Switch Theme:

What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 VladimirHerzog wrote:


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


Isn't Codex-bloat often criticised.

But sure. You can consolidate redundant stuff inside the Codex too.

Have a basic infantry profile.

Move 6, Hits on 3+, 2 Wounds.

To that, add a few options for customisation (pick one).

a) Gives re-roll 1 to nearby units (all HQ infantry models)
b) Hits on 2+, 3 Wounds (all Elite infantry models)
c) Has ObSec (all Troop infantry models)
d) Has double move (all Fast Attack Infantry models)
e) Does double damage against all enemies over 12" away (all Heavy Support infantry models).

Done.

Redundancy in the codex consolidated.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 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.
Datasheet bloat has nothing to do with whether power weapons should be a single profile, since there is a myriad of ways to present options other than datasheets. Totally separate ossues.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Sunny Side Up wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:


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


Isn't Codex-bloat often criticised.

But sure. You can consolidate redundant stuff inside the Codex too.

Have a basic infantry profile.

Move 6, Hits on 3+, 2 Wounds.

To that, add a few options for customisation (pick one).

a) Gives re-roll 1 to nearby units (all HQ infantry models)
b) Hits on 2+, 3 Wounds (all Elite infantry models)
c) Has ObSec (all Troop infantry models)
d) Has double move (all Fast Attack Infantry models)
e) Does double damage against all enemies over 12" away (all Heavy Support infantry models).

Done.

Redundancy in the codex consolidated.


When you are done with strawmanning arguments and positions by making them look like they demand reductio ad absurdum type positions, can i have that straw? I might be able to sell the straw to my neighbour which is a peasant.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 13:53:53


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not Online!!! wrote:


When you are done by strawmanning arguments and positions by making them look like they demand reductio ad absurdum type positions, can i have that straw? I might be able to sell the straw to my neighbour which is a peasant.


Why are my proposals for reduction in specificity strawman arguments and your proposals something people should take serious?
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Sunny Side Up wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


When you are done by strawmanning arguments and positions by making them look like they demand reductio ad absurdum type positions, can i have that straw? I might be able to sell the straw to my neighbour which is a peasant.


Why are my proposals for reduction in specificity strawman arguments and your proposals something people should take serious?


You know why, now shh.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


When you are done by strawmanning arguments and positions by making them look like they demand reductio ad absurdum type positions, can i have that straw? I might be able to sell the straw to my neighbour which is a peasant.


Why are my proposals for reduction in specificity strawman arguments and your proposals something people should take serious?

Because you're making nonsense arguments in bad faith. If you want to be taken seriously, please, make a serious argument.
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





I love how people keep responding to reductio ad absurdum style arguments as "bad faith,"
"strawman" and "not serious" .

They can not comprehend their own arbitrary lines of when/if something should be consolidated are based purely in subjective opinion.

TWC and etc are in a seperate faction supplement. Why do you guys get to decide that those books don't count as a separate factions but an elder codex does count as a separate faction ?

Sure,,, they are 'marines.' but guess what,,, t hey all have 'legs'. Sure, there is overlap, so what about GSC and IA ? ...
don't call my point here disingenuous. you ARE making an arbitrary unsubstantiated choice of where to draw your lines of what should and shouldnt be consolidated. By virtue of the fact that people disagree with treating SW as the same faction you can not say it is anything but subjective.

You can not argue with the fact that people do feel this is a separate faction with unique units that should be preserved. You disagreeing with them is as subjective and unfounded as them telling you Aldari and Marines are the same faction...

Sorry. Even though GW made SWs a supplement, they are preserving the unique units and unique rules of this faction... if you can't understand that this is to appeal to the people who believe and play SWs and other power armor as separate factions, you are kidding yourselves.

The supplement system was an attempt to consolidate the units that were actually EXACTLY the same. Not to start removing unique units.

So unless you can acknowledge that blurring the line between SWs unique units would be as useful to the game as bluring the lines between any factions unique units,,, your points are moot.

I can entertain an idea for complete consolidation, but you don't get to pick and choose based on your opinion of what should and shouldnt...

The fact that people are really under the impression that their opinion on what counts as a seperat faction and what doesnt is an objective truth is really what is driving the ridiculousness of this conversation.

No one is strawmannig, they are trying to show you that your arguments are arbitrary, unfounded and beased on subjective opinion and not some universal set of truths or facts.

As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Its very possible Sunny and Type are 14 year old kids who legit do not understand how bad of an argument they are making. This is the internet. We can't see them. We don't know who we are talking to.

At Type: There is a big difference between craftworlds vs sm and sm vs ultramarines/blacktemplar/sw/da/ba.

To start sm and craftworlds share 0% units and wargear. They also dont share atsknf or bolter discipline or angles of death or chapter tactics or doctrines and stratagems and so on and so forth.

Your refusal to accept or understand that hinders your position in this discusion.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Lance845 wrote:
Its very possible Sunny and Type are 14 year old kids who legit do not understand how bad of an argument they are making. This is the internet. We can't see them. We don't know who we are talking to.

At Type: There is a big difference between craftworlds vs sm and sm vs ultramarines/blacktemplar/sw/da/ba.

To start sm and craftworlds share 0% units and wargear. They also dont share atsknf or bolter discipline or angles of death or chapter tactics or doctrines and stratagems and so on and so forth.

Your refusal to accept or understand that hinders your position in this discusion.


LOL you ... you crack me up.

First of all ... power swords... counter offensive... other strats and basic abilities like set defence and overwatch... unaligned units.... base rules.... I can arbitrarily point out similarities too.
Second of all.
We arn't talking about what they share... for the last fething time... We know the things they share should be consolidated XD for feth sake we are talking about what they DO NOT SHARE.

If an elf is not a marine,
Then a wolf isn't a bike or a "giant lizard"
or
An elf can be marine
A wolf can be a bike or a lizard

you don't get to pick a mix of both arbitrarily and then tell people they are being disingenuous by pointing that out.

Your refusal to understand that you are making a subjective choice to treat these unique units as the same but not other unique units as the same is an arbitrary choice based on nothing but your own subjective opinion.

Now if we are talking about 14 year old boys, again, you are the one making up college degrees not me, so there is no need to once again try and attack me based on "qualifications" or age instead of based on actual arguments... is that your best play when you are wrong and refuse to step back and think : "listen, I am older, smarter and have higher qualifications of you so that makes me correct" whilst you were lying about your qualifications even.

Stop embarrassing yourself and leave your fake appeal of personal authority argumentation at home.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/11/04 15:08:30


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






First of all i was legit saying we dont know who you are. You COULD be 14. I dont know. And i could be 90. Nobody knows.

I do know you bowed out of the conversation when i gave you examples as evidence for my argument and didnt respond when prompted to provide your own.

All you have are absurdisms. Its cool. I get it. You like stuff and want stuff no mater the reason. Your position isnt based on logic or reason. Its based on emotion. If you had any logic or reason you would use it instead of the absurdisms. Thats fine. You are entitled to your feelings. It just doesnt add anything to this discussion.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Type40, do you not understand the difference between consolidating something that's already 80% or more the same, and consolidating two things that share around 1% of their abilities and gear?

Because, yes, Eldar have Power Swords, and the Generic Strats. They don't share any units. They don't share any psychic powers. They don't even have Litanies.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Type40 wrote:
I love how people keep responding to reductio ad absurdum style arguments as "bad faith,"
"strawman" and "not serious" .

They can not comprehend their own arbitrary lines of when/if something should be consolidated are based purely in subjective opinion.

TWC and etc are in a seperate faction supplement. Why do you guys get to decide that those books don't count as a separate factions but an elder codex does count as a separate faction ?

To validate an reductio ad absurdum instead of having only a logical fallacy and therefore not an argument you need to classify as to WHY a demand is indeed as radical and only a slight extension. As of now, you don't have done that. and still will not.

Sure,,, they are 'marines.' but guess what,,, t hey all have 'legs'. Sure, there is overlap, so what about GSC and IA ? ...
don't call my point here disingenuous. you ARE making an arbitrary unsubstantiated choice of where to draw your lines of what should and shouldnt be consolidated. By virtue of the fact that people disagree with treating SW as the same faction you can not say it is anything but subjective.

Now we're cooking, actually you'd have a point if GW wouldn'0t have consolidated the marines AND wouldn't have consolidated SOME of the HQ's allready, cue my CSM lord exemple were the regular and Jetpack lord are consolidated, yet the terminator lord is not. That is an issue because GW also implemented the Rule of three for balance sake, why do you need all these leutnants instead of having leutnant with the list for equipment instead. That would cover ALL variations and make the book smaller whilest having still all leutnants legal, unlike the system right now were only specific combinations are wysiwyg legal forcing options tied to specifc leutnant models?

You can not argue with the fact that people do feel this is a separate faction with unique units that should be preserved. You disagreeing with them is as subjective and unfounded as them telling you Aldari and Marines are the same faction...

Gw seems to disagree with you, mind you, solely for monetary reasons

Sorry. Even though GW made SWs a supplement, they are preserving the unique units and unique rules of this faction... if you can't understand that this is to appeal to the people who believe and play SWs and other power armor as separate factions, you are kidding yourselves.

that isn't the point beeing made, the point beeing made is, that a customizable enough datasheet would probably be BETTER (especially with subfaction specific update allowances) to keep the core of a faction intact and therefore the uniqueness. You don't however need 3 dozen entries for leutnants for that

The supplement system was an attempt to consolidate the units that were actually EXACTLY the same. Not to start removing unique units.

Missing the point beeing made

So unless you can acknowledge that blurring the line between SWs unique units would be as useful to the game as bluring the lines between any factions unique units,,, your points are moot.

Missing the point

I can entertain an idea for complete consolidation, but you don't get to pick and choose based on your opinion of what should and shouldnt...

Actually, considering GW or f.e. me, the worst you'd have to deal with in regards of consolidation of my branch is that units are now upgrades instead (granted i'd not consolidate the TWC cav, but there are other obvious candidates that should be represented via an upgrade option unlocked via subfaction choice like scouts and wolf scouts but alas...) or GW which tends to just, decide that former leutnants without a model conforming to predetermined models of leutnants get^s illegal. (without going into the tendency that we now also have chaplain dreads beeing in legends, etc, which as a concept could've been done easily as an upgrade to a dread body but feth owners of said dread and options i guess.


The fact that people are really under the impression that their opinion on what counts as a seperat faction and what doesnt is an objective truth is really what is driving the ridiculousness of this conversation.

You mean to tell me, that GW has nothing to do with it? and the recent consolidation was the idea of the playerbase? wait let me call the ceo of GW i am sure he will listen to me exclusively in order to spite you further via removale of any SW oldmarine choice.... /sarcasm is sarcasm:

No one is strawmannig, they are trying to show you that your arguments are arbitrary, unfounded and beased on subjective opinion and not some universal set of truths or facts.

Disproven GW considers supplements not as separete factions.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/11/04 15:22:11


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






It is not 1%. Sm have over 100 datasheets and over 40 different wargear options. It is in fact 0.0 Some fraction of shared content.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Lance845 wrote:
First of all i was legit saying we dont know who you are. You COULD be 14. I dont know. And i could be 90. Nobody knows.

For feth sake man,,, what does me being "14" have to do with the argumentation I am using. You are bringing it up to appeal as a position of authority, you arn't as smart as you think you are and these type of argumentation is irrelevant apart from disingenuous attempts to discredit


I do know you bowed out of the conversation when i gave you examples as evidence for my argument and didnt respond when prompted to provide your own.

if anyone would like to go back through the posts, I have left plenty of quality examples, however @Lance would simply say "no that's not good enough" or focus in on one small part of a response and refuse to acknowledge the rest of the response thus taking argumentation of context. I bowed out of acknowledging Lance for a while because he started making up qualifications to discredit me rather then actually responding to argumentation. Stop lying @Lance,,, its actually really embarrassing for you and its quite obvious if someone goes back through the posts.


All you have are absurdisms. Its cool. I get it. You like stuff and want stuff no mater the reason. Your position isnt based on logic or reason. Its based on emotion. If you had any logic or reason you would use it instead of the absurdisms. Thats fine. You are entitled to your feelings. It just doesnt add anything to this discussion.


You dont understand what reductio ad absurdum is, this is clear from this statement LOL, you continue to embarrass yourself. You can not comprehend your own opinion could be subjective and you base your entire argumentation on a subjective stance. You have done nothing in this thread but force circular argumentation, page after page after page. You feel like power armor shouldn't be treated as subjective factions... sure,,, thats, like, your opinion man. Your flaw this entire time is that you literally do not seem to be able to comprehend that this is a subjective opinion based in 0 foundational basis.

Again, stop diverting the argument. You are attacking me instead of my argumentation. Your attempting to discredit me not my argumentation AND you claim my position isn;t based on logic or reason and is based on emotion with literally no examples on how that is true,,, again as an attempt to discredit me not my argumentation LOL ... you are very one track minded, and i guess thats ok, you do you.

p.s. reductio ad absurdum is a form of argumentation where one takes a line of argumentation to the extreme to show that in practice the line of logic would break or be absurd. This not the same as an "absurdism" LOL. Now please go learn about what you are responding to before you bother actually responding people,,, you are really making your self look stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Type40, do you not understand the difference between consolidating something that's already 80% or more the same, and consolidating two things that share around 1% of their abilities and gear?

Because, yes, Eldar have Power Swords, and the Generic Strats. They don't share any units. They don't share any psychic powers. They don't even have Litanies.


Are you saying TWC is 80% the same as another unit in the game ? Which unit and how ?

again, i am not talking about the units that are the same, I am talking about the units that are different.

You guys are so conserned with what is the same that you are forgetting that there are things that are different.
Again, of course things are the same, when you remove what is different lol... again,,, this is bad argumentation... I am all for consolidating that 80% that is the same,,, i am not for consolidating the 20% that is different... is this really so hard to figure out XD a wolf is not a bike friends...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/04 15:23:13


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

You don't see the distinction between consolidating Space Marines (which share 80% or more of everything with each supplement), and combining Eldar and Space Marines (who's shared things can be counted on my fingers)?

And TWC are some of the 20% or less that Space Wolves have unique. People have presented a datasheet that retains all their options, but still allows other SM chapters to run cavalry too.

Though if you want to get technical...

They share a move of 10" (with Inceptors)
They share WS and BS 3+ (with the majority of Marine Units)
They share S4 (same deal)
They share T5 (with Centurions, Bikers and Gravis models)
They share W4 (with Centurions and Outriders)
They share A2, A3 on Sergeants (with Intercessors and a lot of other units)
They share a 3+ save (with most Marine units)
They share Bolt Pistols
They share Astartes Chainsword
They share Frag Grenades and Krak Grenades
They share Storm Shields
They share Boltguns
They share Plasma Pistols
They share the entire Melee Weapons list

Their Crushing Teeth and Claws are unique.
Their Ld8 on both normal guys and Sergeants may be unique, I'm not sure.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/04 15:26:16


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Lance845 wrote:
It is not 1%. Sm have over 100 datasheets and over 40 different wargear options. It is in fact 0.0 Some fraction of shared content.


The only things that the SM codex and Craftworld codex have in common is:

Power swords
Flamers

Generic stratagems and abilities (set defense) don't count because theyre in the BRB, unaligned units dont count because theyre from outside the codex.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 15:24:47


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






I dunno man. It seems like more people feel like your argument holds no water then not. But please, keep telling us the same gak without proof. It might stick this time.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





 JNAProductions wrote:
You don't see the distinction between consolidating Space Marines (which share 80% or more of everything with each supplement), and combining Eldar and Space Marines (who's shared things can be counted on my fingers)?

And TWC are some of the 20% or less that Space Wolves have unique. People have presented a datasheet that retains all their options, but still allows other SM chapters to run cavalry too.


I have also responding with how this is a bad approach.
1. the increase in design time needed for customizable datasheets.
2. the increase in design maintenance for customizable datasheets.
3. you are giving generic SMs even MORE options and opportunities and strength as a faction.
4. you are robbing unique rules and identity from one particular faction by generalizing the faction into another faction.

TWC is currently as different as eldar jetbikes... i don't give a flying feth about the rest of the two factions,,, those two units are different,,, this isn't about what in the two factions have overlap and what doesnt or to what percent it is . This is about the units themselves... take the 80 % of overlap and consolidate... why are you proposing to put more work into removing the few things that make these other power armor factions unique ? its more work, more time away from none power armor, and it kills the bit of variety that does exist.

As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Type40 wrote:

p.s. reductio ad absurdum is a form of argumentation where one takes a line of argumentation to the extreme to show that in practice the line of logic would break or be absurd. This not the same as an "absurdism" LOL. Now please go learn about what you are responding to before you bother actually responding people,,, you are really making your self look stupid.



again, it still requires an argument be shown to be ridicoulus, however hyperbole does not qualify else you end with an continuum fallacy..

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Type40 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
You don't see the distinction between consolidating Space Marines (which share 80% or more of everything with each supplement), and combining Eldar and Space Marines (who's shared things can be counted on my fingers)?

And TWC are some of the 20% or less that Space Wolves have unique. People have presented a datasheet that retains all their options, but still allows other SM chapters to run cavalry too.


I have also responding with how this is a bad approach.
1. the increase in design time needed for customizable datasheets.
2. the increase in design maintenance for customizable datasheets.
3. you are giving generic SMs even MORE options and opportunities and strength as a faction.
4. you are robbing unique rules and identity from one particular faction by generalizing the faction into another faction.

TWC is currently as different as eldar jetbikes... i don't give a flying feth about the rest of the two factions,,, those two units are different,,, this isn't about what in the two factions have overlap and what doesnt or to what percent it is . This is about the units themselves... take the 80 % of overlap and consolidate... why are you proposing to put more work into removing the few things that make these other power armor factions unique ? its more work, more time away from none power armor, and it kills the bit of variety that does exist.


Points 1-3.

.
 Lance845 wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
The choice of army is not arbitrary. And if the choice of army was arbitrary then they should be consolidated. If traitor marines were just regular marines then you could have one codex with rules to present chaos chapter tactics. But you don't. Because the chaos army has access to units and rules that are nothing like what general space marines have which makes them a distinct choice and not the illusion of choice. Traitor marines do not and should not play like loyalist marines. If they did, again, I would argue for consolidation.

What is your threshold for consolidation? Is it some specific percentage of shared rules hard and objective or is it an 'I'll know it when I see it' style judgement call?


I told you before that game design is math, psychology, and art. So the answer to your question is all 3. There is a psycological element to it, there is a math element to it and there is an art element to it. There is no math that wholly explains that synapse is different from mob rules. But we can all agree that it is and that tyranids (at least in part) because of synapse function differently from other armies right? It's objective right? Tyranids as an army do not play like other armies.

But when one unit in the army can choose between a bunch of guns.. like say the tyranid warrior. They get spinefists, devourers, deathspitters, or they can swap them for a pair of scytal. (these are swaps 1 for 1. There are other options that are not relevant to this discussion.

So you have a stock gun that shoots 3 times. a better gun that also shoots 3 times but with better ap and higher str. A gun that shoots (Attack) times with worse strength and no ap. And a melee weapon.

I'm going to cut your explanation for the sake of brevity, I assure you that I did read it.

My argument is that these weapons should be balanced not removed. For example, we could give the Devourer back it's old ability to reroll wounds which then does make it an actual choice between it and a Deathspitter based on expected targets. Spinefists could be strength user rather than S3 and that would make them an interesting choice actual use cases. If you always cut options the second they underperform you're going to end up with a boring game while also limiting your options to change the balance at a later date. If this were GWs design philosophy we'd be much closer to generic armies, which we can all agree are bad, than to anything interesting and unique.


Hey man, but what about PvNP and all that, right? You are talking about a massive increase in the developers time spent to balance a game they already cannot keep up with.

The ability to reroll wounds is already on termagants in units of 20+. See how you are stepping on the limited design space? And don't change it to rerolling to hit. Because thats what Tervigons give them. But even if you did do that, 6" extra range +1 str and -1 ap would STILL make the devourer a non-choice. Rerolling wounds doesn't change the intended target. They are BOTH made to take out lower save infantry. They both have the same rate of fire. The deathspitter is just better at it. So you would need to up the devourers rate of fire. Lets say we give it 5 shots? (meaning termagants now shoot 150 times rerolling 1s to hit and wound with tervigon support) But we also need to make the deathspitter better at heavier save targets otherwise the deathspitter becomes the illusion of choice. SO we make it AP-2. But now why the hell would I ever pay points to take the anti infantry biocanon on the warriors? See how they are stepping on each others toes? A random number of shots with blast but the same str with less AP. MSU and marine prevalence means blast is nigh useless. The higher AP or the 5 shot devourers would be far more reliable.

As for your spinefist suggestion. SO they become 12" pistol A(3) str 4 ap- d1 versus the devourers 18"assault 3 str4 ap- D1 reroll 1s to wound. And while spinefists are free, they also mean you loose out on a second pair of scything talons which means you are loosing out on an extra str 4 attack in melee that reroll to hit. Would YOU trade a crap pistol for rerolling to hit attacks in melee? I wouldn't. It not only still looses to the devourer it also looses out to the scytal.

PvNP. What do you think? Is time spent developing and balancing a multitude of datasheets and wargear that fulfill the same role on the same units within the same army or should they consolidate and focus on balancing the meaningful options that actually get used so players have good meaningful choice?

Nobody is suggesting to cut things because they underperform. They are saying cut and consolidate so that the distinct roles are filled. It's about removing overlap more than anything so that the choices actually matter.

Merging armies isn't what we are talking about. Merging 3 different datasheets for terminators and giving you all your meaningful choices on one data sheets is. Just like someone suggested I could have gaunts and gants on a single datasheet with options for melee or shooting on it. Yeah. I could. It wouldn't hurt at all to do it and nothing of value would be lost.

So merge these units, keep all the same restrictions on load-outs, and gain what exactly? You don't change anything in terms of gameplay by doing this unless you remove options or change restrictions as part of the merger. You do however make the rules denser and more difficult for some players to read by filling a single sheet with lists of exceptions and if statements.


It only gets more difficult to read if the formatting is difficult to read. That is a interface issue and unrelated to the mechanics being discussed. You keep the meaningful options. By now having them on a single sheet it's easier to see what is and is not meaningful and consolidate where needed to create actual choice. The much fought over TWC is an example where the attacks from the wolf are not doing anything meaningful compared to the bike. they both impact targets basically the same way. You COULD argue the on the charge element and I am even inclined to agree with you. Which can be solved with some 2-3 point option on the "cavalry" datasheet called "War Steed" or some gak to make the attacks every round instead of just on the charge. Then if salamanders want to ride big lizards they can. And if my homebrew wants to ride dinosaurs they can. Options are gained and nothing of value is lost.

If you are playing competitively and/or enjoy crunching the numbers having meaningful choices is all you were paying attention to anyway and we have made it easier for you to do that.

We made every answer on this multiple-choice test C, the test is now impossible to fail and therefore not worth studying for. Do you see why some players might take an issue with this approach?


Another absurdum/strawman. Nobody is saying that. You also misrepresent the purpose of a test. This statement is meaningless. Further, if some players issue is "BUT I WANT MORE THINGS EVEN IF THEY DO NOTHING AND BLOAT THE GAME" then I don't care about their issues. I want a better game.

If you like fluffy narrative stuff then merging things like the power weapons into a single power weapon profile has given you more narrative options then you do now by allowing you to present that power weapon as whatever the hell you want it to be.

So there are no cases where the current differentiation of power weapons change anything? If this is the case there's already no need for balance, but otherwise, every weapon has, at least in theory, a niche to fill.


Incorrect. As pointed out by me and others repeatedly in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I want to reiterate this. If somehow you gave deathspitters, devourers, and spinefists the correct point costs to perfectly balance their impact versus their shared intended targets then all you have done is given players a no choice. You either want the greatest impact per model which is the deathspitter or you want the lowest cost per model which is the spine fists (which also means you have basically no impact so why the platform is worth anything at this point is anyones guess). It's 3 options to equip a tyranid warrior to do the exact same job.


See how its NOT making things more difficult or time consuming? Go check out the SM captain for another example. Please. Dont just SAY it. Prove it.

Point 4. They are not a faction. They are a subfaction.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Type40 wrote:

1. the increase in design time needed for customizable datasheets.


Adding an option to a single datasheet is a lot quicker than adding a whole new datasheet

 Type40 wrote:

2. the increase in design maintenance for customizable datasheets.


Adding an errata to a single datasheet is a lot quicker than adding an errata to multiple datasheets, its also more consistent and helps GW not forget about a datasheet like theyve done multiple times in the past.

 Type40 wrote:

3. you are giving generic SMs even MORE options and opportunities and strength as a faction.


Yes? How is that a bad thing?

 Type40 wrote:

4. you are robbing unique rules and identity from one particular faction by generalizing the faction into another faction.


This one i can kind of agree, but then again, its not robbing since you can still use your TWC exactly as they currently are. And the real flavor of TWC come from the strats/chapter tactics more than from the wolf being able to attack, something that ALL cavalry gets.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 15:39:09


 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut






And TWC are some of the 20% or less that Space Wolves have unique. People have presented a datasheet that retains all their options, but still allows other SM chapters to run cavalry too.

Though if you want to get technical...

They share a move of 10" (with Inceptors AND OTHER FACTIONS UNITS)
They share WS and BS 3+ (with the majority of Marine Units AND OTHER FACTIONS UNIT)
They share S4 (same deal)
They share T5 (with Centurions, Bikers and Gravis models AND OTHER FACTIONS UNITS)
They share W4 (with Centurions and Outriders AND OTHER FACTIONS UNITS)
They share A2, A3 on Sergeants (with Intercessors and a lot of other units AND OTHER FACTIONS UNITS)
They share a 3+ save (with most Marine units AND OTHER FACTIONS UNITS)
They share Bolt Pistols
They share Astartes Chainsword
They share Frag Grenades and Krak Grenades (WRONG)
They share Storm Shields
They share Boltguns
They share Plasma Pistols
They share the entire Melee Weapons list (yes, some war gear)

Their Crushing Teeth and Claws are unique.
Their Ld8 on both normal guys and Sergeants may be unique, I'm not sure.
ALSO SWIFT HUNTERS AND MULTIPLE UNIQUE STRATAGEMS IN THE NEW SUPLEMENT.
ALSO THERE BASE SIZE (THOUGH IT IS SHARED WITH MANY UNITS IN THE GAME)

So as we know. a unique unit is made up of many different factors... what you have seem to have shown here is that a TWC is closer to a inceptor then anything else but still not really... so is what you are saying is that a wolf is the same as a jump pack primaris marine ?

Again, the combination of traits on TWC is what makes it unique as well as its own unique traits. It is simply NOT the same as anything else in the game... sorry. not even 80%. It has some of the same wargear... are individual sisters of battle units supposed to be consolidated because they share most stats and wargear with marines ? come on.... this was one of the most arbitrary lists of seen so far.

As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






FFS shut the feth up already.

Lets drop the TWC if it triggers you so much and use the lieutenant/Captain datasheets instead for the example.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 JNAProductions wrote:
You don't see the distinction between consolidating Space Marines (which share 80% or more of everything with each supplement), and combining Eldar and Space Marines (who's shared things can be counted on my fingers)?
Of course theres some difference. But the difference is only where one draws the line in their personal notion of how far to take consolidation. If I understand Type40s argument, that's the point. Where that line is drawn can be very subjective.

Which is why Lance's "evidence" of a suggested consolidation isn't much worth responding to. It's just their personal subjective take on how something could be consolidated, but it makes little argument for it. It's beside the greater point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 15:45:45


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Insectum7 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
You don't see the distinction between consolidating Space Marines (which share 80% or more of everything with each supplement), and combining Eldar and Space Marines (who's shared things can be counted on my fingers)?
Of course theres some difference. But the difference is only where one draws the line in their personal notion of how far to take consolidation. If I understand Type40s argument, that's the point. Where that line is drawn can be very subjective.

Which is why Lance's "evidence" of a suggested consolidation isn't much worth responding to. It's just their personal subjective take on how something could be consolidated, but it makes little argument for it. It's beside the greater point.
I do agree that reasonable people can disagree on what should and shouldn't be consolidated.

But I also think we can agree that it's disingenuous to say anyone here is advocating for combining entirely disparate Codecs.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Type40 wrote:

1. the increase in design time needed for customizable datasheets.


Adding an option to a single datasheet is a lot quicker than adding a whole new datasheet

whether or not information is displayed on a single datasheet or multiple has no bearing on design space, computation time or design time... I have repeatedly shown how this is the case.... its quite silly to believe this TBH .... how does representing something on 1 1 page datasheet change the design effort of representing it on 2 half page datasheets...


 Type40 wrote:

2. the increase in design maintenance for customizable datasheets.


Adding an errata to a single datasheet is a lot quicker than adding an errata to multiple datasheets, its also more consistent and helps GW not forget about a datasheet like theyve done multiple times in the past.

you just managed to reduce the need to add 3 x number of datasheets with similar rule to the FAQ v.s. the exponential increase of design and balance maintenance brought on by increased customizable variables.....GW forgetting about a datasheet is a different problem and I agree it should be addressed, but to help GW not forget a datasheet is not a reason to introduce a plethora of new problems to the game


 Type40 wrote:

3. you are giving generic SMs even MORE options and opportunities and strength as a faction.


Yes? How is that a bad thing?
because there is already a problem of SMs being too powerful due to having more access to options and less restrictions then any other faction ? There is already too much design time and space given to SMs and increasing customization exponentially increases time needed to correctly implement rules in a faction (which is common game design knowledge and somethin i have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread using common game design considerations).

 Type40 wrote:

4. you are robbing unique rules and identity from one particular faction by generalizing the faction into another faction.


This one i can kind of agree, but then again, its not robbing since you can still use your TWC exactly as they currently are.

It is robbing it.
If you give general SMs a jetbike, that has rising cresendo, haywire cannons, plasma grenades, 16" movement an auto 6 advance and zepherglaives... even though Harlequins still have it doesn't mean harlequins havn't just been robed of their unique identity... it doesn't make it better just because they are both wearing power armor (and please don't give me the bs of "ELDAR ARNT MARINES" gak here this is a legit exaggeration to demonstrate the point).

You can remove what makes a faction unique by A: deleting it or B: giving everyone else the same thing so it is not unique.
The argument that SW unique units are not unique because we can just give their units to everyone else or that we can just remove what make them unique is just ridiculous... yes, of course they wouldn't be unique if everyone else had access to it... yes they are losing their unique identity and their unique rules by cloning them and giving them to everyone else. I have chosen to take rules restrictions, army restrictions and game restrictions so I can have access to this unit.

If you won a tennis tournament and everyone at the tournament who didn't win got the exact same 1st place trophy as you, would you feel the same as if you just had your own ? how would you feel if someone then said to you "well, you still have a trophy, you arn't losing anything" .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I also think we can agree that it's disingenuous to say anyone here is advocating for combining entirely disparate Codecs.


Again, that's the point. no one is saying anyone here is advocating for that. We are bringing it up as an exaugurated example of arbitrary choices in consolidation.
No one would say the aldari jetbikes should be consolidated into space marines,,, because they are different units,,, so why TWC if they are different units ?

and yes, I will continue to bring up TWC because Cpt.s and Lt.s WERE CONSOLIDATED ... because they are a part of the 80% that are the same... and that's ok,,, no one thinks they shouldnt have been.
TWC and similar are were the problem lies... that 20% that isn't the same shouldn't be consolidated because arbitrarily we are deciding they are the exact same as something that they are not the exact same of... in the same way we don't advocate for eldar units that are completely different from marine units to be consolidated together.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 15:57:00


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Type40 wrote:

You can remove what makes a faction unique by A: deleting it or B: giving everyone else the same thing so it is not unique.


1 . SW are a subfaction of the Space Marines faction

2. Can you stop with the SW? Use the Captain/Lieutenant consolidation instead so youre not so emotively attached to a fething example.
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





 VladimirHerzog wrote:
FFS shut the feth up already.

Lets drop the TWC if it triggers you so much and use the lieutenant/Captain datasheets instead for the example.



FFFSSSSSSSS YES LETS SHUT THE feth UP ALREADY ABOUT THESE TWCs...

That's the fething point isn't it. Lt.s and Cpt.s DID GET CONSOLDIATED no gak you want to bring up the two that ARE exactly the same as examples of what IS exactly the same LOL.
So lets go back to talking about what ISNT exactly the same like the TWC ... yes consolidate what is exactly the same... fine ,,, do that... now talking about things that are not (you know, this entire thread) no, there is no merit in consolidating things that are not the fething same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Type40 wrote:

You can remove what makes a faction unique by A: deleting it or B: giving everyone else the same thing so it is not unique.


1 . SW are a subfaction of the Space Marines faction

2. Can you stop with the SW? Use the Captain/Lieutenant consolidation instead so youre not so emotively attached to a fething example.


1. Congrats. they are subfaction with unique units... good job, we all get this, and whether you call it a faction or subfaction doesn't change that this is true.

2. I don't give a flying feth about what happens to captains/lieutenants... I fething care that the unique subfactions / factions get to keep their unique units... changing what we are talking about doens't make the point any more valid. LOL, oh your just emotional lol ... still doesnt change the points I am making XD... Your the one who is getting pissed of that I keep using it as an example... and do you know why I use it as an example... because compared to CPTs and LTs a TWC is NOTHING like anything else in marines XD and you clearly don't like it aa an example because it is so easy to prove consolidation doesn't make sense to consolidate everything when using that as an example... a wolf just simply isn't a bike or a lizard or anything else general marines have XD lol.

3. the problem with consolidating Cpt.s and Lt.s is just that you are acomplishing nothing but making a bigger, more confusing datasheet and that MAYBE GW wont forget one in an FAQ lol ... congrats.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/11/04 17:09:21


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 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?


As with the glut of bolt weapons, it imposes additional cognitive burden in remembering the exact stat profile for whichever weapon happens to be relevant. If I have a couple of characters with different weapons, I know I'm going to need the book out because there are no straightforward heuristics to remember their effects.

Because of the increased number of weapons in the design space, it also magnifies the potential for imbalance or unintended consequences; possibly resulting in either a noticeably imbalanced state (ie one weapon is significantly better than the others, biasing the performance of the unit) and/or designers needing to spend design effort correcting the internal balance on a couple of functionally interchangeable pieces of wargear.

That's why I was saying I'm fine with nitty-gritty wargear in a game like Kill Team- I only have a handful of units that likely boil down to 3-4 types, and don't need to keep track of the stats of a bunch of heavy ordnance, so there's less design overhead to manage and less cognitive burden to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Type40 wrote:
2. I don't give a flying feth about what happens to captains/lieutenants... I fething care that the unique subfactions / factions get to keep their unique units... changing what we are talking about doens't make the point any more valid.


In that case you should be fine with consolidating Space Wolves into the Marine codex, with a couple of SW-only units to represent things like Wulfen and TWC, right? Is there anything else they have that's substantially different from a codex unit, and couldn't be represented as a SW-only upgrade?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 16:24:19


   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

I'm sitting here in silence recalling the horror done to Blood Angels after Stormravens were made available to Ultramarines and other Dreadnoughts finally figured out they too could swap their right arms for an additional dreadnought combat weapon. Loyalist Space Marines have never been the same after the Vindicator got made available to those Chaos boys. How does one possibly represent a Veteran Sergeant without an upgrade for Terminator Honors? Space Wolves just can't possibly feel right after gaining Combat Doctrines and Hunters/Stalkers. Grey Knights having Terminators as Troops, and Detachments allowing entire armies to be made of Terminators, clearly destroyed the Deathwing, and oh man did White Scars erase the identity of the Ravenwing. Chaplains were wholesale ruined when the Master of Sanctity upgrade went away. Predators losing distinct unit profiles and entries for Annihilator and Destructor variants was the worst thing to ever happen to them. Thank god GW preserved the flavor of Terminators by splitting them between dudes who can carry a gun and those who carry only melee weapons into different units, but having a Relic Terminator squad that allows you to freely mix and match much of that wargear totally doesn't feel weird. Chaos Space Marine Terminators feel so bland now that Loyalists remembered where they stashed their old Reaper Autocannons. The Land Raider Crusader just never seemed the same after it was rolled out to every Space Marine chapter and not just Black Templars, who obviously also lost all their flavor after being forced to take Captains and Chapter Masters instead of Castellans and Marshals

A lot of the stuff being clung to here as essential flavor is exactly the kind of thing that routinely changes or gets shared by GW with other factions, particularly when GW's already made so many subfactions that naturally occupy many of the same niches and philosophies and share the bulk of their lore, statline, wargear, etc. More ominously, if GW does indeed intend eventually squat/retire/legends/etc the non-primaris stuff at some point, then there's going to be a whole lot less unique subfaction stuff anyway, as I don't think we have any chapter specific Primaris stuff at this point do we besides characters?

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: