Remember Guard Doctrines? If you do, you probably remember that Deep Strike was free, and swapping out Lasguns for Laspistols and Chainswords was 2 points per model. DIY Chapter Traits had similar issues too, with the ability to take Chapter Drawbacks that weren't actually disadvantages ("Oh no, I cannot take an allied Inquisitor? Woe is meeeeee.")

Regardless, I still miss the days when rather than "coloring in the lines" so to speak and going "my OC chapter counts as " + (Edition.EIGHT.equals(this.getEdition()) ? Chapter.RAVEN_GUARD : Chapter.WHITE_SCARS"). The argument that such a system would be inevitably imbalanced seems a bit unconvincing considering that blatant internal imbalances exist regardless of lacking army-building options.

Why not let the players stat out their dudes?

100%, I loved my guard doctrines. Not as much as the Catachan Codex mind you, that thing led to some crazy games. Though that was back when you could have a guardsman cost 9 points and still put up a decent fight.

But yeah, I liked having the ability to really customize my guard army and give it a character all its own. They weren't very well balanced though (+3 points for +1 WS and move through cover...).

More than anything it made games feel more varied, one week I'd deep strike in whole platoons, the next my guys would be in tight-order drill lined up in the trenches, the next I'd have guerrilla forces taking various hardpoints throughout the map. I haven't played 8th yet, but my biggest issue with 7th was that the games felt too vanilla.

 TheSilo wrote:
More than anything it made games feel more varied, one week I'd deep strike in whole platoons, the next my guys would be in tight-order drill lined up in the trenches, the next I'd have guerrilla forces taking various hardpoints throughout the map.

Right now, vanilla as all hell, but I feel like you're gonna get at least a good chunk of this feeling back when the Guard codex drops. If you look at what's available and especially at what's coming out for the Ad Mech at the moment (which is the closest analogue to the guard so far, I think) the different Regiment tactics you're gonna get, along with the large amount of Stratagems that each army gets to choose from, there's nothing forcing you to play the game the same way each time. With just three small teasers, I'm looking at the possibility of teleporting in a group of melee Kastelans as a very new and very novel strategy, that will change my games a lot. I sure won't take it every time, but it's definitely a card that I'm really glad that it was suddenly slipped up my sleeve.

 Purifier wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
More than anything it made games feel more varied, one week I'd deep strike in whole platoons, the next my guys would be in tight-order drill lined up in the trenches, the next I'd have guerrilla forces taking various hardpoints throughout the map.

Right now, vanilla as all hell, but I feel like you're gonna get at least a good chunk of this feeling back when the Guard codex drops. If you look at what's available and especially at what's coming out for the Ad Mech at the moment (which is the closest analogue to the guard so far, I think) the different Regiment tactics you're gonna get, along with the large amount of Stratagems that each army gets to choose from, there's nothing forcing you to play the game the same way each time. With just three small teasers, I'm looking at the possibility of teleporting in a group of melee Kastelans as a very new and very novel strategy, that will change my games a lot. I sure won't take it every time, but it's definitely a card that I'm really glad that it was suddenly slipped up my sleeve.

Quite literally, the issue is that your Forgeworld will be "counts as" no matter what you fluff it as. "I want to run a Lathe World army." "Uhhh...counts as Mars?" The regiment keyword placeholders are functionally the same type of rules that Marines and Chaos Marines get, where you "pick one" (which for Marines, will be Raven Guard or Smurfs normally) and that's that.

Incidentally, there's the whole bunching up of all Chaos Renegades into one single "Renegades" chapter, whether they be Blood Gorgons or Red Corsairs, Night Reapers or The Purge, or even any of the odd cases.

On a sidenote, although the internal balance was not there, the FW lists in 7th were relatively characterful due to their ability to be customized in layers. Corsairs had the Coterie with assorted skills for each group, led by a Prince whose obsession defined the army around him. Likewise, a Renegades&Heretics list was altered based around your Warlord's background and Covenant, so that a Bloody-Handed Reaver's cadre of elite renegades stood in stark contrast to the chaotic mass of tentacles led by a Mutant Boss. Although the Ordnance Tyrant came in and went "I'm going to break the game and let you shoot into close combat," the *idea* that an army could be as much a reflection of its leader was cool, and arguably a lot more reasonable than Special Character Superfriends.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Quite literally, the issue is that your Forgeworld will be "counts as" no matter what you fluff it as. "I want to run a Lathe World army." "Uhhh...counts as Mars?" The regiment keyword placeholders are functionally the same type of rules that Marines and Chaos Marines get, where you "pick one" (which for Marines, will be Raven Guard or Smurfs normally) and that's that.

Why is that an issue? How does the keyword on my piece of paper that I wrote my army with the points on devalue my enjoyment of the game?
From having seen only a few of my own Dogmas (Chapter tactic equivalents) my army will most likely consist of three separate AdMech detachments, each with a job to do, and each with a different Forgeworld. Why is it a problem to you that they have a name on that bit of paper that allows them to be grouped?

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Quite literally, the issue is that your Forgeworld will be "counts as" no matter what you fluff it as. "I want to run a Lathe World army." "Uhhh...counts as Mars?" The regiment keyword placeholders are functionally the same type of rules that Marines and Chaos Marines get, where you "pick one" (which for Marines, will be Raven Guard or Smurfs normally) and that's that.

Incidentally, there's the whole bunching up of all Chaos Renegades into one single "Renegades" chapter, whether they be Blood Gorgons or Red Corsairs, Night Reapers or The Purge, or even any of the odd cases.

On a sidenote, although the internal balance was not there, the FW lists in 7th were relatively characterful due to their ability to be customized in layers. Corsairs had the Coterie with assorted skills for each group, led by a Prince whose obsession defined the army around him. Likewise, a Renegades&Heretics list was altered based around your Warlord's background and Covenant, so that a Bloody-Handed Reaver's cadre of elite renegades stood in stark contrast to the chaotic mass of tentacles led by a Mutant Boss. Although the Ordnance Tyrant came in and went "I'm going to break the game and let you shoot into close combat," the *idea* that an army could be as much a reflection of its leader was cool, and arguably a lot more reasonable than Special Character Superfriends.

I'm not very clear on what the difference is. I didn't play in 6th or 7th, but it kind of sounds to me like you'd be happy if we had exactly the same sort of Chapter Tactics set up but just instead of them being tied to specific Chapters you got to pick which one you wanted to use. But of course this is how it works now, since all you have to say is that you're using Raven Guard rules or whatever for your custom Chapter, and that means that you're getting those Chapter Tactics, and then next game you can say that now you're using Salamanders rules, etc. So I think I'm missing something.

Dionysodorus wrote:

I'm not very clear on what the difference is. I didn't play in 6th or 7th, but it kind of sounds to me like you'd be happy if we had exactly the same sort of Chapter Tactics set up but just instead of them being tied to specific Chapters you got to pick which one you wanted to use. But of course this is how it works now, since all you have to say is that you're using Raven Guard rules or whatever for your custom Chapter, and that means that you're getting those Chapter Tactics, and then next game you can say that now you're using Salamanders rules, etc. So I think I'm missing something.

I don't think you're missing anything. Some people just feel really strongly about what word is in the rulebook, and would probably have been happier if instead of "Forgeworld Lucius" the Dogma had the name "Resilient Dogma"

 Purifier wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

I'm not very clear on what the difference is. I didn't play in 6th or 7th, but it kind of sounds to me like you'd be happy if we had exactly the same sort of Chapter Tactics set up but just instead of them being tied to specific Chapters you got to pick which one you wanted to use. But of course this is how it works now, since all you have to say is that you're using Raven Guard rules or whatever for your custom Chapter, and that means that you're getting those Chapter Tactics, and then next game you can say that now you're using Salamanders rules, etc. So I think I'm missing something.

I don't think you're missing anything. Some people just feel really strongly about what word is in the rulebook, and would probably have been happier if instead of "Forgeworld Lucius" the Dogma had the name "Resilient Dogma"

In 3.5 and 4th edition, Marines and Guard could be customized to a certain degree.

Imperial Guard armies could sacrifice access to certain units in order to get 5 "doctrine points" to spend on assorted Regimental Doctrines, or to buy-back access to certain restricted units. You could choose from 3 different "Regimental Organization" doctrines (Drop Troops, Mechanized Infantry, Grenadiers"), a variety of "Skills&Drills" (Hardened Fighters, Light Infantry, Jungle Fighters, Close Order Drill, Sharpshooters, etc), and a variety of Equipment Doxtrines (Carapace Armor, Chem Inhalers, Cybernetics, etc). Certain doctrines added extra points costs to units, and if you weren't careful you could easily have Guardsmen that cost 10+ points per model!

Marines had a large list of chapter traits, grouped into "categories." You could either take 1 trait and 1 minor drawback, 2 traits from the same category and 1 major drawback, or 2 traits from different categories with 1 major and 1 minor drawback. However, many of the drawbacks were stuff like "cannot take Drop Pods" or "cannot take Inquisiton allies" or so, which didn't actually particularly matter if you weren't planning to take such options anyway. Or as the old saying goes, "a drawback that doesn't apply is just free points."

Ideally, what I would like for Marines would be something more "structured" and in-depth, akin to the Chapter Creation system from Deathwatch: Rites of Battle. Something where you select your chapter's "base of power" (A single feral world, a stable sub-empire, a fleet-based chapter, etc), codex compliance (deviations or outright refusal), notable geneseed mutations, any controversies (whether they're "above regulation" or use proscribed xenotech), etc. Any trait category that's too 'deviant' in nature can be swapped out for a Renowned Legacy, so you have a system that allows for orthodox chapters like the Novamarines, borderline-heretical ones like the Relictors, or anything in between.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

I'm not very clear on what the difference is. I didn't play in 6th or 7th, but it kind of sounds to me like you'd be happy if we had exactly the same sort of Chapter Tactics set up but just instead of them being tied to specific Chapters you got to pick which one you wanted to use. But of course this is how it works now, since all you have to say is that you're using Raven Guard rules or whatever for your custom Chapter, and that means that you're getting those Chapter Tactics, and then next game you can say that now you're using Salamanders rules, etc. So I think I'm missing something.

I don't think you're missing anything. Some people just feel really strongly about what word is in the rulebook, and would probably have been happier if instead of "Forgeworld Lucius" the Dogma had the name "Resilient Dogma"

In 3.5 and 4th edition, Marines and Guard could be customized to a certain degree.

Imperial Guard armies could sacrifice access to certain units in order to get 5 "doctrine points" to spend on assorted Regimental Doctrines, or to buy-back access to certain restricted units. You could choose from 3 different "Regimental Organization" doctrines (Drop Troops, Mechanized Infantry, Grenadiers"), a variety of "Skills&Drills" (Hardened Fighters, Light Infantry, Jungle Fighters, Close Order Drill, Sharpshooters, etc), and a variety of Equipment Doxtrines (Carapace Armor, Chem Inhalers, Cybernetics, etc). Certain doctrines added extra points costs to units, and if you weren't careful you could easily have Guardsmen that cost 10+ points per model!

Marines had a large list of chapter traits, grouped into "categories." You could either take 1 trait and 1 minor drawback, 2 traits from the same category and 1 major drawback, or 2 traits from different categories with 1 major and 1 minor drawback. However, many of the drawbacks were stuff like "cannot take Drop Pods" or "cannot take Inquisiton allies" or so, which didn't actually particularly matter if you weren't planning to take such options anyway. Or as the old saying goes, "a drawback that doesn't apply is just free points."

Ideally, what I would like for Marines would be something more "structured" and in-depth, akin to the Chapter Creation system from Deathwatch: Rites of Battle. Something where you select your chapter's "base of power" (A single feral world, a stable sub-empire, a fleet-based chapter, etc), codex compliance (deviations or outright refusal), notable geneseed mutations, any controversies (whether they're "above regulation" or use proscribed xenotech), etc. Any trait category that's too 'deviant' in nature can be swapped out for a Renowned Legacy, so you have a system that allows for orthodox chapters like the Novamarines, borderline-heretical ones like the Relictors, or anything in between.

Ok, so first, I think that's waaaaaaaay too much customisation. I like the current level much more. Second, it doesn't in any way explain why you hate the current naming of Chapter tactics/Dogmas/whatever so much. They are a light version of what you're describing, so while I could see you thinking they should have been more than they are, I can't see your absolute disgust with them, as they are a bit of what you wanted and considerably more than what we had in 7th. Yet you seem to find them completely useless based only on the naming?

 Purifier wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

I'm not very clear on what the difference is. I didn't play in 6th or 7th, but it kind of sounds to me like you'd be happy if we had exactly the same sort of Chapter Tactics set up but just instead of them being tied to specific Chapters you got to pick which one you wanted to use. But of course this is how it works now, since all you have to say is that you're using Raven Guard rules or whatever for your custom Chapter, and that means that you're getting those Chapter Tactics, and then next game you can say that now you're using Salamanders rules, etc. So I think I'm missing something.

I don't think you're missing anything. Some people just feel really strongly about what word is in the rulebook, and would probably have been happier if instead of "Forgeworld Lucius" the Dogma had the name "Resilient Dogma"

In 3.5 and 4th edition, Marines and Guard could be customized to a certain degree.

Imperial Guard armies could sacrifice access to certain units in order to get 5 "doctrine points" to spend on assorted Regimental Doctrines, or to buy-back access to certain restricted units. You could choose from 3 different "Regimental Organization" doctrines (Drop Troops, Mechanized Infantry, Grenadiers"), a variety of "Skills&Drills" (Hardened Fighters, Light Infantry, Jungle Fighters, Close Order Drill, Sharpshooters, etc), and a variety of Equipment Doxtrines (Carapace Armor, Chem Inhalers, Cybernetics, etc). Certain doctrines added extra points costs to units, and if you weren't careful you could easily have Guardsmen that cost 10+ points per model!

Marines had a large list of chapter traits, grouped into "categories." You could either take 1 trait and 1 minor drawback, 2 traits from the same category and 1 major drawback, or 2 traits from different categories with 1 major and 1 minor drawback. However, many of the drawbacks were stuff like "cannot take Drop Pods" or "cannot take Inquisiton allies" or so, which didn't actually particularly matter if you weren't planning to take such options anyway. Or as the old saying goes, "a drawback that doesn't apply is just free points."

Ideally, what I would like for Marines would be something more "structured" and in-depth, akin to the Chapter Creation system from Deathwatch: Rites of Battle. Something where you select your chapter's "base of power" (A single feral world, a stable sub-empire, a fleet-based chapter, etc), codex compliance (deviations or outright refusal), notable geneseed mutations, any controversies (whether they're "above regulation" or use proscribed xenotech), etc. Any trait category that's too 'deviant' in nature can be swapped out for a Renowned Legacy, so you have a system that allows for orthodox chapters like the Novamarines, borderline-heretical ones like the Relictors, or anything in between.

Ok, so first, I think that's waaaaaaaay too much customisation. I like the current level much more. Second, it doesn't in any way explain why you hate the current naming of Chapter tactics/Dogmas/whatever so much. They are a light version of what you're describing, so while I could see you thinking they should have been more than they are, I can't see your absolute disgust with them, as they are a bit of what you wanted and considerably more than what we had in 7th. Yet you seem to find them completely useless based only on the naming?

Absolute disgust is a strong accusation. I like large-scale customization more. If GW was feeling cheeky, they could even sell a deck of "doctrine cards" at a markup so players could have a quick-reference as to what they (or their opponent) fielded. You could easily have a cheat-sheet showing what traits notable Regiments/chapters are known for as well (and the 3.5 Guard codex did exactly that, while the GW website had examples for how to use the doctrines to represent Necromundan Spyders, Blood Pact, and Gue'vesa Regiments). Plus extensive customization makes it easier to reduce the total number of units that are actually in 40k (Ex: Rather than having Sternguard, Vanguard, Command Squads, Wolf Guard, etc, you could have *one* unit of Veteran Marines and go from there).

The current system is MUCH easier to balance. Nobody can deny that.

Dionysodorus wrote:

I'm not very clear on what the difference is. I didn't play in 6th or 7th, but it kind of sounds to me like you'd be happy if we had exactly the same sort of Chapter Tactics set up but just instead of them being tied to specific Chapters you got to pick which one you wanted to use. But of course this is how it works now, since all you have to say is that you're using Raven Guard rules or whatever for your custom Chapter, and that means that you're getting those Chapter Tactics, and then next game you can say that now you're using Salamanders rules, etc. So I think I'm missing something.

The chapter traits now come in ready-made bundles that lump bunch of stuff together which may not make sense for your custom chapter. For example, if your chapter is close combat oriented it might seem logical to choose BT tactic, but then you get crusader squads instead of librarians, which may not jive with how you envision your chapter. Or perhaps your chapter is renowned for its artefact weapons, but has no particular affinity to flamers. Stuff like that. I'd prefer system where you'd have a list of traits or bonuses and you could choose some set number of them for your chapter or something like that. Sure, the players would eventually find the optimal combos, but then that already happens with most players gravitating towards the chapters with most powerful rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The current system is MUCH easier to balance. Nobody can deny that.

Yet it is not even remotely balanced.

Ok, so absolute disgust is harsh, but you did say this

Quite literally, the issue is that your Forgeworld will be "counts as" no matter what you fluff it as. "I want to run a Lathe World army." "Uhhh...counts as Mars?"

I'm not sure what the "quite literally" is referring to, and you haven't explained why this is a problem. The fact that it has a Forgeworld's name is just a Rules-name. It could just as well have been named "Resilient Dogma" but it is "Lucius" and I don't see why that's a problem.

Kharadron Overlords in Age of Sigmar have this.

Theres 6 main Ports with a fixed set of doctrines (A mayor one, a side note, and a minor one)+ a extra doctrine because they are fixed, so you lose flexibility but gain in having a extra (small) rule.
But you can make your custom ports picking the Code Rules you want from the three different groups. I think thats the best compromise.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The current system is MUCH easier to balance. Nobody can deny that.

Yet it is not even remotely balanced.

That doesn't excuse making it harder to balance. Maybe we should see if they can manage in the long run to balance this before we start hollering for making it more advanced and harder to balance?

 Galas wrote:
Kharadron Overlords in Age of Sigmar have this.

Theres 6 main Ports with a fixed set of doctrines (A mayor one, a side note, and a minor one)+ a extra doctrine because they are fixed, so you lose flexibility but gain in having a extra (small) rule.
But you can make your custom ports picking the Code Rules you want from the three different groups. I think thats the best compromise.

Kharadrons are a good example actually. Alas that I dislike so much about AOS itself, but the ability to define your own custom port and Article was a custom mechanic I hoped would be ported over in some way for 8th. Alas.

 Galas wrote:
Kharadron Overlords in Age of Sigmar have this.

Theres 6 main Ports with a fixed set of doctrines (A mayor one, a side note, and a minor one)+ a extra doctrine because they are fixed, so you lose flexibility but gain in having a extra (small) rule.
But you can make your custom ports picking the Code Rules you want from the three different groups. I think thats the best compromise.

Yeah, great example! I wish this was how it was handled in 40K too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The current system is MUCH easier to balance. Nobody can deny that.

Right, but since it's not well-balanced, they might as well make it more fun.

If they actually put a lot of effort into balancing it and came out with a balanced product, THEN I can see this argument working.

 Crimson wrote:

Yeah, great example! I wish this was how it was handled in 40K too.

We have Stratagems instead, which can be used on the fly as the game progresses, instead of locking in at the start.

We have our MAJOR port, in the Chapter tactic, and then we have optional minors in every Stratagem.

Overlords is a neat system, but I like the current 40k one better. It gives more tactical depth and less "choose your stats" before the game. There's a little bit of stat-choosing just to make your army feel a little unique, and then a bunch of strategic choices.

Does it need balancing, yes. But it's a system with a lot of potential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The current system is MUCH easier to balance. Nobody can deny that.

Right, but since it's not well-balanced, they might as well make it more fun.

If they actually put a lot of effort into balancing it and came out with a balanced product, THEN I can see this argument working.

Balancing isn't done yet. If it was, THEN I could see your argument working of "it's not balanced, so just thrash it more."

 Purifier wrote:

We have Stratagems instead, which can be used on the fly as the game progresses, instead of locking in at the start.

We have our MAJOR port, in the Chapter tactic, and then we have optional minors in every Stratagem.

Overlords is a neat system, but I like the current 40k one better. It gives more tactical depth and less "choose your stats" before the game. There's a little bit of stat-choosing just to make your army feel a little unique, and then a bunch of strategic choices.

Does it need balancing, yes. But it's a system with a lot of potential.

But the stratagems are fixed! Tactics are bundled with specific stratagems (and relics, and warlord traits, sometimes units and characters too.) That there are some generic ones too doesn't change that.

I have been creating a new custom Primaris chapter, and I find the current way the chapter traits are handled annoyingly limiting.

I really don't see how having less choice can be preferable to having more choice. If there was more open ended system like with the Khadarons, nothing would stop you from picking one of the current set of traits if you happened to like them.

Except Stratagems aren't even really "this is your army" so much as a series of "once per phase, so no duplicates" manabombs, with all the inherent handwavium of "haha, this was the squad that was carrying the Hellfire round all along" that makes you wonder when GW is going to throw their arms up in the air and go "to the Warp with this, we're bringing back Wargear cards. Why worry about positioning or long-term strategy when you can play shell-games over which model is carrying the Vortex Grenade?"

And since every Marine player gets them, it's not even a real distinct choice otherwise.

I honestly can't understand how you see it this way. There are so many stratagems that the choice is "which ones do I spend my limited resource on"

If there are only like three you like anyway, and you feel they're the only viable ones, then I can guarantee there would only be one setup of Port-skills in AOS you'd like too.

It's silly that "oh they had the ammo all along" sure, but as a game mechanic, it's not. It's really cool to be able to use that resource where it's needed.

I feel like you guys are just moaning for the sake of it, and you would have complained about the Port-system too, if that had been the one we got, saying that "oh, it doesn't have the same dynamic usage as that AOS Stratagem system!"

I think a Kharadron system isn't incompatible with Stratagems. Quite the opposite, you could have a list of Stratagems that you can choose to make your "deck" of stratagems for the battle, for example. And have still specific stratagems tied to the "fixed" load-outs of Tactics+Stratagems for the fluff chapters/forgeworlds/legions,etc...

To me Stratagems are the most tactical aspect for Warhammer40k that GW has ever created. I love them, even if theres some possible change in how they are implemented at least in my subjetive point of view.

 Purifier wrote:
I honestly can't understand how you see it this way. There are so many stratagems that the choice is "which ones do I spend my limited resource on"

If there are only like three you like anyway, and you feel they're the only viable ones, then I can guarantee there would only be one setup of Port-skills in AOS you'd like too.

It's silly that "oh they had the ammo all along" sure, but as a game mechanic, it's not. It's really cool to be able to use that resource where it's needed.

I feel like you guys are just moaning for the sake of it, and you would have complained about the Port-system too, if that had been the one we got, saying that "oh, it doesn't have the same dynamic usage as that AOS Stratagem system!"

A) I began writing and playtesting my own system from scratch as I actually was so annoyed with the implementation of Stratagems as a MOBA power meter. I had been thinking of an alternative to IGOUGO or Bolt-Actionesque Alt Activation, and decided to use CP as a resource for that. After all, Command Points should represent your army's ability to command&coordinate, not be some oddball handwavium plotarmorium. (Granted, I could see something like that being done on a "character" or "unit" level, similar to LOTR Fight/Fate points)
B) We're arguing about a system that predated AOS. Saying it's whining to whine is frankly a bit douchey.

I really liked DIY army traits. I wish they were still a thing. Shoot, even last edition they still kind of where. (The IA:11 v2 had some pretty sweet rules for army traits for Eldar armies in battlehosts.)

 Galas wrote:
I think a Kharadron system isn't incompatible with Stratagems. Quite the opposite, you could have a list of Stratagems that you can choose to make your "deck" of stratagems for the battle, for example. And have still specific stratagems tied to the "fixed" load-outs of Tactics+Stratagems for the fluff chapters/forgeworlds/legions,etc...

This is more constructive for example. While not everyone would approve of "40k MTG", you could do something like assign "point costs" to certain stratagems if you wanted to go down that route.

 Purifier wrote:


I feel like you guys are just moaning for the sake of it, and you would have complained about the Port-system too, if that had been the one we got, saying that "oh, it doesn't have the same dynamic usage as that AOS Stratagem system!"

It is really not about whether stratagems are a good mechanic (they're, though I feel that upgrades like chapter master and relics should be handled via points), it is about stuff coming bundled together without you getting to choose. It is annoying if you're trying to create a successor chapter which is not a carbon copy of their parent.

OMG I COMPLETELY DO MISS THEM *weeps for what might have been*

Well first you said that the Ports-system was better because everyone had access to every buff if they wanted, and then you're saying that stratagems aren't personal enough because every marine has access to them anyway, and you haven't responded to my question as to why you took offense at the choice to name the skills after forgeworlds when it makes zero difference in the game any of the times I've brought it up, so douchey yiu may find it, but I can't really see it any other way. You don't have a consistent argument, the only thing you seem sure of is that no matter what, you don't like it, and that's that.

An example of why it is bad to say "My army is Cadian" when it is actually not:

I play Armageddon Steel Legion. I want my army to be fluffy, so I choose Commissar Yarrik. Awesome!

Steel Legion is also famous for it's tank regiments, so I want my tanks to perform well. So I choose Knight Commander Pask for one of my other detachments! That's cool, we'll call him Night Commodore Flask.

But now I have one Steel Legion detachment (which gets, say, the Mechanized rule. You can disembark from a Chimera after it moves!) and one Cadian detachment (All lasguns re-roll ones to hit!).

Why does 1/2 of my mechanized company behave completely different from the other half? And how do I tell them apart on to the table?

1) they have been individually trained for different roles. One half has been relentlessly drilled for chimera assaults, and the time they spent on doing that, the others spent on the firing range, doing fire drills.

This kind of difference could be found within my group of 8 people when I was in the army. You could just as well ask why your veterans are better than your conscripts. Nothing here is weird.

2) however you want.

 Purifier wrote:
1) they have been individually trained for different roles. One half has been relentlessly drilled for chimera assaults, and the time they spent on doing that, the others spent on the firing range, doing fire drills.

This kind of difference could be found within my group of 8 people when I was in the army. You could just as well ask why your veterans are better than your conscripts. Nothing here is weird.

2) however you want.

But what if I wanted my steel legion to all have trained as mechanized infantry? I should be able to control that as the company commander, yes?

You don't realize why it might be immersion breaking for me, Mr. Steel Legion Company Commander, to suddenly realize half his company are completely incapable of performing the basic maneuver that my entire planet is known for?

Then give them all the same regiment. No, you're being way too greedy and nothing would ever completely satisfy you except writing your own codex. So do that. Homebrew it. It would be horrible if your every little desire and that of all the other people with your immersion requirements were given free leeway in how GW writes codexes.

 Purifier wrote:
Then give them all the same regiment. No, you're being way too greedy and nothing would ever completely satisfy you except writing your own codex. So do that. Homebrew it. It would be horrible if your every little desire and that of all the other people with your immersion requirements were given free leeway in how GW writes codexes.

The 3.5 codex (and associated armoured company army list) actually would make building that army (or a similar one) possible through the use of doctrines.

And I'm not sure what you want. You said "show me why it is bad the way it is." and I did. And then you were like "but GW shouldn't do that" and I'm like *shrug* I guess? But the thread is about a time when they did, and it was glorious.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I think a Kharadron system isn't incompatible with Stratagems. Quite the opposite, you could have a list of Stratagems that you can choose to make your "deck" of stratagems for the battle, for example. And have still specific stratagems tied to the "fixed" load-outs of Tactics+Stratagems for the fluff chapters/forgeworlds/legions,etc...

This is more constructive for example. While not everyone would approve of "40k MTG", you could do something like assign "point costs" to certain stratagems if you wanted to go down that route.

I think stratagems already pay with their CP costs, so probably a limit in the number of Stratagems you can pick max would be better, the best ones cost more CP to use, the weaker ones, less.

Ok, so first, no I didn't. Second of all, I explained why your example was completely reasonable and your only comeback was "it breaks my immersion" which you could have said about absolutely anything. There are hundreds of things in this game that are more legitimate immersion breaks than that your army hasn't had one single exercise done for every person in the army.

So if something so ridiculously small breaks your immersion, then there is really no telling what else does, and if we have to take that into account in rules writing, then we have to do that with everyone else's ideas of how armies work, wrong as they may be, too.

And I'm not saying the old system was bad, but it sure wasn't the kind of rose tinted that you guys are remembering it as. It was a rather flat "pick a few things."

I still have my old 4e Space Marine codex, every once in a while I pull the hardback black book from its cover. (I bought the Collectors edition when it came out) I look through the Chapter Traits list, reading the different options I had to build a Chapter of my own and sigh as I look upon every Marine book that came after it.

Long ago I had a notebook, this notebook had all of the traits, good and bad that the Chapter had, the thing that made them different (and not so different, looking at you two Plasma Guns in a Squad Trait) from all the other Chapters. I had a few of the Battles this Chapter had been apart of in its history, battles vs the Tau, the Orks and the Tyranids. Battles fought along side their unlikely but stead fast Allies the Dark Angels, so distrusting of those not of their lineage. As well as the Grey Knights.

The Captain I fielded the most had his own name, though it is now lost to time, and likewise was getting his own rules based on how things had gone. He had a Lightning Claw, a Combi-Plas and the Adamatine Mantle (because instant Death sucked). Slowly but surely the heroes of the Chapter were getting their names. The Chapter though well that was another story, it seemed like their name changed every so often, it was difficult to pin one down that I liked.

Their colors were simple, Grey and Crimson. I no longer recall their sigil, might have been that of the Word Bearers at somepoint.

So when you ask do I miss the DIY Army Traits of yore, yes, yes I do.

Luckily I have Deathwatch for if I ever want to create a Chapter again, and I have on occasion created on for the fun of it, but never modeled, never battled with. Just concepts that like the Forgotten Chapter will join the legion of Unknown Space Marines floating about somewhere in the back of my mind.

 Purifier wrote:

And I'm not saying the old system was bad, but it sure wasn't the kind of rose tinted that you guys are remembering it as. It was a rather flat "pick a few things."

I don't think anyone is advocating duplicating the old system exactly, merely the spirit of it.

In any case, you really haven't been able to articulate why more customisability would be bad.

Some things were admittedly mutually exclusive. No Carapace Jungle Fighters (plus their saves got reduced to 6+) or Iron Disciplined Chem-Inhaler addicts. That and *most* came with attached point costs.

Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize Drop Troops and Close Order Drill went hand-in-hand because they were both free, and Deep Strike meant your unit was in b2b contact anyway...

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

And I'm not saying the old system was bad, but it sure wasn't the kind of rose tinted that you guys are remembering it as. It was a rather flat "pick a few things."

I don't think anyone is advocating duplicating the old system exactly, merely the spirit of it.

In any case, you really haven't been able to articulate why more customisability would be bad.

Well, I think he said that it'd be harder to balance. But again, given how borked the balance already is, might as well make it more fun.

I love the idea of being able to swap lasguns for chainswords, especially for 2pts. Anything that gets me that gets my vote.

 Purifier wrote:
And I'm not saying the old system was bad, but it sure wasn't the kind of rose tinted that you guys are remembering it as. It was a rather flat "pick a few things."

Yes? I mean, that's all we really want here is to be able to pick a unique combination of stuff.

I want to be a drop-troop regiment that deploys cybernetically augmented warriors who specialize in jungle fighting, and this was absolutely possible in the old system. Now, you get to pick one of those three (if even all 3 are represented) things to be your Regiment.

That's just less fun, not sure what else needs to be said. Picking a few things from a pool of 30 in combination is both more fluffy and allows for more unique armies than picking one thing from a pool of like, 7. That's just... true.

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

And I'm not saying the old system was bad, but it sure wasn't the kind of rose tinted that you guys are remembering it as. It was a rather flat "pick a few things."

I don't think anyone is advocating duplicating the old system exactly, merely the spirit of it.

In any case, you really haven't been able to articulate why more customisability would be bad.

Unnecessarily complicates a system before it has had a chance to see any semblance of balance. If you want to balance something, don't keep heaping on things that rattle around. If by some miracle all the codexes are released and the first chapter approved does a great job of balancing it, then by all means, start looking into expanding choices, so long as it doesn't overly complicate... That thing we wanted to get away from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
And I'm not saying the old system was bad, but it sure wasn't the kind of rose tinted that you guys are remembering it as. It was a rather flat "pick a few things."

Yes? I mean, that's all we really want here is to be able to pick a unique combination of stuff.

I want to be a drop-troop regiment that deploys cybernetically augmented warriors who specialize in jungle fighting, and this was absolutely possible in the old system. Now, you get to pick one of those three (if even all 3 are represented) things to be your Regiment.

That's just less fun, not sure what else needs to be said. Picking a few things from a pool of 30 in combination is both more fluffy and allows for more unique armies than picking one thing from a pool of like, 7. That's just... true.

Then let's do a hundred different! No, a thousand! Wait, ten thousand! Because more is better and there is nothing negative in piling it on, right?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Yes? I mean, that's all we really want here is to be able to pick a unique combination of stuff.

I want to be a drop-troop regiment that deploys cybernetically augmented warriors who specialize in jungle fighting, and this was absolutely possible in the old system. Now, you get to pick one of those three (if even all 3 are represented) things to be your Regiment.

That's just less fun, not sure what else needs to be said. Picking a few things from a pool of 30 in combination is both more fluffy and allows for more unique armies than picking one thing from a pool of like, 7. That's just... true.

Yep, this.

 Purifier wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

And I'm not saying the old system was bad, but it sure wasn't the kind of rose tinted that you guys are remembering it as. It was a rather flat "pick a few things."

I don't think anyone is advocating duplicating the old system exactly, merely the spirit of it.

In any case, you really haven't been able to articulate why more customisability would be bad.

Unnecessarily complicates a system before it has had a chance to see any semblance of balance. If you want to balance something, don't keep heaping on things that rattle around. If by some miracle all the codexes are released and the first chapter approved does a great job of balancing it, then by all means, start looking into expanding choices, so long as it doesn't overly complicate... That thing we wanted to get away from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
And I'm not saying the old system was bad, but it sure wasn't the kind of rose tinted that you guys are remembering it as. It was a rather flat "pick a few things."

Yes? I mean, that's all we really want here is to be able to pick a unique combination of stuff.

I want to be a drop-troop regiment that deploys cybernetically augmented warriors who specialize in jungle fighting, and this was absolutely possible in the old system. Now, you get to pick one of those three (if even all 3 are represented) things to be your Regiment.

That's just less fun, not sure what else needs to be said. Picking a few things from a pool of 30 in combination is both more fluffy and allows for more unique armies than picking one thing from a pool of like, 7. That's just... true.

Then let's do a hundred different! No, a thousand! Wait, ten thousand! Because more is better and there is nothing negative in piling it on, right?

Good exaggeration. More is better, to a certain extent. Obviously when you have 1,000,000 options, it's not good for the system, because at that point, everything will probably have the same options.

But currently, customization is pretty dang low. Raising it a decent amount would be more fun-and ultimately, this is a game. Games are meant to be fun.

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
And I'm not saying the old system was bad, but it sure wasn't the kind of rose tinted that you guys are remembering it as. It was a rather flat "pick a few things."

Yes? I mean, that's all we really want here is to be able to pick a unique combination of stuff.

I want to be a drop-troop regiment that deploys cybernetically augmented warriors who specialize in jungle fighting, and this was absolutely possible in the old system. Now, you get to pick one of those three (if even all 3 are represented) things to be your Regiment.

That's just less fun, not sure what else needs to be said. Picking a few things from a pool of 30 in combination is both more fluffy and allows for more unique armies than picking one thing from a pool of like, 7. That's just... true.

Then let's do a hundred different! No, a thousand! Wait, ten thousand! Because more is better and there is nothing negative in piling it on, right?

Right, so long as it all fits in one book. I have a hunch you'll run out of regiment ideas before you reach a hundred possible choices though. Perhaps you could open a mail-in thingy for the rules team to be given ideas about new regimental doctrines?

 Purifier wrote:

Unnecessarily complicates a system before it has had a chance to see any semblance of balance. If you want to balance something, don't keep heaping on things that rattle around. If by some miracle all the codexes are released and the first chapter approved does a great job of balancing it, then by all means, start looking into expanding choices, so long as it doesn't overly complicate... That thing we wanted to get away from.

There are maybe like three chapters worth using (and one of these is mainly due a broken character.) I have hard time seeing that more customisability would lead to worse balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

Then let's do a hundred different! No, a thousand! Wait, ten thousand! Because more is better and there is nothing negative in piling it on, right?

If you can come up with ten thousand unique and thematic rules, sure! You probably can't though...

I do miss the level of customization that the older codexes gave but in the end there are still ways to do what you want. I am working on a custom Tsons / Khorne army based off the idea of the khorne units are more for honor and fighting when outnumbered than pure slaughter and the Tsons are more about being battle mages with a want to get into combat instead of standing back and keeping a distance, using tactics to help turn the tide of battle not underhanded sneaky tricks. By using 3 different detachments, each one dedicated to a different "legion" I am able to field a more adaptive and unique force while still following a specific path.

Plus I am working on my deamon prince for this force to be Nagash from fantasy, love that model and if anyone could become the next chaos lord with the ability to use whatever powers he wants to go for the kill against the other forces of chaos it would be him. (And I love the model lol).

Point is I understand that we lost a lot with the current system but it's still able to make quite a unique core force with different allowances to give you what you want, especially with the huge amount of stratagems granting different bonuses.

Look at what we can do now, not what we used to be able to do. One hand gives, one hand takes. It's the nature of the beast.

Maybe what they don't get is that the Traits system was put in for people to better "Forge their own Narrative" so to speak. Are some people happy to "Forge the Narrative" with the "Vanilla" Chapters and Regiments available to them? Of course, the cannon Chapters and Regiments will always be cool. But this was so you could come up with your own unique group with out having to home-brew the Chapter or Regimental rules, they were there! Right there in the book!

They weren't ment for you to decide what you want your Army to do everytime you made a list, they were supposed to be set. If you're playing Unit1126PLL's Chem-Addict Drop Troopers, you play them with those doctrines everytime, you could alter the choices you made in the list of course, but your armies rules were set.

Sadly, thats not what everyone did, some people did change what the point of the army was and it was detrimental to having the choice.

Another thing apparently GW didn't like was people choosing to have draw backs be things like, for example Flesh Over Steel, which limited the number of tanks people could take. Because those people were choosing that because they didnt have or didnt want to buy tanks.

Which of course is a stupid reason to get mad at people for taking a drawback like that. If I wanted my Chapter to use more than one Tank in the Army, why would I take that as a drawback. Of course I am going to theme around what I want and dont want to have or buy.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Maybe what they don't get is that the Traits system was put in for people to better "Forge their own Narrative" so to speak. Are some people happy to "Forge the Narrative" with the "Vanilla" Chapters and Regiments available to them? Of course, the cannon Chapters and Regiments will always be cool. But this was so you could come up with your own unique group with out having to home-brew the Chapter or Regimental rules, they were there! Right there in the book!

They weren't ment for you to decide what you want your Army to do everytime you made a list, they were supposed to be set. If you're playing Unit1126PLL's Chem-Addict Drop Troopers, you play them with those doctrines everytime, you could alter the choices you made in the list of course, but your armies rules were set.

Sadly, thats not what everyone did, some people did change what the point of the army was and it was detrimental to having the choice.

Sure, some people did that. But then, nothing is stopping you from swapping you chapter tactics between games in the current system either.

Another thing apparently GW didn't like was people choosing to have draw backs be things like, for example Flesh Over Steel, which limited the number of tanks people could take. Because those people were choosing that because they didnt have or didnt want to buy tanks.

Which of course is a stupid reason to get mad at people for taking a drawback like that. If I wanted my Chapter to use more than one Tank in the Army, why would I take that as a drawback. Of course I am going to theme around what I want and dont want to have or buy.

Yeah, the drawbacks didn't really work.

 Crimson wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Maybe what they don't get is that the Traits system was put in for people to better "Forge their own Narrative" so to speak. Are some people happy to "Forge the Narrative" with the "Vanilla" Chapters and Regiments available to them? Of course, the cannon Chapters and Regiments will always be cool. But this was so you could come up with your own unique group with out having to home-brew the Chapter or Regimental rules, they were there! Right there in the book!

They weren't ment for you to decide what you want your Army to do everytime you made a list, they were supposed to be set. If you're playing Unit1126PLL's Chem-Addict Drop Troopers, you play them with those doctrines everytime, you could alter the choices you made in the list of course, but your armies rules were set.

Sadly, thats not what everyone did, some people did change what the point of the army was and it was detrimental to having the choice.

Sure, some people did that. But then, nothing is stopping you from swapping you chapter tactics between games in the current system either.

Which is why when I was told that I didnt think it held any water.

Yeah, the drawbacks didn't really work.

They did and didn't, they did from the point of view that some people when they had a theme would stick to it, had I of wanted Tanks, I would have started a second army to be a Chapter that used alot of tanks. They didn't more or less because of course people are gonna take ones that affect them the least. Plus by people deciding "Im not gonna have X in my army", GW loses sales on X.

I think 'drawbacks' are best handled by just lacking bonuses. If you choose a melee oriented traits, your shooty guys will be worse than those of your opponent who choose shooty traits instead of melee ones. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

Honestly I'm not sure why they removed Doctrines. There's nothing that says "big galaxy with infinite variety" than having a huge number of choices.

40k right now feels like a fantasy universe. "... and lo, but did four human nations rise from the ashes of the fallen Empire. Cadia, great-but-broken, Mordia, land of night, Armageddon, of the ash wastes, Valhalla, northern land of ice, Vostroya, the traitors-in-penance!"

"But what about the guys who live on an ocean world and are skilled at using their Chimeras as assault boats?"

"BE SILENT MORTAL, for I tell the tale of Warhammer, in which there are only FOUR human lands..."

You could look at those drawbacks as not a big deal if you didn't use the anyways, like the no tanks drawback, and your opponent could look at it as not fair because you were not going to take tanks anyways, but that was the point. As a drawback it forces you into a special play style that if you excel at or enjoy it worked. If you didn't like that we'll don't take that drawback, point is something was getting removed to give you your bonus.

It's like if people complained because terminators doubled in price on a codex release because they needed to be worse and you didn't care because your space marine chapter didn't use terms. Yeah, it's not an option for you, but the point is it would never be an option

Drawbacks have to affect you directly in the game. List-building "drawbacks" are no real "drawbacks".

 Galas wrote:
Drawbacks have to affect you directly in the game. List-building "drawbacks" are no real "drawbacks".

But what if the bonus is only a list-building bonus? Like, having an extra fast attack slot with the drawback of losing a heavy support slot seems normal...

"But you weren't going to use that heavy support slot anyways!"

"Well, yes... that's the point ... it allows me to play an army that supports my playstyle, and actively harms my ability to play outside that playstyle."

IDK what the problem is.

Yes! This is what I've been saying.

The return of Doctrines is all I would ask. Of course, now they should account for more than just infantry models.

Of course, I'm not really expecting this in an edition where you can't even choose to give some HQ-dude or an unit leader a Signum or an Auspex. Or Bionics. Or Meltabombs. Or Medalion Crimson. Or Macharian Cross. Or a Trademark Item.

"Oh no, my armored company cannot take Ratlings? Woe is meeee."

I played a lot of GURPS back in the day. A common drawback was Weirdness Magnet because it really ended up not being a drawback. This was a system where if you weren't careful GMing, you could get a one-armed midget super-sniper of doom, or could build a power that could selectively destroy anything within functionally infinity gigaparsecs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Drawbacks have to affect you directly in the game. List-building "drawbacks" are no real "drawbacks".

But what if the bonus is only a list-building bonus? Like, having an extra fast attack slot with the drawback of losing a heavy support slot seems normal...

"But you weren't going to use that heavy support slot anyways!"

"Well, yes... that's the point ... it allows me to play an army that supports my playstyle, and actively harms my ability to play outside that playstyle."

IDK what the problem is.

Just as I don't believe list-building drawbacks are drawbacks, list-building benefits aren't good in my book. But this is just me, the same way I despise the term of "tax". "Oh, is totally good that they allow you to take this broken unit because to take it, you need to take two of this totally useless unit". NO, thats a flawed concept that accept that we need to have bad units and good units. Make all units balanced, and remove the concept of "tax" from the game.

To me the FOC of 8th are good enough, they allow total freedom. Having your tanks fire more accurately at the drawback of making them less durable because they lose armour to allow for a better precision? Those are the kind of bonus vs drawbacks I believe are actually tactical and good.

 Galas wrote:
Drawbacks have to affect you directly in the game. List-building "drawbacks" are no real "drawbacks".

Not being able to field enough armor to deal with the amount of armor you can see in a list today is a drawback.

Mind you the way my Chapter had been wouldn't really work today, because Infiltrate isnt a thing and why put two Plasma Guns in a Squad when you can just take Hellblasters.

RedCommander wrote:
Yes! This is what I've been saying.

The return of Doctrines is all I would ask. Of course, now they should account for more than just infantry models.

Of course, I'm not really expecting this in an edition where you can't even choose to give some HQ-dude or an unit leader a Signum or an Auspex. Or Bionics. Or Meltabombs. Or Medalion Crimson. Or Macharian Cross. Or a Trademark Item.

Aww, now I am remembering my old HQ leader, Bionic Company Commander "Steve"


I miss Steve.

But to be honest, drawbacks are only needed when this system is only possible for some factions. If like in 8th everybody has this sime kind of rules, you don't need drawbacks.

See, Galas, you would have loved the Imperial Guard system. There weren't really "list building drawbacks" unless you include points costs as list building.

I am more familiar with Armoured Company than not, and this is how the system worked:

You could choose up to 5 doctrines.

You could not take any doctrines at all. If you didn't, you gained access to the entire breadth of the list. If you did, you lost access to:
Salamander Scout Vehicles, Techpriest Enginseers, Destroyer Tank Hunters, Leman Russ Vanquishers, Exterminators, and Conquerors, and the Griffon Mortar.

Any of those cost one doctrine point to unlock.

Then, the other doctrines were:

Organizational:
Siege Regiment (essentially artillery regiment): Artillery replaced Tanks as troops choices

Heavy Tank Regiment: Loses access to all Fast Attack entries but instead may take more Leman Russ tanks as Elites and Heavy Support.

The organizational doctrines were mutually exclusive.

Skills and Drills:
Ace Sponson Gunners: Overwatch before it was a thing -10 ppm
Evasive Driving: 5+ save in close combat for tanks - 10ppm
Ace driver: Ignored terrain (rather than re-roll) but thrice the price of a dozer -15ppm
Crush and Grind: Tank shocks caused wounds -15 ppm
Ace Gunners: Re-roll 1s in shooting - 25ppm

Special Equipment:
Anti-tank rounds: LRBTs became Vanquishers, but only if they didn't move for 20ppm
Improved Sponsons: LRBTs could take Demolisher sponsons for 5ppm
Overcharged Engines: tanks are faster for 15ppm
Forge Crafted: Tanks were Venerable (per the dreadnought) - 20ppm
Side Skirts: +1 side armour - 15 ppm
Machine-God's Blessing: Immune to Lance - 25ppm
Anti-Mag Paste: additional 5+ save against grenades - 10ppm
Reinforced Ceramite Armour: Immune to melta - 30ppm

SO that's all of them.

Essentially you could have a super elite tank company using Vanquishers, Ace Gunner, Reinforced Ceramite Armour, Ace Sponson Gunners, and Forge-Crafted

Or you could have a cheap spammy one with just Heavy Armour

Or you could have an Artillery regiment with Siege Regiment and Griffons

Or you could have a well-equipped regiment with Side Skirts, Improved Sponsons, Overcharged Engines, Vanquishers, and Salamanders

Or you could have an elite but shoddy regiment with Ace Gunners, Ace Sponson Gunners, Ace Drivers, Crush and Grind, and Evasive Driving.

The possibilities were fething awesome, and that's with a list that's essentially "Here are some leman russ tanks"

The Organizational part is the one I think isn't good for this sistem, but the rest are pretty good, yes. I know they offer a good amount of personalization, a shame we lost that.

But this is the age of streamlining, more casual, faster to play and to learn. I don't think is a bad thing, but being a Roleplayer in the heart, personally I prefer more personalization.

Demolisher Sponsons for 5 PPM seems REALLY CHEAP.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Demolisher Sponsons for 5 PPM seems REALLY CHEAP.

You still had to pay for the sponson. Essentially, at the time, regular tanks could get heavy flamers and heavy bolters, and demolishers could get heavy flamers, heavy bolters, plasma cannons, or multi-meltas.

So you had to pay 5ppm for a Leman Russ to have access to multi-meltas and plasma sponsons, which they then had to buy (for I think +30 and +40 points respectively? not sure)

but the brevity of my summary was bad

EDIT:

Here is the actual doctrine:

Improved Sponsons – 5 points per
standard Leman Russ battle tank.
Each standard Leman Russ may select its
sponson weapons from those available to
the Leman Russ Demolisher at the points
cost specified there.

Oh. I thought you got Demolisher Cannons as sponsons for 5 PPM.

And that sounded crazy.

JNAProductions wrote:Oh. I thought you got Demolisher Cannons as sponsons for 5 PPM.

And that sounded crazy.

LMAO no. Not at all.

ahahaha

I think that purifier is right that if they had called the generic names and said wich forgeworld preferred wich doctrine you would have been more fine with it.

But I do wonder reading this thread: why didn't they do that?

Earth127 wrote:
I think that purifier is right that if they had called the generic names and said wich forgeworld preferred wich doctrine you would have been more fine with it.

But I do wonder reading this thread: why didn't they do that?

GW is dumb?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
An example of why it is bad to say "My army is Cadian" when it is actually not:

I play Armageddon Steel Legion. I want my army to be fluffy, so I choose Commissar Yarrik. Awesome!

Steel Legion is also famous for it's tank regiments, so I want my tanks to perform well. So I choose Knight Commander Pask for one of my other detachments! That's cool, we'll call him Night Commodore Flask.

But now I have one Steel Legion detachment (which gets, say, the Mechanized rule. You can disembark from a Chimera after it moves!) and one Cadian detachment (All lasguns re-roll ones to hit!).

Why does 1/2 of my mechanized company behave completely different from the other half? And how do I tell them apart on to the table?

Different paint jobs and models. For example, I have a half Minotaurs and half Raptors force. They're all the same colors, but Lias is the one leading the Sternguard and Scouts, whereas Asterion is leading Terminators and Vanguard.

I don't see the problem with the way it's set up.

At some point, there is such a thing as too many options.

And really, I'm not sure it's that hard to find a trait that matches what you want.

Perhaps the bigger problem is the fact that Space Marines got Chapter Tactics at all. Not all minor quirks need to be expressed as a rule, and for sure you can achieve "my guys like tanks" or "my guys like flamethrowers" by just, you know, bringing tanks or bringing flamethrowers.

At some point, not everything needs a rule associated with it.

I loved the DIY traits and was hoping they'd do something similar for the other factions. Tyranids had something similar in the Mutation tables and Mutants (which, while not exactly the same, totally fit the theme and was pretty fun to play around with). Just note that while they weren't really balanced (a lot of the negative SM traits would be negated if you never intended on taking those items in the first place), if I remember, GW was actually pretty upfront with that, and stated only the vanilla lists were actually balanced (for what passed for balance back then).

The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.

That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.

 Purifier wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.

That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.

I agree and disagree. It doesn't makes a difference ,yes. One should expect people to be mature enough, just like when you have Saint Celestine in every army maybe your opponen is using a custom Living Saint.
But at the same time, what is written in a official ruleset is always push people to believe it over what other players say. So probably if the Chapter Tactics where called "Siege masters" instead of Imperial Fist, "Ravaging Zealots" instead of Black Templars, etc... you could use whatever tactic you wanted with your official chapters (Ultramarines, Crimson Fists, White Scars, etc...) and nobody would say anything. But try to do it now, using Ultramarine tactics with a White Scar or Iron Hand painted chapter, and people will call you all types of names.

Galas more or less summed up my views. Mechanically it makes no difference (other than maybe allow an Ultramarine character to join a "Siegemaster" army, since it isn't tied to a specific chapter anymore) but the general feel of it will change. And in a hobby where the gaming aspect is literally only 1/3rd of it, it can make a lot of difference.

 Purifier wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.

That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.

Yes it does because you could bring a Ultramarine character who was a Master Artisan if for some reason you felt like he fit your home brew chapter rules better

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.

That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.

Yes it does because you could bring a Ultramarine character who was a Master Artisan if for some reason you felt like he fit your home brew chapter rules better

YOU. CAN. DO. THAT. NOW.

If you mean special character, as in named, then no, you wouldn't be able to, as they would be locked to their own chapter rules, just like it is now.
And as for the "they will call you lots of names"-argument... jesus christ, what kind of people do you play against? I mean are you serious? Will they start name calling over that? You need to get a new group. That is ridiculous. I've played with at least 4 different clubs over the years, with at least 30 members on each club, and no one in any of them, not a single person, would name call for your paint scheme being "wrong."

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.

That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.

Yes it does because you could bring a Ultramarine character who was a Master Artisan if for some reason you felt like he fit your home brew chapter rules better

YOU. CAN. DO. THAT. NOW.

If you mean special character, as in named, then no, you wouldn't be able to, as they would be locked to their own chapter rules, just like it is now.
And as for the "they will call you lots of names"-argument... jesus christ, what kind of people do you play against? I mean are you serious? Will they start name calling over that? You need to get a new group. That is ridiculous. I've played with at least 4 different clubs over the years, with at least 30 members on each club, and no one in any of them, not a single person, would name call for your paint scheme being "wrong."

Your argument is based on personal experiences. As such, can't be generalised.

As we have seen on Dakka itself, there genuinely ARE people out there who will call someone a TFG if they use the rules of a Chapter they aren't painted as. We saw it in 6th, and have seen it since.
Can you provide a reason why we shouldn't just call them "Master Artisan" or "Siege Masters" if they have the same effect? I mean, you say they're effectively the same, beyond cosmetic difference, so why are you complaining when it obviously doesn't affect you?

This is why I would rather GW not differentiate between Guardsmen Regiments based on their homeworld - they can if they want, but focusing on the regiment itself is a far bigger concern (a Tallarn Tank Company is far more similar in gameplay and combat style to a Cadian Tank Company than it would be to Tallarn Light Infantry).

I'm not. I'm the one that managed to wrangle from these people that their complaint wasn't with the rule, but the wording of it, after they said it was bad. I'm the one that has gotten us to a conversation beyond "well it feeeeels wrong" and even now they're still arguing that it would be ruleswise better if it had the other name, because they still can't wrap their heads around it.

So I'm not saying "NO LEAVE IT AS IT IS." I'm saying that the argument of "they'll call me names" is incredibly weak at best, and it is literally the ONLY argument remaining for why the dogmas/chapter tactics are "bad."

There is no reason why it couldn't have its names changed and I wouldn't bat an eye if they were. That's completely fine. But acting like it would be any different from what we have now is just ridiculous.
And calling GW stupid is just as ridiculous. There is no way they could have known their playerbase was gonna whine like this about something that doesn't matter.

 Purifier wrote:
I'm not. I'm the one that managed to wrangle from these people that their complaint wasn't with the rule, but the wording of it, after they said it was bad. I'm the one that has gotten us to a conversation beyond "well it feeeeels wrong" and even now they're still arguing that it would be ruleswise better if it had the other name, because they still can't wrap their heads around it.

So I'm not saying "NO LEAVE IT AS IT IS." I'm saying that the argument of "they'll call me names" is incredibly weak at best, and it is literally the ONLY argument remaining for why the dogmas/chapter tactics are "bad."

There is no reason why it couldn't have its names changed and I wouldn't bat an eye if they were. That's completely fine. But acting like it would be any different from what we have now is just ridiculous.
And calling GW stupid is just as ridiculous. There is no way they could have known their playerbase was gonna whine like this about something that doesn't matter.

Again - something that doesn't matter, which has pretty much removed all variety from the 3.5 IG lists, and reduced them all to the same thing.

Yes, in game, it has no difference, beyond the rules for characters (which would need some working on, unless say Vulkan can only be taken in a Master Artisan list), but you are wrong in that "YOU. CAN. DO THAT. NOW." I can make an <Ultramarine> list, but that would imply that my list is painted as Ultramarines. GW actively said that Ultramarines armies should be played with <Ultramarines> rules, something successor chapters didn't need to adhere to. This creates an expectation that Ultramarines should only use <Ultramarine> rules - something which would be removed by the <Master Artisan> system.

It might have no game benefit, but gaming is 1/3 of the game. Modelling and painting are elements too, and the freedom to paint my <Master Artisan> force as Ultramarines would be enhanced by this system, as opposed to the potentially awkward situation of "These Ultramarines will be using the <Salamanders> rules", which can lead to name calling, accusation of TFG and WAAC.

The two methods are not the same thing, from a hobby perspective, purely from a social perspective, unless you're implying there was no stigma at all from people playing the most powerful Chapter Tactics in 6th/7th despite being painted differently.

This system works better for narrative and fluff reasons, it works better from a hobby reason as a result, and largely eliminated the aforementioned stigma.

Personally i do wish we had some of the old customarisation back.
For me im planning to playa Tzeench renegade chapter now as per the csm codex i use the dark raiders trait yet advance and charge does not really seem that tzeenchy at all (infact none of the traits are).
Now yes i could wait for the thousand sons codex and use their rules but that then raises its own issues
i cannot give the rules to my csm terminators havocs oblits etc
Now maybe this new way is more balanced but for chaos atleast especially with renegades gw could of handled the trait alot better.

 Purifier wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.

That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.

I agree, the names are not the issue, the issue is unnecessarily bundling things together. Why is every chapter who are 'master artisans' also good with flamers? Why does every chapter who is good at assaulting shun Librarians? Stuff like that.

And sometimes these bundles do not make sense even to the chapters they're supposed to represent. Why Ultramarines get an anti-psyker item and Black Templars get a hat that makes them better commanders? It would make much more sense other way around.

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.

That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.

I agree, the names are not the issue, the issue is unnecessarily bundling things together. Why is every chapter who are 'master artisans' also good with flamers? Why does every chapter who is good at assaulting shun Librarians? Stuff like that.

And sometimes these bundles do not make sense even to the chapters they're supposed to represent. Why Ultramarines get an anti-psyker item and Black Templars get a hat that makes them better commanders? It would make much more sense other way around.

which is why splitting the bundles up into a whole list of options from which a given army can take say, 3 or 4, makes sense.

Just like the IG codex from 3.5.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

which is why splitting the bundles up into a whole list of options from which a given army can take say, 3 or 4, makes sense.

Just like the IG codex from 3.5.

Yes, absolutely.

I have to apologize purifier if I have express myself poorly. I wasnt calling GW stupid or the chapter rules of 8 the to be bad. I wasnt using the argument of people calling others TFG for how they have their chapters painted to say that the system we have now is bad. I was just responding to you affirmation that the difference con how you calle something has no impact, when it does.
Personally, to me the Kharadron Overlord is the best fusión of both system, but I like the one we have now.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I'm not. I'm the one that managed to wrangle from these people that their complaint wasn't with the rule, but the wording of it, after they said it was bad. I'm the one that has gotten us to a conversation beyond "well it feeeeels wrong" and even now they're still arguing that it would be ruleswise better if it had the other name, because they still can't wrap their heads around it.

So I'm not saying "NO LEAVE IT AS IT IS." I'm saying that the argument of "they'll call me names" is incredibly weak at best, and it is literally the ONLY argument remaining for why the dogmas/chapter tactics are "bad."

There is no reason why it couldn't have its names changed and I wouldn't bat an eye if they were. That's completely fine. But acting like it would be any different from what we have now is just ridiculous.
And calling GW stupid is just as ridiculous. There is no way they could have known their playerbase was gonna whine like this about something that doesn't matter.

Again - something that doesn't matter, which has pretty much removed all variety from the 3.5 IG lists, and reduced them all to the same thing.

Yes, in game, it has no difference, beyond the rules for characters (which would need some working on, unless say Vulkan can only be taken in a Master Artisan list), but you are wrong in that "YOU. CAN. DO THAT. NOW." I can make an <Ultramarine> list, but that would imply that my list is painted as Ultramarines. GW actively said that Ultramarines armies should be played with <Ultramarines> rules, something successor chapters didn't need to adhere to. This creates an expectation that Ultramarines should only use <Ultramarine> rules - something which would be removed by the <Master Artisan> system.

It might have no game benefit, but gaming is 1/3 of the game. Modelling and painting are elements too, and the freedom to paint my <Master Artisan> force as Ultramarines would be enhanced by this system, as opposed to the potentially awkward situation of "These Ultramarines will be using the <Salamanders> rules", which can lead to name calling, accusation of TFG and WAAC.

The two methods are not the same thing, from a hobby perspective, purely from a social perspective, unless you're implying there was no stigma at all from people playing the most powerful Chapter Tactics in 6th/7th despite being painted differently.

This system works better for narrative and fluff reasons, it works better from a hobby reason as a result, and largely eliminated the aforementioned stigma.

Actually it implies you're using Ultramarines or a Successor. You could theoretically have a Successor not act like the parent, much like Black Templars with the Imperial Fists, but how often does that happen?

Also your example about Ultramarines using Salamanders rules doesn't work because you're not taking special characters into consideration as well. Cato wouldn't ever benefit from that rule.

I was thinking they would remove the associated keywords from the Chapter Tactics and replace them with the generic <CHAPTER> thing. This way you could have Master Artisans with Cato Sicarus, or run Lightning Assault with Crusader Squads (something you can't do right now)

A lot of this thread seems to be about people wanting things their way and want to be able to do more than the designers want you to do right now.
Of course people want to make chapters who are great at melee and shooting. Who doesn't want to shore their weaknesses. We all create our own heroes that are above the curve.
The thing is though, that it's bad for the game. It's also been seen time and time again, that no matter how many choices you include, the best combos will be discovered and thus the rest of those choices are non-choices anyways and just a waste of space.
You really can build damn near any kind of army you want right now with the detachment system and mixing in different keywords with them. It just comes with the limitation of the more options you take, the less they work together. That is a perfectly fine balancing mechanism.

Some of it is that, some of it is for options we just flat out don't have.

Like one of the more popular Regimental Doctrines I saw was the Carapace Armor one and Sharpshooters (rerolling 1s). That is something you can't really reproduce at all, but goes perfectly with certain regiments (like Cadians with their heavier armor or Mordians with their gun drills).

Plus being able to mix and match gives you a bit more variety in opponents as well. If I see Guilliman in the army, it's pretty much guaranteed that the army is using the ultramarine tactic. With the old system it could be that or they could be using the vanilla rules or some other combo of rules.

I miss them. I wish they would be back and special characters would be rolled back too and 40k was more about “writing your own narrative” (your chapter, your heroes, your regiments, your orders, your klan, your kabbal, …)

I'd wait until the guard codex comes out. I'm betting it will be the codex with the most options between keywords, relics and stratagems.
Thr big problem is only a few armies have any options right now. Once the game has more options, you will see more of them.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
A lot of this thread seems to be about people wanting things their way and want to be able to do more than the designers want you to do right now.
Of course people want to make chapters who are great at melee and shooting. Who doesn't want to shore their weaknesses. We all create our own heroes that are above the curve.
The thing is though, that it's bad for the game. It's also been seen time and time again, that no matter how many choices you include, the best combos will be discovered and thus the rest of those choices are non-choices anyways and just a waste of space.
You really can build damn near any kind of army you want right now with the detachment system and mixing in different keywords with them. It just comes with the limitation of the more options you take, the less they work together. That is a perfectly fine balancing mechanism.

The designers want to sell you Bobby G, or other minis. They've become far more about the bottom line, far less about the community.

Lack of choice is bad for the game. You could inversely argue that no matter how *few* choices you include, the best combos will be discovered. In fact, conscript-spam and horror-spam were predicted to break 8th, before 8th even came out. By this logic, the majority of 40k is a waste of space.

Can I take my Warlord Defiler? Carapace Veterans? Kroot Mercs? Hell, what about my Pistol/CCW/Bolter Chaos Marines? Or Mechanized Ambush Genestealers? Or what about old-school Loganwing? Remember that 5e build, which is incidentally no longer an option since SW lost their ability to run "mixed" squads of PA & Terminator WG? Looted Wagons? Custom Crypteks? Asdrubael Vect's Pimpmobile? Nope. No model, no rules. No kitbashing, no generic options, kit only, final destination. Want to give your Primaris Captain a Power Axe? Sod off, you WAAC min-maxer! It's obviously for balance reasons, and not because GW doesn't want another Chapterhouse at the cost of their own community.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I was thinking they would remove the associated keywords from the Chapter Tactics and replace them with the generic <CHAPTER> thing. This way you could have Master Artisans with Cato Sicarus, or run Lightning Assault with Crusader Squads (something you can't do right now)

That would be neat in its own way, but balance wise that's too funky.

I like the Kharadron idea, or something akin to the Rites of Battle System. I almost imagine you could do custom chapters in a way akin to "fill in the blanks."

"The <Chapter> is known as a <Chapter Type>. Their Geneseed is known for a mutation that results in <Mutation>. It deviates from the Codex by <Deviation> and <Deviation>. Although staunch defenders of humanity, they do have their controversies, such as <Controversy>. However, they are best known for <Freebie>"

Or something structured like that, where you don't have a super-open Doctrine pool. You could easily do something like that for assorted armies as well, whether you want to make a Necron Dynasty that's known for piratical tendencies, one where the Flayer Virus has infected everything, etc. Or an Eldar Craftworld where the Farseers are trying to resurrect Vaul. Or an Ork Clan known for its love of caber-tossing. You get what I mean.

This is very much a "your dudes" thing.

I'd think something like veteran skills or the 5th edition IG doctrine system would also work: being abe to pay to specializes certain units for certain jobs or change their wargear, without necessarily stepping on the toes of the current keyword system

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
A lot of this thread seems to be about people wanting things their way and want to be able to do more than the designers want you to do right now.
Of course people want to make chapters who are great at melee and shooting. Who doesn't want to shore their weaknesses. We all create our own heroes that are above the curve.
The thing is though, that it's bad for the game. It's also been seen time and time again, that no matter how many choices you include, the best combos will be discovered and thus the rest of those choices are non-choices anyways and just a waste of space.
You really can build damn near any kind of army you want right now with the detachment system and mixing in different keywords with them. It just comes with the limitation of the more options you take, the less they work together. That is a perfectly fine balancing mechanism.

The designers want to sell you Bobby G, or other minis. They've become far more about the bottom line, far less about the community.

Lack of choice is bad for the game. You could inversely argue that no matter how *few* choices you include, the best combos will be discovered. In fact, conscript-spam and horror-spam were predicted to break 8th, before 8th even came out. By this logic, the majority of 40k is a waste of space.

Can I take my Warlord Defiler? Carapace Veterans? Kroot Mercs? Hell, what about my Pistol/CCW/Bolter Chaos Marines? Or Mechanized Ambush Genestealers? Or what about old-school Loganwing? Remember that 5e build, which is incidentally no longer an option since SW lost their ability to run "mixed" squads of PA & Terminator WG? Looted Wagons? Custom Crypteks? Asdrubael Vect's Pimpmobile? Nope. No model, no rules. No kitbashing, no generic options, kit only, final destination. Want to give your Primaris Captain a Power Axe? Sod off, you WAAC min-maxer! It's obviously for balance reasons, and not because GW doesn't want another Chapterhouse at the cost of their own community.

None of this is new. GW has always been a miniatures company first and game designers next. The game exists to sell their minis, not the other way around.