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.

 catbarf 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?

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.

Alright, I definitely agree with that principle in the broad sense. But I'd say that part of good design is deciding where any areas of "increased design fidelity" are warranted. I'll argue until blue in the face against the incredible bolt weapon bloat, 100%. However, since CC weapons (particularly on Space Marines) tend to be distributed on "leader models" such as Sergeants and Captains, I think that the design space can be a little higher fidelity than the ideal baseline norm. Sergeants are a common place to imbue more character into a unit, likewise captains. Because of that I'm far more inclined to allow the particular CC choice of weapon to "say something", even if it's minor.

My ideal would ultimately be to cut the SM weapons (mostly the shooting ones) down by . . . 60-70% maybe? I'd just choose to keep the Power Maul/Sword/Axe. So more specifically to you, my question is why specifically combine the maul/sword/axe? From my perspective, while it's true they are only different stats-wise in minor ways (they could be further differentiated though, potentially), what I think is important about them is their individual shape/style/character/sihlouette/etc, which are far more visible and recognizable than the myriad of bolter types. Different bolter types don't really change the look of a model, while a big axe does. In a basic use case, I can tell an axe from a sword from across the table. One of 16 types of bolters, much less so.

. . .
I've posted it before but it's a good time to post it again, the grand comparison of 8th to 4th. And 9th has added even more weapons. . . The armaments of the Heavy Intercessors are entirely new, are they not?

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?

Isn't this precisely what is happening ?

Sure we could consildate the WG termies, the grey hunters, bloodclaws and what not. But i like my datasheets seperate and easier to read. Simply consolidating datasheets for physical space in the book doesnt make a big difference in terms of design time and space... it just changes how the data is represented. I am fine with either choice, I just prefer easier to read datasheets then complicated confusing ones... Now if consolidating the datasheets would fix the fact that they are releasing each suplement over 6 months... i am on your side, i just think it would have been better if they could have released it all at once. The problem isn't that design space is being hogged, its that GW prefered to do a trickle release instead of just giving us everything together...

@Vaktathi I distinctly do remember being upset everytime parts of their faction identities were robbed like that yes. especially in the case of the terminators as troos and the stormravens... did you know players back then ? I did and they were pretty annoyed. but your also being a facetious with doctrines... it was announced that the other power armor and etc would get them right from the beginning. But honestly, if wolves never got them... I would have been fine with that, SMs could have that added to their identity. why the hell not, I don't need to be so upset that other factions are getting things and I am not. I jsut don't want my stuff robbed and diluted because of some arbitrary notion that giving other people more options is gonna decrease design needs in that very same faction XD.

 Vaktathi wrote:
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?

As I already pointed out, the request for a generic Telion was done with the Phobos Captain and literally NO Ultramarines player cried about it.

Because by the time it happened it was a meh options, comparing to eliminators. Ask what ultramarines would have thought about Gulliman being used in other factions, specialy at the begining of 8th when he was a power house.

Didn't we get the chaos/imperium souo trait nerf, because of exactly that being done by the way?

Karol wrote:
Because by the time it happened it was a meh options, comparing to eliminators. Ask what ultramarines would have thought about Gulliman being used in other factions, specialy at the begining of 8th when he was a power house.

Didn't we get the chaos/imperium souo trait nerf, because of exactly that being done by the way?

You really don't have a point because a generic Scout Captain has been a long requested thing. Plus since Roboute does give various benefits to Imperium armies they kinda do have that access to him.

 Insectum7 wrote:

I've posted it before but it's a good time to post it again, the grand comparison of 8th to 4th. And 9th has added even more weapons. . . The armaments of the Heavy Intercessors are entirely new, are they not?

Strictly speaking, yes they're entirely new. Practically speaking Heavy Intercessors are a budget Saggitarum Custodian with a Rapid Fire 1 version of the Assault 3 Adrastus Bolt Caliver and a downgraded armor save

 Type40 wrote:

@Vaktathi I distinctly do remember being upset everytime parts of their faction identities were robbed like that yes. especially in the case of the terminators as troos and the stormravens... did you know players back then ? I did and they were pretty annoyed.

I did play back then during those eras. Pretty much everyone noted that the Stormraven would get spread throughout most SM armies as soon as they saw it, and that's exactly what happened, first GK's getting it with their release and SM's getting more widespread access to it thereafter, and while I recall some being upset about that, it was a very tiny group who got over it very quickly and the overwhelmingly vast majority of people didn't care or see anything wrong, and I don't think there's a rational argument that Blood Angels meaningfully suffered for it nor anyone who really still cares today. I don't recall anyone being terribly upset at GK Terminators being made Troops for that army, I certainly can't find any posts or threads doing a search that reveal such. I'll note that I'm not terribly bothered by loyalists getting Reaper Autocannons or Combibolter terminators, despite such having been a defining hallmark of CSM terminators since 2E (as they couldn't get Assault Cannons or Stormshields or Stormbolters), nor have I seen any such complaints. I've yet to find any Black Templars players particularly irritated by the presence of Land Raider Crusaders in Space Wolf armies.

but your also being a facetious with doctrines... it was announced that the other power armor and etc would get them right from the beginning.

Back when they were introduced in 2019? That's news to me, they certainly waited a while to do so for a separate subsequent book release in the next edition instead of adding Doctrines to SW's right away, but if my recollection in that instance is incorrect (which is possible, I'm actually far more familiar with older editions than stuff in the last couple years), then it would appear to be a pretty identical situation to the Stormraven.

But honestly, if wolves never got them... I would have been fine with that, SMs could have that added to their identity. why the hell not, I don't need to be so upset that other factions are getting things and I am not. I jsut don't want my stuff robbed and diluted because of some arbitrary notion that giving other people more options is gonna decrease design needs in that very same faction XD.

I get that, however you seem to be largely reacting to an example rather than really addressing the fundamental concept. An example was put forth as to how consolidation *could* be done with Outriders and TWC. Your replies largely seem to be interpreting that as a call to "delete TWC", and the central argument against this has been to rail against that specific example based on how "special" it makes subfactions feel, and extrapolate the problems you see there with the entire concept, but what people are pointing out is that that the argument for a unique datasheet just for its own sake over a consolidated unit entry isn't a compelling counterargument if it can be done and still have the unit effectively fill its tabletop role and carry its signature wargear options, and the stuff you're getting so attached to is exactly the sort of thing that can and does change and get shared or have more close equivalents released in different factions with every release, particularly among factions that already share the overwhelming bulk of their stuff to begin with (EDIT: especially when such factions are currently undergoing the most rapid and intense design-space expansion in the game's history, going from an army of T4 W1 models to now being entirely multiwound models and edging upwards in Toughness to now include nearly Custodes level T5 W3 Troops). There are plenty of such examples of stuff getting consolidated, shared, etc without spelling significant calamity.

Karol wrote:Because by the time it happened it was a meh options, comparing to eliminators. Ask what ultramarines would have thought about Gulliman being used in other factions, specialy at the begining of 8th when he was a power house.

I'm cool with Guilliman being widely available, because I don't define my army on what goodies I have those others don't get.

Vaktathi wrote:I get that, however you seem to be largely reacting to an example rather than really addressing the fundamental concept. An example was put forth as to how consolidation *could* be done with Outriders and TWC. Your replies largely seem to be interpreting that as a call to "delete TWC", and the central argument against this has been to rail against that specific example based on how "special" it makes subfactions feel, and extrapolate the problems you see there with the entire concept, but what people are pointing out is that that the argument for a unique datasheet just for its own sake over a consolidated unit entry isn't a compelling counterargument if it can be done and still have the unit effectively fill its tabletop role and carry its signature wargear options, and the stuff you're getting so attached to is exactly the sort of thing that can and does change and get shared or have more close equivalents released in different factions with every release, particularly among factions that already share the overwhelming bulk of their stuff to begin with (EDIT: especially when such factions are currently undergoing the most rapid and intense design-space expansion in the game's history, going from an army of T4 W1 models to now being entirely multiwound models and edging upwards in Toughness to now include nearly Custodes level T5 W3 Troops). There are plenty of such examples of stuff getting consolidated, shared, etc without spelling significant calamity.

Amen.

Cool,

Again, why do we draw the line at the unique units in SWs, DA, or DW , why not have everything share everything ? like IA and SMs they share a lot of the same wargear as well. I would love it if the SWs could take lemun ruses again.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, I am not making a "ridiculous" or "disingenuous" argument. What makes it so easy to fold in this sub/faction unique unit instead of any other unique unit. I am legit asking why this arbitrary line v.s. any other arbitrary line... how much overlap is "enough" overlap? why do you get to decide this v.s. anyone else ?
Why not just another system with one giant customizable datasheet ? there are other games that work like this.

 Type40 wrote:
Cool,

Again, why do we draw the line at the unique units in SWs, DA, or DW , why not have everything share everything ? like IA and SMs they share a lot of the same wargear as well. I would love it if the SWs could take lemun ruses again.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, I am not making a "ridiculous" or "disingenuous" argument. What makes it so easy to fold in this sub/faction unique unit instead of any other unique unit. I am legit asking why this arbitrary line v.s. any other arbitrary line... how much overlap is "enough" overlap? why do you get to decide this v.s. anyone else ?
Why not just another system with one giant customizable datasheet ? there are other games that work like this.

Do you believe what you're saying? Do you honestly want that? And, if you don't, has anyone else indicated they want what you're proposing?

 Type40 wrote:
Cool,

Again, why do we draw the line at the unique units in SWs, DA, or DW , why not have everything share everything ? like IA and SMs they share a lot of the same wargear as well. I would love it if the SWs could take lemun ruses again.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, I am not making a "ridiculous" or "disingenuous" argument. What makes it so easy to fold in this sub/faction unique unit instead of any other unique unit. I am legit asking why this arbitrary line v.s. any other arbitrary line... how much overlap is "enough" overlap? why do you get to decide this v.s. anyone else ?
Why not just another system with one giant customizable datasheet ? there are other games that work like this.

No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.

Do you believe what you're saying? Do you honestly want that? And, if you don't, has anyone else indicated they want what you're proposing?

Again, extreme use of the same logic.
Precisely, I do not want that, no one does. So why do people think it is ok for one group of people playing the game and not others XD ... this is the crux of this issue.

If its good for one group and if the logic makes sense for one group how can you possibly justify it isn't ok for everyone?
Think about what you guys are saying ? if consolidating datasheets because of overlap in their factions/subfactions is the best most logical thing for the game how can it be nothing but good to do that for other factions. IA and SM have so much overlapping wargear ? is this where we are drawing the line ? or are we drawing the line at similar stats, because other factions have models with similar stats ?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander (as my grandmother used to say) . So ya. why do IA and SM even have different tanks... they all cary similar or the same wargear 1 datasheet for all the tanks in both factions should be more then enough ?
Oh and SOB have even MORE wargear in common... we can roll them into the SM codex as well. a CANONESS can totally just be like a SM LT or CPT , just got to add to W and -1 to T and S with a few different rules... just as many changes and new customizations as some of the other roll togethers being proposed here.

Again, why one thing and not the other ? your argumentation 100% applies to SOB for sure.

@JNA you know I don't believe this, and you know I don't want this. I am obviously making an exaugurated statement to show the ridiculousness of the logic. Stop playing like you do not understand, we have already gone over this once or twice.

 Vaktathi wrote:

@Vaktathi I distinctly do remember being upset everytime parts of their faction identities were robbed like that yes. especially in the case of the terminators as troos and the stormravens... did you know players back then ? I did and they were pretty annoyed.

I did play back then during those eras. Pretty much everyone noted that the Stormraven would get spread throughout most SM armies as soon as they saw it, and that's exactly what happened, first GK's getting it with their release and SM's getting more widespread access to it thereafter, and while I recall some being upset about that, it was a very tiny group who got over it very quickly and the overwhelmingly vast majority of people didn't care or see anything wrong, and I don't think there's a rational argument that Blood Angels meaningfully suffered for it nor anyone who really still cares today. I don't recall anyone being terribly upset at GK Terminators being made Troops for that army, I certainly can't find any posts or threads doing a search that reveal such. I'll note that I'm not terribly bothered by loyalists getting Reaper Autocannons or Combibolter terminators, despite such having been a defining hallmark of CSM terminators since 2E (as they couldn't get Assault Cannons or Stormshields or Stormbolters), nor have I seen any such complaints. I've yet to find any Black Templars players particularly irritated by the presence of Land Raider Crusaders in Space Wolf armies.

The difference, as I see it, is that some units are more "signature" than others. The Storm Raven looks like "generic space marine plane". The Crusader is a Land Raider with a different set of weapons. They're very easy to "translate" from one chapter to the next.

Thunderwolf Cavalry, much less so. Black Templars Crusader Squads might be yet another point on that range, probably somewhere in between "tank variant no. 43" and "cavalry based on homeworld fauna". Another example, for BA you have "Dreadnought with two CC weapons" and then you have Death Company. One is clearly more 'signature' than another, and be a more substantial loss to the faction if it were genericized.

Like the ill-fated debates about USRs, it's not a binary choice between all-USRs-all-the-time vs. 'bespoke', it's a matter of where you draw the lines and why. TWCs, as much as I dislike them, are 'signature' enough to warrant their own datasheet over lumping them into a generic "SM Cavalry" entry that handled Bikes and TWCs. Blood Claws, not so much. I'd think those could be handled with addendums to the generic Assault Squad.

No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.

No, that's what you guys do not seem to get.
You are advocating for the same logic you are just arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere. For what ever reason you guys think it is ok to roll the subfactions in together but you can't comprehend how using the same logic we can't do that with everything else ? for real guys. Your choice is to do it to the subfactions is arbitrary. I can make every single one of the arguments you are making for all the unique space wolf units for every unique Sisters of Battle unit and even a lot of the IG.

 Type40 wrote:

Do you believe what you're saying? Do you honestly want that? And, if you don't, has anyone else indicated they want what you're proposing?

Again, extreme use of the same logic.
Precisely, I do not want that, no one does. So why do people think it is ok for one group of people playing the game and not others XD ... this is the crux of this issue.

If its good for one group and if the logic makes sense for one group how can you possibly justify it isn't ok for everyone?
Think about what you guys are saying ? if consolidating datasheets because of overlap in their factions/subfactions is the best most logical thing for the game how can it be nothing but good to do that for other factions. IA and SM have so much overlapping wargear ? is this where we are drawing the line ? or are we drawing the line at similar stats, because other factions have models with similar stats ?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander (as my grandmother used to say) . So ya. why do IA and SM even have different tanks... they all cary similar or the same wargear 1 datasheet for all the tanks in both factions should be more then enough ?
Oh and SOB have even MORE wargear in common... we can roll them into the SM codex as well. a CANONESS can totally just be like a SM LT or CPT , just got to add to W and -1 to T and S with a few different rules... just as many changes and new customizations as some of the other roll togethers being proposed here.

Again, why one thing and not the other ? your argumentation 100% applies to SOB for sure.

@JNA you know I don't believe this, and you know I don't want this. I am obviously making an exaugurated statement to show the ridiculousness of the logic. Stop playing like you do not understand, we have already gone over this once or twice.

I like chocolate. Therefore, I must be compelled to consume every bit of chocolate I ever come across, damn the consequences!
Or, perhaps, it's alright to believe that something is desirable without wanting it in excess of everything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.

No, that's what you guys do not seem to get.
You are advocating for the same logic you are just arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere. For what ever reason you guys think it is ok to roll the subfactions in together but you can't comprehend how using the same logic we can't do that with everything else ? for real guys. Your choice is to do it to the subfactions is arbitrary. I can make every single one of the arguments you are making for all the unique space wolf units for every unique Sisters of Battle unit and even a lot of the IG.

How's this for a line?

Stuff from the same faction (as-in, features in the same Codex, like Cadians and Catachans, or Black Heart and Poisoned Tongue) should be consolidated, for the most part. They can retain their identity with their unique subfaction ability, and perhaps a few strats, relics, and maybe a psychic power or something.

Stuff from different factions (such as Imperial Guard and Marines, or Eldar and Dameons) should remain separate, and should have a good long look at what makes them distinct, so that way there can be a more focused design.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Stuff from the same faction (as-in, features in the same Codex, like Cadians and Catachans, or Black Heart and Poisoned Tongue) should be consolidated, for the most part. They can retain their identity with their unique subfaction ability, and perhaps a few strats, relics, and maybe a psychic power or something.

Some of stuff, or all of stuff? If not all, why not all? If all, why all?

And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.

There's a lot that can be done.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Do you believe what you're saying? Do you honestly want that? And, if you don't, has anyone else indicated they want what you're proposing?

Again, extreme use of the same logic.
Precisely, I do not want that, no one does. So why do people think it is ok for one group of people playing the game and not others XD ... this is the crux of this issue.

If its good for one group and if the logic makes sense for one group how can you possibly justify it isn't ok for everyone?
Think about what you guys are saying ? if consolidating datasheets because of overlap in their factions/subfactions is the best most logical thing for the game how can it be nothing but good to do that for other factions. IA and SM have so much overlapping wargear ? is this where we are drawing the line ? or are we drawing the line at similar stats, because other factions have models with similar stats ?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander (as my grandmother used to say) . So ya. why do IA and SM even have different tanks... they all cary similar or the same wargear 1 datasheet for all the tanks in both factions should be more then enough ?
Oh and SOB have even MORE wargear in common... we can roll them into the SM codex as well. a CANONESS can totally just be like a SM LT or CPT , just got to add to W and -1 to T and S with a few different rules... just as many changes and new customizations as some of the other roll togethers being proposed here.

Again, why one thing and not the other ? your argumentation 100% applies to SOB for sure.

@JNA you know I don't believe this, and you know I don't want this. I am obviously making an exaugurated statement to show the ridiculousness of the logic. Stop playing like you do not understand, we have already gone over this once or twice.

I like chocolate. Therefore, I must be compelled to consume every bit of chocolate I ever come across, damn the consequences!
Or, perhaps, it's alright to believe that something is desirable without wanting it in excess of everything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.

No, that's what you guys do not seem to get.
You are advocating for the same logic you are just arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere. For what ever reason you guys think it is ok to roll the subfactions in together but you can't comprehend how using the same logic we can't do that with everything else ? for real guys. Your choice is to do it to the subfactions is arbitrary. I can make every single one of the arguments you are making for all the unique space wolf units for every unique Sisters of Battle unit and even a lot of the IG.

How's this for a line?

Stuff from the same faction (as-in, features in the same Codex, like Cadians and Catachans, or Black Heart and Poisoned Tongue) should be consolidated, for the most part. They can retain their identity with their unique subfaction ability, and perhaps a few strats, relics, and maybe a psychic power or something.

Stuff from different factions (such as Imperial Guard and Marines, or Eldar and Dameons) should remain separate, and should have a good long look at what makes them distinct, so that way there can be a more focused design.

Why do you get to decide what the right amount of chocolate is for me ? I respect how much chocolate you want, but why do you get to decide how much chocolate EVERYONE gets... all you keep saying is that chocolate is amazing and everyone should eat x amount of it... so why can't I say "no no, thats too much chocolate " your line is subjective and arbitrary and you refuse to acknowlege it.

I reject the line you are drawing. "stuff from different factions should remain seperate." My line is "stuff from differe subfactions should remain seperate and should have a good long look at what makes them destinct, so that way there can be a more focused design"

Why do you get to make this arbitrary line ? seriously, do you really not understand that this is a subjective opinion and based on nothing but the fact that you feel like that's where the line should be drawn ?
s
because it is an arbitrary line the same arguments can be made for the following "Stuff from different major alliances should remain seperate". Why not roll together all imperium, tyranid, aldari and etc ? We can use the same line of arguments everyone is making in this thread to justify it ? why not just consilidate the entire game into one list of datasheets ? again same line of argumentation.

Your personal preference insn't a good enough reason. Your personal preferences are all this is. I don't care how much chocolate you think everyone in the world should have.

If you are going to make arguments for consolidation, make it a global argument or justify why it shouldn't be global. You can't keep going "This will be perfect for what you play, but because I feel like it, its no good for anyone else" and OF COURSE i don't think every faction should be rolled together, thats why i am arguing for my one faction/subfaction not to be arbitrarily rolled in together because people on the internet feel like that's where they should draw an arbitrary line based on nothing but there personal feelings about SWs not being uniquee enough.

For christ sake. Do you get how subjective your arbitrary line is ? Do you really not get that ?

I believe, specifically, that it has been said that these kinds of consolidations can happen in every army. Nobody has suggested this only happen to sm. It has, however, been said that sm are in the most need of it since their.... 100+ datasheets makes for more than any other 2-3 armies combined.

Thats just a fair assessment of the current landscape.

 Type40 wrote:
Cool,

Again, why do we draw the line at the unique units in SWs, DA, or DW , why not have everything share everything ?

Nobody is saying they *have* to share everything.

What people are saying is:

1: That it's possible for them to potentially do so and in some instances could make sense to do so.

2: That the various Space Marines generally share the overwhelmingly vast majority of their units, wargear, statlines, options, etc to begin with.

3: That when there's a reasonable way to consolidate multiple datasheets into one (with the caveats previously described) where there is a case for multiple factions to share something (even if visually portrayed very differently) that insisting on them being different datasheets just for the sake of feeling special above and beyond anything else, is not a particularly compelling counterargument. That does not mean counterarguments do not exist, only that "but its special" is going to need a backup argument, particularly in light of #5

4: The expanding design space and evolving concept of Space Marines, as noted previously being T4 W1 across the board to now in some cases being T5 W3 for things like basic troops and what appears to be an entire model revamp across the entire line, opens up options for #1 and is likely to accelerate #5 in the case of existing units.

5: The stuff you're really on about as being important to keep unique is exactly the kind of thing GW likes to share, change, copy, consolidate, or retire looking at the history of the various product lines and codex entries over the editions.


This is not the same as saying that marines have to share everything. I'll note however that in the examples previously mentioned of such sharing, nobody's worlds ended.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.

There's a lot that can be done.

Same argument but I am going to roll SOB into the same. As a chapter trait they will have -1 T and -1 strength and removal of bolter discipline and doctrines.
Of course they can have special wargear options but maybe they have a successor group next to a t erribly radiating cancer giving sun and up with mutants on top of that.

 Type40 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.

There's a lot that can be done.

Same argument but I am going to roll SOB into the same. As a chapter trait they will have -1 T and -1 strength and removal of bolter discipline and doctrines.
Of course they can have special wargear options but maybe they have a successor group next to a t erribly radiating cancer giving sun and up with mutants on top of that.

I mean if certain unique units can be offered to various Sisters Orders thats fine but none of them like Mutants sooooooo you failed that part already.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.

There's a lot that can be done.

I basically never agree with Slayer, but this is also right. You can make "generic" versions of some of the more signature units, and make them "unlockble" through some mechanic or another. Instead of TWC you have Marines riding dinosaurs or whatever. (which btw will immediately get hate from any Exodite fans)

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.

There's a lot that can be done.

I basically never agree with Slayer, but this is also right. You can make "generic" versions of some of the more signature units, and make them "unlockble" through some mechanic or another. Instead of TWC you have Marines riding dinosaurs or whatever. (which btw will immediately get hate from any Exodite fans)

My heart goes out to those lovingly converted armies.

And yeah the base founding Chapters will be "stuck" with certain ones, but with proper restrictions AND options at the same time, as I demonstrated, you can do a lot of customization for your dudes. I'll never complete writing that homebrew as I'm still making sure I don't break anything.

Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.

There's a lot that can be done.

I basically never agree with Slayer, but this is also right. You can make "generic" versions of some of the more signature units, and make them "unlockble" through some mechanic or another. Instead of TWC you have Marines riding dinosaurs or whatever. (which btw will immediately get hate from any Exodite fans)

Yeah, this is exactly what people calling for consolidation are mostly asking for - generic units, which the previously unique units have direct analogues and equivalents to.

When we talk about "getting rid of TWC" - we mean "getting rid of TWC as a unique entry". There should be provision for TWC to be taken in the same mechanical context - but as a subtype of a generic cavalry option.

Type40, is it good for the game to have "Gravis Captain with MC Heavy Bolt Rifle" and "Gravis Captain" in the same book?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Cool,

Again, why do we draw the line at the unique units in SWs, DA, or DW , why not have everything share everything ?

Nobody is saying they *have* to share everything.

some people ARE saying that

What people are saying is:

1: That it's possible for them to potentially do so and in some instances could make sense to do so.

sure, we are just disagreeing on where it makes sense to do so.

2: That the various Space Marines generally share the overwhelmingly vast majority of their units, wargear, statlines, options, etc to begin with.

except for where they do not.

3: That when there's a reasonable way to consolidate multiple datasheets into one (with the caveats previously described) where there is a case for multiple factions to share something (even if visually portrayed very differently) that insisting on them being different datasheets just for the sake of feeling special above and beyond anything else, is not a particularly compelling counterargument. That does not mean counterarguments do not exist, only that "but its special" is going to need a backup argument, particularly in light of #5

great, lets roll together SOB then and completely other factions... not sure why they get to have unique units just because "its special" if its not good enough excuse for one faction/subfaction then its not a good enough for any of them ? or is it good enough for some of them and we are refusing to acknowledge drawing the line here is based on subjective opinion.

4: The expanding design space and evolving concept of Space Marines, as noted previously being T4 W1 across the board to now in some cases being T5 W3 for things like basic troops and what appears to be an entire model revamp across the entire line, opens up options for #1 and is likely to accelerate #5 in the case of existing units.

great, even more design space if we roll in the SOB and potentially other factions... right ? if its so good for the one set of factions/subfactions why not others ? are we drawing arbitrary lines again?

5: The stuff you're really on about as being important to keep unique is exactly the kind of thing GW likes to share, change, copy, consolidate, or retire looking at the history of the various product lines and codex entries over the editions.
This is not the same as saying that marines have to share everything. I'll note however that in the examples previously mentioned of such sharing, nobody's worlds ended.

Again,,, #5 is your opinion,,, you know what they hav't done that with , TWC and most of the unique space wolf units... you are 100% wrong by virtue of it not actually happening to things I am arguing should stay unique XD ... realistically your point #5 can be made for literally anything in the game... do you remember in RT when orks used the same wargear as SM ? did you notice those Aldari units that share a BS with SMs XD... your poimt #5 can literally be applied to every rule and unit in the game XD ....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Type40, is it good for the game to have "Gravis Captain with MC Heavy Bolt Rifle" and "Gravis Captain" in the same book?

No, not as separate datasheets when did I say it was XD ? lol.
Again, I am talking about the stuff that is actually different.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And honestly you CAN do some consolidation to offer options for various successors. For example, Blood Angels have Death Company and Wolves have Wulfen. Generic entries for "Lost Brothers" and "Mutant Brothers" helps cover successors that can use those entries, like the Black Dragons for example. Each Chapter and their Successors would have obvious ones they have to have at all times (no Blood Angel successor is going to not have Death Company), but perhaps that successor, having been recruiting next to a terribly radiating cancer giving sun, end up with said Mutants on top of that.

There's a lot that can be done.

I basically never agree with Slayer, but this is also right. You can make "generic" versions of some of the more signature units, and make them "unlockble" through some mechanic or another. Instead of TWC you have Marines riding dinosaurs or whatever. (which btw will immediately get hate from any Exodite fans)

Yeah, this is exactly what people calling for consolidation are mostly asking for - generic units, which the previously unique units have direct analogues and equivalents to.

No no, there's definitely stuff to cut. Such as probably 20 "bolt weapons". There is too much *%#@!

Gravis Captain has a different weapon than the Gravis with MC Heavy Bolt Rifle. They're totally different!

But, clearly, if you want to roll those two datasheets together, you absolutely HAVE to be in favor of rolling Daemons into the Eldar Codex. It's only logical!

Sarcasm aside, you really are doing a poor job demonstrating good faith argumentation, Type40. You're not really addressing the points that are raised, you're just repeating things no one has denied and don't prove your point, or taking arguments to their ridiculous extremes that no one has advocated for.

When we talk about "getting rid of TWC" - we mean "getting rid of TWC as a unique entry". There should be provision for TWC to be taken in the same mechanical context - but as a subtype of a generic cavalry option.

Right, robbing a factions/subfaction of its unique rules and creating more customization for the most customizable faction in the game XD.

But for what ever reason. We can't do the same with harlequins.
Why not give SM cavalry the option to move 16" , auto 6" advance, advance and charge, fallback and shoot, fallback and charge, haywire cannons and zephergalives ? "why couldn't a SM successor have come from a planet where people are taught to dance and make plays about the aldari whilst simultaneously finding a stock of jet bikes"

Again... why the arbitrary lines ? why are we saying it is ok to rob one faction/subrfaction of their unique rules but its not the same to do it with a different one ?

 Type40 wrote:

No-one is advocating for that, Mr. Slippery Slope. You're reacting to everything very emotionally, without contributing to the discussion.

No, that's what you guys do not seem to get.
You are advocating for the same logic you are just arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere. For what ever reason you guys think it is ok to roll the subfactions in together but you can't comprehend how using the same logic we can't do that with everything else ? for real guys. Your choice is to do it to the subfactions is arbitrary. I can make every single one of the arguments you are making for all the unique space wolf units for every unique Sisters of Battle unit and even a lot of the IG.

More catastrophizing. Sure, everything can be dumbed-down to the point the game is played by each player using the exact same single mini. No-one has suggested that. What is being discussed is consolidating redundant unit entries and weapons. What you don't understand is that making 40k a one-mini game per my example would make the game boring, therefore it hasn't been considered by anyone but you. This is not "arbitrary." We're discussing how to improve gameplay and accessibility.

TWC do not make SW unique.

DC do not make BA unique.

RWBKS and dark shrouds do not make my DA unique.

Those are unit entries, which are varying degrees of "unique." No more, no less. As Catbarf said pages ago, much of what can be done to make subfactions and armies unique is at the macro level, in the core mechanics, so tat varying play styles and strategies are available to players. Not whether a chapter's dudes ride motorcycles or wolves, or like swords more than bolters.



Get your emotions under control.