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.
2020/11/04 22:10:05
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
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 *%#@!
I don't mind the three different Bolt options for the basic troops. What I do mind is Inceptors just not using an existing entry, making Eliminators and Scouts just use the same potentially buffed Sniper rifle, Suppressors not just using an Autocannon entry when the Autocannon needs to have such a rule anyway to be a pinning weapon, etc.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/11/04 22:11:42
Subject: Re:What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
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 ?
Not faction/subfaction. Just subfaction.
Space Wolves are a subfaction of Loyalist Marines. If anything deserves to be separated out of Codecs into their own thing, it'd be the three Dark Eldar factions (Covens, Kabals, and Wych Cults) or the different gods in the Daemon Codex. Seeing as the DE factions share... Three units? I'm not sure off-hand, and it's definitely just three for the Daemons.
Edit: For clarity's sake, I do play Daemons, so I may have a bias there.
I do not play Dark Eldar, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 22:12:42
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/11/04 22:14:41
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
JNAProductions wrote: 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.
Gravis captains and gravis captains with MC heavy bolt rifles are from the same book and codex and currently available to all those subfactions and factions XD ...
TWC are not available to all the generic SMs .... are you really not getting that ?
THEY ARE DIFFERENT SUBFACTIONS YOUR EXAMPLE IS NOT. and just because you are arbitrarily saying that "they might as well be treated exactly the same" doesn't mean jack gak. You don't get to decide that and it is a SUBJECTIVE opinion. Do you really not get this ?
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.
2020/11/04 22:18:28
Subject: Re:What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
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.
Read my last post.
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 ?
You don't even have an argument. You're running in circles waving your hands, screeching "I don't like this! I don't understand it, but I'm sure it's bad! I'm scared!"
2020/11/04 22:18:46
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
JNAProductions wrote: 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.
Gravis captains and gravis captains with MC heavy bolt rifles are from the same book and codex and currently available to all those subfactions and factions XD ...
TWC are not available to all the generic SMs .... are you really not getting that ?
THEY ARE DIFFERENT SUBFACTIONS YOUR EXAMPLE IS NOT. and just because you are arbitrarily saying that "they might as well be treated exactly the same" doesn't mean jack gak. You don't get to decide that and it is a SUBJECTIVE opinion. Do you really not get this ?
I dunno, that distinction seems pretty arbitrary to me. What's the difference between combining two similar units that should really be one, and combining two entirely different Codecs? Clearly, if you want one, you MUST want the other.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/11/04 22:20:53
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
JNAProductions wrote: 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.
Gravis captains and gravis captains with MC heavy bolt rifles are from the same book and codex and currently available to all those subfactions and factions XD ...
TWC are not available to all the generic SMs .... are you really not getting that ?
THEY ARE DIFFERENT SUBFACTIONS YOUR EXAMPLE IS NOT. and just because you are arbitrarily saying that "they might as well be treated exactly the same" doesn't mean jack gak. You don't get to decide that and it is a SUBJECTIVE opinion. Do you really not get this ?
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why. Folding TWC into a generic marine bike/cavalry entry is merely one idea that has been suggested as a potential change. We aren't in this thread, writing 40k 10th edition for GW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 22:21:14
2020/11/04 22:21:26
Subject: Re:What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
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.
Do you really think there isn't enough meaningful difference between Bikes and wolves? Because imo that's pretty "bad faith". Death Company is definitely more of a signature unit than "Gravis Captain with bolt-weapon-14". Not admitting to a difference between those options is head-in-sand, imo.
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.
Do you really think there isn't enough meaningful difference between Bikes and wolves? Because imo that's pretty "bad faith". Death Company is definitely more of a signature unit than "Gravis Captain with bolt-weapon-14". Not admitting to a difference between those options is head-in-sand, imo.
I'll agree with Insectum here-there's enough difference between "Bike" and "Animal Mount" that I can see them being different datasheets.
They could be combined, as has been demonstrated earlier, but I wouldn't mind them being separate either.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/11/04 22:22:46
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
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.
Do you really think there isn't enough meaningful difference between Bikes and wolves? Because imo that's pretty "bad faith". Death Company is definitely more of a signature unit than "Gravis Captain with bolt-weapon-14". Not admitting to a difference between those options is head-in-sand, imo.
I'll agree with Insectum here-there's enough difference between "Bike" and "Animal Mount" that I can see them being different datasheets.
They could be combined, as has been demonstrated earlier, but I wouldn't mind them being separate either.
Honestly, this is basically Type40s entire argument (as I follow it). He's just trying to find where to draw the line.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/04 22:24:51
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 ?
Not faction/subfaction. Just subfaction.
your obsession with this distinction highlights your prejudice and where your arbitrary lines are coming from
Space Wolves are a subfaction of Loyalist Marines.
congrats, as of a few months ago they officially became a subfaction of Loyalist Marines after years of officially not being. What is the difference between a subfaction full faction btw other then overalap ? you realize that as of now it just means there is unit overlap and for some reason it influences your prejudice and where the arbitrary line of what should rolled in together and what shouldnt should be.
If anything deserves to be separated out of Codecs into their own thing, it'd be the three Dark Eldar factions (Covens, Kabals, and Wych Cults) or the different gods in the Daemon Codex. Seeing as the DE factions share... Three units? I'm not sure off-hand, and it's definitely just three for the Daemons.
I 100% agree or at least be made into distinct sub faction supplements which get to maintain their own unique units as well as having some overlap in a main codex
Edit: For clarity's sake, I do play Daemons, so I may have a bias there.
I do not play Dark Eldar, though.
Ya, I totally agree with you...
But you are trying to tell me that things like this should get less separation not more. You are saying instead of allowing my subfaction to continue to maintain their existing unioque units that they should just all be mixed together. Do you think that all the lesser daemons should be rolled into together ? do you think that bloodletters should be able to take deamonette gear ? do you think that a bloodthirster should be able to take all the psykick powers a lord of change can ? Why is it ok for me to want my subfaction to keep their unique units without allowing their rules to be robbed and consilidated if not other units and factions...
I propose
1 datasheet
lesser deamon
1 datasheet
Greater deamon
Done... what's the difference other then arbitrary lines being drawn ? (by the way i don't believe in this as much as I believe in a generic datasheet for SM cavalry, it totally robs identity and unique rules rewards for adhering to restrictions)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle
If that's what you think, you should take a look at their datasheets again... wow...
There is more similarities between an eldar jetbike then an SM biker then a TWC and a SM biker ...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/11/04 22:30:09
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.
2020/11/04 22:27:31
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why.
100% disagree. For starters, the wolves don't fire guns out of their mouths.
If there's one thing nine editions have taught us, it's that units can't possibly have the option of swapping a ranged weapon (twin-bolter) for a melee weapon (teeth)...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 22:27:55
2020/11/04 22:28:43
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
You seem hung up on "arbitrary" as if that's the cincher to everything.
Ultimately, everything in the game is arbitrary. It's fictional-there's no laws of 40k that have to be followed when the game is being designed.
So, let me try a new tact-what new strategies do the SW units allow for that is unique among the Marines? What strategy cannot be replicated if you miss TWC, Fenrisian Wolves, or Cyberwolves?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/11/04 22:37:09
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
JNAProductions wrote: You seem hung up on "arbitrary" as if that's the cincher to everything.
Ultimately, everything in the game is arbitrary. It's fictional-there's no laws of 40k that have to be followed when the game is being designed.
So, let me try a new tact-what new strategies do the SW units allow for that is unique among the Marines? What strategy cannot be replicated if you miss TWC, Fenrisian Wolves, or Cyberwolves?
XD for feth sake XD ...
Ya just push that post.
The fact that I am using the word "arbitrary" to describe that you are choosing to draw a line on the marine subfactions based on nothing but your opinion isn't the same thing as the arbitrariness of working out fictional laws and tabletop rules as an existential question. We don't have to deliberately misrepresent what I am saying because you can't comprehend that your choice to draw the line on the subfactions is a completely baseless choice other then on your own opinions and nothing else.
to answer your question; as many tactics that you wouldn't be able to replicate if you took out any 3 unique units from the game. as these 3 units have their own set of stats, wargear, unique rules, unit numbers, unit composition, access to stratagems and keywords... you know, like literally every unique unit in the game XD.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So do you, or do you not agree that we could have 1 datasheet for all of the lesser deamons and 1 for all of the greater daemons ?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/11/04 22:40:24
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.
2020/11/04 22:40:32
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
If Nurglings were removed from my Daemons, I'd no longer have access to pregame board control. That's a strategy that I'd lose access to if I lost that unit-no other unit can replicate it in the Daemon's Dex.
So, I ask again:
What actual strategies could you not do if you were forced to run SW without their Supplement/Index? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To your edited point: No, I don't believe so. I do believe that there should be more distinctions between the Daemon Gods, since right now they're mostly just melee beaters, but even then, they've got less in common than SW have with Ultras, or White Scars with iron Hands.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 22:41:36
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/11/04 22:45:13
Subject: Re:What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
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.
Do you really think there isn't enough meaningful difference between Bikes and wolves? Because imo that's pretty "bad faith". Death Company is definitely more of a signature unit than "Gravis Captain with bolt-weapon-14". Not admitting to a difference between those options is head-in-sand, imo.
I said at this scale. This is the same problem we had with monstrous creatures using toughness instead of AV and getting USRs on top of that, versus vehicles possessing more restrictive rules and dying to a a sneeze, thanks to hull points. Whether wolf or bike, it's still carrying a rider faster than that rider could walk or run, and operates in the same way.
Of courseDC are a signature BA unit- especially for their lore. Mechanically, they're a better assault squad. Thats' it. This is the problem with attempts at differentiating subfactions at a micro level. There aren't core mechanics that special rules could interact with to make the BA play style different than vanilla marines, or dark green marines, or self-parody marines.
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why.
100% disagree. For starters, the wolves don't fire guns out of their mouths.
Because they couldn't mount guns to the harness, if they wanted to....
What benefit is it to the game for Giant Wolf carrying space marine, and Giant Motorcycle carrying space marine, to exist as separate units? The differences between the two on a data sheet are minor, for to bits that fill the same role.
Heck, make the wolf's attacks a weapon upgrade for the unit, if you want to, Or maybe make living mounts and motorcycles significantly different enough to be worth existing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 22:46:09
2020/11/04 22:45:34
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why.
100% disagree. For starters, the wolves don't fire guns out of their mouths.
If there's one thing nine editions have taught us, it's that units can't possibly have the option of swapping a ranged weapon (twin-bolter) for a melee weapon (teeth)...
Damocles, I think you know there's a little more to it than picking from a hand weapon.
I understand that you CAN do it. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying you gotta choose, and for some things it makes less sense.
This isn't simply a game design consideration either, this is a product design decision that acknowledges that people like their models to feel special.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 22:49:54
If Nurglings were removed from my Daemons, I'd no longer have access to pregame board control. That's a strategy that I'd lose access to if I lost that unit-no other unit can replicate it in the Daemon's Dex.
So, I ask again:
What actual strategies could you not do if you were forced to run SW without their Supplement/Index?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To your edited point: No, I don't believe so. I do believe that there should be more distinctions between the Daemon Gods, since right now they're mostly just melee beaters, but even then, they've got less in common than SW have with Ultras, or White Scars with iron Hands.
Wowoeowoweo... Your not losing anything. All the lesser daemons will be able to do what the nurglings do. You ll have More customization options not less... I am not saying you should lose it, they should be rolled into together... You wouldn't be losing anything.
Why should you be able to make the argument of making your units more distinct. I thought the goal was to open design space my consolidating datasheet together? And how do two greater demons have less in common then a Wolf v. s. a mechanical bike?
Why my unique units and not yours XD... Seriously. Apply all your arguments to your faction and your demons arnt even seperaed by supplements. P. S. I am on the side that your sub factions should act seperately. I do think you should keep your unique stuff and I do think rolling it all together would detract significantly from the game.
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.
2020/11/04 22:54:01
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why.
100% disagree. For starters, the wolves don't fire guns out of their mouths.
If there's one thing nine editions have taught us, it's that units can't possibly have the option of swapping a ranged weapon (twin-bolter) for a melee weapon (teeth)...
Damocles, I think you know there's a little more to it than picking from a hand weapon.
I understand that you CAN do it. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying you gotta choose, and for some things it makes less sense.
This isn't simply a game design consideration either, this is a product design decision that acknowledges that people like their models to feel special.
Which is fine, unless it negatively impacts gameplay. I'm not advocating for cavalry and bikes to be consolidated, I'm looking at them in terms of mechanics, and there are more similarities than differences presently.
What is more special? Minor differences with a slapped-on band-aid SR? Or deep mechanics and high customization that allows you to build "your dudes" and use them "your way?"
The problem with GW is that they make "unique" minis, instead of providing options for players to make their minis unique, and build a force of minis from their chosen army that they like, and suit their preferred play style.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 22:58:55
2020/11/04 23:04:56
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
JNAProductions wrote: Because Daemons don't occupy 85% of the design space of the game. Marines do.
But, if you really want to design a Lesser Daemon datasheet that retains all options, let's see it. Until then, can you answer my question?
I don't want to design crap. I want the lesser deamons to be restricted instead of completely customizable... just like my marines.
There is no way SWs take up 85% of the design space XD lol... come on. Again this arbitrary forced assumption that there is either MARINES or NOT MARINES XD and nothing inbetween XD.
And again, what's good for one faction should be good for all factions, so why should it mater how much design space marines are taking up. Lets free as much design space as possible no ? (not acknowledging that doing this in any faction, let alone marines would require incredible amounts of design time, design resources and of course with customization there is an exponential increase of balancing computation and therefor maintenance [common game design fact] ).
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.
2020/11/04 23:06:06
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
You don't have an answer to the question. That's okay, I don't either-as far as I can tell, there's no unique STRATEGIES actually available to SW that other chapters of Marines don't have.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/11/04 23:11:58
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
JNAProductions wrote: Because Daemons don't occupy 85% of the design space of the game. Marines do.
But, if you really want to design a Lesser Daemon datasheet that retains all options, let's see it. Until then, can you answer my question?
I don't want to design crap. I want the lesser deamons to be restricted instead of completely customizable... just like my marines.
There is no way SWs take up 85% of the design space XD lol... come on. Again this arbitrary forced assumption that there is either MARINES or NOT MARINES XD and nothing inbetween XD.
And again, what's good for one faction should be good for all factions, so why should it mater how much design space marines are taking up. Lets free as much design space as possible no ? (not acknowledging that doing this in any faction, let alone marines would require incredible amounts of design time, design resources and of course with customization there is an exponential increase of balancing computation and therefor maintenance [common game design fact] ).
Being a marine and being something else is mutually exclusive, actually.
That word you keep using- I do not think it means, what you think it means. Especially after having explained why consolidation is not "arbitrary."
You have nothing to contribute but "lol I don't like that XD. Arbitrary. Arbitrary. ARBITRARY!!!!!" Why are you even in this thread?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/04 23:18:53
2020/02/19 15:50:39
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
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
It wasn't the point of the OP post in making the thread, it's not what most people are saying, and certainly wasn't what I was saying when you asked me directly why SM's had to share everything. If you cannot accept this fundamental concept and engage on the OP's proposal or at least my posts, instead of chasing this dragon, it would go better
sure, we are just disagreeing on where it makes sense to do so.
Yes, and your response hasn't been to constantly rail against a single example and not articulate anything deeper than "because I want it to be special", aside from attempting to push arguments to extreme logical absurdities, such as calling for having no differences, that nobody is advocating for.
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.
Ok, and what was this pointless truism adding to the conversation? Doesn't sound like we're disagreeing here unless you have some sort of additional detail to get into.
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...
Here's those logical absurdities I was referring to above. You're taking an extreme position and presenting it as an unfocused rhetorical question that's not actually looking for a response by leaving it so vague and open ended as to be impossible to actually nail down.
What are we rolling SoB into in this scenario? What's the basis for doing so? If we're simply going to handwave away every qualification/caveat I make as not existing, you can make anything sound stupid, but that doesn't mean it's actually a valid response to what I'm saying.
The original post asked, if there's an argument for other SM chapters to have fearsome Primaris Biker CC units, then why not have them and the TWC's use the same unit entry if they're fundamentally doing the same thing and their relevant options made available? If the only reason is "bike isn't wolf", when both bike and wolf are actually inherently fundamentally developed from rules for horses, that's a bit silly, particularly when they're both WS3+ BS3+ S4 T5 W4 A2, both have Astartes Chainswords, Bolt Pistols, ATFKNF, Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault, and Combat Doctrines, and both otherwise have a similar speed enhancement special rule and movement rate.
If you want to make it out like this is the same thing as just folding SoB into another faction or something, go for it, but it doesn't hold any water.
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?
You're intentionally missing the point here. The point was that GW is saturating the marine design space, lots of it steps on each others toes already and that is only likely to continue to expand as they do so, and finding places where it's possible to consolidate datasheets can help manage that while still offering a wide unit selection without anyone actually losing their ability to field anything.
However, that said, we're already getting SM troops that are treading solidly into Custodes territory with T5 W3 and sporting similarly stat'd guns, encroaching into *their* "special" zone if you want to get into that, so maybe we talk about SM's staying in their own lane...
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
Ah yes, "you're wrong because all the examples you gave actually happened, but it hasn't happened yet to the specific thing I'm talking about, therefore it's impossible to ever happen and has no basis for being discussed".
You can do better than that.
... 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 ....
Sure, if we want to go back a quarter century for the last meaningful crossovers, however, with regards to Space Marines we have much more relevant examples from every edition where armies have actually had a codex up to and including the present one.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/04 23:21:53
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.
2020/11/04 23:21:11
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
JNAProductions wrote: You don't have an answer to the question. That's okay, I don't either-as far as I can tell, there's no unique STRATEGIES actually available to SW that other chapters of Marines don't have.
honestly, for feth sake. you don't think there is a difference between how a unit that moves 10 with advance and charge, incredibly versitile wargear, 4 wounds, and 3 extra ap attacks might have different tactics then you know,,, stuff that doesnt have that stuff ?
You can read the goonhammer article. Its quite long... space wolves do have a lot of unique tactics, units and play options after all.
So how about we stop pretending SWs paly exactly like everyother marine faction, that their unique units don't do anything different and for the love of god stop asking me to try and explain how the unique units can play differently v.s. literally everything else in the game... I don't have to explain their tactics to see they have a completely different datasheet. Different stats, wargear options, unit size, unit composition, stratagems, abiltiies and keywords... when ALL those things are different, a unit plays different, because the unit IS different... its as simple as that.
please go read that article. it will explain all the SW unique stuff to you and the unique SW tactics to you because you better believe I am not going through that much information with you in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Being a marine and being something else is mutually exclusive, actually.
That word you keep using- I do not think it means, what you think it means. Especially after having explained why consolidation is not "arbitrary."
Being a wolf and being something else is mutually, exclusive actually.
That word I keep using- I know exactly what it means. Especially after having explained why what you are choosing to consolidate IS "arbitrary."
@Vaktathi
Its not an absurdism to roll SOB in with SMs... take literally all the arguments for rolling TWC into a generic bike squad in this thread and apply. Stop dismissing it because you drew a line on the subfactions and I am drawing the line at imperium... we have just as much base and argumentation to support this position. Shared wargear and some shared rules... done. We don't care whether or not we are rolling a wolf and a bike, so why not a SOB and a Marine ? Honestly ? they have the same wargear even ? why not ? is it just because SWs are a subfaction and not a faction ? is that seriously why my suggestion is SO SO SO absurd ?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/04 23:30:06
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.
2020/11/04 23:24:07
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
A marine riding a giant wolf is not substantially different in game terms, at this scale, from a marine riding a motorcycle, that's why.
100% disagree. For starters, the wolves don't fire guns out of their mouths.
If there's one thing nine editions have taught us, it's that units can't possibly have the option of swapping a ranged weapon (twin-bolter) for a melee weapon (teeth)...
Damocles, I think you know there's a little more to it than picking from a hand weapon.
I understand that you CAN do it. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying you gotta choose, and for some things it makes less sense.
This isn't simply a game design consideration either, this is a product design decision that acknowledges that people like their models to feel special.
Which is fine, unless it negatively impacts gameplay. I'm not advocating for cavalry and bikes to be consolidated, I'm looking at them in terms of mechanics, and there are more similarities than differences presently.
What is more special? Minor differences with a slapped-on band-aid SR? Or deep mechanics and high customization that allows you to build "your dudes" and use them "your way?"
The problem with GW is that they make "unique" minis, instead of providing options for players to make their minis unique, and build a force of minis from their chosen army that they like, and suit their preferred play style.
"More similarities than differences" by what criteria? They're both have a faster than standard movement rate and higher resilience, but that's about it. One is a combined ranged and CC unit, and another is dedicated CC with a host of options in that regard. They're arguably more different than the difference between a Tactical and Devastator squad. A Devastator Squad is basically a Tactical Squad with MOAR big guns.
I don't think GW sees it as a problem at all that there are so many different units. More units is more products to sell, etc. Also, listbuilding-wise having more discrete choices is a fun thing to have in general. So where to find compromises between these things is really the key. Imo looking at it from a pure game perspective is just going to miss the mark.
So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?
oh man,,, you should seriously take a second glance at that article...
They explain and take note of unique synergizes, play options and tactics in every section of this article... for feth sake its what these guys are famous for.
check out the section "How They’ll Play" and "Army Lists"
lol... seriously... stop being disingenuous or do I really have to start copy and pasting XD ? We are talking about a website that has commentary on tactics and unit playstyles from some of the best competitive players in the world... please when they write a section called "How They'll Play" and procced to talk about their unique palystyle... I would fething listen.
Do you really want me to start copy and pasting from the article or can you handle reading it yourself ?
Unless you are trying to get REALLY disingenuous and then I can ask what unique thing can you do with a bloodletter that you can't do with anything else XD ... like,,, its a different unit... just because they are "fighty" doesnt make them the same as everything else that is "fighty" . please there is a lot more to tactics then 5 word descriptions,,, "fast and fighty" "slow and shooty" sure lots of things in the game can be described this way it doesnt magically mean all those units tactically paly the same if they have completely different datasheets.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/04 23:44:32
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.
2020/11/04 23:41:02
Subject: What is the benefit of ultra precise datasheet over generic ones?
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 
Because they couldn't mount guns to the harness, if they wanted to.... 
