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.

I would also recommend consolidating in any FW units into the dex for obvious reasons. Like.. why the feth have an armies units in 2-3 books?

because making people buy codex, supplements, CAs , rule books and campaign packs mirrors mobile games seson passes etc. It is more money for GW.

Karol wrote:

I would also recommend consolidating in any FW units into the dex for obvious reasons. Like.. why the feth have an armies units in 2-3 books?

because making people buy codex, supplements, CAs , rule books and campaign packs mirrors mobile games seson passes etc. It is more money for GW.

Pretty sure lance (and i) have been talking about a purely player pespective, in an "ideal world".

Well then just to have your faction have it and others don't.

With most people not playing multiple editions, I sure that someone who lets say plays white scars are open to GW testing unit unification, and fixs by more faction books for other factions, preferably those that are not sharing any units or design principles with his army.

This way by the time GW gets to his army to give it the good treatment too, they could be out of the game or leaving it soon, while having enjoyed 12-18 months of good and fun gaming.

Karol wrote:
Well then just to have your faction have it and others don't.

With most people not playing multiple editions, I sure that someone who lets say plays white scars are open to GW testing unit unification, and fixs by more faction books for other factions, preferably those that are not sharing any units or design principles with his army.

This way by the time GW gets to his army to give it the good treatment too, they could be out of the game or leaving it soon, while having enjoyed 12-18 months of good and fun gaming.

I don't get what you mean. White scars wouldnt dissapear in our suggestions.

I think that no one wants nerfs to start with their books. A White Scar player would be all for GW starting the unification of gear and units with, lets say eldar. One melee eldar, one fast moving eldar infantry unit, one anti tank eldar unit and we are done with all the aspects and DE units.

Then GW after the unification of rules would of course wanted people do buy more books, so they would do a CWE supplement, DE supplement, maybe even break it up in to specific aspect warrior or cabal expensions. While the WS player would enjoy his army out of one book. I am sure he would be happy about that too.


But the real bad thing about changes like that is that, in case of 8th ed, GW policy as rules goes last for maybe 4-5 codex, and sometimes less then that. So while consolidation of rules maybe the rage for few books, later on GW would decide to slap some beefy book with a ton of units and ton of options, and everyone who had been consolidated would have a really bad time playing.

Or to make it really short. Everyone is okey for GW to experiment and remove options from someone elses book.

Karol wrote:
I think that no one wants nerfs to start with their books. A White Scar player would be all for GW starting the unification of gear and units with, lets say eldar. One melee eldar, one fast moving eldar infantry unit, one anti tank eldar unit and we are done with all the aspects and DE units.

Then GW after the unification of rules would of course wanted people do buy more books, so they would do a CWE supplement, DE supplement, maybe even break it up in to specific aspect warrior or cabal expensions. While the WS player would enjoy his army out of one book. I am sure he would be happy about that too.


But the real bad thing about changes like that is that, in case of 8th ed, GW policy as rules goes last for maybe 4-5 codex, and sometimes less then that. So while consolidation of rules maybe the rage for few books, later on GW would decide to slap some beefy book with a ton of units and ton of options, and everyone who had been consolidated would have a really bad time playing.

Or to make it really short. Everyone is okey for GW to experiment and remove options from someone elses book.

Ok, you completely missed the point again. We're not asking to remove options from anyone's book. And the discussion is centered on a theoretical timeline where we had the power to start 40k from scratch and use a different approach.

Space marines, and by extension, BA need to lose many, many entries imo. This is why I can't believe they gave oldbios 2W.

SecondTime wrote:
Space marines, and by extension, BA need to lose many, many entries imo. This is why I can't believe they gave oldbios 2W.

GW should start with primaris.

Blastaar wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Space marines, and by extension, BA need to lose many, many entries imo. This is why I can't believe they gave oldbios 2W.

GW should start with primaris.

I actually prefer primaris to oldbois at this point.

Blastaar wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Space marines, and by extension, BA need to lose many, many entries imo. This is why I can't believe they gave oldbios 2W.

GW should start with primaris.

+1

Presumably since actually dropping Primaris isn't going to happen. I'd ditch the Intercessor Datasheet and roll it into the Tactical Datasheet. Standard stuff for Tacticals. You can instead make them "Intercessors" which trades away Heavies and Specials for 1 of 3 MSU weapon upgrades to their Bolters. Something like that.

I think there's a nonzero chance I'm just sick of the oldbois. And uniform units just make more sense to me.

SecondTime wrote:
I think there's a nonzero chance I'm just sick of the oldbois. And uniform units just make more sense to me.

Not if you follow the fluff of marines tho.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
I think there's a nonzero chance I'm just sick of the oldbois. And uniform units just make more sense to me.

Not if you follow the fluff of marines tho.

I mean like real-world logic and gearing. The fluff doesn't make military sense to me, so I prefer primaris gearing loadouts.

The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.

 Lance845 wrote:
The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.

They are more complete than some Xeno lists :\

 Lance845 wrote:
I could contribute in more then a "checking work" kind of way on core rules (if the project is deemed to change those), Tyranids, Tau, and MAYBE Necrons as those are the dexes I have the most familiarity with. But any kind of Eldar, Sister of Battle, Custodes etc... I would be mostly lost and need to do a lot of research time to catch myself up.

I would also recommend consolidating in any FW units into the dex for obvious reasons. Like.. why the feth have an armies units in 2-3 books?

I just love cracking into and writing rules. So you know.... I'm in.

Are you talking about the creation from scratch of an experimental "home-brewed" W40k rulebook?
I would be happy if I might contribute, because I was taking advantage of my (limited) military experience to create a more strategically consistent (but also easy) game system than the one of Warhammer 40.000, so maybe I can have some good idea; if you are interested.
The only thing i would suggest for now, is to optimize this hypothetical game system only for two armies (Imperial Guard and Space Marines), in order to speed up the test fase and start to develop the other armies only when it will be debugged.

 Lance845 wrote:
The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.

Redundant small arms choices, redundant units, and "open another chamber!"-level sub-factions is "focused" to you?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Space marines, and by extension, BA need to lose many, many entries imo. This is why I can't believe they gave oldbios 2W.

GW should start with primaris.

+1

Presumably since actually dropping Primaris isn't going to happen. I'd ditch the Intercessor Datasheet and roll it into the Tactical Datasheet. Standard stuff for Tacticals. You can instead make them "Intercessors" which trades away Heavies and Specials for 1 of 3 MSU weapon upgrades to their Bolters. Something like that.

Nah. Just make the current Intercessors able to take Special and Heavy Weapons. BAM easy consolidation of the two profiles. Nobody is going to think a Plasma weapon or Multi-Melta is broken in an Intercessor Squad if it wasn't broken in a Tactical Squad. Only difference is the better Bolters and more attacks. However if people weren't upset about Helblasters having all those things they haven't a right to complain.

 Lance845 wrote:
The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.

Heck, trim back the bloat of the classics. Dump flyers, Centurions, Vanguard (upgrade Assault Squads), most Dreadnoughts, etc. It was a complete army in 2000ish.

That's about what I play and it's served me well for a long time. I think only major update I take is the Grav weapons (Cannon).

The only other exception might be the Storm Raven, which makes sense for Marines. Though I don't use it since the model looks like butt and I haven't made my own.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.

Redundant small arms choices, redundant units, and "open another chamber!"-level sub-factions is "focused" to you?

Not so much focused in that way. Its focused in that it has a definite design direction. Units work in a cohesive way. These guys do x job and jave y equipment to do x job. They don't suffer from weird "generalist" things like the tac marines have in the past and they dont have nearly the breadth of special and heavy wargear thats stepping on each others toes in the same data sheet. Its a cleaner start. Not clean. Just cleaner. And more pointed in a cohesive direction.

 Lance845 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.

Redundant small arms choices, redundant units, and "open another chamber!"-level sub-factions is "focused" to you?

Not so much focused in that way. Its focused in that it has a definite design direction. Units work in a cohesive way. These guys do x job and jave y equipment to do x job. They don't suffer from weird "generalist" things like the tac marines have in the past and they dont have nearly the breadth of special and heavy wargear thats stepping on each others toes in the same data sheet. Its a cleaner start. Not clean. Just cleaner. And more pointed in a cohesive direction.

The new direction is basically the exact opposite of what the whole marine "generalist doctrine" is. Total junk, imo. The traditional way is for units to be self sufficient enough to split off and achieve missions on their own in an independent, non-centralized way, which makes far more sense for an elite organization. They're not robots like Necrons and they're not bound to artsy fighting styles like Eldar.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.

Redundant small arms choices, redundant units, and "open another chamber!"-level sub-factions is "focused" to you?

Not so much focused in that way. Its focused in that it has a definite design direction. Units work in a cohesive way. These guys do x job and jave y equipment to do x job. They don't suffer from weird "generalist" things like the tac marines have in the past and they dont have nearly the breadth of special and heavy wargear thats stepping on each others toes in the same data sheet. Its a cleaner start. Not clean. Just cleaner. And more pointed in a cohesive direction.

The new direction is basically the exact opposite of what the whole marine "generalist doctrine" is. Total junk, imo. The traditional way is for units to be self sufficient enough to split off and achieve missions on their own in an independent, non-centralized way, which makes far more sense for an elite organization. They're not robots like Necrons and they're not bound to artsy fighting styles like Eldar.

I am not talking fluff and I don't care.

But if you want to talk fluff, Roboat is back in charge and the Primaris are structured in the way that Roboat would be organizing them. Like roman legions. It makes perfect sense that Roboat has structured the Primaris to be the way they are following more the spirit of the Codex Astartes then the written law of it (Roboat being the author of that book and all). Especially after he woke up and saw that a bunch of people had turned it into a religion for some dumb reason. The primaris make perfect sense and their structure works well for the game.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The primaris line is focused and lacks all the bagage of almost half a century of bloat. And minus a few characters and a couple more options they are a complete army in line with everyone else.

Redundant small arms choices, redundant units, and "open another chamber!"-level sub-factions is "focused" to you?

Not so much focused in that way. Its focused in that it has a definite design direction. Units work in a cohesive way. These guys do x job and jave y equipment to do x job. They don't suffer from weird "generalist" things like the tac marines have in the past and they dont have nearly the breadth of special and heavy wargear thats stepping on each others toes in the same data sheet. Its a cleaner start. Not clean. Just cleaner. And more pointed in a cohesive direction.

The new direction is basically the exact opposite of what the whole marine "generalist doctrine" is. Total junk, imo. The traditional way is for units to be self sufficient enough to split off and achieve missions on their own in an independent, non-centralized way, which makes far more sense for an elite organization. They're not robots like Necrons and they're not bound to artsy fighting styles like Eldar.

I am not talking fluff and I don't care.

But if you want to talk fluff, Roboat is back in charge and the Primaris are structured in the way that Roboat would be organizing them. Like roman legions. It makes perfect sense that Roboat has structured the Primaris to be the way they are following more the spirit of the Codex Astartes then the written law of it (Roboat being the author of that book and all). Especially after he woke up and saw that a bunch of people had turned it into a religion for some dumb reason. The primaris make perfect sense and their structure works well for the game.

A: Primaris lore is dumb. I couldn't care less what GW writes about RG and his current nonsensical backpedaling on marine organization.

B: Gamewise it's also a bad move, since you're turning Marines into Necrons and Eldar and their limited-flexibility, specialized squads. Organize different factions differently, it provides for more texture in the gameplay.

C: It's been said that people had wanted specialized squads. The main reason for that is because in prior editions units couldn't split fire or charge a different unit than what they shot at. That's no longer a consideration.

Basically all the fluff is dumb to one extent or another. I get that you don't like the primaris fluff but it's here and it's not going away.

Gamewise I don't think it's a bad idea if they consolidate datasheets.

I get that those were concerns in the past but it doesn't change how bloated the war gear has been. There are entire types of special/heavy gear that would never see the light of day for several editions because it was just crap compared to the other options. Having less but all good options is good.

Never said things can't have some consolidation. Just said the Primaris design paradigm is dumb.

Karol wrote:I think that no one wants nerfs to start with their books. A White Scar player would be all for GW starting the unification of gear and units with, lets say eldar. One melee eldar, one fast moving eldar infantry unit, one anti tank eldar unit and we are done with all the aspects and DE units. ...
Or to make it really short. Everyone is okey for GW to experiment and remove options from someone elses book.

You really do expect the worst from people, don't you?

But just to prove you wrong: I'm an Ultramarine player mostly. And I can wholeheartedly say that Space Marines are the main faction in the game that needs consolidation. Including my own Ultramarines.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:I think that no one wants nerfs to start with their books. A White Scar player would be all for GW starting the unification of gear and units with, lets say eldar. One melee eldar, one fast moving eldar infantry unit, one anti tank eldar unit and we are done with all the aspects and DE units. ...
Or to make it really short. Everyone is okey for GW to experiment and remove options from someone elses book.

You really do expect the worst from people, don't you?

But just to prove you wrong: I'm an Ultramarine player mostly. And I can wholeheartedly say that Space Marines are the main faction in the game that needs consolidation. Including my own Ultramarines.

I volunteer BA and SW for squatting. It's a worthy sacrifice.

SecondTime wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:I think that no one wants nerfs to start with their books. A White Scar player would be all for GW starting the unification of gear and units with, lets say eldar. One melee eldar, one fast moving eldar infantry unit, one anti tank eldar unit and we are done with all the aspects and DE units. ...
Or to make it really short. Everyone is okey for GW to experiment and remove options from someone elses book.

You really do expect the worst from people, don't you?

But just to prove you wrong: I'm an Ultramarine player mostly. And I can wholeheartedly say that Space Marines are the main faction in the game that needs consolidation. Including my own Ultramarines.

I volunteer BA and SW for squatting. It's a worthy sacrifice.

Iron Hands and Grey Knights (so when I talk about rolling Grey Knights and Deathwatch into an Inquisition codex I'm not doing it maliciously)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Ok, you completely missed the point again. We're not asking to remove options from anyone's book. And the discussion is centered on a theoretical timeline where we had the power to start 40k from scratch and use a different approach.

GW has two types of updating a codex. either they gut one all and remove a ton of stuff, and they have a bunch of new models and then the codex has a ton of new rules, although it is not always quality rules. Now I don't like what ifism, because it confuses me, but in your scenario we would have to start with GW acting not like GW, and to me seems wierd to say the least.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You really do expect the worst from people, don't you?

But just to prove you wrong: I'm an Ultramarine player mostly. And I can wholeheartedly say that Space Marines are the main faction in the game that needs consolidation. Including my own Ultramarines.

Yes, it is the only logical way expect stuff from others. Also it is easy to say for an ultramarine, because if GW would be streamlining and merging marines in to something, then it would be marines. I could also say that I am totaly for GW merging all marines and replacing them with one codex, well two one for chaos and loyalists. Because my GK don't share much with marines anyway, so GW would either have to squat my army whole or leave it unchanged. And I can put razorbacks on the altar of sacrifice, if it only means other armies get weaker and my gets more or less unchanged.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Ok, you completely missed the point again. We're not asking to remove options from anyone's book. And the discussion is centered on a theoretical timeline where we had the power to start 40k from scratch and use a different approach.

GW has two types of updating a codex. either they gut one all and remove a ton of stuff, and they have a bunch of new models and then the codex has a ton of new rules, although it is not always quality rules. Now I don't like what ifism, because it confuses me, but in your scenario we would have to start with GW acting not like GW, and to me seems wierd to say the least.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You really do expect the worst from people, don't you?

But just to prove you wrong: I'm an Ultramarine player mostly. And I can wholeheartedly say that Space Marines are the main faction in the game that needs consolidation. Including my own Ultramarines.

Yes, it is the only logical way expect stuff from others. Also it is easy to say for an ultramarine, because if GW would be streamlining and merging marines in to something, then it would be marines. I could also say that I am totaly for GW merging all marines and replacing them with one codex, well two one for chaos and loyalists. Because my GK don't share much with marines anyway, so GW would either have to squat my army whole or leave it unchanged. And I can put razorbacks on the altar of sacrifice, if it only means other armies get weaker and my gets more or less unchanged.

Ah right. You are the guy who said "Nobody in their right mind would ever accept nerfs to their army just so their opponents could have a more fun and better game experience" or something to that effect. I am extremely sad that you grew up in whatever environment you grew up in to make you the way you are. Games are about mutual fun. Everyone should be looking to make sure everyone involved has the best experience possible.