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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What unique play style do SW enable?

What can they do that Ultras can’t? Or White Scars?
Because the “how they play” section was short. And not unique to SW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It explains WHAT the unique stuff is.

Not what unique STRATEGIES you can do with it.

So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?

It literally doesn't matter. Imagery is just as important (actually more important) than gameplay in 40K. I'm dead serious.

That is a fair stance to have. I disagree, but respect that position.

Well here's part of the problem with marines, is that they've given marines of all colors access to basically everything. There's a whole active thread on it right now. For a long time, only Blood Angels had access to veterans with Jump Packs and power weapons/fists. Then they gave generic SM chapters Vanguard, and filled in the gap.

That said, TWC (from an outsiders perspective) are pretty easily differentiated by acting as a heavy cavalry unit that is fast, tough, and has access to hard-hitting CC weapons and Storm Shields. As opposed to Vanguard which are fast but not tough, Terminators which can hit hard but are slow, and Bikes which are tough and fast, but have limited access to CC weapons.

 Type40 wrote:

@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.

No, when you straight up ignore the qualifications and caveats I put in and just jump straight to a logical extreme that I pointedly note is beyond what I'm discussing, I'm going to go ahead and feel free to call it an absurdism.

Shared wargear and some shared rules... done.

They share a handful of weapons and a vehicle platform. They share very little else.

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 ?

 Vaktathi wrote:

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 ?

Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.

That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.

Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TWC than Tactical Squads and Devastators.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What unique play style do SW enable?

What can they do that Ultras can’t? Or White Scars?
Because the “how they play” section was short. And not unique to SW.

lol read it again XD ... you are officially being facetious ... the “how they play” section specifically talks about how to paly the TWC and you are trying to say its not unique to SWs and doesn't explain something that ultras and white scars cant do...

Come on, now you are deliberately acting dumb. You are honestly going to tell me that this entire goonhammer article dedicated to reviewing the new tactics inside the SWs supplement does not explain the unique units XD ... are you even going to bother reading it or are you going to keep asking me for what I have clearly given you XD.
here is the link again.
goonhammer.com/codex-supplement-space-wolves-the-goonhammer-review/

But fine,,, you don't think there is a difference, tactically between units that can get a charge off turn 1 reliably, who are geared incredibly well for close combat, and a whole host of other things... you know, due to DIFFERENT stats, wargear options, unit size, unit composition, stratagems, abilities and keywords then anything else in the game ? do you really not understand how those things make a unit tactically different from other things ? Do you really want me to sit hear and make up all the hypothetical situations where TWC are going to do something nothing else in the game can't XD ? is that what your expecting ? what are you actually asking for here ?

Ok , there is TWC and a bike squad 24" away from an enemy,,, the TWC will advance and charge the enemy with very effective CC... v.s. the outriders who do not have nearly as good CC gear or CC strats and wont as reliably make the charge.

But of course if they just had the same datasheet and the outriders had more customizablity they would be the same XD right lol ? XD

I am not going to go through every little hypothetical because you are DEMANDING it... learn tactics yourself. the fact that the datasheet is like nothing else in the game should be enough to show you they are tactically different.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It explains WHAT the unique stuff is.

Not what unique STRATEGIES you can do with it.

So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?

It literally doesn't matter. Imagery is just as important (actually more important) than gameplay in 40K. I'm dead serious.

Consolidating power swords, axes, mauls, and lances into one profile does that......

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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 ?

Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.

That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.

Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TCS than Tactical Squads and Devastators.

Right now bikes aren't really a CC unit, agreed, and I currently wouldn't support the idea of merging TWC and Outriders, but the idea was predicated on "if there's an argument for other SM chapters to have fearsome Primaris Biker CC units" as I noted earlier in an earlier response of mine (and that at least felt implied in the OP's example). If such was the case, when they already share a profile and special rules and keywords to the extent they do, then I think combining the profiles makes sense unless there's a bigger reason beyond "I want them to be different just because", particularly when people make biker to cav conversions (and vice versa) all the time for units. If one wanted an example of a bigger reason, one could point to base size for example as a meaningful mechanistic difference, one's on an oval 60mm base and the other on a 70x25mm base IIRC, that could be something to talk about, but if we're just mad that something doesn't have a unique datasheet for its own sake that's harder to buy.

EDIT: if we want to talk tacs and devs, that's a good one. Notably, the first Dawn of War noticed this, and Tactical squads could take up to 4 or 5 heavy weapons (depending on the edition) in a squad They absolutely could be consolidated (maybe Assault Marines too), particularly given the much greater expansion of Space Marine units, though I don't think the current datasheet format has a way to accommodate multiple FoC slots, but that could be worked around.

Name what's UNIQUE about that strategy.

Anyone can do a fast, hard-hitting block of ObSec with Bladeguard and a tactic (or stratagem) to advance and charge. Since objectives aren't scored T1, if you really need a T1 charge, just take an Outrider squad or two. They can get a first turn charge more reliably, 14" to an average of 13.5".

Yes, TWC are (currently) unique. But they don't really fill a unique niche.

Blastaar wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It explains WHAT the unique stuff is.

Not what unique STRATEGIES you can do with it.

So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?

It literally doesn't matter. Imagery is just as important (actually more important) than gameplay in 40K. I'm dead serious.

Consolidating power swords, axes, mauls, and lances into one profile does that......

Nice try, but if you go back to my argument about that, I make the point that part of the hobby/game is in the minutiae of list building. Also, whether combing them into one 'item' results in better gameplay is also up for debate.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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 ?

Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.

That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.

Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TWC than Tactical Squads and Devastators.

Why not? Let bikers take power weapons, fists, and storm shields if they want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It explains WHAT the unique stuff is.

Not what unique STRATEGIES you can do with it.

So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?

It literally doesn't matter. Imagery is just as important (actually more important) than gameplay in 40K. I'm dead serious.

Consolidating power swords, axes, mauls, and lances into one profile does that......

Nice try, but if you go back to my argument about that, I make the point that part of the hobby/game is in the minutiae of list building. Also, whether combing them into one 'item' results in better gameplay is also up for debate.

No, you made an argument that people feel like they're making a choice, even if that choice doesn't matter during the game, therefore they should stay.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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 ?

Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.

That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.

Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TCS than Tactical Squads and Devastators.

Right now bikes aren't really a CC unit, agreed, and I currently wouldn't support the idea of merging TWC and Outriders, but the idea was predicated on "if there's an argument for other SM chapters to have fearsome Primaris Biker CC units" as I noted earlier in an earlier response of mine (and that at least felt implied in the OP's example). If such was the case, when they already share a profile and special rules and keywords to the extent they do, then I think combining the profiles makes sense unless there's a bigger reason beyond "I want them to be different just because", particularly when people make biker to cav conversions (and vice versa) all the time for units. If one wanted an example of a bigger reason, one could point to base size for example as a meaningful mechanistic difference, one's on an oval 60mm base and the other on a 70x25mm base IIRC, that could be something to talk about, but if we're just mad that something doesn't have a unique datasheet for its own sake that's harder to buy.

Ok, but I disagree with the premise. You don't have to merge all the chapters and give them all the same abilities. I think the ideal is to make them mostly homogenous and then give a couple of them some notable differences with tradeoffs. Definitely not as much as they have now, but something. TWC seem like a good candidate for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Name what's UNIQUE about that strategy.

Anyone can do a fast, hard-hitting block of ObSec with Bladeguard and a tactic (or stratagem) to advance and charge. Since objectives aren't scored T1, if you really need a T1 charge, just take an Outrider squad or two. They can get a first turn charge more reliably, 14" to an average of 13.5".

Yes, TWC are (currently) unique. But they don't really fill a unique niche.

Doesn't matter, again. Lots of armies can play to similar strategies, even if the way they do it is different.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

@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.

No, when you straight up ignore the qualifications and caveats I put in and just jump straight to a logical extreme that I pointedly note is beyond what I'm discussing, I'm going to go ahead and feel free to call it an absurdism.

What qualifications and caveats XD lol... you arn't consistent... is it because of their wargear ? is it because they overlap with SOME of their units ? XD (you know we are talking about specific units that are not overlapped right ?) I should call your constant insistence that SWs shouldn't be allowed to have their unique factors preserved absurd ... in fact is is absurd to me, you just refuse to comprehend that someone can think your baseless choice to draw the lines where you did arn't the same place other players draw lines on where one unique army starts and where another one ends.

Shared wargear and some shared rules... done.

They share a handful of weapons and a vehicle platform. They share very little else.

A battle sister squad shares just as much if not more in common with a tactical marine squad then a TWC shares with anything in the marine dex... XD . but you keep insisting for some reason we are talking about entire sets of units in the SM and Supplements as a whole whilst i keep insisting that I only care abut the unique subfaction specific ones in this conversation... I don't care whether or not there is overlap with the 80% of the armies, what I care about is how similar individual units are to each other. And if BS cant be rolled into TAC marines because they are too different how could you possibly suggest TWC could be rolled in somewhere.

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 ?

Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including sub faction designation.
That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.

LOL
Both a SOB and a Marine are stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both are bipedal humans wearing power armor. They are identical unit profile, sharing half a dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, some keywords that have relevant game purposes and mechanics.

You should read the SOB datasheets its far more then simply a bolter XD ... they share ALL the same wargear as SMs ... stormbolters, bolters, powerweapons, flamers... all of them. You really have to play down their similarities if you seriously do not see that that a BS squad has just as much or more in common with a tac marine squad then a TWC has with anything ...like,,, and why can't SOB have the same subfaction designation ? more customizability is good right. We just give all the unique options and unique keywords the BS squad has to tac marines ? i thought that was the solution we were going for ? the SOB wont lose anything from this, you'll totally still be able to take all of their options ? I don't understand what the problem is ?

Blastaar wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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 ?

Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.

That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.

Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TWC than Tactical Squads and Devastators.

Why not? Let bikers take power weapons, fists, and storm shields if they want.

Sure homogenize everything and make chapter identity meaningless. . . Imo not good product design, especially when lots of sales come from people who collect multiple SM armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It explains WHAT the unique stuff is.

Not what unique STRATEGIES you can do with it.

So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?

It literally doesn't matter. Imagery is just as important (actually more important) than gameplay in 40K. I'm dead serious.

Consolidating power swords, axes, mauls, and lances into one profile does that......

Nice try, but if you go back to my argument about that, I make the point that part of the hobby/game is in the minutiae of list building. Also, whether combing them into one 'item' results in better gameplay is also up for debate.

No, you made an argument that people feel like they're making a choice, even if that choice doesn't matter during the game, therefore they should stay.

That wasn't entirely my argument, but games are about fun, and fun is about feels, so "feels" can still be a valid motivation to do things.

So, Insectum-as a reasonable person I disagree with, may I ask what you'd like to see the Marine's MO be? And do you feel it should be substantially different for each Chapter, or they should have only variations on the same theme?

 JNAProductions wrote:
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)

Please, for the love of God, no.

GW basically already did this with the most recent codex and it makes the army play like absolute arse. All it actually means is that each subfaction has bugger-all options and bugger-all synergy.

Seriously, splitting DE was one of the worst decisions of 8th edition and one I'm badly hoping gets reversed in their 9th edition book.

 vipoid wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
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)

Please, for the love of God, no.

GW basically already did this with the most recent codex and it makes the army play like absolute arse. All it actually means is that each subfaction has bugger-all options and bugger-all synergy.

Seriously, splitting DE was one of the worst decisions of 8th edition and one I'm badly hoping gets reversed in their 9th edition book.

Fair-as I said, I'm not a DE player, so I don't really grok that.

Would you still be opposed to it if they were significantly more fleshed out, and could still mix, kinda like Chaos can?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Name what's UNIQUE about that strategy.

Anyone can do a fast, hard-hitting block of ObSec with Bladeguard and a tactic (or stratagem) to advance and charge. Since objectives aren't scored T1, if you really need a T1 charge, just take an Outrider squad or two. They can get a first turn charge more reliably, 14" to an average of 13.5".

Yes, TWC are (currently) unique. But they don't really fill a unique niche.

uhhh yes they can,,, sometimes people go second,
You don't understand how having a greater threat range or having lack of shooting or having strong CC vs having shooting gives a player and their opponent different tactical considerations ? are you really trying to say that ?... you really are going to dilute every thing in the game to 3 - 5 word battlefield roles like "fast and hitty" as the extent of tactical palyability.... damnn ya... there is a bit more to the game then that... i know you know that so I am not jsut going to call you stupid.

but if we are just going to dilute everything then we can easily say TWC and harlequin jetbikes have the exact same tactical capability or is this not what your saying ?. Please stop acting dumb here. can you really not see the difference ? because if that is really the case, then no wonder we are having this conversation ... if you really can not see how a unit with a datasheet that has a different combination and set of stats, unique wargear options, unit composition, unit size, unique abilities, keywords and unique stratagems would play tactically different from anything else in the game then no wonder you think things should be rolled in together XD... but also you can't be very good at this game if you cant understand that units have different tactical advantages and disadvantages based on, you know, their differences, even when they have similar roles.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
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)

Please, for the love of God, no.

GW basically already did this with the most recent codex and it makes the army play like absolute arse. All it actually means is that each subfaction has bugger-all options and bugger-all synergy.

Seriously, splitting DE was one of the worst decisions of 8th edition and one I'm badly hoping gets reversed in their 9th edition book.

Fair-as I said, I'm not a DE player, so I don't really grok that.

Would you still be opposed to it if they were significantly more fleshed out, and could still mix, kinda like Chaos can?

I'd say that while I'd certainly like them to be fleshed out a little more, I honestly don't see the need to split the army up in this manner. They're still supposed to fight and function as a coherent whole, after all.

It seems akin to separating the Wraith units from Eldar into their own dedicated subfaction, which can't go in the same detachment as normal Eldar, nor benefit from any of their abilities or psychic powers. Or having Codex: Chaos Possessed.

I guess I'm just unclear on what problem you're trying to solve by splitting DE up in this manner.

Blastaar wrote:

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.

Actually the thread has been completely derailed by Type40 and his idiotic victim complex.

Its never been specifically about the TWC/Outriders yet here we are after 10+ pages of his circular non-logic.

When i tried changing the example to Captain/Lieutenants, multiple times, he kept coming back to his poor furries.

This is quite infuriating because the other posters have actually contributed to the discussion only for their voices to be lost in his whining.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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 ?

Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.

That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.

Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TWC than Tactical Squads and Devastators.

Why not? Let bikers take power weapons, fists, and storm shields if they want.

Sure homogenize everything and make chapter identity meaningless. . . Imo not good product design, especially when lots of sales come from people who collect multiple SM armies.

That is not what I am saying. Homogeneity is boring.

Unique units should stay where it contributes to gameplay, like DC, Darkshroud/LSV, Bloodclaws, Wolf Scouts, Lone Wolf, Baal Preds, etc. TWC need to be significantly different from bikers, particularly bikers with melee weapons, to be an impactful choice. Saying "bikers can't have melee weapons, that's what makes TWC unique" is silly, and highlights the problem. TWC don't do anything bikers can't, except carry melee weapons for some reason.

Further, the idea that grabbing a chainsword and riding a "mount" to close with the enemy, is something that only SW and their successors would think of, is absurd.

The game needs a core ruleset that allows more meaningful decisions and strategies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It explains WHAT the unique stuff is.

Not what unique STRATEGIES you can do with it.

So tell me-what do TWC or Wulfen allow you to do that you cannot otherwise do?

It literally doesn't matter. Imagery is just as important (actually more important) than gameplay in 40K. I'm dead serious.

Consolidating power swords, axes, mauls, and lances into one profile does that......

Nice try, but if you go back to my argument about that, I make the point that part of the hobby/game is in the minutiae of list building. Also, whether combing them into one 'item' results in better gameplay is also up for debate.

No, you made an argument that people feel like they're making a choice, even if that choice doesn't matter during the game, therefore they should stay.

That wasn't entirely my argument, but games are about fun, and fun is about feels, so "feels" can still be a valid motivation to do things.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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 ?

Because both the Wolf and Bike are Horse stand-ins fundamentally portraying the same thing, both being ridden by Space Marines sharing an almost identical unit profile, sharing a half dozen identical or similar special rules and abilities between them and yes, more keywords that actually have relevant game purposes and mechanics, including subfaction designation.

That is substantially more than the Imperium keyword, bolter, non-augmented power armor, and Rhino's that sisters share with Space Marines.

Bikes aren't really a CC unit, while TWC are 100% dedicated to it. Like I said before, there's more difference between Bikes and TCS than Tactical Squads and Devastators.

Right now bikes aren't really a CC unit, agreed, and I currently wouldn't support the idea of merging TWC and Outriders, but the idea was predicated on "if there's an argument for other SM chapters to have fearsome Primaris Biker CC units" as I noted earlier in an earlier response of mine (and that at least felt implied in the OP's example). If such was the case, when they already share a profile and special rules and keywords to the extent they do, then I think combining the profiles makes sense unless there's a bigger reason beyond "I want them to be different just because", particularly when people make biker to cav conversions (and vice versa) all the time for units. If one wanted an example of a bigger reason, one could point to base size for example as a meaningful mechanistic difference, one's on an oval 60mm base and the other on a 70x25mm base IIRC, that could be something to talk about, but if we're just mad that something doesn't have a unique datasheet for its own sake that's harder to buy.

Ok, but I disagree with the premise. You don't have to merge all the chapters and give them all the same abilities. I think the ideal is to make them mostly homogenous and then give a couple of them some notable differences with tradeoffs. Definitely not as much as they have now, but something. TWC seem like a good candidate for that.

I agree with this. It's just as important what a faction can't do or take as what it can. If all the chapters can do everything, and have basically the same units, it would make having different chapters meaningless. It would be like the Legions in the 4th edition codex. And 6th. And 8th, for the most part.

But I thought this was about merging all the redundant datasheets, like all the various loyalist HQs with slightly different wargear, or Chaos Lords with/without terminator armour. All I'm seeing is TWC, TWC, TWC.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, Insectum-as a reasonable person I disagree with, may I ask what you'd like to see the Marine's MO be? And do you feel it should be substantially different for each Chapter, or they should have only variations on the same theme?

You mean without completely junking Primaris?

I'd combine a lot of stuff. I don't have the time to do an exhaustive list, but a bunch of stuff could be combined without difficulty.

I'd still leave some space for 'special' chapters to get some special units that are notable to them. TWC, Deathwing (I think), Death Company, stuff like that. A few signature units for each.

I'd provide a list of custom traits with which to design your own chapter with, and use the same traits to define the various named chapters.

I'd prefer to do it all in one book, and drop the supplements. Orrr, possible small, pamphlet style supplements in the style of 3rd ed. Primarily lore, then a smattering of characters and units. not $30 hardbacks. (*spits)

Cull the range of weapons considerably. Like I said earlier, like 60% at least.

Institute a "weapon mod" keyword system for ALL races. Maybe 5 keywords, tops. Examples:
"Hardened" - Hardened weapons have +1 Strength.
"Master Crafted" - Master Crafted weapons do double damage and have an additional -1 AP.
So Eldar could have a Master Crafted Shuriken Catapult, and everybody who knew what a Shuriken Catapult was would know exactly what that meant. The big gun on the Executioner could become a Hardened, Master Crafted Lascannon (or whatever) as another example. This replaces "bolter bloat" with a universal system that can be used for all weapons. You'd get more more options but in a much less confusing way because it translates to every faction. Because I'm not the GW design team, it doesn't get out of hand.

That's what I got off the top of my head.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ok, but I disagree with the premise. You don't have to merge all the chapters and give them all the same abilities. I think the ideal is to make them mostly homogenous and then give a couple of them some notable differences with tradeoffs. Definitely not as much as they have now, but something. TWC seem like a good candidate for that.

Sure, for now TWC are a good candidate for what you're talking about. If we get Stormshield and power weapon wielding primaris bikers with the next marine expansion however, maybe that changes. That's really the basic fundamental point I was attempting to support. At this point, as noted, this thread got sidetracked and beat to death over a misconception that this was a call to squat TWC's or something and taken to la-la land, and skipped right by all other attempts to right it, so I'll leave the TWC commentary there. It felt like on most other units brought up, like the commanders, got broad agreement around consolidation when people would engage on those subjects, particularly the Gravis captains.

Blastaar wrote:
Fun is a feeling. Fussing over the difference in S and AP between a sword or maul

Subjective.

If you don't care to fuss about it, just pick one and move on. Easy.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

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.

Actually the thread has been completely derailed by Type40 and his idiotic victim complex.

Its never been specifically about the TWC/Outriders yet here we are after 10+ pages of his circular non-logic.

When i tried changing the example to Captain/Lieutenants, multiple times, he kept coming back to his poor furries.

This is quite infuriating because the other posters have actually contributed to the discussion only for their voices to be lost in his whining.

LOL
He IS literally advocating for TWC and outriders AND he isn't the only one XD but its all about your opinion isn't it ... Also, everytime you "try to change the example to "captain/lieutenants" I agree with you that they could be put into the same datasheet at the cost of readability with no real benefits to freeing up game design and then we go back to the argument that is actually happening. So, I know you like to hate on me and you also don't seem to be capable of following what has ACTUALLY been sugested in this thread v.s. what people, like myself, have ACTUALLY agreed with you on but its all in writing soo ,, why don't you stop.

I have a simple position which I am arguing for that people do not seem to be ok with.
I argue that unique datasheets, units, models and unit rules for sub factions should remain unique and that giving the generic SMs all their unique options, rules and flavour would be deterimental to the game because
a: providing more customization options decreases design space
b: providing more customization options with no restrictions to a faction that is already overpowered due to to much customization is probably a problem.
c: robbing a subfaction/faction of their unique rules by removing them or cloning them and giving it as an option to everyone removes the uniqueness people have signed up for some of the more iconic subfactions to get.
d: the arguments people are making to consoldiate these subfaction units into the mainfaction can be made for any full faction in the game if we really wanted to and the choice to do this to subfactions is arbitrary and baseless,,, no one has yet to give me any base other then "SUBFACTION" and "MAHRINES." One argument was sharing wargear,,, but aparently SOB don't count so i guess that is also moot.

So please... if you are going to try and accuse me of derailing .... why don't you actually get on board with the conversation everyone is having instead of proposing Captains v.s. Lieutenants as though peopel A:actually disagree with that or B: are actually talking about units that share 90% of the same rules... of course datasheets that share 90% of the same thing can be consolidated ... why not,,, the question in that case is only about how to best represent data,,, it changes nothing else. So,,, can I agree with you on cpt/s and LTs and then can we move back on to the fact that people are trying to homogenize the sub factions because of an arbitrary decision about sub faction units not being allowed to be unique like full faction units can be ?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, Insectum-as a reasonable person I disagree with, may I ask what you'd like to see the Marine's MO be? And do you feel it should be substantially different for each Chapter, or they should have only variations on the same theme?

You mean without completely junking Primaris?

I'd combine a lot of stuff. I don't have the time to do an exhaustive list, but a bunch of stuff could be combined without difficulty.

I'd still leave some space for 'special' chapters to get some special units that are notable to them. TWC, Deathwing (I think), Death Company, stuff like that. A few signature units for each.

I'd provide a list of custom traits with which to design your own chapter with, and use the same traits to define the various named chapters.

I'd prefer to do it all in one book, and drop the supplements. Orrr, possible small, pamphlet style supplements in the style of 3rd ed. Primarily lore, then a smattering of characters and units. not $30 hardbacks. (*spits)

Cull the range of weapons considerably. Like I said earlier, like 60% at least.

Institute a "weapon mod" keyword system for ALL races. Maybe 5 keywords, tops. Examples:
"Hardened" - Hardened weapons have +1 Strength.
"Master Crafted" - Master Crafted weapons do double damage and have an additional -1 AP.
So Eldar could have a Master Crafted Shuriken Catapult, and everybody who knew what a Shuriken Catapult was would know exactly what that meant. The big gun on the Executioner could become a Hardened, Master Crafted Lascannon (or whatever) as another example. This replaces "bolter bloat" with a universal system that can be used for all weapons. You'd get more more options but in a much less confusing way because it translates to every faction. Because I'm not the GW design team, it doesn't get out of hand.

That's what I got off the top of my head.

Double damage feels a little much, to nitpick your off-the-cuff idea. A MasterCrafted Thunderhammer is now 6 damage-same as a Knight Titan's melee weapon!

But, in general, I hear what you're saying, and I agree. I'd rather have a simpler system that allows you to customize your guys how you want, than 100 bespoke datasheets without much customization.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Fun is a feeling. Fussing over the difference in S and AP between a sword or maul

Subjective.

If you don't care to fuss about it, just pick one and move on. Easy.

The problem is that one of them is strictly better than the other options. I like swords. A spear might be cool. But if they're ineffective in games, that isn't fun. I want to pick the power weapon I think looks cool, or fits the background and fighting style I created for the character.

P.s. I have left TWC alone so many times for people to bring it up as their first example.

@JNAProductions just spent an entire page demanding I justify how them and wulfen are tactically different from anything else in the game...

A Mod note here, this thread has been something of a free fire zone regarding personal attacks from multiple sides, and it's time to end that, please comport yourselves accordingly from here on out.

Also, OP (thats you @VladimirHerzog) used it as his first example and argued for it for almost 2 pages which also lead others to argue for it for many more pages... which has also lead to the TWC into generic Cavalary argument... if everyone thinks those two options are bad. Then great, they are bad options.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
A Mod note here, this thread has been something of a free fire zone regarding personal attacks from multiple sides, and it's time to end that, please comport yourselves accordingly from here on out.

Apologize for my part in any of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, Insectum-as a reasonable person I disagree with, may I ask what you'd like to see the Marine's MO be? And do you feel it should be substantially different for each Chapter, or they should have only variations on the same theme?

You mean without completely junking Primaris?

I'd combine a lot of stuff. I don't have the time to do an exhaustive list, but a bunch of stuff could be combined without difficulty.

I'd still leave some space for 'special' chapters to get some special units that are notable to them. TWC, Deathwing (I think), Death Company, stuff like that. A few signature units for each.

I'd provide a list of custom traits with which to design your own chapter with, and use the same traits to define the various named chapters.

I'd prefer to do it all in one book, and drop the supplements. Orrr, possible small, pamphlet style supplements in the style of 3rd ed. Primarily lore, then a smattering of characters and units. not $30 hardbacks. (*spits)

Cull the range of weapons considerably. Like I said earlier, like 60% at least.

Institute a "weapon mod" keyword system for ALL races. Maybe 5 keywords, tops. Examples:
"Hardened" - Hardened weapons have +1 Strength.
"Master Crafted" - Master Crafted weapons do double damage and have an additional -1 AP.
So Eldar could have a Master Crafted Shuriken Catapult, and everybody who knew what a Shuriken Catapult was would know exactly what that meant. The big gun on the Executioner could become a Hardened, Master Crafted Lascannon (or whatever) as another example. This replaces "bolter bloat" with a universal system that can be used for all weapons. You'd get more more options but in a much less confusing way because it translates to every faction. Because I'm not the GW design team, it doesn't get out of hand.

That's what I got off the top of my head.

Double damage feels a little much, to nitpick your off-the-cuff idea. A MasterCrafted Thunderhammer is now 6 damage-same as a Knight Titan's melee weapon!

But, in general, I hear what you're saying, and I agree. I'd rather have a simpler system that allows you to customize your guys how you want, than 100 bespoke datasheets without much customization.

Your missing the part where he advocates for chapter specific units being preserved... which is also exactly what I am advocating for. I couldn't care less about removing the bloat. I have a problem with squatting or homogenizing the unique sub faction units and i can't understand why people seem to think this is ok but they wouldn't dare do it to a full faction .

Blastaar wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Fun is a feeling. Fussing over the difference in S and AP between a sword or maul

Subjective.

If you don't care to fuss about it, just pick one and move on. Easy.

The problem is that one of them is strictly better than the other options. I like swords. A spear might be cool. But if they're ineffective in games, that isn't fun. I want to pick the power weapon I think looks cool, or fits the background and fighting style I created for the character.

Easy solution, balance them better. Or play counts-as, most metas I've played in have been fine with that.