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.

SecondTime wrote:
"why spend time removing one factions stuff when you can spend that same time adding to other armies?"

I get the distinct impression from GW that these events are tied to each. They are so busy patting themselves on the back about the latest primaris lieutenant that there's not much time for other factions.

Marines have just taken over the game in a way never seen before and I think everyone suffers one way or another.

I 100% agree.

Again, end it with this vanilla marine bloat bull gak.
Removing the SW unique units from the rule set doesn't stop GW from releasing Primaris Lt. # 15 ...
I would love it if GW would start ignoring power armor for a while and focusing on other factions. 100% on board.
Removing or merging SW/BA/DA unique units from the game isn't going to do that. Especially if it is the FB marines your doing that to.

"Removing or merging SW/BA/DA unique units from the game isn't going to do that. Especially if it is the FB marines your doing that"

I'm willing to try it, if nothing else maybe some people quit playing those factions if we take away their snowflakier units. Marines are already Mary Sue snowflakes, why do we need EVEN MOAR ELITER MAHREENS. There were too many marine players before they gave them god-tier rules.

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.

By this logic, every non-Marine faction in the game has been squatted already.

I honestly don't follow your logic...

Ya,,,, is he saying eldar are marines ? or ?
I am confused.

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.

By this logic, every non-Marine faction in the game has been squatted already.

I honestly don't follow your logic...

What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?

 JNAProductions wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.

By this logic, every non-Marine faction in the game has been squatted already.

I honestly don't follow your logic...

What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?

completely differant. they've not had stand alone codices for the majority of the games lifespan. that's the thing, you're acting like these armies aren't distinct things but well.. they are.

SecondTime wrote:
"Removing or merging SW/BA/DA unique units from the game isn't going to do that. Especially if it is the FB marines your doing that"

I'm willing to try it, if nothing else maybe some people quit playing those factions if we take away their snowflakier units. Marines are already Mary Sue snowflakes, why do we need EVEN MOAR ELITER MAHREENS. There were too many marine players before they gave them god-tier rules.

Cool.
So this is like saying
"I am willing to try removing daemons and orks from the game. maybe some people quit playing those factions if we take away their unique units. Xenos are already mary sue snowlfakes. why do we need EVEN MOAR DIVERSE XENOS. There were too many xenos players before they gave marines god-tier rules. "

You are honestly proposing a solution to lack of diversity by saying you should remove diversity.... right,,,, its because subjectively you don't view the faction as diverse and can't comprehend that some people do... so this is back to "because subfaction, because mahrines, because they dont deserve it,,,, so lets squat other peoples armies." If you dont want to play against marine players,,, then don't play against marine players. If you don't want to play agains SW players don't play against SW players. If you don't want to play against orks, then don't play against orks... removing or merging someones army isn't going to magically make things more diverse for you,,, if anything you are going be playing against even less diversity with way more "counts as" models because people arn't just going to toss their armies out.

 Type40 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
"Removing or merging SW/BA/DA unique units from the game isn't going to do that. Especially if it is the FB marines your doing that"

I'm willing to try it, if nothing else maybe some people quit playing those factions if we take away their snowflakier units. Marines are already Mary Sue snowflakes, why do we need EVEN MOAR ELITER MAHREENS. There were too many marine players before they gave them god-tier rules.

Cool.
So this is like saying
"I am willing to try removing daemons and orks from the game. maybe some people quit playing those factions if we take away their unique units. Xenos are already mary sue snowlfakes. why do we need EVEN MOAR DIVERSE XENOS. There were too many xenos players before they gave marines god-tier rules. "

You are honestly proposing a solution to lack of diversity by saying you should remove diversity.... right,,,, its because subjectively you don't view the faction as diverse and can't comprehend that some people do... so this is back to "because subfaction, because mahrines, because they dont deserve it,,,, so lets squat other peoples armies." If you dont want to play against marine players,,, then don't play against marine players. If you don't want to play agains SW players don't play against SW players. If you don't want to play against orks, then don't play against orks... removing or merging someones army isn't going to magically make things more diverse for you,,, if anything you are going be playing against even less diversity with way more "counts as" models because people arn't just going to toss their armies out.

this BTW is why most SM players tend to get defensive pretty quick in these threads. the bulk of those arguing for "consolidation" reveal themselves as just anti-marine

BrianDavion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.

By this logic, every non-Marine faction in the game has been squatted already.

I honestly don't follow your logic...

What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?

completely differant. they've not had stand alone codices for the majority of the games lifespan. that's the thing, you're acting like these armies aren't distinct things but well.. they are.

So, do you think that Black Heart should have their own Dex, or at least a supplement?
Same for Poison Rose, and all the other subfactions mentioned?

What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?

not 20+ unique datasheets, several pages of unique stratagems, relics, psychic powers, warlord traits 20+ years of existing as their own codex, being separate codex since 2nd edition and unique model kits... i am missing some things... but that's the start ya XD.

Not saying they shouldn't have all those things... I am just saying they don't have those things.

 Type40 wrote:

What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?

not 20+ unique datasheets, several pages of unique stratagems, relics, psychic powers, warlord traits 20+ years of existing as their own codex, being separate codex since 2nd edition and unique model kits... i am missing some things... but that's the start ya XD.

Not saying they shouldn't have all those things... I am just saying they don't have those things.

You made the argument EARLIER that they shouldn't have those things. You made the argument for several pages that the increase in development time would also increase difficulty in balancing the game which cannot be spared. Why the change in tune?

 JNAProductions wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.

By this logic, every non-Marine faction in the game has been squatted already.

I honestly don't follow your logic...

What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?

completely differant. they've not had stand alone codices for the majority of the games lifespan. that's the thing, you're acting like these armies aren't distinct things but well.. they are.

So, do you think that Black Heart should have their own Dex, or at least a supplement?
Same for Poison Rose, and all the other subfactions mentioned?

Ok if the chocie where mine, THEY'D ABSOLUTELY HAVE THEIR OWN SUPPLEMENTS. but we're enghaged in reality here the fact is space wolves, dark angels and blood angels have all been their own distinct factions since 2nd edition. oddly in that time people have grown attached to them.

 JNAProductions wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.

By this logic, every non-Marine faction in the game has been squatted already.

I honestly don't follow your logic...

What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?

completely differant. they've not had stand alone codices for the majority of the games lifespan. that's the thing, you're acting like these armies aren't distinct things but well.. they are.

So, do you think that Black Heart should have their own Dex, or at least a supplement?
Same for Poison Rose, and all the other subfactions mentioned?

Again,
this insane notion that just because we don't want to have our army, which ALREADY exists, removed or merged doesn't have anything to do with whether or not other armies, factions, or sub factions should be more fleshed out. (remember when harlequins were just a unit that Eldar/DE could take, i love that they became their own army)

I don't care whether or not they get a dex or supplement... if they do , then that is GREAT ,,, its coool ! if those sub factions get to be as fleshed out as SWs are now !! that is awesome !!!!!! .... if they don't,,, nothing lost.

If i come to your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream and you bring nothing,,, fine we have what i got . If I come to your house with my flavours and you bring a third flavor AWESOME... If i come to your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream and you throw out the strawberry or mix the strawberry in with the chocolate I will be upset at you for removing my icecream,, especially if your justification is that I didn't bring the third flavour so you dont think we should have the ones i brought in the first place.

The army already exists, i am sure other subfactions / gak from 40k will become armies in the future as well ! but right now... these are the factions that exist,,, why do you think us wanting to keep our army means we don't want others to have armies too ?

BrianDavion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Making BA and SW into just red and grey marines WOULD be squatting them from a rules/tabletop play standpoint and for many people that is NOT fine.

By this logic, every non-Marine faction in the game has been squatted already.

I honestly don't follow your logic...

What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?

completely differant. they've not had stand alone codices for the majority of the games lifespan. that's the thing, you're acting like these armies aren't distinct things but well.. they are.

So, do you think that Black Heart should have their own Dex, or at least a supplement?
Same for Poison Rose, and all the other subfactions mentioned?

Ok if the chocie where mine, THEY'D ABSOLUTELY HAVE THEIR OWN SUPPLEMENTS. but we're enghaged in reality here the fact is space wolves, dark angels and blood angels have all been their own distinct factions since 2nd edition. oddly in that time people have grown attached to them.

Attachment isn't the question and nobody is suggesting that they go away. They are suggesting that many of their "unique" units are not in fact unique and could use a shared datasheet with other units that do the same thing. Nobody is saying "and then nobody ever heard of the BA again".

BrianDavion wrote:Ok if the chocie where mine, THEY'D ABSOLUTELY HAVE THEIR OWN SUPPLEMENTS. but we're enghaged in reality here the fact is space wolves, dark angels and blood angels have all been their own distinct factions since 2nd edition. oddly in that time people have grown attached to them.

Thank you. That's appreciated-fairness is a good quality to have.

One GW's not very good at, but at least you have got your mind in the right place.

Type40 wrote:Again,
this insane notion that just because we don't want to have our army, which ALREADY exists, removed or merged doesn't have anything to do with whether or not other armies, factions, or sub factions should be more fleshed out. (remember when harlequins were just a unit that Eldar/DE could take, i love that they became their own army)

I don't care whether or not they get a dex or supplement... if they do , then that is GREAT ,,, its coool ! if those sub factions get to be as fleshed out as SWs are now !! that is awesome !!!!!! .... if they don't,,, nothing lost.

If i come to your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream and you bring nothing,,, fine we have what i got . If I come to your house with my flavours and you bring a third flavor AWESOME... If i come to your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream and you throw out the strawberry or mix the strawberry in with the chocolate I will be upset at you for removing my icecream,, especially if your justification is that I didn't bring the third flavour so you dont think we should have the ones i brought in the first place.

The army already exists, i am sure other subfactions / gak from 40k will become armies in the future as well ! but right now... these are the factions that exist,,, why do you think us wanting to keep our army means we don't want others to have armies too ?

Whereas this is a lot more callous towards others.

Type40, this comes off (to me, at least) as "I got mine, who cares if you get yours?"

If that's not what you intended, you might want to change your choice of words.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

What's the difference between Steel Legion and Vostroyan?
Or Kabal of the Black heart and Poisoned Rose?
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart?

not 20+ unique datasheets, several pages of unique stratagems, relics, psychic powers, warlord traits 20+ years of existing as their own codex, being separate codex since 2nd edition and unique model kits... i am missing some things... but that's the start ya XD.

Not saying they shouldn't have all those things... I am just saying they don't have those things.

You made the argument EARLIER that they shouldn't have those things. You made the argument for several pages that the increase in development time would also increase difficulty in balancing the game which cannot be spared. Why the change in tune?

You really don't read my entire posts do you ?
By being limited to SWs the faction has increased restrictions and therefor less variability... I explained this in detail before... so no I did not make an argument EARLIER that they shouldn't have those things . Increase in variability increases development time... here I am pointing out restricted variables which ALREADY EXIST. not a proposal to increase variability...

I am answering what SWs/BA/DA have that those other subfactions don't XD... this isn't a proposal for what they should have or what new ways we should move forward.. this is what DOES exist...

Do you actually read what people write or do you just respond as though you are responding to the argument you want to be responding to ?

By suggesting that every subfaction in the game should be given there own list of unique units you are arguing for that.

 JNAProductions wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:Ok if the chocie where mine, THEY'D ABSOLUTELY HAVE THEIR OWN SUPPLEMENTS. but we're enghaged in reality here the fact is space wolves, dark angels and blood angels have all been their own distinct factions since 2nd edition. oddly in that time people have grown attached to them.

Thank you. That's appreciated-fairness is a good quality to have.

One GW's not very good at, but at least you have got your mind in the right place.

Type40 wrote:Again,
this insane notion that just because we don't want to have our army, which ALREADY exists, removed or merged doesn't have anything to do with whether or not other armies, factions, or sub factions should be more fleshed out. (remember when harlequins were just a unit that Eldar/DE could take, i love that they became their own army)

I don't care whether or not they get a dex or supplement... if they do , then that is GREAT ,,, its coool ! if those sub factions get to be as fleshed out as SWs are now !! that is awesome !!!!!! .... if they don't,,, nothing lost.

If i come to your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream and you bring nothing,,, fine we have what i got . If I come to your house with my flavours and you bring a third flavor AWESOME... If i come to your house with chocolate and strawberry ice cream and you throw out the strawberry or mix the strawberry in with the chocolate I will be upset at you for removing my icecream,, especially if your justification is that I didn't bring the third flavour so you dont think we should have the ones i brought in the first place.

The army already exists, i am sure other subfactions / gak from 40k will become armies in the future as well ! but right now... these are the factions that exist,,, why do you think us wanting to keep our army means we don't want others to have armies too ?

Whereas this is a lot more callous towards others.

Type40, this comes off (to me, at least) as "I got mine, who cares if you get yours?"

If that's not what you intended, you might want to change your choice of words.

Are you reading what I am writing ?

more subfactions being fleshed out = GOOD
When they exist GREAT !!!
do other factions need more attention . YES .
DO I THINK IT IS OK THAT YOU WANT TO REMOVE MY ARMY BECAUSE YOURS HASN'T BEEN FLESHED OUT ? NO YOU CAN GO feth YOURSELF IF YOU THINK THAT.

I want my diversity and fleshed out sub factions in the game. and yes, I got mine !!!!! I am happy i got mine !!!! and you got yours !!!! GREAT , you have what you have and it does EXIST .... if you get more !!!! GREAT !!! PLEASE HAVE MORE !!!!! but why the hell do you want to take mine away ? the game has all these armies to choose from. They play in different ways ! GREAT ... are you so jellous about the way that my army works that you can't handle the fact that your army doesn't work in the exact same way ? ... do you really want your faction to have access to primaris so bad ! fething take em. I don't need them.

How many times do I have to repeat that I DONT WANT MORE ATTENTION GIVEN TO PWOER ARMOR FACTIONS FOR NOW !!! do you really not get that... You are the one trying to advocate my army gets fething squated or merged and you have the nerve to tell me that I am wrong for saying "dont take my gak from me."

for feth sake man. do you really not understand that what you are saying is the equivalent of
"why do you think daemons deserve to be their own faction and not rolled into CSM ?" then when I say "because they have unique units and rules that are different from CSM despite the overlap, the overlap really isnt what i am interested in"
Then you say
"well, do you think this other obscure thing should be its own codex or suplement"
"Sure, but honestly, I just don't want you to take mine away, and I don't see what this other obscure thing becoming a faction has to do with mine existing"
"oh, so your selfish"

For feth sake.
If there are 5 housing plots on a street. 3 of plots have houses built on them. You don't tell the guy in house number 1 that his house needs to be torn down because house number 5 hasn't been built yet. Then when the guy in house number 1 says "i don't care what you do with that plot, please put attention on that plot if youd like, my house is done, just don't tear mine down because your upset that house doesnt exist yet" you don't go "WELL THATS UNFAIR WE ARE TEARING YOUR HOUSE DOWN BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE A HOUSE HERE "

Please !!! build your house. I want to see that happen, GREAT ! , but its not my fault my army has existed and been fleshed out since 2nd edition and the fething Poisoned Rose hasn't. stop trying to imply I am selfish because I don't like the idea of squating or merging my army... its not going to magically making Poisoned Rose a faction... or magically make anything for you better. I love playing against more varieties of games ! ... thousand sons and deathgaurd were not their own codex when i frist started playing. I LOVE that they are now. I would love to see more fleshed out sub factions... restrictions over variables is good ! ... but what does other subfactions becoming fleshed out have to do with squating mine !


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
By suggesting that every subfaction in the game should be given there own list of unique units you are arguing for that.

LOL you still don't get it then XD.

Non-variable datasheets ,,, i.e. restrictions means NP is complete... because there is no variables...
but lets not get into this,,, seriously... you really don't grasp anything I have been talking about this entire time...

in short
Static datasheets = good
variable datasheets = bad

more unique units is not the same thing as advocating for giant variable consolidated datasheets.
So again... no I am not arguing for that. Re-read my old posts.

You may want to calm down. I literally said "If that's not what you intended, you might want to change your choice of words," because I got the feeling it came off as harsher than you meant it to.

But when your response to that is a massive ball of "Feth off!" it really ruins that impression.

@JNAProductions

Is your argument for SWs/BA/DA not existing in a unique way seriously

"Its not FAIR that these armies/subfactions/factions have been fleshed out for 20+ years and these other ones have not"

?

Because, ya, the more that get fleshed out, the better for the game,,, but ,,, advocating that others have stuff removed because your jealous or you feel like its unfair that certain armies simply exist is a bit of a bad argument.

again, removing my army isn't going to bring back the 20+ years of design time used to flesh the SWs out ...

 Type40 wrote:
@JNAProductions

Is your argument for SWs/BA/DA not existing in a unique way seriously

"Its not FAIR that these armies/subfactions/factions have been fleshed out for 20+ years and these other ones have not"

?

Because, ya, the more that get fleshed out, the better for the game,,, but ,,, advocating that others have stuff removed because your jealous or you feel like its unfair that certain armies simply exist is a bit of a bad argument.

again, removing my army isn't going to bring back the 20+ years of design time used to flesh the SWs out ...

My argument is that Marines take up far too much design space, and the resources that are currently being used on them should be used to help flesh out other factions that need it a lot more.

I also think that it's perfectly reasonable to hold the position of "EVERYBODY deserves supplements," or "Supplements should be done away with entirely," but not the position of "Space Marines and Space Marines alone deserve supplements."

Brian Davion has made clear that they hold the first position.
I'm ambivalent as to which is the better course of action for 40k, though leaning on the second argument for the moment, since there are entire Codecs that need reworking before Supplements should be considered.
Your posts give off the impression of the third argument-except I've not even seen you defend Ultramarines or White Scars having their own Supplements, just Space Wolves.

Again-if you don't want to come off that way, you should consider phrasing what you say in a different way.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You may want to calm down. I literally said "If that's not what you intended, you might want to change your choice of words," because I got the feeling it came off as harsher than you meant it to.

But when your response to that is a massive ball of "Feth off!" it really ruins that impression.

Sorry.

I am just getting frustrated because this attitude that seems to suggest that I somehow think that everyone else doesn't deserve things because I don't want my army to be squated or merged.
Its a bit infuriating that me saying "Hey, what does making a new dex or suplement out of that subfaction have to do with squating my army" gets a response suggesting I am in someway coming off selfish... like ya,,, it would be cool if some of thos sub faction got more fleshed out... but again,,, when it comes to whether or not my faction gets squated I don't care whether or not your subfaction gets anything, it has nothing to do with the continued existence of mine.

I don't mean to come off so aggressively with you. I am just frustrated at the lack of understanding. Especially because I keep repeating how I completey agree that other factions need attention, other factions deserve just as much. and etc etc.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
@JNAProductions

Is your argument for SWs/BA/DA not existing in a unique way seriously

"Its not FAIR that these armies/subfactions/factions have been fleshed out for 20+ years and these other ones have not"

?

Because, ya, the more that get fleshed out, the better for the game,,, but ,,, advocating that others have stuff removed because your jealous or you feel like its unfair that certain armies simply exist is a bit of a bad argument.

again, removing my army isn't going to bring back the 20+ years of design time used to flesh the SWs out ...

My argument is that Marines take up far too much design space, and the resources that are currently being used on them should be used to help flesh out other factions that need it a lot more.

100 % agree with you on this. I have said this before, repeatedly

I also think that it's perfectly reasonable to hold the position of "EVERYBODY deserves supplements," or "Supplements should be done away with entirely," but not the position of "Space Marines and Space Marines alone deserve supplements."

my argument is not that EVERYONE deserves supplements... my argument is more like "the more the merrier." it 100% is not "Space Marines and Space Marines alone deserve supplements." I have never said that, and I would never say that because I completely disagree with this. I want to see more supplements. if it ends up being EVERYONE ,,, great,,, but my attitude is more = better, regardless of faction.

Brian Davion has made clear that they hold the first position.
I'm ambivalent as to which is the better course of action for 40k, though leaning on the second argument for the moment, since there are entire Codecs that need reworking before Supplements should be considered.
Your posts give off the impression of the third argument-except I've not even seen you defend Ultramarines or White Scars having their own Supplements, just Space Wolves.

Again-if you don't want to come off that way, you should consider phrasing what you say in a different way.

My arguments are mainly for BA/SW/DA due to how much they have been fleshed out already... As for the other marines... i think more work needs to be done but now isn't the time.
As for xenos, IG, and etc ... I would love to see more... I have never once even tried to suggest ONLY SPACE MARINES... I am constantly doing nothing but simply defending them... I don't understand how you can interprete "don't squat my army" as "only my army deserves this."
I havn't said this or even suggested this once.... you can go back through all my posts and I guarantee you wont find a single quote that suggests this. This is precisely what is frustrated me in this conversation. You keep accusing me of this and other selfish attitudes when I havn't once suggested that I think only one faction, or only one army deserves anything. I have done nothing for days but deffend why my army shouldn't be squated or merged.... Stop accusing me of saying no one else deserves anything... just because I say "my stuff is unique and should stay that way" doesn't translate to "my stuff is special and i don't think you should have special things like me" .... these arn't the same statements so please stop saying that it is what i am saying.

You're not saying it. GW is. Evidently.

And our argument is that you are wrong. bloating every other army in the game by adding more units that are redundant isn't going to make the game any better. The thread is more or less about how the game would benefit by a reduction in the things you are now asking for more of. I have no interest in seeing the tyranids gain an additional 60 datasheets by giving 6 different sub factions new datasheets that are keyword locked. I would rather be able to make my own hive fleet my own. And SM make their own chapter their own. This isn't about representing GWs 6 different subfaction dudes. This is about players being able to represent THEIR dudes.

SecondTime wrote:
You're not saying it. GW is. Evidently.

Agreed !!!!

But my attitude of wanting my faction to continue to exist in a unique way is not the same as GWs attitude either.

Maybe this is the issue... lets try and separate my opinion from GWs. I too disagree with GWs attitude that Marines get all the toys and no one else does.
I too agree that when SWs/SMs get stuff these days, it feels gakky to everyone else (remember my wolves are my second faction).

But I am saying "I want my army to stay unique, I want to continue to have the things I have gotten during more reasonable times in the game, I think all this new primaris gak is a load of crap just like everyone else"
I am not asking for future resources to go to SWs. I am trying to remind people that removing all the stuff that has been fleshed out for them in 20+ years (not including the past 3 primaris bs years) would feel gakky for the people who play those factions and removing all that stuff wont magically make new space for other people. Its not even the unique units that are taking up the current design space,,, its all this primaris gak.

So yes, I want other factions to get attention... no SWs BA and DA don't need a lot of attention these days... I disagree with all this vannilla gak that GW is trying to force down the SWs BA and DA palyers throats. So can we just focus on other factions and leave these unique fleshed out armies alone... what's the point in removing them ? their 20 + years of design time isn't coming back if you do ? your just ruining some peoples enjoyment of the game and nothing else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
And our argument is that you are wrong. bloating every other army in the game by adding more units that are redundant isn't going to make the game any better. The thread is more or less about how the game would benefit by a reduction in the things you are now asking for more of. I have no interest in seeing the tyranids gain an additional 60 datasheets by giving 6 different sub factions new datasheets that are keyword locked. I would rather be able to make my own hive fleet my own. And SM make their own chapter their own. This isn't about representing GWs 6 different subfaction dudes. This is about players being able to represent THEIR dudes.

The redundancy of TWC, wulfen, and other unique SW units is again,,, just your opinion man...
Again,,, you don't want people to represent their dudes because you don't think their dudes are unique enough to be represented XD lol ... you think they are "all just the same." you have yet to explain to me what makes merging these unique units together any different from just merging the entire game into a single set of datasheets other then "MAHRINES" and "SUBFACTION." If as few, incredibly customizable datasheets are what's best for the game... then roll in every faction ? or are you going to admit that you have made a subjective opinion on when an army is allowed have its own unique set of datasheets? XD ... You should just make your hive fleet your own with all the customization in the world... you should do that... there are alternative rule sets and games that use 40k mini's that do just that. They are different games and they are not 40k ... its ok if you'd prefer to play those games... they just aren't this game. Sorry.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You may want to calm down. I literally said "If that's not what you intended, you might want to change your choice of words," because I got the feeling it came off as harsher than you meant it to.

But when your response to that is a massive ball of "Feth off!" it really ruins that impression.

I honestly don't blame him the reaction. I mean... look not everyone is saying this but when someone says "SW/DA/BA have been around for a long time as their own codices, have their own identity and units etc as a concequence" and people say "WELL WHAT ABOUT CRAFTWORLD UTHWE IT DOESN'T HAVE UNIQUE STUFF!" (just for example here) what it comes off sounding like is "well if CWE don't have this, no one can, and it should be removed no matter how much it screws over with what people already have" (yet again just using CWE as an example here)

I'd absolutely love to see more supplements for every faction. hell I'd rather they do supplements to apd out an edition to make it last longer then it takes GW to pump out codices.

I can think of some armies that would absolutely benifit from having supplements.

 Type40 wrote:

The redundancy of TWC, wulfen, and other unique SW units is again,,, just your opinion man...
Again,,, you don't want people to represent their dudes because you don't think their dudes are unique enough to be represented XD lol ... you think they are "all just the same" XD ... You should just make your hive fleet your own with all the customization in the world... you should do that... there are alternative rule sets and games that use 40k mini's that do just that. They are different games and they are not 40k ... its ok if you'd prefer to play those games... they just aren't this game. Sorry.

The thing is, I can't see how your argument isn't "just an opinion" either. And I certainly don't see any evidence that you have the knowledge of what is and isn't "this game".

The consolidate side has more or less put forward their a priori assumptions on what makes a good game and argued how consolidation moves the game towards that direction.
May I suggest that you do something similar in return?

As 40k is a game, any view on what makes it good is ultimately an opinion, but if the criteria for "goodness" is agreed upon, it will be possible to make (contextually)non-subjective arguments about how to improve the game.

SturmOgre wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

The redundancy of TWC, wulfen, and other unique SW units is again,,, just your opinion man...
Again,,, you don't want people to represent their dudes because you don't think their dudes are unique enough to be represented XD lol ... you think they are "all just the same" XD ... You should just make your hive fleet your own with all the customization in the world... you should do that... there are alternative rule sets and games that use 40k mini's that do just that. They are different games and they are not 40k ... its ok if you'd prefer to play those games... they just aren't this game. Sorry.

The thing is, I can't see how your argument isn't "just an opinion" either. And I certainly don't see any evidence that you have the knowledge of what is and isn't "this game".

The consolidate side has more or less put forward their a priori assumptions on what makes a good game and argued how consolidation moves the game towards that direction.
May I suggest that you do something similar in return?

As 40k is a game, any view on what makes it good is ultimately an opinion, but if the criteria for "goodness" is agreed upon, it will be possible to make (contextually)non-subjective arguments about how to improve the game.

If you go through the entirety of this thread, you will see lots of arguments presented by me.
Now, this a pretty simple point... if you are removing an armies unique identity, unique access to a unit, unit itself then there will be players who will be upset that you are removing their army from the game or are merging them completely into another army...
If UM can ride cavalry all of a sudden, that means your army has lost a part of its unique identity in terms of table play.
sure. this is my opinion. It is shrouded in the fact that people invest time and energy into their armies and would like to play them.

I know what i am saying is an opinion.. I am not saying it isn't ... what Lance doesn't seem to grasp is how subjective it is for him to decide when an army is unique enough to get its own set of datasheets and when they arn't... i am trying to point out to him that where he draws that line is, in fact, an opinion which has not justified in any way other then repeatedly saying "subfactions are not armies" or "they are all marines" ... which is really just him repeating his opinion.

And a game with completely customizable datasheets using 40k models does in fact exist, it is in fact a different game,,, so ,,, ya,, i know there is 40k,, and there are other games that work differently... you don't have to think i know the game or not to make that any less true. or even whether not either of these games are good or bad... they are just, in fact, different games.

if you want to see all of my justifications and defences, please go through the posts and check them. Lance and I have had a long set of arguments and disagreements where i have brought up many reasons for not wanting BA/SW/DA/DW to be squated or have their identities removed by merger. not to mention points about increasing variables in generic marines by removing the subfaction restrictions and thus creating more work for designers... but that is a long explanation and can be found explained earlier.

The point is,,, yes,,, these are all opinions,,, I would like Lance to acknowledge that and especially acknowledge that his opinion of what does and doesnt get to be a unique army is subjective...

No. It is not my opinion that subfactions are not armies. That is a fact.

Tyranids is a army. Adeptus Astartes is an army.

Ultramarines is not an army. And regardless of what SW were, they are currently not an army.

Again, nobody is suggesting that TWC go away. They are suggesting that creating bespoke datasheets for things like that when other units fulfill the same role and a consolidation of the 2 would open access to more players being able to represent their dudes is not in any capacity a bad thing. The only people who would be upset by this are the people who feel protective of it, like you are.

It's not a matter of you loosing anything. It's a matter of everything gaining things within the singular entity that is the army Adeptus Astartes while reducing bloat and streamlining .

And again, I know you FEEL like you are loosing something. You are SOOO protective of it. You call it unique flavor but it's not. No more so then Jormungandr versus Hydra. And you want the other subfactions to gain all these extra datasheets, but thats a problem. The game would suffer for it. The players would become MORE restricted for it. We all loose. I don't want to loose. I want us all, even you, to gain.

 Type40 wrote:

SturmOgre wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

The redundancy of TWC, wulfen, and other unique SW units is again,,, just your opinion man...
Again,,, you don't want people to represent their dudes because you don't think their dudes are unique enough to be represented XD lol ... you think they are "all just the same" XD ... You should just make your hive fleet your own with all the customization in the world... you should do that... there are alternative rule sets and games that use 40k mini's that do just that. They are different games and they are not 40k ... its ok if you'd prefer to play those games... they just aren't this game. Sorry.

The thing is, I can't see how your argument isn't "just an opinion" either. And I certainly don't see any evidence that you have the knowledge of what is and isn't "this game".

The consolidate side has more or less put forward their a priori assumptions on what makes a good game and argued how consolidation moves the game towards that direction.
May I suggest that you do something similar in return?

As 40k is a game, any view on what makes it good is ultimately an opinion, but if the criteria for "goodness" is agreed upon, it will be possible to make (contextually)non-subjective arguments about how to improve the game.

If you go through the entirety of this thread, you will see lots of arguments presented by me.
Now, this a pretty simple point... if you are removing an armies unique identity, unique access to a unit, unit itself then there will be players who will be upset that you are removing their army from the game or are merging them completely into another army...
If UM can ride cavalry all of a sudden, that means your army has lost a part of its unique identity in terms of table play.
sure. this is my opinion. It is shrouded in the fact that people invest time and energy into their armies and would like to play them.

I know what i am saying is an opinion.. I am not saying it isn't ... what Lance doesn't seem to grasp is how subjective it is for him to decide when an army is unique enough to get its own set of datasheets and when they arn't... i am trying to point out to him that where he draws that line is, in fact, an opinion which has not justified in any way other then repeatedly saying "subfactions are not armies" or "they are all marines" ... which is really just him repeating his opinion.

And a game with completely customizable datasheets using 40k models does in fact exist, it is in fact a different game,,, so ,,, ya,, i know there is 40k,, and there are other games that work differently... you don't have to think i know the game or not to make that any less true. or even whether not either of these games are good or bad... they are just, in fact, different games.

if you want to see all of my justifications and defences, please go through the posts and check them. Lance and I have had a long set of arguments and disagreements where i have brought up many reasons for not wanting BA/SW/DA/DW to be squated or have their identities removed by merger. not to mention points about increasing variables in generic marines by removing the subfaction restrictions and thus creating more work for designers... but that is a long explanation and can be found explained earlier.

The point is,,, yes,,, these are all opinions,,, I would like Lance to acknowledge that and especially acknowledge that his opinion of what does and doesnt get to be a unique army is subjective...

I have read through the entire thread, including your arguments. Or rather, you've mostly made counterarguments against consolidation. What I was asking for would be closer to a set of criteria that measure the quality of the game which could be affected by consolidation, so that both sides can find some sort of common ground to derive arguments from. For example, you have expressed support for some degree of consolidation, specifically regarding the various primaris captains, so you presumably dislike datasheet bloat.

On the topic of different games, sure those games you mentioned exist and are distinct from current 40k, but I don't see how that shows that the concept of consolidated datasheets is somehow antithetical to 40k as a whole. Because if they aren't, why shouldn't Lance and others advocate for an improved game, from their point of view?

And about opinions, I certainly don't see Lance or anyone else claiming their definition of subfaction vs army is absolute fact. They have set their boundaries (SW are subfactions of SM, but SM and IG are distinct, etc) and have provided a degree of support (differences in wargear, different base statlines, etc).

 Lance845 wrote:
No. It is not my opinion that subfactions are not armies. That is a fact.

T.

your opinion is not fact.

GW seems to define whats an army, as do most sensable people, on what has a codex or not.