Loyal 32, Rusty 12, etc. The ability to mix factions lead to an interesting a thematically diverse army creativity that has been unmatched since it was removed. Since CP generation due to Army constructs has gone bye bye, can we bring it back?
Can I throw a squad of White Scare bikers into my force of Custodes Bikers? A Squad of IF Heavy Intercessors or two in with my IG Gun line force. I mean, the options are there. Why prohibit it? I should be allowed again. It's removal was warranted, when taken in context of the rules of that time. Now it seems silly.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Loyal 32, Rusty 12, etc. The ability to mix factions lead to an interesting a thematically diverse army creativity that has been unmatched since it was removed. Since CP generation due to Army constructs has gone bye bye, can we bring it back?
Can I throw a squad of White Scare bikers into my force of Custodes Bikers? A Squad of IF Heavy Intercessors or two in with my IG Gun line force. I mean, the options are there. Why prohibit it? I should be allowed again. It's removal was warranted, when taken in context of the rules of that time. Now it seems silly.
Please provide me proof of my wrongness.
I'd like to see it - or some sort of SuperFaction that lets you mix factions while still being controlled (Like the "Grey Shield" Chapter tactics) I don't really want to see a SM Army with White Scar Bikers, BA Death Company, UM Aggressor Bombs, etc but the ability to do something of a Crusader Force would be nice.
Additionally the problem with Loyal 32 wasn't mixed factions, it was the Dets for CP approach.
Best/Most Likely thing would probably the Boarding Patrol Det + Small Bonus Det they had. You have to make your Main Det out of X Faction, but Y, Z, or whatever faction can be in your second Det and it works like (this). Gives you a small IG Det your SM are relieving - or a large IG Det with a small complement of SM supplementing/leading them.
Mixing factions should stay dead. It only works with Imperium and Chaos and does nothing for any of the other factions.
The only way I could see it working out would be to completely alter the entire setting and write in major changes to alliances between the xenos races.
For example, if you're going let Sisters, Guard, Marines of every flavor, Grey Knights, Knights and Inquisition (and GSC) you may as well just have the Eldar (and their spin offs) and Votann absorbed into the Tau Empire.
The Tyranids dont mix with anyone nor do the Necrons (that Blood Angel team up is just stupid and bad fan fiction).
Is there really a reason to have a wall of Guard HWTs and FOBs to support your Iron Hands?
Is it critical to the game to have 3 Hekatons, 3 Wraithknights and 3 Baneblades all squeezed into a deployment zone?
If you're playing Narrative then do as you please but this game is full of competitive sweaty try hards already. We don't need to give them an extra avenue of exploitation.
There are several major issues with mixing factions
1) As noted its got a heavy bias for Chaos and Imperial armies in the game. Both have multiple different factions (esp the Imperials) which means that they have a massive range of models to choose from.
Meanwhile Xenos forces are at the opposite end of the tier with armies like Tyranids basically down to one allied force (and historically they didn't even have the Genestealer Cults until fairly recently).
Lore also gets a bit messy. The Imperial and Chaos alliance blocks have a lot of reasons to work together. Meanwhile a lot of the Xenos fall into either "Eldar manipulating everyone" or "the situation got so bad we have to ally together to survive in the short run then we get back to killing each other".
Mechanically the game is also not built around major alliance blocks between factions. Whilst we can argue that GW's balance is wobbly at the best of times; big alliance blocks just breaks it entirely. Factions generally have strengths and weaknesses, but when you can ally up major factions you can ally the strengths of two factions together with no weak points. Or ally two factions that do the same thing really well together so that it amplifies that. Basically it breaks the balance open so much that it leads itself to insane min-max and overpowered armies.
Basically the lore doesn't really work and the game mechanics don't work at all with it.
Could it be done - sure it could, but it would likely require a major rework of how armies are balanced. Games that feature inherent alliance options are often more model agnostic and feature very small differences between factions - or none at all. Such games can more freely allow alliances because you're basically playing purely with the lore and story; the mechanics of the game are not drastically influenced by it. Or where they are the gains are marginal to small rather than major.
And again they are situations where all armies can do it; rather than having a huge bias for one faction to do it whilst others have vastly more limited options.
That said nothing has ever stopped you doing this in 40K games. You just play two full armies at the same time. You can play Tyranids and Space Marines VS Chaos and Necrons. It's just an Open Play game running on Matched rules. GW doesn't have to allow you to do that, you just need to ask your opponent and have fun.
Sometimes when GW tries to make these informal things into the formal rules (ergo matched play) it just breaks the game open and spoils it as they try to appease everyone at once.
edit - I'd also like to point out that mixing subfactions within a single faction was also how we wound up with one edition that was bonkers where even paintwrok on the models was starting to become a tournament "this affects the army you chose you cannot play another army type". Because everyone was putting the close combat in the best subfaction for close combat and the ranged in the ranged one and so forth. So you'd have 1 army with 1 paint scheme but it would be made of several subfaction groups. Which made info tracking during the game a nightmare. It was also not all that tactical; it was simply making smart army composition choices within the rules. It was honestly messy and I'm glad it went away because it was introducing things that were leading to polices that shouldn't be in the game - eg forcing subfaction choices based on paint scheme choices.
The issue comes from half the game factions being from one allegiance, Imperium.
The Allies system could still be re-implemented but it should follow established narrative lines rather than just "All Imperials ally and all Chaos ally, everyone else is weird". Possibly something similar to The Old World might be a good idea, with some armies having their own army rules such as Knights or Daemons that aren't allies but sort of force multipliers.
This is just spitballing but consider the following:
A T'au Empire army may take 25% of its points value as allies using one of the following army lists:
An Adeptus Mechanicus army may take 25% of its points value as allies using one of the following army lists:
- Astra Militarum
- Adeptus Astartes
- Adepta Sororitas (Suspicious)
You have a restriction on how much can be allied and with subtypes, you can determine how they interact. By limiting the options for allies and giving some army lists a rule that allows them to be used in a similar way to Mercenaries, you can still allow for some freedom but with a greater eye toward balance.
For example, Knights (of both kinds) would not have access to allies but a single unit could be taken in either an Imperium or Chaos army with a rule called "Freeblade/Dreadblade". Daemons could be taken as a percentage of a Chaos force but could not ally with "mortals" if they were the "Primary" army.
I'd also do some wider rejigging of the various army lists to either try and condense some that have bloated too far or to increase the value of some others.
I think the issue is that allying often creates issues wherein a given unit is average in its own codex, but much stronger when taken as an ally (or as part of another faction).
We saw this in 8th edition, where various Eldar/DE units were perfectly fine in their own book, but then became ridiculous when taken as Ynnari. Thus, GW pushed the prices up dramatically, to the point that they were ridiculously overcosted when used in their own codices, just so that they wouldn't be unbalanced when taken as Ynnari.
Put simply, I think you'd need a way of costing units differently when taken as allies, so that you don't end up with this sort of issue.
Beyond this, you have the problem that Imperium would essentially get their pick of units from half the armies in the game, whilst factions like Necrons and Orks are left to fend for themselves.
That said nothing has ever stopped you doing this in 40K games. You just play two full armies at the same time. You can play Tyranids and Space Marines VS Chaos and Necrons. It's just an Open Play game running on Matched rules. GW doesn't have to allow you to do that, you just need to ask your opponent and have fun.
Sometimes when GW tries to make these informal things into the formal rules (ergo matched play) it just breaks the game open and spoils it as they try to appease everyone at once.
as much as i would love for GW to bring back ally rules properly (i'm a big fan of thematic army mixing), i understand that it's nigh impossible to balance... so i just asked the people i playgroup "hey it's fine if i bring 500 points of tyranids when i play GSC, right" and no one had an issue with it. GW don't need to be the be-all-end-all of rules if it's not happening in a tournament
That said nothing has ever stopped you doing this in 40K games. You just play two full armies at the same time. You can play Tyranids and Space Marines VS Chaos and Necrons. It's just an Open Play game running on Matched rules. GW doesn't have to allow you to do that, you just need to ask your opponent and have fun.
Sometimes when GW tries to make these informal things into the formal rules (ergo matched play) it just breaks the game open and spoils it as they try to appease everyone at once.
as much as i would love for GW to bring back ally rules properly (i'm a big fan of thematic army mixing), i understand that it's nigh impossible to balance... so i just asked the people i playgroup "hey it's fine if i bring 500 points of tyranids when i play GSC, right" and no one had an issue with it. GW don't need to be the be-all-end-all of rules if it's not happening in a tournament
Exactly. Whilst there is always a core of people who will never deviate from the rules; nothing stops you doing your own thing. Indeed its why GW's "3 modes of play" has always seemed rather daft to me because "open play" is basically just "do whatever you want" which I don't need a company to tell me that I can do that. I can just, do that.
Granted I'm open to GW proposing ideas for people and feel that they could do more on that front to give Open Play some more concepts and ideas for people to latch onto.
I think with a rather strict approach similar to demon rules or Ynnari, it might not be too unbalanced - basically 1 battleline choice for every other choice, max 500 p and no enhancements/ stratagems/army rules could work, since most battleline units are rather weak. It would most likely cause less problems than Aeldari index alone before the 3rd nerf...
That said nothing has ever stopped you doing this in 40K games. You just play two full armies at the same time. You can play Tyranids and Space Marines VS Chaos and Necrons. It's just an Open Play game running on Matched rules. GW doesn't have to allow you to do that, you just need to ask your opponent and have fun.
Sometimes when GW tries to make these informal things into the formal rules (ergo matched play) it just breaks the game open and spoils it as they try to appease everyone at once.
as much as i would love for GW to bring back ally rules properly (i'm a big fan of thematic army mixing), i understand that it's nigh impossible to balance... so i just asked the people i playgroup "hey it's fine if i bring 500 points of tyranids when i play GSC, right" and no one had an issue with it. GW don't need to be the be-all-end-all of rules if it's not happening in a tournament
Exactly. Whilst there is always a core of people who will never deviate from the rules; nothing stops you doing your own thing. Indeed its why GW's "3 modes of play" has always seemed rather daft to me because "open play" is basically just "do whatever you want" which I don't need a company to tell me that I can do that. I can just, do that.
Granted I'm open to GW proposing ideas for people and feel that they could do more on that front to give Open Play some more concepts and ideas for people to latch onto.
i think it's a good idea to label open play as being a distinct thing, even if it's just "do whatever you want." coming from magic, the devs of that game have talked extensively about how they struggle to get established players (ie, people like you or i) to accept "casual play conditions." even ways of playing that are specifically intended for casual play end up with a competitive mindset, so drawing a clear line and saying "here is where you do what you want" is still kinda necessary
i really like how AOS 3rd edition handled open play. it's a similar "do whatever you want" format but it has a small mission generator as the main thing, so you can use that to get a hang of the rules or use it as a jumping off point as you play more games. i think that's as much support as open play will ever need
Well, there are some mixed faction rules already available:
Agents of the Imperium in Imperium Armies
Chaos Daemons in Chaos Armies (except Chaos Knights)
Chaos Knights in Chaos Armies
Imperial Knights in Imperium Armies
I therefore could certainly see the possibility that GW might bring back wider ally rules at some point. I would expect it would follow similar guidelines to those above: Points Limits; Unit selection limits; No detachment; No Army Rule for the Allied units.
alextroy wrote: Well, there are some mixed faction rules already available:
Agents of the Imperium in Imperium Armies
Chaos Daemons in Chaos Armies (except Chaos Knights)
Chaos Knights in Chaos Armies
Imperial Knights in Imperium Armies
I therefore could certainly see the possibility that GW might bring back wider ally rules at some point. I would expect it would follow similar guidelines to those above: Points Limits; Unit selection limits; No detachment; No Army Rule for the Allied units.
alextroy wrote: Well, there are some mixed faction rules already available:
Agents of the Imperium in Imperium Armies
Chaos Daemons in Chaos Armies (except Chaos Knights)
Chaos Knights in Chaos Armies
Imperial Knights in Imperium Armies
I therefore could certainly see the possibility that GW might bring back wider ally rules at some point. I would expect it would follow similar guidelines to those above: Points Limits; Unit selection limits; No detachment; No Army Rule for the Allied units.
Chaos Daemons are allowed with chaos knights?
yup! if you need foot troops in chknights, that's your option. it's similar to how vanilla knights get to take the various agents infantry options
Meanwhile Xenos forces are at the opposite end of the tier with armies like Tyranids basically down to one allied force (and historically they didn't even have the Genestealer Cults until fairly recently).
Minor point, but Genestealer Cults were a part of early 40k. They introduced in RT, and were actually included in the 2nd ed Tyranid codex, and had a Citadel Journal list in 3rd ed.
In Rogue Trader, they could be possessed by daemons as well. I believe Genestealer Cults could be taken alongside chaos cultists, daemons etc.
Meanwhile Xenos forces are at the opposite end of the tier with armies like Tyranids basically down to one allied force (and historically they didn't even have the Genestealer Cults until fairly recently).
Minor point, but Genestealer Cults were a part of early 40k. They introduced in RT, and were actually included in the 2nd ed Tyranid codex, and had a Citadel Journal list in 3rd ed.
In Rogue Trader, they could be possessed by daemons as well. I believe Genestealer Cults could be taken alongside chaos cultists, daemons etc.
True, but there was a very very long gap between 2nd ed and when the Cults returned with actual models in the setting.
Granted I came in at 3rd ed for the most part so Cults weren't really a thing until fairly recent times as an official supported army.
And still that just means Tyranids have 1 ally now whilst Imperials have multiple blocks of allied forces; SoB, Titans, Mechanicus, IG, Space Marines of various different Chapters each one with unique Chapter specific models and talents.
Rogue trader is definitely in the got idea, put it in era!
I wish they would focus a bit more on narrative play, it would be super easy to put Narative missions and army construction that can be a little more lose over more competitive. Why staying within a structure that I think a lot of players still enjoy.
Then can have those fun Ally’s, that trying to balance in competitive would be a nightmare.
Open play I think comes of a little condescending to players sometimes, rather than getting quality from GW.
Meanwhile Xenos forces are at the opposite end of the tier with armies like Tyranids basically down to one allied force (and historically they didn't even have the Genestealer Cults until fairly recently).
Minor point, but Genestealer Cults were a part of early 40k. They introduced in RT, and were actually included in the 2nd ed Tyranid codex, and had a Citadel Journal list in 3rd ed.
In Rogue Trader, they could be possessed by daemons as well. I believe Genestealer Cults could be taken alongside chaos cultists, daemons etc.
True, but there was a very very long gap between 2nd ed and when the Cults returned with actual models in the setting.
Granted I came in at 3rd ed for the most part so Cults weren't really a thing until fairly recent times as an official supported army.
And still that just means Tyranids have 1 ally now whilst Imperials have multiple blocks of allied forces; SoB, Titans, Mechanicus, IG, Space Marines of various different Chapters each one with unique Chapter specific models and talents.
Imo the difference in the number of ally-able factions should still be balance-able enough if GW re-adopted things like FOC, dropped the Rule of 3, and curtailed the number of bespoke rules.
We're obnoxiously still in a paradigm where Tyranids limited to taking three Tyrannofexes even when armed with different weapons, but of course a Predator with different weapons is two different datasheets with different bespoke rules, etc.
Like, it's doable. GW just won't do it.
Edit: Tyranids allying with Cults with Allied Guard could be a thing.
Apple fox wrote: Rogue trader is definitely in the got idea, put it in era!
I wish they would focus a bit more on narrative play, it would be super easy to put Narative missions and army construction that can be a little more lose over more competitive. Why staying within a structure that I think a lot of players still enjoy.
Then can have those fun Ally’s, that trying to balance in competitive would be a nightmare.
Open play I think comes of a little condescending to players sometimes, rather than getting quality from GW.
This isn't a bad idea; in 9th, Torchbearer Fleets and Armies of Faith were Crusade only. And orders of Battle were organized around Imperium, Chaos, Tyranids, Aeldari, Necrons, Tau (and presumably, Leagues of Votann, who were added at the end of the edition). Similarly, Crusade was never subjected to the "only one subfaction an army" rule.
One issue that's been cited in the past is that not everyone who wants a "Narrative gaming experience" wants full-on Crusade. I think it would still be an option to play Crusade missions, even if you weren't going to use the progression system.
Imo the difference in the number of ally-able factions should still be balance-able enough if GW re-adopted things like FOC, dropped the Rule of 3, and curtailed the number of bespoke rules.
Counterpoint:
This is one of those areas where the different "detachment" rules could play into things. More on that at the end.
We're obnoxiously still in a paradigm where Tyranids limited to taking three Tyrannofexes even when armed with different weapons, but of course a Predator with different weapons is two different datasheets with different bespoke rules, etc.
Like, it's doable. GW just won't do it.
They didn't do it for AdMech either. Onagers have a whole raft of options and were something that went from being a squadron to singles and basically neutered by Ro3.
Edit: Tyranids allying with Cults with Allied Guard could be a thing.
Hard disagree.
They did a really good job with their Warhammer+ short for Hammer and Bolter, "A New Life" showcasing how the far, far more human members of the GSC actively flee Tyranid warzones. How when the Tyranids arrive? They're basically at a point where the GSC has ceased to exist as a fighting force but has almost gone dormant and returned to being a subversive cult/philosophy. The organisms that were coming into contact with and almost herding/shepherding the cultists in their attempt to flee were all vanguard organisms. Gargoyles, Lictors, and Genestealers all kept attacking the Guard forces, causing panic and the civilian they were hiding amongst to flee en masse.
Could you imagine if, say, GSC were able to take a Vanguard Detachment in addition to their regular detachment? With the requirements that the Vanguard Detachment only feature Lictors(any), Gargoyles, and Genestealers?
I'm way against "allied Guard" being a thing for GSC, but I've said my piece on that before. Just put some of the units into the book and effectively treat them like how Scions are for Guard proper.
Edit: Tyranids allying with Cults with Allied Guard could be a thing.
Hard disagree.
They did a really good job with their Warhammer+ short for Hammer and Bolter, "A New Life" showcasing how the far, far more human members of the GSC actively flee Tyranid warzones. How when the Tyranids arrive? They're basically at a point where the GSC has ceased to exist as a fighting force but has almost gone dormant and returned to being a subversive cult/philosophy. The organisms that were coming into contact with and almost herding/shepherding the cultists in their attempt to flee were all vanguard organisms. Gargoyles, Lictors, and Genestealers all kept attacking the Guard forces, causing panic and the civilian they were hiding amongst to flee en masse.
Could you imagine if, say, GSC were able to take a Vanguard Detachment in addition to their regular detachment? With the requirements that the Vanguard Detachment only feature Lictors(any), Gargoyles, and Genestealers?
I'm way against "allied Guard" being a thing for GSC, but I've said my piece on that before. Just put some of the units into the book and effectively treat them like how Scions are for Guard proper.
I think "lore wise" the Genestealer Cults using Imperial Guard weapons or even infiltrating the Guard on a world/system is 100% part of the setting and should be. It's exactly what a really well established Cult would do. Infiltrate the local armed forces; take them over and then cripple them from within. It's perfect Genestealer Cult activity.
That said as a tabletop army I feel that the Cult is stronger having its own unique visual identity and set of models. When they started up again and were a few cult models and then mostly IG with a few icons on tanks it was ok, but they didn't really stand out from just being another Imperial Army. When they got a second wave of models and the core of the army was revolutionary miners and such - then they became far more interesting because they were different. They would do different things on the table; looking, playing and being different.
As for the actions of the Cult when Tyranids arrive, my impression is that the response of the cult is not uniform. Don't forget the Cult itself is not uniform - there are those who are going to be in the Cult because their parents were Cultists and its just what you do; for fear; safety; political change; because they are infested with lots of Genestealer genetics and so forth. There are layers to the Cult and some of those layers will be horrified by the Tyranids and will fight against them; some will want to run up to hug them; others will embrace them as the true rulers etc...
The Tyranids are also shown to vary behaviour too. If the world is putting up hard resistance then the Swarm would likely keep the Cult alive; functional and another weapon of war in the battle. So you could well see an advanced block of higher ranking/die hard cultists working alongside Tyranids. Right up until the battle is won and the Cultists are herded into the digestion pools as well (whether they want to or not!)
I think "lore wise" the Genestealer Cults using Imperial Guard weapons or even infiltrating the Guard on a world/system is 100% part of the setting and should be. It's exactly what a really well established Cult would do. Infiltrate the local armed forces; take them over and then cripple them from within. It's perfect Genestealer Cult activity.
Previously it was Planetary Defence Forces that were subject to that infiltration. Because THAT is the "local armed forces" that would be subject to infiltration.
Them having stolen weapons or whatever is fine. Them infiltrating the Guard to the point where they get every single thing isn't. It becomes disillusioning, from my viewpoint as a Guard player, to have the faction portrayed as being so inept that they get mind-controlled every which way.
That said as a tabletop army I feel that the Cult is stronger having its own unique visual identity and set of models. When they started up again and were a few cult models and then mostly IG with a few icons on tanks it was ok, but they didn't really stand out from just being another Imperial Army. When they got a second wave of models and the core of the army was revolutionary miners and such - then they became far more interesting because they were different. They would do different things on the table; looking, playing and being different.
The revolutionary miners were there from the rerelease. The second wave was the fragdrill, the Atalan bikers, the Biophagus, the Sanctus assassin, the gunslinger Kellermorph, the Nexos & Clamavus, the bodyguard Locus, and the alternate Magus. I think that the Achilles Ridgerunner also came in this wave.
It's important to note as well that when first reintroduced to the game in late 7th edition? They had a very limited selection of Guard things...but it made sense as those were things you might see in a Planetary Defence Force's arsenal. Standard chassis Leman Russes, Chimeras, Sentinels, infantry squads, heavy weapon squads, and officers.
As for the actions of the Cult when Tyranids arrive, my impression is that the response of the cult is not uniform. Don't forget the Cult itself is not uniform - there are those who are going to be in the Cult because their parents were Cultists and its just what you do; for fear; safety; political change; because they are infested with lots of Genestealer genetics and so forth. There are layers to the Cult and some of those layers will be horrified by the Tyranids and will fight against them; some will want to run up to hug them; others will embrace them as the true rulers etc...
The Tyranids are also shown to vary behaviour too. If the world is putting up hard resistance then the Swarm would likely keep the Cult alive; functional and another weapon of war in the battle. So you could well see an advanced block of higher ranking/die hard cultists working alongside Tyranids. Right up until the battle is won and the Cultists are herded into the digestion pools as well (whether they want to or not!)
Don't forget that I specifically mentioned the "more human looking elements". Things like the Acolyte Hybrids, Kellermorphs, etc don't easily pass for human...and would likely be the things actually still around.
I think "lore wise" the Genestealer Cults using Imperial Guard weapons or even infiltrating the Guard on a world/system is 100% part of the setting and should be. It's exactly what a really well established Cult would do. Infiltrate the local armed forces; take them over and then cripple them from within. It's perfect Genestealer Cult activity.
Previously it was Planetary Defence Forces that were subject to that infiltration. Because THAT is the "local armed forces" that would be subject to infiltration.
Them having stolen weapons or whatever is fine. Them infiltrating the Guard to the point where they get every single thing isn't. It becomes disillusioning, from my viewpoint as a Guard player, to have the faction portrayed as being so inept that they get mind-controlled every which way.
I think its important to remember that the Cults aren't quick. Their infiltration can take generations.
They can even mature to taking over a whole world or system and if the Imperial boot or the Tyranid swarm doesn't come to stop them - then they keep going.
So its less that the army is inept and more that the Cult just grows and grows and grows until any one recruited into the PDF and then into the Guard in that region are going to be cult members from a cult family. Sure many of them might be low ranking, but you get a few low ranking individuals who promote up and suddenly you've got power and influence to approve more "cult" members into the IG because they are your brothers and you want your brothers to do well etc....
Plus don't forget they won't call themselves a Genestealer Cult; chances are they'll be modelled after some form of Imperial Cult. "The 4 Armed Emperor" or something like that. So any outside higher ranking officials might just view it as this world/system's local take on the Imperial Religion and think little of it.
In mtg they unbanned some cards on the modern banlist. Thinking it was safe. One of them turned out it was not safe at all. Some months later it got banned. The other cars that where not to good did not have any impact as it was not played.
Let me translate that into Warhammer : Either allies turns out to be very bad and nobody uses it. We can see this in GSC. They can take imperial allies. But since all of them needs IG stratagems or orders to function - witch they do not get, it is very bad and nobody takes it. Allied Knights, and now allied daemons fall into this category.
If how ever it is too good, every one takes it. And it takes a a few month to a year before GW has ro nerf it to the point where it is not to good. The best example of this was probably 6th edition. But 8th edition was also great. All imperial lists started with a castellan, 32 imperial gaurd and 3 blood angel captains with thunder hammer before you started building the rest of your list.
I think several armies would be very interested in having a calidus Assassin in their army if they could. (Or the old blue scribe before the last patch.) So it is not really working as intended now.
We use mixing quite a lot in our group, it works very well with house rules we use.
Admittedly we all play strictly narrative. Creating missions that suit the stories we build. Most of us come from RPG background so that helps.
I can't help thinking that if you give it to GW rules writers they'll immediately think about tournaments and make a total mess of it.
Different editions don't make much difference to us as we add any bits we like and ignore the rest.
I find it very enjoyable to be in a collaborative group, it makes narrative much more fun.
It's not only 40k we do this with. It happens with AOS, LI, HH, and Flames of war among others.
A lot of gamers like to rigidly stick to the rules and if that works for them then brilliant. It doesn't work for us, we realised instead of it making us moan and ruining our enjoyment we could do something about it.
After all GW through the years has said it's YOUR hobby and if you don't like something then change it. I understand this could create problems with tournaments but the organisers could put changes in their tournament packs, it's an option although I'm not saying it's a good or bad option.
I think its important to remember that the Cults aren't quick. Their infiltration can take generations.
They can even mature to taking over a whole world or system and if the Imperial boot or the Tyranid swarm doesn't come to stop them - then they keep going.
And this is where the narrative elements of the Cult fall apart when discussing the Guard.
Infiltration is fine. A few individuals slipping through the cracks or being subtly replaced is one thing. Them getting to the point where they have effectively created their own regiment of Brood Brothers?
That's going to have raised red flags somewhere, somewhen.
Genestealer Cults aren't Hydra. They're not simply an ideology. It's a corruption of the flesh and mind. Them being so heavily infiltrated and sown throughout the Imperium's apparatus for recruitment for the Guard would require luck hitting just right.
To sum it up best?
It's not unpossible, it's just basically unpossible.
So its less that the army is inept and more that the Cult just grows and grows and grows until any one recruited into the PDF
Important to note that PDF has effectively a different "command structure". PDFs are the planetary governors' responsibility.
and then into the Guard in that region are going to be cult members from a cult family. Sure many of them might be low ranking, but you get a few low ranking individuals who promote up and suddenly you've got power and influence to approve more "cult" members into the IG because they are your brothers and you want your brothers to do well etc....
Yes, you'll have members into the Guard. Not running it.
Plus don't forget they won't call themselves a Genestealer Cult; chances are they'll be modelled after some form of Imperial Cult. "The 4 Armed Emperor" or something like that. So any outside higher ranking officials might just view it as this world/system's local take on the Imperial Religion and think little of it.
Except the Inquisition literally has catalogued the names of several of the most notable cult "strains". It's knowledge that's apparently widespread enough that Arbites know to look for it, and some of the strains are known by name by the Guard's intelligence apparatus.
Don't forget the Cult isn't all genetic abnormalities. They will still recruit many to their cause who are not genetically altered; or altered so far as to be abnormal for a given human population of the Imperium. They'd be the ones that the Cult would seek to have join major institutions and groups. Wait and bide their time whilst doing their best to help and aid them to advance up the ranks until they can pull key positions that let them slip in.
It's one thing to test for "known strains" but what do you do when the doctors performing the tests were infiltrated a generation ago and now one of the more the low level techs are submitting fake results? Helping other members of their cult pass the tests to sneak in?
Yes many times they will be caught, but sometimes they won't and now they can steadily spread.
It's very much the same kind of thing that Chaos Cults will do as well.
For every tool the Imperium and Inquisition have to keep the Cults out, the Cults have a tool to break in. It's a constant arms race no one wins and its a live war not a cold war. So there are worlds that fall and worlds that don't.
Apple fox wrote: Rogue trader is definitely in the got idea, put it in era!
I wish they would focus a bit more on narrative play, it would be super easy to put Narative missions and army construction that can be a little more lose over more competitive. Why staying within a structure that I think a lot of players still enjoy.
Then can have those fun Ally’s, that trying to balance in competitive would be a nightmare.
Open play I think comes of a little condescending to players sometimes, rather than getting quality from GW.
This isn't a bad idea; in 9th, Torchbearer Fleets and Armies of Faith were Crusade only. And orders of Battle were organized around Imperium, Chaos, Tyranids, Aeldari, Necrons, Tau (and presumably, Leagues of Votann, who were added at the end of the edition). Similarly, Crusade was never subjected to the "only one subfaction an army" rule.
One issue that's been cited in the past is that not everyone who wants a "Narrative gaming experience" wants full-on Crusade. I think it would still be an option to play Crusade missions, even if you weren't going to use the progression system.
I like to think of it as Narrative layers, crusade can be there end or one of there ends for narrative play. With missions, army lists and environments being closer to a pick and choose.
There is just so many lists that should be doable from the base game for narrative gaming, that should be effectively no go for competitive.
1. From a wargame perspective, the planetary defense force may as well be the Imperial Guard. The path of least effort is going to be for a planet to use the same local forces as it tithes off, after all.
The difference in command structure isn't going to make a revolutionary change in what they've got. So you're arguing over "The GSC can take Guard Allies" vs. "For the sake of expediency, assume the PDF units have the same profiles as Guard Units."
2. From everyone else's perspective, the Imperial Guard are the red shirts. Yeah, you're getting infiltrated.
yeah it feels pretty meaningless to draw a line between PDF and guard. paint those cadians a different color and say it's the local uniform. GSC already can't take things like ratlings or ogryns, so it all comes down to human infantry and vehicles, which would be the two easiest things for a cult to get their hands on
1. From a wargame perspective, the planetary defense force may as well be the Imperial Guard. The path of least effort is going to be for a planet to use the same local forces as it tithes off, after all.
The difference in command structure isn't going to make a revolutionary change in what they've got. So you're arguing over "The GSC can take Guard Allies" vs. "For the sake of expediency, assume the PDF units have the same profiles as Guard Units."
Or I'm arguing that GSC should have their own units and leave the Guard ones alone.
It's bloody wild to me that people are fairly okay with the expansion to the Chaos Cultist range that we saw, yet for some reason GSCneed to have the Guard's roster.
2. From everyone else's perspective, the Imperial Guard are the red shirts. Yeah, you're getting infiltrated.
paint those cadians a different color and say it's the local uniform.
lol, okay kid.
GSC already can't take things like ratlings or ogryns, so it all comes down to human infantry and vehicles, which would be the two easiest things for a cult to get their hands on
And yet, there's no Commissars, Scions, Techpriests, Servitors, or named characters.
all three of these units also have close combat weapons that are one attack, a 4+ WS, 3 strength, no AP, and one damage. obviously the gear besides that is going to be different (which is also the difference between cultists and the other two) but as far as their physical build, they're the same. a cultist could put on a Cadian's armour and be mechanically identical
JNAProductions wrote: Kan, can you name a faction that, on a person-to-person level, is worse than the Guard?
Because, yes, Guard are well-trained. They’re strong and accurate and dedicated. But they’re also human.
Every other faction’s baseline is superhuman.
And what are GSC? What are Chaos Cultists?
Genestealer Cults are genetically modified, by the Tyranids. One of their battleline units is Neophytes, who are basically Guardsmen in stats. The other are Acolytes, who have boosted Strength and Toughness.
Chaos Cultists aren't the baseline of any faction. (They should be, but that's another discussion.)
I think "lore wise" the Genestealer Cults using Imperial Guard weapons or even infiltrating the Guard on a world/system is 100% part of the setting and should be. It's exactly what a really well established Cult would do. Infiltrate the local armed forces; take them over and then cripple them from within. It's perfect Genestealer Cult activity.
Previously it was Planetary Defence Forces that were subject to that infiltration. Because THAT is the "local armed forces" that would be subject to infiltration.
Them having stolen weapons or whatever is fine. Them infiltrating the Guard to the point where they get every single thing isn't. It becomes disillusioning, from my viewpoint as a Guard player, to have the faction portrayed as being so inept that they get mind-controlled every which way.
I think it makes a lot of sense to keep some of the more exotic weapon systems and units out of the hands of the Cults. But I'd absolutely believe that the PDF has relatively common access to LR chassis, superheavy tanks, Basilisks, flyers of various types, etc. alongside your typical platoons. Lots of opportunity there for allies.
I think "lore wise" the Genestealer Cults using Imperial Guard weapons or even infiltrating the Guard on a world/system is 100% part of the setting and should be. It's exactly what a really well established Cult would do. Infiltrate the local armed forces; take them over and then cripple them from within. It's perfect Genestealer Cult activity.
Previously it was Planetary Defence Forces that were subject to that infiltration. Because THAT is the "local armed forces" that would be subject to infiltration.
Them having stolen weapons or whatever is fine. Them infiltrating the Guard to the point where they get every single thing isn't. It becomes disillusioning, from my viewpoint as a Guard player, to have the faction portrayed as being so inept that they get mind-controlled every which way.
I think it makes a lot of sense to keep some of the more exotic weapon systems and units out of the hands of the Cults. But I'd absolutely believe that the PDF has relatively common access to LR chassis, superheavy tanks, Basilisks, flyers of various types, etc. alongside your typical platoons. Lots of opportunity there for allies.
Guard don't get to pick and choose from the GSC roster, despite cultists being a good way of representing hivescum pressed into service.
Sure they do, they're called "Infantry Squad". Or "Conscripts" if those are still a thing.
I don't see Conscripts in the latest Legends thing or the Index, so I don't think so, no. Also soft no on the Infantry Squad - the Guard receive more training than "Here gun, point that over there and pull this", which is what "pressed into service" would entail (how much more than that, and how much better they are than impressed hivescum can vary, of course *cough*Savlar*cough*, but the whole point of Conscripts as a unit was to represent the actual chaff where Infantry Squads were just comparatively chaff).
Also, re: access to units - LR/Chimerae, sure. Bassies and Flyers, OK (at a premium), but I have a hard time accepting Superheavies in that list. If you want Superheavies, ask your opponent if you can run an allied Guard formation.
Dudeface wrote: Can we not do this again? We've recently had a thread of Kan getting upset that gsc get guard units, do we need another?
Its not just GSC with Guard. Though a lot of people are trying to mix top level factions, soup can also be sub-factions. Blood + Dark Angels (which we just had a story about to recreate on the tabletop), Cadians + Mordians, etc Not just UM using Cadians as Cultists.
Dudeface wrote: Can we not do this again? We've recently had a thread of Kan getting upset that gsc get guard units, do we need another?
Its not just GSC with Guard. Though a lot of people are trying to mix top level factions, soup can also be sub-factions. Blood + Dark Angels (which we just had a story about to recreate on the tabletop), Cadians + Mordians, etc Not just UM using Cadians as Cultists.
I understand, but the "gsc can go and get their own units" was taking over a little again.
Personally having used allies in 10th, I often found myself feeling like I'd have been better off simply using more from the parent codex. The lack of support and army/detachment rules makes whatever you include flatly worse in most circumstances.
I have a small WE force I padded out with knights, it never felt "good" having the yahtzee table not apply to all the units.
Based on that anecdote I'd say go for it, it's unlikely that units without support cause many upsets, but ther would need to be additional restrictions for multiple chapters in an army I think to stop them triggering keywords etc and make the "allied" part not have additional benefits.
I feel if this is something you and your opponent want to play with then go nuts. If my friend doesn't have enough points for say a 2k points game, - but does if he mixes his Death Guard and Sisters of Battle, and for fun I'll mix my Dark Eldar with the Ad Mech I've been working on, then who cares?
But I don't think its good to have in "official" 40k for the reasons people have outlined. Its hard to balance and it dilutes faction identity. It creates non-fluffy combinations. (And sorry, Loyal 32, 3 BA captains and Knight etc is not a standard formation the Imperium regularly deploys to all known trouble spots...)
GW could sift through codexes and create new "factions" drawn from the roster which have their own points and rules. I have however no confidence of them doing this well - and its likely to just lead to the arguments we see here. I mean from a fluff perspective I think "Guard" can easily be GSC-ified, or Chaos Cultified. But this obviously dilutes Guard rules/mechanics. If you could have essentially the whole Guard roster plus Genestealers or Accursed Cultists, why wouldn't you? Unfortunately you then see the other way round.
As someone mentioned earlier, its perfectly fluffy for Eldar and Dark Eldar to ally against other species. But if they can do so by showing up, a list drawn from the synergies of 2 books is almost certainly going to be stronger than just one. I'd rather have no soup than all soup.
I guess there are exceptions. For example, I'm not really a fan of Skittles Daemons - and think say some Plague Bearers showing up to support Death Guard, or Tzeentch Daemons supporting Thousand Sons etc, is far more fluffy than say Belakor and his 3-5 Greater Daemon friends jogging round the table.
bibotot wrote: I really want to mix factions for the fluff. But balance gameplay says it's probably not going to happen.
A lot of people do. I want to mix SM Factions into a "Crusader Force", I want to mix SM and Guard - I even want to stick individual marines in Guardsman Squads like a Wolf Guard. I want to mix and match Biel Tan and Iyanden.
Example 2: AdMech should be able to ally with Chaos as long as we don't have a proper Dark AdMech faction or rules.
Allies need to be restricted to something that makes sense in the current way how you select units in an army. With the super open way of 10th edition this is a bit tricky, but the older version of
"1 HQ 1-2 Troops
0-1 Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, but you need bring a Troops selection for each." was a good foundation for fine tuning.
I'm not sure how well this would translate to Battleline and the rest, though.
Example 2: AdMech should be able to ally with Chaos as long as we don't have a proper Dark AdMech faction or rules.
Allies need to be restricted to something that makes sense in the current way how you select units in an army. With the super open way of 10th edition this is a bit tricky, but the older version of
"1 HQ 1-2 Troops
0-1 Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, but you need bring a Troops selection for each." was a good foundation for fine tuning.
I'm not sure how well this would translate to Battleline and the rest, though.
I'm not even sure that a force org is needed as long as the allied units get no benefits or army rules.
Conversely the detachment system actually should allow them to break things open - imagine a nurgle resplendent detachment that specifies units across 4 books, gives them a unifying army rule and set of upgrades - because it's limited to a specific detachment, you could even tweak points values on the page for the detachment if needed.
I hope not. There is a enough variety for the official lists to not need it. And the balance goes more out the window. Play some narrative games, do it to your hearts content.
The ally faction is less one of the, can I ally a unit of ork commando mercs to my DE pirate force, and more one of the if you play X, then you will take Y from that other codex, because we designed your army to not work if you don't.
8th was like that, 9th was like that and 10th is like that too.
There is only one exeption to this, which is intentionaly done by GW, and it is, as with many expetions, eldar. GW design them, nerf them with Inari being a thing.
Then they act the fool, acting as if they didn't knew in 9th what super cheap, super durable harlequin gunboats would do in an eldar army or we all get a hearty chuckle when the worse army in the game gets it one good unit nerfed, because some dudes were having success runing it in their Inari listss.
Honestly, I can straight face explain any combination of factions, there doesn't have to be Imperium/Chaos restrictions. Want Orks running with Tau? Fine. Want Chaos Daemons running with Eldar, good. Want Sisters of Battle running with Drukhari? Awesome. It's not hard to make believe this.
Also: news flash, literally none of that matters. The only thing that might be affected is balance. And that would shake out in rules/points. But be honest. Don't hide behind lore justifications for whether or not plastic miniatures can be on the same table or not. It's literally the silliest argument available. Hit me with rules, or wombo/combos, or anything, but "Sisters can't be with demons!!!"? That's your angle?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honestly, I can straight face explain any combination of factions, there doesn't have to be Imperium/Chaos restrictions. Want Orks running with Tau? Fine. Want Chaos Daemons running with Eldar, good. Want Sisters of Battle running with Drukhari? Awesome. It's not hard to make believe this.
Also: news flash, literally none of that matters. The only thing that might be affected is balance. And that would shake out in rules/points. But be honest. Don't hide behind lore justifications for whether or not plastic miniatures can be on the same table or not. It's literally the silliest argument available. Hit me with rules, or wombo/combos, or anything, but "Sisters can't be with demons!!!"? That's your angle?
Conversely, why are you playing warhammer 40,000 if you don't care about the integrity of the setting? I do agree that you can fluff most combinations, but there needs to be a support structure for it and there needs to be some rules padding around it in the name of integrity of the setting.
I'd be displeased seeing black templars rolling up the table with a pair of eldar flyers and GSC, fighting against space wolves, tau and orks in one force.
I really liked the look of 8th edition armies personally. My Sisters/DW/GK army is probably my favorite ever. Having a bit of guard everywhere really made battles look like 40k is generally presented and smooth over a lot of the FOC issues from past editions. It also did a pretty solid job of reducing spam in armies; at least compared to what came before. The Xenos disparity never really bothered me because Xenos generally get to keep their variety in faction. GW doesn't spin of Sompas into a subfaction for example.
It was, however, EXTREMELY gamey in its incentive structure and really broke down as codices added more and more bloat to mixed armies. I think there's a lot of value in containing armies to a codex as something GW needs to make stand alone.
I still overall like mixed armies though and I think there's a lot of value in it. Just fielding multiple armies for fun is a great answer, but I'm also rather fond of the implementation of Imperial Agents. It's easy to forget but Knights also still have that functionality.
I think doing an Allies index could be a cool solution. A collection of specific datasheets designed to work for global keywords. Imperial Guardsmen, Agents, Knights, for Imperium, Cultists, Chaos Knights, etc. Xenos are obviously harder. Basicallly just an expansion of what we have now. It doesn't even need to be highly competitive. I think its the kind of thing that can work similar to the Armour Indexes as a way to officially provide a framework for armies out of the tournament balance scope.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honestly, I can straight face explain any combination of factions, there doesn't have to be Imperium/Chaos restrictions. Want Orks running with Tau? Fine. Want Chaos Daemons running with Eldar, good. Want Sisters of Battle running with Drukhari? Awesome. It's not hard to make believe this.
Also: news flash, literally none of that matters. The only thing that might be affected is balance. And that would shake out in rules/points. But be honest. Don't hide behind lore justifications for whether or not plastic miniatures can be on the same table or not. It's literally the silliest argument available. Hit me with rules, or wombo/combos, or anything, but "Sisters can't be with demons!!!"? That's your angle?
Conversely, why are you playing warhammer 40,000 if you don't care about the integrity of the setting? I do agree that you can fluff most combinations, but there needs to be a support structure for it and there needs to be some rules padding around it in the name of integrity of the setting.
I'd be displeased seeing black templars rolling up the table with a pair of eldar flyers and GSC, fighting against space wolves, tau and orks in one force.
Then the option is yours to not play at that table. That is always YOUR option. It is my option to buy the models I want, paint them with three drops of paint, call it good, and then play them within the game's rules. That is it. I am under NO obligation to adhere to the fluff or Lore. For all I care, the Emperor is a Ork and the Custodes are just really smart orks. You cannot state there are facts in a completely BS madeup world, where literally everything is tinged with subjective untruths, or lies, and nothing is actually true. The entire imperium is a lie. All of it. That means the "bedrock" of the universe, and those rules, crumble away. All it takes is the holy GW to swoop down and write "Nope, Arch Magos Ploticus Changus revealed that the Emperor is actually a very smart Jokero in a man suit, and the Sisters are very cleverly disguised Eldar Harlequins." Case and point - Primaris. All the lore and rules, undone in an instant.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honestly, I can straight face explain any combination of factions, there doesn't have to be Imperium/Chaos restrictions. Want Orks running with Tau? Fine. Want Chaos Daemons running with Eldar, good. Want Sisters of Battle running with Drukhari? Awesome. It's not hard to make believe this.
Also: news flash, literally none of that matters. The only thing that might be affected is balance. And that would shake out in rules/points. But be honest. Don't hide behind lore justifications for whether or not plastic miniatures can be on the same table or not. It's literally the silliest argument available. Hit me with rules, or wombo/combos, or anything, but "Sisters can't be with demons!!!"? That's your angle?
Conversely, why are you playing warhammer 40,000 if you don't care about the integrity of the setting? I do agree that you can fluff most combinations, but there needs to be a support structure for it and there needs to be some rules padding around it in the name of integrity of the setting.
I'd be displeased seeing black templars rolling up the table with a pair of eldar flyers and GSC, fighting against space wolves, tau and orks in one force.
Then the option is yours to not play at that table. That is always YOUR option. It is my option to buy the models I want, paint them with three drops of paint, call it good, and then play them within the game's rules. That is it. I am under NO obligation to adhere to the fluff or Lore. For all I care, the Emperor is a Ork and the Custodes are just really smart orks. You cannot state there are facts in a completely BS madeup world, where literally everything is tinged with subjective untruths, or lies, and nothing is actually true. The entire imperium is a lie. All of it. That means the "bedrock" of the universe, and those rules, crumble away. All it takes is the holy GW to swoop down and write "Nope, Arch Magos Ploticus Changus revealed that the Emperor is actually a very smart Jokero in a man suit, and the Sisters are very cleverly disguised Eldar Harlequins." Case and point - Primaris. All the lore and rules, undone in an instant.
That's not true.
Primaris were a big change, as were Primarchs returning, but a lot is still the same as it ever was.
And yes, you can build armies how you want, paint or not how you want, etc. etc.
But you also need opponents who are willing to play with you-and that attitude is not a good way to incentivize that.
JNAProductions wrote: That's not true.
Primaris were a big change, as were Primarchs returning, but a lot is still the same as it ever was.
And yes, you can build armies how you want, paint or not how you want, etc. etc.
But you also need opponents who are willing to play with you-and that attitude is not a good way to incentivize that.
This.
Sorry FezzikDaBullgryn, there will always be a line on how much is "too much" and as you say it'll be down to people to want to play you if that's the case.
GW won't want their product to be represented by motley collections of random kits from random armies with blotches of random colours on. It reflects their brand and IP poorly, so you're likely going to be stuck with whoever will agree to your terms.
JNAProductions wrote: That's not true.
Primaris were a big change, as were Primarchs returning, but a lot is still the same as it ever was.
And yes, you can build armies how you want, paint or not how you want, etc. etc.
But you also need opponents who are willing to play with you-and that attitude is not a good way to incentivize that.
This.
Sorry FezzikDaBullgryn, there will always be a line on how much is "too much" and as you say it'll be down to people to want to play you if that's the case.
GW won't want their product to be represented by motley collections of random kits from random armies with blotches of random colours on. It reflects their brand and IP poorly, so you're likely going to be stuck with whoever will agree to your terms.
I mean, if you've followed my posting history, you'd know I'm not a big fan of painting my minis. It's not something I enjoy.
But, I totally get that not everyone wants to play against an unpainted force. Provided they're polite in turning down a game, it's really not a big deal.
Also, re: access to units - LR/Chimerae, sure. Bassies and Flyers, OK (at a premium), but I have a hard time accepting Superheavies in that list. If you want Superheavies, ask your opponent if you can run an allied Guard formation.
So I'm not super lore-savvy when it comes to superheavy tanks, but they've never seemed particularly rare. I know some versions of them are rare, like the Plasma Blaster one (Stormsword?). But Baneblades seem like a popular item, and could/would be part of PDF armories.
"Rare" is a really hard term to wrap your head around in the 40K universe.
A lot of the RARE stuff appears a LOT in lore, stories, artwork, real armies we use on the tabletop and more. Because we often focus a lot on the rare, unique things in the setting rather than just the bog standard commonplace stuff.
So whilst something like a Baneblade might be 'rare' that many worlds might not have access too; we focus on the stories and settings where they do have them. Thus something rare appeares commonplace because we always see it.
It's also really hard because the setting is so mindbogglingly vast. There will be areas near certain Forgeworlds where Baneblades are common and others where they are just never heard of.
The vastness of the setting means terms like "rare" are really hard to wrap your head around what it means because its heavily contextual within the setting.
Also, re: access to units - LR/Chimerae, sure. Bassies and Flyers, OK (at a premium), but I have a hard time accepting Superheavies in that list. If you want Superheavies, ask your opponent if you can run an allied Guard formation.
So I'm not super lore-savvy when it comes to superheavy tanks, but they've never seemed particularly rare. I know some versions of them are rare, like the Plasma Blaster one (Stormsword?). But Baneblades seem like a popular item, and could/would be part of PDF armories.
+1 for Overread's reply.
Additionally, I think there is a distinction in this case between "rare" and "rare enough". Brood Brothers are common enough that there's good reason to explicitly include them for GSC. While there are certainly cults who have gained access to Baneblades, I don't think they're common enough that they should also be explicitly included. To bring things more in line with the thread topic, I think I would rather see less common things like that pushed off onto general alliance rules (which are written to support them), so that GSC can take an allied detachment of Guard for captured superheavies in the same way that Chaos can for Renegade Guard, or that Chaos can take an allied detachment of Loyalist Space Marines (Primaris and non) to represent ensorcelled or recently-renegaded Chapters, or Necrons with T'au to represent a mad Lord who brings his pet Mindshackled cadre out for "walkies" in combat zones, or Kroot with Orks to represent a warband that got marooned behind enemy lines and ate enough Ork to pass as Nobs for some feral boyz (Is that still a thing? Was it ever a thing or am I misremembering?) etc etc.
tl;dr I'd prefer it if rarer alliances got represented by general rules so that everyone can have a go at off-the-wall creative forces, rather than just GSC pulling uncommon units from Guard. Remember, this is the setting that gave us Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau. There's plenty of room for wacky creativity, and I'd really rather not see that siloed off into specific force pairings.
Also, re: access to units - LR/Chimerae, sure. Bassies and Flyers, OK (at a premium), but I have a hard time accepting Superheavies in that list. If you want Superheavies, ask your opponent if you can run an allied Guard formation.
So I'm not super lore-savvy when it comes to superheavy tanks, but they've never seemed particularly rare. I know some versions of them are rare, like the Plasma Blaster one (Stormsword?). But Baneblades seem like a popular item, and could/would be part of PDF armories.
Lore-wise, it depends upon what we're actually discussing. The specific notation in Imperial Armour for the Guard is that an army is "lucky to have a company of three".
There is so, so, so much to really get into but something to note is that there is such a thing as a "counterfeit" Baneblade. These are produced by Forge Worlds that utilize incomplete STC data to meet the "huge demand for these tanks". The Mechanicus refers to them as "second-generation" Baneblades. They use standard Battle Cannon ammunition instead of the specialized rocket-propelled shells of the real deal. The Demolisher Cannon in the genuine Baneblades is reinforced, the counterfeits aren't. Then there's the internal armour, better engine performance & transmission, better comms & tactical gear, and "all other manner of secondary systems".
But even with the massive amounts of Fakeblades being produced? They're still rare enough that an army group might just have 3.
moving the topic away from GSC because I'm tired of that argument,
when I was first getting into 40K and was learning about lore, one idea for an army I had was a group of AdSor that had become disillusioned about the emperor and the cause of the imperium, and in their apostasy stumbled across the T'au, and then had the gap of religious devotion filled by the ethereals. would've been a very thematic list, with a lot of normal sisters and t'au stuff, but also straying away from things like arco-flagellents or penitent engines as being things the t'au in charge would disprove of for being too cruel. it was 9th edition when I had this idea, so it would've worked then, and not in 10th edition. but if I still wanted to paint that much of sisters and t'au (neither of which are my favorite armies from a painting perspective), I would still go ahead with it, rules be damned— the point being, I have a specific idea I might want to build, and despite the fact that 10th edition doesn't allow it, I would go for it anyway, and people who want to play against that weird army would be fine with it, and people who aren't wouldn't
I think a T'au/Sisters mashup is as random a faction crossover as you could get on the tabletop, and as someone who might want to do such a thing, I already have the perfect solution— "hey, I'm playing a weird army, you fine with that, or should I switch to custodes?". specific rules aren't needed except for armies where it's been a core part of the army's identity for decades; that is to say, things like imperial agents, demons, or GSC
(or we copy how AOS does it with armies being allowed to ally with specific other armies, but that's kinda already what happens with agents or demons)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honestly, I can straight face explain any combination of factions, there doesn't have to be Imperium/Chaos restrictions. Want Orks running with Tau? Fine. Want Chaos Daemons running with Eldar, good. Want Sisters of Battle running with Drukhari? Awesome. It's not hard to make believe this.
Also: news flash, literally none of that matters. The only thing that might be affected is balance. And that would shake out in rules/points. But be honest. Don't hide behind lore justifications for whether or not plastic miniatures can be on the same table or not. It's literally the silliest argument available. Hit me with rules, or wombo/combos, or anything, but "Sisters can't be with demons!!!"? That's your angle?
Lore can evolve and there is always some flexibility, but lore still matters to most on some level.
Two friends can do what they want, but I think you would have a hard time getting a pickup game at the FLGS with a mish-mash army.
Having said that, my community has a Teams tourney with odd matchups. But that’s the point and everyone knows that going in for that one weekend event.
Overread wrote: "Rare" is a really hard term to wrap your head around in the 40K universe.
A lot of the RARE stuff appears a LOT in lore, stories, artwork, real armies we use on the tabletop and more. Because we often focus a lot on the rare, unique things in the setting rather than just the bog standard commonplace stuff.
So whilst something like a Baneblade might be 'rare' that many worlds might not have access too; we focus on the stories and settings where they do have them. Thus something rare appeares commonplace because we always see it.
It's also really hard because the setting is so mindbogglingly vast. There will be areas near certain Forgeworlds where Baneblades are common and others where they are just never heard of.
The vastness of the setting means terms like "rare" are really hard to wrap your head around what it means because its heavily contextual within the setting.
I agree with all of that . . . Buuuuut . . . . (continued next blurb)
Additionally, I think there is a distinction in this case between "rare" and "rare enough". Brood Brothers are common enough that there's good reason to explicitly include them for GSC. While there are certainly cults who have gained access to Baneblades, I don't think they're common enough that they should also be explicitly included.
Of course if Baneblades are rare, and Swarmlords are rare, and we see Swarmlords all the time on the tabletop, then it's also not out of place to see Baneblades on the tabletop. Right? So in-universe "rarity" isn't always a great predictor of whether or not a particular unit should be available or not.
Following the argument, Baneblades could be rare, but still be available as a unit for GSC.
Also, re: access to units - LR/Chimerae, sure. Bassies and Flyers, OK (at a premium), but I have a hard time accepting Superheavies in that list. If you want Superheavies, ask your opponent if you can run an allied Guard formation.
So I'm not super lore-savvy when it comes to superheavy tanks, but they've never seemed particularly rare. I know some versions of them are rare, like the Plasma Blaster one (Stormsword?). But Baneblades seem like a popular item, and could/would be part of PDF armories.
Lore-wise, it depends upon what we're actually discussing. The specific notation in Imperial Armour for the Guard is that an army is "lucky to have a company of three".
Fair, that would be rarer than I thought, although I wonder what size of organization "army" is. (It also goes against my experience playing early Epic, where it was typical to field multiple squadrons). I'd be curious to see if there was another source for that.
Re: Counterfeit Baneblades: Being in Imperial Armor, I wonder if the "phony" Baneblades is a dig at the Armorcast Baneblade kits.
I'd also like to know if there's any source for their inclusion/exclusion from PDF.
Swarmlord is a fun one to mess with perceptions of rarity.
Lore wise there is only one Swarmlord in the whole Tyranid race. It is one of the very few totally singular entities within the Tyranid army*. So its up there with other single named characters in the world. And yet the Swarmlord can very readily mess with the apparent unique element of its nature because it can "hop" from Swarm to Swarm at will.
So whilst its singular it can appear almost anywhere a Swarm is within the Galaxy.
* in fact whilst the rules for the army have a few more that are unique and can only be taken once; the lore for things like Old One Eye more describe them as singular creations that the Imperium (typically) encounters; which then appear thereafter in exceptional/rare instances within the swarm.
^True, the Nid ones are little odd. Although the principle of the argument remains the same, be it Swarmlord, Primarch or maybe even generic Hive Tyrant (who I think were/are fairly singular models within an invasion force, iirc). Rare in universe, but still showing up all the time on the table.
^The Tyrant example in particular makes me miss the days when you could just take Warriors as an HQ choice, "de-personalizing" your Nid army.
Of course if Baneblades are rare, and Swarmlords are rare, and we see Swarmlords all the time on the tabletop, then it's also not out of place to see Baneblades on the tabletop.
Why should tabletop presence matter at all for cross-faction unit availability? That sounds like a great way to accidentally get Eldrad or Bobby G as a splash-in for every other faction.
Rarity is another odd argument. Here's rarity. There is literally 1 single Bobby G. And he was one every table in 8th near the end, which had Space Marines on it. Even a few that didn't.
Rarity doesn't mean anything. Inversely the opposite is also true. Commonplace, or Frequency is not indicative of anything. There were over a billion bioforms in the hive fleets that attacked Baal, and Ultramar. Both of those were defeated by much smaller forces. Rarity and the Lack of it are not really good at pointing to anything in 40k. Because Assasins, Blanks, and Primarchs are commonplace.
Point is, there is one, and only one reason why we can't do the mixed factions. Its not a great reason, but it's the best you've got.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Rarity is another odd argument. Here's rarity. There is literally 1 single Bobby G. And he was one every table in 8th near the end, which had Space Marines on it. Even a few that didn't.
Rarity doesn't mean anything. Inversely the opposite is also true. Commonplace, or Frequency is not indicative of anything. There were over a billion bioforms in the hive fleets that attacked Baal, and Ultramar. Both of those were defeated by much smaller forces. Rarity and the Lack of it are not really good at pointing to anything in 40k. Because Assasins, Blanks, and Primarchs are commonplace.
Point is, there is one, and only one reason why we can't do the mixed factions. Its not a great reason, but it's the best you've got.
"The book says you can't."
Yes, the core rules do not facilitate haphazardly mixing models or units from across the game. It's a good reason people don't do it, it's a good reason not to do it as following the rules now, it basically gimps your army intentionally.
Would you be OK if they said you pick 1 detachment to draw your army rules from and you can go wild from there in the knowledge your army would largely be trash?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Rarity is another odd argument. Here's rarity. There is literally 1 single Bobby G. And he was one every table in 8th near the end, which had Space Marines on it. Even a few that didn't.
Rarity doesn't mean anything. Inversely the opposite is also true. Commonplace, or Frequency is not indicative of anything. There were over a billion bioforms in the hive fleets that attacked Baal, and Ultramar. Both of those were defeated by much smaller forces. Rarity and the Lack of it are not really good at pointing to anything in 40k. Because Assasins, Blanks, and Primarchs are commonplace.
Point is, there is one, and only one reason why we can't do the mixed factions. Its not a great reason, but it's the best you've got.
"The book says you can't."
Yes, the core rules do not facilitate haphazardly mixing models or units from across the game. It's a good reason people don't do it, it's a good reason not to do it as following the rules now, it basically gimps your army intentionally.
Would you be OK if they said you pick 1 detachment to draw your army rules from and you can go wild from there in the knowledge your army would largely be trash?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Rarity is another odd argument. Here's rarity. There is literally 1 single Bobby G. And he was one every table in 8th near the end, which had Space Marines on it. Even a few that didn't.
Rarity doesn't mean anything. Inversely the opposite is also true. Commonplace, or Frequency is not indicative of anything. There were over a billion bioforms in the hive fleets that attacked Baal, and Ultramar. Both of those were defeated by much smaller forces. Rarity and the Lack of it are not really good at pointing to anything in 40k. Because Assasins, Blanks, and Primarchs are commonplace.
Point is, there is one, and only one reason why we can't do the mixed factions. Its not a great reason, but it's the best you've got.
"The book says you can't."
Yes, the core rules do not facilitate haphazardly mixing models or units from across the game. It's a good reason people don't do it, it's a good reason not to do it as following the rules now, it basically gimps your army intentionally.
Would you be OK if they said you pick 1 detachment to draw your army rules from and you can go wild from there in the knowledge your army would largely be trash?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Rarity is another odd argument. Here's rarity. There is literally 1 single Bobby G. And he was one every table in 8th near the end, which had Space Marines on it. Even a few that didn't.
Rarity doesn't mean anything. Inversely the opposite is also true. Commonplace, or Frequency is not indicative of anything. There were over a billion bioforms in the hive fleets that attacked Baal, and Ultramar. Both of those were defeated by much smaller forces. Rarity and the Lack of it are not really good at pointing to anything in 40k. Because Assasins, Blanks, and Primarchs are commonplace.
Point is, there is one, and only one reason why we can't do the mixed factions. Its not a great reason, but it's the best you've got.
"The book says you can't."
Yes, the core rules do not facilitate haphazardly mixing models or units from across the game. It's a good reason people don't do it, it's a good reason not to do it as following the rules now, it basically gimps your army intentionally.
Would you be OK if they said you pick 1 detachment to draw your army rules from and you can go wild from there in the knowledge your army would largely be trash?
What is flavor?
Subjective
No, Taste is subjective. Flavor is Objective. Something is salty. It is not Salty because person A tastes it. Person A can say, I don't like that flavor, it's not to my taste. But saying flavor is subjective now just YMDC arguing in bad faith, semantically. You are saying that because you don't like a certain thing, no one should be allowed to have that thing. Again, just admit you have no good arguments and we're done here. I hope for a edition where all factions can kill and maim each other not based on their God's or their stats, but because of friends throwing math rocks.
Are Marines unstoppable badasses, capable of taking on a dozen Guardsmen without breaking a sweat? In some novels, yes.
Are Marines able to be taken out by one powerful Lasgun shot? In some novels, yes.
But that is not "the flavour" of specific types of marines. Specific marine flavours is Salamanders seeing in multiple light spectrums. RG having access to the shadow realm. BA being the angelic dude with a secret. DA being the Knight Templars in space. BT being Teutonic Knights in space etc etc. Those are marine flavours. Needing hordes of "men" to take down a marine is a given. BL writers inconsistancy in writing being a thing or not.
As said, I don't mind GW introducing "Imperial Alliance: The faction" - which has some carefully curated list of units and rules which make it an interesting - but different - faction in its own right.
I don't want a world where you go "I'm a DE player. And the optimal way to play DE is to take an 80% Eldar list with some token additions because you can ally them in with no consequence and they are currently better, gg the end."
No, Taste is subjective. Flavor is Objective. Something is salty. It is not Salty because person A tastes it. Person A can say, I don't like that flavor, it's not to my taste. But saying flavor is subjective now just YMDC arguing in bad faith, semantically. You are saying that because you don't like a certain thing, no one should be allowed to have that thing. Again, just admit you have no good arguments and we're done here. I hope for a edition where all factions can kill and maim each other not based on their God's or their stats, but because of friends throwing math rocks.
Mr. Dudeface.....TEAR DOWN THIS WALL.....
How is flavour objective? You can't use my taste buds to confirm if your definition of a flavour matches mine, your experiences cannot be immediately generalised.
First result on a Google for gaks n giggles:
While flavour is largely subjective, it is ultimately governed by the more universal tastes that we experience.
To move onto whether something is full of flavour or not, is again, a subjective statement even if you can agree on what a flavour is. Some people will find a small amount of seasoning plentiful, others won't taste it.
In the context here, the issue is there is no context. You've simply said you want to mash together models from all ranges. You simply want this because you can, not because there is a reason to.
Reasons not to are primarily game balance, setting integrity as much as we already know you dislike that and to a lesser degree aesthetics.
In short if your flavour is to use random 40k models all at once and expect it to be balanced or regulated by the game, you're in coocoo land for a multitude of reasons. To me your flavour tastes like ass, your prior suggestion would look awful to face and would be at best, unpleasant to play into for me personally.
It's also a hairs breadth off playing chess with pieces of both colours, deciding that knights should be 10 points because they can, that your models have different rules that means they can't die and that the game is only played whilst wearing dungarees.
You can say I'm arguing in bad faith, fine, but you're literally wanting to disregard the integrity of the setting to whack random models on a table for no reason. Why. Give me a reason why it is a good idea.
As said, I don't mind GW introducing "Imperial Alliance: The faction" - which has some carefully curated list of units and rules which make it an interesting - but different - faction in its own right.
I don't want a world where you go "I'm a DE player. And the optimal way to play DE is to take an 80% Eldar list with some token additions because you can ally them in with no consequence and they are currently better, gg the end."
Be me, go further, be evil. But only if you consider 10 pathfinders, 20 hormagaunts, a knight tyrant, 6 allarus terminators and a storm raven seems like something that shouldn't exist as a game legal army.
Apple fox wrote: Rogue trader is definitely in the got idea, put it in era!
I wish they would focus a bit more on narrative play, it would be super easy to put Narative missions and army construction that can be a little more lose over more competitive. Why staying within a structure that I think a lot of players still enjoy.
Then can have those fun Ally’s, that trying to balance in competitive would be a nightmare.
Open play I think comes of a little condescending to players sometimes, rather than getting quality from GW.
I'm late to the discussion, but this sums up my thoughts pretty well. There are plenty of fluffy, narrative reasons for different factions to hang out together, and it would be cool to have rules that facilitate that for narrative games. However, the huge amount of extra interactions that would be created (even if it's just a matter of taking extremely efficient/complementary units from different factions) would be a huge challenge to balance.
So while it would be cool to have narrative rules that support mixing and matching without forcing you into open play, it's probably best to keep that sort of thing away from competitive games. Theoretically, the appeal of tournament games is to challenge yourself with a relatively well-balanced rule set. Reintroducing all those possible combinations would risk detracting from that balance with no real upside. It just risks creating more broken combos that would be harder to find and balance than what we have now.
Getting dedicated detachments for specific alliances in narrative play could be cool. I love the idea of a detachment that lets a handful of marines serve as buffers for your mainly-IG force, for instance. This could also be an easy way to support monogod marine/daemon alliances with some especially fluffy rules.
No, Taste is subjective. Flavor is Objective. Something is salty. It is not Salty because person A tastes it. Person A can say, I don't like that flavor, it's not to my taste. But saying flavor is subjective now just YMDC arguing in bad faith, semantically. You are saying that because you don't like a certain thing, no one should be allowed to have that thing. Again, just admit you have no good arguments and we're done here. I hope for a edition where all factions can kill and maim each other not based on their God's or their stats, but because of friends throwing math rocks.
Mr. Dudeface.....TEAR DOWN THIS WALL.....
Someone who never tasted salt, vs. someone who regularly eats a salt saturated diet; both try a moderately salted dish.
The salt free person will say the dish is salty. The salt saturated fella will say it's not salty enough. The rest of us will debate about how vague the term "moderately salty" is, probably using anecdotal evidence, numerous examples, and flawed analogies (which everyone else will label strawmen).
What you can do to be objective is measure the salt content and share that measurement. "This dish contains 3 teaspoons of salt"- objective. "This is salty" or "This is not salty enough" - subjective.
See how that works?
Now lets apply it to 40k: Objectively, your subfaction makes no difference, unless your army is one that has bespoke subfaction models, or a supplement that provides subfaction detachments in addition to those include in the faction's dex... which is why Space Marines are still objectively special, even though GW's stated purpose was to minimize the impact of subfaction choice upon battlefield effectiveness.
Objectively, adding 4-5 units to an army that don't have the keywords to benefit from detachment rules, enhancements and strats will limit the versatility of those units, impacting the overall effectiveness of the army.
Objectively, the fluff says Slaanesh feast on the souls of dead Eldar, and all Eldar have contrived ways to avoid this fate, and all Eldar hate and/or fear Slaanesh- so objectively, playing Slaanesh in the same army of Eldar is a violation of fluff, whether Fezzik enjoys doing so or not.
Many of us will say that Fezzik has the right to put Slaaneshi models into his army if he wants to, but we might also warn Fezzik that he might have difficulty finding an opponent who wants to face said army, because many players prefer to adhere to the established lore. This is not building a wall, though even if it was, walls can be cool- I wouldn't have an apartment without them.
Of course if Baneblades are rare, and Swarmlords are rare, and we see Swarmlords all the time on the tabletop, then it's also not out of place to see Baneblades on the tabletop.
Why should tabletop presence matter at all for cross-faction unit availability? That sounds like a great way to accidentally get Eldrad or Bobby G as a splash-in for every other faction.
GSC has traditionally been able to take Guard units because their infiltration into Guard-esque PDF forces is well known. Guard units in a GSC army are not out of place, lore-wise or army list-wise, historically.
But locking out Baneblades from tabletop armies because they are "rare", while the singular Bobby G keeps showing up on the table, seems pretty silly.
Insectum7 wrote: ...But locking out Baneblades from tabletop armies because they are "rare", while the singular Bobby G keeps showing up on the table, seems pretty silly.
Are Marines unstoppable badasses, capable of taking on a dozen Guardsmen without breaking a sweat? In some novels, yes.
Are Marines able to be taken out by one powerful Lasgun shot? In some novels, yes.
Those are not mutually exclusive. You're describing Plot Armor. And Plot Armor has a weak spot for Plot Development. 10 Marines can take out 12 Guardsmen all day long until one of the Guardsmen needs to kill a Marine to advance the plot.
Is Superman an unstoppable badass who can take out the rest of the Justice League so fast only the Flash can see it happen?
Does Batman keep a brick of Kryptonite in his utility belt for just such an occasion?
Insectum7 wrote: ...But locking out Baneblades from tabletop armies because they are "rare", while the singular Bobby G keeps showing up on the table, seems pretty silly.
Why?
Army A gets to field extremely rare thing.
But army B doesn't get to field significantly less rare thing . . . Because . . . ?
Doyleist version of the answer:
a) If you can mix factions you can buy a small amount of one army and play games with it/give it a try before jumping into a full army.
b) GW would rather you decide you want to try a new army, and think that you have to buy a full 2,000pt list straight off.
c) Therefore: Mixed factions? Gone.
AnomanderRake wrote: Doyleist version of the answer:
a) If you can mix factions you can buy a small amount of one army and play games with it/give it a try before jumping into a full army.
b) GW would rather you decide you want to try a new army, and think that you have to buy a full 2,000pt list straight off.
c) Therefore: Mixed factions? Gone.
Until you run into Combat Patrols. Mixed factions - or soup - has some hard feelings around it right now. Maybe/Hopefully it comes back, but its out right now because of those bad feelings. If people liked seeing 500 points of Space Marines, and 1500 points of Guard - or vice versa - it wouldn't be off the table. 40K has been dumbed down simply because of that and GW trying to control it. Soup, 6 Captain Datasheets for when armor modifies the statline, which leaders can join what, its all part of GW trying to micromanage what we can do with their army lists so we don't "break" the game.
Edit To Add: That did just give me an idea though. Sadly we'll likely never see official support for it, but imagine a game with two combat patrols for each side. Chaos can take (Traitor)Guard and CSM, Loyalists can take SM and Guard or Mechanicus etc. But you get two allied Combat Patrols to merge into one "army" Each Patrol gets their rules that only applies to models in that patrol. Upside - Soup might not suck. Downside: GW decides they still don't have enough control over our armies and armies are now made by GW (either through combining 2-3-4 Combat Patrols for each 500 Point increment, or by making Army Boxes like Combat Patrols).
Edit To Add: That did just give me an idea though. Sadly we'll likely never see official support for it, but imagine a game with two combat patrols for each side. Chaos can take (Traitor)Guard and CSM, Loyalists can take SM and Guard or Mechanicus etc. But you get two allied Combat Patrols to merge into one "army" Each Patrol gets their rules that only applies to models in that patrol. Upside - Soup might not suck. Downside: GW decides they still don't have enough control over our armies and armies are now made by GW (either through combining 2-3-4 Combat Patrols for each 500 Point increment, or by making Army Boxes like Combat Patrols).
I think this would be a really fun experiment. I think you're right that we won't see support for it, but not because GW is suppressing it, but because if you want to do it, you just do it. It doesn't need to be a game mode, no rules need to change... You just play two CPs vs a dude playing 2 other CPs... And that's it. Nuff said. So what does "support" for that even look like?
Having said that, the next WD has not only the Rogue Trader Combat Patrol, but multiplayer rules for Combat Patrol. Those rules might help facilitate the sort of thing you're thinking of.
Personally, I feel like if you can create an RT Combat Patrol, their should also be a RT detachment instead of forcing them to exist only as allied Agents rather than giving them the potential to be a detachment in their own right, but that's a little off topic.
Does A = B? Would you allow Orks to field Wraithknights via rules in the Ork codex because Wraithknights are less rare than Asdrubael Vect?
I don't really see a cogent argument in your question.
Your argument, as near as I can see, was that it was fine for one army to take what units it wants from another (without regard to rarity in-lore) because the unit was common on the tabletop. Your question was, why does Army A get a rare thing but Army B does not get a less rare thing. The answer, of course, is the answer to my first question in that post - Army A is not Army B. Different armies treat unit availability differently because that's a big part of what it means to be a different army. GSC canonically infiltrating Guard units does not mean that they automatically get all the same units as Guard. That's why GSC don't get access to Guard aircraft, despite aircraft being orders of magnitude more common than superheavies.
As for lore, it supports a great many things that do not currently exist in the game. Last I checked, Orks lost the old Looted Unit rules that allowed them to take other faction's vehicles [note: I misremembered this one a bit - seems like it only applied to Imperial factions, where I thought it had applied to more]. T'au don't get Gue'vasa. Chaos don't get Dark AdMech. As I said, I'm fine with GSC having access to the more common Guard options. However, I don't see any justification for allowing GSC to uniquely have access to the rare units of other codices - if this is something GSC get, then let it be something that everyone can get, because for any GSC story that justifies a GSC Baneblade there's one that justifies Looted or Corrupted Baneblades as well.
Dudeface wrote: Be me, go further, be evil. But only if you consider 10 pathfinders, 20 hormagaunts, a knight tyrant, 6 allarus terminators and a storm raven seems like something that shouldn't exist as a game legal army.
Yes - this example sort of demonstrates why the idea is kind of stupid.
Admittedly, you could argue this sort of policing could then apply to a range of possible mono-faction armies that don't feel remotely like forces that would exist in the fluff*. But I think you can draw the line here at least.
*I've sort of got over it now, but that was definitely an issue for me when 10th began, and it puts me off AoS.
Personally, I feel like if you can create an RT Combat Patrol, their should also be a RT detachment instead of forcing them to exist only as allied Agents rather than giving them the potential to be a detachment in their own right, but that's a little off topic.
give it time until the Agents codex comes out. I doubt it's going to have a lot of detachments, but it's still probably going to have something like, one RT detachment, one assassin detachment, and then one or possibly more inquisitor detachments (especially since the rumor about army boxes makes it sound like inquisitors will be the focus)
Wow, the sheer mental back flips to deny the existence is narrative play as a legit form of play is astounding. The only time this happened in the past was when part of the player base tried to change another part of the "lore" and insist that Space King was NOT in fact, the lore accurate depiction of how Space Marines are made, and that a whole other half the population could also do it.
Again, deep breaths, I am not saying this will be perfectly balanced, and this game has NEVER been and never will be perfectly balanced. Only Chess and Checkers are, becuase those are co-equal. The only way to make 40k Co-equal is to take the walls off, and let anyone take anything they want.
Again, not striving for balance though. Just trying to ask if such an idea would ever be "fun" to play as? An Inquisitor in charge of an Ork Waahhh taking on a Tau Ethereral backed up by their purchased mercenary allies of Dark Eldar and Harlequins.
AnomanderRake wrote: Doyleist version of the answer:
a) If you can mix factions you can buy a small amount of one army and play games with it/give it a try before jumping into a full army.
b) GW would rather you decide you want to try a new army, and think that you have to buy a full 2,000pt list straight off.
c) Therefore: Mixed factions? Gone.
That's the opposite of what I thought the intent was when the allies chart appeared in 6th edition. I thought the goal was to get people to start new armies by letting them build a small force and use it right away with their existing army. That way they didn't have to build out a whole 2000 points before getting to play with them. Apocalypse gave players reasons to expand existing armies and allies gave them reasons to start new ones.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Wow, the sheer mental back flips to deny the existence is narrative play as a legit form of play is astounding. The only time this happened in the past was when part of the player base tried to change another part of the "lore" and insist that Space King was NOT in fact, the lore accurate depiction of how Space Marines are made, and that a whole other half the population could also do it.
Again, deep breaths, I am not saying this will be perfectly balanced, and this game has NEVER been and never will be perfectly balanced. Only Chess and Checkers are, becuase those are co-equal. The only way to make 40k Co-equal is to take the walls off, and let anyone take anything they want.
Again, not striving for balance though. Just trying to ask if such an idea would ever be "fun" to play as? An Inquisitor in charge of an Ork Waahhh taking on a Tau Ethereral backed up by their purchased mercenary allies of Dark Eldar and Harlequins.
Nobody is denying it's existence, nobody is saying not to do it. What I'm questioning is why you're here asking for "do whatever the feth I want" to be codified in the rules if you acknowledge narrative play and players already exist for you to hang with and spin your yarns.
It doesn't add to what you can do now and won't change anything, either someone finds it fun and reasonable or they don't. The premise given in your opening post was that you couldn't see a reason to restrict random allies and units ganging together now and to give you a reason why you might be wrong - game balance and setting integrity. You don't consider the actual reasons a valid seemingly, so why bother making a thread with that premise?
If you'd created a thread with "Anyone playing house rules with allied forces outside of those prescribed by GW?" or something to that extend you'd probably had a different reaction.
FezzikDaBullgryn 813185 11647711 wrote:
Again, not striving for balance though. Just trying to ask if such an idea would ever be "fun" to play as? An Inquisitor in charge of an Ork Waahhh taking on a Tau Ethereral backed up by their purchased mercenary allies of Dark Eldar and Harlequins.
Puting matched played, the majority of how people play, on the altar of some narrative player having fun, which is a big maybe.
Does A = B?
Would you allow Orks to field Wraithknights via rules in the Ork codex because Wraithknights are less rare than Asdrubael Vect?
I don't really see a cogent argument in your question.
Your argument, as near as I can see, was that it was fine for one army to take what units it wants from another (without regard to rarity in-lore) because the unit was common on the tabletop. Your question was, why does Army A get a rare thing but Army B does not get a less rare thing. The answer, of course, is the answer to my first question in that post - Army A is not Army B. Different armies treat unit availability differently because that's a big part of what it means to be a different army. GSC canonically infiltrating Guard units does not mean that they automatically get all the same units as Guard. That's why GSC don't get access to Guard aircraft, despite aircraft being orders of magnitude more common than superheavies.
As for lore, it supports a great many things that do not currently exist in the game. Last I checked, Orks lost the old Looted Unit rules that allowed them to take other faction's vehicles [note: I misremembered this one a bit - seems like it only applied to Imperial factions, where I thought it had applied to more]. T'au don't get Gue'vasa. Chaos don't get Dark AdMech. As I said, I'm fine with GSC having access to the more common Guard options. However, I don't see any justification for allowing GSC to uniquely have access to the rare units of other codices - if this is something GSC get, then let it be something that everyone can get, because for any GSC story that justifies a GSC Baneblade there's one that justifies Looted or Corrupted Baneblades as well.
That's a far more sensible argument than "Can Orks take Wraithknights?", because no, they obviously can't, and one of the reasons for that is based on lore. A point which you conveniently snipped from my post.
Re: "Your argument, as near as I can see, was that it was fine for one army to take what units it wants from another (without regard to rarity in-lore) because the unit was common on the tabletop." I would say no, not without regard to rarity in lore, because I've previously implied that GSC shouldn't get access to every unit available to the other army. Some Superheavies are rarer than others, and I never argued that GSC should have access to all of them.
My argument is that "rarity' is clearly not binary, and is more of a sliding scale for determining appropriateness. Rare units obviously show up all the time on the tabletop regardless of their rarity in lore.
Likewise "Different armies get different things" is siimilar. It's just a sliding scale.
Where the lines are drawn is ultimately pretty arbitrary. And yeah, if Baneblades are available for GSC, it'd be great if they were available for Chaos Renegade forces too. That'd be awesome.
It's so wierd that "bane blades" are the line we don't cross. Like, it makes waaaay more sense for GSC to be able to infiltrate and steal a BB than say, sneak a bio-titan onto a planet, but hey, it happens in the fluff. GSC should have free reign to anything barring unique character units in the Guard codex. Fluff be damned. Same with traitor guard. There is far more precedent for Traitors actually getting their hands on Baneblades and knights, etc. If Chaos has Titans, they must be able to steal a Baneblade or two.
I'd be also willing to give the Orks a Knight class titan that isn't a complete waste of plastic and points. If memory serves (haven't looked at an Ork book since 8th, the Gargant, Stompa, and like models were all 500-1000 point list breakers that were literally useless? Why not give them a 300-500 point Super heavy that isn't? A Scrap knight. Or a really REALLY big NOB.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: GSC should have free reign to anything barring unique character units in the Guard codex. Fluff be damned. Same with traitor guard. There is far more precedent for Traitors actually getting their hands on Baneblades and knights, etc. If Chaos has Titans, they must be able to steal a Baneblade or two.
So if GSC is GSC+Guard, why would anyone ever play just Guard?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: GSC should have free reign to anything barring unique character units in the Guard codex. Fluff be damned. Same with traitor guard. There is far more precedent for Traitors actually getting their hands on Baneblades and knights, etc. If Chaos has Titans, they must be able to steal a Baneblade or two.
So if GSC is GSC+Guard, why would anyone ever play just Guard?
because the two armies play radically different. GSC don't get orders, and have their army rules to be playing with. Genestealers' army rule concerns GSC units coming back after being destroyed, which doesn't affect BB. whereas if you're playing guard, you get orders and different stratagems. armies are more than just their datasheets, and their rules are going to go a long way to shaping how armies play. GSC is historically a gamey army that requires a lot of strategy and foreplanning to make the best use of your units, while guard can play more straightforwardly. genestealers are a finesse army that appeals to a specific kind of person, while guard has its own different appeal, and these may overlap, but most guard players would not be happy with FSC rules
Automatically Appended Next Post: also in terms of gameplay in 10th edition a GSC army taking a baneblade is going to take most if not all of its available brood brothers points. it's not strategically viable to take it because it's just too costly lol. a couple of leman russes are going to do the job better and those are dime a dozen
I'm not going to lie, that's like say if BA and DA are both Space Marines, why not just play Ultra Marines? They are COMPLETELY Different. Guard don't have Ambush tactics or whatever, explosive traps (except Sly Marbo) and all the GSC Shenanigans. Seriously man...
Also, some people like all human armies and other people like mostly alien armies. People DO make choices about their collections based on aesthetic preferences, background and fluff preferences etc.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's so wierd that "bane blades" are the line we don't cross. Like, it makes waaaay more sense for GSC to be able to infiltrate and steal a BB than say, sneak a bio-titan onto a planet, but hey, it happens in the fluff. GSC should have free reign to anything barring unique character units in the Guard codex. Fluff be damned. Same with traitor guard. There is far more precedent for Traitors actually getting their hands on Baneblades and knights, etc. If Chaos has Titans, they must be able to steal a Baneblade or two.
I'd be also willing to give the Orks a Knight class titan that isn't a complete waste of plastic and points. If memory serves (haven't looked at an Ork book since 8th, the Gargant, Stompa, and like models were all 500-1000 point list breakers that were literally useless? Why not give them a 300-500 point Super heavy that isn't? A Scrap knight. Or a really REALLY big NOB.
Even beyond stealing it, they have their own from 10,000 years ago.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm not going to lie, that's like say if BA and DA are both Space Marines, why not just play Ultra Marines?
People make that argument around here all the time. There's even a thread in Background talking about that now. There's usually two facets to the argument. One is about perceived fairness between Marines and all the other factions. The other is about fairness amongst the Marine chapters themselves i.e. if you make White Scars the special bikes chapter then you've made all the other chapters bad at bikes.
They are COMPLETELY Different. Guard don't have Ambush tactics or whatever, explosive traps (except Sly Marbo) and all the GSC Shenanigans. Seriously man...
Ok. Whatever. I'm just talking about datasheets. GSC get 22. Guard have 61. If you make it so GSC has access to all of the Guard datasheets then GSC has 83. This probably the exact reason for the Blood Brothers rules now.
Arschbombe wrote: i.e. if you make White Scars the special bikes chapter then you've made all the other chapters bad at bikes.
I know you're just pointing out the existance of the phenomenon and not necessarily endorsing it, so I'm not calling you out specifically... But feth I hate this attitude.
The second fastest runner in the world is not slow; the team that lost the superbowl does not suck.
Why does every warhammer player in 2024 have to believe that only the best unit that performs a given role is good?
They are COMPLETELY Different. Guard don't have Ambush tactics or whatever, explosive traps (except Sly Marbo) and all the GSC Shenanigans. Seriously man...
Ok. Whatever. I'm just talking about datasheets. GSC get 22. Guard have 61. If you make it so GSC has access to all of the Guard datasheets then GSC has 83. This probably the exact reason for the Blood Brothers rules now.
armies don't exist in a void. no one wants to play an army without rules— just look at DG or Votann from early 10th! it doesn't matter how many datasheets they share because they two will play differently, and since this is a game, the way something plays will matter. for example, i asked my girlfriend about this, since she plays guard, and she confirmed that she would never want to play GSC. the aesthetic is too different from what she likes out of guard, and the gameplay is completely different. the "guard players might as well just play GSC and get more options" take is laughable because it ignores anything about how people actually interact with warhammer. this isn't a game about winning, and if it was, nobody would play guard in the first place! nobody would play GSC either! both these armies have their moments, but you're always going to have a better winrate with other armies
basically, you're arguing a point that really only matters in the specific circumstance of this thread, which is totally irrelevant to how anyone really plays this game. warhammer is not a game of "strictly better". why is that the line we're drawing
I know you're just pointing out the existance of the phenomenon and not necessarily endorsing it, so I'm not calling you out specifically... But feth I hate this attitude.
I appreciate you making the distinction.
Why does every warhammer player in 2024 have to believe that only the best unit that performs a given role is good?
Best of the best of the best, sir!
Good question, but I think you know the answer. Competitive play + internet + group think + game design flaws = solved game. The best units are easily identified and celebrated. Coffee is for closers.
I know you're just pointing out the existance of the phenomenon and not necessarily endorsing it, so I'm not calling you out specifically... But feth I hate this attitude.
I appreciate you making the distinction.
Why does every warhammer player in 2024 have to believe that only the best unit that performs a given role is good?
Best of the best of the best, sir!
Good question, but I think you know the answer. Competitive play + internet + group think + game design flaws = solved game. The best units are easily identified and celebrated. Coffee is for closers.
Beyond that, if you really want to have a biker themed ultramarine force, it simply feels bad to know your choice makes you worse than a white scars player or whatever. It's not case of "having to have the best" so much as "why should I be worse for the sakes of it?"
Beyond that, if you really want to have a biker themed ultramarine force, it simply feels bad to know your choice makes you worse than a white scars player or whatever. It's not case of "having to have the best" so much as "why should I be worse for the sakes of it?"
I have added a lot of things to my army this addition that I always thought were cool, but I didn't have the right color scheme to be fun to play in past editions. Absolutely thrilled to see that gone.
Ok. Whatever. I'm just talking about datasheets. GSC get 22. Guard have 61. If you make it so GSC has access to all of the Guard datasheets then GSC has 83. This probably the exact reason for the Brood Brothers rules now.
armies don't exist in a void. no one wants to play an army without rules— just look at DG or Votann from early 10th!
GSC have rules. Those rules allow you to take another army's models, with no real penalty. You can talk as much as you want about Orders but..."Leader" is a rule that was added into the game. I've seen a few lists where it's a blob of 20 Cadians with a Castellan and Command Squad thrown in, to maximize the fact that both have Leader traits.
it doesn't matter how many datasheets they share because they two will play differently, and since this is a game, the way something plays will matter.
If you truly believed that, then you'd have no problems with Brood Brothers being a selection of units being present in your actual codex and being something that could be used to bulk out a force rather than a gap plugger.
Instead, you've constantly argued that you should 100% be allowed to take anything and everything from the Guard book because "tHeY dOn'T gEt OrDeRs!1!" and it "FiTs tHe LoRe!1!".
You know what else would fit the lore? Your "armor" being a 6+ save while Cadians are a 4+, Neophytes having a flat 5+ BS if highly-trained Cadians are supposed to be 4+s
for example, i asked my girlfriend about this, since she plays guard, and she confirmed that she would never want to play GSC.
That's great, I guess? It's also an anecdote.
Here's another anecdote: I've played Guard since I got into 40k. I've seen my army carved apart, with elements effectively given over to other armies. Then GSC come back and get Brood Brothers in the codex--perfectly fine! I loved it; it felt fluffy and appropriate. Cut to now, when Guard finally get their own flavor back at the end of 9E and Brood Brothers just get to take whatever the feth they want.
While that might feel fluffy or appropriate to you, it isn't something that sits well with myself as a longtime Guard player. It's a crutch for GSC and it's lazy. What's even lazier is the mental gymnastics done to justify things like Kasrkin, Death Riders, Attillan Rough Riders in there while praising the things(Commissars, Ogryn, Tempestus, Techpriests, Ratlings) left out...despite the lore supporting those things being present more because of the insular nature of those elements.
the aesthetic is too different from what she likes out of guard,and the gameplay is completely different
lol, you literally copy-pasted the statlines trying to show how they're the same 3 days ago...now "the gameplay and aesthetic is too different"?
Make up your mind!
the "guard players might as well just play GSC and get more options" take is laughable because it ignores anything about how people actually interact with warhammer. this isn't a game about winning, and if it was, nobody would play guard in the first place! nobody would play GSC either! both these armies have their moments, but you're always going to have a better winrate with other armies.
basically, you're arguing a point that really only matters in the specific circumstance of this thread, which is totally irrelevant to how anyone really plays this game. warhammer is not a game of "strictly better". why is that the line we're drawing
...I don't know how to reply other than "wooooooooooooow".
Beyond that, if you really want to have a biker themed ultramarine force, it simply feels bad to know your choice makes you worse than a white scars player or whatever. It's not case of "having to have the best" so much as "why should I be worse for the sakes of it?"
Counterpoint: If you really want to have a biker themed White Scars force, why should you be worse just so that someone else is getting to run an Ultramarines force at your same level?
The idea of "why should I be worse for the sakes of it?" is great and all, but it presumes everyone is starting from the same starting point. They're not. White Scars don't have but a single character for their faction keyword while Ultramarines are sitting on quite a few.
In an ideal world, in the context of the Marines books there would be something making it so that White Scars got a bonus using specific Detachments(Vanguard and Stormlance) while Ultramarines got something making it so that they got a bonus while using 1st Company and Gladius, Fists got something for Anvil & Firestorm, etc.
Counterpoint:
If you really want to have a biker themed White Scars force, why should you be worse just so that someone else is getting to run an Ultramarines force at your same level?
The idea of "why should I be worse for the sakes of it?" is great and all, but it presumes everyone is starting from the same starting point. They're not. White Scars don't have but a single character for their faction keyword while Ultramarines are sitting on quite a few.
In an ideal world, in the context of the Marines books there would be something making it so that White Scars got a bonus using specific Detachments(Vanguard and Stormlance) while Ultramarines got something making it so that they got a bonus while using 1st Company and Gladius, Fists got something for Anvil & Firestorm, etc.
Nope, there is no reason ultramarines terminators/1st company are better than dark angels, Blood Angels or raven guard etc. The number of characters a chapter has is irrelevant to the base rules. White Scars aren't "worse" if everyone else is on an even playing field, it just means they aren't being punished for not taking bikes any more.
I'd really love it if my BA could share their secrets of going all VEGETA on their opponents in Melee. Or Salamanders giving out classes on how to properly BBQ? I mean, it's silly that one subfaction punches people A LOT HARDER.
Nope, there is no reason ultramarines terminators/1st company are better than dark angels, Blood Angels or raven guard etc. The number of characters a chapter has is irrelevant to the base rules. White Scars aren't "worse" if everyone else is on an even playing field, it just means they aren't being punished for not taking bikes any more.
You'll notice that I didn't say "the bonus has to be to their rules"?
It's as easy as "If your subfaction is Ultramarines, a First Company detachment takes Sternguard Veterans as Battleline".
GSC have rules. Those rules allow you to take another army's models, with no real penalty. You can talk as much as you want about Orders but..."Leader" is a rule that was added into the game. I've seen a few lists where it's a blob of 20 Cadians with a Castellan and Command Squad thrown in, to maximize the fact that both have Leader traits.
Yes, the troops will benefit from the leader abilities of both the Castellan and the Command Squad... But not a single one of those three units will be able to have an enhancement or use a strat, nor will any of them have a detachment ability.
You've been told again and again and again... It ain't just Orders that brood brothers lose. They also don't benefit from the GSC detachment rule, and they can't benefit from any strats (be they guard or GSC) or enhancements (be they guard or GSC).
You need to acknowledge the signifcance of that nerf and stop pretending that "not having Orders" is BB's only disadvantage.
Yes, I can include a castellan, a command squad and 20 infantry from the guard... But in terms of actual game play, I'd be far, far better off to spend those points on accolytes and a Magus or some other GSC character, because if I did, they'd get a detachment rule, the ability to take enhancements and the ability to use strats.
Given that fact, if you see me including BB DESPITE these numerous and varied disadvantages, it's a pretty safe assumption that I'm doing it for lore reasons, or fighting style or aesthetic preferences.
Instead, you've constantly argued that you should 100% be allowed to take anything and everything from the Guard book
This is fair- some of us are arguing that their should be fewer restrictions than there are, and I'm not sure loosening those would be great for the game either, although perhaps loosening them for narrative only is a decent compromise.
While some people in this thread may be referencing ONLY this disadventage, and while some people (yourself included) might be using that as shorthand for "all of the disadvantages that brood brothers have," you can see my response above for a more accurate picture of the actual disadvantages... And even my list above is incomplete, because we also have point restrictions (25%), AND some unit restrictions.
You know what else would fit the lore? Your "armor" being a 6+ save while Cadians are a 4+, Neophytes having a flat 5+ BS if highly-trained Cadians are supposed to be 4+s
No, that actually doesn't fit the lore. The lore is that if a purestrain does an implant attack, the one who is implanted becomes a member of the cult. If I implant a Cadian, that Cadian joins me. He doesn't say "Oh, first I'm going to forget my firearmes training, then I'm going to take off my armour, then I'm going to join you."
And as I mentioned above, while it's not what everyone does, I am growing a cult from nothing but two broods of purestrains. What I impant and what I breed is what gets to join my cult. I can have a unit of BB once I implant 10. If any of them sit out for two games, I can add a single Neophyte to my roster.
If the humans I implant are Krieg, that's what I get. If they are Imperial citizens (Threshers), I use counts as Infantry squad and Necromunda models. And yes, if I implant a Castellan, I can include him too.
It is kind of a crutch for the GSC, because as explained above, even a great guard unit sucks in a GSC army compared to other GSC options by virtue of lacking detachment rules, enhancements or strats from either faction. But I don't know that I'd call it lazy either, because "use what you can capture" is the fluff, and I think these rules reflect that better than "All BB units will adopt this profile after being implanted, regardless of what their profile was prior to implantation."
What's even lazier is the mental gymnastics done to justify things like Kasrkin, Death Riders, Attillan Rough Riders in there while praising the things(Commissars, Ogryn, Tempestus, Techpriests, Ratlings) left out...despite the lore supporting those things being present more because of the insular nature of those elements.
Huh?
Something being more insular or less common does make it LESS likely to be captured/ subverted by the GSC, not MORE likely. Did I misinterpret what you've written?
In my case, I take all the common vs rare/ insular right out of it. If I don't implant or steal it in game, I don't use it. Giving access to some units and not others is GW's way of estimating what Cults are likely to be able to implant/ steal/ subvert. I just cut that out of the equation by insisting that the games I play determine my access. To me, that's what makes the Cult interesting.
And look, I could theoretically be okay with them adding some BB units to the dex... But if they do that, it no longer represents implant/ steal/ subvert as well as the system we currently have. If I manage to implant enough Kasrkin to build a 10 man BB unit, I don't want their stats and gear to change because it'll make you feel better. I actually fought the battles to recruit those dudes, and they aren't going to discard their gear before they cross the battle line for a rules abstraction in order to satisfy your need to feel like your units are only for you.
That would probably mean that you and I wouldn't want to play against each other, and you know what? That's fine. We're grown ups, and we're free to make those choices.
Yes, the troops will benefit from the leader abilities of both the Castellan and the Command Squad... But not a single one of those three units will be able to have an enhancement or use a strat, nor will any of them have a detachment ability.
You've been told again and again and again... It ain't just Orders that brood brothers lose. They also don't benefit from the GSC detachment rule, and they can't benefit from any strats (be they guard or GSC) or enhancements (be they guard or GSC).
You need to acknowledge the signifcance of that nerf and stop pretending that "not having Orders" is BB's only disadvantage.
Yes, I can include a castellan, a command squad and 20 infantry from the guard... But in terms of actual game play, I'd be far, far better off to spend those points on accolytes and a Magus or some other GSC character, because if I did, they'd get a detachment rule, the ability to take enhancements and the ability to use strats.
Given that fact, if you see me including BB DESPITE these numerous and varied disadvantages, it's a pretty safe assumption that I'm doing it for lore reasons, or fighting style or aesthetic preferences.
And I'm calling nonsense, because like I said: It's a popular enough choice that it's something I've seen multiple times. It's also under 25% of the allotment even at 1000 points. Don't pretend like it's something that's wildly burdensome.
Instead, you've constantly argued that you should 100% be allowed to take anything and everything from the Guard book
This is fair- some of us are arguing that their should be fewer restrictions than there are, and I'm not sure loosening those would be great for the game either, although perhaps loosening them for narrative only is a decent compromise.
Or we could just do away with the ability to dip into another codex's entirety and replace it with actual themed units! Sounds great to me.
While some people in this thread may be referencing ONLY this disadventage, and while some people (yourself included) might be using that as shorthand for "all of the disadvantages that brood brothers have," you can see my response above for a more accurate picture of the actual disadvantages... And even my list above is incomplete, because we also have point restrictions (25%), AND some unit restrictions.
Oh no, you don't get to pretend like there's "some unit restrictions". Go read what those unit restrictions are. Compare them to the units in the Guard roster.
Your "unit restrictions" are: -No named heroes. -No Militarum Tempestus or Commissars -No Preachers -No Ogryn or Ratlings -No Techpriests
That still leaves you with FORTY-ONE UNITS to pick from, not counting FW. We're not talking about something like Knights or Imperial Agents here, where the "unit restrictions" amount to a handful of units. We're talking about 41 units. Even if we were to remove the named regimental units(Attilan, Cadians have 4, Catachan, and Death Korps)? You'd STILL be sitting at the ridiculous number of 34 distinctive unit entries.
You know what else would fit the lore? Your "armor" being a 6+ save while Cadians are a 4+, Neophytes having a flat 5+ BS if highly-trained Cadians are supposed to be 4+s
No, that actually doesn't fit the lore. The lore is that if a purestrain does an implant attack, the one who is implanted becomes a member of the cult.
This isn't correct. The implantation doesn't make them part of the cult but it does mean that their firstborn(and only the firstborn) child will be a hybrid.
If I implant a Cadian, that Cadian joins me. He doesn't say "Oh, first I'm going to forget my firearmes training, then I'm going to take off my armour, then I'm going to join you."
First off: the armour is because Cadians are actually wearing full Flak Armour. You're wearing a hardened mining suit. Don't pretend they're the same thing. (And for the record, I'm fine with DKoK & Catachans staying down a point of armor compared to Cadians as well.) Second off, you've hypnotized them. There's an element of breaking the will there and no guarantee they keep their full faculties.
And as I mentioned above, while it's not what everyone does, I am growing a cult from nothing but two broods of purestrains. What I impant and what I breed is what gets to join my cult. I can have a unit of BB once I implant 10. If any of them sit out for two games, I can add a single Neophyte to my roster.
If the humans I implant are Krieg, that's what I get. If they are Imperial citizens (Threshers), I use counts as Infantry squad and Necromunda models. And yes, if I implant a Castellan, I can include him too.
THAT'S narrative.
Hypnotizing is how that's supposed to work, not "implants". This isn't Stargate, where your Genestealer drops a bug down someone's throat and turns them wriggly. The hypnotizing process is also supposed to be directly proportional to the presence of the Magi or Purestrains...meaning it can break based on distance or the slaying of the hypnotizer.
It is kind of a crutch for the GSC, because as explained above, even a great guard unit sucks in a GSC army compared to other GSC options by virtue of lacking detachment rules, enhancements or strats from either faction. But I don't know that I'd call it lazy either, because "use what you can capture" is the fluff, and I think these rules reflect that better than "All BB units will adopt this profile after being implanted, regardless of what their profile was prior to implantation."
I mean, if you want to get really into the nittygritty of it? Again: you aren't the Goa'uld. You're not "using what you can capture" in the Brood Brothers. You're subverting the society you're embedded in, slowly making your way into positions of power to divert things to loyal elements of hybrids.
What's even lazier is the mental gymnastics done to justify things like Kasrkin, Death Riders, Attillan Rough Riders in there while praising the things(Commissars, Ogryn, Tempestus, Techpriests, Ratlings) left out...despite the lore supporting those things being present more because of the insular nature of those elements.
Huh?
Something being more insular or less common does make it LESS likely to be captured/ subverted by the GSC, not MORE likely. Did I misinterpret what you've written?
Seeing as how Genestealer Cults thrive on anonymity and unquestioning loyalty...yes, you did misunderstand what I wrote.
Things that stand apart from their comrades are more susceptible to outside manipulation and infiltration. They use corrupted Commissars and Scions for Chaos as a narrative element, and yet you think that there's no way for the same thing to happen with GSC?
You think that "Jenkins is acting strangely" won't be noticed in tightly-bonded Cadian squads? That the Death Korps won't question why there's a trooper without his mask on?
In my case, I take all the common vs rare/ insular right out of it. If I don't implant or steal it in game, I don't use it. Giving access to some units and not others is GW's way of estimating what Cults are likely to be able to implant/ steal/ subvert. I just cut that out of the equation by insisting that the games I play determine my access. To me, that's what makes the Cult interesting.
That's fine, but the same effect could be obtained by utilizing actual codex units.
BONUS! It completely removes from the equation the supposed downsides of Brood Brothers!
And look, I could theoretically be okay with them adding some BB units to the dex... But if they do that, it no longer represents implant/ steal/ subvert as well as the system we currently have.
Except it doesn't even do that now, unless you're talking about hypnotizing things?
If I manage to implant enough Kasrkin to build a 10 man BB unit, I don't want their stats and gear to change because it'll make you feel better. I actually fought the battles to recruit those dudes, and they aren't going to discard their gear before they cross the battle line for a rules abstraction in order to satisfy your need to feel like your units are only for you.
Cool, then I get Atalans. I get the Ridgerunners. I get everything in your codex, just as Imperial Militia.
That would probably mean that you and I wouldn't want to play against each other, and you know what? That's fine. We're grown ups, and we're free to make those choices.
You're probably right as I have zero interest in playing with someone who thinks they deserve access to every single thing in my arsenal because they're not up to snuff on their own lore.
Nope, there is no reason ultramarines terminators/1st company are better than dark angels, Blood Angels or raven guard etc. The number of characters a chapter has is irrelevant to the base rules. White Scars aren't "worse" if everyone else is on an even playing field, it just means they aren't being punished for not taking bikes any more.
You'll notice that I didn't say "the bonus has to be to their rules"?
It's as easy as "If your subfaction is Ultramarines, a First Company detachment takes Sternguard Veterans as Battleline".
I mean, making them battleline is giving them bonus rules? It's just rules that do nothing atm, which is paramount to.... not giving them anything.
Dark Eldar are the example of what happens when you allow allies Your good stuff gets used in another army and then your army gets it's few good units nerfed because of the sins of Aeldari. Mega against, unless heavily restricted.
the issue with drukhari allies is that drukhari were really really bad, and eldar were really really good, so while drukhari were getting no wins, eldar was stealing their one good option to win even more
i think the solution is to give the ynnari rule something like the new demon rule where you need to take one unit of battleline for everything unit of something else you take. when power level is a concern, it's a great way of dealing with it (power level, by the way, is not a concern with GSC. when we were good earlier in 10th, it was because of our army rule, which, again, does not work on brood brothers)
I mean, making them battleline is giving them bonus rules? It's just rules that do nothing atm, which is paramount to.... not giving them anything.
Well, there's the whole "letting you take them 6x instead of 3x" thing?
Good point, so definitely a rules change and one that doesn't make much sense, because now if you want 6 sternguard squads, you're stick being a specific chapter again.
because they're not up to snuff on their own lore.
Listen Kan- you may want to reread some source material. So far I've consulted the 7th, 8th, 9th GSC dexes, the 3rd ed citadel Journal dex by Tim Huckleberry, the original 1990 Genestealer expansion from Space Hulk. I'm trying to track down the second ed Tyranid Dex and the original WD 126-27 Dex.
I don't have time to quote them right now, but every source I checked say you are at least somewhat mistaken on you interpretation of the GSC lifecycle. Here's a brief summary of what of seen so far:
9th- Says the hypnosis starts with the implantation of genetic material. This is probably the text that most closely matches my interpretation.
8th- Says the hypnosis happens before implantation of genetic material. This is closest to your interpretation- first, it does say that the Cult doesn't always implant everyone they hypnotize. It is the only source I've read that says this. It also mentions the first born hybrid issue, and again, it's the only source I've read so far that does.
7th- Says hypnosis occurs before implantation of genetic material, but does not explicitly state whether all hypnotized hosts are subsequently implanted or not.
1990 Genestealer expansion for Space Hulk- pretty tired by the time I found this one, so I might be mistaken... But I think this one says the implantation happens first, and I'm not even sure if it describes the effect as hypnosis at all. I will double check when I get home.
3rd ed Hucklberry dex- Strongly implies implantation first; hypnosis is only referenced as conditioning which makes the infected love their hybrid children.
Every single one of those sources mentions the genetic implantation, even the one that comes closest to supporting your interpretation. The two sources I am still looking for will mention it as well- I don't have to find them to know that, because I've built lists using those rules before- but I will.
I mean, making them battleline is giving them bonus rules? It's just rules that do nothing atm, which is paramount to.... not giving them anything.
Well, there's the whole "letting you take them 6x instead of 3x" thing?
Good point, so definitely a rules change and one that doesn't make much sense, because now if you want 6 sternguard squads, you're stick being a specific chapter again.
It might not make sense to you, but to anyone with a cursory knowledge of their own chosen subfaction's lore? They'd likely say "Oh hey that makes sense".
An Ultramarines 1st Company force isn't going to be the same as a Raven Guard 1st Company("The Blackwings") force. Hell, a Raven Guard First Company isn't even going to be consisting of the same things as the actual First Company detachment in all likelihood. Per their supplement, the Raven Guard's Primaris elements in the 1st primarily take to the field in Phobos wargear and they frequently have Stormtalon Gunships in support.
because they're not up to snuff on their own lore.
Listen Kan- you may want to reread some source material. So far I've consulted the 7th, 8th, 9th GSC dexes, the 3rd ed citadel Journal dex by Tim Huckleberry, the original 1990 Genestealer expansion from Space Hulk. I'm trying to track down the second ed Tyranid Dex and the original WD 126-27 Dex.
I don't have time to quote them right now, but every source I checked say you are at least somewhat mistaken on you interpretation of the GSC lifecycle. Here's a brief summary of what of seen so far:
Spoiler:
9th- Says the hypnosis starts with the implantation of genetic material. This is probably the text that most closely matches my interpretation.
8th- Says the hypnosis happens before implantation of genetic material. This is closest to your interpretation- first, it does say that the Cult doesn't always implant everyone they hypnotize. It is the only source I've read that says this. It also mentions the first born hybrid issue, and again, it's the only source I've read so far that does.
7th- Says hypnosis occurs before implantation of genetic material, but does not explicitly state whether all hypnotized hosts are subsequently implanted or not.
1990 Genestealer expansion for Space Hulk- pretty tired by the time I found this one, so I might be mistaken... But I think this one says the implantation happens first, and I'm not even sure if it describes the effect as hypnosis at all. I will double check when I get home.
3rd ed Hucklberry dex- Strongly implies implantation first; hypnosis is only referenced as conditioning which makes the infected love their hybrid children.
Every single one of those sources mentions the genetic implantation, even the one that comes closest to supporting your interpretation. The two sources I am still looking for will mention it as well- I don't have to find them to know that, because I've built lists using those rules before- but I will.
Not seeing any of that saying "This turns someone into a Brood Brother"?
Because remember, this is what you said:
No, that actually doesn't fit the lore. The lore is that if a purestrain does an implant attack, the one who is implanted becomes a member of the cult. If I implant a Cadian, that Cadian joins me.
I'll full on cop to not having codices handy(they're not my army, after all, but a friend of mine does have them...which is why I find the whole Brood Brothers reactions here so weird, since he was more interested with them being a limited number of units actually in the codex than roughly 2/3rds of the Guard range) and working off Lexicanum. But they're usually good about citing their sources.
Also, obligatory throw-out since you're citing old lore:
Many of these Brood Brothers may be members of the local civil or military authorities, continuing to carry out their normal duties in society. They remain hidden until the cult/clan is powerful enough to completely take control of the host society. They regard and often venerate the Genestealer Patriarch as a grandfather or deity. They are especially fanatic members of the clan, motivated by intense, instinctual bonds to their Genestealer and Hybrid relatives.
The Brood Brothers infiltrate Planetary Defence Forces or local militia, giving the brood the military training and access to weapons they would normally lack. When the cult finally begins its uprising to claim the planet, the brothers will rebel along with their kindred, beginning a campaign of sabotage and guerrilla warfare to wreck planetary defenses and tie down loyal troops.
Spoiler:
There's an interesting thing to consider right here and now though:
While a local entity, there's nothing hard or fast saying that PDFs don't fall under the auspices of the Astra Militarum.
I mean, making them battleline is giving them bonus rules? It's just rules that do nothing atm, which is paramount to.... not giving them anything.
Well, there's the whole "letting you take them 6x instead of 3x" thing?
Good point, so definitely a rules change and one that doesn't make much sense, because now if you want 6 sternguard squads, you're stick being a specific chapter again.
It might not make sense to you, but to anyone with a cursory knowledge of their own chosen subfaction's lore? They'd likely say "Oh hey that makes sense".
An Ultramarines 1st Company force isn't going to be the same as a Raven Guard 1st Company("The Blackwings") force. Hell, a Raven Guard First Company isn't even going to be consisting of the same things as the actual First Company detachment in all likelihood. Per their supplement, the Raven Guard's Primaris elements in the 1st primarily take to the field in Phobos wargear and they frequently have Stormtalon Gunships in support.
No, it doesn't make sense. Ultramarines do not have more or more readily accessible suits of terminator armour or veteran units than other chapters. In fact by your own example, Raven Guard believe in tactical felxibility and will take phobos etc. even in 1st company. Great, so why would you then not prefer to use the vanguard detachment to represent a Raven Guard 1st company deploying in phobos?
You started off saying it doesn't have to be a rules thing then immediately gave a rules based example, the subsequent points just show how the current systems in place support more flexibility with less feelsbads.
I'll dare to say it's nigh impossible for you to give an example of anything locked to a subfaction that doesn't flanderise them and punish them for either taking "the wrong stuff" or force game-related issues.
Weirdly counts-as allies is the only way around that "oh look at my blue ultramarine white scars force I allied into my ultras 1st company" sort of thing.
No, it doesn't make sense. Ultramarines do not have more or more readily accessible suits of terminator armour or veteran units than other chapters.
They do not have more of them, but they are more famous for having deployed the entirety of their 1st Company in singular engagements. The Fists and their successors(notably Crimson Fists) are mentioned as having done similar.
In fact by your own example, Raven Guard believe in tactical felxibility and will take phobos etc. even in 1st company.
Their Primaris elements will, yes. Similarly, their 2nd Company will field large numbers of Infiltrators and Reivers.
Great, so why would you then not prefer to use the vanguard detachment to represent a Raven Guard 1st company deploying in phobos?
Have you ever looked at what is Battleline for Marines?
There is not a single Phobos unit in that list.
Your listbuilding to match the theme is restricted; albeit less so than White Scars Biker lists.
You started off saying it doesn't have to be a rules thing then immediately gave a rules based example, the subsequent points just show how the current systems in place support more flexibility with less feelsbads.
I said "Battleline", which isn't rules but rather is army composition. Battleline adds zero rules to a unit, just affects how listbuilding works. Certain Battleline units do have special rules tied to it though.
I'll dare to say it's nigh impossible for you to give an example of anything locked to a subfaction that doesn't flanderise them and punish them for either taking "the wrong stuff" or force game-related issues.
It's hard to give examples of anything "locked to a subfaction" when most subfactions in the Loyalist Marines book have at most a single character.
Weirdly counts-as allies is the only way around that "oh look at my blue ultramarine white scars force I allied into my ultras 1st company" sort of thing.
I'm going to need you to break down what you're trying to say right here.
Through cunning and unholy good fortune, a Genestealer Cult can send its questing tendrils writhing into even the highest ranks of the military forces that should be standing guard against it. So does the Patriarch seize new and potent weapons of revolution.
That is the lore paragraph of the Brood Brothers rule.
You can debate the lore details of the implantation process all you want, but it is lore that the GSC can get access to a good portion of the Astra Militarum's arsenal and equipment.
No, it doesn't make sense. Ultramarines do not have more or more readily accessible suits of terminator armour or veteran units than other chapters.
They do not have more of them, but they are more famous for having deployed the entirety of their 1st Company in singular engagements. The Fists and their successors(notably Crimson Fists) are mentioned as having done similar.
In fact by your own example, Raven Guard believe in tactical felxibility and will take phobos etc. even in 1st company.
Their Primaris elements will, yes. Similarly, their 2nd Company will field large numbers of Infiltrators and Reivers.
Great, so why would you then not prefer to use the vanguard detachment to represent a Raven Guard 1st company deploying in phobos?
Have you ever looked at what is Battleline for Marines?
There is not a single Phobos unit in that list.
Your listbuilding to match the theme is restricted; albeit less so than White Scars Biker lists.
You started off saying it doesn't have to be a rules thing then immediately gave a rules based example, the subsequent points just show how the current systems in place support more flexibility with less feelsbads.
I said "Battleline", which isn't rules but rather is army composition. Battleline adds zero rules to a unit, just affects how listbuilding works. Certain Battleline units do have special rules tied to it though.
I'll dare to say it's nigh impossible for you to give an example of anything locked to a subfaction that doesn't flanderise them and punish them for either taking "the wrong stuff" or force game-related issues.
It's hard to give examples of anything "locked to a subfaction" when most subfactions in the Loyalist Marines book have at most a single character.
Weirdly counts-as allies is the only way around that "oh look at my blue ultramarine white scars force I allied into my ultras 1st company" sort of thing.
I'm going to need you to break down what you're trying to say right here.
All of the marine chapters have a fabled "all of the first company" story in there somewhere, for the ultras you're referencing the battle for Macragge I assume? Well the Blood Angels did the same at the siege of Baal, so get them on the list for battleline veterans. Scythes of the Emperor are ultramarine successors who suffered near 100% losses at the hands of the GSC/Nids. They'd use ultramarines rules despite having 0 veterans. Minotaurs deploy regularly at full chapter strength.
There is no real justification for giving a subfaction anything that can make it more essential or better than the others at specific army builds. Battleline is a rule and has rule interactions, which I suspect will be expanded upon later in the edition. All it takes is for terminators or bladeguard or whatever to suddenly be "the best marine unit" and everyone is magically either ultramarines in the wrong paint or you have ultras players deploying their recon company and wondering why they can't 6 units of infiltrators simply because they're not painted in black etc.
Through cunning and unholy good fortune, a Genestealer Cult can send its questing tendrils writhing into even the highest ranks of the military forces that should be standing guard against it. So does the Patriarch seize new and potent weapons of revolution.
That is the lore paragraph of the Brood Brothers rule.
You can debate the lore details of the implantation process all you want, but it is lore that the GSC can get access to a good portion of the Astra Militarum's arsenal and equipment.
Which isn't the same as all of their arsenal and equipment, nor is it the same as all of their personnel and training.
Also, we have an answer now about how PDFs are considered:
Codex: Astra Militarum 9E page 17 wrote:
<interesting bit about how the Departmento Munitorum considers Militarum Regimentums interchangeably;i.e. all Cadians are from the Cadian Regiment.>
On their home worlds, the forces who serve to defend the planet may be split into cohorts, militia groups, geno-corps or a host of other formations known by a variety of local terms, but in the Astra Militarum these are all considered different types of regiment.
So with this in mind, I still reiterate my objection to named regimental units. I'm still opposed to superheavy tanks in the Brood Brothers listings though.
All of the marine chapters have a fabled "all of the first company" story in there somewhere, for the ultras you're referencing the battle for Macragge I assume?
Macragge 1 & Mortarion's invasion, yes. Also Vigilus saw them send out a good chunk of the 1st.
Well the Blood Angels did the same at the siege of Baal, so get them on the list for battleline veterans.
Sure, and if they do that then they cannot take Sanguinary Guard.
Because remember:
It's not just the actual, in the book Chapters that get to use these detachments anymore. For some stupid reason, the supplemental books get to as well.
Scythes of the Emperor are ultramarine successors who suffered near 100% losses at the hands of the GSC/Nids. They'd use ultramarines rules despite having 0 veterans.
They have veterans now. The Chapter was rebuilt as a Primaris Chapter.
Minotaurs deploy regularly at full chapter strength.
Minotaurs are closer to Grey Knights in terms of how they operate than "regular" Astartes, at least from what I can recall from IA12.
There is no real justification for giving a subfaction anything that can make it more essential or better than the others at specific army builds. Battleline is a rule and has rule interactions, which I suspect will be expanded upon later in the edition.
We've seen zero indication of this. All we have seen is the natively battleline units featuring a special rule on the unit itself.
All it takes is for terminators or bladeguard or whatever to suddenly be "the best marine unit" and everyone is magically either ultramarines in the wrong paint or you have ultras players deploying their recon company and wondering why they can't 6 units of infiltrators simply because they're not painted in black etc.
Because Ultramarines aren't running multiple companies worth of Vanguard units, unlike the Raven Guard and their Successors. Ultras are running the Vanguard Company(100 Marines strong), with some elements of their Assault Companies utilizing Reiver & Incursor gear.
Just like how Raven Guard can't abuse the Vanguard Detachment with Marneus Calgar and Roboute Guilliman.
Nice- the tone seems a little less hostile here. I'm happy about that, because I am interested in civil discussion. I understand how important the issue is to you, and I want to say in advance that if MY tone has at times seemed aggressive, it was never my intention- and same going forward. That's one of the reasons I concede that I don't necessarily mind adding units to the dex if GW can do it in a good way.
I looked at the BB unit entry in the 8th dex, and yeah- they get the Cult Ambush rule, and there are strats they can use and so on. They are far more effective due to these synergies, but what they feel like to me is Late-Stage Brood Brothers- so they've fought with the Cult long enough to muddy up their own training from human military forces and incorporate more and more of the GSC's guerilla tactics into their fighting styles.
For me, this kind of thing is important, because I'm all about campaign RPG style play; the Cadian soldier who finds himself at the wrong end of an ovipositor is still fighting like a Cadian soldier, blending in, gathering intel, finding ways to help his Cult maybe boost a tank or two, and this behaviour would persist for at least a month or so... But the Cult might decide to let that soldier continue to be a sleeper agent right up until ascension day if he's good at it. If he's not, the Cult may ask him to desert so that he can fight with the Cult... At which point his tactics will begin to shift away from the human military training to the Cult ambush style. The Cult might also decide that the soldier may be more useful as breeder, or any other role.
There will be more of this as we move on, but I'll save it for specific responses.
Not seeing any of that saying "This turns someone into a Brood Brother"?
Because remember, this is what you said:
No, that actually doesn't fit the lore. The lore is that if a purestrain does an implant attack, the one who is implanted becomes a member of the cult. If I implant a Cadian, that Cadian joins me.
And you'll notice that in the part of my text that you quoted that I did not say implant = Brood Brother. I said implant = cult member. Why were you even trying to find implant = brood brother? It's not a claim I ever made.
I might have said that GSC wouldn't trust someone to be a part of their military operations until they had received the implantation- in fact if I haven't said that yet, consider it said now.
My thought is that all Brood Brothers would be implanted, but that not every Cult member who has been implanted is necessarily a brood brother- some would be sleeper agents, some would be breeders... The point is that implantation of the genetic material is an important part of the cult's control- it is the thing that makes a host particularly receptive to the psychic communication of the Broodmind; it is the thing that causes hybridization to occur. And a Cult would have to be stupid to not use the implantation for every cult member who has an important role within the cult. Even if they can hypnotize via psychic power (and they can), that's usually used to make them passive for implantation, because it is the implantation that provides the greatest degree of control. Breeders, of course, require implantation; you can't hypnotize someone's body to produce hybridized offspring.
It's important to note that the term Brood Brother as it is commonly used means a unit of infected hosts whose role is to fight with the Cult army.
Non-combat members of the Cult must exist, but we don't have a different term for them because they aren't relevant to the game.
This little semantic entanglement is responsible for at least some of the communication breakdown.
I'll full on cop to not having codices handy(they're not my army, after all, but a friend of mine does have them...which is why I find the whole Brood Brothers reactions here so weird, since he was more interested with them being a limited number of units actually in the codex than roughly 2/3rds of the Guard range) and working off Lexicanum. But they're usually good about citing their sources.
Like I said, I can see why anyone- you and your friend included- would be interested in having bespoke BB units in the dex; in every edition I've seen that uses this method, the units in question always did have better synergy with the rest of the army. It's not a bad option.
But implanted Kasrkin aren't going to forget the training they received as humans when they're implanted. They aren't going to stop using the gear that they've received as a result of their role after being implanted either- the psychic bond allows BB to know when they are in the presence of other cult members, so the disguise is perfect- anyone in the Cult looks at the dude with Kasrkin gear and thinks "That's one of us in that souped up armour using the suped up gun". Any imperial just sees another Kasrkin. If they take of their gear and change their weapons, not only are they not as effective on the battlefield, they also lose the disguise the gear provides. This is why I personally feel the current system is more reflective of the fluff.
That's not to say I don't understand your point of view, nor does it mean that I don't see some advantages and even some fluff in the system you propose; as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, a bespoke BB unit would represent a fighter who had been fighting with the cult for long enough to learn their style,
Also, obligatory throw-out since you're citing old lore:
Many of these Brood Brothers may be members of the local civil or military authorities, continuing to carry out their normal duties in society. They remain hidden until the cult/clan is powerful enough to completely take control of the host society. They regard and often venerate the Genestealer Patriarch as a grandfather or deity. They are especially fanatic members of the clan, motivated by intense, instinctual bonds to their Genestealer and Hybrid relatives.
The Brood Brothers infiltrate Planetary Defence Forces or local militia, giving the brood the military training and access to weapons they would normally lack. When the cult finally begins its uprising to claim the planet, the brothers will rebel along with their kindred, beginning a campaign of sabotage and guerrilla warfare to wreck planetary defenses and tie down loyal troops.
Spoiler:
There's an interesting thing to consider right here and now though:
While a local entity, there's nothing hard or fast saying that PDFs don't fall under the auspices of the Astra Militarum.
This another good point. It is true that all the fluff talks about PDF, but there is no PDF army list.
Cults that do recruit from the PDF could easily use a bespoke unit to represent that, because we don't have Stats and gear for PDF in game. You can't say that BB stats and gear differ from what the host was prior to implantation, because we don't HAVE stats and gear for the unit pre-implantation.
Cults that recruit from guard on the other hand, aren't as well represented by bespoke BB units, because we DO have pre-implant stats and gear, and if I implant a Kasrkin, I can see the difference between the pre and post implant unit, and there's there is no logical narrative reason for their stats or their gear to change, and many logical narrative reasons why stats and gear should remain the same.
There may very well be mechanical reasons to make those changes, but there's no lore based reason.
Bluntly, I'm not going to answer any of that other than to tell you to go read the Shadowvaults book for KT.
You're NOT getting Kasrkin. You're NOT getting Cadians. They're executing GSC infected. You're not getting DKoK because of the way reproduction works for their homeworld.
With the fact that we now have what seems to be confirmation that yes, the PDF is considered part of the Guard apparatus? We have stats and gear for PDF: It's called the Infantry Squad.
Kanluwen wrote: Bluntly, I'm not going to answer any of that other than to tell you to go read the Shadowvaults book for KT.
You're NOT getting Kasrkin. You're NOT getting Cadians. They're executing GSC infected. You're not getting DKoK because of the way reproduction works for their homeworld.
With the fact that we now have what seems to be confirmation that yes, the PDF is considered part of the Guard apparatus? We have stats and gear for PDF:
It's called the Infantry Squad.
Man, why don't they send Cadians and Kasrkin to handle Chaos outbreaks? They're apparently perfectly incorruptible, or at least able to 100%, without fail, detect when someone is tainted and handle them accordingly.
Sometimes Cults (Chaos or Genestealer) get found early on, and eradicated.
Sometimes they don't, and are able to spread and worm their way into all sorts of places they shouldn't be.
Even if it's rare for a Kasrkin to be infected, is it rarer than a Primarch showing up?
So, it's my understanding from the Fluff, that in the instances of a GSC outbreak, the Commisariat beings liberally spreading out the bolter shells to the head of anyone even suspected of carrying taint. Dial that up to 11, for Cadians, and their Elite stuff like Kasakin and the Scions. Scions and whatnot likely get daily blood tests to verify status, and if not, they are purged. It's not even a bad practice. You literally cannot contain the GSC like a virus. By the time you discover it, you likely have to execute the majority of the people involved and start over.
There really is no "faction" that is resistant to it, please correct me here. Even the tau and Kroot fell victim to the taint when they started co-habitating with infected humans. Obviously Necrons can't be affected, but I'm not sure about Orks, Eldar, and Squats.
Astartes have some organ or something that allows them to literally kill off foreign bodies in their blood. To my knowledge, they "Can" infect sisters, but that specific sister would likely get shot instantly by other sisters. That leaves Chaos. Which I have no idea, and I don't think the fluff ever bothers to test.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, it's my understanding from the Fluff, that in the instances of a GSC outbreak, the Commisariat beings liberally spreading out the bolter shells to the head of anyone even suspected of carrying taint. Dial that up to 11, for Cadians, and their Elite stuff like Kasakin and the Scions. Scions and whatnot likely get daily blood tests to verify status, and if not, they are purged. It's not even a bad practice. You literally cannot contain the GSC like a virus. By the time you discover it, you likely have to execute the majority of the people involved and start over.
There really is no "faction" that is resistant to it, please correct me here. Even the tau and Kroot fell victim to the taint when they started co-habitating with infected humans. Obviously Necrons can't be affected, but I'm not sure about Orks, Eldar, and Squats.
Astartes have some organ or something that allows them to literally kill off foreign bodies in their blood. To my knowledge, they "Can" infect sisters, but that specific sister would likely get shot instantly by other sisters. That leaves Chaos. Which I have no idea, and I don't think the fluff ever bothers to test.
Orks can be infected, they sort of cycle through it back to ork eventually though. It's strongly suggested some marines had fallen to gsc in the scythes of the emperor as the cult had infected the gene stock they were recruiting from. I'd wager eldar and votann are just as corruptible genetically, but its a problem with eldar as they'd likely discover them psychically and reproduction cycle is slower.
JNAProductions wrote: Man, why don't they send Cadians and Kasrkin to handle Chaos outbreaks?
Probably for the same reason that Genestealer Cults aren't full of high-quality soldiers, but rather consist mostly of hive-dwellers? Why Grey Knights aren't present at every single daemonic incursion?
The numbers aren't there and the extent of the threat isn't known at the outset.
They're apparently perfectly incorruptible, or at least able to 100%, without fail, detect when someone is tainted and handle them accordingly.
With GSC, it isn't hard to detect when someone's tainted. It just requires genetic screening...which isn't feasibly done for an entire Hive City to be doing 100% of the time.
That's why GSC tend to thrive on the outskirts of society first, and then gradually move inwards. DKoK and Cadians are performing that screening.
Sometimes Cults (Chaos or Genestealer) get found early on, and eradicated. Sometimes they don't, and are able to spread and worm their way into all sorts of places they shouldn't be.
Even if it's rare for a Kasrkin to be infected, is it rarer than a Primarch showing up?
But there's the rub: If it's rare for a Kasrkin(or a Cadian or a Death Korpsman or a Catachan) to be infected, what do you realistically think the numbers would be for them to get an entire squad's worth?
It would be one thing if the Brood Brothers rules gave them a 0-1 limit of any subfaction keyworded unit. They don't. They just get access to those things in the same numbers that Guard themselves do.
It's why I've suggested that GSC should get their own "Brood Stormtrooper" in the past. Effectively the same thing as a Kasrkin or Scion, just with a Brood Brother flavor.
The thing that's so disappointing with people seeming to just want to lump onto my book is that there's the opportunity for so much activity in modeling, officially and unofficially.
Probably the biggest reason that genestealer cults don’t get access to more is business rather than lore.
Probably a good comparison is sisters of silence, there isn’t really a lore reason they couldn’t get access to more imperium vehicles. But GW won’t even throw them some basics to get them by.
But it does leave players wanting for stuff to buy.
Orks can be infected, they sort of cycle through it back to ork eventually though. It's strongly suggested some marines had fallen to gsc in the scythes of the emperor as the cult had infected the gene stock they were recruiting from. I'd wager eldar and votann are just as corruptible genetically, but its a problem with eldar as they'd likely discover them psychically and reproduction cycle is slower.
I'm glad you mentioned this, as there's a part of the GSC propogation that ends up with them actively targeting psykers as the cult grows larger.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: Probably the biggest reason that genestealer cults don’t get access to more is business rather than lore.
Probably a good comparison is sisters of silence, there isn’t really a lore reason they couldn’t get access to more imperium vehicles. But GW won’t even throw them some basics to get them by. But it does leave players wanting for stuff to buy.
There's 60 datasheets for Guard, not counting FW, per the product info. GSC have access to 41, plus the majority of FW items.
What are you really thinking that they're missing?
This is the thing that I just don't bloody understand. Do you people not realize how huge of a range that GSC are currently getting to pull from out of Guard? This isn't like the CSM getting to take Plague Marines, Berzerkers, or Rubric Marines. This isn't like throwing in Imperial Agents.
Cutting out the world specific units and super-heavies still results in a huge pool of units.
So the issue with GSC Scions is that they already have far superior units? Who wants a storm trooper profile when you can take a Jackal or a Purestrain?
I mean, I assume you're talking single models here. There is kinda zero change the GSC takes an ENTIRE stormtrooper squad unawares and off their guard. Let along enough to field them as common units in an army.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, it's my understanding from the Fluff, that in the instances of a GSC outbreak, the Commisariat beings liberally spreading out the bolter shells to the head of anyone even suspected of carrying taint. Dial that up to 11, for Cadians, and their Elite stuff like Kasakin and the Scions. Scions and whatnot likely get daily blood tests to verify status, and if not, they are purged. It's not even a bad practice. You literally cannot contain the GSC like a virus. By the time you discover it, you likely have to execute the majority of the people involved and start over.
There really is no "faction" that is resistant to it, please correct me here. Even the tau and Kroot fell victim to the taint when they started co-habitating with infected humans. Obviously Necrons can't be affected, but I'm not sure about Orks, Eldar, and Squats.
Astartes have some organ or something that allows them to literally kill off foreign bodies in their blood. To my knowledge, they "Can" infect sisters, but that specific sister would likely get shot instantly by other sisters. That leaves Chaos. Which I have no idea, and I don't think the fluff ever bothers to test.
Orks, Eldar, Tau and Sisters have all been infected in the lore - yes many races would kill them if they know but often the infected don't say (or even are fully aware). The infection wants you to go home and breed.
Its implied Marines can and have been infected, Custodes would be very hard to do....but can't see why they could not be. Both are not going to breed though so not a great host.
One reason we don't see as much of it with other races is the same reason we tend to only see Cadians - GW can't make models for everything and the bulk of their lore focuses on the stuff they do make models for.
But yeah Genestealers are not specifically human focused. They are designed to infect and infiltrate any race they can. We see humans because they are dominant and by far the most commonly infected. Plus the nature of Imperial worlds and social setup makes it easier for cults to form.
Eldar are slow breeders so any Cult is going to take utterly ages to evolve and that means more chance of being found and less chance to spread.
Also I think its important to note that not all Cults get eaten. They grow and grow until the Swarm comes or they are destroyed; however if the Tyranids never come then nothing stops the Cult just spreading to other worlds and growing in size and power. I seem to recall that Cults Codex mentions one or two very large named cults that are quite firmly established and haven't been eaten.
Pretty much all the cult subfactions in the 8th and 9th codexes are well established cults that not only conquered their host worlds but are spreading and conquering others.
With GSC, it isn't hard to detect when someone's tainted. It just requires genetic screening...which isn't feasibly done for an entire Hive City to be doing 100% of the time.
That's why GSC tend to thrive on the outskirts of society first, and then gradually move inwards. DKoK and Cadians are performing that screening.
Infect the people doing the screening and get an inroad to security.
If it's rare for a Kasrkin(or a Cadian or a Death Korpsman or a Catachan) to be infected, what do you realistically think the numbers would be for them to get an entire squad's worth?
It would be one thing if the Brood Brothers rules gave them a 0-1 limit of any subfaction keyworded unit. They don't. They just get access to those things in the same numbers that Guard themselves do.
I imagine once you infect one member of a squad getting to the other members becomes a lot easier.
I'm all for some 0-X limits though. I wish GW would do more of that rather than the dumb Rule of Three.
Obviously Necrons can't be affected, but I'm not sure about Orks, Eldar, and Squats.
We've definitely seen one craftworld get thoroughly cult-ified, but it was something of a special case. Generally, eldar are resistant to cult infestation because their psychic abilities help them detect when someone is infected. Warp spiders (not the aspect warriors) might also help with this? Low reproductive rates don't help the cult out, but I feel like that's probably a secondary concern given that you could theoretically just hypnotize and/or kiss the whole craftworld given enough time.
Orks are sort of similar to eldar in that they have a knack for telling when someone is behaving in an "unorky" fashion. So it's not that individuals are immune but rather that groups are good at identifying and stamping out genestealer infestations early.
Kanluwen wrote: Bluntly, I'm not going to answer any of that other than to tell you to go read the Shadowvaults book for KT.
You're NOT getting Kasrkin. You're NOT getting Cadians. They're executing GSC infected. You're not getting DKoK because of the way reproduction works for their homeworld.
With the fact that we now have what seems to be confirmation that yes, the PDF is considered part of the Guard apparatus? We have stats and gear for PDF:
It's called the Infantry Squad.
Another good point- and BTW, our campaign did include detection mechanics; these could uncover sleeper agents, but not deserters, because deserters would no longer be present to be destroyed.
I'm not sure I have the Shadowvaults book.
But I will say, you've got this tone back; I always try to attend to my tone, though not being perfect, I do tend to slip up from time to time. I often come back later and address it if I think I've overstepped. In my last post, I specifically referenced this attempt at respectful communications, and this how you respond. So okay, if that's how you want to go, I can be rude too:
In point of fact, I AM getting Kasrkin, and I AM getting Cadians, because right now, the rules say I can, and neither I, nor any of the folks I play with, nor GW, nor any of the other numerous folks in this thread who happen to disagree with you really care what you think. ANd if you walk to a table on pick-up nights and face a GSC that includes Cadians, you'll either put up with it, or you'll be the one who sulks away from the table, because in this moment, Dems da Rulz!
Infect the people doing the screening and get an inroad to security.
I cannot stress enough how well done the "A New Life" short was for Hammer and Bolter in this regard. The GSC can never truly gain total domination of a planet, but they can get a few highly placed officers or officials and get them in place for just that right moment.
It's the kind of thing that stratagems are literally meant to be.
I imagine once you infect one member of a squad getting to the other members becomes a lot easier.
I'd imagine that the point you can infect one member of a squad, the rest are likely dead.
I'm all for some 0-X limits though. I wish GW would do more of that rather than the dumb Rule of Three.
0-X, "If you take X, you can take a Y", etc would all be aces.
It's darn simple AND its so simple it stops GW messing with it every edition. 0-X limits can be fantastic too but they are a nightmare when the parent firm changes the entire rule base every 3 years.
What was a 0-3 one edition is a 0-6 next edition then a 0-2 the edition after.
That might be all logical balance wise but its a nightmare collection wise if the numbers are bouncing around.
Rule of Three at least gives you a super simple baseline to work with. Though I do agree there are some situations where it seems daft on both sides of allowing too many of a thing or not allowing enough of a thing. In theory you'd balance that by making the rules suitable; however in practice it might be easier to allow more or less of a limit.
We do kind of have that, though right now its basically named characters that are 0-1 and battleline that's 0-6 (with the condition of having an army total of X battleline units)
Dudeface wrote: [
There is no real justification for giving a subfaction anything that can make it more essential or better than the others at specific army builds. Battleline is a rule and has rule interactions, which I suspect will be expanded upon later in the edition. All it takes is for terminators or bladeguard or whatever to suddenly be "the best marine unit" and everyone is magically either ultramarines in the wrong paint or you have ultras players deploying their recon company and wondering why they can't 6 units of infiltrators simply because they're not painted in black etc.
Sure there is - their Primarch had some tendencies which are passed down to the Legion affecting their tactics and training even to the present day. The wolves look down on Jump Packs because walking was good enough for Russ. Ergo the younglings are put into Blood Claw Packs which until recently had Jump Packs. Even the successor chapters may more closely align with (this) aspect of their Primarch than (that) aspect of their Primarch - see: Imperial Fists and Black Templars. You keep including an assumption that flaws your premise. Chapter X being able to make Army Y different than Chapter Z makes Chapter X better. Sure GW screwed up and the ability to turn assorted units into Battleline for non-standard (Say Biker/Phobos/whatever instead of Intercessor/Tacs) Dets should be on the Det for everyone. But making IF Aggressors a better match in Boltstorm, while Salamander Aggressors a better match with Flamers doesn't make either of them inherently "better".
Dudeface wrote: [
There is no real justification for giving a subfaction anything that can make it more essential or better than the others at specific army builds. Battleline is a rule and has rule interactions, which I suspect will be expanded upon later in the edition. All it takes is for terminators or bladeguard or whatever to suddenly be "the best marine unit" and everyone is magically either ultramarines in the wrong paint or you have ultras players deploying their recon company and wondering why they can't 6 units of infiltrators simply because they're not painted in black etc.
Sure there is - their Primarch had some tendencies which are passed down to the Legion affecting their tactics and training even to the present day. The wolves look down on Jump Packs because walking was good enough for Russ. Ergo the younglings are put into Blood Claw Packs which until recently had Jump Packs. Even the successor chapters may more closely align with (this) aspect of their Primarch than (that) aspect of their Primarch - see: Imperial Fists and Black Templars. You keep including an assumption that flaws your premise. Chapter X being able to make Army Y different than Chapter Z makes Chapter X better. Sure GW screwed up and the ability to turn assorted units into Battleline for non-standard (Say Biker/Phobos/whatever instead of Intercessor/Tacs) Dets should be on the Det for everyone. But making IF Aggressors a better match in Boltstorm, while Salamander Aggressors a better match with Flamers doesn't make either of them inherently "better".
"Making something better doesn't make them inherently better" is not a very consistent position.
JNAProductions wrote: "Making something better doesn't make them inherently better" is not a very consistent position.
Making something DIFFERENT does not inherently make it better.
Your quoted post literally says better.
Which quoted post? I even tried to put your quotation in CTRL+F and got no results on this page or the previous one. Could you use the Quote Feature to link to where I said that, perhaps while also adding some sort of emphasis to make it clear?
No, its not. CTRL+F the phrase "Making something" only shows results starting with your post where you manually quoted ""Making something better doesn't make them inherently better". That can't be found in the page before you manually quoted it - thus why I asked you to quote post it and add some emphasis like color, underlining, etc.
No, its not. CTRL+F the phrase "Making something" only shows results starting with your post where you manually quoted ""Making something better doesn't make them inherently better". That can't be found in the page before you manually quoted it - thus why I asked you to quote post it and add some emphasis like color, underlining, etc.
You didn't say "different" you said "better match". Which is paramount to making them better, unless this is misunderstood.
Breton wrote:[ But making IF Aggressors a better match in Boltstorm, while Salamander Aggressors a better match with Flamers doesn't make either of them inherently "better".
What would you propose to do to IF aggressors to make them "a better match" I.e. make them better with boltstorm gauntlets, compared to a Salamanders unit with boltstorm gauntlets?
Surely having the option for bolters/flamers means the unit is a flavour choice for each chapter anyway? If you want to do Literally anything to the balance of those units due to the paint job, you're making them better/worse arbitrarily.
No, its not. CTRL+F the phrase "Making something" only shows results starting with your post where you manually quoted ""Making something better doesn't make them inherently better". That can't be found in the page before you manually quoted it - thus why I asked you to quote post it and add some emphasis like color, underlining, etc.
You didn't say "different" you said "better match". Which is paramount to making them better, unless this is misunderstood.
Breton wrote:[ But making IF Aggressors a better match in Boltstorm, while Salamander Aggressors a better match with Flamers doesn't make either of them inherently "better".
What would you propose to do to IF aggressors to make them "a better match" I.e. make them better with boltstorm gauntlets, compared to a Salamanders unit with boltstorm gauntlets?
Surely having the option for bolters/flamers means the unit is a flavour choice for each chapter anyway? If you want to do Literally anything to the balance of those units due to the paint job, you're making them better/worse arbitrarily.
We've danced this dance before recently.
1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).
1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).
No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: Can you give an example how they would be a better match for one Chapter?
The wrinkle here is "more than they do now", because you can build fluffy armies for most chapters via the detachments and unit range.
1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).
No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!
Like I said "better match" is better? I mean I've been pretty clear over and over that the rules should tweak builds based on the fluff, but if you want to lie about what other people say... again. Its up to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: Can you give an example how they would be a better match for one Chapter?
The wrinkle here is "more than they do now", because you can build fluffy armies for most chapters via the detachments and unit range.
Considering they don't at all now, yeah more than they do now. As I just pointed out in your last lie - I've been pretty clear - every chapter should be able to run every (or Almost Every) Det, and each chapter should have a couple traits that tweak how each chapter plays each det. IF may get a minor boost to Boltstorms, Salamanders might get a minor boost to flamers, Space Wolves might get a minor boost to the power fists. UM might get an even more minor boost to all three, while Dark Angels might not get a boost to any of the three profiles, instead getting a boost to Terminators.
a_typical_hero wrote: Can you give an example how they would be a better match for one Chapter?
As per your question I've given some theory examples before, but a couple traits for IF that brings back Bolter Drill, and Siege Masters style rules (Not Tested for Balance examples) Bonus -1AP for Bolt weapons, +1 to Wound vs Fortifications and vehicles. So IF can run what players consider the "archtype" IF Det Anvil Seige Force and get bonuses to the Intercessor and Aggressor and whatever else bolters etc, and to their heavy weapons chunking holes out of vehicles and fortifications. At the same time they can run an IF Force in the archtype White Scars Det, with the Outriders getting a bonus to their bolt weapons, the ATV Multi Melta getting a bonus vs Vehicles and Fortifications as do the Desolators riding around in the Impulsors. Meanwhile White Scars can run their flavor Det, getting those rules, and their chapter traits: +1D on the charge, and everything gets ASSAULT keywords. So the Terminators with Lightning Claws piling out of the Land Raider Charge and get a bunch of D2 Lightning Claw attacks, and the Outriders riding around 15ish inches at a time, while still gunning people down. - then they go into the IF Siege Det pounding Fortifications with D3 Devastating Thunderhammers, and Multi-meltas advancing into range of the Fortifications. Chapter Traits should be low impact general (hits everything or nearly everything) boosts that coincide with the flavor of the Chapter.
Another example (Also not tested for balance) Imperial Fists are reknown for their expertise with Bolters even next to other Space Marine Chapters. Dark Angels as the first legion are known for having entire armories of forgotten and lost technologies like Sammaels Jet Bike, and pre-historical Plasma weapons that don't OVERHEAT because they're not HAZARDOUS - so maybe all Dark Angels Plasma weapons use the Hazardous Profile without the Hazardous fallout. And that's ok as long as Melta, Las, Plas, Flame and Grav are all relatively equial. Right now Melta is probably a little weak, and Flame has been weak for a long long time. Bump them up a bit - but the problem with flame and melta isn't because of chapter tactics, its a problem with flame and melta.
1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).
No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!
Like I said "better match" is better? I mean I've been pretty clear over and over that the rules should tweak builds based on the fluff, but if you want to lie about what other people say... again. Its up to you.
I'm not lying. You either want to alter the rules to make some units "fit better" for some subfactions, in which case JNA was on point and you lied through obscure wording. Or alternatively you're in agreement that units shouldn't be "better" in subfactions, instead people build to a theme that fits their fluff.
You've created 2 possible narratives here by refusing to define "better match". Even your weird monetary point ignores that a dollar isn't a match ro comparable to a penny because its is an order of magnitude better for the owner.
1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).
No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!
Like I said "better match" is better? I mean I've been pretty clear over and over that the rules should tweak builds based on the fluff, but if you want to lie about what other people say... again. Its up to you.
I'm not lying. You either want to alter the rules to make some units "fit better" for some subfactions, in which case JNA was on point and you lied through obscure wording. Or alternatively you're in agreement that units shouldn't be "better" in subfactions, instead people build to a theme that fits their fluff.
You've created 2 possible narratives here by refusing to define "better match". Even your weird monetary point ignores that a dollar isn't a match ro comparable to a penny because its is an order of magnitude better for the owner.
You just quoted me defining better match, not that better match is particularly hard to understand. Goes better together. Complements each other.
1
a
: a person or thing equal or similar to another
b
: one able to cope with another
He was no match for his opponent.
c
: an exact counterpart
a lake that was almost the match of one he remembered from Switzerland
2
: a pair suitably associated
carpet and curtains are a match
3
a
: a contest between two or more parties
a golf match
a soccer match
a shouting match
b
: a contest (as in tennis or volleyball) completed when one player or side wins a specified number of sets or games
4
a
: a marriage union
b
: a prospective (see PROSPECTIVE sense 2b) partner in marriage
would make a good match for any man
And just so you don't pretend to not understand which definition of "match" we're using here:
: a pair suitably associated
You either want to alter the rules to make some units "fit better" for some subfactions, in which case JNA was on point and you lied through obscure wording.
And no - I want to make the rules fit together better, but JNA was not on point - making IF better with boltstorm and Salamanders better with Flamestorm doesn't make either Boltstorm or Flamestorm better.
You either want to alter the rules to make some units "fit better" for some subfactions, in which case JNA was on point and you lied through obscure wording.
And no - I want to make the rules fit together better, but JNA was not on point - making IF better with boltstorm and Salamanders better with Flamestorm doesn't make either Boltstorm or Flamestorm better.
So we can finally cut to it:
You are. You are encouraging a "correct" or "best" way to play units based on arbitrary restrictions. By making a unit better if it's painted yellow, you create rules that are the default better way of using that unit. Worse, you're then punishing people who want to use that unit elsewhere, because the unit has to be priced as if its in its "correct" usage.
I don't understand what makes that hard to grasp? Why do you need to keep dancing around it?
There is no "better match" you're making a unit flat out better, but only if it's painted yellow.
You either want to alter the rules to make some units "fit better" for some subfactions, in which case JNA was on point and you lied through obscure wording.
And no - I want to make the rules fit together better, but JNA was not on point - making IF better with boltstorm and Salamanders better with Flamestorm doesn't make either Boltstorm or Flamestorm better.
So we can finally cut to it:
You are. You are encouraging a "correct" or "best" way to play units based on arbitrary restrictions. By making a unit better if it's painted yellow, you create rules that are the default better way of using that unit. Worse, you're then punishing people who want to use that unit elsewhere, because the unit has to be priced as if its in its "correct" usage.
I don't understand what makes that hard to grasp? Why do you need to keep dancing around it?
There is no "better match" you're making a unit flat out better, but only if it's painted yellow.
Because its not true? If almost all the units get the Chapter Traits, the Chapter Traits are a base cost. a 20 point bump for Ultramarines vs a 20 point bump for Imperial Fists vs a 20 point bump for Some Other Chapter is still a 20 point bump and can be baked into unit costs. 10 points of shoot, and 10 points of fight is 20 points of bonus. 20 points of shoot is 20 points of bonus. 20 points of fight is 20 points of bonus. 20 points of Craftworld Attribute is 20 points of Hive Fleet Adapatation is 20 points of Chapter Tactic. I even pointed out that this unit painted green gets better bolt shooting, painted yellow gets better bolt shooting, painted grey gets better fighting, painted white gets better charge range, painted blue gets less better shooting and less better fighting, painted black gets better avoids-getting-shot, and on and on. There is no need to make a 30 point agressor cost IF 50 points because it also costs 50 points for Space Wolves for the fighting, and 50 points for the UM for the fighting and the shooting and so on. And to prevent another of your gambits, the points numbers are made up to avoid posting the stuff we're not supposed to because it makes GW Angry and the actual point number doesn't matter for the theory.
You either want to alter the rules to make some units "fit better" for some subfactions, in which case JNA was on point and you lied through obscure wording.
And no - I want to make the rules fit together better, but JNA was not on point - making IF better with boltstorm and Salamanders better with Flamestorm doesn't make either Boltstorm or Flamestorm better.
So we can finally cut to it:
You are. You are encouraging a "correct" or "best" way to play units based on arbitrary restrictions. By making a unit better if it's painted yellow, you create rules that are the default better way of using that unit. Worse, you're then punishing people who want to use that unit elsewhere, because the unit has to be priced as if its in its "correct" usage.
I don't understand what makes that hard to grasp? Why do you need to keep dancing around it?
There is no "better match" you're making a unit flat out better, but only if it's painted yellow.
Because its not true? If almost all the units get the Chapter Traits, the Chapter Traits are a base cost. a 20 point bump for Ultramarines vs a 20 point bump for Imperial Fists vs a 20 point bump for Some Other Chapter is still a 20 point bump and can be baked into unit costs. 10 points of shoot, and 10 points of fight is 20 points of bonus. 20 points of shoot is 20 points of bonus. 20 points of fight is 20 points of bonus. 20 points of Craftworld Attribute is 20 points of Hive Fleet Adapatation is 20 points of Chapter Tactic. I even pointed out that this unit painted green gets better bolt shooting, painted yellow gets better bolt shooting, painted grey gets better fighting, painted white gets better charge range, painted blue gets less better shooting and less better fighting, painted black gets better avoids-getting-shot, and on and on. There is no need to make a 30 point agressor cost IF 50 points because it also costs 50 points for Space Wolves for the fighting, and 50 points for the UM for the fighting and the shooting and so on. And to prevent another of your gambits, the points numbers are made up to avoid posting the stuff we're not supposed to because it makes GW Angry and the actual point number doesn't matter for the theory.
They matter in reality because not all units benefit from them equally, unless you're suggesting a unit of devastators get the same benefit from +2s on the charge as assault intercessors do, or that in the reverse giving the assault intercessors bonus to bolt weapons is as much value as it is for the 4x heavy bolter devs, or better yet 4x plasma cannon devs.
Subfaction traits are not all made equal or of equal value to all units, this is why it went wrong before. Stack that with potential ally rules so you get the best versions of each variety of unit mixed in and it all goes to pot.
They matter in reality because not all units benefit from them equally, unless you're suggesting a unit of devastators get the same benefit from +2s on the charge as assault intercessors do, or that in the reverse giving the assault intercessors bonus to bolt weapons is as much value as it is for the 4x heavy bolter devs, or better yet 4x plasma cannon devs.
Subfaction traits are not all made equal or of equal value to all units, this is why it went wrong before. Stack that with potential ally rules so you get the best versions of each variety of unit mixed in and it all goes to pot.
Well for starters I'd say 4x Plasma Devs don't get anything from a bonus to bolt weapons.
Secondly I'd point out that's why most Chapter Traits were at least two (things) that didn't overlap much if at all - so while the 4 Plasma Devs don't get anything from Bolter Discipline, they would have gotten something from Siege Mastery. Yes, not everything will hit everything but it can be generic enough to be at least GW quality pretty easy. I mean its not like all units are "viable" in all editions. When's the last time you saw someone spam 18 Centurion Assault Squads? Yeah the goal is to make two different chapters running the same army in the same Det play at least a little different, but it could easily make some otherwise unused units cross the line into useful. Say White Scars get +1 Damage on the charge (Again not tested, just for the sake of argument) That might make 2LC Terminators cross the line into "good". And that's ok too.
I'm out, you've established in your own example the hypothetical point cost value of a paint job doesn't apply fairly to all units, so as far as I'm concerned that's concrete enough for me to not gain value continuing any further.
I'd also add that falling back to pointing out internal balance isn't great historically isn't validation for encouraging it to continue.
Dudeface wrote: I'm out, you've established in your own example the hypothetical point cost value of a paint job doesn't apply fairly to all units, so as far as I'm concerned that's concrete enough for me to not gain value continuing any further.
I'd also add that falling back to pointing out internal balance isn't great historically isn't validation for encouraging it to continue.
Please carry on as you were.
You were never going to gain any value anyway. You've made up your mind you want cookie cutter, and derailed a soup conversation into whining about IF using UM rules.
I'd counter that internal balance has generally been less than perfect but good enough to make the game endure - and anyone who thinks GW can't do Chapter Tactics fairly enough but that they can fix internal balance - even by making 2,000 Point Premade Combat Patrols may not be thinking it through.
a_typical_hero wrote: Can you give an example how they would be a better match for one Chapter?
As per your question I've given some theory examples before, but a couple traits for IF that brings back Bolter Drill, and Siege Masters style rules (Not Tested for Balance examples) Bonus -1AP for Bolt weapons, +1 to Wound vs Fortifications and vehicles. So IF can run what players consider the "archtype" IF Det Anvil Seige Force and get bonuses to the Intercessor and Aggressor and whatever else bolters etc, and to their heavy weapons chunking holes out of vehicles and fortifications. At the same time they can run an IF Force in the archtype White Scars Det, with the Outriders getting a bonus to their bolt weapons, the ATV Multi Melta getting a bonus vs Vehicles and Fortifications as do the Desolators riding around in the Impulsors. Meanwhile White Scars can run their flavor Det, getting those rules, and their chapter traits: +1D on the charge, and everything gets ASSAULT keywords. So the Terminators with Lightning Claws piling out of the Land Raider Charge and get a bunch of D2 Lightning Claw attacks, and the Outriders riding around 15ish inches at a time, while still gunning people down. - then they go into the IF Siege Det pounding Fortifications with D3 Devastating Thunderhammers, and Multi-meltas advancing into range of the Fortifications. Chapter Traits should be low impact general (hits everything or nearly everything) boosts that coincide with the flavor of the Chapter.
Another example (Also not tested for balance) Imperial Fists are reknown for their expertise with Bolters even next to other Space Marine Chapters. Dark Angels as the first legion are known for having entire armories of forgotten and lost technologies like Sammaels Jet Bike, and pre-historical Plasma weapons that don't OVERHEAT because they're not HAZARDOUS - so maybe all Dark Angels Plasma weapons use the Hazardous Profile without the Hazardous fallout. And that's ok as long as Melta, Las, Plas, Flame and Grav are all relatively equial. Right now Melta is probably a little weak, and Flame has been weak for a long long time. Bump them up a bit - but the problem with flame and melta isn't because of chapter tactics, its a problem with flame and melta.
So, a squad of non-IF Aggressors targeting the nearest enemy model, a Rhino, vs. a squad of IF Aggressors doing the same.
A single Aggressor does an average of 11/36ths a point of damage with their Twin-Linked Gauntlets, and just shy of 1/5th with their Blast weapon. .31+.19=.50 Damage per Aggressor A single IF Aggressor does an average of just shy of 3/4ths a point of damage with the Gauntlets and just over 1/3rd with their Blast weapon. .74+.39=1.13 Damage per Aggressor How exactly are you going to balance doing more than double shooting damage against the vast majority of Vehicles?
Edit: Just for fun, let's go to the extreme. Non-IF Aggressors vs. IF Aggressors, shooting a Land Raider that's not the closest target.
Glad to see we are all agreed, that Aggressors have always been createded with the SOLE purpose of being SPECIFIC to IF chapters only. No one else really has a use for them. IF they could get into melee, BA might with their melee variants, but as is, 4" movement makes that slightly impractical.
A single Aggressor does an average of 11/36ths a point of damage with their Twin-Linked Gauntlets, and just shy of 1/5th with their Blast weapon. .31+.19=.50 Damage per Aggressor A single IF Aggressor does an average of just shy of 3/4ths a point of damage with the Gauntlets and just over 1/3rd with their Blast weapon. .74+.39=1.13 Damage per Aggressor How exactly are you going to balance doing more than double shooting damage against the vast majority of Vehicles?
What playtested and ready for production Chapter Trait did you use for this math? I'm pretty sure I pointed out any ideas I had were specifically not balanced and ready for production but only included for thematic examples based on previous editions that had a different mathematical system?
Edit: Just for fun, let's go to the extreme. Non-IF Aggressors vs. IF Aggressors, shooting a Land Raider that's not the closest target.
JNAProductions wrote: "Hey, it's never been done properly before, especially by GW, but I'm sure they're gonna get it right this time!"
I'm not convinced.
That doesn't answer my question about the math. And its a little mutually exclusive for someone who was complaining about it earlier. If you don't hope for GW to do it right eventually why are you still playing? Not to mention you're again quoting something that wasn't actually said. Unless you'd like to link to this quotation somewhere? Why is it that you keep quoting this strange person who says exactly what you want them to say so you can mock the result?
JNAProductions wrote: "Hey, it's never been done properly before, especially by GW, but I'm sure they're gonna get it right this time!"
I'm not convinced.
That doesn't answer my question about the math. And its a little mutually exclusive for someone who was complaining about it earlier. If you don't hope for GW to do it right eventually why are you still playing? Not to mention you're again quoting something that wasn't actually said. Unless you'd like to link to this quotation somewhere? Why is it that you keep quoting this strange person who says exactly what you want them to say so you can mock the result?
I'm not playing much since 10th dropped, because I don't like it very much.
I'm still invested in 40k, though.
And unless you're able to come up with something that's balanced and flavorful, I don't believe it can be done within the confines of 40k.
Using the example you gave IF Bolters are anywhere from 2X more effective against T8+ Vehicles (if the AP bonus is irrelevant) to 4X as effective (if they go from 2+ save to 3+ with the bonus AP).
It's comparable to saying it's easy to solve any energy problems-just use fusion power.
JNAProductions wrote: "Hey, it's never been done properly before, especially by GW, but I'm sure they're gonna get it right this time!"
I'm not convinced.
That doesn't answer my question about the math. And its a little mutually exclusive for someone who was complaining about it earlier. If you don't hope for GW to do it right eventually why are you still playing? Not to mention you're again quoting something that wasn't actually said. Unless you'd like to link to this quotation somewhere? Why is it that you keep quoting this strange person who says exactly what you want them to say so you can mock the result?
I'm not playing much since 10th dropped, because I don't like it very much.
I'm still invested in 40k, though.
And unless you're able to come up with something that's balanced and flavorful, I don't believe it can be done within the confines of 40k.
Using the example you gave IF Bolters are anywhere from 2X more effective against T8+ Vehicles (if the AP bonus is irrelevant) to 4X as effective (if they go from 2+ save to 3+ with the bonus AP).
It's comparable to saying it's easy to solve any energy problems-just use fusion power.
The example I gave that specifically mentioned it was for thematic not mathematic example only? And your objection is that Non-IF Aggressors scratch the paint on sub-optimal vehicle targets, and IF Aggressors scratch the paint twice? Because IF can kill a Knight Desploiler every turn with 24 Aggressors while White Scars would have to use 48? Unless their Chapter Tactic also gave Aggressors a boost vs knights, perhaps in melee? You never did tell us who this mysterious persion you're quoting with exactly the argument you wish was being made is?
Breton wrote: Chapter Traits should be low impact general (hits everything or nearly everything) boosts that coincide with the flavor of the Chapter.
Do you honestly think doubling or more damage is "low impact"?
And, how about this-what sorta rules should Iyanden get?
What about Twisted Helix?
Or Kronus Hegemony?
Why do individual Marine chapters, numbering about 1,000 soldiers strong, get extra rules to reflect their flavor, when no one else does?
Speaking for myself, I'd love to have greater customization. But at some point, it's too much. Especially when customization consists of bonus rules on top of existing rules that don't have any kind of points costs.
I also don't think your paint job or army iconography should dictate your rules.
Breton wrote: Chapter Traits should be low impact general (hits everything or nearly everything) boosts that coincide with the flavor of the Chapter.
Do you honestly think doubling or more damage is "low impact"?
What is double of nothing? What is double of next to nothing? I think figures don't lie but liars can figure. I think you're trying to hide the fact that according to your math it takes 960 points in 24 IF Aggressors to kill a Knight. I think it takes 48/1920 of some other chapters (especially when you don't include any Chapter Trait they might get). I also think any army is pretty much limited to 18 and 720 points of Aggressors. I think you're intentionally trying to slip past things like economics in your example. Probably for the same reason you keep quoting someone nobody else can see when they say exactly what you want to rebut.
And, how about this-what sorta rules should Iyanden get?
What about Twisted Helix?
Or Kronus Hegemony?
Why do individual Marine chapters, numbering about 1,000 soldiers strong, get extra rules to reflect their flavor, when no one else does?
Why do you imply I haven't said this should be extended to all the subfactions, even after I've specifically called out Craftworld Attributes and Hive Fleets and so on? Are you trying to dishonestly suggest I only want this for Marines despite actual quotable evidence to the contrary?
Speaking for myself, I'd love to have greater customization. But at some point, it's too much. Especially when customization consists of bonus rules on top of existing rules that don't have any kind of points costs.
I also don't think your paint job or army iconography should dictate your rules.
Why do you keep claiming these rules don't have any points costs even after I've pointed out Chapter Traits are easily baked into the Unit cost. Heck most of them are just Veteran Skills from a few editions back. And its not like we haven't already done so for editions and editions. Nobody ever paid for And They Shall Know No Fear on a per model cost. It was some portion of the X Points Per Model you paid for everything. Even now, you don't see everyone paying for Oath of Moment? How much do Hormugaunts pay for Surging Vitality to add more distance to their own rule that lets them advance and charge? How much of a Refund do Plague Marines in a Chaos Space Marine army get because they traded Contagion Range for Dark Pacts?
JNAProductions wrote: There’s a difference between paying for rules you get, and paying for rules you MIGHT get.
Mea culpa on the different factions, though. That’s fair on your end, and I apologize for insinuating you wanted it for Marines only.
You mean like Terminators that MIGHT get to teleport, or Land Raiders that MIGHT get to transport something? We've been paying upcharges on MIGHT for quite some time. On the Transport thing we've even "paid" for it twice on numerous occasions.
And its not like I'm suggesting some sort of decision tree that starts with IF X=1, Y=0, and the moon is in the seventh house then Z. Nor is that what GW has built their brand on. They create a couple-few dozen of an ability and then mix and match them into whatever. Veteran Skills. Chapter Traits (and their parallels), Stratagems, Det Abilities, Enhancements.
Vowed Objective - get +1 to wound for your Deathwing Infantry shooting at a specific location.
Storm Speeder Thunderstrike - Get +1 to wound for other of your units shooting the same Monster/Vehicle.
Its the same ability with slightly different triggers for slightly different fluff. Vowed Objective triggers for fewer units and targets a geographical area to represent the whole Stoic Picard against the Borg "The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" thing they've got going on, while the Thunderstrike is the whole combined arms unit support thing - probably related/recycled from Land Speeders and Whirlwinds from a while back.
Beyond +1 to Wound you've also got:
Add 1 to the hit roll when...
Reroll the Hit Roll when...
Add X to Weapon Strength when...
Add 2 to Charge Rolls when...
Reroll the Charge roll when...
Can Charge and/or Shoot after Falling Back and/or Advancing when...
Can Deepstrike on Turn 1 no matter the rules when...
Cause a Battle-Shock Test when...
Gain Stealth/Infiltrators/Assorted USR's when...
Apothecary/Regenerative Swarm/Reanimation Protocols when...
Doctrines/Synaptic Imperatives when...
Reduce AP by -1 when....
Freebie Stratagems when..
Enemy Unit within X" ends their move you move 6" when...
No enemy units in engagement range, move your unit to Strategic Reserves when...
Character with Bodyguard gets FNP X+++
Reduce Damage by 1 or Set One Attack to Damage 0 when...
Fight/Shoot after Death when...
They're mainly not reinventing the wheel here, they're just recycling. I invite you to go check out the 9th Ed Chapter Tactics How many of them don't show up on this list (or wouldn't if I quit before listing them all).
Why do individual Marine chapters, numbering about 1,000 soldiers strong, get extra rules to reflect their flavor, when no one else does?
It's simple. Because SM (whatever their color) are GWs flagship army for the game.
The setting is, was, and always will be, about the SM vs everything else.
And thus SM get rules to reflect their flavor.
It's got nothing to do with some imaginary degree of fairness, or balance, or etc etc etc. Just plain old $$. The end.
Why do individual Marine chapters, numbering about 1,000 soldiers strong, get extra rules to reflect their flavor, when no one else does?
It's simple. Because SM (whatever their color) are GWs flagship army for the game.
The setting is, was, and always will be, about the SM vs everything else.
And thus SM get rules to reflect their flavor.
It's got nothing to do with some imaginary degree of fairness, or balance, or etc etc etc. Just plain old $$. The end.
Nah, that's why SM (and especially UM) usually get it first. But it usually trickles out from there in the next edition or so. Thus why we had Hive Fleet, Craftworld Attribute, Septs, Klans, Kabals, and so on. The SM make for a bigger test bed.
JNAProductions wrote: There’s a difference between paying for rules you get, and paying for rules you MIGHT get.
Mea culpa on the different factions, though. That’s fair on your end, and I apologize for insinuating you wanted it for Marines only.
You mean like Terminators that MIGHT get to teleport, or Land Raiders that MIGHT get to transport something? We've been paying upcharges on MIGHT for quite some time. On the Transport thing we've even "paid" for it twice on numerous occasions.
There is a vast difference between paying for things you get to choose to use or not use (like Deep Strike or Transport Capacity) against things you might have access to if you pick the right sub-faction.
To go back to the Aggressor Squad, how do you put a static point value on the unit if they are +1 to Hit with Auto boltstorm guantlets if Imperial Fist, Devastating Wounds against Infantry with Flamestorm Guantlets if Salamanders, and have no bonus if any other chapter?
The simple answer is you can't. The point value either makes them too cheap when used in the best configurations or too expensive if not.
Frankly, I think the best the current game could handle would be 1 or 2 sub-faction stratagems on top of the detachment stratagems. Anything more would completely upset the apple cart.
JNAProductions wrote: There’s a difference between paying for rules you get, and paying for rules you MIGHT get.
Mea culpa on the different factions, though. That’s fair on your end, and I apologize for insinuating you wanted it for Marines only.
You mean like Terminators that MIGHT get to teleport, or Land Raiders that MIGHT get to transport something? We've been paying upcharges on MIGHT for quite some time. On the Transport thing we've even "paid" for it twice on numerous occasions.
There is a vast difference between paying for things you get to choose to use or not use (like Deep Strike or Transport Capacity) against things you might have access to if you pick the right sub-faction.
To go back to the Aggressor Squad, how do you put a static point value on the unit if they are +1 to Hit with Auto boltstorm guantlets if Imperial Fist, Devastating Wounds against Infantry with Flamestorm Guantlets if Salamanders, and have no bonus if any other chapter?
The simple answer is you can't. The point value either makes them too cheap when used in the best configurations or too expensive if not.
Frankly, I think the best the current game could handle would be 1 or 2 sub-faction stratagems on top of the detachment stratagems. Anything more would completely upset the apple cart.
Dudeface wrote: You are encouraging a "correct" or "best" way to play units based on arbitrary restrictions.
The setting is an arbitrary restriction now? By which I mean, in this case, that certain Chapters are known for their "more effective" use of certain weapon types.
Dudeface wrote: By making a unit better if it's painted yellow, you create rules that are the default better way of using that unit. Worse, you're then punishing people who want to use that unit elsewhere, because the unit has to be priced as if its in its "correct" usage.
Or you do the fething sensible thing that I was hoping we'd see return this edition - give DA (etc) a full codex, rather than a supplement, and price things affected by DA rules appropriately.
To use Breton's examples with IF and Salamanders, you may well find that Boltstorm Aggressors cost a bit more in IF, and Flamestorm in Salamanders - but maybe neither version costs more for Raven Guard or White Scars.
If you're going to have subfaction rules like this, then there needs to be a full list of points for the subfaction, not just for their new/variant units.
I acknowledge it'd take more work to produce, for sure, but 'tis the only way to (potentially) satisfy both sides of the fence - and it opens up far more topics to argue about whether certain units are paying the right surcharge in the right subfaction...
Dudeface wrote: You are encouraging a "correct" or "best" way to play units based on arbitrary restrictions.
The setting is an arbitrary restriction now? By which I mean, in this case, that certain Chapters are known for their "more effective" use of certain weapon types.
Dudeface wrote: By making a unit better if it's painted yellow, you create rules that are the default better way of using that unit. Worse, you're then punishing people who want to use that unit elsewhere, because the unit has to be priced as if its in its "correct" usage.
Or you do the fething sensible thing that I was hoping we'd see return this edition - give DA (etc) a full codex, rather than a supplement, and price things affected by DA rules appropriately.
To use Breton's examples with IF and Salamanders, you may well find that Boltstorm Aggressors cost a bit more in IF, and Flamestorm in Salamanders - but maybe neither version costs more for Raven Guard or White Scars.
If you're going to have subfaction rules like this, then there needs to be a full list of points for the subfaction, not just for their new/variant units.
I acknowledge it'd take more work to produce, for sure, but 'tis the only way to (potentially) satisfy both sides of the fence - and it opens up far more topics to argue about whether certain units are paying the right surcharge in the right subfaction...
That's fine, you're willing to accept the extra compromise that Breton just hand waves away - pricing units accordingly and ringfencing accordingly to unique rules. I don't consider the setting arbitrary at all, but the way subfaction rules have interacted the prior 2 editions certainly pushes it so that there was a "right" way to run a unit and it was dictated by paint job, which didn't necessarily match up with the fluff.
when you play a faction that provides bonuses to signature units, that faction should have a cost associated.
say you have a 2,000 point list of space marines, you paint them in some specific colours maybe you lose 5%-10% of your points, the presumption being if you take that chapter its to take advantage of that chapters rules. so now you have fewer points because the units you are expected to use are better
if you just want to run that chapter, but not their special rules, use the normal book.
probably a lot easier than scaling individual unit values
Dudeface wrote: You are encouraging a "correct" or "best" way to play units based on arbitrary restrictions.
The setting is an arbitrary restriction now? By which I mean, in this case, that certain Chapters are known for their "more effective" use of certain weapon types.
Dudeface wrote: By making a unit better if it's painted yellow, you create rules that are the default better way of using that unit. Worse, you're then punishing people who want to use that unit elsewhere, because the unit has to be priced as if its in its "correct" usage.
Or you do the fething sensible thing that I was hoping we'd see return this edition - give DA (etc) a full codex, rather than a supplement, and price things affected by DA rules appropriately.
To use Breton's examples with IF and Salamanders, you may well find that Boltstorm Aggressors cost a bit more in IF, and Flamestorm in Salamanders - but maybe neither version costs more for Raven Guard or White Scars.
If you're going to have subfaction rules like this, then there needs to be a full list of points for the subfaction, not just for their new/variant units.
I acknowledge it'd take more work to produce, for sure, but 'tis the only way to (potentially) satisfy both sides of the fence - and it opens up far more topics to argue about whether certain units are paying the right surcharge in the right subfaction...
Just to clairfy that's not what I said - I said Each Chapter gets different but relatively equal Chapter Traits - there's a huge list of these things GW has already made - and that chapter trait is built into the cost of the units. Lets say - for the sake of argument so I'll make it ridiculous - a Bolt Storm Aggressor costs 1200 points per model. And it costs that 1200 Points for Imperial Fists and for Ravenguard. The difference being 400 of those points for Imperial Fists is a little better shooting. 400 points for Ravenguard is being a little harder to get shot. That's the theory on how Chapter Tactics worked, but people focused on one aspect and pretended the other 3'ish didn't. I say other threeish because most chapter tactics were two of these bonus rules that didn't often overlap. Imperial Fists had Bolter Drill, and Siege Mastery. Blood Angels had The Red Thirst and Souped Up Engines Salamanders had Flame Melts All and Master Crafted Thunderhammers. The end result is each Aggressor is worth 800 points on it's own rules and has 400 points of different but roughly equivalent Chapter Tactics rules no matter which chapter its part of.
That's fine, you're willing to accept the extra compromise that Breton just hand waves away - pricing units accordingly and ringfencing accordingly to unique rules. I don't consider the setting arbitrary at all, but the way subfaction rules have interacted the prior 2 editions certainly pushes it so that there was a "right" way to run a unit and it was dictated by paint job, which didn't necessarily match up with the fluff.
Which has more to do with the way the players view the game and the way missions are set up for matched play than anything else.
In an ideal world, there would have been a genuine "mixed Chapter Strike Force" detachment in the book that gave zero benefits to any one specific Chapter while each of the "signature" detachments had a benefit for the Founding Legion most closely associated with them.
And the "deviant" Chapters like DA, BA, and SW plus DW would have been their own standalone books.
Breton wrote: Just to clairfy that's not what I said - I said Each Chapter gets different but relatively equal Chapter Traits - there's a huge list of these things GW has already made - and that chapter trait is built into the cost of the units. Lets say - for the sake of argument so I'll make it ridiculous - a Bolt Storm Aggressor costs 1200 points per model. And it costs that 1200 Points for Imperial Fists and for Ravenguard. The difference being 400 of those points for Imperial Fists is a little better shooting. 400 points for Ravenguard is being a little harder to get shot. That's the theory on how Chapter Tactics worked, but people focused on one aspect and pretended the other 3'ish didn't. I say other threeish because most chapter tactics were two of these bonus rules that didn't often overlap. Imperial Fists had Bolter Drill, and Siege Mastery. Blood Angels had The Red Thirst and Souped Up Engines Salamanders had Flame Melts All and Master Crafted Thunderhammers. The end result is each Aggressor is worth 800 points on it's own rules and has 400 points of different but roughly equivalent Chapter Tactics rules no matter which chapter its part of.
This has never, ever worked. You can't make every subfaction trait equally useful for every unit, or even in the same ballpark.
Yeah, it sounds fine for Aggressors, a mixed melee/shooting unit with short range that can plausibly benefit from a variety of buffs. For anything more specialized there are clear right and wrong choices. A Devastator that re-rolls charges and a Devastator that gets a bonus to its shooting ability are not equivalent.
And there's nothing worse than having upgrade options that are "no brain" choices on the table. If there's no real choice happening then its not really a choice.
It's already annoying that GW has given us some in 10th edition. Eg Termgaunts have several specialist weapons that you can choose to take for 0 points cost. Each weapon is basically better than standard issue and gives the unit more versatility. There's basically zero reason to not take them. At which point its not really a true choice gameplay wise.
Overread wrote: And there's nothing worse than having upgrade options that are "no brain" choices on the table. If there's no real choice happening then its not really a choice.
It's already annoying that GW has given us some in 10th edition. Eg Termgaunts have several specialist weapons that you can choose to take for 0 points cost. Each weapon is basically better than standard issue and gives the unit more versatility. There's basically zero reason to not take them. At which point its not really a true choice gameplay wise.
I can handwave the stuff that is clearly legacy support like the weird "optionally nothing" picks. There are definitely weapons that need a little more push toward their niche to stand out against their competition.
Thing is that isn't legacy support - those specialist weapons are new ones they added with the new kits.
The previous weapons are all "One for the whole squad" deals and are all there - spinefists, devourers and fleshborers. They almost do have their own niches really; though its strange to see them with no points variation.
Interestingly GW made spinefists more attractive this edition by basically making them an objective capturing weapon choice. You throw them on and the gaunts can basically capture anything all the time if they are in range because they count as pistols.
Breton wrote: Just to clairfy that's not what I said - I said Each Chapter gets different but relatively equal Chapter Traits - there's a huge list of these things GW has already made - and that chapter trait is built into the cost of the units. Lets say - for the sake of argument so I'll make it ridiculous - a Bolt Storm Aggressor costs 1200 points per model. And it costs that 1200 Points for Imperial Fists and for Ravenguard. The difference being 400 of those points for Imperial Fists is a little better shooting. 400 points for Ravenguard is being a little harder to get shot. That's the theory on how Chapter Tactics worked, but people focused on one aspect and pretended the other 3'ish didn't. I say other threeish because most chapter tactics were two of these bonus rules that didn't often overlap. Imperial Fists had Bolter Drill, and Siege Mastery. Blood Angels had The Red Thirst and Souped Up Engines Salamanders had Flame Melts All and Master Crafted Thunderhammers. The end result is each Aggressor is worth 800 points on it's own rules and has 400 points of different but roughly equivalent Chapter Tactics rules no matter which chapter its part of.
This has never, ever worked. You can't make every subfaction trait equally useful for every unit, or even in the same ballpark.
Yeah, it sounds fine for Aggressors, a mixed melee/shooting unit with short range that can plausibly benefit from a variety of buffs. For anything more specialized there are clear right and wrong choices. A Devastator that re-rolls charges and a Devastator that gets a bonus to its shooting ability are not equivalent.
A) It doesn't have to be.
B) One or the other should hit just about everything.
C) That's the case for every army, so it's still a zero sum game. Every Subfaction gets whatever fluffy 2PPM bonus trait/Fleet/Sept they're supposed to. Every subfaction is probably going to have a rare unit that gets skipped. Every Subfaction is going to pay 2PPM for that unit if they want it that doesn't help them. Sucks but fair is still fair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: I'm just curious if you guys will be accused of lying or twisting the truth as well, or if I'm just special.
I'm just curious if you can make an argument without it. If you don't want people to point out when you're lying, there is a solution.
Breton wrote: Just to clairfy that's not what I said - I said Each Chapter gets different but relatively equal Chapter Traits - there's a huge list of these things GW has already made - and that chapter trait is built into the cost of the units. Lets say - for the sake of argument so I'll make it ridiculous - a Bolt Storm Aggressor costs 1200 points per model. And it costs that 1200 Points for Imperial Fists and for Ravenguard. The difference being 400 of those points for Imperial Fists is a little better shooting. 400 points for Ravenguard is being a little harder to get shot. That's the theory on how Chapter Tactics worked, but people focused on one aspect and pretended the other 3'ish didn't. I say other threeish because most chapter tactics were two of these bonus rules that didn't often overlap. Imperial Fists had Bolter Drill, and Siege Mastery. Blood Angels had The Red Thirst and Souped Up Engines Salamanders had Flame Melts All and Master Crafted Thunderhammers. The end result is each Aggressor is worth 800 points on it's own rules and has 400 points of different but roughly equivalent Chapter Tactics rules no matter which chapter its part of.
This has never, ever worked. You can't make every subfaction trait equally useful for every unit, or even in the same ballpark.
Yeah, it sounds fine for Aggressors, a mixed melee/shooting unit with short range that can plausibly benefit from a variety of buffs. For anything more specialized there are clear right and wrong choices. A Devastator that re-rolls charges and a Devastator that gets a bonus to its shooting ability are not equivalent.
A) It doesn't have to be.
B) One or the other should hit just about everything.
C) That's the case for every army, so it's still a zero sum game. Every Subfaction gets whatever fluffy 2PPM bonus trait/Fleet/Sept they're supposed to. Every subfaction is probably going to have a rare unit that gets skipped. Every Subfaction is going to pay 2PPM for that unit if they want it that doesn't help them. Sucks but fair is still fair.
A) In theory you could make them balanced perfectly.
But in practice, it's never worked. What makes you think it would work this time?
B) The issue is that, if Subfaction A buffs shooting and does nothing for melee, people will take mostly shooting. Not an even mixture of both, where it makes the overly-good balanced by those not buffed.
leopard wrote: you have a unit, said unit gets a point cost.
when you play a faction that provides bonuses to signature units, that faction should have a cost associated.
say you have a 2,000 point list of space marines, you paint them in some specific colours maybe you lose 5%-10% of your points, the presumption being if you take that chapter its to take advantage of that chapters rules. so now you have fewer points because the units you are expected to use are better
if you just want to run that chapter, but not their special rules, use the normal book.
probably a lot easier than scaling individual unit values
Why do you scale the individual unit values? If everything in your Subfaction gets the Veteran Skill Tank Hunters that's worth 1PPM, and everything in the other subfaction gets Stealth worth 1PPM, and everything in XYZ faction's subfactions gets USR #3 or USR#4 which are also worth 1PPM, everybody's base cost and final cost are the same. A model worth 25 points per model either gets priced at 27 because we're going to include the 2PPM every faction and subfaction will pay or we just bury the 2PPM worth of bonus every faction and subfaction gets under the zero because every faction and subfaction is paying 2PPM extra for every model in every unit. Its not rocket science. Every model has 1 Wound, 2 Strength, 1 Toughness, 1 Leadership and so on. You don't pay for the first one, you pay for the ones beyond the first one. Same with Tactics/Sept/And-So-On Everyone gets 2PPM or whatever it is... bury it under the zero. Or add two. It doesn't really matter other than if you bury it 2000 points is bigger than if you don't.
leopard wrote: you have a unit, said unit gets a point cost.
when you play a faction that provides bonuses to signature units, that faction should have a cost associated.
say you have a 2,000 point list of space marines, you paint them in some specific colours maybe you lose 5%-10% of your points, the presumption being if you take that chapter its to take advantage of that chapters rules. so now you have fewer points because the units you are expected to use are better
if you just want to run that chapter, but not their special rules, use the normal book.
probably a lot easier than scaling individual unit values
Why do you scale the individual unit values? If everything in your Subfaction gets the Veteran Skill Tank Hunters that's worth 1PPM, and everything in the other subfaction gets Stealth worth 1PPM, and everything in XYZ faction's subfactions gets USR #3 or USR#4 which are also worth 1PPM, everybody's base cost and final cost are the same. A model worth 25 points per model either gets priced at 27 because we're going to include the 2PPM every faction and subfaction will pay or we just bury the 2PPM worth of bonus every faction and subfaction gets under the zero because every faction and subfaction is paying 2PPM extra for every model in every unit. Its not rocket science. Every model has 1 Wound, 2 Strength, 1 Toughness, 1 Leadership and so on. You don't pay for the first one, you pay for the ones beyond the first one. Same with Tactics/Sept/And-So-On Everyone gets 2PPM or whatever it is... bury it under the zero. Or add two. It doesn't really matter other than if you bury it 2000 points is bigger than if you don't.
Breton, please post an example of a few Subfaction traits that are balanced. Because, again, this has never worked in practice.
I won't say you lied, but it did feel like some of your replies to me were a bit strawman-y. That's why I asked about the weird "allies" bit you'd mentioned.
Breton wrote: Just to clairfy that's not what I said - I said Each Chapter gets different but relatively equal Chapter Traits - there's a huge list of these things GW has already made - and that chapter trait is built into the cost of the units. Lets say - for the sake of argument so I'll make it ridiculous - a Bolt Storm Aggressor costs 1200 points per model. And it costs that 1200 Points for Imperial Fists and for Ravenguard. The difference being 400 of those points for Imperial Fists is a little better shooting. 400 points for Ravenguard is being a little harder to get shot. That's the theory on how Chapter Tactics worked, but people focused on one aspect and pretended the other 3'ish didn't. I say other threeish because most chapter tactics were two of these bonus rules that didn't often overlap. Imperial Fists had Bolter Drill, and Siege Mastery. Blood Angels had The Red Thirst and Souped Up Engines Salamanders had Flame Melts All and Master Crafted Thunderhammers. The end result is each Aggressor is worth 800 points on it's own rules and has 400 points of different but roughly equivalent Chapter Tactics rules no matter which chapter its part of.
This has never, ever worked. You can't make every subfaction trait equally useful for every unit, or even in the same ballpark.
Yeah, it sounds fine for Aggressors, a mixed melee/shooting unit with short range that can plausibly benefit from a variety of buffs. For anything more specialized there are clear right and wrong choices. A Devastator that re-rolls charges and a Devastator that gets a bonus to its shooting ability are not equivalent.
A) It doesn't have to be.
B) One or the other should hit just about everything.
C) That's the case for every army, so it's still a zero sum game. Every Subfaction gets whatever fluffy 2PPM bonus trait/Fleet/Sept they're supposed to. Every subfaction is probably going to have a rare unit that gets skipped. Every Subfaction is going to pay 2PPM for that unit if they want it that doesn't help them. Sucks but fair is still fair.
A) In theory you could make them balanced perfectly.
But in practice, it's never worked. What makes you think it would work this time?
Because it doesn't have to work perfectly. There are many things that aren't working perfectly in this game. We're not holding them to the same standard. And, it HAS worked in the past. Not perfectly but it worked. The game did not die because we had Chapter Tactics etc for a couple editions.
B) The issue is that, if Subfaction A buffs shooting and does nothing for melee, people will take mostly shooting. Not an even mixture of both, where it makes the overly-good balanced by those not buffed.
Yeah people are generally already generally taking the shooting because melee is being artificially constrained. 40K was almost always more about shooting while Fantasy was almost always more about fighting. And some Armies naturally fluff away from fighting, like Tau, or natraully fluff into it and away from shooting like Khorne. I'm pretty sure nobody expects to see Tau Smash Captains or Khorne Gunlines enough to demand they get an out-of-fluff Sept/etc.
None of your examples work well. And yes, you didn't intend them to-but that's because it's, at a minimum, really flipping hard to make them reasonably balanced.
1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).
No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!
No problem. As someone else already pointed out your go-to moves are strawmen and other logical fallacies.
None of your examples work well. And yes, you didn't intend them to-but that's because it's, at a minimum, really flipping hard to make them reasonably balanced.
Sure it did. It worked just fine. It could have been better, but the game did not die, the game did not fail, there wasn't a point where any individual game had to stop because the rules actually failed.Also my examples were taken from the 10th Ed Index and Codex Datasheets. They're still in there. The Red Thirst is just part of the BA Det now instead of their Chapter Tactic. Seige Mastery is still there, its just in the IF Det. Stealth is a USR in the CORE book. All the examples I just listed are repeated throughout rulebooks and datasheets.
Kanluwen wrote: I won't say you lied, but it did feel like some of your replies to me were a bit strawman-y. That's why I asked about the weird "allies" bit you'd mentioned.
That's ok, thank you for the feedback. That's likely just me being clumsy with wording but either way that can be asked for clarity (sorry if I missed it) or at the very least something I can learn from. Being told you're lying because you can provide a counter argument doesn't help. So in a final attempt to learn something or correct something, I need to know what I falsely presented.
leopard wrote: you have a unit, said unit gets a point cost.
when you play a faction that provides bonuses to signature units, that faction should have a cost associated.
say you have a 2,000 point list of space marines, you paint them in some specific colours maybe you lose 5%-10% of your points, the presumption being if you take that chapter its to take advantage of that chapters rules. so now you have fewer points because the units you are expected to use are better
if you just want to run that chapter, but not their special rules, use the normal book.
probably a lot easier than scaling individual unit values
Why do you scale the individual unit values? If everything in your Subfaction gets the Veteran Skill Tank Hunters that's worth 1PPM, and everything in the other subfaction gets Stealth worth 1PPM, and everything in XYZ faction's subfactions gets USR #3 or USR#4 which are also worth 1PPM, everybody's base cost and final cost are the same. A model worth 25 points per model either gets priced at 27 because we're going to include the 2PPM every faction and subfaction will pay or we just bury the 2PPM worth of bonus every faction and subfaction gets under the zero because every faction and subfaction is paying 2PPM extra for every model in every unit. Its not rocket science. Every model has 1 Wound, 2 Strength, 1 Toughness, 1 Leadership and so on. You don't pay for the first one, you pay for the ones beyond the first one. Same with Tactics/Sept/And-So-On Everyone gets 2PPM or whatever it is... bury it under the zero. Or add two. It doesn't really matter other than if you bury it 2000 points is bigger than if you don't.
Breton, please post an example of a few Subfaction traits that are balanced. Because, again, this has never worked in practice.
The actual results of things like this usually ends up with the subfaction that pays for the extra bonus being the worst version because they have to pay a tax for a bonus that isn't worth paying for
1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).
No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!
No problem. As someone else already pointed out your go-to moves are strawmen and other logical fallacies.
That was sarcasm largely, you stated very plainly:
Better match is not inherently better.
It can fit a theme to suit the owners fluff, no need or mention of rules.
Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings.
Again that's aesthetics, it doesn't mention rules at all.
This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth.
Because they're comparative units and you're picking on their belonging in a different army to somehow validate this.
But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).
Because you didn't outright imply that IF to continue the example should get better rules - you said boltstorm aggressors are a better match for an IF army, which they are. I haven't lied, you've literally said you don't want them to be "better" for IF, just match the fluff and army better, which they do by virtue of their loadout.
I'm sorry if you've misunderstood that point. The sarcasm was because I knew as well as you do, that you wanted them to have better rules with bolters in fists armies via whatever means, yet your post actually agreed with me.
Hopefully I've outlined this, if you still don't understand I can't really help much more I don't think.
1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).
No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!
No problem. As someone else already pointed out your go-to moves are strawmen and other logical fallacies.
That was sarcasm largely, you stated very plainly:
Better match is not inherently better.
It can fit a theme to suit the owners fluff, no need or mention of rules.
Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings.
Again that's aesthetics, it doesn't mention rules at all.
This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth.
Because they're comparative units and you're picking on their belonging in a different army to somehow validate this.
But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).
Because you didn't outright imply that IF to continue the example should get better rules - you said boltstorm aggressors are a better match for an IF army, which they are. I haven't lied, you've literally said you don't want them to be "better" for IF, just match the fluff and army better, which they do by virtue of their loadout.
I'm sorry if you've misunderstood that point. The sarcasm was because I knew as well as you do, that you wanted them to have better rules with bolters in fists armies via whatever means, yet your post actually agreed with me.
Hopefully I've outlined this, if you still don't understand I can't really help much more I don't think.
Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.
Breton wrote: Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.
Demonstrate it's possible to have them balanced, to at least a reasonable degree.
What subfaction trait is equally good for Devastators from White Scars, Imperial Fists, and Ultramarines?
Breton wrote: Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.
Demonstrate it's possible to have them balanced, to at least a reasonable degree.
What subfaction trait is equally good for Devastators from White Scars, Imperial Fists, and Ultramarines?
White Scars (Lightning Strike) count as stationary even if they moved but didn't advance.
Imperial Fists (Seige Warfare) get +1 to wound vs Vehicles and Fortifications
Ultramarines (Codex Compliant) get +1 to wound vs OOM Target.
I'm not sure that's 100% even - but its pretty close and should get you in the ballpark.
Breton wrote: Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.
Demonstrate it's possible to have them balanced, to at least a reasonable degree.
What subfaction trait is equally good for Devastators from White Scars, Imperial Fists, and Ultramarines?
White Scars (Lightning Strike) count as stationary even if they moved but didn't advance.
Imperial Fists (Seige Warfare) get +1 to wound vs Vehicles and Fortifications
Ultramarines (Codex Compliant) get +1 to wound vs OOM Target.
I'm not sure that's 100% even - but its pretty close and should get you in the ballpark.
Conditional +1 to-hit (I say conditional because it only helps if you move but don't Advance, when Devastators don't need to move all that often) vs. +1 to-wound against common targets or the most important target?
That's not close. The second two are blatantly better than the first.
Breton wrote: Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.
Demonstrate it's possible to have them balanced, to at least a reasonable degree.
What subfaction trait is equally good for Devastators from White Scars, Imperial Fists, and Ultramarines?
White Scars (Lightning Strike) count as stationary even if they moved but didn't advance.
Imperial Fists (Seige Warfare) get +1 to wound vs Vehicles and Fortifications
Ultramarines (Codex Compliant) get +1 to wound vs OOM Target.
I'm not sure that's 100% even - but its pretty close and should get you in the ballpark.
Conditional +1 to-hit (I say conditional because it only helps if you move but don't Advance, when Devastators don't need to move all that often) vs. +1 to-wound against common targets or the most important target?
That's not close. The second two are blatantly better than the first.
So the +1 to hit is conditional on not being able to see their target or needing to move into an objective, etc, but the other +1's aren't conditional even though the other Devastator Squads can't see their target sometimes, or Lascannon into a big block of Boys you need to be your OOM target aren't that useful, what about Imperial Fists who never see a Fortification or vehicle? Everything is conditional - worst casing one condition while best casing the others?
And again, this is just stuff that's more or less already in the game. +1 to wound vs Vowed Objectives? Not really that different than Vehicles and Fortification or OOM Targets. Everything gets assault? That's one of the Det abilities. I just tried to work something that had already been done but stacked rather than duplicated it while fiting with the Lightning Assault theme WS have.
Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.
You literally said that you wanted the units to be a better match for their respective chapters. You used an example of bolt equipped units for IF and Flamers for Salamanders, then immediately said, when JNA questioned about the fact that paint scheme locked rules would make the units objectively better, that wasn't the intent.
You've then spent 3 pages unable to back it up, you've throw out liar, you've hand waved it as being fine if it doesn't affect things equally, you can't produce a viable example when asked.
Before I'm a liar again, I asked about how the magical equal value applies to devastators with heavy bolters/plasma cannons using the IF trait as it was your answer:
Well for starters I'd say 4x Plasma Devs don't get anything from a bonus to bolt weapons.
You acknowledge that unit gets less benefit and hence if we extrapolate, should be cheaper than the same squad in ravenguard who benefitted from the whole chapter tactics. That's ignoring that siege master being ignores light cover, is notably worse than gaining both light and dense cover by simply existing.
Again: I've not lied, certainly not by intent, I've tried to interpret your mess of a train of logic and you don't seem to see the holes or understand anything beyond a factual plain text response.
Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.
You literally said that you wanted the units to be a better match for their respective chapters. You used an example of bolt equipped units for IF and Flamers for Salamanders, then immediately said, when JNA questioned about the fact that paint scheme locked rules would make the units objectively better, that wasn't the intent.
For starters, paint job doesn't lock rules. I've seen more than enough black, yellow, and so on Marneus Calgars.
You've then spent 3 pages unable to back it up, you've throw out liar, you've hand waved it as being fine if it doesn't affect things equally, you can't produce a viable example when asked.
Before I'm a liar again, I asked about how the magical equal value applies to devastators with heavy bolters/plasma cannons using the IF trait as it was your answer:
Its not "again" its still as you're about to prove below.
Well for starters I'd say 4x Plasma Devs don't get anything from a bonus to bolt weapons.
You acknowledge that unit gets less benefit and hence if we extrapolate, should be cheaper than the same squad in ravenguard who benefitted from the whole chapter tactics. That's ignoring that siege master being ignores light cover, is notably worse than gaining both light and dense cover by simply existing.
Again: I've not lied, certainly not by intent, I've tried to interpret your mess of a train of logic and you don't seem to see the holes or understand anything beyond a factual plain text response.
Plasma Devs don't get something from Bolter Discipline, but they do get something from Seige Mastery which you're dishonestly pretending wasn't brought up. Why don't Tyranid Warriors with Boneswords get something from Bolter Discipline?! Its not a gotcha to point out that not everything gets something from the One Thing, and it is a lie by omission to say Someone doesn't get anything because they get their bonus from the Other thing you're omitting.
Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.
You literally said that you wanted the units to be a better match for their respective chapters. You used an example of bolt equipped units for IF and Flamers for Salamanders, then immediately said, when JNA questioned about the fact that paint scheme locked rules would make the units objectively better, that wasn't the intent.
For starters, paint job doesn't lock rules. I've seen more than enough black, yellow, and so on Marneus Calgars.
You've then spent 3 pages unable to back it up, you've throw out liar, you've hand waved it as being fine if it doesn't affect things equally, you can't produce a viable example when asked.
Before I'm a liar again, I asked about how the magical equal value applies to devastators with heavy bolters/plasma cannons using the IF trait as it was your answer:
Its not "again" its still as you're about to prove below.
Well for starters I'd say 4x Plasma Devs don't get anything from a bonus to bolt weapons.
You acknowledge that unit gets less benefit and hence if we extrapolate, should be cheaper than the same squad in ravenguard who benefitted from the whole chapter tactics. That's ignoring that siege master being ignores light cover, is notably worse than gaining both light and dense cover by simply existing.
Again: I've not lied, certainly not by intent, I've tried to interpret your mess of a train of logic and you don't seem to see the holes or understand anything beyond a factual plain text response.
Plasma Devs don't get something from Bolter Discipline, but they do get something from Seige Mastery which you're dishonestly pretending wasn't brought up. Why don't Tyranid Warriors with Boneswords get something from Bolter Discipline?! Its not a gotcha to point out that not everything gets something from the One Thing, and it is a lie by omission to say Someone doesn't get anything because they get their bonus from the Other thing you're omitting.
Breton. Did imperial fist plasma devs get full use of the chapter tactics you argue is baked into their point costs?
The answer is no. The bolter discipline is the relevant half, because its the half they don't get.
Salamanders would give that unit 2 bonii, not 1 like fists do. Ergo the fists unit should be cheaper, no?
It's not dishonesty, you just aren't applying any level of critical thought and latching onto irrelevant details to avoid facing the flaws in your stance.
Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.
You literally said that you wanted the units to be a better match for their respective chapters. You used an example of bolt equipped units for IF and Flamers for Salamanders, then immediately said, when JNA questioned about the fact that paint scheme locked rules would make the units objectively better, that wasn't the intent.
For starters, paint job doesn't lock rules. I've seen more than enough black, yellow, and so on Marneus Calgars.
You've then spent 3 pages unable to back it up, you've throw out liar, you've hand waved it as being fine if it doesn't affect things equally, you can't produce a viable example when asked.
Before I'm a liar again, I asked about how the magical equal value applies to devastators with heavy bolters/plasma cannons using the IF trait as it was your answer:
Its not "again" its still as you're about to prove below.
Well for starters I'd say 4x Plasma Devs don't get anything from a bonus to bolt weapons.
You acknowledge that unit gets less benefit and hence if we extrapolate, should be cheaper than the same squad in ravenguard who benefitted from the whole chapter tactics. That's ignoring that siege master being ignores light cover, is notably worse than gaining both light and dense cover by simply existing.
Again: I've not lied, certainly not by intent, I've tried to interpret your mess of a train of logic and you don't seem to see the holes or understand anything beyond a factual plain text response.
Plasma Devs don't get something from Bolter Discipline, but they do get something from Seige Mastery which you're dishonestly pretending wasn't brought up. Why don't Tyranid Warriors with Boneswords get something from Bolter Discipline?! Its not a gotcha to point out that not everything gets something from the One Thing, and it is a lie by omission to say Someone doesn't get anything because they get their bonus from the Other thing you're omitting.
Breton. Did imperial fist plasma devs get full use of the chapter tactics you argue is baked into their point costs?
The answer is no. The bolter discipline is the relevant half, because its the half they don't get.
Salamanders would give that unit 2 bonii, not 1 like fists do. Ergo the fists unit should be cheaper, no?
It's not dishonesty, you just aren't applying any level of critical thought and latching onto irrelevant details to avoid facing the flaws in your stance.
Sure its dishonest. As I've repeatedly and repeatedly pointed out and you're still lying about - Chapter Tactics usually had two rarely overlapping bonuses, despite your lies about critical thinking. A unit that didn't get one often but not always got the other. Thus Plasma Devs in an IF Det would get Seige Mastery. Thus Blood Angels Baal Predators wouldn't get much from The Red Thirst, but would from Supercharged engines. You can continue to lie all you want, but I'll keep pointing out how you're lying about the existence of the second half of the Chapter Tactics.
Breton. Did imperial fist plasma devs get full use of the chapter tactics you argue is baked into their point costs?
The answer is no. The bolter discipline is the relevant half, because its the half they don't get.
Salamanders would give that unit 2 bonii, not 1 like fists do. Ergo the fists unit should be cheaper, no?
It's not dishonesty, you just aren't applying any level of critical thought and latching onto irrelevant details to avoid facing the flaws in your stance.
Sure its dishonest. As I've repeatedly and repeatedly pointed out and you're still lying about - Chapter Tactics usually had two rarely overlapping bonuses, despite your lies about critical thinking. A unit that didn't get one often but not always got the other. Thus Plasma Devs in an IF Det would get Seige Mastery. Thus Blood Angels Baal Predators wouldn't get much from The Red Thirst, but would from Supercharged engines. You can continue to lie all you want, but I'll keep pointing out how you're lying about the existence of the second half of the Chapter Tactics.
Whatever works for you bud, I literally pointed out the example unit benefits from both halves of the salamanders tactic in the same post you're calling me a lair for not acknowledging both halves.
My point, much as everyone else's still stands - you cannot apply a blanket rule to the army and assume they're all of equal impact/value. You continue to fail to address it and just keep screeching liar over an irrelevant point you've manufactured as a distraction.
Breton. Did imperial fist plasma devs get full use of the chapter tactics you argue is baked into their point costs?
The answer is no. The bolter discipline is the relevant half, because its the half they don't get.
Salamanders would give that unit 2 bonii, not 1 like fists do. Ergo the fists unit should be cheaper, no?
It's not dishonesty, you just aren't applying any level of critical thought and latching onto irrelevant details to avoid facing the flaws in your stance.
Sure its dishonest. As I've repeatedly and repeatedly pointed out and you're still lying about - Chapter Tactics usually had two rarely overlapping bonuses, despite your lies about critical thinking. A unit that didn't get one often but not always got the other. Thus Plasma Devs in an IF Det would get Seige Mastery. Thus Blood Angels Baal Predators wouldn't get much from The Red Thirst, but would from Supercharged engines. You can continue to lie all you want, but I'll keep pointing out how you're lying about the existence of the second half of the Chapter Tactics.
Whatever works for you bud, I literally pointed out the example unit benefits from both halves of the salamanders tactic in the same post you're calling me a lair for not acknowledging both halves.
My point, much as everyone else's still stands - you cannot apply a blanket rule to the army and assume they're all of equal impact/value. You continue to fail to address it and just keep screeching liar over an irrelevant point you've manufactured as a distraction.
If you don't want people to point out you're a liar, maybe don't lie. Like when you claim you counted both options on the Salamanders when its pointed out you did NOT count both options on the Imperial Fists.
Also which were the Both Options of the Salamaders? Do Flamestorm Aggressors have Thunderhammers? Wasn't their Both Options Flamer/Melta and Thuinderhammers?
Breton. Did imperial fist plasma devs get full use of the chapter tactics you argue is baked into their point costs?
The answer is no. The bolter discipline is the relevant half, because its the half they don't get.
Salamanders would give that unit 2 bonii, not 1 like fists do. Ergo the fists unit should be cheaper, no?
It's not dishonesty, you just aren't applying any level of critical thought and latching onto irrelevant details to avoid facing the flaws in your stance.
Sure its dishonest. As I've repeatedly and repeatedly pointed out and you're still lying about - Chapter Tactics usually had two rarely overlapping bonuses, despite your lies about critical thinking. A unit that didn't get one often but not always got the other. Thus Plasma Devs in an IF Det would get Seige Mastery. Thus Blood Angels Baal Predators wouldn't get much from The Red Thirst, but would from Supercharged engines. You can continue to lie all you want, but I'll keep pointing out how you're lying about the existence of the second half of the Chapter Tactics.
Whatever works for you bud, I literally pointed out the example unit benefits from both halves of the salamanders tactic in the same post you're calling me a lair for not acknowledging both halves.
My point, much as everyone else's still stands - you cannot apply a blanket rule to the army and assume they're all of equal impact/value. You continue to fail to address it and just keep screeching liar over an irrelevant point you've manufactured as a distraction.
If you don't want people to point out you're a liar, maybe don't lie. Like when you claim you counted both options on the Salamanders when its pointed out you did NOT count both options on the Imperial Fists.
Also which were the Both Options of the Salamaders? Do Flamestorm Aggressors have Thunderhammers? Wasn't their Both Options Flamer/Melta and Thuinderhammers?
No Breton, I didn't need to include both halves for the fists, the fact they don't benefit at all from one half was the point. That's reductionism, not deception.
Salamanders was ap-1 on incoming attacks counts as ap0 and 1 free hit/wound/damage reroll iirc. Aggressors don't have thunder hammers either.
Edit: If it helps, you made a comment that if chapter tactics were worth 20 points it doesn't matter because they're all worth 20 points. Now lets imagine for simplicity bolter discipline and siege masters are worth 10 each. Likewise the ap reduction and rerolls are worth 10 each in the salamander chapter.
If a unit is base 100 points with no chapter tactics, the plasma devs are 110 for fists because they don't get bolter discipline. Whereas that unit for salamanders is 120, as it benefits from both halves. You would absolutely be correct in the assumption that the salamanders unit is categorically better as a result.
For the sakes of discussion, the fact they both benefit from at least 1 half is irrelevant, as the 1 that is missing is what causes the hypothetical 10 point gap.
This thread has already pushed my buttons more than once, and I tried to stay away from it as a result. Boredom sometimes makes us do things we wouldn't otherwise do.
Whatever works for you bud, I literally pointed out the example unit benefits from both halves of the salamanders tactic in the same post you're calling me a lair for not acknowledging both halves.
My point, much as everyone else's still stands - you cannot apply a blanket rule to the army and assume they're all of equal impact/value. You continue to fail to address it and just keep screeching liar over an irrelevant point you've manufactured as a distraction.
I think Breton's point is that every subfaction's bonus will affect some units in the list more than others, and that is a possible equalizing factor. Some subfaction rules will favour shooters. The fact that those rules do nothing for melee IS one of the things balances the improved ability for shooters.
And yes, players using that subfaction may try to "Get around the rule" by bringing only shooters... But that's not actually getting around the rule, because if they do that, then their lack of melee BECOMES the liability (as opposed to melee units being unaugmented).
In the end, it does come down to whether you believe balance is more important or flavour is more important. It is a matter of personal taste.
I feel the thread has evolved into one we had a few weeks ago on a different subject, but to chip in...
To my mind the point of subfactions are to expand a roster. If you have a certain codex, with a certain set of rules (from both the codex and the game itself), you are likely to hit on a certain combination of "good stuff" that is better than the rest.
The way to get beyond this, is by having subfaction rules. I.E. if you can pick to be choppy, shooty or have better vehicles, you potentially have 3 different armies, composed of different units and playing in a different way. Since GW are not great at balance/design, you are likely to find one is still better than the rest, but you theoretically have more depth in the codex versus one set of rules.
Its not unreasonable that Eldar for example should have rules to buff Guardians+Psykers, Wraithguard or Aspect Warriors - and these match the craftworlds that typically push those specific units. I personally wouldn't tie them to a craftworld though, as that brings in paint colours.
The problem is when you hit Marines - as Marine chapters are simultaneously portrayed as being factions and a subfaction. I.E. you are meant to have choppy/shooting/mech Marines. But you are also meant to have choppy/shooty/mech Space Wolves and Dark Angels, Imperial Fists and White Scars, down to, who knows, Emperor's Spears.
This unsurprisingly doesn't really work.
I think what GW have done is reasonable sensible. A Space Marine is a Space Marine. If he gets on a bike or into terminator armour, what matters for the game rules is whether he's in the biker or terminator detachment - or neither. Not that he's in the Ultramarine's 3rd company as opposed to being a Fleshtearer.
You could try and resolve all this with points, but I think you are getting into the weeds.
No Breton, I didn't need to include both halves for the fists, the fact they don't benefit at all from one half was the point. That's reductionism, not deception.
Salamanders was ap-1 on incoming attacks counts as ap0 and 1 free hit/wound/damage reroll iirc. Aggressors don't have thunder hammers either.
Saying you didn't need to include the entire premise is pretty much how you were lying. Its not "reductionism" its lying by omission.
I don't think that was anything I came up with for Salamanders. The iconic thing I remember for them was a bonus to Flame/Melta and MC Thunderhammers.
PenitentJake wrote: This thread has already pushed my buttons more than once, and I tried to stay away from it as a result. Boredom sometimes makes us do things we wouldn't otherwise do.
Whatever works for you bud, I literally pointed out the example unit benefits from both halves of the salamanders tactic in the same post you're calling me a lair for not acknowledging both halves.
My point, much as everyone else's still stands - you cannot apply a blanket rule to the army and assume they're all of equal impact/value. You continue to fail to address it and just keep screeching liar over an irrelevant point you've manufactured as a distraction.
I think Breton's point is that every subfaction's bonus will affect some units in the list more than others, and that is a possible equalizing factor. Some subfaction rules will favour shooters. The fact that those rules do nothing for melee IS one of the things balances the improved ability for shooters.
And yes, players using that subfaction may try to "Get around the rule" by bringing only shooters... But that's not actually getting around the rule, because if they do that, then their lack of melee BECOMES the liability (as opposed to melee units being unaugmented).
In the end, it does come down to whether you believe balance is more important or flavour is more important. It is a matter of personal taste.
I think you're probably right, but that isn't what they've said. The statement was that the unit is of equal value regardless of subfaction as a package, so that falls apart when you get a mismatch as you note:
Breton wrote: There is no need to make a 30 point aggressor cost IF 50 points because it also costs 50 points for Space Wolves for the fighting, and 50 points for the UM for the fighting and the shooting and so on.
No Breton, I didn't need to include both halves for the fists, the fact they don't benefit at all from one half was the point. That's reductionism, not deception.
Salamanders was ap-1 on incoming attacks counts as ap0 and 1 free hit/wound/damage reroll iirc. Aggressors don't have thunder hammers either.
Saying you didn't need to include the entire premise is pretty much how you were lying. Its not "reductionism" its lying by omission.
I don't think that was anything I came up with for Salamanders. The iconic thing I remember for them was a bonus to Flame/Melta and MC Thunderhammers.
They had strats and warlord traits for melta/flamers and it was their super doctrine as well, glad the layered rules have confused you as well though.
That said, I'll follow PentientJakes example here and leave it be - I'm running out of ways to tell you that isn't lying. If a stranger gives you 10(insert currency) and your friend 5(insert currency), when your friend points out they got 5 less than you I don't think calling them a liar for omitting that they still got 5 is going to make it all better.
Tyel wrote: I feel the thread has evolved into one we had a few weeks ago on a different subject, but to chip in...
To my mind the point of subfactions are to expand a roster. If you have a certain codex, with a certain set of rules (from both the codex and the game itself), you are likely to hit on a certain combination of "good stuff" that is better than the rest.
The way to get beyond this, is by having subfaction rules. I.E. if you can pick to be choppy, shooty or have better vehicles, you potentially have 3 different armies, composed of different units and playing in a different way. Since GW are not great at balance/design, you are likely to find one is still better than the rest, but you theoretically have more depth in the codex versus one set of rules.
Its not unreasonable that Eldar for example should have rules to buff Guardians+Psykers, Wraithguard or Aspect Warriors - and these match the craftworlds that typically push those specific units. I personally wouldn't tie them to a craftworld though, as that brings in paint colours.
I've seen way too many yellow, blue, other blue, green, other green and grey, and DIY Marneus Calgars to think anyone is locked into specific rules by paint scheme. This is a misnomer. Whatever color you paint your little dudes you're locked into the rules for one subfaction - and that's a good thing. The bad thing is that for many of these Theme Dets you're also locked into one Chapter (regardless of paint) because only one chapter has the HQ's that can support the Det. White Scars wanting to do their archtype have to be Ravenwing so they can get a Sammael Captain and a Ravenwing Command Squad with the Champion sort of being the Lieutenant. Squatting all the HQ's is really hampering the theme Dets. For anyone wanting to do the Biker Det without using DA rules, you're limited to exactly one HQ to stick Enhancements on: The Chaplain on Bike.
The problem is when you hit Marines - as Marine chapters are simultaneously portrayed as being factions and a subfaction. I.E. you are meant to have choppy/shooting/mech Marines. But you are also meant to have choppy/shooty/mech Space Wolves and Dark Angels, Imperial Fists and White Scars, down to, who knows, Emperor's Spears.
This unsurprisingly doesn't really work.
I think what GW have done is reasonable sensible. A Space Marine is a Space Marine. If he gets on a bike or into terminator armour, what matters for the game rules is whether he's in the biker or terminator detachment - or neither. Not that he's in the Ultramarine's 3rd company as opposed to being a Fleshtearer.
You could try and resolve all this with points, but I think you are getting into the weeds.
It does get into the weeds, and its not really necessary. If everybody (Marine Chapters, Tau Septs, Chaos Legions, Hive Fleets, etc) gets 2PPM of Veteran Skill and similar boosts, it doesn't really matter what those boosts are (as long as they're appropriately thematic for the fluff) Everbody gets 2PPM of boosts that just cancel out on the points per model.
To my mind subfactions are for variety. Every chapter should be able to do a Biker and Speeder, or Biker and APC detachment. The Chapter Tactic should just change HOW you do it. Ultramarines "thing" to me is doing a little bit of everything so the UM force should shoot a little better, and fight a little better. Blood Angels "thing" is the Red Thirst (and Supercharged Engines) So their biker force will fight a little better, and drive a little faster. and so on and so on.
PenitentJake wrote: This thread has already pushed my buttons more than once, and I tried to stay away from it as a result. Boredom sometimes makes us do things we wouldn't otherwise do.
Whatever works for you bud, I literally pointed out the example unit benefits from both halves of the salamanders tactic in the same post you're calling me a lair for not acknowledging both halves.
My point, much as everyone else's still stands - you cannot apply a blanket rule to the army and assume they're all of equal impact/value. You continue to fail to address it and just keep screeching liar over an irrelevant point you've manufactured as a distraction.
I think Breton's point is that every subfaction's bonus will affect some units in the list more than others, and that is a possible equalizing factor. Some subfaction rules will favour shooters. The fact that those rules do nothing for melee IS one of the things balances the improved ability for shooters.
And yes, players using that subfaction may try to "Get around the rule" by bringing only shooters... But that's not actually getting around the rule, because if they do that, then their lack of melee BECOMES the liability (as opposed to melee units being unaugmented).
In the end, it does come down to whether you believe balance is more important or flavour is more important. It is a matter of personal taste.
I think you're probably right, but that isn't what they've said. The statement was that the unit is of equal value regardless of subfaction as a package, so that falls apart when you get a mismatch as you note:
Breton wrote: There is no need to make a 30 point aggressor cost IF 50 points because it also costs 50 points for Space Wolves for the fighting, and 50 points for the UM for the fighting and the shooting and so on.
Yes, that was pretty much the statement. I included the caveat that not everything would be so, but that was the general idea. Yet again you're only including PART of the premise in a lie by omission. Just like you just omitted the rest of the explanation - the theory that IF get shootier Aggressors, Wolves get Fightier Agggressors, and UM get a smaller boost to both. But that appears to be... omitted in your quote. Lying by omission.
No Breton, I didn't need to include both halves for the fists, the fact they don't benefit at all from one half was the point. That's reductionism, not deception.
Salamanders was ap-1 on incoming attacks counts as ap0 and 1 free hit/wound/damage reroll iirc. Aggressors don't have thunder hammers either.
Saying you didn't need to include the entire premise is pretty much how you were lying. Its not "reductionism" its lying by omission.
I don't think that was anything I came up with for Salamanders. The iconic thing I remember for them was a bonus to Flame/Melta and MC Thunderhammers.
They had strats and warlord traits for melta/flamers and it was their super doctrine as well, glad the layered rules have confused you as well though.
That said, I'll follow PentientJakes example here and leave it be - I'm running out of ways to tell you that isn't lying. If a stranger gives you 10(insert currency) and your friend 5(insert currency), when your friend points out they got 5 less than you I don't think calling them a liar for omitting that they still got 5 is going to make it all better.
At least you're done lying about your lying. Or at least claiming you are. I didn't come up with their Super Doctrine. Someone asked me to make some examples, and I did. I don't know that I ever did pick an example for Salamanders, but what you claimed was their boost in this hypothetical isn't what I would have come up with. Once again so you can lie about it later: The theory is 2 small boosts -these boosts will rarely overlap on the same model. If a model doesn't get one boost it likely gets the other. Past editions can be a guilde but should not be directly transplanted due to overlap/conflicts with the Dets.
PenitentJake wrote: I think Breton's point is that every subfaction's bonus will affect some units in the list more than others, and that is a possible equalizing factor. Some subfaction rules will favour shooters. The fact that those rules do nothing for melee IS one of the things balances the improved ability for shooters.
And yes, players using that subfaction may try to "Get around the rule" by bringing only shooters... But that's not actually getting around the rule, because if they do that, then their lack of melee BECOMES the liability (as opposed to melee units being unaugmented).
In a deeper game this might be a credible balancing factor, where min-maxing to lean hard into your buff leaves you without some key capability. In the 40K we play, that isn't the case, and armies that (largely) omit melee have done just fine.
In any case, what you are suggesting is that Unit A under Subfaction X may be better than Unit A under Subfaction Y, but that's okay because Unit B is better in Subfaction Y than Subfaction X and on the whole it balances out. I think it's pretty clear from the last two editions that that's not how it works out in practice- and Unit A ends up getting balanced around Subfaction X, making it not very useful in Subfaction Y- but I see the logic.
That is not what Breton is arguing. Breton is saying you can design subfaction traits such that Unit A is comparably powerful regardless of whether it's under Subfactions X, Y, or Z, and so a single points cost can reasonably reflect the power of the unit. To make this point they are using as an example a mixed-capability unit that benefits from a wide variety of buffs, but once you start looking at more specialized units it doesn't work.
Breton wrote: The Chapter Tactic should just change HOW you do it. Ultramarines "thing" to me is doing a little bit of everything so the UM force should shoot a little better, and fight a little better. Blood Angels "thing" is the Red Thirst (and Supercharged Engines) So their biker force will fight a little better, and drive a little faster. and so on and so on.
And to the above point: Devastators get nothing useful from Red Thirst or Supercharged Engines. Those bonuses are worthless to them. They are not comparably effective to Imperial Fists Devastators getting Bolter Discipline and Siege Mastery, nor do they warrant the same cost.
This system doesn't work for what you want it to do. It's just bringing back the 8th/9th subfactions with all the same balance issues they had then.
PenitentJake wrote: I think Breton's point is that every subfaction's bonus will affect some units in the list more than others, and that is a possible equalizing factor. Some subfaction rules will favour shooters. The fact that those rules do nothing for melee IS one of the things balances the improved ability for shooters.
And yes, players using that subfaction may try to "Get around the rule" by bringing only shooters... But that's not actually getting around the rule, because if they do that, then their lack of melee BECOMES the liability (as opposed to melee units being unaugmented).
In a deeper game this might be a credible balancing factor, where min-maxing to lean hard into your buff leaves you without some key capability. In the 40K we play, that isn't the case, and armies that (largely) omit melee have done just fine.
I wouldn't be sorry if including Chapter Traits etc. results in a deeper game. Its pretty much one of the major reasons I want them to come back. Its also one of the reasons I want Morale to become a bigger thing.
In any case, what you are suggesting is that Unit A under Subfaction X may be better than Unit A under Subfaction Y, but that's okay because Unit B is better in Subfaction Y than Subfaction X and on the whole it balances out. I think it's pretty clear from the last two editions that that's not how it works out in practice- and Unit A ends up getting balanced around Subfaction X, making it not very useful in Subfaction Y- but I see the logic.
That is not what Breton is arguing. Breton is saying you can design subfaction traits such that Unit A is comparably powerful regardless of whether it's under Subfactions X, Y, or Z, and so a single points cost can reasonably reflect the power of the unit. To make this point they are using as an example a mixed-capability unit that benefits from a wide variety of buffs, but once you start looking at more specialized units it doesn't work.
Breton wrote: The Chapter Tactic should just change HOW you do it. Ultramarines "thing" to me is doing a little bit of everything so the UM force should shoot a little better, and fight a little better. Blood Angels "thing" is the Red Thirst (and Supercharged Engines) So their biker force will fight a little better, and drive a little faster. and so on and so on.
And to the above point: Devastators get nothing useful from Red Thirst or Supercharged Engines. Those bonuses are worthless to them. They are not comparably effective to Imperial Fists Devastators getting Bolter Discipline and Siege Mastery, nor do they warrant the same cost.
This system doesn't work for what you want it to do. It's just bringing back the 8th/9th subfactions with all the same balance issues they had then.
It depends on what is in The Red Thirst. Maybe it doesn't hit the Devs with something worthwhile. Maybe it does. Its certainly possible to do it so it does hit them, but its not horrible if it does something to the now squatted Eviscerators and DC thunderhammers etc to turn them into fast moving Jump "Devastators" and instead of using long rage firepower they use faster harder jump troops with power fists and melta pistols. They still have a unit that can do the job and its definitely not part of the cookie cutter.
There is one meaningful difference in Chapter Tactics vs Detachments, that is that in a Chapter Tactic system ALL units in an army go the bonus and in the Detachment system only a few specific units in your army get a bonus. The argument is if you want your bonus tied to fluff or if you want it tied to an arbitrary attempt at balancing, that is just as garbage as the system before it. Detachments fail for me because it means that a lot of units in your army end up with no bonus what so ever. The argument that Chapter Tactics made people run the most powerful combination and ruined all other choices because of it is a non-starter for me. Detachments have the same issue, people are finding the best combinations with the best units and spamming the most powerful stuff. The only reason you now see variation in tournaments is because everything is so bland and devoid of special rules that all that matters anymore are stat blocks.
Almost every pro or anti argument for either system could realistically apply to BOTH systems because, shocker, GW is horrible at writing rules.
There is one meaningful difference in Chapter Tactics vs Detachments, that is that in a Chapter Tactic system ALL units in an army go the bonus and in the Detachment system only a few specific units in your army get a bonus. The argument is if you want your bonus tied to fluff or if you want it tied to an arbitrary attempt at balancing, that is just as garbage as the system before it. Detachments fail for me because it means that a lot of units in your army end up with no bonus what so ever. The argument that Chapter Tactics made people run the most powerful combination and ruined all other choices because of it is a non-starter for me. Detachments have the same issue, people are finding the best combinations with the best units and spamming the most powerful stuff. The only reason you now see variation in tournaments is because everything is so bland and devoid of special rules that all that matters anymore are stat blocks.
Almost every pro or anti argument for either system could realistically apply to BOTH systems because, shocker, GW is horrible at writing rules.
The difference is that a white Scars player can now pick an armoured force and pick ironstorm which will benefit them more than being forced into their chapter tactics and doctrine.
What was in the old system, is forcing play styles to be associated with fluff based archetypes. Using Raven Guard as an example they were forced down the road of ranged assassination, if you wanted to play a different style you needed to be a different chapter. Now you can be Raven Guard in any given detachment and have a benefit/focused rules that suit the play style, not the paint job.
Neither is perfect, but imo detachments are less punishing and force fewer "wrong choices" on people.
Yeah, of course chapter tactics and detachments have the same pros and cons because they're the same damn system. The difference is just that detachments codify the counts-as that everyone did anyways to deal with the un-fun railroading of the system.
If it wasn't viable to avoid obnoxious balance issues in either system, it certainly isn't viable to achieve it with both systems active simultaneously.
catbarf wrote: Yeah, of course chapter tactics and detachments have the same pros and cons because they're the same damn system. The difference is just that detachments codify the counts-as that everyone did anyways to deal with the un-fun railroading of the system.
Not to be the "actually" guy, but detachments in 10th also determine which enhancements and which strats you get.
In the 9th ed system, your subfaction gave ONE bespoke WL Trait, Relic and Strat, but all the generic options for the faction as a whole continued to be available. And that is a HUGE difference.
catbarf wrote: Yeah, of course chapter tactics and detachments have the same pros and cons because they're the same damn system. The difference is just that detachments codify the counts-as that everyone did anyways to deal with the un-fun railroading of the system.
Not to be the "actually" guy, but detachments in 10th also determine which enhancements and which strats you get.
In the 9th ed system, your subfaction gave ONE bespoke WL Trait, Relic and Strat, but all the generic options for the faction as a whole continued to be available. And that is a HUGE difference.
That's also not entirely representative for marines, or "you're lying by omission"
Belonging a chapter got you a whole lot more than 1 of each of those, but I'd argue that reducing the level of possible issues they brought might be a good thing.
There is one meaningful difference in Chapter Tactics vs Detachments, that is that in a Chapter Tactic system ALL units in an army go the bonus and in the Detachment system only a few specific units in your army get a bonus. The argument is if you want your bonus tied to fluff or if you want it tied to an arbitrary attempt at balancing, that is just as garbage as the system before it. Detachments fail for me because it means that a lot of units in your army end up with no bonus what so ever. The argument that Chapter Tactics made people run the most powerful combination and ruined all other choices because of it is a non-starter for me. Detachments have the same issue, people are finding the best combinations with the best units and spamming the most powerful stuff. The only reason you now see variation in tournaments is because everything is so bland and devoid of special rules that all that matters anymore are stat blocks.
Almost every pro or anti argument for either system could realistically apply to BOTH systems because, shocker, GW is horrible at writing rules.
The difference is that a white Scars player can now pick an armoured force and pick ironstorm which will benefit them more than being forced into their chapter tactics and doctrine.
What was in the old system, is forcing play styles to be associated with fluff based archetypes. Using Raven Guard as an example they were forced down the road of ranged assassination, if you wanted to play a different style you needed to be a different chapter. Now you can be Raven Guard in any given detachment and have a benefit/focused rules that suit the play style, not the paint job.
Neither is perfect, but imo detachments are less punishing and force fewer "wrong choices" on people.
Yes, yes, now fluff doesn't matter at all. That is great for some people I am sure, I personally hate it. If I wanted to play White Scars it was because I wanted to play a bike/jump pack fast moving army not because I wanted to play an armor heavy list.
The new system forces you to use a handful of models depending on what detachment you use. Both systems have the exact same problem so they didn't solve anything with the new system unless you really hated fluff having effects on the game.
The only reason there are less "wrong choices" is because they seem hell bent on removing all choice. Army building is very paint by the numbers anymore and I personally hate it. I prefer to have the option to take a sub-optimal choice when considering the new system of no choices. I COULD take an Ironstorm detachment and take no vehicles but that would be as silly as making a White Scars list focused on tanks. You are just moving the line in the sand.
There is one meaningful difference in Chapter Tactics vs Detachments, that is that in a Chapter Tactic system ALL units in an army go the bonus and in the Detachment system only a few specific units in your army get a bonus. The argument is if you want your bonus tied to fluff or if you want it tied to an arbitrary attempt at balancing, that is just as garbage as the system before it. Detachments fail for me because it means that a lot of units in your army end up with no bonus what so ever. The argument that Chapter Tactics made people run the most powerful combination and ruined all other choices because of it is a non-starter for me. Detachments have the same issue, people are finding the best combinations with the best units and spamming the most powerful stuff. The only reason you now see variation in tournaments is because everything is so bland and devoid of special rules that all that matters anymore are stat blocks.
Almost every pro or anti argument for either system could realistically apply to BOTH systems because, shocker, GW is horrible at writing rules.
The difference is that a white Scars player can now pick an armoured force and pick ironstorm which will benefit them more than being forced into their chapter tactics and doctrine.
What was in the old system, is forcing play styles to be associated with fluff based archetypes. Using Raven Guard as an example they were forced down the road of ranged assassination, if you wanted to play a different style you needed to be a different chapter. Now you can be Raven Guard in any given detachment and have a benefit/focused rules that suit the play style, not the paint job.
Neither is perfect, but imo detachments are less punishing and force fewer "wrong choices" on people.
Yes, yes, now fluff doesn't matter at all. That is great for some people I am sure, I personally hate it. If I wanted to play White Scars it was because I wanted to play a bike/jump pack fast moving army not because I wanted to play an armor heavy list.
The new system forces you to use a handful of models depending on what detachment you use. Both systems have the exact same problem so they didn't solve anything with the new system unless you really hated fluff having effects on the game.
The only reason there are less "wrong choices" is because they seem hell bent on removing all choice. Army building is very paint by the numbers anymore and I personally hate it. I prefer to have the option to take a sub-optimal choice when considering the new system of no choices. I COULD take an Ironstorm detachment and take no vehicles but that would be as silly as making a White Scars list focused on tanks. You are just moving the line in the sand.
I'm not up on my $COLOR Marine lore, but don't White Scars have (had?) an affinity for mechanized and fast armored forces as well? IIRC they were bigger on...I guess you could call it "strategic mobility" rather than just "vroom vroom iron horsies lol".
Also, I'm a little confused on how everyone having access to a bike-heavy force org means that fluff is irrelevant. From the way they're talked about, detachments sound like they have a core focus and some mandatory units, but it sounds like you should still have room to flesh things out after that (if sub-optimally).
Arbiter_Shade wrote: ]
Yes, yes, now fluff doesn't matter at all. That is great for some people I am sure, I personally hate it. If I wanted to play White Scars it was because I wanted to play a bike/jump pack fast moving army not because I wanted to play an armor heavy list.
You're flanderising the factions for them, ironically you're ignoring a lot of fluff with that stipulation.
The new system forces you to use a handful of models depending on what detachment you use. Both systems have the exact same problem so they didn't solve anything with the new system unless you really hated fluff having effects on the game.
Above you preach the virtue of the White Scars rules because they encouraged you to use a force of a small subset of models...
I COULD take an Ironstorm detachment and take no vehicles but that would be as silly as making a White Scars list focused on tanks. You are just moving the line in the sand.
Again, nothing silly about white scars having an armoured force, unless fluff doesn't matter.
I'm not up on my $COLOR Marine lore, but don't White Scars have (had?) an affinity for mechanized and fast armored forces as well? IIRC they were bigger on...I guess you could call it "strategic mobility" rather than just "vroom vroom iron horsies lol".
Also, I'm a little confused on how everyone having access to a bike-heavy force org means that fluff is irrelevant. From the way they're talked about, detachments sound like they have a core focus and some mandatory units, but it sounds like you should still have room to flesh things out after that (if sub-optimally).
Allowing for force compositions that exist in the fluff is better at respecting lore than pushing subfactions towards stereotypical builds. If you want to build bike-heavy White Scars, nothing has changed. You just have the option to build out other army archetypes of White Scars without being indirectly penalized for it.
The complaint that the new system removes choice makes no sense; it might be a limited set of options but that at least beats having just one (1) option for your subfaction.
In any case, it seems less like a lore issue and more that some players don't feel like their subfaction is special anymore if other subfactions can field comparable capabilities, and for whatever reason it's disproportionately a Marine thing. I don't remember Steel Legion players getting up in arms when Cadians could choose mechanized infantry doctrine in the 9th Ed codex.
In any case, it seems less like a lore issue and more that some players don't feel like their subfaction is special anymore if other subfactions can field comparable capabilities, and for whatever reason it's disproportionately a Marine thing. I don't remember Steel Legion players getting up in arms when Cadians could choose mechanized infantry doctrine in the 9th Ed codex.
Orks must be capped at 1 six per 10 dice for every roll unless painted blue!
Man the strawman is real up in here, but what am I to expect from an online conversation.
I am not espousing the virtues of the Chapter Tactic system so much as pointing out that the Detachment system doesn't fix a single thing. It is the same as the Chapter Tactic system just shuffling the names around a bit. I think that it is ridiculous that some of you are arguing that a rule that states that all your units can advance or fall back and charge is somehow more guilty of forcing you into using a small subset of units than a rule that states....*checks notes for Stormlance detachments* All units that advance or fall back can charge.
And this is only through the lens of Space Marines; I play Tyranids and I am disgusted with how much the detachment system shoehorns me into playing specific models. Under the old Hive Fleets I could play any model in any Hive Fleet and get bonuses, under the detachment system only specific model types get bonuses.
I am not saying that the Chapter Tactic system is better but I find it so damn disingenuous when people come in acting like it is so much better because it really is just the same damn thing with a different name. Other armies got screwed on the detachment system because Space Marines get rules that affect their entire army allowing them to build what ever they want while other armies are restricted to bonuses for <UNIT TYPE>
I don't think anyone is arguing that the detachments don't push specific models. The difference is that if you want to play with different models, the expectations to switch detachments have largely been removed.
I am not saying that the Chapter Tactic system is better but I find it so damn disingenuous when people come in acting like it is so much better because it really is just the same damn thing with a different name. Other armies got screwed on the detachment system because Space Marines get rules that affect their entire army allowing them to build what ever they want while other armies are restricted to bonuses for <UNIT TYPE>
Before I couldn't do a jump pack raven guard army led by shrike with advance and charge, because shrike isn't a white scars valid model and, for me, my raven guard painted marines aren't going to play as rules for another chapter.
I can now do that with my own special character and play the way I want to within the confines of the fluff.
Functionally at a high level, you are correct they're the same, but only if you didn't uphold any integrity regards the forces appearance to the rules, or have any special units.
I think there is an argument that the 10th detachment system - as designed in the few books we have - is too limited because it typically focuses on units rather than a broad rule for everyone.
If we look at Ad Mech - you've got "take Skitarii", "Take Priests", "Take Robots and vehicles" and then two more generic detachments that sort of influence the board state. Which does in turn invite certain unit choices (because you want your list to interact with how you are going to effect the board) but its less explicit than "take X, don't really bother with Y as its not getting any perks."
I think you can argue this isn't great. The first 3 offers too limited a roster. (The fact the other two kind of suck because Ad Mech suck if you aren't spamming Skitarii made slightly obnoxious to remove is neither here nor there.)
We see similar with Tyranids and Necrons.
But this sort of takes us back to the idea that the detachments should be changes to the FOC. This is because its clearly irrational to build a balanced list - and then go "well if I take detachment X, I can buff this 20% of my list, if I take detachment Y, I can buff another 20% of my list etc." You are going to stack the bonus - and if you only have a few units that get it, then your choices are quite limited.
If you want to break that, GW have to force you. But this would probably feel just as limiting as now. For example, if GW were to enforce some sort of quasi-Highlander rule, and your detachment allowed you to take 3 units of what that detachment was trying to represent, I think that would get dull fast. Maybe it can make more stuff Battleline - but that could be abuseable. (I know others hate it, but I think the rule of 3 hides a lot of sins.)
So TL/DR, I don't know what the answer is. I think 10th does have the flaw in that any system where you don't get a bonus kind of sucks. We saw that with 8th and 9th where certain armies didn't benefit from their faction rules. Which felt bad - and often felt bad. (Oh hi 10th edition Ad Mech, didn't see you there...)
I think the 8th/9th system could have been iterated on - probably by not having custom traits and a more curated list. But this arguably applies just as much to 10th. Unfortunately the answer to all of this is that I don't think GW cares that much.
catbarf wrote: Yeah, of course chapter tactics and detachments have the same pros and cons because they're the same damn system. The difference is just that detachments codify the counts-as that everyone did anyways to deal with the un-fun railroading of the system.
Not to be the "actually" guy, but detachments in 10th also determine which enhancements and which strats you get.
In the 9th ed system, your subfaction gave ONE bespoke WL Trait, Relic and Strat, but all the generic options for the faction as a whole continued to be available. And that is a HUGE difference.
You're forgetting the supplements which provided more WL Traits and more Strats plus relics.
There is one meaningful difference in Chapter Tactics vs Detachments, that is that in a Chapter Tactic system ALL units in an army go the bonus and in the Detachment system only a few specific units in your army get a bonus. The argument is if you want your bonus tied to fluff or if you want it tied to an arbitrary attempt at balancing, that is just as garbage as the system before it. Detachments fail for me because it means that a lot of units in your army end up with no bonus what so ever. The argument that Chapter Tactics made people run the most powerful combination and ruined all other choices because of it is a non-starter for me. Detachments have the same issue, people are finding the best combinations with the best units and spamming the most powerful stuff. The only reason you now see variation in tournaments is because everything is so bland and devoid of special rules that all that matters anymore are stat blocks.
Almost every pro or anti argument for either system could realistically apply to BOTH systems because, shocker, GW is horrible at writing rules.
The difference is that a white Scars player can now pick an armoured force and pick ironstorm which will benefit them more than being forced into their chapter tactics and doctrine.
What was in the old system, is forcing play styles to be associated with fluff based archetypes. Using Raven Guard as an example they were forced down the road of ranged assassination, if you wanted to play a different style you needed to be a different chapter. Now you can be Raven Guard in any given detachment and have a benefit/focused rules that suit the play style, not the paint job.
Neither is perfect, but imo detachments are less punishing and force fewer "wrong choices" on people.
Yes, yes, now fluff doesn't matter at all. That is great for some people I am sure, I personally hate it. If I wanted to play White Scars it was because I wanted to play a bike/jump pack fast moving army not because I wanted to play an armor heavy list.
The new system forces you to use a handful of models depending on what detachment you use. Both systems have the exact same problem so they didn't solve anything with the new system unless you really hated fluff having effects on the game.
The only reason there are less "wrong choices" is because they seem hell bent on removing all choice. Army building is very paint by the numbers anymore and I personally hate it. I prefer to have the option to take a sub-optimal choice when considering the new system of no choices. I COULD take an Ironstorm detachment and take no vehicles but that would be as silly as making a White Scars list focused on tanks. You are just moving the line in the sand.
I'm not up on my $COLOR Marine lore, but don't White Scars have (had?) an affinity for mechanized and fast armored forces as well? IIRC they were bigger on...I guess you could call it "strategic mobility" rather than just "vroom vroom iron horsies lol".
Also, I'm a little confused on how everyone having access to a bike-heavy force org means that fluff is irrelevant. From the way they're talked about, detachments sound like they have a core focus and some mandatory units, but it sounds like you should still have room to flesh things out after that (if sub-optimally).
You're half right, and he's half right. Like the Chapter Traits most of the Chapters had two-ish Fluffy "focus" areas - At the very beginning BA had Terminators and Vanguard Vets, DA had Terminators and more Terminators/Chaplains, UM had Terminators and Sternguard. Space Wolves had Bikes and Terminators in power armored units and Dreads
White Scars were Bikes and Mechanized Infantry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: Allowing for force compositions that exist in the fluff is better at respecting lore than pushing subfactions towards stereotypical builds. If you want to build bike-heavy White Scars, nothing has changed. You just have the option to build out other army archetypes of White Scars without being indirectly penalized for it.
The complaint that the new system removes choice makes no sense; it might be a limited set of options but that at least beats having just one (1) option for your subfaction.
In any case, it seems less like a lore issue and more that some players don't feel like their subfaction is special anymore if other subfactions can field comparable capabilities, and for whatever reason it's disproportionately a Marine thing. I don't remember Steel Legion players getting up in arms when Cadians could choose mechanized infantry doctrine in the 9th Ed codex.
It has changed. Not in regards to Chapter Tactics so much - but an all bike force is fairly impossible right now because of the lack of HQ's - and yeah that's more related to the squatting of the Bike HQ's (Libby, Captain on bike) than Chapter Tactics but the two also compound each other. The only MOUNTED LEADER (that isn't chapter specific) right now is the Chaplain on Bike
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arbiter_Shade wrote: Man the strawman is real up in here, but what am I to expect from an online conversation.
I am not espousing the virtues of the Chapter Tactic system so much as pointing out that the Detachment system doesn't fix a single thing. It is the same as the Chapter Tactic system just shuffling the names around a bit. I think that it is ridiculous that some of you are arguing that a rule that states that all your units can advance or fall back and charge is somehow more guilty of forcing you into using a small subset of units than a rule that states....*checks notes for Stormlance detachments* All units that advance or fall back can charge.
And this is only through the lens of Space Marines; I play Tyranids and I am disgusted with how much the detachment system shoehorns me into playing specific models. Under the old Hive Fleets I could play any model in any Hive Fleet and get bonuses, under the detachment system only specific model types get bonuses.
I am not saying that the Chapter Tactic system is better but I find it so damn disingenuous when people come in acting like it is so much better because it really is just the same damn thing with a different name. Other armies got screwed on the detachment system because Space Marines get rules that affect their entire army allowing them to build what ever they want while other armies are restricted to bonuses for <UNIT TYPE>
In some ways you're right, but I disagree that the new Det system is worse. I don't think the new Det System is a "finished product" exactly. I'd call it a Beta Test. And I do think the new Det System is an improvement:
In the first place it completely severs CP from Detachments. Whether you paid CP to get a Det, or Got a Det to get CP someone was getting screwed. Guard Cost armies or fluffy double det (Ravenwing + Deathwing for example) were getting screwed if they paid for the Det, Low model count armies were screwed when you got CP per Det. This is an all around improvement.
Allowing every subfaction to make a similar theme army is an improvement.
The Keyword restrictions on many of the theme armies is often not an improvement (Being able to make your Terminator Company in Gladius potentially easier/better vs 1st Company etc)- and not enough theme armies have a Det. (People have been wanting to make a 10th Company for decades).
So yeah, the Det system isn't perfect, but I think its a decent first step.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing that the detachments don't push specific models. The difference is that if you want to play with different models, the expectations to switch detachments have largely been removed.
Some Detachments do, some don't. The ones that don't are too often the "clear winner". I'd say you're mostly right about detachment switching expectations or even that you don't go far enough: If you want to play with models that aren't part of the focus you're too often pushed back into a catch-all Det instead of the flavor Det. If you want to play Crusher Stampede but still include some little bugs for screening and such you might be forced back into Invasion Fleet or Synaptic Nexus because Crusher Stampede so often limits the strats to TYRANID MONSTER instead of TYRANID so even your Warriors can't be the target of your Strats. Similar to DA and their Inner Circle Det - Almost nothing with DEATHWING - Especially DEATHWING INFANTRY - has the long range anti-tank of Desolators and/or Devastators etc. None of the generic Power Armored LEADERS get Deathwing to spread to those units (and it would be unfluffy to do so) - I'd call this a Basic Roles issue (basic roles being things like Objective Capture, Hammer, Anvil, Explorer, Screen, and so on) but the Strats and the Det ability still requires Deathwing, and sometimes Deathwing Infantry. Both of these Dets will run into an OC and less so a BattleLine issue. Carnifex and Screamer Killers are OC 3, Terminators stay OC1.
I think there is an argument that the 10th detachment system - as designed in the few books we have - is too limited because it typically focuses on units rather than a broad rule for everyone.
I'll argue otherwise. One of the things I think really works about the current system is that the detachment rules tend to be pretty generic. They might work better on certain weapons or might have units that don't benefit from them, but they are broadly applicable to everything your army could have. What drives specific units is more the strategems and enhancements, but both of those are limited. You only need a couple major targets for them to the army build.
Initially, I worried about having everything fit the detachment, but as I've played more I've found you really only need half, maybe 1200 of your points to benefit from strategems or enancements. After that the remaining 800 is better off filling in weaknesses.
Obviously that's not universally true. Consistent quality has never been one of GW's consistent qualities after all.
LunarSol wrote: Initially, I worried about having everything fit the detachment, but as I've played more I've found you really only need half, maybe 1200 of your points to benefit from strategems or enancements. After that the remaining 800 is better off filling in weaknesses.
The switch to detachment-specific stratagems is such a straightforward way to differentiate forces that I wonder whether the detachment-wide bonuses are actually necessary now to differentiate forces. With every Crusher Stampede stratagem only being usable on Monsters and every Unending Swarm stratagem only being usable on Endless Multitude units, those are clearly going to result in some pretty different armies that play differently on the tabletop; the fact that the detachment-wide bonuses only apply to Monsters or Endless Multitudes feels constraining, and isn't necessary to encourage the army to focus on those archetypes.
It reminds me of Warmachine, where each warcaster within a faction had different spells and abilities, which naturally led to different army compositions and different playstyles even though they were drawing from the same pool of units and didn't give out any always-on bonuses to particular ones.
LunarSol wrote: Initially, I worried about having everything fit the detachment, but as I've played more I've found you really only need half, maybe 1200 of your points to benefit from strategems or enancements. After that the remaining 800 is better off filling in weaknesses.
The switch to detachment-specific stratagems is such a straightforward way to differentiate forces that I wonder whether the detachment-wide bonuses are actually necessary now to differentiate forces. With every Crusher Stampede stratagem only being usable on Monsters and every Unending Swarm stratagem only being usable on Endless Multitude units, those are clearly going to result in some pretty different armies that play differently on the tabletop; the fact that the detachment-wide bonuses only apply to Monsters or Endless Multitudes feels constraining, and isn't necessary to encourage the army to focus on those archetypes.
It reminds me of Warmachine, where each warcaster within a faction had different spells and abilities, which naturally led to different army compositions and different playstyles even though they were drawing from the same pool of units and didn't give out any always-on bonuses to particular ones.
They're probably not necessary, but they're a useful tool. To take the Warmachine comparison further they're effectively Elite Cadre's or Field Marshals.
I feel GW not being consistent hides a fair number of sins....
I agree in principle.
Consider the new(ish) Dark Eldar Skysplinter Assault detachment. I don't need my entire army to be in transports and therefore able to benefit from the rule. I want to bring along some Ravagers, Mandrakes and maybe some Cronos in there etc.
But if I look at Ad Mech, I'm not convinced I'd be able to go "I'll have 1200 points of Skitarii/Priests/Robots (...) and that'll do" for their relevant detachment. Partly I think you have the issue - which is always going to apply - is that subfaction bonuses become necessary/addictive. Using say Priests in an Ad Mech list (outside of Breachers) is kind of bad - but feels doubly so if you've played them with their potential bonuses.
I'm not sure if the same can be said of Tyranids/Necrons as I don't play them, but I suspect there are similarities in certain units/detachments.
This is one of the main reason's I haven't played 10th, like at all. First you pick a faction, then you have to pick a detachment. But not any detachment, some are specific to each faction or sub faction. Then you have to pick a whole range of other things, before you even get to pick a stinking model. Say what you want about previous editions, but I liked being able to pick up a box of models, see what their stats were, put them on the table, and play them however I wanted, without checking a list of 6 separate things to verify if they were "legal" or not. That leader can't lead that squad? What? Who cares. Just let him exist on the table. Oh he can't, because my detachment. This is now dumb.
I think there is an argument that the 10th detachment system - as designed in the few books we have - is too limited because it typically focuses on units rather than a broad rule for everyone.
I'll argue otherwise. One of the things I think really works about the current system is that the detachment rules tend to be pretty generic. They might work better on certain weapons or might have units that don't benefit from them, but they are broadly applicable to everything your army could have. What drives specific units is more the strategems and enhancements, but both of those are limited. You only need a couple major targets for them to the army build.
Initially, I worried about having everything fit the detachment, but as I've played more I've found you really only need half, maybe 1200 of your points to benefit from strategems or enancements. After that the remaining 800 is better off filling in weaknesses.
Obviously that's not universally true. Consistent quality has never been one of GW's consistent qualities after all.
Honestly I think that your limiting your view of detachments to the Space Marine ones, because you say that they are pretty generic but that only really applies to Space Marines.
I harp on it a lot but it is because it is very personal to me but the Assimilation Swarm applies to a grand total of 4 datasheets in the Tyranid army. The Vanguard Onslaught is a bit better but it is 5 Characters and 8 Datasheets.
If the detachment system is a "beta test" then I am ready for them to throw it out just like they do everything else. GW doesn't beta test because for the past 20 years they have just been reinventing the wheel every couple of years. I think that 8th/9th had a lot of solid foundation to it that they could have built upon; but they decided to throw it all away for 10th which they are just as likely to throw away in 11th or 12th.
The "wait and see" MO has proven time and time again with GW that they never learn anything or improve on anything, they often just change entire design paradigms mid edition leaving use with such a wild variation in power levels. I don't plan on "giving them a chance" with detachments because I think that fundamentally they are worse than the Chapter Tactic method. FYI, that is not an endorsement of Chapter Tactics as I think they were far from great but I think they were closer than Detachments.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: This is one of the main reason's I haven't played 10th, like at all. First you pick a faction, then you have to pick a detachment. But not any detachment, some are specific to each faction or sub faction. Then you have to pick a whole range of other things, before you even get to pick a stinking model. Say what you want about previous editions, but I liked being able to pick up a box of models, see what their stats were, put them on the table, and play them however I wanted, without checking a list of 6 separate things to verify if they were "legal" or not. That leader can't lead that squad? What? Who cares. Just let him exist on the table. Oh he can't, because my detachment. This is now dumb.
Using nids as an example:
10th:
- Buy models
- Paint models however
- Check army level rules
- Pick detachment based on whether it suits your army/play style
- Check detachment rules
- Buy a relic if you wish/applicable
- Generic missions for all armies
9th:
- Buy models
- Pick subfaction
- Paint to subfaction (in theory)
- Hope the models bought match the rules of the subfaction well
- Choose a FOC chart
- Choose a mandatory free warlord trait
- Choose a mandatory free relic
- Assign psychic powers
- Check army rules
- Check bio-adaption thingy table and pick one
- Choose faction specific missions if required
That's ignoring the huge volume of difference that the relics etc only exist on the detachment vs a generic list + subfaction lists and the fact there is only 1/6 of the strats now.
I'll argue otherwise. One of the things I think really works about the current system is that the detachment rules tend to be pretty generic. They might work better on certain weapons or might have units that don't benefit from them, but they are broadly applicable to everything your army could have. What drives specific units is more the strategems and enhancements, but both of those are limited. You only need a couple major targets for them to the army build.
Initially, I worried about having everything fit the detachment, but as I've played more I've found you really only need half, maybe 1200 of your points to benefit from strategems or enancements. After that the remaining 800 is better off filling in weaknesses.
Obviously that's not universally true. Consistent quality has never been one of GW's consistent qualities after all.
Honestly I think that your limiting your view of detachments to the Space Marine ones, because you say that they are pretty generic but that only really applies to Space Marines.
I harp on it a lot but it is because it is very personal to me but the Assimilation Swarm applies to a grand total of 4 datasheets in the Tyranid army. The Vanguard Onslaught is a bit better but it is 5 Characters and 8 Datasheets.
If the detachment system is a "beta test" then I am ready for them to throw it out just like they do everything else. GW doesn't beta test because for the past 20 years they have just been reinventing the wheel every couple of years. I think that 8th/9th had a lot of solid foundation to it that they could have built upon; but they decided to throw it all away for 10th which they are just as likely to throw away in 11th or 12th.
The "wait and see" MO has proven time and time again with GW that they never learn anything or improve on anything, they often just change entire design paradigms mid edition leaving use with such a wild variation in power levels. I don't plan on "giving them a chance" with detachments because I think that fundamentally they are worse than the Chapter Tactic method. FYI, that is not an endorsement of Chapter Tactics as I think they were far from great but I think they were closer than Detachments.
Fair critique. I'm not fond of the Tyranid detachments at all and I certainly agree with the rest. Even when I like how something is done, the likelihood of it being ruined within months keeps 40k as something I only engage with casually rather than heavily invest in.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: This is one of the main reason's I haven't played 10th, like at all. First you pick a faction, then you have to pick a detachment. But not any detachment, some are specific to each faction or sub faction. Then you have to pick a whole range of other things, before you even get to pick a stinking model. Say what you want about previous editions, but I liked being able to pick up a box of models, see what their stats were, put them on the table, and play them however I wanted, without checking a list of 6 separate things to verify if they were "legal" or not. That leader can't lead that squad? What? Who cares. Just let him exist on the table. Oh he can't, because my detachment. This is now dumb.
If you are staying in-faction your models will be legal regardless of detachment (for those factions with Codexes).
There are restrictions/conditions for characters to join units, but those are on the datasheets and are not part of the detachment rules (at this point anyway). And your character can still exist on the tabletop with units that it cannot join - it might not exist for long if it does not have Lone Operative but this has nothing to do with the detachment.
Now, there are models that function "better" (a loaded word on this thread) in a given detachment, but they would still be legal and even indeed useful in another. Infernus Marines or Flamestorm Aggressors can take advantage of a stratagem and the detachment rule in a Firestorm Detachment, and have a real bump with the right Salamanders characters in support, but they can still be useful (not to mention legal) in Gladius for another chapter. A Tyranid Gargoyle shines in a Vanguard Onslaught detachment, but it is still useful in the other ones.
Army building is quite open now. You need a Character unit and you cannot have more than 3 of the same datasheet (6 for Battleline/Dedicated Transport units), but otherwise have at it. So you can pick up a box of models you like and play as long as you are respecting Rule of 3 (or 6 if its Battleline). Its also quite easy to switch between detachments within a faction. Since detachments are not locked to paint I've run my Dark Angels as six different detachments. Enhancements and Stratagems do change along with the Detachment rule, but the models are legal. Those Deathwing Knights perform differently depending on detachment, but they are legal in every one.
Honestly I think that your limiting your view of detachments to the Space Marine ones, because you say that they are pretty generic but that only really applies to Space Marines.
Its pretty much only applies to the Generic Space Marine detachment (Gladius) The 1St Company det is also fairly limited to Terminators and X-Guard Veterans. The others have their own ways of keyword limitation.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: This is one of the main reason's I haven't played 10th, like at all. First you pick a faction, then you have to pick a detachment. But not any detachment, some are specific to each faction or sub faction. Then you have to pick a whole range of other things, before you even get to pick a stinking model. Say what you want about previous editions, but I liked being able to pick up a box of models, see what their stats were, put them on the table, and play them however I wanted, without checking a list of 6 separate things to verify if they were "legal" or not. That leader can't lead that squad? What? Who cares. Just let him exist on the table. Oh he can't, because my detachment. This is now dumb.
If you are staying in-faction your models will be legal regardless of detachment (for those factions with Codexes).
There are restrictions/conditions for characters to join units, but those are on the datasheets and are not part of the detachment rules (at this point anyway). And your character can still exist on the tabletop with units that it cannot join - it might not exist for long if it does not have Lone Operative but this has nothing to do with the detachment.
Yes the problem with characters not getting Lone Operative pretty much by default, plus the requirement of leading a unit to get most of their bespoke rules is a problem. And its exacerbated by the Detachment.
Now, there are models that function "better" (a loaded word on this thread) in a given detachment, but they would still be legal and even indeed useful in another. Infernus Marines or Flamestorm Aggressors can take advantage of a stratagem and the detachment rule in a Firestorm Detachment, and have a real bump with the right Salamanders characters in support, but they can still be useful (not to mention legal) in Gladius for another chapter. A Tyranid Gargoyle shines in a Vanguard Onslaught detachment, but it is still useful in the other ones.
There is only one Salamanders character that buffs flamers/Torrent - and they can't join Flamestorm Aggressors.
Army building is quite open now. You need a Character unit and you cannot have more than 3 of the same datasheet (6 for Battleline/Dedicated Transport units), but otherwise have at it. So you can pick up a box of models you like and play as long as you are respecting Rule of 3 (or 6 if its Battleline). Its also quite easy to switch between detachments within a faction. Since detachments are not locked to paint I've run my Dark Angels as six different detachments. Enhancements and Stratagems do change along with the Detachment rule, but the models are legal. Those Deathwing Knights perform differently depending on detachment, but they are legal in every one.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: This is one of the main reason's I haven't played 10th, like at all. First you pick a faction, then you have to pick a detachment. But not any detachment, some are specific to each faction or sub faction. Then you have to pick a whole range of other things, before you even get to pick a stinking model. Say what you want about previous editions, but I liked being able to pick up a box of models, see what their stats were, put them on the table, and play them however I wanted, without checking a list of 6 separate things to verify if they were "legal" or not. That leader can't lead that squad? What? Who cares. Just let him exist on the table. Oh he can't, because my detachment. This is now dumb.
The lack of variety really stands out this edition. I mostly stay away from 10th for the same reasons, list building is too restrictive.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: This is one of the main reason's I haven't played 10th, like at all. First you pick a faction, then you have to pick a detachment. But not any detachment, some are specific to each faction or sub faction. Then you have to pick a whole range of other things, before you even get to pick a stinking model. Say what you want about previous editions, but I liked being able to pick up a box of models, see what their stats were, put them on the table, and play them however I wanted, without checking a list of 6 separate things to verify if they were "legal" or not. That leader can't lead that squad? What? Who cares. Just let him exist on the table. Oh he can't, because my detachment. This is now dumb.
The lack of variety really stands out this edition. I mostly stay away from 10th for the same reasons, list building is too restrictive.
Sadly I think that's the direction GW is going. They're not quite at building our army for us, but that's the way they're headed. They're working very hard to only allow certain combos or make you jump through too many hoops to do them more than once. 4++ and a medic for example. Right now the only one I know of is Azrael + Apothecary and his Tacticus unit of choice (ICC, Hellblasters, or Desolators) Ravenwing got to keep their "command squad" but its the only one with an apothecary (You can't even add an Apothecary to Company Heroes to make an historical Command Squad). You can't/couldn't do a Company Heros (Command Squad) with a Chaplain or a Librarian for Codex Chapters that do the Cap/Chap/LT/LT command structure, or a Blood Ravens-y Chapter that elevates Libbies. Cant add the Judiciar to any other characters as a Chaplain Lieutenant... In some ways it goes beyond telling us what we can't do and goes as far as telling us what we're "supposed" to do. For other factions it can be even worse. Kharn can only join Berserkers. There are no Terminator Lords/LEADERS. Of course they've got a bad case of New Faction syndrome.
Kanluwen wrote: This is why I never wanted heroes to be back in units. It was always going to end this way.
No, no I think that the one character per unit, arbitrary restrictions on what units characters can join and all of the other nonsense that 10th has brought upon us was not inevitable.
It's not like it was so long ago that we had perfectly capable rules to handle characters joining units, leaving units as well as operating as single units. But that was back when they were actually trying to make an interesting game to represent 40k and not a marketing example for their product where players do what they are told.
Tournament and ‘power’ gamers are sad over allies and force building, as their enjoyment of the game at all largely revolved around finding the most ridiculous broken combos and rules loopholes to exploit to give them the advantage in the game.
Meanwhile, for more casual gamers bemoaning the force building rules, you do realize that - you can play the game, right now, today, with any forces you want, any rules you want, any way you want, as long as those you’re playing with agree? You don’t need GW’s stamp of approval to do what you want with your friends. Just don’t expect that to apply to more formal pick up games and tournaments, and you’re golden.
Isn't this the same as admitting that there are too many characters in the SM as a faction? There are more characters in the Astartes lineup (combined all subs) than has ever existed, and thats saying something. BA alone have around 10, that are not legends. Tycho counts as two, Astorath, Dante, Corbo, Lemar(forget the spelling, big black guy with a mace), then you get stuff like Sanguinor, and Gabriel Seth. I mean, that's insane. SWs I think have about the same? Then the UM are basically just flat out all characters, DA are 5+, it's getting out of hand right? Make it like Custodes in 9th. Everyone is either the Chapter Master (Valoris) or a rando-captain you paid CP to make a better Captain. Everyone else was a mini-captain. SM should be the same. 1 Captain (Unique), everyone else is a LT or minor character. We don't need 10+ Character level threats per sub faction.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Isn't this the same as admitting that there are too many characters in the SM as a faction? There are more characters in the Astartes lineup (combined all subs) than has ever existed, and thats saying something. BA alone have around 10, that are not legends. Tycho counts as two, Astorath, Dante, Corbo, Lemar(forget the spelling, big black guy with a mace), then you get stuff like Sanguinor, and Gabriel Seth. I mean, that's insane. SWs I think have about the same? Then the UM are basically just flat out all characters, DA are 5+, it's getting out of hand right? Make it like Custodes in 9th. Everyone is either the Chapter Master (Valoris) or a rando-captain you paid CP to make a better Captain. Everyone else was a mini-captain. SM should be the same. 1 Captain (Unique), everyone else is a LT or minor character. We don't need 10+ Character level threats per sub faction.
Not really. Start with Tycho counts as two - Keywords prevent taking both. Being faithful to the fluff prevents taking either one. Faction Keywords prevent mixing and matching chapters - even the Codex Compliant ones. Two of the Blood Angels Chaplains are also somewhat mutually exclusive. It would be equally inaccurate to include all the Drukhari options under the Aeldari because Yvrainne as a Warlord allows them to soup.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Isn't this the same as admitting that there are too many characters in the SM as a faction? There are more characters in the Astartes lineup (combined all subs) than has ever existed, and thats saying something. BA alone have around 10, that are not legends. Tycho counts as two, Astorath, Dante, Corbo, Lemar(forget the spelling, big black guy with a mace), then you get stuff like Sanguinor, and Gabriel Seth. I mean, that's insane. SWs I think have about the same? Then the UM are basically just flat out all characters, DA are 5+, it's getting out of hand right? Make it like Custodes in 9th. Everyone is either the Chapter Master (Valoris) or a rando-captain you paid CP to make a better Captain. Everyone else was a mini-captain. SM should be the same. 1 Captain (Unique), everyone else is a LT or minor character. We don't need 10+ Character level threats per sub faction.
Not really. Start with Tycho counts as two - Keywords prevent taking both. Being faithful to the fluff prevents taking either one. Faction Keywords prevent mixing and matching chapters - even the Codex Compliant ones. Two of the Blood Angels Chaplains are also somewhat mutually exclusive. It would be equally inaccurate to include all the Drukhari options under the Aeldari because Yvrainne as a Warlord allows them to soup.
So you disagree with my entire premise (SM have too many characters) or just the evidence that BA have more than most? I can only speak to the factions I know, but excluding BL characters that are known dead (You said fluff matters) we can't really count most if not all the AM Characters. 90% of those are confirmed KIA. So how many named characters (Uniques) do other races have? Counting SM as a single unified "race", not bothering with the rules of what can or can't be taken, they have well more than half of the characters in the game.
So you disagree with my entire premise (SM have too many characters)
What rational person wouldn't?
No matter what flavor of SM you make you won't be using like 99% of them.
If I build UM I'm not using the characters specific to 10, maybe 11 chapters. Heck, after tallying pts I might only use a few of the UM at a time.
Having options I'm choosing not to use for whatever reason is =/= having too many.
But if I switch flavors I still expect options for named characters.
Besides. Is it really surprising that the flagship force that outsells entire other games is the most developed & thus has the most characters??
Spoiler: NO.
What I'd like to see though is more development (lore/stories) for IH/WS/RG/IF/GK/SALS/DW/BT/CF/etcetcetc - so that most of these get a few MORE chapter specific character options.
So you disagree with my entire premise (SM have too many characters)
What rational person wouldn't?
No matter what flavor of SM you make you won't be using like 99% of them.
If I build UM I'm not using the characters specific to 10, maybe 11 chapters. Heck, after tallying pts I might only use a few of the UM at a time.
Having options I'm choosing not to use for whatever reason is =/= having too many.
But if I switch flavors I still expect options for named characters.
Besides. Is it really surprising that the flagship force that outsells entire other games is the most developed & thus has the most characters??
Spoiler: NO.
What I'd like to see though is more development (lore/stories) for IH/WS/RG/IF/GK/SALS/DW/BT/CF/etcetcetc - so that most of these get a few MORE chapter specific character options.
Fantastic that you start out by stating that anyone that disagrees with you is irrational.
I think it is reasonable to feel that SM's have too many characters when they have more characters than some armies have models in their entire line. It doesn't matter that you can't use all of them at once, it matters that they spend that much time developing redundant models for an army that already has way more choices than necessary.
Then you top it off with the age old argument that Space Marines get more focus because they sell well, which could just be because they get more attention than any other army. But that is a circular argument that will endlessly lead to the death of the topic.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Isn't this the same as admitting that there are too many characters in the SM as a faction? There are more characters in the Astartes lineup (combined all subs) than has ever existed, and thats saying something. BA alone have around 10, that are not legends. Tycho counts as two, Astorath, Dante, Corbo, Lemar(forget the spelling, big black guy with a mace), then you get stuff like Sanguinor, and Gabriel Seth. I mean, that's insane. SWs I think have about the same? Then the UM are basically just flat out all characters, DA are 5+, it's getting out of hand right? Make it like Custodes in 9th. Everyone is either the Chapter Master (Valoris) or a rando-captain you paid CP to make a better Captain. Everyone else was a mini-captain. SM should be the same. 1 Captain (Unique), everyone else is a LT or minor character. We don't need 10+ Character level threats per sub faction.
Not really. Start with Tycho counts as two - Keywords prevent taking both. Being faithful to the fluff prevents taking either one. Faction Keywords prevent mixing and matching chapters - even the Codex Compliant ones. Two of the Blood Angels Chaplains are also somewhat mutually exclusive. It would be equally inaccurate to include all the Drukhari options under the Aeldari because Yvrainne as a Warlord allows them to soup.
So you disagree with my entire premise (SM have too many characters) or just the evidence that BA have more than most? I can only speak to the factions I know, but excluding BL characters that are known dead (You said fluff matters) we can't really count most if not all the AM Characters. 90% of those are confirmed KIA. So how many named characters (Uniques) do other races have? Counting SM as a single unified "race", not bothering with the rules of what can or can't be taken, they have well more than half of the characters in the game.
That wasn't your premise. Your premise was "too many" not "more than the rest". I also disagreed with the characterization of your supporting evidence - counting a unique as two, jumbling them all together even though that's not allowed. The Aeldari have something like 12 named Epic Heroes (Mostly due to the named Aspects) and two generic ones (The Avatar isn't really a named, but it is an Epic Hero). Space Wolves have the most for SM at 11 - And I'm betting they're losing some when they transition to Supplement instead of Index. Most likely Arjac Rockfist and Lukas The Trickster closely followed by Murderfang.. Blood Angels have 8, one of them is dead, and one of them is technically a Fleshtearer. Meanwhile Ravenguard have 1. Crimson Fists and Iron Hands have 1. Most of the other folded in chapters have two. If you want your premise to be that "it's wrong other armies don't have the same Epic Hero support as the Aeldari and the Big Four", then sure that I'd agree with.
I like big games with big stuff and big sandboxes, so I tend not to argue that marines have too much- I instead argue that nobody else has enough.
It's really the same thing, but where it differs is how you fix it. Don't take marine characters away- ADD characters to everyone else.
Drukhari are easy because we already had the characters in our book- bring back Kharadruakh, Duke Sliscuss, Baron Sathonyx and Lady Malice.
Sisters have ONE Cannoness Superior model- Junith Eurita. We need at least one more to represent Convent Prioris, and it should be either Sacred Rose or Ebon Chalice because Morvenn was Argent Shroud before becoming Abbess.
PenitentJake wrote: I like big games with big stuff and big sandboxes, so I tend not to argue that marines have too much- I instead argue that nobody else has enough.
It's really the same thing, but where it differs is how you fix it. Don't take marine characters away- ADD characters to everyone else.
Drukhari are easy because we already had the characters in our book- bring back Kharadruakh, Duke Sliscuss, Baron Sathonyx and Lady Malice.
Sisters have ONE Cannoness Superior model- Junith Eurita. We need at least one more to represent Convent Prioris, and it should be either Sacred Rose or Ebon Chalice because Morvenn was Argent Shroud before becoming Abbess.
I think GW should take the typical Company - Captain, Chaplain, two Lieutenants (or Lieutenant/Judiciar as a Chaplain "Lieutenant" 2 Company Heroes (1 for Cap, 1 for Chap) 6 Battle Line, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Heavy Support in basic traditional ways: Say 2 HINTS, 2 Ints, 1 Tac, 1 Infiltrator, 1 Assault Intercessors with Jump Packs, 1 Incursor/Assault Intercessor, 1 Dev and 1 Hellblaster or 2 Desolators: I think that's 112 Marines. Take that and make it 2,000 points. No vehicles (except maybe A singular Dread) no Elites borrowed from the first company or upjumped basic marines like Aggressors. Just the basic Company you see in the fluff pages. Make that 2K, balance everything else off of that 2K.
As for big or small - it doesn't matter. More variety is almost always better. I've been preaching for a while now that a number of factions need to get expanded. Custodes just need more sheets. So do Votann. Other factions just need a little puffing. Drukari need new sculpts, plastic, and some nameds. Nids need some more Epic Heroes that aren't necessarily nameds (Think the Avatar). They also need some fluff about burrowing cavernous breeding organisms that sitll pump out Old One Eye among others long after the Invasion Fleet was destroyed/moved on.
Tau need some named. Especially ones that flip the army on it's head. We all know/make the joke, they're space communists. But they're xenophobic Space Communists that use but don't elevate their allies i.e. Kroot and Vespids are Sergeants, never Captains. Give them a named Vespid and Kroot that turn that on it's head. The exception to the rule. Epic Heroes should be one of two things: The "Chapter Master" who is the exemplar of the Chapter - the prototype (Think Calgar: First Rubicon crosser, gravis/Terminator, Strategy Rating 6, etc think Dante: Jump Pack Assault Marine, Strategy Rating 5 <-> Red Thirst/Black Rage, etc) - and the Black Sheep "Captain" who marches to the beat of a different drum and changes all the rules (think: Sammael- rides a bike, changes the rules for bikers to be troops, etc). Tau are in pretty desperate need of that.
(continued next blurb)
2 Company Heroes (1 for Cap, 1 for Chap) 6 Battle Line, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Heavy Support in basic traditional ways: Say 2 HINTS, 2 Ints, 1