Should be fine to consolidate that into one stat.

A move stat. A consolidated to hit/wound/kill enemy stat (just one number). Done.

Defensive stats like Wounds, Armour, Invuls can probably all be rolled into an attackers stat to kill enemy models on a X+ roll (perhaps not a D6 to have a bit more variance).

No need to be so finicky, really.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@karol
this is the kind of consolidation i have suggested earlier in the thread.

Spoiler:

Space Marine Cavalry (3-6)

Cavalry 10" M, WS/BS 3+, S4, T5, W4, A2, Sv 3+
Cavalry Sergeant 10" M, WS/BS 3+, S4, T5, W4, A3, Sv 3+

Every model has Pistol/Grenades/Chainsword

The Cavalry sergeant may replace its chainsword with a storm shield or an item from the melee weapons list
The Cavalry sergeant may replace its bolt pistol with a boltgun, plasma pistol or an item from the Melee Weapons list.

(Veteran Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you can treat all models in the unit as if they were Cavalry sergeants for their wargear options.
(Airborn Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add the fly keyword and 2" of movement to this unit.
(Fast Space Marine Cavalry) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may add 2" to the movement of this unit and give it the "turbo boost" ability.
(Ferocious mount) : For an additionnal Xpts, you may attack with the mount after the rider has made all its attacks, make 3 attacks at 5 -2 1
(Gunner Space Marine Cavalry) For an additionnal Xpts, you can chose to replace the bolt pistol of Cavalry sergeants with any weapons from the special weapons list.

But why all those silly options? Just stick with the base profile, irrespective of whether it's modelled with a hammer or sword or spear or whatever. Why have two separate stats for BS and WS? Should be fine to consolidate that into one stat.

A move stat. A consolidated to hit/wound/kill enemy stat (just one number). Done.

Defensive stats like Wounds, Armour, Invuls can probably all be rolled into an attackers stat to kill enemy models on a X+ roll (perhaps not a D6 to have a bit more variance).

No need to be so finicky, really.

Keep the sarcasm to yourself, youre really not bringing anything to the conversation.

Hooray! Sunny side ip returns with nonsense arguments. If your going to consolidate why stop there!? Every model can move 10". Pick an enemy model it can see and roll 1d6. On a 4+ it dies!

This is what people are talking about and a totally valid argument!

An exaggeration perhaps, but it shows that you still haven't defined any objective criteria for what is "too much detail" and what is "too much abstraction" and why the right balance should be where you decide it is (or why the perfect balance isn't perhaps met already by the current ruleset).

Gentlemen, can we please calm down?
yes it was a bad argument but there IS a ignore button...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
An exaggeration perhaps, but it shows that you still haven't defined any objective criteria for what is "too much detail" and what is "too much abstraction" and why the right balance should be where you decide it is (or why the perfect balance isn't perhaps met already by the current ruleset).

Again, i made an exemple you not understanding it is a you issue:
CSM lords and Terminator CSM lords...

It's the same spanker, with the same job except one is a bit more tanky then the other? Why do i need a separate entry when i could just handle it like the jumppack lord?
Not only that but it leads to issues in regards to RO3... Which then requires FAQing again...

And frankly the whole separate Datasheet for slightly diffrent but really same unit is also again anti consumer behaviour, because feth everyone with a custom Leutnant with an illegal weapons combination, or who has painted a specific TM chapter TM leutnant in other colors and now owns an illegal leutnant, because GW lost a bloody lawsuit in regards to their IP and is now completly wonky.

Not Online!!! wrote:


Again, i made an exemple you not understanding it is a you issue:
CSM lords and Terminator CSM lords...

It's the same spanker, with the same job except one is a bit more tanky then the other? Why do i need a separate entry when i could just handle it like the jumppack lord?
Not only that but it leads to issues in regards to RO3... Which then requires FAQing again...

Sure. And that Chaos lord is the exact same thing that is done by an Archon in a Dark Eldar army or a Canoness in a Sisters Army.

Just get the mini a generic „army-leader-guy(can be modeled as a girl)“ profile that all armies can pick. Done.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


Again, i made an exemple you not understanding it is a you issue:
CSM lords and Terminator CSM lords...

It's the same spanker, with the same job except one is a bit more tanky then the other? Why do i need a separate entry when i could just handle it like the jumppack lord?
Not only that but it leads to issues in regards to RO3... Which then requires FAQing again...

Sure. And that Chaos lord is the exact same thing that is done by an Archon in a Dark Eldar army or a Canoness in a Sisters Army.

Just get the a generic „army-leader-guy“ profile that all armies can pick. Done.

Theres a difference between consolidating redundant stuff in a single codex and doing it cross codex..... You know this but you're obviously just trying to stir gak up. Youre using terrible debating strategies so your opinion really isnt transmitted properly