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.
2021/06/09 20:33:30
Subject: Re:Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
Blackie wrote: Yes we do, since GW decided that some SM chapters are actual armies with several unique datasheets and several dedicated kits.
Generic IG regiments, drukhari obsessions, ork klans, necron dynasties, etc... don't have anything dedicated barring maybe a single named character or two.
The word "need" is a strong one. For someone we definitely don't need multiple SM books, but for others the game would still be amazing with no SM at all and for them we wouldn't need even ONE SM codex .
You could do it over less books. Have a generic codex space marines. Have a codex Founding Chapters with all the unique datasheets and rules, basically like the FW compendium, then have a codex Successor Chapters for any unique datasheets and rules they have. There we go, just condensed 12 books into 3.
Guard could totally have multiple codexes if GW put more effort into them. There was a time when we had hundreds of additional datasheets supplied by FW. In 3rd edition we had codex Catachan, codex Eye of Terror which featured Cadians, codex Armageddon which featured the Steel Legion, we had the Chapter Approved Armoured Company, and we had the first Imperial Armour book. In 5th edition we had Siege of Vraks which introduced DKOK and Renegades & Heretics, the Talos campaign which introduced the Elysians, and the 2nd Edition of Imperial Armour 1.
Any army given enough support could have multiple codexes.
2021/06/09 22:30:22
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
Blackie wrote: Yes we do, since GW decided that some SM chapters are actual armies with several unique datasheets and several dedicated kits.
Generic IG regiments, drukhari obsessions, ork klans, necron dynasties, etc... don't have anything dedicated barring maybe a single named character or two.
The word "need" is a strong one. For someone we definitely don't need multiple SM books, but for others the game would still be amazing with no SM at all and for them we wouldn't need even ONE SM codex .
You could do it over less books. Have a generic codex space marines. Have a codex Founding Chapters with all the unique datasheets and rules, basically like the FW compendium, then have a codex Successor Chapters for any unique datasheets and rules they have. There we go, just condensed 12 books into 3.
Guard could totally have multiple codexes if GW put more effort into them. There was a time when we had hundreds of additional datasheets supplied by FW. In 3rd edition we had codex Catachan, codex Eye of Terror which featured Cadians, codex Armageddon which featured the Steel Legion, we had the Chapter Approved Armoured Company, and we had the first Imperial Armour book. In 5th edition we had Siege of Vraks which introduced DKOK and Renegades & Heretics, the Talos campaign which introduced the Elysians, and the 2nd Edition of Imperial Armour 1.
Any army given enough support could have multiple codexes.
Go down to 1. Organize it like CSM 3.5. Write the core list, and then put "appendixes" at the end of the book with Legion-specific content.
Pointer5 wrote: I'll get back to the poll question and say none of the books should be removed. The game points scaling is not the problem. The size of GW total company is the problem. We don't have enough people, enough manufacturing capabilities, or money to set the first up. It's time GW steps up and starts being the premier company at what they do. Their should be a major manufacturing and distribution center in the USA. They should also be a major manufacturing and distribution center in Australia. That should help stop the crazy pricing in South East Asia. Once done GW could put out multiple codexes every month and it would take pressure of English and Chinese production.
You are correct but I believe GW believes it is in their best interst to keep the game more exclusive. I feel they fear (and rightly so) the US interest in the game would end up with them losing control of their game (their baby).
Nurglitch wrote: I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.
So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.
As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.
Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.
Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.
Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SiLKY wrote: I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.
Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.
How are they any different aesthetically from dire avengers / striking scorpions/ and fire dragons? Who deliberately have different aesthetics. Quinn's getting their own book 6-7 years ago hey literally just made up a story and units to make it happen...could equally have done the same with "Dire Avenger shrines" codex and it would have made equal sense.
I agree with the marines. There should only be 1 space marine codex. The only space marine force that is somewhat worthy of their own book would be GK - but that should just be a combined book with all inquisition.
Dire avengers, striking scorpions and fire dragons are all part of the Craftworlds is the biggest reason for starters, secondly those three share very big similarities to each other than they do to Harlequins. The armor designs of the three playable aeldari factions have very distinct silhouettes, Drukhari have sharper edges and tighter armor, Craftworld are sleek and rounded, and Harlequins sit in between. GW has also been fiddling with the idea of Harlequins having it's own faction since 3rd edition but for whatever reason didn't come into fruition until 7th.
Are you aware that harlequins used to be part of craftworlds as well?
Yes, what's your point, they were also in the Dark Eldar codex. Death Guard and 1k Sons were in the Chaos codex too, should we merge those back into the CSM codex?
2021/06/10 01:25:35
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
Nurglitch wrote: I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.
So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.
Sure. My point was that a Knight, Errant, Crusader, whatever, doesn't work like 500pts of infantry. When you cause wounds on the infantry the size of the unit might shrink, they might lose weapons, they might lose attacks, they might even lose more wounds/models. When you cause wounds on the knight, nothing else happens. You might vaguely degrade its movement and ability to hit, but that's about it. A Knight is a single, boring brick of a unit. Its a similar problem with monsters and vehicles are whatever else writ large that even the little damage-track gently degrading the Knight's profile doesn't really fix.
You see, in Space Marine 2nd edition Titans had a diagram chunking them into parts, and if you were attacking them you got to aim at their various parts. You could attack their weapons, their legs, their reactors, their heads, and their carapaces. The heads were the best protected, and a good headshot would kill a Titan. But those heads tended to have 1+ armour saving throws, so unless you had a weapon with a -1 AP you needed to hit them in the weapons or reactor. So having a Warlord Titan facing a company of Land Raiders, roughly equivalent points values, was actually interesting because those Lascannons had a -2 AP, and while the Warlord could remove Land Raiders from the board, they could likewise hobble and defang it in turn.
Pretty much nobody played 900pts vs 900pts in Epic Space Marine (2nd ed), unless you were learning and the basic box came with enough Land Raiders to form a company and a Warlord Titan. But 900pts of Titan was an interesting proposition because it behaved just like a unit made up of several models. It wouldn't be too hard to divide up a Knight into separate models, like legs, ion shield, right arm, left arm, etc. Likewise other big chunks like Baneblades and Wraithknights would benefit from having bits that could be attacked separately.
Until then, dropping Knights (and all super-heavies really) would be great. It's not like players don't have Apocalypse for their super-heavy battles.
2021/06/10 13:11:16
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
Kanluwen wrote: The most interesting part is that GW actually has a fairly simple way of balancing out Knights and other LoWs, if the points levels really do not function for them:
Battle Size.
We have the Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught "Battle Size" listings.
500,1000, 2000, and 3000 points respectively.
Disallowing Lords of War at Combat Patrol and Incursion levels shouldn't be super difficult to get people to accept one would think.
Lords of War are disallowed for combat patrol unless you are playing knights.
Yea, because that makes a whole bunch of sense. You ca play theseLoW (knights) - but not those others (Baneblades, etc).
Yes, yes, I get it. Knights a faction with their own codex & you can't disappoint that portion of customers...
There is a difference between being allowed to put a real army on the board and supporting it with a LoW and allowing a knight player to auto-lose the game
How viable it is concerning winning/losing has nothing to do with it for me. It's "Why can that guy bring a Knight, but I can't bring a ____ {some other LoW - assuming it firs pts/PL}??
2021/06/10 13:38:25
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
The sole reason for this rule is that knight players aren't locked out an entire game mode because the picked the wrong army. They have no real chance of interacting with the game in a meaningful way at that level and neither person will likely get a good game out of it, but they can still try.
500 point games work because people are forced to bring a single combat patrol and can't just pick a spearhead or vanguard to skew their list into something the other player might not be able to handle.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2021/06/10 13:52:35
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
Hellebore wrote: Harlequins were also their own army list before the eldar craftworlds had one in 1st ed, so it's pretty irrelevant what's happened previously.
First eddition...LOL. What army is the same as it was back in first edition? Back when Gardians had lasguns? The game evolved into something and took shape. Then they unshaped it.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2021/06/10 18:12:43
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
SiLKY wrote:
Yes, what's your point, they were also in the Dark Eldar codex. Death Guard and 1k Sons were in the Chaos codex too, should we merge those back into the CSM codex?
Put them back in and give them the supplement treatment.
2021/06/10 18:43:42
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
If there should be a consolidation I'd like Chaos to just have 5 different Codizes:
Nurgle
Khorne
Slaanesh
Tzeentch
Undivided
Each of these has rules for all the relevant CSM, Renegades, Traitor Guard, Cultists, marked Knights, Daemons, Dark Mechanicum and what have you. But for that to do the fluff justice GW would have to abandon the no models no rules policy.
2021/06/10 19:08:50
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
Pointer5 wrote: I'll get back to the poll question and say none of the books should be removed. The game points scaling is not the problem. The size of GW total company is the problem. We don't have enough people, enough manufacturing capabilities, or money to set the first up. It's time GW steps up and starts being the premier company at what they do. Their should be a major manufacturing and distribution center in the USA. They should also be a major manufacturing and distribution center in Australia. That should help stop the crazy pricing in South East Asia. Once done GW could put out multiple codexes every month and it would take pressure of English and Chinese production.
You are correct but I believe GW believes it is in their best interst to keep the game more exclusive. I feel they fear (and rightly so) the US interest in the game would end up with them losing control of their game (their baby).
Nurglitch wrote: I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.
So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.
As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.
Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.
Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.
Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SiLKY wrote: I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.
Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.
How are they any different aesthetically from dire avengers / striking scorpions/ and fire dragons? Who deliberately have different aesthetics. Quinn's getting their own book 6-7 years ago hey literally just made up a story and units to make it happen...could equally have done the same with "Dire Avenger shrines" codex and it would have made equal sense.
I agree with the marines. There should only be 1 space marine codex. The only space marine force that is somewhat worthy of their own book would be GK - but that should just be a combined book with all inquisition.
Dire avengers, striking scorpions and fire dragons are all part of the Craftworlds is the biggest reason for starters, secondly those three share very big similarities to each other than they do to Harlequins. The armor designs of the three playable aeldari factions have very distinct silhouettes, Drukhari have sharper edges and tighter armor, Craftworld are sleek and rounded, and Harlequins sit in between. GW has also been fiddling with the idea of Harlequins having it's own faction since 3rd edition but for whatever reason didn't come into fruition until 7th.
Are you aware that harlequins used to be part of craftworlds as well?
Yes, what's your point, they were also in the Dark Eldar codex. Death Guard and 1k Sons were in the Chaos codex too, should we merge those back into the CSM codex?
yes - we should imo.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2021/06/10 19:15:37
Subject: Re:Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
Pointer5 wrote: I'll get back to the poll question and say none of the books should be removed. The game points scaling is not the problem. The size of GW total company is the problem. We don't have enough people, enough manufacturing capabilities, or money to set the first up. It's time GW steps up and starts being the premier company at what they do. Their should be a major manufacturing and distribution center in the USA. They should also be a major manufacturing and distribution center in Australia. That should help stop the crazy pricing in South East Asia. Once done GW could put out multiple codexes every month and it would take pressure of English and Chinese production.
You are correct but I believe GW believes it is in their best interst to keep the game more exclusive. I feel they fear (and rightly so) the US interest in the game would end up with them losing control of their game (their baby).
Nurglitch wrote: I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.
So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.
As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.
Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.
Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.
Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SiLKY wrote: I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.
Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.
How are they any different aesthetically from dire avengers / striking scorpions/ and fire dragons? Who deliberately have different aesthetics. Quinn's getting their own book 6-7 years ago hey literally just made up a story and units to make it happen...could equally have done the same with "Dire Avenger shrines" codex and it would have made equal sense.
I agree with the marines. There should only be 1 space marine codex. The only space marine force that is somewhat worthy of their own book would be GK - but that should just be a combined book with all inquisition.
Dire avengers, striking scorpions and fire dragons are all part of the Craftworlds is the biggest reason for starters, secondly those three share very big similarities to each other than they do to Harlequins. The armor designs of the three playable aeldari factions have very distinct silhouettes, Drukhari have sharper edges and tighter armor, Craftworld are sleek and rounded, and Harlequins sit in between. GW has also been fiddling with the idea of Harlequins having it's own faction since 3rd edition but for whatever reason didn't come into fruition until 7th.
Are you aware that harlequins used to be part of craftworlds as well?
Yes, what's your point, they were also in the Dark Eldar codex. Death Guard and 1k Sons were in the Chaos codex too, should we merge those back into the CSM codex?
yes - we should imo.
that might work for 1K sons but if you looked at codex death guard they have eneugh unique datasheets that'd be a problem
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2021/06/10 19:26:58
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
KSons got their own book first of the CSM legions because you can't actually run a real KSons army with the CSM book with the vast majority of CSM units dusted and unusable. If any Space Marines need their own book its them.
2021/06/10 19:33:51
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
Arachnofiend wrote: KSons got their own book first of the CSM legions because you can't actually run a real KSons army with the CSM book with the vast majority of CSM units dusted and unusable. If any Space Marines need their own book its them.
I guess that's why TS couldn't be done in the 3.5 book either.
...wait...
2021/06/10 19:36:42
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?
How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?
Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.
It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/10 19:38:35
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2021/06/10 19:39:40
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?
How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?
Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.
DG and TS don't have any infantry that aren't plagued or dusted/psykers, is the difference. The Scourged have CSM, and Havocs, and Raptors and all that, Thousand Sons don't and shouldn't. There's a degree of subtraction there that the loyalist chapters with their own codexes have never had to deal with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 19:41:45
2021/06/10 19:46:44
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?
How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?
Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.
It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.
Xeno, you literally can't even spell C-H-A-O-S. Forgive me if I don't think you're knowledge on the Legions is any better.
2021/06/10 19:47:08
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?
How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?
Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.
DG and TS don't have any infantry that aren't plagued or dusted/psykers, is the difference. The Scourged have CSM, and Havocs, and Raptors and all that, Thousand Sons don't and shouldn't. There's a degree of subtraction there that the loyalist chapters with their own codexes have never had to deal with.
If you wanted to build an army following those rules to forge your own narrative you could. All the DG and TS codex have done is make it so a more traditional CSM wont include rubrics or plague marines. All of the unique units should just be accessible by standard CSM.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2021/06/10 19:50:46
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?
How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?
Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.
DG and TS don't have any infantry that aren't plagued or dusted/psykers, is the difference. The Scourged have CSM, and Havocs, and Raptors and all that, Thousand Sons don't and shouldn't. There's a degree of subtraction there that the loyalist chapters with their own codexes have never had to deal with.
If you wanted to build an army following those rules to forge your own narrative you could. All the DG and TS codex have done is make it so a more traditional CSM wont include rubrics or plague marines. All of the unique units should just be accessible by standard CSM.
They're still in the Dex, you know. The base CSM one.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2021/06/10 19:51:38
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
Cult Marines are just as accessible to other legions as they always have been... the most permissible rules for them has always been "if you're the appropriate legion they're troops, otherwise they're elites". There's just never been a time when the two defensively oriented cult marines are worth anything without obsec.
2021/06/10 19:52:56
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?
How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?
Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.
It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.
Xeno, you literally can't even spell C-H-A-O-S. Forgive me if I don't think you're knowledge on the Legions is any better.
I have serious dyslexia later in the day. Seriously though. IDGAF about any snowflake chapters and legions. All they do is take away from the traditionalists. Which makes the game boring.
Blood angels make the assualt armies
DA takes all the terminators.
Like why should DA termiantors be better than Ultras ones?
Why should TS rubrics be better than BL?
They shouldn't be. It is dumb. All they have done is restrict your ability to customize your army to your liking. I have literally 0 idea how anyone could disagree with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arachnofiend wrote: Cult Marines are just as accessible to other legions as they always have been... the most permissible rules for them has always been "if you're the appropriate legion they're troops, otherwise they're elites". There's just never been a time when the two defensively oriented cult marines are worth anything without obsec.
OFC they are - but they have worse rules. OFC rules is what were are talking about. We are talking about codex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 19:54:06
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2021/06/10 20:04:08
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?
How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?
Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.
It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.
Xeno, you literally can't even spell C-H-A-O-S. Forgive me if I don't think you're knowledge on the Legions is any better.
I have serious dyslexia later in the day. Seriously though. IDGAF about any snowflake chapters and legions. All they do is take away from the traditionalists. Which makes the game boring.
Blood angels make the assualt armies
DA takes all the terminators.
Like why should DA termiantors be better than Ultras ones?
Why should TS rubrics be better than BL?
They shouldn't be. It is dumb. All they have done is restrict your ability to customize your army to your liking. I have literally 0 idea how anyone could disagree with that.
1ksons Rubrics are better because they're the original, real McCoys. Same reason a real Colt 1911 is better than some Norinco knockoff. And DA terminators are better than Ultramarines terminators because DA specialize in terminators, Ultramarines don't specialize in anything. They're generalists. As in generic. Same for Abigail and his cronies.
2021/06/10 20:28:15
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?
How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?
Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.
It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.
Xeno, you literally can't even spell C-H-A-O-S. Forgive me if I don't think you're knowledge on the Legions is any better.
I have serious dyslexia later in the day. Seriously though. IDGAF about any snowflake chapters and legions. All they do is take away from the traditionalists. Which makes the game boring.
Blood angels make the assualt armies
DA takes all the terminators.
Like why should DA termiantors be better than Ultras ones?
Why should TS rubrics be better than BL?
They shouldn't be. It is dumb. All they have done is restrict your ability to customize your army to your liking. I have literally 0 idea how anyone could disagree with that.
1ksons Rubrics are better because they're the original, real McCoys. Same reason a real Colt 1911 is better than some Norinco knockoff. And DA terminators are better than Ultramarines terminators because DA specialize in terminators, Ultramarines don't specialize in anything. They're generalists. As in generic. Same for Abigail and his cronies.
This ofc is nonsense. DA and Ultras terms are literally identical in ability. They just dress different. The might have different tactics or use different weapons...but there is 0 reason they should be able to take more damage with the exact same armor. Or shoot better with the exact same storm bolter. "generalist" is also a loaded and stupid term. Every space marine is a master in all aspects of war. It is their job. This includes CSM to so don't think I am being unfair.
All these specialist codex have done is made huge swaths of the regular CSM and SM codex unplayable Competitively. Which is very very dumb. It is a poor design. To upset the masses - to appease the snowflakes.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2021/06/10 21:10:36
Subject: Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
how is DG different than ant CSM legion completely devoted to nurgle?
How is TS different than any CSM legion completely devoted to Tzneetch?
Some unique units maybe...but just give all CSM access to them.
It literally makes no sense with choose to have special legion books. Because almost every legion has cults that favor particular choas gods and they take on their attributes.
Xeno, you literally can't even spell C-H-A-O-S. Forgive me if I don't think you're knowledge on the Legions is any better.
I have serious dyslexia later in the day. Seriously though. IDGAF about any snowflake chapters and legions. All they do is take away from the traditionalists. Which makes the game boring.
Blood angels make the assualt armies
DA takes all the terminators.
Like why should DA termiantors be better than Ultras ones?
Why should TS rubrics be better than BL?
They shouldn't be. It is dumb. All they have done is restrict your ability to customize your army to your liking. I have literally 0 idea how anyone could disagree with that.
1ksons Rubrics are better because they're the original, real McCoys. Same reason a real Colt 1911 is better than some Norinco knockoff. And DA terminators are better than Ultramarines terminators because DA specialize in terminators, Ultramarines don't specialize in anything. They're generalists. As in generic. Same for Abigail and his cronies.
This ofc is nonsense. DA and Ultras terms are literally identical in ability. They just dress different. The might have different tactics or use different weapons...but there is 0 reason they should be able to take more damage with the exact same armor. Or shoot better with the exact same storm bolter. "generalist" is also a loaded and stupid term. Every space marine is a master in all aspects of war. It is their job. This includes CSM to so don't think I am being unfair.
All these specialist codex have done is made huge swaths of the regular CSM and SM codex unplayable Competitively. Which is very very dumb. It is a poor design. To upset the masses - to appease the snowflakes.
So you just want to make every chapter Ultramarines and every Legion Black Legion? No thanks. Because the last three CSM codexes have done everything they can to do just that. I'll gladly go back to the restrictions on what units and marks each Legion can use like we had in 3.5 and Traitor Legions if it means that the Legions stop being just a grey flavorless paste and regain their identities.
2021/06/10 22:04:36
Subject: Re:Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
no changes. the more there are the greater the choice. I like playing elite armys like custodies or knights but also play tau and space wolfs. It is to each their own.
2021/06/10 22:22:37
Subject: Re:Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
By one simplification (and other factors are equal and cows are spherical) bloat = factions times complexity, but some people have noted - you only deal with so many factions in a specific game. Therefore, there exists some factor in that equation:
Bloat = Number of Factions X (F)*Complexity of One Faction
Such that the complexity of a given faction is weightier than the sheer number that are there, except in that some factions are squeezed to weirder and weirder places by the design space of the limited game engine. While I wouldn't oppose the removal of supplements (Because that just begs for everyone to get similar treatment, and that would multiply N by too much) or sub-sub-factions or whatever, at this point I think it is probably more valuable to reduce the complexity of each faction - especially the number of extraneous stratagems and blanket rules on each faction (Especially the weird turn-cycling ones like Doctrines, Command Protocols, Etc.) than it is to reduce the number of factions
Someone do correct me if I'm wrong on this, because this might be nostalgia goggles; I can't seem to find the page in Google - but I recall when all White Scars needed was a page in White Dwarf. One page on top of C:SM. It said they could take Bikes as troops, limited Dreadnoughts to 0-1, and few other things, yet still resulted in distinctive White Scars armies. I'd be in favor of as many armies and supplements as you could possibly imagine if the rules for them took only a couple of pages.
"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"
-Tex Talks Battletech on GW
2021/06/11 06:12:25
Subject: Re:Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
CEO Kasen wrote: By one simplification (and other factors are equal and cows are spherical) bloat = factions times complexity, but some people have noted - you only deal with so many factions in a specific game. Therefore, there exists some factor in that equation:
Bloat = Number of Factions X (F)*Complexity of One Faction
I disagree with this equation because I don't think additional factions necessarily add bloat. If GW decided to bring back squats today, it probably wouldn't affect many of my games, since someone would have to pick up that army and play it against me first. At worst, there are these two or three games where I run into every trap and gotcha that army has, but afterwards it's not that much an increase to the stuff I need to know. Heck, after almost four years I still forget that marines have auspex scan. To me, bloat is stuff that is everything layered onto the the basic rules that I need to play a regular game. I think the maximum amount of bloat that is tolerable is basic rules + codex + codex expansion. Anything beyond that is annoying. For example, in 8th I had games where I needed the core rules+CA(mission)+codex+vigilus(SSAG)+SotB+index(Warboss on Warbiker)+FW book. That's too much.
Someone do correct me if I'm wrong on this, because this might be nostalgia goggles; I can't seem to find the page in Google - but I recall when all White Scars needed was a page in White Dwarf. One page on top of C:SM. It said they could take Bikes as troops, limited Dreadnoughts to 0-1, and few other things, yet still resulted in distinctive White Scars armies. I'd be in favor of as many armies and supplements as you could possibly imagine if the rules for them took only a couple of pages.
I think there is truth to this. In the book of rust we see similar armies to that white dwarf page, and they seem perfectly fine with 3-4 pages. There really is no need to blow up the space marine chapters as much as they are now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 06:13:33
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
.
